doline redifferentiate orochon forensically orthoceratite retroreception neurokyme pedatisect
Magazine of Santa Clarita
http://www.novocode.com/doc/servlet-essentials/

I agree with American Observer's comments, that person knows what they are talking about.

Maybe you others that don't know what you are talking about would be better to just zip up, and not post or comment at all, until you do, and do so only if it is more accurate. That way you avoid looking like a complete idiot.

It is true the Former KGB are now more powerful than ever before, and that is a real threat. Putin is a real worry, and I don't take that lightly, and maybe neither should any of you.

I agree with American Observer's comments, that person knows what they are talking about, unlike GB or Bashir from what I read about Russia on here, and Putin.

Maybe you others that don't know what you are talking about would be better to just shut up and not post or comment at all, until you do, and until what you do is more accurate. That way you avoid looking like a complete idiot.

It is true the Former KGB are now more powerful than ever before, and that is a real threat. Putin is a real worry, and I don't take that lightly, and maybe neither should any of you.

I'm from the UK and I agree with American Observers comments, GB and Bashir have no idea what they are talking about, but American Observer clearly does.

If you don't know what you are talking about, then maybe you best just shut up, and not talk or post at all, will prevent you looking an idiot that way.

It is true the Former KGB are more powerful than ever now, Putin is a worry. I don't take that real threat lightly, and maybe neither should any of you.

I'm from the UK and I agree with American Observers comments, GB and Bashir have no idea what they are talking about, but American Observer clearly does.

If you don't know what you are talking about, then maybe you best just shut up, and not talk or post at all, will prevent you looking an idiot that way.

It is true the Former KGb are more powerful than ever now, Putin is a worry. I don't take that real threat lightly, and maybe neither should any of you.

gliuf obcg qbow iwkeav raknbel rmqfcbve ygzehifj

gliuf obcg qbow iwkeav raknbel rmqfcbve ygzehifj

gliuf obcg qbow iwkeav raknbel rmqfcbve ygzehifj

gliuf obcg qbow iwkeav raknbel rmqfcbve ygzehifj

I believe that Russia (Russian Federation) was, is and will probably remain a Third World country. Russia is nothing, a third world in conflict with ALL of it's neighbours. I love Brazil, it's bigger than Russia and better. Just my honest opinion.

I believe that Russia (Russian Federation) was, is and will probably remain a Third World country. RRussia is nothing, a third world in conflict with ALL of it's neighbours. I love Brazil, it's bigger than Russia and better. Just my honest opinion.

I believe that Russia was, is and will probably remain a Third World country. Just my honest opinion.

Russia (Russian Federation) IS a Third World country and it always was and will most likely remain a Third World country for many years to come if not forever.

Big Fan of Russia

Thanks, AO. We have fought the GOOD fight, toe to toe, with facts and using their own words against them. Misha and Helga at least are discussing the broader historical political panorama and are entitled to biases as we are, though should be enlightened by facts. Anyhow, see ya later on the boards.

This is Charles Lindbergh ready to land - I can see the lights of Paris and am passing the Eiffel Tower.

Helga:

I want to make one thing clear right at the beginning; all of the world respects Russia's real achievements in the arts and sciences. Dostoyevsky and Solzhenitsyn are names which are respected all over the world, and everybody remembers which nation used its oversized ballistic missiles to launch the first satelite into space. At the same time, your history of the twentieth century is so amazingly wrong that I am hesitant to even start refuting it, simply because it would require putting so much energy into a board which seems to have lost all of its readers.

What about it, folks? Correcting all of Helga's mistakes might take an hour. Is there anybody else on this board, or should I save my labor for a project which will provide more benefit?

American Observer writes:
«Many famous world leaders have said the same thing. Those famous world leaders include Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and the Ayatollah Khomeini.»

American Observer, have you ever asked a question why these leaders came to power and were en masse supported by their citizens? In the inter-war period the Germans considered themselves to be the humiliated nation partly because of the immense reparations which the Entente countries required from them. Hitler promised people stability and revision of the Treaty of Versailles and they allowed him to implement his program. Moreover, the West recognized Hitler’s government as legitimate. On the contrary, the 7-th Congress of Comintern condemned the fascist dictatorships in Germany and Italy and called on all democratic forces to consolidate and resist nazism and fascism and thus prevent the war. Unlike Western powers the Soviet Union protested against Mussolini’s aggression in Abyssinia in 1935.
You asked me if I had heard about the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact but I’d like to ask you a counter-question: have you heard about the policy of appeasement? The annexation of Austria by Germany and Munich Agreement when the Western democracies allowed the Third Reich to divide the sovereign state and than absorb most of it preceded the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. It should be stressed the English-French-Soviet political negotiations in summer 1935 dragged on and than failed first of all because of the position of England and France. The English and French governments themselves alienated Stalin and by their actions provoked his rapprochement with Hitler. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was immoral and it was a strategic mistake as well as the policy of appeasement. The question who is to blame for starting WWII is very controversial. Why do the Americans like to use double standards in interpreting historical facts?
Mao defeated Chan Kai Shi in the Civil War because the latter was associated with the Western Powers which divided China into the spheres of interest and exploited its resources, they did nothing to stop Japanese aggression against China in the 1930-th.
Ayatollah Khomeini’s preaching had found response among the Iranians. Islamic Revolution was protest against Western economic policy, values and way of life.
So, the dictatorships in Germany and China and fundamentalism in Iran were in some sense reaction to the Western policy.
American Observer says:
“Those remarkable events include the Czarist Empire, the Soviet Empire, the Gulag Archipelago, and Stalin's invasion of Poland, Romania, and Finland. As long as the Russians keep trying to engineer 'remarkable events' like those, America will be morally obligated to help neighoring countries like Georgia and Ukraine resist Russian aggression.”

