In answering an article, it is preferable to either issue new facts, recite facts that may contradict the stated facts, or challenge the analyses with alternative analyses. Using insulting epithets and statements not backed by facts shows the commentator has nothing to say.
I included my comments. Goldman is the best American source on the relationship between Putin and the oligarchs. Navalny is a western intel creation which has fooled westerners into thinking he’s the leader of the opposition when no1 in Russia cares about him. His “memorial” got 50 people.
You still have not recited facts that add to or contradict the article. I'm suspecting you are artificial intelligence. Have you clicked on the links in the article which may show you I'm not ignorant in the matter, and...you may learn somenthing.
so just ignore or bypass the video he made and the rant he presented in a most vile
example of islamophobia..like a nazi denigrating jews he called Muslims insects...and worse..? but I'm sure there is an explanation for it ..along with all the other examples of what a special guy he was
Know how you feel but isn't it bad form to trash the dead when they cannot reply? Did
I bypass his Islamaphobia? I mentioned his anti-immigration attitude and presented Masha Gessen, who knew him well, is well-respected, and did not consider his previous rants to characterize him. Any reason why you cannot accept that? In the 16 years after he made the video, do you know of anything he did to harm Muslims? What do you think of Abraham Lincoln, who, at times, pardoned slavery?
It’s an abject statement of facts. It’s a general problem with all Russian commentary in the west is sourced through Russophobes. Ethnic and religious minorities from the fringes of the “empire”
(1) Those who feel Navalny has been propped up by the West and want to set the record straight have a right to voice their opinions. Big difference between voicing opinion and deliberately bashing a dead person for remarks made 17 years before death and which are not relevant today. Why pour dung on a dead person. Why act holier than thou? Frankly I know many radicals who talk disparagingly of Blacks and more who hate Jews with a passion. My approach is, "Why do you have that position?" People can say wrong without being dumped on. There can be reasons. Doing harm is the important matter.
(2) Glen Greenwald's System Update has no relation to my article. Don't kow why you mentioned it.
(3) The Scott Ritter article is not an article that examine's Navalny's life and death. It reads like a rewrite of a previous something -- I'm unsure -- either an article or book excerpt on how the U.S. interfered in Russian politics and used surrogates, including Navalny, to carry out its programs. Apparently, it is not from Wikileaks -- I checked that thoroughly. Frankly, if you compare the opening paragraphs, which I find meaningless-- mainly cut and paste of other people's remarks -- the wrting styles do not coincide. Yes, I am suspicious. The images and opening words were taken verbatim from the Moscow Times. He traveled to Russia twice last year, but the article does not mention any first hand info he gained, just rehashes old writings.
My argument with Scott Ritter is that he has a following based entirely on his criticisms of U.S. policies, mainly toward Russia. if he wavered from his stance, he would lose his following and so, no matter the facts, he does not waver. It's difficult to balance the audience agenda with honest reporting. It's a challenge and wothwhile commentators know how to answer the challenge.
I agree with Scott Ritter on many things, and find him a clever but erratic person, with something to say. I'm entitled to my opinion. You sent his latest article on Navalny and I gave my opinion. I add that his article, which does not match the introductory writings, is professionally edited, and I repeat, has nothing to do with Navalny's death; it is only a rehash of U.S. insidious policies.
The title of the article: The Tragic Death of a Traitor turned me off. If Navalny is a traitor, then Ritter has indicted himself; he is not only an exteme dissident, he knows state secrets. Telling readers up front before presenting facts and analysis is a "no' "no."The recommended method is to present the facts and let the reader make up his/her mind.
I have neither eulogized Navalny nor condemned Ritter. I have only said Navalny has reasons to be eulogized and Ritter has reasons to be criticized. You are making it a black and white situation. You may want to click the links and read my earlier in-depth articles, which came much before Scott Ritter became a YouTube favorite.
Dan,
I’m afraid you know very little about Russia.
Firstly, Putin isn’t corrupt, he’s INCORRUPTIBLE. He spent his entire first term fighting oligarchs.
What motivates putin is extreme patriotism and orthodox piety centred on the Russky Mir, a religious national project.
