Russia

Top Putin Critic Gunned Down on Streets of Moscow

A day before a planned opposition rally

|

From The Washington Post:

Boris Nemtsov

Boris Nemtsov, a longtime Russian opposition leader and sharp critic of President Vladi­mir Putin, was shot and killed in central Moscow, the Russian Interior Ministry said early Saturday.

Nemtsov, a central figure in Russian political life since the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991, was one of the leaders of an opposition rally planned for Sunday.

There was no immediate information on who killed the 55-year-old opposition leader, who was gunned down early Saturday, shortly after midnight Moscow time.

At least seven shots were fired at Nemtsov from a passing car, according to Vladimir Markin, a spokesman for the Russian Investigative Committee, the Interfax news agency reported. Investigators rushed to the scene and were questioning witnesses, he said.

He had told a Russian television station previously that he was afraid he would be murdered.

Garry Kasparov, former world chess champion turned human rights activist and fellow critic of Putin (recently interviewed by Nick Gillespie here), tweeted his frustration and anger: "Devastated to hear of the cold-blooded murder of my long-time opposition colleague Boris Nemtsov in central Moscow, quite close to the Kremlin. Shot four times, once for each child he leaves behind. A man of Boris's quality no longer fit Putin's Russia. He always believed Russia could change from the inside and without violence; after 2012 I disagreed with this. When we argued, Boris would tell me I was too hasty, and that in Russia you had to live a long time to see change. Now he'll never see it. Rest In Peace."

Last summer, Cathy Young wrote about Putin's current problems, mentioning Nemtsov as a thorn in Putin's side. Read more here

Advertisement

NEXT: The "censorious thuggery" of Ohio Judge Tim Grendell

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Upper Volta with missiles.

    1. Nice bork, dork.

        1. The hat is evidently called a “Bork”. The guy looks like a dork in it. 🙂

      1. Sweet burqa, derka

    2. Where’s the Austro-Hungarian Empire when you need it.

    3. That’s actually kind of disturbing. The last time the Ottomans got ambitious they made it as far as Vienna and as far north as Poland before being beaten back to their present borders.

  2. Garry Kasparov, former world chess champion turned human rights activist and fellow critic of Putin (recently interviewed by Nick Gillespie here), tweeted his frustration and anger: “Devastated to hear of the cold-blooded murder of my long-time opposition colleague Boris Nemtsov in central Moscow, quite close to the Kremlin.

    Would you say that was “check” and “mate” Garry?
    /too soon?

    1. Game. Set. Match. Point.
      – Michael Scott

  3. So, when is Putin getting a pet cat and a private island to complete his Bond villain ensemble?

  4. Barack Obama is a top Putin critic.

    1. Putin and Obama do have some things in common.

      For instance, Putin wants his enemies to know that he’s the one who ordered executions like this.

      And Obama want Americans to know that he doesn’t give a shit about their opposition to him, too.

      P.S. Fuck the FCC!

    2. Hitler was a top Stalin critic.

      1. And yet they saw eye to eye well enough to make a pact and bring the world crashing down around them.

        They agreed on lots of things, actually.

        Totalitarianism, discrimination against Jews, sending political enemies to death camps, death camps–the list goes on and on.

        When Stalin criticized Hitler, it sure as hell isn’t indicative of anything meaningfully good about Stalin.

        Stalin was a shithead.

        P.S. Fuck the FCC!

  5. Probably gang related.. or drugs.. I guess we can close the book on that case.

  6. You know who else routinely criticized the political system of the Russians?

    1. Tolstoy?

    2. That list would include anyone who’s ever been to or even heard of Russia. Sometimes I think Russia only exist to show the rest of western civilization that their country could always be worse.

    3. Sting – when he asked whether the Russians love their children too.

      1. That song is asinine. The issue is not whether the Russians love their children too, but that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

    4. Was it the FCC?

      Fuck the FCC.

    5. !Russians?

    6. Sarah Palin?

      1. She saw it all go down, after all.

    7. Nikita Khrushchev?

    8. Nobody from the NYT?

      -jcr

    1. Some people do talk in the most extraordinary way

    2. Errr…..November 5th, anyone?

  7. I guess you don’t have to be subtle when you have no checks on your power.

    1. Did Putin allow in more immigrants? Then that is okay according to Reason.

      1. Even Better, he declared an open border with Ukraine. The Ukrainians aren’t too happy about it, but that’s just because they’re a bunch of racist xenophobes.

        1. Indeed, I challenge you to find a decent taco in Donetsk

          1. I hear the pink tacos throughout much of the disputed territories are quite savory….

            1. Red cabbage in a taco? Fuck off, hipster. 😉

              1. I did recently grow a beard out so I guess I merit that

                1. Do you own a fixie?

                  1. Nah, I donated it to a camp for teaching children progressive values through fun activities like urban beekeeping and artisanal mayonnaise after fixies became cool…

                    1. Do you drink PBR?

                    2. So, dildos poking out of the seat are way haram, got it.

                    3. Pedalling pussy is illegal in most of the west also.

                    4. It’s endlessly fascinating that Western progressives and feminists are constantly on the lookout for “sexism” and “Islamophobia,” yet somehow fail to miss the massive amounts of medieval-level sexism in Islam. It just goes to show how they are more anti-Western civilization than they are pro-women.

                  2. I didn’t know there was a separate term for ‘hipster bicycle’.

                    I learned something today.

                    1. When I first learned the term “hipster,” I spent that Saturday and Dunday on YouTube watching every related video. My wife refers to that as a lost weekend. You can save tim by watching a few episodes of Portlandia

                    2. Incidentally, it is slang for a fixed gear bike. Hipsters (kinda) harken back to days of slightly less advanced/simper technology. The rotary dial phone. An actual typewriter to “write” a letter. Vinyl records.

                    3. Yes, that is one of their less charming features.

            2. The gay bicycle has the seat removed.

      2. You’re really bothered by freedom of movement Winston?

      3. I followed your links from the other thread, and I have to admit you’re right. I forgot how retarded some on Reason got concerning Obama’s royal proclamation.

        1. Yeah, some might think the liberty results of decisions are more important than the technicalities of law. Nutty, right?

          1. Principals ahead of principles.

            And does that mean that the NSA, the Cops and Jonathan Gruber deserve a pass? They think their work results in more liberty and don’t care about legal technicalities either.

            1. Absurd, their actions can’t be read as pro-liberty.

              1. Why? They certainly claim to think so. The Cops protect and serve, the NSA protects us from terrorists and Gruber wants people to have healthcare.

                And “politicians should ignore the law if does something that I like” has always worked out well. It’s not like that they will do something you don’t like in the name of greater freedom.

            2. I doubt they believe their work results in more liberty. Likely the polar opposite.

              1. I doubt they believe their work results in more liberty.

                Perhaps. They do claim that we need to sacrifice a bit (all?) of liberty in the name of safety.

                1. No. Not the Franklin quote. They practice sacrificing liberty to enhance their power.

                  1. They practice sacrificing liberty to enhance their power.

                    And libertarians hope that enhancing Obama’s power will give us more liberty, at least in one case.

                    1. Not sure there are any libertarians supporting any enhancement of any governmental power.

                    2. Not sure there are any libertarians supporting any enhancement of any governmental power.

                      Erm…Shikha Dalmia?

                      And libertarians are revisionist with regards to marriage and drugs…

                    3. And what specifically is the position in questin?

                    4. And what specifically is the position in questin?

                      Obama Immigration order. And supports funding the DHS.

                    5. Then Shikha ain’t libertarian.

                2. I mean the argument is that liberty is no good if some terrorist kills you so we need to the NSA to protect us.

                  And what about “freedom from want”? Isn’t that being unable to afford healthcare a lack of freedom in the eyes of the progs? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R….._of_living

                  1. Strawman. More liberty does not equal boogeyman getting you shortly thereafter.

                    Freedom included the freedom to fail and the freedom to not be able to afford things you want or need. Having been homeless once for a five month stretch I know what this is like. And I support freeedom.