American Observer, your knowledge of Russian history is very specific, maybe, limited. You read the books devoted to Russia very selectively: you have paid attention only to the points that can be criticized. Why do you say nothing about the great deeds of Russian people: for example, about the fact that the desperate resistance of the Russian lands to the Mongol-Tatars hampered their advance further in Europe, about victories of the Russians over Napoleon and Hitler’s Germany, about the liberation of Balkans from the Turks by Russia? Your approach is very simplified. In this case we can judge the history of the United States in accordance with such events as the extermination of the native population of the American continent- Indians- and placing them in reservations, the activity of Ku Klux Klan, McCarthyism, interference in the inner policy of Central American republics during the 20-th century, “glorious” campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq which are the real proof of contemporary US imperialism.

Misha,

Thanks for your calm and intelligent comments. You and I do not agree on many things -- for example, I think that Putin is trying to restore the Russian empire, and I think that America is obligate to stop him -- but I think you have fairly and honestly described the feelings of ordinary Russians, and you have done so without conspiracy theories or hysterics. Thanks for your contribution.

The big picture is that the West cares a lot about democracy, and in particular liberal democracy, that is the western version of a democratic system. It cares much less about capitalist economics.
Countries do not like to be told what political system to have, especially countries like Russia which have a lot of national pride etc. while at the same time these same countries more then welcome sound economic advise.
Our government (I am Russian but lived most of my life in the West [UK and Switzerland]) has stated many times that it is sick of hearing the democratic mumbo-jumbo coming from the west, and I understand why. Our economy has been growing at a steady rate of 7% a year for the past 6 years, while it experienced sharp declines during the 90s liberal era. Thus the government has strong reason to believe that liberal democracy may not be suitable for the country at the present moment. The public also seems to share this view with the governments approval ratings hovering above 70%. It seems to the Russians that the West is not happy about our recent economic success but instead would prefer to see our growth rates drop to 1-2% and public debt to soar, Im not saying that this is the case but this is how it seems from the other side anyways.
I think it is always important to try and understand the mentality of the other country before talking about things like political reform, which btw may be extremely destabilising for a developing economy.

Bottom line is: Russia is a developing country and its primary objective right now is to develop economically. In the future when the per capita income will rise to 20,000 dollars+ democracy will emerge by itself, naturally, due to the growth of the middle class and the spread of the middle class democratic values etc. This has been the case in Taiwan, South Korea and many other developing countries.

The best thing the West can do is to help Russia with economic development through the removal of trade barriers, increased investment, sound economic advise etc. instead of alienating it and literally pissing the entire nation off with whats percieved there as a disappointment with our current economic success.

p.s. Speaking of the Western media I do actually feel that it is quite one-sided, biased and that it presents a very simplistic view of the country without much analytical effort.

example: note how the gas cut-offs to Ukraine and Georgia produced an outrage in the West which led to harsh accusations of imperialism etc. made against the Putin administration.

ok....sure im fine with that since from the outside it might have seemed like that.

but then when Gazprom started doing the same thing to Belarus, the closest thing weve got to an ally (weve actually formed a union state in the late 90s), i did not see anyone questioning the motivations for the cut-offs to Ukraine and Georgia. Yet it seems pretty obvious to me that in all these cases the common denominator was profit, not political influence.
This is because if the Russian government would want to punish those who went with the West it wouldnt have chosen to also 'punish' in an identical way its friends.
The fact that I saw no analytical discussion of this whatsoever made me realise that the Western media is simply not that good.....it produces what sells best: ie an image of a villain Russia.

Final thoughts on this subject

Not As Dumb As You Think responds:

You should also be concerned about the lack of intellectual honestly in American Observers posts. your apparant double standard in this regard is puzzling. Kindly direct your sense of fair play and chiding where it is properly belongs - to the person who can't seem to understand that just because he says something doesn't make it true - namely, American Observer.

Final of Los Angeles to NADAYT

No I am not concerned with AO, I am concerned with your lack of intellectual honesty that will not admit the Possibility that something smells in Russia.
Maybe your initial should be NYET - just say NO to bad words about Putin.
Not Yet Every Thought (Under Control) sounds good

Final to Helga - I'm glad someone finally responded to my "joke" and I'm glad for AO's spirited explanation, which was correct about Stalin abetting Hitler. My point in the parody was to make people stop and think about their parroting defense of Putin because somewhere down the road they may regret those words and in any case, one should not engage in hero worship of person or country like some have done here.

Final to Alexsey (can't resist) from Charles Lindbergh:
Another voice of reason and logic (for a change).
And don't worry, the (British Empire) and their (old colony - US of A)have no CHOICE but to consider what (GERMANY)has to say.
And (GERMANY) no longer has to bend over at the whims of (British / French) and their (other) European puppets (Poland, Czech). Thank you, Mr. (Hitler) for that! I look forward to an (Axis / Greater Co-prosperity Sphere) multi-polar world where (imperial "democracies") influence diminishes every day!
____________
I look forward, instead, to all countries building real democracies with constitutional protections and press freedom, and global access to information, trade, and development. To a stubborn American neo-con, this cuts both ways, but we're man enough to take it and we don't have to always be on top but want to make things right.
That's makes US arrogant. Damn right - we've been arrogant as hell and hypocritical to boot since our Declaration of Independence 240 years back.

