I'm not an international lawyer. Assad's administration is an ugly thing, and revolt fully justified. And Putin's backing reveals much about them both. So this world government stuff is something you rely on for support? Quoted for the laugh - this explains how you are so easily manipulated by American fascist agitprop. As predicted, remember? Back when you were posting videos showing Clinton was an evil psychopath.
What do you mean here with "world government stuff"? International law is not world government, but contract law. As explained many times, what shocked me in the videos was the maniacal look, which appeared to be simply a strange medical condition of her eyes. It was not you who has told me about this. So, don't blame evil Trumpers, blame your incompetence of not telling me about that immediately. Explain, this interests me. Ignoring propaganda claims from one side against the other, and preferring as evidence what the other side openly admits, and is even proud of, makes one vulnerable to agitprop?
I don't know if you noticed, but some of the transcripts are kind; a lot of people in the Trump administration, including Mr. Spicer, can't pronounce the name of the sanctions law; they call it the "Maginsky Act".
So where's your complaint? You see contract law in action, what's not to like? You are talking to Americans, remember. We know how the Hillaryhate agitprop works - we have been surrounded by it, and the fish who buy it, for decades. You don't need to explain anything. Is that what you think you're doing? Let's assume you aren't lying. Then there's nothing much to say. You may as well keep digging. It's at least exercise, and you're never getting out of that hole anyway. It's partly because they don't actually recognize, hold in awareness, that it's a guy's name - they know this in an abstract sense, but the import of this law having been named for a guy who was murdered by the Russians they are colluding with is not in their sandbox. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...-sergei-magnitsky_us_58d1a29be4b0f838c62d9023
I do not make complaints against international law. Internal revolts are not covered by it, but supporting them with weapons, money and own fighters is, so, the US violates international law. Russia, instead, does not. The point being? Given that you have not given me the relevant information which would have helped me to misinterpret her looking like a maniac in the two videos, you seem to have been less informed than you claim. You should have noted that I have not referred to any long Hillary killing lists, but taken two videos. Using videos of the person in question as evidence is reasonable, given that this is less vulnerable to manipulation. In this case, I was "manipulated" by having not known about her strange ability to move them separately without any coordination, which is what probably makes her looking strange even if she does not do this. As usual, a lot of teacher-like talk, instead that the teacher also gives some information what is wrong or right, you don't. So, what is wrong with the strategy to ignore claims from the enemy which can be and are usually propaganda, but to use videos the persons in question filmed and posted themselves or by their supporters on youtube? Your "recommendation" seems to be a much simpler one: The own sources are good, enemy sources are evil.
You complain about its lack of enforcement regarding US employments overseas. And you object to its enforcement in Russian money-laundering and related political corruption of the US. - - - Nobody is more vulnerable to manipulation than those who rely on photographs and videos. They bypass reason completely, and tap innate presumptions directly. And the people who distribute them know exactly what they are doing - they have you figured out. Edited for accuracy. It wasn't just her eyes you knew nothing about - you refused to know anything about the context of those videos. Explicitly. And there's no need to put "manipulated" in quotes. Assuming you are not lying, you got played, suckered, took, had, fooled, manipulated, pick your term - and by the simplest, crudest, most obvious, silliest agitprop about Clinton there is. Consider your helplessness in the face of real pros, if you can't see through something like those videos. Consider well. Because the guys behind the rise of fascism in the US and its takeover of a major political Party are real pros.
That means you will generally deceive yourself by ignoring facts. For example, many Trump supporters decide that scientists (and indeed educated people in general) are "the enemy" and hence they ignore any claims based in math or science. And while a fact-free political position gives you a lot of political freedom, it will also tend to bite you in the ass when reality intrudes upon your carefully constructed fantasy in which claims from the "enemy" (i.e. reality) are ignored. As to whether or not you should believe Youtube . . . well, if you do believe such sources, I have a great deal from the Nigerian Minister of Finance that can make you millions. Guaranteed.