                    1. No my point is that to these politicians freedom does mean more government to save us from terrorists and not having money. And encouraging them by arguing that “ignoring the law is okay if it leads to more liberty” is a bad idea. That is how dictatorships result afterall.

                    2. Bullshit. More government = more government. Few of them spin it as more freedom and none of th believe it.

                      Dictatorships result when the govt ignores the law and/or passes immoral laws. People ignoring immoral laws trends towards liberty.

                    3. Dictatorships result when the govt ignores the law and/or passes immoral laws. People ignoring immoral laws trends towards liberty.

                      And they like to claim that the laws they ignore are immoral, until they consolidate power at least

                    4. Using MRAPS and pepper spray to supress a crowd protesting peacefully is not equivalent to me smoking pot at my house.

                    5. Using MRAPS and pepper spray to supress a crowd protesting peacefully is not equivalent to me smoking pot at my house.

                      And why do want the politicians to pick and choose what laws to follow when they will want to enforce the former?

                    6. Please post in English.

                    7. Elsewhere in this thread you stated you think there is little stopping the US from totalitarianism. If (when?) that does happen the dictator will claim that he (sexist I know) did it for the greater good and the constitution was a straitjacket and mostly ignored by his opponents anyway.

                    8. Putin with nuclear weapons and 100 million domestic gun owners? Little?

                      And the rest of your argument equivocates individuals igorning immoral laws with dictators ignoring moral ones?

                    9. Putin with nuclear weapons and 100 million domestic gun owners? Little?

                      You think that politicians are afraid of Russian-led regime change if the US becomes totalitarian?

                      And the rest of your argument equivocates individuals igorning immoral laws with dictators ignoring moral ones?

                      Erm you’re the one who equivocated politicians ignoring laws to people ignoring immoral laws?

                    10. I said they were not equal.

                      The US becoming totalitarian wouldn’t be a press release. It would be action. Such as boots on the ground in Ukraine. And that might elicit a nuclear response from Moscow. I think politicians are afraid of getting into a war with a nuclear power that is insane enough to use them.

                    11. I think politicians are afraid of getting into a war with a nuclear power that is insane enough to use them.

                      There is no way on Earth that Russia is insane enough to get into a nuclear war with us.

                    12. I believe Putin is. Castro told McNamara that had the US invaded Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis he would have used them (on his own soil) against the US troops.

                    13. “Please post in English”

                      Xenophobe!

                    14. I said please. And more foreigners speak English than do Americana.

                    15. “ignoring the law is okay if it leads to more liberty”

                      And this is exactly right. If bad laws aren’t enforced then it’s as if the bad laws don’t exist.

                  2. what are you talking about you nutjob?
                    not deporting people is not an “increase in power”.
                    no one has ever argued that the NSA’s actions are “pro-liberty”.
                    Trying to paint mass forced government immigration as a grand experiment in human freedom is depraved and nonsensical.

                    1. not deporting people is not an “increase in power”.

                      If someone had no authority over deportations before then giving them that power is an “increase in power”.

                      no one has ever argued that the NSA’s actions are “pro-liberty”.

                      I’m sure I can find plenty of “constitution is not a suicide pact” people.

                      Trying to paint mass forced government immigration as a grand experiment in human freedom is depraved and nonsensical.

                      ?

                    2. The President has the power to deport (enforce the law). It isn’t giving him more power. And that is more of a socon neocon argument anyways. The current issues with 30 million people here illegally is that they use resources from a system to which they are not contributing to fully and that they will be casting votes in elections (that matter) resulting in more pandering (which is funded by others via coercion). A libertarian argument would be end govt welfare and most of the “drain on the system” folks will head off to greener pastures. The productive people will stay. Win-win-win. As for the elections, very limited govt can only so very limited no matter who is in office.

                      Per #2, so what? NAMBLA supports shit I don’t agree with either.

                    3. The current issues with 30 million people here illegally is that they use resources from a system to which they are not contributing to fully

                      Define “fully”. They are living here, paying bills, renting apartments, buying stuff. What else should they contribute?

                      And that is more of a socon neocon argument anyways.

                      Yes, your arguments are more like those of a socon or neocon.

                    4. I think you guys might be missing the point. I don’t know his issue on immigration, but I’m one-hundred percent for better immigration.

                      That said, while I’m not entirely sure on the legal issues regarding the details of the immigration thing, it is also true that POLITICIANS in power to UPHOLD THE LAWS AND LAWS CONSTITUTIONALLY UPHELD ignoring certain laws because they don’t like them is definitely dangerous. This is also exactly what would happen if a dictatorship was ever to arise in the USA.

                      My interpretation is simple, immigration reform should be done properly. If we’re a society based on laws, then those laws legally passed by congress shouldn’t be rewritten by the executive. If it is illegal, then the other check on the system is the judicial system. If it is illegal, and therefore open to be ignored, then it should be struck down by the courts. You can disagree with certain positions without believing that we should throw out our system of government about the issue.

                      Finally, there is a massive difference between ELECTED OFFICIALS who are SWORN INTO OFFICE to UPHOLD LAWS CONSTITUTIONALLY PASSED ignoring laws, and regular citizens who have no contract of word with the government.

                    5. Obama ran for President supposedly to uphold the right laws, get ones he believed right passed, and repeal (legally) the ones he didn’t like. This is essentially the role of “Party Leader” that the President is. He has a moral contract with the American people to follow the rules and the laws he is upholding. He is not questioning the constitutionality of the law, he is questioning the morality. Get it repealed.

                      But, as a citizen, I have no contract with the government and only should be forced to follow moral laws I enter into a contract to be governed in, such as road laws when I agree to use government roads (not to turn this into an anarcho-capitalist thing or any of that).

                      THAT is the difference between an elected official not following unjust laws and regular citizens not following unjust laws. If the law is unconstitutional, it should be challenged and the Executive has the right not to uphold it. If the law is unjust, but Constitutional, change the policy the right way.

                      The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

                    6. They are not paying into all of the funding mechanisms use to pay for the goods and services they are using. The libertarian solution is to end government provided welfare, healthcare, housing, transportation, and education. I agree with this. How neocon of me.

    2. I know the ammo ban sucks, right?!?

    3. If you like your opposition leader, you can keep your opposition leader.

      1. Just requires more refrigeration.

    4. I thought this was subtle…on the Russian scale. Russian unsubtle would be an ice axe to the head in Mexico.

      1. Where does polonium poisoning on the London tube rank?

        1. Somewhere around “holy fucking shit!”

        2. I think the FSB (KGB) apartment bombings that led to the Second Chechnan War ranks higher.

          1. I asked because the polonium poisoning seemed the most subtle, enough plausible deniability there. More subtle than just gunning down the fucking opposition leader in the streets out front your office.

            1. I admit it scared the shit out of me the first time I heard about it.

              But I also thought, “The temerity to false flag to start a war.” That is absolutely going all in with the chips.

  8. Deleted scene from the movie “Frozen”

    If you have kids, make sure to show it to them.

    1. OK, that’s pretty fantastic.

      Also, I heard something in your room. I don’t know what it is but it’s weird and pissed off, whatever it is. And it’s not one of your kids, despite the weird and pissed off part.

    2. I am curious to see the sort of human beings your children grow into. And by curious I mean frightened.

      Though if the world goes Mad Max in my older years when I’m unable to fully navigate the collapse, I will seek out their protection.

      1. ^^^ +10**327 ^^^

    3. For some reason, even though I have never seen Frozen or Twilight, “Still a better love story than Twilight” came to mind.

  9. “He always believed Russia could change from the inside and without violence”

    I admit I giggled a bit on that one. Non-violent resistance only works if your opposition gives a shit.

    1. I have a vague memory of Ghandi saying he went the non-violent route only because the British had a conscience. If they didn’t, he would have taken up the rifle. Unfortunately, I spent some on Google and can’t find a source for it. It might be bullshit.