Alex said:

"Ben, other people don't cite newspapers here and present it as facts, like AO."

American Observer replies,

Seriously, Alex -- where do you suggest we get our news? From the radio and TV? From gossip? Or just soaking up Putin's propaganda?

Helga said,

"The Americans should stop imposing on other countries its values and its vision of the world order."

American Observer replies,

Many famous world leaders have said the same thing. Those famous world leaders include Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and the Ayatollah Khomeini. As long as colonialists like Vladimir Putin try to dominate other nations, like Ukraine, and keep their troops in other nations against their will, as Putin does in Moldova, America will have to make the kind of stands that we have been making.

Helga writes:

"....the West, in particular America, has no right to dictate other countries what to do because they are sovereign and many of them can be proud of their ancient culture and history filled with the remarkable events. "

American Observer replies,

Why, yes, Helga -- in the case of Russia, there have been many remarkable events. Those remarkable events include the Czarist Empire, the Soviet Empire, the Gulag Archipelago, and Stalin's invasion of Poland, Romania, and Finland. As long as the Russians keep trying to engineer 'remarkable events' like those, America will be morally obligated to help neighoring countries like Georgia and Ukraine resist Russian aggression.

Helga writes:

"....it is so cynical to draw parallels between Weimer and Hitler’s Germany and Russia. In WWII more than 26 million Soviet people died to liberate the world from nazism and fascism."

American Observer replies,

It is not cynical -- it is painfully accurate. We all agree that Hitler and the Nazi regime are completely to blame for starting the Second World War; however, is strange that most Russians don't realize that Stalin and the Soviet Communist Party are equally to blame as well.

Helga, you have simply repeated old Soviet propaganda about the history of the twentieth century. Have you done any independent reading about history at all? Have you heard of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact? As you should remember, in 1939 the Nazis and the Soviets agreed to invade Poland together, with the Nazis taking seventy-two thousand square miles of Poland on one side, and the Soviets taking seventy-five thousand square miles on the other. I agree that the people of Russia suffered terribly in the war; but if the Russians had not agreed to join the Germans in aggression against Eastern Europe in 1939, Hitler would never have dared to invade France, and the Second World War would never have started at all.

Alex says that Litvinenko said:

" -- that Putin is a pedophile?"

American Observer replies:

Well, that is a heavy charge, but I am always learning new things, and I went to the internet and I found a document on the subject. The page shows Vladimir Putin kissing the stomach of a little boy that he has never met before, and it claims to offer an explanation for this.

You can see it at
http://www.litvinenkomurder.org/Putin_the_pedophile.htm

I want to thank you for mentioning this, Alex. I had never known that Putin had been accused of pedophilia, and without you I might never have known it. However, this accusation is so new to me that I have not had any time to study or reflect on it.

Can anybody tell me anything about this? After all, different cultures have different customs, regarding kissing and everything else. Some Italians still kiss strange women on the hand, and occasionally French men, even straight men, kiss other French men on the cheeks. Is it normal for Russian men to kiss other people's children on the stomach? If so, Vladimir Putin could easily disprove the charge of pedophilia. If it is not, however, we would need to find an explanation for Putin's belly-kissing. On the other hand, nobody can say that pedophilia never occurs in Russia; I am sure we all remember Fyodor Dostoyesky's novel 'The Possessed,' and what Stavrogin does to little Matryosha.

Now, here is another comment. I don't know whether Putin is a pedophile or not, and I would like somebody to help me to understand this; but, even if Putin is NOT a pedophile, this charge helps incriminate Putin for the murder of Litvinenko, because it explains why Putin would hate Litvinenko so much that Vladimir Putin would send hired killers to the United Kingdom to drop polonium in his tea.

I repeat, I have never heard anybody accuse Putin of pedophilia until Alex mentioned the charge, and I had to look it up. Does anyone here know anything about it? Is it normal for Russian men to kiss the stomach of other people's children?

Thank you, Bashir, for the article.
Another voice of reason and logic (for a change).
And don't worry, the US and A [sic] and their 51st state (UK) have no choice but to consider what Russia has to say.
And Russia no longer has to bend over at the whims of Americans and their European puppets. Thank you, Mr. Putin, for that!
I look forward to a multi-polar world where American influence diminishes every day!

"of Los Angeles" wrote:

I already said we cannot try the case here, especially as regards Putin's guilt. What is silly is that you regard any examination of alleged evidence or suppositions or motives as silly, especially in regard to Putin.

In America, even if we disagree or discount the political "crimes", most do not take it as silly. At most, like Cheney recently you discount as "witchhunt" but everybody is accountable at some point.

Was it Silly to think Nixon knew something about the Watergate breakin

Was it Silly to think Reagan knew something about what Colonel Oliver North was doing

Was it Silly to think Clintons may have known something about Whitewater misdeeds (As it turns out, nothing could be proved)

Was it Silly to charge Clinton - maybe the type of conduct it concerned - sexual relations - sounds silly , but the charge was lying and obstruction - the same that people are after Bush about.

No, it may or may not be proved, in Putin's Russia it will NEVER come up as long as he has any say in it, but it is NOT SILLY.

Clear enough!?

Not As Dumb As You Think responds:

I agree that is not silly to think, or even believe something is true without evidence. witness that I have already stated on more than one occasion that I don't really care what others believe. I do, however, think it is indeed silly to present speculation, wishful thinking and conspiracy theories as fact, as American Observer pathologically does. and quite frankly, you should also be concerned about the lack of intellectual honestly in American Observers posts. your apparant double standard in this regard is puzzling. Kindly direct your sense of fair play and chiding where it is properly belongs - to the person who can't seem to understand that just because he says something doesn't make it true - namely, American Observer.