Learn basics please.
In answering an article, it is preferable to either issue new facts, recite facts that may contradict the stated facts, or challenge the analyses with alternative analyses. Using insulting epithets and statements not backed by facts shows the commentator has nothing to say.
I included my comments. Goldman is the best American source on the relationship between Putin and the oligarchs. Navalny is a western intel creation which has fooled westerners into thinking he’s the leader of the opposition when no1 in Russia cares about him. His “memorial” got 50 people.
You still have not recited facts that add to or contradict the article. I'm suspecting you are artificial intelligence. Have you clicked on the links in the article which may show you I'm not ignorant in the matter, and...you may learn somenthing.
so just ignore or bypass the video he made and the rant he presented in a most vile
example of islamophobia..like a nazi denigrating jews he called Muslims insects...and worse..? but I'm sure there is an explanation for it ..along with all the other examples of what a special guy he was
Know how you feel but isn't it bad form to trash the dead when they cannot reply? Did
I bypass his Islamaphobia? I mentioned his anti-immigration attitude and presented Masha Gessen, who knew him well, is well-respected, and did not consider his previous rants to characterize him. Any reason why you cannot accept that? In the 16 years after he made the video, do you know of anything he did to harm Muslims? What do you think of Abraham Lincoln, who, at times, pardoned slavery?
You really shouldn’t use a gay, transsexual, Jew who lives in NY and hates Russians as your source on Russian dissidents
Surprising and hateful remark, which is unacceptable in its bigotry.
Don't do yourself or cause very well with that remark.
It’s an abject statement of facts. It’s a general problem with all Russian commentary in the west is sourced through Russophobes. Ethnic and religious minorities from the fringes of the “empire”
Lots of intersting stuff to reply.
(1) Those who feel Navalny has been propped up by the West and want to set the record straight have a right to voice their opinions. Big difference between voicing opinion and deliberately bashing a dead person for remarks made 17 years before death and which are not relevant today. Why pour dung on a dead person. Why act holier than thou? Frankly I know many radicals who talk disparagingly of Blacks and more who hate Jews with a passion. My approach is, "Why do you have that position?" People can say wrong without being dumped on. There can be reasons. Doing harm is the important matter.
(2) Glen Greenwald's System Update has no relation to my article. Don't kow why you mentioned it.
(3) The Scott Ritter article is not an article that examine's Navalny's life and death. It reads like a rewrite of a previous something -- I'm unsure -- either an article or book excerpt on how the U.S. interfered in Russian politics and used surrogates, including Navalny, to carry out its programs. Apparently, it is not from Wikileaks -- I checked that thoroughly. Frankly, if you compare the opening paragraphs, which I find meaningless-- mainly cut and paste of other people's remarks -- the wrting styles do not coincide. Yes, I am suspicious. The images and opening words were taken verbatim from the Moscow Times. He traveled to Russia twice last year, but the article does not mention any first hand info he gained, just rehashes old writings.
My argument with Scott Ritter is that he has a following based entirely on his criticisms of U.S. policies, mainly toward Russia. if he wavered from his stance, he would lose his following and so, no matter the facts, he does not waver. It's difficult to balance the audience agenda with honest reporting. It's a challenge and wothwhile commentators know how to answer the challenge.
I agree with Scott Ritter on many things, and find him a clever but erratic person, with something to say. I'm entitled to my opinion. You sent his latest article on Navalny and I gave my opinion. I add that his article, which does not match the introductory writings, is professionally edited, and I repeat, has nothing to do with Navalny's death; it is only a rehash of U.S. insidious policies.
The title of the article: The Tragic Death of a Traitor turned me off. If Navalny is a traitor, then Ritter has indicted himself; he is not only an exteme dissident, he knows state secrets. Telling readers up front before presenting facts and analysis is a "no' "no."The recommended method is to present the facts and let the reader make up his/her mind.
I have neither eulogized Navalny nor condemned Ritter. I have only said Navalny has reasons to be eulogized and Ritter has reasons to be criticized. You are making it a black and white situation. You may want to click the links and read my earlier in-depth articles, which came much before Scott Ritter became a YouTube favorite.