      1. I think it is, especially because Gandhi also counseled the British to use non-violent resistance against the Nazis, whom I think it should have been pretty clear to all and sundry had no conscience at all when it came to the business of killing.

        1. Whoa. I didn’t know he did that. Wow.

      2. Harry Turtledove wrote an alt-history short story (“The Last Article”) in which the Nazis conquered India, Gandhi tried non-violent resistance, and the Nazis promptly shot him. He realises, rather too late, that non-violence only works against someone who isn’t, you know, a complete shit. (“I made the mistake of thinking I faced a regime ruled by conscience, one that could at the very end be shamed into doing that which is right.”)

        1. Love that story. It was in Purnelle’s “There Will Be War” series. Not sure if Ghandi was really that dumb.

          1. Gandhi absolutely was that dumb. He told the British they should surrender to Hitler because violence was never the answer.

    1. Islamic State militants ransacked Mosul’s central museum, destroying priceless artefacts that are thousands of years old, in the group’s latest rampage which threatens to upend millennia of coexistence in the Middle East.

      The destruction of statues and artefacts that date from the Assyrian and Akkadian empires, revealed in a video published by Isis on Thursday, drew ire from the international community and condemnation by activists and minorities that have been attacked by the group.

      1. The destruction of statues and artefacts that date from the Assyrian and Akkadian empires,

        Assyria and pre-Islamic mideast was a fappening happening place:

        However, toplessness was the norm in earlier cultures within Arabia, Egypt, Assyria and Mesopotamia.

    2. ISIS is the closest thing to a cartoon villain I’ve seen in my life. It’s like they are taking tips from the Joker.

      1. True, they even dress like Cobra Commander.

        1. And knowing is half the battle.

    3. It was posted the other day. My response was that they’re just continuing where Mohammed left off. Pagans were treated like utter shit compared to other “people of the Book” (Jews/Christian/those who shared Islam’s Abrahamic heritage) whose culture were at least left intact after paying the jizya tax.

      1. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.

        1. Let’s not bring the Bhagavad Gita into this.

        2. Since the Amelkites aren’t around it doesn’t concern me much. The bible has descriptive violence, the Quran has prescriptive.

          1. So genocide is no big deal, as long as it’s successful?

            1. I am hugely concerned about the fictional death of the Amelkites, and I hold all Christians responsible.

              1. Obvious sarcasm, but you realize that is essentially the line you and the rest of the Koran-baiters are taking with Muslims?

                1. No, read the original comment. Descriptive vs prescriptive violence. Nobody would give a shit if the Koran said somebody killed someone else once. They give a shit that it says to kill people today, and people do it.

                  The stories in the Bible that God smited some group 4,000 years ago who no longer exists isn’t very relevant. If the Amelkites were still around and Christians were hunting them it would be an issue. The Jews on the other hand, still around. Along with all non-muslims who Mohommad had a problem with.

                  1. Nobody would give a shit if the Koran said somebody killed someone else once.

                    That’s not what the Bible says. Yahweh COMMANDS the Jews to exterminate the Amalekites down to the last woman, child, infant, and livestock. The commandment is still recited in certain Jewish ceremonies today.

                    It’s not merely a story, it’s a commandment.

                    1. And they are gone, so why should I give a shit. If Yaweh writes a new book, and it has a new hit list I will be concerned.

                  2. Not to mention all the other Muslims they still have trouble with now.

            2. It’s genocide to defend yourself against violent aggressors?

              1. put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.

                I will admit that children, infants, and donkeys can be aggressive.

                1. Much better to let the children and infants starve to death after you kill off the violently aggressive parents.

                  1. Just out of curiosity, KA, what is your opinion of the bombing of Dresden and the use of atomic bombs against Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

                  2. I seriously doubt every Amalekite adult was violently aggressive, especially the women, and especially at the time the genocide occurred (generations after the Amalekite raids).

                    So you’d be OK with the Allies slaughtering wives, children, infants of Nazi officers and govt officials at the conclusion of WW2, just because it was a pain in the ass to feed them.

                    1. I seriously doubt every Amalekite adult was violently aggressive, especially the women, and especially at the time the genocide occurred (generations after the Amalekite raids).

                      Your personal thought processes are irrelevant to reality.

                      So you’d be OK with the Allies slaughtering wives, children, infants of Nazi officers and govt officials at the conclusion of WW2, just because it was a pain in the ass to feed them.

                      Not “a pain in the ass”; try “utterly impossible”. Also the allies did slaughter wives, children, and infants, both in Germany and Japan. I suppose they had a good reason to do so…

                      Your ignorance of both history and Scripture is impressive; I bet it’s a product of your living under a bridge your whole life.

            3. Well first i has to actually happen to be a big deal, and like some other stuff in the old testament, that’s likely more legendary than historical.

              Secondly, massacring other tribes in the brutish hell of the Ancient world where everyone was perpetually on the brink of starvation and in intense competition for scarce resources including arable land isn’t quite the same as massacring other peoples in the twenty first century for sport.

              1. Again, you’re trying to have it both ways.

                You’re holding Muslims to the letter of the Koran, while letting Jews (and Christians) off the hook when their own scriptures are much more explicit about Yahweh ordering the commission of horrific crimes.

                The Koran wasn’t written in the 21st century btw, so not sure what you’re talking about there. If you’re talking about the hideous acts of ISIS, well, let’s hold ISIS responsible for those, not Muslims in general.

                If you think that massacring people in modern times is automatically the fault of everyone who follows the religion vaguely related to that of the massacrers…. well you’ve got a much more massive bone to pick with Christians for the 20th century.

                1. People are held to their actions. Current Muslims are killing and maiming in the name of their god. Current Xtians are doing very little of this.

                  It’s really that easy.

                  1. Current Muslims are killing and maiming in the name of their god.

                    Over 99.9% are not.

                    That is the same bullshit logic that gun grabbers use to implicate all gun owners in mass shootings.

                    1. Over 99.9% are not, but those who are should be pursued. And those who assist the ones who are committing atrocities should be treated the same.

                    2. No it isn’t, it would be the same if we named an object with no agency and said it causes violence. Like turbans cause violence. But that’s nonsense. Ideology obviously can cause violence. What people believe is not equivalent to inanimate objects.

                      Nazi ideology supported violence, and consequently Nazi’s were violent. Very few actively killed, but nevertheless the ideology we recognize was violent.

                    3. Over 99.9% are not.

                      Bullshit. Hundreds of millions of Muslims globally actively support either a) terrorism or b) authoritarian, oppressive governments that imprison or kill people for insulting their faith.

                      There was just a poll released where 11% of BRITISH Muslims said that any magazine that insults the prophet should be attacked and in which 27% said they had ‘some sympathy’ for the Charlie Hebdo shooters.

                      You can say ‘well, 89% didn’t say such magazines should be attacked!’ but when 1 out of every 10 are in favor of such attacks, it puts an entire society in danger.

                      There is no other religion in the west that would poll at those kinds of numbers. And Western Muslims tend to be relatively westernized because of contact with Western culture, so they’re vastly more moderate than Muslims who are back in the Middle East or North Africa.

                      If 11% of British Muslims think insulting the prophet should result in someone attacking you, what do you imagine the numbers look like in Pakistan?

                      99.9% opposed to violence, my ass. That’s a statement simply not backed up by any of the evidence.

                2. I’m not having it anyway but reality. You want to say both religions are immoral because they describe killing. But that’s irrelevant, we’re not asking about what’s more moral. If you don’t believe the in God then a description of God smiting people is no more concerning then descriptions of dinosaurs eating people in Jurassic park.

                  One book tells its followers to kill for God. And as a result they do this today more often then followers of other religions who’s book frankly doesn’t say that. Now you may think God killing someone in the bible thousands of years ago is just as morally wrong as a muslim killing someone today, but it most definitely isn’t a relevant concern today. What is actually going on now is the concern.

                  You can argue the morality of the religion somewhere else I’m sure, but that’s not what’s being discussed here.