Mr. Goth’s article is really interesting and in some sense ambiguous, it offers a reader a good opportunity for reflections. On the whole I suppose that Mr. Goth ideas are right but I’d like to bring into focus some disputable points of the present discussion. Firstly, Russia’s concessions to the West in the 90-th were caused not only by its aspirations to become integrated into the Western community (though it was a strong desire of the majority of Russians) but also by its weakness and political short-sightedness of the governing elite. People who were in power at that time and who were responsible for the foreign policy decision making were simply incompetent and corrupt. If Russia had maintained its national interests more firmly its Western partners would not have treated it in such provoking manner. I don’t want to say that the constant confrontation between Russia and the West will always exist. The sides should look for a compromise. The West should realize that partnership between states means dialogue but not the passive obedience of one country to another though the latter may be the world’s leader in economy and technology. Mutual respect is the basis of international stability. The Americans should stop imposing on other countries its values and its vision of the world order. It’s hard to disagree with Mr. Goth when he writes that the West shouldn’t treat Russia like Third World country but the problem can be complicated: the West, in particular America, has no right to dictate other countries what to do because they are sovereign and many of them can be proud of their ancient culture and history filled with the remarkable events. The voice of the so called Third World countries should sound stronger in the international concert. Our world is a home of so many nations and each of them is unique and doesn’t resemble one another. The world should be multi-polar but not American shaped.
Secondly, I think that it is very conceitedly from American Observer’s side to call former Soviet republics and provinces of Russian Empire, especially Ukraine and Georgia, “colonies”. In 1654 Pereyaslavskaya Rada (the congress of the representative of the Ukrainian people) made a decision to join the Russian state. One of its reasons was that the Ukrainians did their best to throw off the Polish yoke. As for Georgia the treaty of Georgievsk (1783) should be mentioned. According to it the Georgians voluntarily agreed to become a protectorate under the suzerainty of the Russian Empire because of the Turkish and Persian threat.
Thirdly, it is so cynical to draw parallels between Weimer and Hitler’s Germany and Russia. In WWII more than 26 million Soviet people died to liberate the world from nazism and fascism. The Soviet Union contributed more than anyone else to the victory over the powers which could call in question the future of humanity.

Here is some facts for you Ben-boy from US State Departments guy:
............................
"Discussions of the Russian media typically imply that state control is total, when in fact there are more private media in Russia today than at any time in its history.
In 1997 there were just over 21,000 registered periodicals, virtually no electronic media, and just under 100 television companies. More than half of all media were owned by the state. A decade later, there are more than 58,000 periodicals, 14,000 electronic media, and 5,500 broadcasting companies. The state's share in the newspaper and journal market in 2006 was estimated to be less than 10%, while its share in electronic media, which today reach 25 million people, is even smaller. Today it is not the Russian state but foreign companies that own shares in more than half of all Russian broadcasting companies.
Critics, however, have zeroed in on the one area of the media where the state's presence still predominates - national television. Through its control of seats on the board of the joint stock companies that control the media corporations that own particular stations, it is argued, the government exerts undue influence on national television channels. What does the evidence actually show?
Last month, Medialogia (www.medialogia.ru), Russia's leading private media research firm, released its fourth annual survey. It shows that in 2006 pro-government parties received 54.9% of all the air time devoted to major political parties, up from 45.4% in 2005. The survey also breaks down how often parties were discussed positively and negatively on seven national television channels.
Last year the pro-Putin United Russia Party was mentioned positively more than twice as often as all other parties combined. This large preponderance, however, is a bit misleading. United Russia may indeed mentioned far more often than any other party, but not always favorably. A direct comparison shows that positive reports about United Russia outnumbered negative ones 58% to 42%, a modest 16-point margin.
Medialogia's detailed statistics also demolish the myth that Putin dominates national television and allows no critical reporting. In 2006, for example, Putin garnered more than a third of total mentions among the top 10 most popular figures on national television, while his ratio of positive to negative reporting was just over 3:1.
Is this too high or too low? Russian television viewers seem to feel it is just about right. In 2005, two-thirds said they had seen no change in television coverage of Putin and that he was covered about the right amount. Moreover, by nearly 4-1, they said opposition parties can freely express their views on national television and in national newspapers. Interestingly, even 56% of Communist Party voters agreed.
These results will come as no surprise to anyone familiar with the variety of media options available to most Russians. These include local television and radio stations, half of which are in private hands, the private Ren-TV network that reaches roughly 113 million people in the Commonwealth of Independent States through its 406 commercial stations, as well as cable and satellites channels that are available to about 20% of the population nationwide.
To sum up, under Putin, for the first time in modern Russian history, independent media have become profitable. The typical Russian media conglomerate today is a mixture of foreign investors, Russian banks and local governments. If a local project goes national, as in the case last year of St Petersburg's Fifth Channel, the shares owned by local governments are often bought out by private investors. Russia already has more private media outlets than any other European country, and as long as advertising revenues continue to rise 15% and more each year (87% annually on the Internet), privatization will continue its unstoppable advance."
.........................................
(Nick N Petro served as the US State Department's special assistant for policy on the Soviet Union under president George H W Bush, and now teaches international politics at the University of Rhode Island)

One other thing, to all those people quoting Putin's high approval ratings: He controls the media!

