The Guardian (and pretty much every other news outlet on the web) is reporting that Boris Nemtsov, former deputy Russian Prime Minister and critic of President Vladimir Putin has been killed in a drive-by shooting near the Kremlin, sustaining four gunshot wounds to the chest and dying at the scene. Nemtsov was due to lead a major opposition rally on Sunday. A spokesman for Putin has stated that the President will take personal control of the investigation into the killing, claiming it was "a pure provocation." A police spokesman has stated that a manhunt is under way.
Nemtsov was first deputy Prime Minister during Boris Yeltsin's presidency between March 1997 and April 1998. He wrote a number of reports linking Putin to corruption, spoke out against government inefficiency, criticized the Kremlin's policy towards Ukraine, and asserted that billions of dollars earmarked for spending on the Winter Olympics in his home town of Sochi had been embezzled. Several hours prior to his death, he promoted Sunday's opposition rally in Moscow on Ekho Moskvy radio. When he asked Alexei Venediktov, the editor-in-chief of the station, if he had any concerns regarding his appearance, Venediktov tweeted "It wasn’t me who needed to be scared."
While it's been a decade since a Russian opposition politician has been murdered in the capital, there has been no shortage of tactics used to suppress dissent against Putin's regime. Another organiser of the upcoming rally, Alexei Navalny, was jailed on 19 February for 15 days after handing out leaflets in public promoting the rally. Navalny was previously convicted of defrauding two firms of 30million roubles ($462k US) and given a suspended sentence in December, a move that critics say was an attempt to stifle political dissent.
Related Stories
A few days ago SN saw the news that one of Russian politicians was killed. All kinds of wild theories instantly emerged. Perhaps it will be equally interesting to the SN community that the killers have been found, arrested, and are already confessing. Here is the essential part of the article:
Boris Nemtsov was killed because of his negative speech about Muslims and Islam, per Zaur Dudaev, who was arrested on suspicion of committing the crime. The suspect stated that he learned Boris Nemtsov's opinion about Muslim religion in January of 2015. Being a true believer, he could not tolerate that.
The crime [presumably] was committed by several people. Total of five suspects have been arrested; one more suspect (Beslan Shavanov) refused to surrender, threw one grenade at the police, and blew himself up with another. One suspect, Zaur Dudaev, has already confessed.
All suspects appear to be Chechens. The President of Chechnya, Ramzan Kadyrov, personally knew two of them. He said that both were brave warriors. He also said that Zaur Dudaev left the service under unclear circumstances, and that is being looked into. Another suspect that he knew personally was the one who killed himself.
The police disclosed that the crime was poorly executed; that allowed to identify the perpetrators within a day. Criminals failed to burn the getaway car; as result, they left DNA and other evidence in it. The car was traced throughout the city by the network of traffic cameras, and that allowed the police to quickly identify the perpetrators. At least that's how it appears to be for the moment. The suspects ran a low key criminal gang in Moscow that specialized in extortion. If their motive was indeed religious, that would make it a copycat crime that is inspired by killings in Paris.
A prominent Putin critic has been found guilty of embezzlement:
Russia's main opposition leader, Alexei Navalny, has been found guilty of embezzlement, local media report. A judge is still reading the verdict in the city of Kirov, but news agencies said it was clear in his remarks that Mr Navalny had been convicted. Even a suspended sentence would bar him from running for president next year.
An outspoken critic of President Vladimir Putin, Mr Navalny has denied the accusations, saying the case is politically motivated. A sentence in the retrial, ordered after a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights, may take hours to be read out. Prosecutors had asked the judge to hand Mr Navalny a five-year suspended sentence.
In Putin's Russia, you either die a hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain.
Also at Washington Post, NPR, RT, and Reuters.
Related: Politician Killed in Moscow Ahead of Weekend Opposition Rally - "Another organiser of the upcoming rally, Alexei Navalny, was jailed on 19 February for 15 days after handing out leaflets in public promoting the rally."
Killers of Boris Nemtsov Found, Arrested
Former Russian Anti-Doping Boss Dies Suddenly
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Sunday March 01 2015, @03:12AM
Putin supporters would gain nothing, were it to be their work.
Nemtsov's opposition barely registers 2% polling..
However? There are many who oppose a strong Russia, who stand to gain much by demonizing Putin, and implicating the current government in the Kremlin.
You're betting on the pantomime horse...
(Score: 4, Insightful) by GungnirSniper on Sunday March 01 2015, @03:22AM
This wouldn't be the first time Putin [wikipedia.org] has been accused of political assassinations. [wikipedia.org] It would certainly seem a successful part of his regime, even if it alienates other nations. Putin does not care as long as he stays in power, much like any other dictator.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Sunday March 01 2015, @04:16PM
Gorbachev: Killing Could Have Been A Provocation, Aimed At “Destabilizing The Situation In The Country, At Heightening Confrontation” With The West [sputniknews.com]
"The assassination of Boris Nemtsov is an attempt to complicate the situation in the country, even to destabilize it by ratcheting up tensions between the government and the opposition."
If "Putin" had really wanted to kill this guy, it would have been a “suicide” in private or a small plane crash, the way the US Government handles assassinations.
You're betting on the pantomime horse...
(Score: 3, Insightful) by wantkitteh on Sunday March 01 2015, @08:14PM
The US way of handling people like this is based on plausible deniability and works in the US, but this is Moscow we're talking about where intimidation is the order of the day. Nemtsov ignored the warnings - the legal harassment of himself, his friends and colleagues - so now we're getting a masterclass in the Russian way of killing off dissenters:
1) President blatantly has the guy murdered in public
2) President handles the case personally
3) President covers his tracks and comes up with a scapegoat
Speaking of which, what are the odds the scapegoat will be another problematic dissenter?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Sunday March 01 2015, @11:27PM
1) President blatantly has the guy murdered in public? Evidence?
2) President handles the case personally? Evidence?
3) President covers his tracks and comes up with a scapegoat? Now you are clearly speculating.
You're betting on the pantomime horse...