                  1. One book tells its followers to kill for God. And as a result they do this today more often then followers of other religions who’s book frankly doesn’t say that.

                    Yes, the other religions’ holy books do say that — even more extremely than the Koran does. Your attempts to explain that fact away does not change it.

                    99.9% of Muslims are not killing for God. Deal.

                    1. No, it doesn’t, not in the bible. You’re just spewing horseshit. Old Testament- descriptions of killing. New Testament- turn the other cheek. Unless you go pull some Old Testament passage and say “this passage means kill these people today.” according to my own interpretation. But then you’ve made some interpretation that nobody believes.

                      I can find violent passages in the Quran and get hundreds of thousands to agree it prescribes violence. It is a correct and mainstream definition. That is what Al Qaeda did, and many other violent groups with millions of members. There is simply no equivalency, no matter how much you spin.

                    2. The passage from Exodus that BCE quoted above is a command from God to commit genocide.

                    3. Then why aren’t Christians killing the Amelkites? You realize the timeline wasn’t God printed Genesis, gave it to the Jews, then they killed the Amelkites, then he wrote the next verse. The passage is describing what happenned in the past. Even if you thought it applied today, the Amelkites are gone, and they have been gone since the first bible was put together. So as far back as we know, the passage described something that happened, it didn’t tell anyone to go kill now.

                3. It’s the difference between Gibbon’s Decline and Fall, and the Code of Hammurabi.

                  One is a description of how people lived in the ancient world, from which we are expected to learn to live better lives in our own time. The other is a direct set of instructions.

                  When Gibbons recounts Augustus’s marital reforms, that does not mean the reader must immediately run out, get married, and start working on a 10 child family. When the Code directs the reader to marry his brother’s widow, it means exactly that.

          2. How is that passage not prescriptive violence?

            1. Because it came out after the event, and talks about people who no longer exist. Like if a book was released today that said God said to Brutus “Go kill Caesar.” Caesar isn’t exactly in danger, and it’s not a commandment for Christians to kill anybody going forward.

              1. Thank you, Mr. Anderson. Kahlua Akbar’s equivalence of the Bible and the Koran is PC bullshit, for a number of reasons beyond the descriptive/prescriptive issue.

                Jesus and Mohammad were very different people, the later far more violent.

                The most violent parts of the Bible are Old Testament, largely superseded by the New. The Koran is the opposite: more violence later.

                The Bible was written by dozens of people, “inspired” by God, in a handful of languages (little spoken today). There were big arguments about what to include. There’s lots of room for interpretation. The Koran was dictated by Allah and said to be a perfect copy of the one in Heaven, in the language Allah speaks, and to really be a Muslim you have to speak it, too. Not much room for interpretation!

                1. Many many Christian groups would not exactly agree with your assertion that the Bible is merely “inspired” by God and that there is a lot of room for interpretation.

                  Regardless of what the New Testament says, the God of the OT is still the same God as the NT, and the NT is irrelevant to Jews. There’s a 2,000 year history of violence by Christianity, so it’s not as if the NT coming out suddenly convinced everyone to embrace peace.

                  Lastly, there is plenty of disagreement regarding the meaning of verses in Islam. There wouldn’t be massive splits in the religion otherwise.

                  1. What Christian believes the Bible was dictated by God, who has a copy in Heaven? How many Christians read the Bible in the original languages? Those factors alone make the Koran more rigid.

                    Of course there are some interpretive differences. There always are. But Islam is inherently less flexible for the reasons I listed.

                2. Oh, just a translation problem. No wonder the English version seemed like such a bunch of deranged nonsense from an illiterate nut case that spent too much time out in the desert by himself.

        3. There are two parts to the Bible – the Old Testament and the New Testament.

          Islam is largely based on the OT, as retold by Mohammed.

          OTOH, Christianity is largely based on the NT, which largely rejects the God of the OT in favor of a kindler, gentler, less murderously psychotic god.

          1. Islam is based on what Mohommad said really. It’s just that he was a warrior and pedophile and basically said things that justified his lifestyle.

            1. As opposed to the people who wrote the Torah, which Christians and Jews hold sacrosanct.

              1. I grew up a Christian amomg Christians. I have never ever heard of a Christian hold the Torah up as anything but a book for Jews.

                1. So all those Christians arguing against evolution and arguing that the earth is 5000 years old were really Jews in disguise. As well as Christians citing the Ten Commandments, etc.

                2. The OT is the sort of the introduction for Christians. It sets the stage for the real message.

                  1. The real message:

                    (Matthew 5:17-19)

                    Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

                  2. And even if it were legit to ignore the OT w/r/t Christianity, that doesn’t absolve the Jews.

            2. Islam is based on what Mohommad said AND what he did (documented in the Haddith).

              Since he was a rage-filled murdering, raping, slaving criminal who used terror to spread his crazy cult – that set a pretty bad example.

          2. OTOH, Christianity is largely based on the NT, which largely rejects the God of the OT in favor of a kindler, gentler, less murderously psychotic god.

            That in itself is questionable, but even if we assume that’s true, it’s plainly obvious from history that Christians didn’t get the memo on murderousness being passe.

            1. How is that obvious? Is there evidence that some random sample of the population was less murderous?

              1. Islam: violent automatically because of stuff in the Koran.

                Christianity: we have to do statistical sampling and two-way ANOVA to figure out the Pearson correlation coefficient on this one. Never mind the Bible over there, it’s irrelevant.

                1. There’s two lines of evidence the Quran is violent. 1. The words explicitly support violence.
                  2. The followers are more violent on average. Obviously because of 1.

                  Those are not the same for Christianity. Jesus was a pacifist by any definition. That leaves you with option 2. Are Christians for some reason not in the Bibke more violent than just your average human. I don’t know, it doesn’t seem like it.

                  1. 2. The followers are more violent on average.

                    Bzzzt.

                    1. So you’re going to say that isn’t true. Good argument.

                    2. If you have evidence otherwise, I’d love to see it.

                    3. 2. The followers are more violent on average.

                      Bzzzt.

                      I somehow missed the tens of thousands of Christian terror attacks of the last 50 years.

                      The proof is in the pudding. People of all sorts convert to Christianity or Islam all the time, and yet how often do we hear about the new convert to Christianity killing people? Even prisoners. “He converted to Christianity in prison, and now he’s beheading people!” Can’t say I’ve ever heard that one.

                      But ignore all the statistics and cling to the comforting fantasy that all religions are equal in all ways.

                  2. 3. The actually biographies of Jesus vs. Mohammed. Which would you want to live next to – the ultimate man of peace or a violent pedophile?

                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwluC6GoKLE

                    1. Worse than that, the one guy says you can’t drink! The other guy makes the stuff out of water and gives it to you for free, along with unlimited bread and fish.

                2. Well, Christians were violent in violent times when people were all poor and had good reason to envy each other’s land (the threat of starvation); their violence was also usually due to issues not particularly theological. The thirty years war was really a dynastic struggle between Habsburgs and Bourbons; even the crusades we largely an excuse for land grabs in Turkey and Syria, as well as a way to get unruly mercenary armies previously used to fight the vikings away from Europe with the promise of free land elsewhere.

                  Now, we’re in the 21st century, where few people, even in the middle east, are necessarily at risk of starvation, and violence doesn’t even seem to have a profitable angle. And yet…

                  Alway amusing how some people try to use things that happened centuries ago in barbaric times to rationalize what Islamists do here in the 21st century. Hell, I guess all those Copts who got murdered were getting what they had coming, revenge for the crusades, right Kahlua?

                  1. I’m not rationalizing what anyone’s doing in the 21st century. ISIS needs to be wiped off the face of the planet as far as I’m concerned.

                    What I do refuse to accept is people claiming that Islam itself is violent because of a few scriptural passages. On a supposedly libertarian site of all places.

                    1. Take it up with the Muslim brotherhood, ISIS, Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, the Taliban, etc. all people who just don’t understand the Quran as well as you do. Do you think they’re too stupid to understand their own religion? Are they lying about what they think it says?