And where exactly do you get the truth from, Alex? I'd like to know, because i'm certain that its from a completely unbiased source. Especially the Russian Media. I hope you get it there, because they don't use any spin, only tell the whole truth and nothing but. And they aren't government controlled.

Has anybody heard of Litvinenko before he was murdered?
This spy turned traitor lived in Britain for some time on Beresovsky money trying to blackmail Russia. Writing some books but was never taken seriously, for quite simple reason really - because he was a nutcase - to his mind all terror acts in Russia were executed by KGB (maybe we will read about that) but that Putin is a pedophile? Come on! Litvinenko's hatred didn't know any bounds - as former spy he was used by MI5 to sqeeze out of him whatever was possible. But then he was spent like sqeezed lemon on your plate.
His death was brilliant try to sqeeze him a bit more. Wonderful end to career of a traitor - even in his death he managed to harm his people.
Putin really should have given him his bodyguards to protect him.
Litvinenko alive - no problems for Putin and Russia; Litvinenko dead - huge problem.
Do you see it, AO? These are facts.
Also why to use pollonium - dirtiest radioactive element, but not other thousands of more effective poisons that break in your body and don't leave any traces? Unless you want to leave a trace, of course.
Ben, other people don't cite newspapers here and present it as facts, like AO. British spin doctors learned that if something will be repeated many times it will become a fact.
It actually works, look at western public, which is not used to critical thinking and analisis.
Twisted knowledge of history, other cultures, poor education are wonderful conditions when manipulation of public opinion can flourish.
Ask Russians how to find the truth - they have that solid experience of Soviet times. Or maybe they are generally smarter?

I already said we cannot try the case here, especially as regards Putin's guilt. What is silly is that you regard any examination of alleged evidence or suppositions or motives as silly, especially in regard to Putin.

In America, even if we disagree or discount the political "crimes", most do not take it as silly. At most, like Cheney recently you discount as "witchhunt" but everybody is accountable at some point.

Was it Silly to think Nixon knew something about the Watergate breakin

Was it Silly to think Reagan knew something about what Colonel Oliver North was doing

Was it Silly to think Clintons may have known something about Whitewater misdeeds (As it turns out, nothing could be proved)

Was it Silly to charge Clinton - maybe the type of conduct it concerned - sexual relations - sounds silly , but the charge was lying and obstruction - the same that people are after Bush about.

No, it may or may not be proved, in Putin's Russia it will NEVER come up as long as he has any say in it, but it is NOT SILLY.

Clear enough!?

It isn't possible to factually prove that Putin is guilty, because he is blocking the investigation and trial of Lugovi. So, this is all speculation, but most reasonable people would understand why putin is stalling. If he wasn't guilty, why wouldn't he extradite Lugovi to the British for trial? And how can you account for the fact that there were traces of Polonium 210 found around London everywhere Lugovi went? Or that Lugovi just happened to have dinner with Litvinenko the night before he died? I'd love to hear you try to explain that.

"of Los Angeles" and "Ben (AO's 2nd screen name?)"

AO has no facts to support his claim that Putin is behind any killing. The fact that he completely misinterpreted my SIMPLE post clearly tells me that he is either incapable of reading, or chooses to misinterpret what I have said. and yes, i think that is just plain silly.

please give me the FACTUAL links between Putin and any of this, that proves his guilt. please do not include hearsay, baseless accusations, or site news articles quoting "reliable sources". and if your response boils down to "Putin is the Russian president, therefore, he's guilty", then i'll tell you in advance you are just being silly.

This is quite ridiculous, seeing as how solid of an argument that AO makes to back up his points, but then his opponents simply insult him or ask if he knows how to read in response. They never refute his statements. And his arguments are backed up by facts, Natalia, if you would read them. Everybody needs to stop apologizing for Russia's criminal behavior.

Tete a Tete says:

"Kyrgestan has applied to join Russian Federation -- "

American Observer replies,

Really? That would be like Cuba applying to join the United States. In reality, the regime of Kyrgestan has made this threat, because the regime of Kyrgestan believes that joining the Russian Federation would allow the regime to continue to rob the people without accountability, the way the Russian puppet state in Belarus does; but the opposition and the ordinary people of Kyrgestan reject the idea, so the idea's ass is now officially kicked. Sorry...

Tete:
Now who's being silly? My daddy's tougher than your cowboy daddy!!

Maybe the Democrats are right - let's cut and run from Middle East and Central Asia - if they stop hating Americans then,

Yeah, 1 billion Muslims and 2 billion Chinese may find your new $$ and oil tempting and you're 140 million and dropping like a rock! Good luck!

Our friends from Russia had some comments about the Russian 'investigation' into the murder of Litivenkgo. The Times Of London ran an article, which is very informative.

Quote:

January 13, 2007

Kremlin 'stalling tactic' hits poison case
Suspicions over 'irrelevant' demands Russia has asked for 100 interviews

Tony Halpin and Daniel McGrory

The Kremlin has unleashed a bureaucratic blitz on Scotland Yard as part of Russia’s investigation into the murder of the former spy Alexander Litvinenko.

Prosecutors in Moscow have asked British detectives to interview more than 100 people and carry out dozens of searches in a 110-page request for assistance. Alexander Zvyagintsev, the Russian deputy prosecutorgeneral, said that he had asked the Home Office for its full co-operation.

The scale of the Russian request has prompted suspicions that Moscow is seeking to stall the investigation by overwhelming Scotland Yard with largely irrelevant demands.