(Score: 2) by wantkitteh on Monday March 02 2015, @01:28PM
Evidence - see steps 2 and 3. I can only assume you're being deliberately ignorant and naive for the sake of trying to be pointlessly argumentative, but when you have the power Putin has, you can make the evidence say whatever you want it to say. Do you honestly think anyone apart from the shooter and the driver (assuming it was a two man job) will ever see the real evidence?
(Score: 3, Touché) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Monday March 02 2015, @05:34PM
You have a position, not an argument.
You're betting on the pantomime horse...
(Score: 2) by wantkitteh on Tuesday March 03 2015, @04:14PM
Oddly enough, that's kinda the point I'm (belatedly - birthday party 2-day hangover) trying to make - Putin has got it all nicely sewn up so no-one will ever have anything more than *a position* against him, because look what happens to people who actually have an argument and evidence and a slight inkling of support. Hate the guy as much as you like, point out how far he has to fall for all you're worth, he's in the kind of position many other world leaders would be envious of. Why does ruler of Russia seem to be such a safe place to be a bastard from?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 01 2015, @03:32AM
1999 Zine El Abidine Ben Ali: 99.4%
1999 Ali Abdullah Saleh: 96.2%
1999 Hosni Mubarak: 93.8%
2000 Putin: 53%
2004 Zine El Abidine Ben Ali: 94%
2004 Putin: 71%
2005 Hosni Mubarak: 89%
2006 Ali Abdullah Saleh: 77.2%
2007 Bashar al-Assad: 97.6%
2007 United Russia: 64.24%
2009 Zine El Abidine Ben Ali: 89%
2012 Putin: 63.6%
(Score: 4, Insightful) by tangomargarine on Sunday March 01 2015, @04:17AM
Nemtsov's opposition barely registers 2% polling..
Gee, this guy has only 2% of people admitting they support him. Not like the government has been locking up dissidents or, cough, probably murdering the guy. You're really surprised he doesn't have more public support than that?
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by frojack on Sunday March 01 2015, @05:55AM
Don't be so sure of that percentage point.
The articles I've read from the press all over the world is that the man in the Russian street is utterly shocked, but still afraid to speak. There appears to be a lot of fear. Even in some of the russian press, which I have to read with google translate. I've a couple of Russian consultants that I do business with off and on over the years, sometimes I am their customer, other times they are mine. The first time he has ever sent me encrypted mail was this morning. He was extremely angry. Wouldn't say who he believed was at fault, but said it would be dangerous to even talk about it.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by tftp on Sunday March 01 2015, @06:18AM
The articles I've read from the press all over the world is that the man in the Russian street is utterly shocked
The articles and blogs that I read in Russian say that the society couldn't possibly care less about his demise. Your friends are not quite sane, I suspect. It's not 1938, and nobody is arresting people and sentencing them to "10 years with no correspondence rights." This guy could have been killed for a number of reasons, starting with simple jealousy, as he was walking with a young Ukrainian model. He also had business deals going back for two decades; that alone can have anyone killed. As a politician he had no weight, no importance, and was basically tame.
There are many politicians in any country. They have no armed guards. They are all vulnerable to assassination. But there is one important aspect in all this. When a President orders a political enemy killed, the victim dies from natural causes. Not from multiple bullets in the back. Bullets happen only when the killer does not care... or when he wants to make sure that the murder gets noticed.
But of course those who are determined to blame Putin will be blaming Putin no matter what. They have their reasons, but desire for truth is not one of them. Otherwise they wouldn't be claiming knowledge of truth when nobody, except the killers, knows it.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 01 2015, @06:34AM
> The articles and blogs that I read in Russian say that the society couldn't possibly care less about his demise.
That is unsurprising. Your posting history indicates that you have a dog in the fight and that dog does not speak Ukrainian.
http://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?sid=385&cid=9323 [soylentnews.org]
"With regard to "the number of people who will surely be killed in a conflict with Russia," my prediction is that nobody will be killed,"
http://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?sid=385&cid=9370 [soylentnews.org]
Death toll in Ukraine conflict exceeds 5,000, may be 'considerably higher' -UN
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=49882 [un.org]
(Score: 3, Informative) by tftp on Sunday March 01 2015, @07:03AM
Death toll in Ukraine is much larger than 5,000 - by some estimates it is closer to 50,000. However the Russian Army is not fighting on the side of rebels. Quite possible that there is supply of arms across the border, and there are some volunteers from republics of ex-USSR among rebels. However no regular troops are present. The rebels are simply holding their positions; this would be an impossible mode of operation for the army. It would be equally unbelievable to send the army without establishing air dominance (which now belongs to Ukraine, though they don't use it.)
Note that most men in USSR have served in the army due to draft laws, so everyone is acquainted with weapons, including some pretty complex ones. I hope that the Russian Army will never be sent to Ukraine. This whole prolonged confrontation is possible only because both sides of the conflict are weak *and* matched.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 01 2015, @07:15AM
The rebels are simply holding their positions; this would be an impossible mode of operation for the army. It would be equally unbelievable to send the army without establishing air dominance
I don't think you could have done a better job of demonstrating your uncritical and credulous support for Putin if you had tried.
(Score: 2, Informative) by tftp on Sunday March 01 2015, @08:00AM
The rebels have been holding their regions in those exact borders for last 8-9 months. The fight for the Donetsk Airport lasted for 6 months. The rebels haven't been taking Mariupol, though they were physically close and could take the city. They had no political will to do that. The conflict there is nearly static. In other words, the rebels are not advancing on Kiev; nor they want to.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 01 2015, @02:16PM
None of which addresses the point of your laughable strawman that "proves" Russia isn't involved by the fact that they aren't going full-bore.
It is ridiculous arguments like that which make it look like you are just blindly nationalist.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by LoRdTAW on Sunday March 01 2015, @02:58PM
He sounds a lot like my Russian friend who has a picture of Putin hanging in living room. Young, dumb and somehow endowed with a near maniacal sense of Russian nationalism. I once met up with him and his mother happened to stop by his house. He starts to argue Russian/US politics with her and she just shakes her head. He then degenerates into a his ra-ra Russia/Putin spiel. His mother turns to me and says "He was too young to remember the bad things there. The schools filled his head with lies." She worked at the Kremlin back in the USSR days and now works at the UN as a translator. She knows a thing or two about what is going on.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by BradTheGeek on Sunday March 01 2015, @05:46PM
Or like my uncle with the picture of Regan and Bush in his bedroom? Or the hyper-liberal with the pictures of clinton and obama? Rash, blind nationalism knows no country.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Sunday March 01 2015, @07:16PM
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B_AiI9_XIAA67_t.jpg [twimg.com]
You're betting on the pantomime horse...