                    2. Take it up with the Muslim brotherhood, ISIS, Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, the Taliban, etc. all people who just don’t understand the Quran as well as you do.

                      You could also take it up with the totally ‘moderate’ Muslim nation of Indonesia, where they’ll throw you in jail if you insult the prophet.

                      The best story I’ve heard to illustrate how moderate Indonesia is was the time that a mob of 1000 Muslims burned a bunch of churches because a man had just been sentenced to 5 years in jail for publishing anti-Islamic pamphlets and they thought the sentence was too lenient.

                      And this is the country they point to when trying to show you an example of a moderate Muslim country. Okay.

                    3. Good point.

                    4. I don’t think you want to get into a namedropping contest of Jewish and Christian groups who practiced violence for their faith.

                      Pretty sure the Inquisition knew Christianity better than you, for example.

                    5. The inquisition killed 3000ish people over 350 years, even if we assigned all of those deaths to Christianity, it comes out to about the same as 9/11 in one day.

                    6. The inquisition killed 3000ish people over 350 years, even if we assigned all of those deaths to Christianity, it comes out to about the same as 9/11 in one day.

                      And the Crusades were an incredibly minor footnote in the history of the Middle East which are only discussed so frequently because of later conflicts between Christians and Muslims. Muslims spent more time during the Crusades fighting each other than the Christians, and towards the end of the Crusades, Mongol invasion of the Middle East was a vastly greater threat than Christian invasion had ever been.

                      Most of the examples used to explain how evil Christianity allegedly was are blown wildly out of proportion compared to how bad the actions actually were.

                    7. It’s not “because of a few scriptural passages”, you evasive weasel: it’s the fact that these self-made, sub-animal Islamic savages are running around cutting people’s heads off because their stupid mystic faith tells them to (explicitly, via the Koran, over and over again).

                      And yes, Islam is a religion of violence and barbarism. It is these so-called “extremists” who are following what the book actually says–and any non-violent Muslims you can point to are pragmatic compromisers.

                    8. And yes, Islam is a religion of violence and barbarism. It is these so-called “extremists” who are following what the book actually says–and any non-violent Muslims you can point to are pragmatic compromisers.

                      Which applies equally to Judaism and Christianity.

                      Show me a Jew or Christian who thinks genocide is always wrong and I’ll show you an apostate.

                    9. Tulpa, you are a fucking slimy asshole. Hope you die in a fire.

                    10. Which applies equally to Judaism and Christianity.

                      Equally, huh?

                      43″You have heard that it was said, YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR and hate your enemy.’ 44″But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on [the] evil and [the] good, and sends rain on [the] righteous and [the] unrighteous. 46″For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47″If you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing [than others]? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? 48″Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

                    11. But it’s not “a few scriptural passages.” There are explicit commands to advance Islam by violence and lies if needed, to kill apostates and blasphemers, and to take over the world and make all non-Muslims into second-class citizens or corpses.

                      ISIS and Al Qaeda and the Taliban and Boko Haram and Shiite Twelvers and Wahhabis are all only slightly different versions of “pure” Islam. What are the current Christian equivalents? How much bombing and oppression and head-chopping are Southern Baptists doing? Catholics? Unitarians?

                    12. How much bombing and oppression and head-chopping are Southern Baptists doing? Catholics? Unitarians?

                      Apostates, all.

                      ~Kahlua Akbar

        4. Daughter Babylon, doomed to destruction,
          happy is the one who repays you
          according to what you have done to us.
          Happy is the one who seizes your infants
          and dashes them against the rocks.

          – Psalm 137:8-9

          1. Real tragedy about those 20-some Muslims who were murdered by the CSIS last week. Oh wait.

            1. Show me where I was defending ISIS.

              1. You are a member of ISIS?

              2. Show me where I was defending ISIS.

                You are, in effect, excusing them, by “putting them in perspective” with moral equivalence and the tu quoque fallacy. You are stretching for ways to prove that Christianity and Islam are precisely the same when it comes to violence, when the real-world evidence says otherwise.

                Different founders.
                Different scriptures.
                Different cultures.
                Different histories.
                Different levels of violence.

                It’s all inarguable and easy to see if you can drop some of your assumptions about “equality.”

    4. The Bamiyan Buddhas were not available for comment.

      -jcr

  10. Snowden is earning his keep.

  11. Putin wasn’t able to ban 5.56 soon enough to save his life.

  12. Blocks away from the Kremlin? Reason should take note. This is how you draw a cartoon WITHOUT labels.

  13. Why do we care?

    1. Why do you care that someone else cares?

    2. What he does on the streets of Moscow might telegraph something about his intentions elsewhere?

    3. What difference does it make (that Hillary botched a weapons deal that resulted in four Americans being killed on September 11)?

  14. Putin was obviously framed since Putin being behind it would make the neocons right! /Richman, Rockwell, Raimondo

    1. It’s possible to despise Putin and US foreign policy.

      1. Unpossible!

        1. Richman, Rocwkell and Raimondo have a sad.

          1. I’m not necessarily defending them, but perhaps they realize that it seems like a necessary step that the government demonizes foreign ‘bad guys’ to gain the political will to engage in foreign adventurism, and so they think it’s best to draw the line at that step?

            1. And then they end up saying some of the most ridiculous things ever. Which causes a lot of people who are marginally interested in their larger goals to tune them out and often to abandon the idea all together.

              1. “And then they end up saying some of the most ridiculous things ever. ”

                Not as crazy as the pro-war people, imo

                1. When you don’t have the power of the mass media behind you, you don’t have the luxury of dishonesty. But either way, which of these statements is harder to believe.

                  1. Saddam Hussein is a murderous sociopath.

                  or

                  2. Saddam Hussein is a kindly old man who just wants to sell oil and be left alone.

                  Of course #1 is closer to the truth, but in no way indicates how that’s my problem or why I should do anything about it.

                  1. They’re both hard to believe because you’re using present tense.

              2. Which causes a lot of people who are marginally interested in their larger goals to tune them out

                This.

                “Fixedness means a dead hand. Pliability is a living hand. You must bear this in mind.” –M. Musashi

          2. And, why do you care?

            I’d side with libertarians, miniarchists, Ancaps, anyone who wants to shrink the leviathan. I don’t get the Rockwell fixation.

            1. Are you asking me or Winston?

              1. Winston. Thought we already discussed this once, Bo.

                1. Fair enough

            2. Cuz I don’t like his dictator fellating. See how Rockwell and Raimondo reacted to Hugo Chavez dying for example. Since Chavez was an opponent of the USG he had to be defended because otherwise there would be war.

              1. I find opposing a war to be a very noble motivation.

                1. I find opposing a war to be a very noble motivation.

                  Using dictator apologia as a part of it is far from noble.

                  1. Cite where Bo was apologizing for Chavez.

              2. Not sure what you’re referring to, but considering Rockwell’s devotion to Mises, I can’t see him advocating dictatorship. I’m thinking what you’re referring to comes from a much more complex argument. That being said, Rockwell can say things that make you say WTF.

                1. http://www.lewrockwell.com/blo…..33329.html

                  He thought this was a worthy comment on Chavez:

                  Hugo Ch?vez may have been oppressive, but at least he wasn’t a lapdog for Washington like so many other heads of state. The world would be a much more free and decentralized place with more anti-imperialist “rogue” nations.

                  1. The world would be a much more free and decentralized place with more anti-imperialist “rogue” nations.

                    Free us from the bourgeoigisness of toilet paper. An unwiped ass is a revolutionary ass!

                    1. If you use TP, hug a logger!

                  2. Sorry Winston, something came up at work. Here’s the end of that passage by Rockwell BTW

                    Considering the chaos, terror, and wanton murderous destruction perpetrated on a daily basis by the West upon its recipients of “liberation,” the evil of Ch?vez is dwarfed by that of the governments of the “free world.”

                    He’s comparing the total victims of the West(US) with those of Chavez. Vietnam, Iraq, etc and the support of thuggish govts in places like South America. He’s not saying Chavez is a good guy. That being said, I’m sure Chavez would’ve been much worse had he had the power of the US. Point is Rockwell isn’t cozying up to dictators.

                    Sorry for the late reply. Get into it another time.

                    1. He’s not saying Chavez is a good guy

                      Point is Rockwell isn’t cozying up to dictators.

                      Uh huh, he just said that the US is worse than Chavez which is dictator apologia.

                      And you said it was possible to “despise Putin and US foreign policy” only to defend Rockwell for doing anything but despising Chavez.

                    2. Sorry Winston, I’m at work. Discuss it on another thread if you want. I’m wrestling with it myself.

                    3. Which had done more harm to you at the time: Chavez or the US FedGov?

      2. It is actually possible that Putin wasn’t behind the murder, but some fanatical Putinist sycophant. People often forget that Putin isn’t ruling a hostile population, but is actually a fairly popular dictator, so someone may well have taken the initiative on his behalf.

        1. My bet would be on some oligarch, but I don’t think that it’s out of bounds to consider that Putin may have instigated it a la “will no one rid me of this troublesome priest.”

          1. Putin seemed to be implying that it might have been done by his opponents to make him look bad…

            1. Do you think that Putin would actually stoop as low as a double false flag?

  15. Is Russia in the midst of a libertarian moment?

    1. BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!

      No.

  16. Two people you do.NOT want to.be: “Second in Command of al Qaeda” and “Top Putin Critic”

    1. Standing in front of Joe Biden comes in third. Tied with going on a date with a Kennedy.

  17. Like that American hero in Moscow said, at least the Russians don’t look at their citizens’ metadata.

    1. You realize that the fact that Snowden had to seek asylum in a tyrannical country like Russia cuts against rather than for our government which is chasing him, right?

      1. He didn’t have to seek asylum there. He could have accepted going on trial for his crimes and letting the courts decide whether the laws he broke are actually unconstitutional as he claims… rather than running like a fizzured anus.

        Or, he could have chosen not to lie, commit employment fraud, and breach contracts in the first place… not that ‘libertarians’ give a damn about opposing fraud or upholding contracts anymore.

        1. “He could have accepted going on trial for his crimes and letting the courts decide whether the laws he broke are actually unconstitutional as he claims”

          Haha

          HAHAHA

          HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAH!

          1. I mean, really? He could have relied on the very system he had shown to be nearly hopelessly corrupt? Come on!

            1. Yeah, I’m sure Snowden would have gotten an incredibly fair trial from the Obama Administration.

              They’re known for their light treatment of whistleblowers. Snowden could have been found innocent and government agents would have hounded him for the rest of his life.

              1. + 1000

              2. The Obama administration doesn’t give trials. That is the province of the judicial branch, which has shown a propensity for kicking B.O. in the teeth recently.

                1. The Obama administration doesn’t give trials. That is the province of the judicial branch, which has shown a propensity for kicking B.O. in the teeth recently.

                  The administration’s Department of Justice tries case, in front of an independent judiciary. The charges were filed under the Wilson/WWI era Espionage Act, which doesn’t permit a public-interest defense even if the underlying programs being leaked are proven illegal in court.

                2. which has shown a propensity for kicking B.O. in the teeth recently.

                  Someone hasn’t been paying attention to all the whistleblowers and leakers getting decades-long prison sentences lately.

              3. I can only imagine the special instructions to the jurors (had it been a jury trial).

                1. “special instructions to the jurors”

                  Ready
                  Aim
                  Fire

                2. I can only imagine the special instructions to the jurors (had it been a jury trial).

                  I actually still have some measure of faith in the judiciary to try the case fairly, the problem is the underlying law he’s being tried under negates any criminal defense whatsoever.

              4. …”Snowden could have been found innocent and government agents would have hounded him for the rest of his life.”…

                I’ve got a hell of a deal for you on pig’s wings! Operators are standing by!

                1. Is that some kind of death threat?

            2. He’d have a better chance with the US court system than he has with Putin.

              I guarantee you an ex-KGB spook like Putin has nothing but contempt for a leaker. Dollars to donuts, he’s going to have a 7.62mm wide cerebral hemmorhage the day he ceases to be useful to the Kremlin, which unfortunately for Eddie is probably not far off.

              1. And that just shows how messed up our government is, that we forced this fellow to seek asylum THERE.

                1. You keep saying that, but it doesn’t make any sense.

                  That most countries are not willing to harbor a criminal wanted in the US does not imply that our govt is messed up.

                  The fact that Roman Polanski has to hide out in France for the rest of his life does not mean our govt is messed up, does it?

                  1. Most countries didn’t want to harbor him because of our pressure.

                  2. Polanski had sex with an underage girl. Snowden shared with the press the illegal activities his government was engaging in, whixh allowed the people that foot the bill for said government and to whom the government is supposed to report. These are equivalent?

                    1. In Tulpa’s world, dissing the State is the ultimate sin.

                    2. To Tulpa, disrespecting authoritah is the equivalent of raping a 13 year old. Yes, he is utterly retarded. But we already knew that.

                    3. These are equivalent?

                      No. Did I say they were?

                    4. That is what I asked. I wondered why post something marginally related to the story (unless they would be near or actually equal). Either illogiacl or a non-sequitur.

                    5. Polanski is the go-to example of a person fleeing prosecution in the US.

                    6. Not in regard to a whistleblower situation.

                    7. Polanski had sex with an underage girl.

                      Polanski drugged and raped an underage girl. Don’t soft-pedal it.

                      -jcr

                    8. True. The details weren’t as important when illustrating how different what he did vs Snowden.

                  3. Being a criminal doesn’t mean you did something morally wrong. Check out your drug war and IRS prosecutions.

                  4. Your government being completely fucked up is an excellent indication, though.

                    Snowden isn’t hiding in Russia because he criticized Obama.

                    Snowden is hiding in Russia because he’s wanted for what amounts to espionage.

                    Wanted for trial. Not for execution.

                    If Obama acted like Putin, he would have Snowden assassinated, just like Putin almost certainly had Alexander Litvinenko assassinated.

                    Incidentally, Putin isn’t protecting Snowden because Putin believes in freedom of speech, either.

                    Anna Politkovskaya is dead almost certainly because of what Putin thinks about freedom of speech.

                    1. If Obama acted like Putin, he would have Snowden assassinated, just like Putin almost certainly had Alexander Litvinenko assassinated.

                      Well, it sure is a good thing no one said Obama is worse than Putin then.

                      If someone had said that, you might have a point.

                    2. If someone had said that, you might have a point.

                      Did someone steal your handle a few minutes ago?

                      Irish|2.27.15 @ 8:32PM|#

                      Yeah, in America we at least have the common decency to hold our enemies in clean, well-lit prisons before going through proper channels and having them extradited to Jordan for torture.

                      You’re trying to have it both ways, as usual.

                    3. Snowden is in asylum in Russia because he provided ecidence of illegal activities by this government. He disn’t secretly share them with Putin (or Kim Jong or the Chinese) ge shared them with the press.

                    4. He may be sharing further, unpublished information with the Kremlin.

                    5. Snowden may be sharing kiddie porn as well but there is evidence of neither. And he may be the anthrax letter mailer…if he is doing this for personal gain, WTF does he gain other than what he has stated?

                    6. He has demonstrated a willingness to lie about his intentions to disclose classified information on several occasions. At the very least, at his job interview, on his polygraph(s), and when he signed the agreement that granted his clearance.

                      Doing so would benefit him, because it would give Putin an incentive to treat him well.

                    7. So he shared classified information showing the illegal activities of the US not because he was appalled but because Putin would treat him well? You know he wouldn’t have needed ssylum if he hadn’t released the information, right? He would have retained his six figure salary job at Booz Allen.

                      And you would need to prove intent that he set out to do this before his hire, which is a stretch. “I’m going to release classified info showing an illegal spy program that nobody outside of the govt knows about.” How would he know about it before he was hired?

                    8. And you would need to prove intent that he set out to do this before his hire, which is a stretch.

                      Snowden claimed exactly that during one of his post-leak interviews.

                    9. Citation missing.

                    10. Citation still missing.

                    11. Incidentally, Putin isn’t protecting Snowden because Putin believes in freedom of speech, either.

                      And frankly I think Snowden knows this as well. I’d imagine he doesn’t feel any more secure in Russia than he would on the lamb elsewhere. If anything, it makes his actions even more Jesus-like. He’s essentially enduring the tyrannical clusterfuck that he leaked all that info to prevent the US from becoming. If ever there were a true martyr, his name is Snowden.

                    12. Except Jesus didn’t get on a boat to Italy, and only when he was safely there reveal that he was the Son of God.

                    13. So he knew about the secret spy program before he was hired? How? Putin?

                    14. How sid Snowden know before he got hired?

                    15. I’d imagine he doesn’t feel any more secure in Russia than he would on the lamb elsewhere

                      Is sheepfucking ok in russia? Who knew?

                    16. “Wanted for trial. Not execution.”

                      Bitch, please. If Snowden attempts to return to the USA whatever conveyance he’s riding in will have an “unfortuate accident” provided by F-16’s.

              2. Kahlua, stop it.

                Putin’s useful ‘idiots’ are much safer than those found wanting in terrorism-horrified America. That 7.62 Russian bullet can just as easily be fired from a CIA op. The Putin/Snowden game is extremely complex and both Putin and Snowden understand the psyop math.

                Nothing worse than a fucking dude who is actually reasonably intelligent trying to play smart with a group of people who are miles ahead of this shit.

                1. The Putin/Snowden game is extremely complex and both Putin and Snowden understand the psyop math.

                  Bullshit. Snowden has no leverage against Putin. There is no game.

                  That is, assuming Snowden’s not feeding the Kremlin classified info under the table to ensure his good treatment, in which case he would in fact be a full-blown traitor.

                  1. Sure! tiger-hunting, bare-chested, fucking ego-centric, comrade KGB whizkid has no fucking idea he has an American/planetary icon in his country who has kicked the ass of the world’s most premiere intelligence agency called the NSA.

                    Putin harboring that level of unfolding history is in the interest of Russia for the time being. Snowden has zero leverage. Snowden knows this. Putin knows this. But Putin also understands that Snowden is iconic and that is worth attaching the Russian brand to momentarily. The math here only gets more complex.

                    1. Snowden is a bargaining chip.

                      If and when the sanctions disappear, Snowden will be on the next plane to DC.

                    2. 2/3 of Americans who know who he is think he should be in jail or worse. He’s not an American icon.

                      I really don’t think Putin gives a damn about having a good guy image. Jesus, how you could even entertain that thought in this thread, with today’s story, is beyond me. His sole interest is in denigrating America, and Snowden is proving useful for that. For now.

                    3. “I really don’t think Putin gives a damn about having a good guy image.”

                      Putin certainly doesn’t care whether anyone outside of Russia (or Greater Russia) thinks he’s a good guy–that’s for sure.

                      And he wants his enemies to know that he will assassinate them.

                      The reason you kill Alexander Litvinenko is because you want your enemies to know that you will kill them. The reason you kill Litvinenko with plutonium is because you don’t want anyone to think it wasn’t you who killed him.

                    4. *polonium-210

                    5. You knew what I meant!

                  2. That is, assuming Snowden’s not feeding the Kremlin classified info under the table to ensure his good treatment, in which case he would in fact be a full-blown traitor.

                    I’ll say this: I don’t believe for a second that Snowden ever intended to wind up seeking asylum in Russia and I believe what he said about safeguarding the information by removing himself from it.

                    But people like Putin certainly exercise the kinda methods than can turn even the most zealous.

                    1. So it’s basically a religious beleef. Mein Gott.

                    2. Kahlua, what world do you live in? If you were facing a lifetime of getting butt-raped an hour a day between your 13 hour a day solitary confinement, who the fuck are you kidding? You’d clean toilets for Ayatollah Khomeni to get out of that; most people would.

                      Snowden isn’t heroic for going to Russia; he’s self-serving. But what’s so wrong with that? You think he should just man up and take the life sentence he doesn’t deserve?

                    3. I’m not a good comparison, since I wouldn’t have committed the crimes he did which got him into this predicament in the first place.

                    4. I’m not a good comparison, since I wouldn’t have committed the crimes he did which got him into this predicament in the first place.

                      We know, you’re a coward.

                    5. Law morals?

                      Would it have been wrong to violate the Nuremburg Laws?

                    6. Any belief, whether first principles logically derived or religious fervor derived from faith, will command fervor.

                      Being passionate about something is not a vice in itself. It is what stirs passions that can be vice or virtue.

                  3. What information is he sharing? Citation missing.

        2. Piss off, troll. Why don’t you try doing something as courageous as what Snowden did, and then turn yourself over to the US government so they can torture and kill you. Oh yeah, you’re a coward that’s why.

      2. For once Bo’s saying something that I’m going to agree with. Oh wait, that happens often and then Bo changes mind to disagree.

        I said, and it’s right here on H&R recorded for all of intertoobz infinity, that there was no other place that Snowden could go except for Russia. I said that before he ever arrived in Russia.

        He’s tried to leave several times, but Putin is apparently the only guy on the planet with ballz enough to tell the USA to fuck off.

        Don’t take that to mean that I like Putin. I didn’t hate him nearly as much as I do now before his goons downed that Malaysian airline flight, now I just want to see his head on a pike.

        Snowden has tried to leave several times and he doesn’t have anywhere to go if he wants to stay alive.

        1. He would stay alive if he came back to the US.

          There’s no place he can go where he would avoid facing trial for his crimes, that much I agree with.

          1. So whom do we turn to put the government on trial for its crimes of hacking private networks, intrusions of private property and use of force?

            1. We do, every 2 years.

              Most people don’t think it’s a big deal. Sorry.

              1. Tony, is that you?

                1. Tony, is that you?

                  Worse…it’s Tulpa.

              2. Well then I guess I won’t worry about the Holocaust anymore, as Hitler was democratically elected.

                1. And there were the Numerburg Laws

          2. You have a strange wrinkle in your tone.

          3. I say that we send you to DC and tell the Obama admin that you are Snowden. Works for me.

            1. So you would lie and commit fraud and perjury, just because someone disagrees with you.

              Maybe you should try a sleepover with Putin, you’d get along swimmingly.

          4. Three things. 1) Some people prefer the prospect of some measure of reason as well as some risk of death to the certainty of life in a tin box. Makes sense to me.

            2) Things weren’t as bad in Russia when Snowden went, so it’s not likely he knew what exactly he was in for.

            3) Just because something is illegal, does not mean one should be imprisoned for it. There is such a thing as, you know, an unjust law. Hence why jury nullification is an accepted practice in this country.

        2. “Snowden has tried to leave several times and he doesn’t have anywhere to go if he wants to stay alive.”

          Simply because he documented how the US gov’t illegally spied on US citizens.
          If he had done so regarding a commercial enterprise he worked for, he’d be testifying before congress with plenty of camera time on the evening news.
          Instead, well….

        3. I thought the other day that Russia and the second amendment may be the only two things from stopping the USG from becoming full-on totalitarian.

          1. Putin would love for the US to become fully totalitarian.

            1. Nah, I think the irascible Russian wants America to be a fucking breeder of kittens and bunny rabbits and tiny humans that can act in Chinese fantasy films involving shrews and goldfish.

            2. If only under Russian control or influence. The only thing stopping the US from putting boots on the ground in Ukraine is a thing called elections.

            3. So would you apparently.

          2. I thought the other day that Russia….stopping the USG from becoming full-on totalitarian.

            Why do you think that? Because you think the USG wants to make themselves look better than Russia?

            1. I thought it because I thought it.

            2. I thought it because I thought it.

              1. Jeez, I was just wondering your thought process…

                1. I don’t recall there being a pronounced thought session on a specific topic. I was either getting ready to go to work or was cooling dinner.