Nonsense. As explained several times, international law is contract law. I object that it is violated by the US, not that there is no enforcement. And I do not object to any enforcement of it in relation to money laundering, because there is none. Of course, and that's why I ignore photo and video proofs almost completely. With the exception of videos where the origin is out of doubt, because distributed in full agreement with the people presented there. That one can do a lot of manipulation by cutting such material out of context I know. Fantasies. I have taken your information into account, what was relevant about the cutted context I have found myself, the information about the eyes I have also found myself, your information was much less relevant. Nice try, we were talking not at all about scientific claims, but videos and typical propaganda claims. I have explained already several times that there are certain types of information which are most probably fake, and fake in a well-defined direction, in particular in a war about own losses (minimized), enemy losses (maximized), war crimes of the enemy. This is information which we cannot verify, are typically lies, thus, not facts at all. Even if they, in some particular instances, may be facts. Who said I believe youtube? Youtube is nothing but a collection, nothing to believe. In the case of the Clinton videos, nobody has claimed that this was not Clinton but some actor playing Clinton or so. In the case of the child head cutting and the cannibalism video, nobody has doubted that these things have happened, and that the guys who have done this were the Al Zinki gang in Aleppo, and some local FSA leader, who has been later even interviewed by Western media. It would be really interesting to discuss questions how to distinguish reliable information from unreliable, but this hardly makes sense in such a confrontative "you are stupid" way.
Exactly. When you see how reputational systems work, you don't like it - the difficulty is in getting you to see it, when your special bad actor the US government is not the one in the wrong. You post them on this forum - endorse them, in public. Such as cannibalism and atrocities against children. For example. Which you accept as informative about Clinton without any context at all; which you accept as informative about the rebels in Syria as a whole, and the funding policies of the US in a war zone. You are defenseless against even the crudest, silliest, most obvious of agitprop from the worst purveyors of slander and lies in the American media. You can't see the simplest stuff, the dumbest tricks - what chance do you, or Trump supporters in general, have against the marketing professionals of the authoritarian corporate American class? The entire Russiagate scandal may turn into a propaganda battle, devolving into a simple contest of power - that is clearly the goal of the Republican Party's backers and funders. It's important to realize that the people who currently defend Trump and Russia and their mutual dealings are signed on to this - they cannot reason, are not open to persuasion by reasoning from evidence.
The actual situation is simply the worst case for a reputational system - a strong guy who does not care about it. This was, in theory, always clear that this is a problem. Yes, but only in cases where the origin is without doubt, and from the side of the perpetrators. First, no. I have never made general claims about all rebels. The main forces are jihadists of various color. But some other rebel forces exist, one can try to negotiate peace or ceasefires with them, which Russia and Syria is doing all the time. Supporting them with weapons and money for fighting is nonetheless a violation of international law, so I can criticize this completely general. I take them as evidence about the funding policy of the US, of course, but also only because the US has not stopped the funding once these things became known. And this is, indeed, something worth to be mentioned. The usual "you are stupid" disposed.
Which is the immediate fate of every reputational system in the absence of other government, the major problem better forms of government are instituted among men to handle, and so forth. Except for the Clinton videos, and the cannibal videos, and so forth, where you had no clue what you were even looking at - but nevertheless drew serious inference from yourself, and presented as evidence to others, and so forth. There's another video fish born every minute. On Assad's terms. You have. But not as defense of Putin's behavior, or Assad's. The relevance here being Trump's Assad-like associations with Putin - not military, obviously, but clearly nothing that bodes well for a future that nobody wants to see resemble modern day Syria only with the US army.
No. Reputational systems work nicely in situations where the number of participants is not too big. Reputational systems with states have their own specifics, especially with democracies because democratic politicians do not care about long term effects. In the Clinton videos, I have very well known that the person presented is Clinton. In the cannibal case, the cannibal was a well-known local FSA commander. In the case of the child head cutters, the video itself was from Al Zinki and taken in Aleppo. In all cases it was easy to find additional information. The inference I take from the videos from Syria and the American reaction is that the US is ready to support even the worst types they can find, and continue to support them even after such cruelties become known. In the case of Clinton, the main conclusions were independent from the videos, the videos have given only an additional hint - which appeared to be misleading. But the general conclusion that Clinton is more dangerous seems valid yet. Don't forget that we have now the order to stop CIA support for the anti-Syrian forces. This is certainly good, and nothing Clinton would have done. Independent of the question if the CIA will ignore this and continue paying them or not. No, I see no reason. They do not need any defense, except against the various propaganda lies. If there are any groups with weapons who fight the government, the Syrian army has any right to fight them, and to invite foreign forces to help them. They do not have to be extremely evil for this, that they fight the government is sufficient.
oh... by any measure Hillary would have been a considerably more formidable opponent for Russia. She would have been considerably more dangerous simply because she is incredibly smart, and well aware of the power that the USA military grants her. There is no doubt that Hillary is or would be more dangerous. The question though is in what way would she be so. Certainly she would be more dangerous to your Russian comrades. Certainly Assad would most likely have had to go hide in a sewer like his Iraqi counterpart Saddam H had to. So I am not sure why you are promoting Hillary in the way you are.. because I agree she would be more dangerous simply because she is more rational and calculating than Trump and not showing any signs of the impulsiveness that Trump shows. Intelligent and experienced .. ...which she is both makes her dangerous.
Well aside for any direct money related conclusion, Russia wanted trump because he is more incline to drop sanctions, because he is and idiot that can be easily maneuvered around, because he has spoken out against nato and causes friction with Europe, Putins goal is that the USA curl up a die internationally so that their can be a mulitpolar world politically where Russia is one of the poles and neighboring states must kiss Russian ass or else.
I would imagine that Hillary , for example would not allow the Saudi sponsored genocide that is occurring in Yemen to continue. She would find a way to bring the Saudi's to their senses. Unfortunately Trump is so busy "people pleasing" that the Saudi's are getting away with it... (of course this opinion is premised on media hype, propaganda and doctored images of starving and cholera infected children displayed on our TV sets every bloody night for over a month now.) I notice Putin and other world leaders are doing nothing towards ending the genocide that is apparently taking place..so perhaps it is just fake news after all...
I disagree. I would prefer one who is intelligent and experienced ruling the US. I reject her because she is a warmonger. Trump has not yet started a war, even if he was strongly pushed to start one (remember the media reaction when he bombed that Syrian airbase, "he became American president now"). While Trump is not predictable, so that maybe a war can start, with Clinton a war was almost certain. And it is certainly not intelligent to remove Assad from power in Syria, if the only guys able to replace him are Al Qaida or ISIS. But this is what you suggest she would do. But this would be stupid, if you have normal aims. The alternative, where pushing Al Qaida or ISIS to power in a former secular country, would be really evil aims. If, say, your aim would be simply to destroy Syria, to kill as many people as possible or so, then, yes, doing what Clinton already had done in Syria would be intelligent. I would prefer a lot some intelligent and adequate guy ruling America, say, Ron Paul. About Yemen: Obama has done nothing, Clinton would do nothing too. What Trump has done, namely allowing the conflict SA/Qatar, has seriously weakened the war party, because before they were fighting Yemen together. If Russia and Iran are doing things to support Yemen is not officially known, but this may be simply because these things are done undercover. ElectricFetus, it is not even clear if Russia really supported Trump. But even if, this has nothing to do with the sanctions. Putin is quite comfortable with them, because he wants industry at home instead of imports.
Living and learning about fascism. Lots of people have found him very easy to predict. Why do you think you are having trouble doing what so many others find easy? But if that is false - as it was - it's maybe not a bad idea. (I think it was in practice a bad idea, but for less addled reasons having to do with the chosen means and ends). So more like Clinton than Trump? Odd. Is that what the propaganda feed you subscribe to told you happened? Trump just "allowed" this? How is "allowing" different from "doing nothing"? And where did you get the notion Obama was "doing nothing"? And isn't "doing nothing" something you favor, in US foreign policy? Yes, it is. (You have to be willfully blind to maintain that level of ignorance - which is why you never see fascism coming down the track). No, he isn't - they curb his familia's foreign dealings, which is where big skimming and laundering happens (including in the US real estate markets). They limit the travel and investment opportunities of his familia. They cramp his style and risk his assets and reduce the expansion of his influence. The Magnitsky Act, in particular - a key issue in Junior's illegal meetings illegally attended by Kushner and Manafort (both of them engaged in business dealings with people closely associated with that lawyer) - is a major nuisance. This has nothing to do with "industry at home", but rather money and mob dealings abroad. And having a cooperative US President and Federal administration in that kind of endeavor is worth whatever it takes.
Putin also has to justify the hardship that the Russian civilian population is enduring, constantly propping up his leadership with propaganda and begging for tolerance from all the Crime syndicates that are suffocating under the sanctions. The above two issues are not small and are no doubt a big part of Putin's day... I think most Russians know pretty much what is going on. A lot of the media witnessed indicates a significant amount of support for Putin "under duress" that is to say that the Russian people generally feel that they have little choice in the matter.
