Russian rights activist Natalya Estemirova murdered

[dead0man]

link

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Mrs Estemirova, a single mother in her early 40s, was the seventh opponent of Ramzan Kadyrov, the Kremlin-backed Chechen president, to have been murdered in the past 10 months.

If only Obama had spent another day apologizing and had been more persuasive in the apology to the Russians for the crimes of Freedom, I'm sure Estemirova would still be alive.

After all, all we have to do is apologize and the world's problems will cease...since, we were/are, of course, the cause of the problem.

[ag]

I am in Moscow right now. There was a little memorial for her at the Pushkin square today. There were more demonstrators than police, but barely. I don't think there was a hundred, definitely not more than 200 people.  Some people, like myself, stopped to watch, most passed by unconcerned. And that's right next to the place were 20 years ago more people would just be milling around at any moment, discussing politics and buying/selling leaflets/semi-legal and illegal papers of all sorts.  Now there was just one woman, who handed out leaflets, listing recent incidents. About 30-40 people (at least) are dying each week, apparently, and nobody cares the . I don't think, really, that demonstrating today would be much more dangerous than in 1989 - then hundreds of thousands of people would show up, today they barely get into hundreds. But right down the block there is a Starbucks and overall, little suggests drabness and greyness of my memories. And there is even International Herald Tribune locally printed, which I bought at a newsstand accross the street from the memorial, and a couple of otherwise oppositionist periodicals legally on sale - back in the time we'd be buying xeroxed copies of illegal news. But then they cared, and now they don't care the .

Russian authorities have subcontracted management of Chechnya to local murderers. They themselves may not really murder in this case (in fact, probably not), but, of course, they aid and abet. But then, they've subcontracted the whole country to all sorts of criminals, and everybody knows it, and everybody thinks that's how it should be, and they think you are an idiot, if you don't believe the entire world operates like this. Poor folk: cynical to the point of naivete.

[ag]

If only Obama had spent another day apologizing and had been more persuasive in the apology to the Russians for the crimes of Freedom, I'm sure Estemirova would still be alive.

After all, all we have to do is apologize and the world's problems will cease...since, we were/are, of course, the cause of the problem.

I am sure if you ate your porridge in nursery school this wouldn't have happened. Since you didn't, and, thus, directly caused this outrage, you have no right to blame others.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

If only Obama had spent another day apologizing and had been more persuasive in the apology to the Russians for the crimes of Freedom, I'm sure Estemirova would still be alive.

After all, all we have to do is apologize and the world's problems will cease...since, we were/are, of course, the cause of the problem.

I am sure if you ate your porridge in nursery school this wouldn't have happened. Since you didn't, and, thus, directly caused this outrage, you have no right to blame others.

not blaming others, I take full responsibility (see text in red)

---

Russian authorities have subcontracted management of Chechnya to local murderers. They themselves may not really murder in this case (in fact, probably not), but, of course, they aid and abet. But then, they've subcontracted the whole country to all sorts of criminals, and everybody knows it, and everybody thinks that's how it should be, and they think you are an idiot, if you don't believe the entire world operates like this. Poor folk: cynical to the point of naivete.

Unfortunately, Obama, is simply naive to the point of naivete.

---

great post ag, really an eyeopener.  shocking stuff.  just goes to show how given enough time and conditioning, the majority will swallow anything

[ag]

No, he is not naive. The fact, that you don't see what he is doing, says more about the depth of your perception. As far as the Russians are concerned, Obama is a much more dangerous adversary than, say, Bush could have ever been - and that's, of course, good in my book.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

No, he is not naive. The fact, that you don't see what he is doing, says more about the depth of your perception. As far as the Russians are concerned, Obama is a much more dangerous adversary than, say, Bush could have ever been - and that's, of course, good in my book.

how so?  you're going to have to explain it to me.  I admit Obama puts America's enemies in an awkward situation as they have to remember not to trip and to step over Obama's prostrate body sprawled before them....Not unlike the pressure of executing an uncontested lay up.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

ag, sincerely, I'm open ears.  I admit to not following enough news about Obama.  What is his strategy and why should the Russian leadership fear him as a dangerous adversary?

[dead0man]

Not to answer for ag, but I'm guessing Obama is more dangerous because he is MUCH more popular worldwide than Bush was.

[ag]

ag, sincerely, I'm open ears.  I admit to not following enough news about Obama.  What is his strategy and why should the Russian leadership fear him as a dangerous adversary?

Hey, remember, I am in Moscow - 8 hours difference w/ NYC

Bush was, really, extremely useful for Putin and the crowd. We all knew, no matter what Russia would do, Moscow is no Belgrade - there is that minor thing called the bomb. Putin knew that as well, and he knew that the US was all bark and no bite. However, Bush was a great public enemy to feed the Russian populace with. Whenever he wasn't seeing Putin's soul, anything Bush said was immediately used by the regime to strengthen its hold on the populace: if you agree w/ Bush you must be an enemy of Russia (this axiom wasn't disputed by 3/4 of the Russians). He was the ideal foil: if he didn't exist, putins would have to invent him. The only impact of the US policy over those years was to weaken Russian opposition: it couldn't afford being seen as friendly to the US, any aid it got (financial or otherwise) was effectively poisoned.

In contrast, Obama is teflon: nothing sticks to him. It is extremely hard to base the national sense of xenophobic hatred on him. Meanwhile, in terms of actual policy the difference between Obama and Bush is invisible even under a microscope. For the moment, at least, being friendly to the west is no longer making one as much of a pariah. For the first time in years US may be able to influence the situation favorably and be, actually, helpful in re-emergence of the civil society.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

ag, sincerely, I'm open ears.  I admit to not following enough news about Obama.  What is his strategy and why should the Russian leadership fear him as a dangerous adversary?

Hey, remember, I am in Moscow - 8 hours difference w/ NYC

Bush was, really, extremely useful for Putin and the crowd. We all knew, no matter what Russia would do, Moscow is no Belgrade - there is that minor thing called the bomb. Putin knew that as well, and he knew that the US was all bark and no bite. However, Bush was a great public enemy to feed the Russian populace with. Whenever he wasn't seeing Putin's soul, anything Bush said was immediately used by the regime to strengthen its hold on the populace: if you agree w/ Bush you must be an enemy of Russia (this axiom wasn't disputed by 3/4 of the Russians). He was the ideal foil: if he didn't exist, putins would have to invent him. The only impact of the US policy over those years was to weaken Russian opposition: it couldn't afford being seen as friendly to the US, any aid it got (financial or otherwise) was effectively poisoned.

In contrast, Obama is teflon: nothing sticks to him. It is extremely hard to base the national sense of xenophobic hatred on him. Meanwhile, in terms of actual policy the difference between Obama and Bush is invisible even under a microscope. For the moment, at least, being friendly to the west is no longer making one as much of a pariah. For the first time in years US may be able to influence the situation favorably and be, actually, helpful in re-emergence of the civil society.

holy smokes!  it really was all Bush's fault, even the death squads running Russian and the killing of the opposition!!!  all Obama has to do is lay down, thus removing the source of power of the Russian death squads, which will then evaporate into the innate civility.

and as far as your microscope...maybe you should step back and view the larger picture of the scene.  There you'll find the guts of the defense budget lying on the floor, including cuts in the moderation of our nuclear deterrent, a reduction of the number of aircraft carriers, cuts to the proven F-22 and F-18 in favor of the unproven and yet to be delivered F-35, and cuts in land-based missile defense systems....basically some of the most critical systems needed to face the current threats.

Sorry, ag, I thought you were going to come back with more than simply saying Bush's policies have been the fire's fuel source.  It's the exact same argument that has been proven false over and over again throughout history.  You might as well argue that door locks spawn burglaries. 

Tyrants existed before the U.S. even became a country, and they continue to exist.  Avoiding being crushed by them requires preparing an effective deterrent.

[John Dibble]

Jmfcst clearly does not understand the value of PR in affecting change in the modern world. Bush at least might have understood it even if he was pretty bad at it - something about winning "hearts and minds".

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Jmfcst clearly does not understand the value of PR in affecting change in the modern world. Bush at least might have understood it even if he was pretty bad at it - something about winning "hearts and minds".

reagan won the hearts and minds by staring down tyrants and speaking the truth, calling a spade a spade, and his words echoed and were memorized by political prisoners behind the iron curtain.

[John Dibble]

Jmfcst clearly does not understand the value of PR in affecting change in the modern world. Bush at least might have understood it even if he was pretty bad at it - something about winning "hearts and minds".

reagan won the hearts and minds by staring down tyrants and speaking the truth, calling a spade a spade, and his words echoed and were memorized by political prisoners behind the iron curtain.

That was twenty years ago. The same rhetoric used then could have an entirely different effect now. Bush's strategy for PR failed - the world hated him, and as noted above having American support could actually harm reform efforts. For all I might fault him about domestically Obama has done wonders for our image abroad, which actually make us supporting reform groups helpful rather than harmful. Is it going to change everything overnight? No, but then again you're the only one who's acting like anybody made such a claim.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Jmfcst clearly does not understand the value of PR in affecting change in the modern world. Bush at least might have understood it even if he was pretty bad at it - something about winning "hearts and minds".

reagan won the hearts and minds by staring down tyrants and speaking the truth, calling a spade a spade, and his words echoed and were memorized by political prisoners behind the iron curtain.

That was twenty years ago. The same rhetoric used then could have an entirely different effect now.

need I remind you that the rhetoric of standing up against tyranny and speaking truth has THOUSANDS OF YEARS of a successful track record.  Whereas, I can't even think of an instance where all this P.C. rhetoric and cuddling of tyrants has produced positive results.  Historically, it has led to disaster.

---

Bush's strategy for PR failed - the world hated him

W couldn't even talk!

[John Dibble]

need I remind you that the rhetoric of standing up against tyranny and speaking truth has THOUSANDS OF YEARS of a successful track record.  Whereas, I can't even think of an instance where all this P.C. rhetoric and cuddling of tyrants has produced positive results.  Historically, it has led to disaster.

Do you think that these people will just magically start acting nice if Obama calls them evil? Besides, nobody is cuddling to tyrants. It's not like we're ignoring Hitler invading Poland or giving a pardon to Osama. Being willing to talk and negotiate does not mean you aren't willing to take action if need be - last time I checked our army is still hunting down and killing terrorists.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

W couldn't even talk!
[/quote]

Lame excuse. Last time I checked he had this "Axis of Evil" thing going which is exactly the kind of rhetoric you're talking about. We all saw how well the rhetoric worked - North Korea gained nukes and Iran didn't stop pursuing them. Big success right there.

[ag]

It's not George Bush's fault, obviously, what's happening in Chechnya. It is fully and unambiguously the fault of the Russians.

Bush's fault is only in that he did a lot to minimize the opportunities for the United States to act and to weaken the US influence in the world - not just in Russia, but in Russia as well. I know, he didn't do it deliberately, but the overall effect of his actions has been to make it very difficult for the US - the country I believe indispensible for international law and order in this world, and which, I hope, will continue to actively interefere to make the world a better place - to influence the events around the globe. The fact is, that he created situation in which US had no good moves. If America supported Russia's opposition it was "these are the US stooges", if it didn't, it was "they don't even care about their stooges, so those must be really worthless".

No, the nasties of this world won't start behaving better, just because Obama says some nice things. But the US will find it much easier to achieve its objectives - no questions about that.

I want the strong and internationally assertive US. Bush made it weak and frequently irrelevant , incapable of facing off, in this case, the Russians. I believe, Obama is making the US stronger and better capable to fight for its interests. All of us will be better off if the US IS stronger - this is not the same thing as SHOWING OFF strength.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

need I remind you that the rhetoric of standing up against tyranny and speaking truth has THOUSANDS OF YEARS of a successful track record.  Whereas, I can't even think of an instance where all this P.C. rhetoric and cuddling of tyrants has produced positive results.  Historically, it has led to disaster.

Do you think that these people will just magically start acting nice if Obama calls them evil?

no, but they're not going to act nice by kissing their butts either. 

---

Besides, nobody is cuddling to tyrants. It's not like we're ignoring Hitler invading Poland or giving a pardon to Osama..

...or selling out the Jews.

---

Being willing to talk and negotiate does not mean you aren't willing to take action if need be

merely entertaining thoughts that the Iranian leadership is going to be persuaded not to build nukes means that one is very naive.

---

last time I checked our army is still hunting down and killing terrorists.

...and getting mired down in Afghanistan, a totally broken society beyond repair

---

Last time I checked he had this "Axis of Evil" thing going which is exactly the kind of rhetoric you're talking about. We all saw how well the rhetoric worked - North Korea gained nukes and Iran didn't stop pursuing them. Big success right there.

that's because Bush did follow through with action.  If you draw a line in the sand, you have to follow through. Otherwise, don’t draw it.  The purpose of rhetoric is state clearly your true intentions and your terms for peace.  That’s what great leaders do – they have resolve to follow through on their convictions and they speak the truth.

[John Dibble]

need I remind you that the rhetoric of standing up against tyranny and speaking truth has THOUSANDS OF YEARS of a successful track record.  Whereas, I can't even think of an instance where all this P.C. rhetoric and cuddling of tyrants has produced positive results.  Historically, it has led to disaster.

Do you think that these people will just magically start acting nice if Obama calls them evil?

no, but they're not going to act nice by kissing their butts either.

For crying out loud, stop with the demagoguery. Nobody is kissing butt. Bettering your image across the world stage allows you to gain more people on your side, which increases your ability to influence others AND your ability to take direct action when needed.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

...or selling out the Jews.[/quote]

Yeah, because we aren't. Last time I checked we're still very much allied with Israel.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

...and getting mired down in Afghanistan, a totally broken society beyond repair[/quote]

So your solution would be to do... what? Leave, let the Taliban take over again, and have tyranny all over again? I thought you didn't like tyranny and we had to stand up to it.

If you don't like getting mired down in fighting evil, then don't bother fighting evil. If you're going to fight evil, you WILL get mired down in fighting it. Period.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So what you're saying is that he should have invaded North Korea and Iran while we were already deployed in two other countries?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

It's not George Bush's fault, obviously, what's happening in Chechnya. It is fully and unambiguously the fault of the Russians.

Bush's fault is only in that he did a lot to minimize the opportunities for the United States to act and to weaken the US influence in the world - not just in Russia, but in Russia as well. I know, he didn't do it deliberately, but the overall effect of his actions has been to make it very difficult for the US - the country I believe indispensible for international law and order in this world, and which, I hope, will continue to actively interefere to make the world a better place - to influence the events around the globe. The fact is, that he created situation in which US had no good moves. If America supported Russia's opposition it was "these are the US stooges", if it didn't, it was "they don't even care about their stooges, so those must be really worthless".

No, the nasties of this world won't start behaving better, just because Obama says some nice things. But the US will find it much easier to achieve its objectives - no questions about that.

I want the strong and internationally assertive US. Bush made it weak and frequently irrelevant , incapable of facing off, in this case, the Russians. I believe, Obama is making the US stronger and better capable to fight for its interests. All of us will be better off if the US IS stronger - this is not the same thing as SHOWING OFF strength.

strange how W, who couldn't even talk, is your and Dibble's excuse for Obama's apology.  We should be apologizing to the world for electing someone who couldn't even speak and went after the wrong target, not using it as an excuse to elect someone who is naive.

Look out across history - there are many examples of unapologetic leaders whose willingness to stand against tyranny changed the world for the better.  But are there positive examples of an Obama-like approach?   Jimmy Carter may have been well liked, but he was foolishly naive.

For 70 years the Liberals told us America should compromise on its principles and make room for communism, instead of confronting it.  Hollywood and the press were full of open communists during the 30's.  WWII changed that.  But, from then, the Liberal rhetorical shifted to appeasement and "better Red than Dead".

Now, the cowardliness of "better Red than Dead" has been recombined with Carter-style naivete.  

---

Bottom line - Throughout history, great leaders are willing to say unpopular things, they care more for truth than blowing sunshine up people's butts.  And sweet talking at the Iranian leadership is only going to allow them more time to build the nukes they want.  Unless Obama is willing to pull the trigger, Iran is on the path to become a nuclear power. And that is fine with many on the left.  But the left is secular and doesn't understand the intentions of the Iranian leadership, even though those intentions are paraded in plain sight.

---

No, the nasties of this world won't start behaving better, just because Obama says some nice things. But the US will find it much easier to achieve its objectives - no questions about that.

How's that?  did Obama's nice talk provide more military support from NATO in Afghanistan?  No.

[John Dibble]

Since you refuse to stop with the demagoguery and insist on straw-manning, I'm exiting this conversation. You've clearly closed your mind and refuse to even give serious consideration to what others think, as usual, so it's not worth wasting time anymore time on you.