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Wednesday March 04 2015, @03:09PM
The difference is my friend lives in the US and baskes it yet has no intentions of leaving as he has a decent job with a pension coming his way after retirement. If your uncle lived in Russia then that would be just as interesting.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 01 2015, @06:08PM
> somehow endowed with a near maniacal sense of Russian nationalism.
It is always the people who have accomplished the least in their lives who are the most nationalistic. They adopt the successes of others in their tribe to make up for their personal mediocrity.
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Wednesday March 04 2015, @03:12PM
You hit the nail on the head. Nearly 40, no girlfriend, acts like a child at times and plays video games all day. Barely has any life outside of his home save for work and when we hang out. I feel bad for him, he isnt a bad person. Just very childish and unaccomplished.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Yog-Yogguth on Sunday March 01 2015, @10:22AM
You're right except the last part; beyond driving back the attacks and thus protecting what's left of the civilian populations Novorussia only wants to retake a little bit of land to the extent of the original Ukrainian regions of what became the LPR and DPR (both formed by the people living there). If they then bunker down they are a de facto nation considering how the Nazikrainians has already shut out the area economically and administratively and shut down/destroyed delivery infrastructure for gas to those regions. At that point Nazikrainia is left to continue fucking themselves over on their own and can function as a great black site under nazi rule holding the EU at ransom over interrupting Russian gas deliveries and holding the US at ransom over telling and proving the truth. Easy to see why Russia doesn't want to involve themselves directly beyond diplomacy.
Most of the “Russophobes” do not betray any knowledge of (among many things) the immense power of defensive positions in conventional warfare. Back in WWII the rule of thumb was something like a ratio of 1 to 6 which meant that with decent defensive structures (and population centers automatically count as that unless those involved are completely clueless) it only took one person to defend against six attackers. Primarily infantry wars (like this one is) are still won by the shovel and mind. Btw tanks and armored vehicles hate forests too.
If anything today the ratio is potentially much higher with the right leadership and equipment.
There's a reason the Nazikrainians mostly kill civilians and that's it; civilians and airliners is what's left to shoot at in anger hoping for some kind of perverse miracle.
Merely another example of why it's rather sad that so many people apparently still believe all the nonsensical gibberish out of the US and Kiev. Then again that is how hysteria and panic works; people get dragged along: what other motivation does European mainstream media have for continuing to communicate yet more deranged claims out of Kiev if not to attempt the same towards Europeans? Happily it does not seem to work particularly well and in alternative media people get really suspicious towards anyone fronting the US narrative, if they just don't simply ditch them as paid shills that is (I do, in fact I see it as a silver lining to identify such people).
Although somewhat recently at least some of the European MSM has moved a little bit towards covering their asses. Maybe it finally trickles through that the world's biggest country supported by the world's most populous country and with neutral or good relations with something like 150 out 170 of the world's nations just wouldn't manage to spend a full year on militarily subjugating a medium-sized European country on their border if that's what they actually wanted to. The Pentagon really needs to explain in detail why it would supposedly take the Russians that fucking long.
There's far more explaining to do though.
Plenty of nations (not just the US) and anyone willing to spend money on commercial 30cm resolution (it's now available) can tell me from orbit how many flower pots I have standing outside yet despite pathetic fakery no one has shown any valid proof of either Russian armed forces in Ukraine nor any heavy weaponry that wasn't originally Ukrainian.
Stupidity so shockingly powerful it is almost impossible to comprehend. Easy for Usians to ignore but impossible to ignore for most Europeans since it's right in the middle of the fucking continent. The longer it continues the higher the chances even inept European politicians realize the US government is tiny car crammed full with tens of thousands of shit clowns struggling with psychosis.
Which brings us to the nazis. It seems the Hitlerites in Kiev missed the lesson on the “ancient” Soviet perfection of defense in depth; that's the sort of thing that happens when one only reads bullshit make-believe history books and spends ones time walking around in torch marches or flag parades under huge yellow flags with emblazoned with the black Wolfsangel. Each time the Nazikrainians shell another residential building they make it worse for themselves as well. Each time the Nazikrainian punitive forces shoot to pressure their forced conscript front troops ahead of them they further blunt their military value. Each time the Nazikrainians boobytrap another dead body they enforce efficiency upon their opponents who quickly learn to ignore carcasses and heavily wounded enemies.
(Score: 1) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 01 2015, @02:18PM
> There's a reason the Nazikrainians mostly kill civilians
Holy shit. And here I thought tftp was the flaming nationalist.
(Score: 2) by Yog-Yogguth on Monday March 02 2015, @01:50PM
Maybe you haven't seen them? [theblogmocracy.com]
Or maybe you do not know that they're national socialists? It's not just Russians they hate; they also hate Poles, that's going to work out great in the future :) I don't even need to say anything about people like Obama do I?
Need [wonkette.com] more [rt.com] pictures [wordpress.com]?
Let's say you're dumb enough to believe the bullshit about "National Identity" (NI superimposed) well let's take a look at the Azov regimental insignia [wordpress.com], do you notice the white symbol in the background behind the black Wolfsangel [wikipedia.org]? That white symbol is usually called the Black Sun [wikipedia.org] and is yet another Nazi symbol. According to that same page “Black Sun” is also the name of the Azov newspaper.
If you're an American who had a relative dying in Europe fighting for America in WWII you should realize these people are the same as those they fought against.
Obama and McCain and all other supporting US politicians are Nazi allies, you can deny it all you want or misuse troll moderation or whatever but it's still true and you're still doomed to lose.
Btw I'm neither Russian nor Ukrainian nor Novorussian nor American; do you know what ‘nationalist’ means?
The funniest part? According to nazism I am a far more racially pure übermensch of the highest order than either McCain or any USian or any Nazikrainian XD Fuck those idiots.
Bite harder Ouroboros, bite! tails.boum.org/ linux USB CD secure desktop IRC *crypt tor (not endorsements (XKeyScore))
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday March 01 2015, @06:44AM
It's not 1938, and nobody is arresting people and sentencing them to "10 years with no correspondence rights."
Yet.
When a President orders a political enemy killed, the victim dies from natural causes.
Bullets are a natural cause. So is polonium poisoning.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by tftp on Sunday March 01 2015, @06:52AM
It is not possible to carry out mass murders in a modern, connected world. Stalin could do so only because nobody knew the true scale of the arrests.
It does not benefit the ruler to overtly kill an opponent. At the same time anyone could get a gun, steal a car, hunt down a politician (using a specific girl as a marker) and shoot him. There is no reason to blame this on anyone specific until the killer is discovered by the police. The government wouldn't send a killer with a gun. Even Borgias, many centuries ago, were using a strong handshake.
(Score: 1) by Refugee from beyond on Sunday March 01 2015, @07:34AM
You are making a mistaking of assuming Putin is sane or have more safer options left.
And why would it not? Russian courts will make whatever judgement is demanded from the top anyway, regardless of presented facts or video recording.
Instantly better soylentnews: replace background on article and comment titles with #973131.
(Score: 1) by tftp on Sunday March 01 2015, @07:54AM
You are making a mistaking of assuming Putin is sane or have more safer options left.
I'd hate to use appeal to authority [nizkor.org] here, but are you fluent in Russian politics? I am reasonably competent in it. My claim is that Putin is perfectly sane, and that he has no need for "options" as the killed politician posed no threat to anyone whatsoever.
And why would it not? Russian courts will make whatever judgement is demanded from the top anyway, regardless of presented facts or video recording.
Because it's much simpler to avoid the whole mess by using undetectable poison that imitates a common illness. Do you think Putin, or Obama, or Merkel have no access to such chemicals?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Refugee from beyond on Sunday March 01 2015, @08:12AM
I live in Russia. My claim's that Putin is capable of doing it because it's not like any court is going to convict him anyway. Crimea thing was/is one whole pain in the ass idea, that didn't stop him. There are also those theories that he staged terrorist acts to gain his popularity, which frankly I have no way of verifying.
Sure. But you need to care to do that. Foreign territory is one thing, but when you are in your own country, nobody's gonna stop you anyway and you can get some more points on “corrupt West blaming our holy tsar” act.
Instantly better soylentnews: replace background on article and comment titles with #973131.
(Score: 1) by tftp on Sunday March 01 2015, @08:33AM
Crimea thing was/is one whole pain in the ass idea, that didn't stop him.
Sevastopol is the only usable base for the Black Sea Fleet. So there are strategic issues at play. Ukraine was always threatening Russia with loss of Sevastopol. Was it worth the fallout? I can't say, I'm not a general.
Sure. But you need to care to do that. Foreign territory is one thing, but when you are in your own country, nobody's gonna stop you anyway and you can get some more points on “corrupt West blaming our holy tsar” act.
It's plain obvious that this crime hasn't given Putin any brownie points - and it couldn't, even in theory. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure it out. Putin is not an idiot to order a hit near Kremlin. He already knows how this blame game works after the case in UK. It is true that he *could* personally walk up to the guy and shoot him, and not be imprisoned, but courts cannot stop people from talking. Do you think that a KGB guy, trained in covert operations, would somehow forget that?
(Score: 2) by Yog-Yogguth on Sunday March 01 2015, @11:58AM
I don't live in Russia, never even been there yet (but really ought to, it's not far, at least St. Petersburg is very tempting and looked lovely and even familiar on the recent Top Gear episode (Season 22 Episode 1 available somewhere/everywhere on the net), but it's rather obvious that just about anyone who wanted to could kill the guy (in Moscow) just as easily as they could kill anyone else.
It's rather flashy to kill someone that way in the middle of a trafficked bridge; I bet even Russian mafia is more subtle than that :D
You do not seem to realize that wacky opposition politicians like him are part of Putin's (and Medvedev's and the whole fucking Duma's) democratic alibi. So unless it was some local morons recognizing his face and wanting to clean away what they perceived as opportunistic scum (if so they'll be caught soon enough), unless that was the case; his death was most likely intended to increase tension in Russia and there's only one suspect in that case: the self-harming psycho idiots from UranUS :P (but it's not CIA or it would be .22LR because they're traditionalists (joke)).
Bite harder Ouroboros, bite! tails.boum.org/ linux USB CD secure desktop IRC *crypt tor (not endorsements (XKeyScore))
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Sunday March 01 2015, @10:03PM
I'd hate to use appeal to authority [nizkor.org] here, but are you fluent in Russian politics? I am reasonably competent in it. My claim is that Putin is perfectly sane,
To wax philosophical for a moment, one might argue that anyone who wants to be in charge of a country is a bit insane to begin with. Wasn't it Douglas Adams who said (roughly), "Anyone who wants to acquire government power should by no means be allowed to do so?"
I'm probably starting to sound like a broken record, but you have to admit Putin has gone through quite a lot of contortions to stay in (an) office.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Sunday March 01 2015, @10:10PM
For comparison's sake, while we have term limits in the U.S. to prevent the president from being in charge for more than 2 terms, one of my favorite presidents, Teddy Roosevelt, ran for a third term back before that rule was officially on the books.
And FDR did a number of things that in retrospect weren't that democratic, for pragmatic reasons.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 1) by tftp on Sunday March 01 2015, @10:56PM
you have to admit Putin has gone through quite a lot of contortions to stay in (an) office.
It's OK with the people. They see no value in change for sake of change. An old ox makes a straight furrow. Putin isn't doing anything that would be counter to the will of people. He isn't instituting Obamacare, for example; he isn't sending troops to faraway lands to die for questionable goals. The political landscape of ex-USSR is rough. Everyone understands that some governments are not as easy to deal with as the other. Some states, like Uzbekistan, remain a ticking bomb.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday March 02 2015, @01:17AM
They see no value in change for sake of change.
Heh. Because nobody can find a single reason to not like Putin, sure.
He isn't instituting Obamacare
Yeah, obviously the people would be against reliable and affordable health care. Those government bastards trying to make our lives better...
he isn't sending troops to faraway lands to die for questionable goals.
No, he's sending them to nearby lands to die for questionable goals.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 1) by tftp on Monday March 02 2015, @01:41AM
Heh. Because nobody can find a single reason to not like Putin, sure.
Anyone has at least a single reason to not like $anyone_else. That's not the question. The issue here is that (a) the majority (b) trusts Putin to lead the country.
Yeah, obviously the people would be against reliable and affordable health care.
What Obamacare has to do with reliable and affordable healthcare? :-) I'm paying cash, and I'd be most welcome at every practicing doctor.
No, he's sending them to nearby lands to die for questionable goals.
It is hotly debated (by those who don't know) whether the troops are or are not sent. But even we imagine that they are, sending them to nearby lands is not against their mission, as those lands may represent immediate danger to the country. However conquering Madagascar would be hard to explain. The USA invaded Panama in 1989 on far flimsier grounds than actual shelling of residents of Donetsk. I don't recall the USA imposing sanctions against the USA in that case.
(Score: 1) by Refugee from beyond on Monday March 02 2015, @09:45PM
In government sponsored statisticians, maybe. In reality, it's not quite like that. Majority is more like "don't care, not like my vote will change anything." On the other hand government controls vote counting, so…
As for healthcare, we do have one, which doesn't quite work because money's elsewhere… So, even if something is supposed to be free you'd better have money, just in case.
There was this thing recently, http://www.novayagazeta.ru/society/67490.html [novayagazeta.ru] (in Russian), an interview with badly injured tankman. Although, I think Putin will deny everything. We'll see.
In another article http://www.novayagazeta.ru/politics/67389.html [novayagazeta.ru] novayagazeta.ru says they have a document which says that Russia had plans for Ukraine before Yanukovych fled the country. Spokesman for the President, obviously denied it. Hopefully it gets published in full, not just excerpts.
Instantly better soylentnews: replace background on article and comment titles with #973131.
(Score: 2, Informative) by tftp on Sunday March 01 2015, @08:07AM
If anyone cares and is not afraid of Google Translate (as you should be!), here is a lengthy analysis [google.com] of the murder.
(Score: 1) by Refugee from beyond on Sunday March 01 2015, @08:16AM
(I haven't read that yet but) Lenta.ru isn't what it used to be. There was quite an exodus in 2014 (and https://meduza.io/ [meduza.io] was born, AFAIR).
Instantly better soylentnews: replace background on article and comment titles with #973131.
(Score: 1) by tftp on Sunday March 01 2015, @08:24AM
Meduza doesn't work without JS. But yes, Lenta has changed a bit. IMO, they became less liberal, more conservative. Could result in a slight bias in an editorial. But this is just a review of current theories of the crime; those theories are external to the reporter.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday March 01 2015, @09:17AM
It is not possible to carry out mass murders in a modern, connected world.
I would call that "easier" instead of "not possible".
It does not benefit the ruler to overtly kill an opponent.
Unless, of course, it does benefit the ruler or the ruler doesn't have a choice in the matter. You need to keep in mind that death by natural causes can be a very hard thing to set up even for a head of a powerful state.
(Score: 1) by tftp on Sunday March 01 2015, @07:37PM
You need to keep in mind that death by natural causes can be a very hard thing to set up even for a head of a powerful state.
You are not reading enough crime fiction :-) Just as an occasional reader of a story or two I can suggest a couple of simple scenarios that do not involve tiny darts shot from a spy pen:
Or, if you want to go real fancy, here is a piece of the plot from an alternative history book. The protagonist gets an order from Stalin to execute Trotsky, who is living in Norway at that time, guarded by the police. The protagonist plays a sailor, meets with Trotsky, throws some LSD into his drink and leaves a gun (stolen from his guards) nearby. Next morning he learns that Trotsky went insane, shot all his family and was killed by the guards.
Intelligence services have huge experience in removal of targeted people from the list of living. That experience is measured in thousands of years. It would be trivial for any, even minimally competent, operator to execute the action cleanly. Even if the operator is determined to shoot, there will be a patsy provided - some insane, homeless guy on drugs, who would be promptly killed by the police. The case will be open and shut. Under no circumstances the professionals allow the investigation to proceed. If they want anyone found, that "anyone" would be staged nearby, with all the necessary evidence conveniently provided.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday March 01 2015, @08:51PM
You are not reading enough crime fiction
And you aren't reading enough history. The USSR has done the accidental death thing before (for example, injecting a victim with digitalis or ricin). It doesn't work that well. OTOH, we have plenty of evidence that just shooting the person with a ready fall guy does work.
(Score: 1) by tftp on Sunday March 01 2015, @09:19PM
The USSR has done the accidental death thing before (for example, injecting a victim with digitalis or ricin). It doesn't work that well.
The problem with perfect crime is that it is not seen as a crime. You see only failures. You don't know how many hits were successful.
OTOH, we have plenty of evidence that just shooting the person with a ready fall guy does work.
I agree. But where is the "ready fall guy" here? He should be not too far away, otherwise conspiracy theories will take hold. Ideally, as I said, the fall guy should be like Lee Harvey Oswald or Jack Ruby [wikipedia.org] (who conveniently died in custody):
Ruby asked Warren several times to take him to Washington D.C., saying "my life is in danger here" and that he wanted an opportunity to make additional statements.[47] He added: "I want to tell the truth, and I can't tell it here."[48] Warren told Ruby that he would be unable to comply, because many legal barriers would need to be broken and public interest in the situation would be too heavy.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday March 01 2015, @09:53PM
The problem with perfect crime is that it is not seen as a crime. You see only failures. You don't know how many hits were successful.
Perfect crime doesn't fail.
(Score: 1) by tftp on Sunday March 01 2015, @10:29PM
Exactly my point.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday March 02 2015, @11:27AM
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Sunday March 01 2015, @09:06PM
There is no reason to blame this on anyone specific until the killer is discovered by the police.
Conveniently, if Putin really did order it, the police will never discover who did it (or blame someone else).
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 1) by tftp on Sunday March 01 2015, @09:32PM
Conveniently, if Putin really did order it, the police will never discover who did it (or blame someone else).
Or the police may discover all the participants who will tell a convincing story that is internally consistent. We'll wait and see.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Sunday March 01 2015, @03:59PM
US has secret black-sites for ordinary citizens, where they are tortured, incommunicado without formal arrest.
This happens in Chicago, under the directive of Mayor Emmanuel.
Mayor Emmanuel is in charge of the city who's machine power base crafted the singular rise of President Obama, and Emmanuel was a critical strategist and party enforcer responsible for the 2008 accession to power.
Now, haw again does Russia and Putin compare unfavorably to this description? I can select these facts - along with the increasing US domestic surveillance state, successfully portraying the US nation as a nascent, fascist prison-state.
You could say - "it's not really like that! You have reduced the complexities to a few selected features with little context, and it's NOT 1938 in America!"
To which I would respond as do you: "Not yet".
The fact is, my statements about Chicago and US politics and policing are used to fashion an ideological image of the US, good only for propaganda: "Obama runs a secret dictatorship, that is dissapearing people - starting with those who know the most about the rise to power." It's similar to what you say of "Putin" and the evidence cited.
It's not that you are free of facts. You are imprisoned by bias and ignorance. You read only your own papers, watch only your own media - and if you have Russian acquaintances, those are pre-selected from among expatriates. Wake up to the rest of the world. Stop being so provincial. It is really irresponsible.
You're betting on the pantomime horse...
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday March 01 2015, @04:19PM
The fact is, my statements about Chicago and US politics and policing are used to fashion an ideological image of the US, good only for propaganda
Or for warning people about the considerable trend towards tyranny in the US.
(Score: 2) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Sunday March 01 2015, @05:36PM
Obama is a dictator who locks political opponents and dissenters in secret torture prisons without rule of law or access to counsel.
See. It has as much truth and falsehood as statements about "Putin".
The fact is that in the "west" the mainstream discourse about Russia is "Alex Jones" coverage - with a different bogeyman.
You're betting on the pantomime horse...
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday March 01 2015, @08:57PM
Obama is a dictator who locks political opponents and dissenters in secret torture prisons without rule of law or access to counsel.
See. It has as much truth and falsehood as statements about "Putin".
Except that Putin has actually done so. We need to keep actual facts in mind while we play this game.
(Score: 2) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Sunday March 01 2015, @11:24PM
"Putin" did so? I want citations - evidence. Not allegations.
You're betting on the pantomime horse...
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday March 02 2015, @11:15AM
(Score: 3, Informative) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Sunday March 01 2015, @03:14PM
Not that it matters. But I have a good half-dozen reasonably close friends in Moscow. They're not supporters of Putin, by a long shot.
But they are appalled by the propaganda of the papers and television in Europe and the US. Especially the personal equivalence of any thing Russian as an action or quality pf "Putin".
Russians live in nice apartments with good food and decent access to commercial goods. They have largely been successful in having fought-off parasitic oligarchs, who were intent on a predatory partitioning and theft of national assets and resources. Living in Moscow is about like living in Rotterdam. 20 years ago, this was a dream.
Russia is hated by the official establishment because it has more natural and enduring basis for deep ties to the European world than does the US. It has better reason for economic and political cooperation - for any number of practical and historical reasons. Now? The artificially maintained American hegemony, enforced by the International power of the dollar is fading into an anachronism.
Russia is a target for their loathing - and the projection screen for their shadow-perception of their innner with to dominate.
You're betting on the pantomime horse...
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Sunday March 01 2015, @09:19PM
Personally, I think the difference in my mind is blatancy. Usually the U.S. and Europe make at least a token effort to say "we're doing this for your own good, to free you guys from Group X" when they invade somebody these days. Then they try to get a new government set up and leave (in theory...).
Russia, on the other hand, seems to keep just invading people. People scream about American Imperialism, and then Russia goes and annexes Crimea. I thought we had given up on the idea of annexation as an international community about the end of WWI? And before that it was rolling into Georgia with tanks.
Whether couching your actions in sugary wording is *better* than just doing it is arguable, of course. I'm rather tired of the political schtick where one side screams about how horrible the other side is for doing something, while they themselves are doing the exact same thing.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Sunday March 01 2015, @11:23PM
Crimea isn't a SPOT on what was done, partitioning Kosovo from the rest of former Jugoslavia.
You're betting on the pantomime horse...
(Score: 1, Redundant) by tangomargarine on Monday March 02 2015, @01:14AM
Come again?
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday March 03 2015, @02:15AM
Don't mod me Redundant, tell me what point you're trying to make.
From what I hear, the ethnicities were at each others' throats, and they had to send in the U.N. to stop the genocide. Besides not being the U.S.'s fault, I don't see how this is analogous to Crimea, where no genocide was taking place.
If I'm misinformed, please tell me how so.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 01 2015, @06:18AM
> Putin supporters would gain nothing, were it to be their work.
“There is ever less doubt that the state is behind the murder of Boris Nemtsov ... The motive was to sow fear"
-- Vladimir Milov, [livejournal.com] former deputy minister of energy, russian federation 2001-2002
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 01 2015, @07:40AM
You assume that Putin acts in an objective and rational fashion. This is a deeply flawed presumption for any human being.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by mendax on Sunday March 01 2015, @03:17AM
All this shows is that Putin is just another Stalin, just not as friendly. Who needs a gulag when you can just kill the opposition with impunity, without even the semblance of a trial, even a bad one.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Sunday March 01 2015, @03:25AM
You know this because of what, regular and unbiased source of information? How is Putin worse than, say, the rulers supported by USA/UK in the Emirates or Kazakhstan?
How do you know that this was done at Putin's behest? Are you psychic - or you have special "evil" detection?
How many people have been politically assassinated by Shin Bet or Mossad, made so to have others appear culpable? How likely are "we" to behave like "our"closest allies?
Think for yourself. Question everything without primary sources, and question the attribution of primary sources and their affiliations. Always.
You're betting on the pantomime horse...
