Putin is a mass murderer? You're not going to tout out that apartment building bombing that you lay at Putin's feet without any evidence, are you?
Leading Progressives Say that Even Americans Who Hate Trump Should Defend Him Against Attempted Coup
- Thread starter Banjo
- Start date
Putin is a mass murderer? You're not going to tout out that apartment building bombing that you lay at Putin's feet without any evidence, are you?
Ah, never mind. There it is. That article is a theory tying Putin's involvement in. There's no evidence.
Exactly... it is fake news. A bunch of assertions by David Satter with no proof or reasonable evidence.
Just like O.J., right?
But consider the confluence of events and ask yourself who benefits. Serendipity? I doubt it. You are being intentionally obtuse. You are giving a KBGer who rigs his own elections the benefit of the doubt.
http://www.news.com.au/world/europe...d/news-story/7aff2d18ca41b0f2486a4f8de25c064c
What is remarkable is that you "patriots" are giving far more benefit of the doubt to Putin than you gave Obama.
Last edited:
Fred, I'm sorry, but as I've said before you have very little understanding of how the Russian government, particularly the underground government, works. I'm not saying Putin had nothing to do with the bombing. But there are a dozen factions in the Chechnya war conspiracy that go back and forth with various activities, bombings (Beslan, for instance) and other illicit activity.
What I do know for certain, is that our administration has authorized drone usage that has resulted in many innocent deaths.
As for the other link you posted, there is no doubt the elections in Russia are rigged. Even Russians readily admit this. Doesn't make it mass murder, though.
It kind of does, though. It is widely believed by those far more in the know than you or I, that Putin orchestrated the intentional bombing of innocent civilians in his own country to achieve a political end. And the circumstances worked out entirely and directly in his favor.
Last edited:
It was widely believed that Saddam Hussein had WoMD, too. It was once widely believed the earth was flat.
There is no proof (that anyone has shown) that is available showing a connection to Putin. Plenty of speculation.
Rigging votes is not mass murder.
I already addressed that old chestnut:
https://www.elitetrader.com/et/thre...not-ready-for-prime-time.305966/#post-4390916
You really need to read the report and then drop the chestnut; it is well past its best-before date.
And that is your parallel? Your contextual comparison? You sound like a cautious Putin apologist, toeing the line at the periphery of denial.
Last edited:
I said it was widely believed. And it was. The fact that a report previously unreleased did not substantiate the wide belief (congressmen, senators - both lines of the political spectrum, by the way), has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that it wasn't widely believed. The release of the report in your link disproves the theory that intelligence agencies supported the wide belief, but there is no proof that the supposed widely believed theory Putin was behind the apartment building bombings is true. Proof. None.
As I have said numerous times before, I require proof before saying someone is guilty of "mass murder", or "hacking" or whatever else you want to throw around. It just so happens you folks on the left have a hard on for going after Russia right now. But this rule (requiring proof before convicting someone) is something I try to apply to everyone equally. I may say "I think" or "it sure seems like" etc...but unless I have proof, that's all I've got. And that's all you've got right now.
I'm trying really hard not to respond to your snide baiting and snarkly little responses, Fred. I'm trying to keep my word to not go back to the rude behavior we used to show each other, but you're not making it easy with your tone.
I wasn't being snarky. You keep dwelling on the Iraq WMD argument. But:
Congress eventually concluded that the Bush administration had "overstated" its dire warnings about the Iraqi threat, and that the administration's claims about Iraq's WMD program were "not supported by the underlying intelligence reporting."
So if you want to blame someone, then blame the Bush administration, not the underlying intelligence. Please stop with the WMD all-purpose anti-intelligence argument already. Let's just drop the WMD reference altogether as it relates to anything going on right now. Because it doesn't.
Yeah, it was "widely believed." But it was perpetrated by one source. Whereas the widely-held belief of Putin's complicity in the apartment building bombing does not have a singular point of origin. That gives it more credibility, all else being equal. And whereas the Bush administration pushed the WMD agenda for its own benefit, as it saw it, the people who accused Putin did so at considerable personal risk. Some lost their life in the process. See the difference?
And whereas you are twisting and turning, giving Putin all manner of the benefit of the doubt, you were ready to stick a fork into Clinton for mere allusions of impropriety without underlying factual evidence. You are adhering to a very different standard when it comes to the two.
So where's the snark?
Congress eventually concluded that the Bush administration had "overstated" its dire warnings about the Iraqi threat, and that the administration's claims about Iraq's WMD program were "not supported by the underlying intelligence reporting."
So if you want to blame someone, then blame the Bush administration, not the underlying intelligence. Please stop with the WMD all-purpose anti-intelligence argument already. Let's just drop the WMD reference altogether as it relates to anything going on right now. Because it doesn't.
Yeah, it was "widely believed." But it was perpetrated by one source. Whereas the widely-held belief of Putin's complicity in the apartment building bombing does not have a singular point of origin. That gives it more credibility, all else being equal. And whereas the Bush administration pushed the WMD agenda for its own benefit, as it saw it, the people who accused Putin did so at considerable personal risk. Some lost their life in the process. See the difference?
And whereas you are twisting and turning, giving Putin all manner of the benefit of the doubt, you were ready to stick a fork into Clinton for mere allusions of impropriety without underlying factual evidence. You are adhering to a very different standard when it comes to the two.
So where's the snark?
Last edited: