MacCruiskeen wrote:compared2what? wrote:
He might be a jerk, toady and fool. And spook, even. But purely evil 100 percent dishonest and manipulative people are pretty rare, even among spooks. He sounds like a person to me.
Well, of course he is a fucking person. What else should he be? A duck?
It was more or less a callback to the part of my previous post in which I'd said:
if he's a human being who's not a total cartoon sociopathic villain
Sorry to have been so opaque. Why a duck?
I think he appears to be acting as an uncle and not a fucker
You think. As if there were any necessary distinction between the two.
It was a
South Park reference, implicitly making 100 percent duck-free distinction just mentioned above.
As if you even know whom or what he is burying. How can you possibly know this?[
I don't. That's why I said "think" and "appears."
You are presuming that it is in fact his nephew, which is very presumptuous indeed. Not least because you also admit the distinct possibility that Uncle Ruslan may well be a spook.
I know of no reason why any distinct professional or personal quality he might have should or would prevent him from having and/or burying a nephew..
And I don't see what nefarious advantage he could possibly have to gain by burying his nephew. Although I'm open to suggestions,
Spook advantages. Money, advancement, money, protection, money, being allowed to stay alive, money, not having the embarrassing photos sent to the press, money, money, money, that kind of thing. Just for example. And (repeat, ad nauseam if necessary): We have no way of knowing whose body he is in fact burying. Maybe even he doesn't 100% know.
RIght. Well. We also have no way of knowing that::
(a) he's being rewarded with money, advancement, money, protection, money, being allowed to stay alive, money, not having the embarrassing photos sent to the press, money, money, money, or that kind of thing; and
(b) for what and by whom with what ends in view, if so.
You are presuming that he is indeed part of the exact, precise wholly speculative, vaguely defined, covert plot to deceive the publiic into believing his putative nephews acted as reported that you presumably have in mind but aren't sharing the details of with the class, including but not limited to what the presumed-not-to-need-stating-or-proving aim or goal of that deceit presumably is, which is very presumptuous indeed. As if you even know that's what it is. How could you possibly know?
And so forth. You're entitled to your opinion. And to making the most persuasive case for it you're able to and/or feel like making. But not to impose it on everybody by fiat to the exclusion of all other conceivable possibilities, thoughts or observations.that they might chance to make, were they wreckless enough to go up against your omniscience, infallibility and wrath.. .
FourthBase wrote:I still want to know who those three adult male friends are.
Quite right. That was my very first thought.
Say no more. Case closed.
The corpse has been in spook custody for a full fortnight. It was then sent to the wrong (!) funeral parlour, due to a "mix-up" (sic). And this after every other outrageous lie, slimy insinuation and entirely unsubstantiated accusation these two brothers have been subjected to by spooks and spook-toadies of all descriptions (nearly all of them speaking under cover of anonymity) since one of them was allegedly shot and battered to death and the other allegedly delivered alive-but-heavily-wounded into spook custody, where he allegedly became incredibly loquacious and freely self-incriminating despite allegedly not being able to speak.
^^Itself alleged, presumed and unsubstantiated.
A remarkable number of people swallow this crap whole. They are all fools or worse.
The same might be said of all people who reach certain conclusions about remote events of which they have zero firsthand knowledge and haven't bestirred themselves to examine outside of the framework of their extant beliefs.
All people, IOW.
FourthBase wrote:
Uncle Tsarni gets zero benefit of the doubt.
Quite right. Who are those three anonymous male adults? Why should anyone presume they are Muslims at all?
There are three main reasons why it's my working assumption. One is that presuming Tamerlan Tsarnaev existed, practiced the Islamic faith and requires burial, about that number of Muslims would be needed. And another is that it's unusual to the point of unprecedented for covert operatives to make a point of publicly parading the three covert colleagues they're unaccountably publicly traveling on covert business with before the eyes of the world in the national press for no apparent reason at all. And yet another is that same goes for uncles burying their nephews according to the prescribed rites of other faiths.
It has the virtue of being a coherent explanation of the reported facts, in short. Because while it's true that I don't know that any of those facts are accurate or if so which ones, they're all I have to go on. As they are for you. For example: How do you know there even are three anonymous adult males? How'd the veracity of that little detail manage to pierce your not-swallowing-crap-you-read-whole defenses? Maybe it's just what someone wants you to think., ,
And now we hear they are going to ask the state to find a (possibly-anonymous) burial plot for that corpse, whosever corpse it actually happens to be! How fucking predictable, and how fucking convenient.
Presuming that you mean "how conveniently that disposes of a corpse they don't want anyone to examine or raise questions about," it's actually so very anomalously, unnecessarily elaborate and pointlessly showy as to defy explanation, considering how little realistic danger there is that a random newspaper reader might otherwise locate, disinter and forensically examine the (presumed) body or reveal its non-existence and how much less-than-nothing-else it achieves.
So presumably you mean something else, I guess. From whom would their doing that conceal what that couldn't have been concealed much more conveniently without recourse to offering spurious and unnecessary explanations to the press and public?
c2w wrote:She didn't strike me as an idiot. But she also actually didn't really strike me as distraught about what happened to her children. Either of them, but especially her living child.
Weren't you one of those who found it
distasteful that anyone should even question Robby Muller's fast-moving and highly lucrative TV performance of TV grief? Americo-centric indeed. (Hat-tip hava.)