(Score: 2) by GungnirSniper on Sunday March 01 2015, @03:35AM
There's some racism involved. We do not expect white dictators to be so overtly vicious but we do expect the brown ones to be completely vile as though it is normal and acceptable.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Sunday March 01 2015, @03:47AM
Claims about Russia and Vladmir Putin are regularly passed as if they were folk wisdom, with little regard for evidence or factual basis.
I'm not a fan - but deeply suspect his detractors.
You're betting on the pantomime horse...
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 01 2015, @05:10AM
> I'm not a fan - but deeply suspect his detractors.
Really? Because you seem like a fan.
Your deep suspicion is effectively blind cheerleading for the guy. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 01 2015, @06:36AM
> How is Putin worse than, say, the rulers supported by USA/UK in the Emirates or Kazakhstan?
Ah, the old "but everyone else is doing it too!" defense.
(Score: 2) by nyder on Sunday March 01 2015, @07:32AM
Putin sucks. Putin is the one that has something to do with this story, while the other countries you listed have nothing to do with this story.
You a commie?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 01 2015, @07:45AM
You know this because of what, regular and unbiased source of information?
It sounded like allegation instead of factual claim to me.
How is Putin worse than, say, the rulers supported by USA/UK in the Emirates or Kazakhstan?
Why are you changing the subject? How is that relevant to GP comment?
Question everything without primary sources, and question the attribution of primary sources and their affiliations.
Or perhaps he did and came to the same conclusion. You don't know that.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Arik on Sunday March 01 2015, @08:59AM
Oh you joker! Trying to inject facts and logic into a two minutes hate! [wikipedia.org]
Now repeat after me, Putin is Hitler, Putin is Hitler, Putin is Hitler... come on, once more with feeling!
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 01 2015, @09:51AM
If you dont think Putin and his cronies did it, you are a complete fucking idiot.
And a bunch of your bullshit in this discussion shows you are indeeed an utter blithering moron.
(Score: 2) by TheRaven on Sunday March 01 2015, @10:41AM
How is Putin worse than, say, the rulers supported by USA/UK in the Emirates or Kazakhstan?
Wow, that's a really high bar you're setting him. 'Not much worse than other dictators' is really the level that makes me comfortable when talking about someone in charge of a large nuclear arsenal.
sudo mod me up
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 01 2015, @06:08PM
Don't worry. You should take comfort in the fact that he is personally leading the investigation.
Round up the usual suspects.
(Score: 5, Informative) by tonyPick on Sunday March 01 2015, @10:52AM
Reminds me of my favourite George Orwell quote(s), from his essay on nationalism:
All nationalists have the power of not seeing resemblances between similar sets of facts.
...
Actions are held to be good or bad, not on their own merits, but according to who does them, and there is almost no kind of outrage — torture, the use of hostages, forced labour, mass deportations, imprisonment without trial, forgery, assassination, the bombing of civilians — which does not change its moral colour when it is committed by ‘our’ side.
...
Whether such deeds were reprehensible, or even whether they happened, was always decided according to political predilection.
http://theorwellprize.co.uk/george-orwell/by-orwell/essays-and-other-works/notes-on-nationalism/ [theorwellprize.co.uk]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Hairyfeet on Sunday March 01 2015, @07:30PM
Not to mention as we that are on the net know too damned well is it really doesn't matter what you are "for" or "against" there is some sick individual that will think the world will be better off without you in it. Hell look at the amount of crazies we've had come out of the woodwork in the past few years, you never know what is gonna make some nutbar lose his shit and go ape.
As for what we've been getting from the MSM WRT Putin? Feels a HELL of a lot like the classic "He isn't sucking USA cock therefor EBIL MONSTER!", no different than how Saddam gassing Kurds? Totally cool as long as he blew the USA, he stops being our bitch? EBIL! When Ronnie Raygun was all 1950s anti-commie? Well them death squads and nun rapes in South America just wasn't that big a deal, was it? And let us not forget that we had no less than Rambo singing the praises of those "fearless freedom fighters" that later dropped two buildings in NYC.
So just remember the words of Smedley Butler, "War is a racket".
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Sunday March 01 2015, @09:47PM
I seem to recall responding to this exact post before. Do you really have to copy and paste so much? And then ignore the arguments people bring against you and post the exact same thing the next time the issue comes up.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Monday March 02 2015, @01:56AM
WTF are you babbling about? Does every single time the MSM start cranking out the same propaganda is nobody allowed to comment if they have said anything about it before? Then I guess you might want to STFU since I'm sure I've read several "it must be copypasta" posts on Slash, therefor you are not adding to the discussion, HAND.
if it would make you happy I can post every CIA intervention since 1950, but most tend to like having it condensed. Want some different names? The Shah, Noriega, The UAE right now, the African warlords of the 1980s, would you like some moar examples?
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 2, Disagree) by mendax on Monday March 02 2015, @05:00AM
I don't, but it fits the general pattern dictators have followed for more than one hundred years. They create a system that takes care of dissent. Thus, Putin did not have to give the order to have him killed, unlike Stalin who went through lists of people who were to be purged (meaning given a rump or a drumhead trial and shot), occasionally lined out a name, and then signed the order. Stalin didn't compile the list but it was compiled by the system he created.
I am not crazy about Israel, but given the neighborhood the Israelis live in I must say that they are quite restrained in their actions. Yes, their intelligence services have assassinated people, but the ones I am aware of were pretty bad characters.
Sometimes there are no primary sources to consult. In that case you have to "think for yourself" and take a good guess based upon past experience, history, and what one knows about the psychology of dictatorships.
As bad as Obama is, he is not going to have members of the Republican opposition assassinated, even the Tea Party loonies, nor will the system he is at the head of. And while Richard Nixon was pretty paranoid and authorized some pretty shady things, I suspect the thought of assassination of his political enemies never crossed his mind.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 2) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Monday March 02 2015, @05:58PM
"but given the neighborhood the Israelis
live instole..."You're betting on the pantomime horse...
(Score: 2) by GungnirSniper on Sunday March 01 2015, @03:32AM
Putin is Stalin with worse PR. He does not have The New York Times [wikipedia.org] nor a Presidential advisor [wikipedia.org] to help him. Nor a defeated enemy and American support for expansion [wikipedia.org] into central Europe.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Ethanol-fueled on Sunday March 01 2015, @05:44AM
Yes, and now that America has smashed Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and is now trying to smash Syria despite unpopular support for more foreign wars, as in, "why the fuck are we in there anyway," we are wondering why hard people used to soft opposition are crushing said soft opposition.
Who has the most to gain from keeping America in a permanent state of fear?
The vast majority of the American State Department and Congress should be investigated and tried for treason, then (at best) removed from their positions.
Those batshit insane fucks are going to get the rest of us all killed!
(Score: 2) by frojack on Sunday March 01 2015, @05:47AM
Putin is Stalin with worse PR. He does not have The New York Times to help him.
Really?
Read the NYT piece. They briefly suggest Putin, then poo poo that Idea and start blaming everyone else on the planet. You walk away from that article thinking, Not dear old "ride too small of a horse shirtless to look bigger" Vladimir, how could anyone suspect dear old Mr Putin.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/01/world/europe/killing-of-boris-nemtsov-putin-critic-breeds-fear-in-russia.html [nytimes.com]
Its no wonder we don't get stories about Russian troops in Ukraine. The crazy leftist press has anointed him to the moral high ground.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by frojack on Sunday March 01 2015, @05:39AM
Its amazing the see the struggle and the contortions the mainstream press from all over the world is going to keep from placing the blame at Putin's feet.
Most are spinning every possible yarn to prevent having to point a finger. Thugs, Ukrainians, Oldguard reactionaries, ANY BODY BUT PUTIN.
Yet if this happened in the US, the same people would be blaming the president. (Any president).
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1) by Fauxlosopher on Sunday March 01 2015, @05:52AM
If a political candidate were blatantly murdered in the USA, I imagine it would be front page news with people from all political corners up in arms and demanding justice. Such events within the USA that do come to mind are assassination attempts of sitting politicians (Kennedy, Reagan), and such events did result in pretty severe political reactions.
I don't know what the Russian Joes think of this sort of apparently political murder, though the impression I have from my seat in the USA is that this is viewed as par for the course, and almost to be expected from ex-KGB agents such as Putin and pals. (I'd dearly love to be wrong, and hope that I am.)
(Score: 4, Insightful) by frojack on Sunday March 01 2015, @06:09AM
Opposition candidates have died under questionable circumstances in the US. Not in the main part of the campaign, but before parties are settled on their candidates. It all gets swept quickly under the rug.
Bobby Kennedy is the only case in which there was a big deal made of it that I recall.
Usually, they just indict them for something trumped up and besmirch their name (rick perry).
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Fauxlosopher on Sunday March 01 2015, @07:02AM
I have no doubt that a political candidate has been murdered prior to elections within the USA (and you did name at least one example); I just note from my possibly incorrect perception that it seems exceedingly rare, and/or that the circumstances surrounding the deaths don't blatantly point to murder.
Waxing conspiratorial for a moment, the same pattern seems to hold for troublesome journalists in the USA and Russia. Troublesome Russian journalists [wikipedia.org] seem to typically end up as blatant homicide victims, whereas bothersome American [nydailynews.com] journalists [latimes.com] tend to die in strange-but-plausible circumstances.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Sunday March 01 2015, @01:28PM
Who exactly are you thinking of here? About the most suspicious death of a candidate in recent years I can think of was Paul Wellstone, but he was the incumbent, and there was a very plausible non-conspiracy explanation for what happened.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 01 2015, @06:11PM
The reason a big deal was made out of Bobby Kennedy (besides the fact, of course, that he was a Kennedy), is that it rarely ever happens in the US. In fact, at the Federal level, once you reach the point where you are a viable potential candidate, you get Secret Service protection.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 01 2015, @06:02AM
Its amazing the see the struggle and the contortions the mainstream press from all over the world is going to keep from placing the blame at Putin's feet.
I dunno what mainstream press you read, but that's not at all what I'm seeing:
Putin promptly called Nemtsov’s mother to offer his condolences and threw what seemed like the entire Ministry of Internal Affairs on the case. Yet we can be sure that the investigation will lead precisely nowhere. At most, some sad sap, the supposed trigger-puller, will be hauled in front of a judge, the scapegoat for someone far more powerful. More likely, the case will founder for years amid promises that everyone is working hard, and no one will be brought to justice at all. This has been the pattern for other high-profile killings, like those of the journalist Anna Politkovskaya and the whistle-blower Sergei Magnitsky.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/28/magazine/after-boris-nemtsovs-assassination-there-are-no-longer-any-limits.html [nytimes.com]
None of this is to suggest that the possible reasons for Nemtsov’s murder announced by Russia’s investigative committee are convincing. ... Not a mention of the frequent smearing of opposition politicians by groups close to the Kremlin, or of Nemtsov’s frequent appearance on online lists of “national traitors.” ... As the conflict in Ukraine has intensified, the rhetoric has hardened. Now the opposition are not just corrupt, but “traitors”
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/28/was-boris-nemtsov-killed-russia-opposition-traitors [theguardian.com]
On Friday, Mr. Putin announced through a spokesman that he would personally oversee the investigation of Mr. Nemtsov’s killing. But in a country where the police and judiciary have been perverted to serve only Mr. Putin and his regime, the fruits of that investigation — if any — will be hard to credit.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-dark-day-in-russia/2015/02/27/a2258bf2-bece-11e4-8668-4e7ba8439ca6_story.html [washingtonpost.com]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by frojack on Sunday March 01 2015, @06:29AM
With carefull clipping and trimming you can make it look like anything you want.
When you read the full articles that you linked, it is not so clear.
Try this one from the NYT:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/01/world/europe/killing-of-boris-nemtsov-putin-critic-breeds-fear-in-russia.html [nytimes.com]
After the obligatory spit in Putin's general direction they start blaming everyone and their uncle.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 01 2015, @07:21AM
> When you read the full articles that you linked, it is not so clear.
The fact that the news reports the official line from the Kremlin and then dismisses it is not in any way an endorsement of the official line from the Kremlin.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 01 2015, @04:26AM
i like the sounds it makes when he leaps over stuff
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 02 2015, @08:12AM
Too damn many ruskies and serbs here.