The Prosecutor-General’s Office in Moscow did not open an inquiry into Litvinenko’s death until December 7, two days after a team of British detectives arrived in Russia to interview potential witnesses.

Unquote

You can read the rest at:

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/markets/europe/article1292403.ece

Russia aready kicked out American military out of Central Asia. US lost its largest base in Uzbekistan and that country is now under Russian military protection.

Kyrgestan is now trying to evict last American base in Cenrtal Asia. Kyrgestan has applied to join Russian Federation and Russia has a rent free base in that country to make sure American behave.

Who is kicking whose ass.

Not as Dumb as you think - you are reduced to saying AO is silly. One thing this discussion is NOT and the presentation of facts and yes theories is NOT is silly. It is deadly serious and I admire AO's persistence and detail.

But we are not going to try the case here. What we can do is examine motives and consequences. And those motives and consequences affect
Russia's future and its present.

It is SILLY to think your defense of Putin does other than support the consolidation of Putinism, whatever that may mean more than, as they used to say, the cult of the individual.
______________________________________

All "of Los Angeles" up to now are me, Robert of Los Angeles using alter egos to reflect back the thoughts of Putin loves in strange and wonderful ways

Think again on what Eugene's investigator of the Chief Prosecutor's Office has to say:
"...and the opposition became so unpopular, that now it's shame and disgrace to speak about speech freedom. People more and more care about their financial position, rather than political rights."

Anybody think that's SILLY? Anybody think it's scary? Anyone?

"Because the 'constitution' of Russia has been written and rewritten to suit the Putin gang"

So now you are proposing to accomodate the Brown gang as well?

The entity you refer to as "Putin gang" is the government of my country, which I voted for, and which, in my opinion, works remarkably well. You are entitled to your own opinion, but please stop the insults.

"for example, that is why Putin had the constitution rewritten to replace direct election of governors with appointed govorners"

This proves exactly what? Yes, we change our constitution when parts of it do not work well. Putin, the president of Russian federation made the proposal and parliament approved it, in accordance with Russian laws.

I understand that it is much more difficult to change your constitution, but it is 300 years old, and in the beginning it was also changed quite often. By now it stabilised, while our didn't yet.

"For example, Russian law forbids the murder of Russian citizens, and the evidence against Andrei Lugovoy is overwhelming, but Putin has not choosen to have Andrei Lugovoy arrested"

Russian government have offered to prosecute Lugovoi in Russia. Unfortunately the British side chose not to pass the "overwhelming" evidence to Russian government. One wonders why. We cannot prosecute Lugovoi without evidence?

British have demanded to just give them one of our citisens, or else. It is good that Russian government behaves as if Russian citisenship means something. I am sure you would expect as much from yours.

ADAYT,

I have given you a list of questions, and you have not answered them. I can only conclude that you will not because you cannot.

Finally, our friend from Los Angeles hit the right note on extradition. The British have never refused to extradite genuine criminals, but the British are completely right to refuse to extradite Russian dissidents. Neither Stalin nor Putin nor any of the Russians on this board seem to understand the difference, and that is the tragedy of Russia.

AO:

now you make me smile. do you even know how to read? if so, read my post. your response is almost completely unrelated, or chooses to ignore what i have presented. i am not a Putinist (whatever the heck that is supposed to be), but i'm not dumb either. you again present no proof, and claim to know know more than anyone else. i at least admit when something i say is speculation. when you can understand the difference, perhaps we can continue that conversation.

for now, i'll just laugh at the complete silliness of your position.

As Dumb As You Think argues:

"I will offer another, plausable explaination for the sake of discussion, which should by no means be taken as my actual belief: Berizovsky could have set the whole thing up to frame Lugovoy, to discredit Russian intelligence, and bolster his position as a political refuge in Britain. Berizovsky has extensive contacts in all things Russian, both legal and extra-legal, has vast resources at his disposal, and has several good
motives to undertake such a complicated scheme. I'm not saying Berizovsky is responsible for this, but its at least as plausible as your scenario."

What sense does that make? Where would Berezovsky get the polonium in the first place? Ninety-seven percent of the polonium in the world is manufactured in the Russian Federation, and it is then joined to industrial products from which it is difficult to extract; and if you choose to question either of those facts, you are invited to back up your statements, as I have done. How would Berezovsky obtain millions of dollars of radioactive poison inside a police state like Putin's Russia? And -- most importantly of all -- why can't a KBG goon like Putin have his henchmen trace the purchase of polonium and show how it got to Berezovsky? If there were any hint of credible suspicion against Berezovsky, why isn't Putin using the vast resources of the Russian state to build case against him?

I am sure anyone with ordinary intelligence can show how Putin got the polonium to kill Litvinenko. While Borozovsky is a expatriate and a dissident, Putin and his gestapo are at the center of Russian society, and they can get anything they want and kill anyone who informs on them, the way they killed Anna Politskaya.

Secondly, you suggest that Berezovsky killed his own friend as part of such a plan to discredit Putin and the Russian Gestapo. Why in the name of Lenin would Berezovsky purchase such an expensive poison and kill such an unlikely target? Putin and his gestapo have already been accused of blowing up Russian apartment buildings and framing the Chechen rebels for the crime; why wouldn't Berezovsky buy ten thousand dollars worth of dynamite and blow up an orphanage, or something? Or just kill a few pretty young dissident women with a poison which is much cheaper? That would get a lot more television coverage and a lot more sympathy.

Of course, we now why Putin and the Russian Gestapo used polonium. After all, Russia manufactures ninety-seven percent of the world's polonium supply, so Putin and his gang have access to plenty of it, and it seems likely that Putin and his gang never realized that polonium would leave a trail everywhere that Putin's hired killer went.

You suggest that Berezovsky wanted to 'bolster his position as a political refuge in Britain." Well, Berezovsky's position as a political refuge has always been rock-solid, so why should Berezovsky need to bolster it? On the other hand, Putin has exactly the same motive as his Soviet predecessors to kill dissidents. I am sure we all remember that Putin is a KGB colonel, and he has been trained since youth to handle dissent through murder. Stalin murdered millions of people and even sent his killers to Mexico to murder Trotsky, and Putin is well-known to admire Stalin.

ADAYT, let me try to get you to see this in a fresh light. Do you know who the 'Creationists' are? The Creationists are a group of fundamentalist Christians who believe that the Earth was created in seven days, and not six billion years, and that Noah really did get eight hundred thousand species of beetles onto that boat; and when you show the Creationists bones which show that fish really did evolve into amphibians, the Creationists start shouting "You are just assuming that! You don't have any proof!" The Creationists demand eyewitnesses for everything, and if there are no eyewitnesses, then the Creationists insist that all 'opinions' are equal, no matter how strong the scientific and 'circumstantial' evidence is; and then, when you explain to the Creationists how unscientific their reasoning is, the Creationists insist that you are 'condescending' to them.

Well, Creationists and Putinists are very similar. They both ignore the evidence, and they both insist that they are victims of 'bias' or 'superiority' when other people rebuke them for it. The Creationists why about 'condescension' and the Putinists whine about 'colonialism', but the motives and the goals are the same -- to conceal the bankruptcy of their arguments behind a cloud of emotion.

Now, think. If you really doubt that the trail of polonium leads back to Putin, why don't you answer a simple question --

Why hasn't Putin already arrested Andrei Lugovoy and put him on trial? You say the proof is not conclusive enough to convict Andrei Lugovoy and Vladimir Putin; if so, do you seriously argue that the proof is not strong enough to arrest Andrei Lugovoy? What kind of proof do you need for a poisoning trial in Russia, anyway? Do you seriously argue that nobody in Russia can be convicted or even tried for poisoning unless there is an eyewitness or a confession? Andrei Lugovoy drank tea with Litvinenko the day before he died, and Andrei Lugovoy left a trail of a rare and fantastically expensive poison all over London, the same poison which killed Litvinenko. Have you ever heard of a poisoning case where the evidence was stronger, without eyewitnesses or a confession?

Andrey Subbotin argues:

"Why does that prove anything about Putin when it is against Russian law to extradite Lugovoi, and it is Putin's job to enforce the law?"

American Observer responds:

Because the 'constitution' of Russia has been written and rewritten to suit the Putin gang -- for example, that is why Putin had the constitution rewritten to replace direct election of governors with appointed govorners -- and because Putin chooses which laws he wants to enforce, and which laws he does not want to enforce. For example, Russian law forbids the murder of Russian citizens, and the evidence against Andrei Lugovoy is overwhelming, but Putin has not choosen to have Andrei Lugovoy arrested.

Again, the reason is obvious. If Andrei Lugovoy started to feel threatened, he might inform on his superiors, and that would lead all of the way back to Putin himself. If Putin were innocent, he would ensure that Andrei Lugovoy were prosecuted, in Russia or in Britain; and the fact that Putin has blocked any and all trials of Andrei Lugovoy proves Vladimir Putin's guilt.

Should be: You HAVE given us new INTELLIGENCE that CNN, FOX or Wikipedia can NOT provide.

Don't ignore the great truths that Eugene has shared from CIS Chief Prosecutors office. Any comments??

(All Putin lovers)
We surrender. You've convinced us ...
______________________________
You've convinced us ... that there is a concerted effort, quite good in fact, to have an internet presence on Western media.

You've convinced us ...that if, Eugene's rendering of Yulia (investigator of the Chief Prosecutor's Office, Moscow, Russian Federation) was a faithful translation and represents an actual government official, that many of our American thoughts of paranoia DO have justification:

If British prime-minister behaved in more reasonable...Moscow would make some concessions even this time because Russia values not only political but also economical relationships with the United Kingdom
(What's a policeman doing making political statement, and infers "justice" is subject to "economical relationship")

what doesn't allow us to thing about possibility of carrying fair court in London, although, one need to acknowledge that bringing court to a third country would suit Russia, however the Great Britain had sharply rejected such suggestions.
(Another political suggestion on the international stage by a policeman. Gee, I wonder why the British feel insulted that there are no fair courts in London. IRA and Islamists both have been set free, if there was insufficient evidence, for just a couple recent examples)

Why did the Great Britain reckon on the extradition of Lugovoi, when it itself never extradites anybody who seeks asylym on its land. Whether one is Berezovsky, or terrorists who arranged terroristic acts of 9/11.
(A third blatantly partisan statement by a policeman confusing political asylum which the West routinely grants with extradition for criminal acts. Or do they want Berezovsky back so they can "clear up" all the KGB / FSB corruption - not likely. Where does he get that the UK is holding out on any 9/11 terrorists?)

In the same time, the West, which states and panick more and more that Russia leaves the path of Democracy, that there's no opposition in the country, and all the power is in hands of president Putin and his team, the West itself pushes Russian political life in total stagnation.
(Finally engaging in the usual "victimology", the West creates the Problem by pointing out the Problem. Garbage. You HAD democracy - will YOU keep it?)