I don't even know who Robby Muller is. Do you mean Robbie Parker? If so, no. I found it profoundly offensive and antithetical to all human feeling and the value of life itself that anyone should go out of his/her way to seize on the inconsequential television appearance of someone expressing generically unexceptional sentiments that had no implications for them or anybody else, simply in order to make it the crux of their organized public campaign to deny his reality and hence the reality of twenty-some politically inconvenient deaths. And/or for their personal amusement.
Questions and even harsh words that included some minimal gesture in the direction of the usual accommodations for his humanity would have been fine.****
Such as, for example,qualifying the statement in terms that explicitly made it clear that the objection was to an action perceived as harmful for stated reasons and not to its object personally, by -- let's say -- flatly saying in what manifestly self-evident way a mother who was distraught over her son being shot and in prison wouldn't be helping him or herself by choosing to make public statements that not only gained neither him nor her any advantage whatsoever, but also pointlessly antagonized the very people in whose custody he was and made it more difficult (and probably impossible) for her to travel to his side. And then -- let's say -- adding that she was entitled to flounder, thereby maintaining a record of 100 percent consistency wrt speaking sympathetically of her and her family.
c2w wrote:If it were me, I would have foregone the press blitz that did nothing for him and concentrated on reaching some accommodation with the law on those Lord and Taylor charges I'd skipped out on so that I could fly to be with my jailed son who was facing the death penalty, asap, on the very first available jet plane. You know. Just in case he might be comforted to know someone who loved him was in the vicinity.
That is just an appalling thing to say in more ways than I can list. Shame on you. And you talk so airily as if "the law" (i.e., the United States police, immigration and intelligence apparatus) were a set of
perfectly reasonable chaps
No I don't. I talk as if they weren't a vague construct whose actions meant whatever I wanted them to, de novo, at every moment, rather than the assorted set of thugs, clowns, and well-meaning idiots of various and motley kind their lengthy record of conduct in the public eye has shown them to be. Which doesn't -- incidentally -- by any means preclude the possibility that they're acting in complete, unrelieved bad faith for nefarious purposes.
So please quit waving that false dichotomy in my face. It might go off. And it appears to be preventing you from noticing that I'm not the one who's so dissent-intolerant when it comes to my creed that I not only clobber others for deviating from the party line in the slightest degree but go out of my way to recast what they said in darker terms via rhetorical innuendo, when-did-you-stop-beating-your-wife-style questions selective omission, and even more selective application of my own patented double standard..
the "9/11conspiracy-theorist"-and-possibly-shoplifting Russian Muslim mother of two alleged terrorists could easily or even possibly "reach some accommodation with", while she accuses that very apparatus of having murdered her sons.
Such as throwing in that superfluous "9/11 conspiracy-theorist" thing and using it as cover for there being absolutely no objective reason to suppose such an accommodation wouldn't be as routinely achievable as they usually are, while somehow managing to overlook that the point being made was pre-fucking-cisely that what she said and did was about as counterproductive to the interests of someone whose child has been murdered by the apparatus of the state as it's possible for words and deeds to be. She gained nothing by making those accusations in that venue. And assuming that they're true, there's nothing conceivable to be gained by it. Speaking from the perspective of interest in the aforementioned possible truth and its grave fucking seriousness, I not only don't feel compelled to pretend otherwise but the reverse.
And if you wonder why, that's because I can't imagine anything that would delight powerful evildoers more than to encourage people to think they were cowering in fear over the prospect of more people in that circumstance responding by saying unconfirmable things on the internet that neither moved anybody to any thought or action of any kind that altered the status quo by one iota or were even compatible with doing so, Or, ftm, safe.
It's not enough that she loses her two sons. No, no. She also has to have her style of grieving disparaged,
I didn't fucking do that. Have you no decency?
she has to be criticised for addressing a press conference in which she decries her sons' treatment and demands to see evidence of their guilt, and now she even gets told she should have made more of an effort to placate the combined fucking forces of the multibillion-dollar US spook system so that she can insist (with all the power at her disposal!) on a second fucking autopsy.
I didn't say she should or shouldn't do anything. And I also don't (and didn't) criticize her for the nature of her demands. I observed that if I were in her position, I'd concentrate on pursuing a course of action that provided some benefit to my son, adding that she was entitled to act on her feelings with as much latitude as she needed,*** it not being mine to judge other people for their personal feelings and/or methods of coping with them, even when I know them well.
Despite which, I observe once again that in strictly pragmatic terms, however pleasing it may have been for a small number of people on online discussion boards to have their egos stroked by her words, what she said was so entirely, obviously not helpful but rather harmful to her own and her son's presumed interests that she didn't appear to me to be serious about them. Which is strictly my subjective opinion, for stated reasons, and in no way prevents my heart from going out to her.
It beggars belief.
You gotta have faith.
__________-
Edited for typos, twice.
*** And to specify "or words intended to convet that" once.
__________
**** And once to add that I'd already said exactly that (except more concisely) about Robbie Parker before I had what might be construed as a self-interested motive for making the distinction, at the end of this post right
here. FWIW.
____________
Plus once to add that the reason you didn't see me condemning you for the views of Robbie Parker you expressed
here was that I didn't and don't see anything there that's contemptible; and also to observe that. you yourself feel free to openly state where you personally draw the line wrt speculative scenarios, as you did
here.
Sorry. I'll leave it alone now.