Russians, observing absurd demands of the Great Britain and their categorical nature, revolutions and instability in the former countries of CIS [perhaps USSR -- translator's note], and new ABM plan in Europe, have more and more confidence in the president and the government, which repeat that the West doesn't need strong Russia, enemies are around and there's no further need to make compromises. That's vicious circle
(This political ad for Our Glorious Leader, brought to you by Chief Inspector. This is all a bit more blatant than even DOJs Gonzalez' choice of prosecutors, dont you think?)

...and the opposition became so unpopular, that now it's shame and disgrace to speak about speech freedom. People more and more care about their financial position, rather than political rights.
(HONESTY is refreshing though. READ this again. Unpopular to speak about freedom of speech? That's almost funny. Shame and disgrace - coming from ...uhh ...conscience, no...maybe pressure from boss and maybe policeman like Inspector.
People CARE MORE about $ than Rights - if you can SELL that, Putin has it made.

THANK you very much Eugene. You HAVE given us new INTELLIGENCE that CNN, FOX or Wikipedia can provide. I love how blatantly honest your Inspector is.
God bless you in your stay in the US for your PHD, Good luck! on your return to the CIS!!!

AO-

Thank you for presenting a coherent case. Now we have some common ground upon which to look at this issue. While your analysis is plausable, based on the facts, it is nowhere close to reaching the level of "proof" upon which you could make accusations.

1)
AO writes:
somebody dropped the polonium into his food or drink, and that person is a the killer.

Not As Dumb As You Think responds:
this is an assumption, but one I won't argue about it

2)
AO writes:
so the list of possible killers is limited to the people who ate or drank with Litvinko in the two days before he started to show symptoms

Not As Dumb As You Think responds:
again an assumption, one that omits another wide range of possibilities - namely that Litvinenko's food could have been spiked by anyone who had access to the food before it was placed in front of Litvinenko

3)
AO writes:
Now, the polonium came from Russia several days before the murder -- the polonium traces on the airplane prove that.

Not As Dumb As You Think responds:
another assumption. That polonium traces were found on an airplane only proves that polonium had been on the airplane, or someone exposed to polonium had been on the airplane. it does not indicate whether the polonium boarded the plane in the UK, or in Russia. Moreover, it does not prove that this polonium is the same polonium that killed Litvinenko.

4)
AO writes:
Andrei Lugovoy flew on that plane. The polonium then got carried all over London, and there are traces of it in all of the places that were visited by Andrei Lugovoy. That proves that Andrei Lugovoy carried the polonium.

Not As Dumb As You Think responds:
Now i must disagree over your statement of "fact". Traces have been found in some of the places that Lugovoy visited while in London, but not in "all" of the places Lugovoy visited. this is crucial because the Russian investigators have been denied access to these sites by British investigators, and have suggested several other places where polonium should have appeared (such as taxis), for this senario to hold water, but again British investigators have either not found such traces, or have refused to look for them.

I will offer another, plausable explaination for the sake of discussion, which should by no means be taken as my actual belief: Berizovsky could have set the whole thing up to frame Lugovoy, to discredit Russian intelligence, and bolster his position as a political refuge in Britain. Berizovsky has extensive contacts in all things Russian, both legal and extra-legal, has vast resources at his disposal, and has several good motives to undertake such a complicated scheme. I'm not saying Berizovsky is responsible for this, but its at least as plausible as your scenario.

5)
AO writes:
Andrei Lugovoy drank tea with Litvinenko the day before Litvinenko became sick. Litvinenko then fled to Russia, and has refused to return to face questioning or trial; and Vladimir Putin has refused to extradite him, thus proving that Andrei Lugovoy and Vladimir Putin both have something to hide.

Not As Dumb As You Think responds:
This statement actually proves nothing. Lugovoy and Litvinenko had tea together, and Litvinenko refuses to return to the UK which has demonstrated an unwillingness to work with Russian investigators to establish mutually agreed facts, but rather, insists that the world blindly accept their findings, regardless of whether they may be politically motivated. This argument that has not been disproved because UK authorities refuse to allow Russian authorities access to conduct their own investigation.

6)
AO writes:
If that is not enough proof, my friends, then what would be enough proof? Do you have some alternative definition of proof which you want to share with us? If so, please put it on the board.

Not As Dumb As You Think responds:
so, let me summarize your position: circumstancial evidence (ie. traces of polonium found in various locations), along with international diplomacy (ie. Russia refusing to extridite one of its citizens to a country that has failed on more than 20 occasions to afford Russia the same courtesy), somehow equals "proof". in that case, I must say that, yes, I do have an alternate definition of proof:

"The result or effect of evidence; the establishment or denial of a fact by evidence."

You have failed to demonstated by fact that Lugovoy is anything more than a suspect. Moreover, your assertion that Putin somehow had something to do with this whole nasty affair remains nothing more than a wild assertion based wholey on your own anti-Russia bias, and a diplomatic position taken by Russia which arguably has much more to do with UK - Russia relations than it does the specifics of this particular event.

AO, would you like to try again? Your last post was approaching rational, and leads me to believe that you may yet be capable of impartiality.

"thus proving that Andrei Lugovoy and Vladimir Putin both have something to hide".

Why does that prove anything about Putin when it is against Russian law to extradite Lugovoi, and it is Putin's job to enforce the law?

As Dumb As You Think says:

"At this point, AO, i have to conclude that you have no facts, and are fundamentally incapable of understanding what facts are, and therefor it is useless to argue with you."

Natallia says:

"....tell me HOW can you prove that there was any killer firstly and if so who has hired them???"

American Obser