                  1. I just thought it was vague but your other posts have clarified what you meant.

                    1. Why do you think that? Because you think the USG wants to make themselves look better than Russian?

    2. Slobber on that authority boner, Tulpa! Go man go!

      1. He’s done choked out on it.

    3. Yeah, in America we at least have the common decency to hold our enemies in clean, well-lit prisons before going through proper channels and having them extradited to Jordan for torture.

      Wait.

      1. The “enemies” you speak of are terrorists, not political dissidents. While I oppose extraordinary rendition, it’s not even comparable to what Putin does every day.

        1. How many of those terrorists have been convicted in a court you would feel acceptable to be a defendant in?

          1. He said terrorist! How dare you question the magic T-word! Trials are for dandies.

        2. How many have been convicted in a fair court?

  18. So why are there leftists attacking the Republicans over DHS funding? This is one of the most surreal budget battles I’ve ever seen. The Republicans are using DHS funding in an attempt to exact concessions from the Democrats, and leftists are defending the need to fund the Department of Homeland security.

    Aren’t leftists opposed to the Department of Homeland Security? Shouldn’t they want funding to be withheld since this is the kind of law and order department progressives usually despise?

    1. Shikha Dalmia is a leftist?

      1. I don’t care what hand she uses, hater.

    2. Leftist principles never, ever, involve less government spending.

      1. When was the last time a leftist ever advocated cutting spending on anything? In theory they should advocate cutting spending on defense, corporate welfare, law enforcement, etc., but recently I just haven’t seen that from them. They’ll take a stand against aggressive law enforcement one day and vote for funding for militaristic stuff for cops the next.

        1. Go into any gathering of Democrats and say the name “Willie Horton” and count how many people start having seizures while mumbling “we must be tough on crime” over and over.

        2. My issue with the protesters in Ferguson. They are mad at the government and want the government to fix the government.

    3. Irishman, Leftists are especially violent law-and-order types. Neocons have nothing on Leftists when it comes to filling prisons. These two autocratic juggernauts just have slightly different trajectories.

    4. Aren’t leftists opposed to the Department of Homeland Security?

      Only in Nick and Matt’s THC-addled brains.

  19. This is none of our business.

    1. Tell it to an Estonian happy his country signed the Nato Treaty.

    2. So we should bomb Russia, huh? Derpity derp.

      1. So you love Putin then?

        1. Don’t play cute. Your comment was clearly a jibe at non-interventionists.

          1. Yes I don’t like that they claim that we shouldn’t care about something as if that is the same as supporting war.

            1. Caring about this might prevent war.

            2. Winston|2.27.15 @ 9:18PM|#
              “Yes I don’t like that they claim that we shouldn’t care about something as if that is the same as supporting war.”

              At your neighborhood hardware store, you can find brushes that are much smaller than a foot or so across.
              I’m sure that “they” includes at least one person, right?

              1. https://reason.com/archives/201…..nt_5116782

                Why would I, as an American, care what happens in Libya and Syria?

                1. Gee, one commenter regarding one area!

                  1. Moving the goalposts…

                    1. “Moving the goalposts…”

                      Reading it tough, isn’t it?
                      Here’s *exactly* what I posted, bozo:
                      “I’m sure that “they” includes at least one person, right?”
                      And sure enough, “they” include all of one person and one circumstance.
                      Does it really hurt that much when you’re called on your bullshit?

                    2. Does it hurt that much when you accuse me of creating a strawman only to show that people actually do say what I was complaining about?

                    3. Winston|2.27.15 @ 10:18PM|#
                      “Does it hurt that much when you accuse me of creating a strawman only to show that people actually do say what I was complaining about?”

                      You stupid shit, I predicted what your claim actually meant, you then proved I was right and now you gripe.
                      Fucking asshole.

            3. Funny, because you just equated not wanting to bomb someone with loving them.

              1. To Someone who equated mocking non-interventionists with wanteing to bomb Russia.

                1. Winston|2.27.15 @ 11:03PM|#
                  “To Someone who equated mocking non-interventionists with wanteing to bomb Russia”
                  Cite missing, asshole.

    3. If you don’t want taxpayers to foot the bill or get people who don’t care about involved, that’s great.

      Problem is, the US is also preventing anyone else who does want to be voluntarily involved or have anything to do with Russia with sanctions and onerous trade regulations.

  20. Putin goin’ straight Mao. #respect

    /sarc

      1. Jesus fucking christ that was goddamn random as fucking what you fucking whores.

          1. That was a trip! Thanks!

  21. Stalin slaughtered millions of Ukrainians in the early 30’s. And millions more were sent to concentration camps. It was called Holodomor. Mass collectivization is a macabre and violent task and for some tragic reason the Ukrainian people can’t escape suffering under the hand of the brutal communist.

    How can the human mind even fucking begin to comprehend 20 people slaughtered much less millions?

    1. I thought it was called HODOR

      1. Holodomor; hunger extermination, terror extermination, famine genocide…

        It might be HODOR but it is also known as Holodomor.

    2. Stalin slaughtered millions of Ukrainians in the early 30’s

      Well establishing diplomatic relations with the UK, France and Germany really held Stalin back didn’t it?

      1. You are correct.

        And nothing can be done about the new iron curtain except become a bigger bear.

  22. Obama is so jealous of Putin now, he has to resort to lame tactics like siccing the IRS on enemies instead of gunning them down in the streets in broad daylight. But no worries, he’s expanding his powers, he’s going to catch that Putin yet.

    1. The IRS can suck my fucking fat cock until my jizz laser smashes their tonsils with sperm atoms. That turd-gargling fucking flock of idiots has lost all cred.

      1. But it’s a fake scandal! The hard drive crashed, the emails are gone fore…. oh wait…

  23. in need of a different political rhetoric for Russia http://waltherpragerandphiloso…..erity.html

    1. Uh, I think you need someone more familiar with English:

      …”More the powerful are those values, the citizens feel lesser inclined to oppose them because of their personal interests which are anytime smaller.”…

      1. Romania, dear.

    2. The tiger sends links…

    3. “The limits of Western Prosperity”?

      Oort cloud, bitches.

      1. Try imagining that on magic shrooms… you can actually fucking walk on the dynamic edges looking inward into a never-ending halo of the oort cloud that would normally fucking melt your entire face off but won’t because you are lying on your kitchen floor tripping major balls in space without spending a trillion dollars. I guess this is why I like altered states from time to time… very cheap way to travel into radiation packed densities and dark matter and then wake up and cook eggs and pancakes for the progeny.

        1. “Oort cloud, bitches” is a worst case scenario, one i’m happy your spawn may enjoy. You grandson shall be known as Emperor of the Comets. Your great-great will be Lord of the Centauris.

          1. Fine. I have a Comet Emperor and a fucking Centauri Lord in the progeny lineup but I’m naming a parallel universe Quincy. It’s so fucking final I’m putting that shit in my will. Quincy the Parallel Universe of the 12th dimension.

            Can physics handle this much fucking brolove?

              1. Fractal ballerinas have delicious pussies.

                1. Their tutus stink and they swear like sailors. No comment as to the slit. Mandelbrot was never backstage.

                  1. My tongue loves a Mandelbrot starfish. I don’t think Poincare’ invested his tongue into too many cute buttholes but ol’ Benoit would’ve appreciated his math on curves and rough edges…

                    I do love to suck pretty girl ass and Quincy is piquing my left brain like a fucking crazy bitch.

    1. Like an 0/1 yodel switch stuck in on/off flux.

      1. The best tracks are 27, 31, and 32

  24. Hey, wait. Did I miss the libetarian moment?

    1. Tick, wait for it… tock.
      Yup.

  25. Reason should try and get Edward Snowden out of Russia now. If you care about this guy, bring him home. His life is in danger in Russia.

    1. Reason should try to get Lyle’s head out of Obama’s ass. His life is in danger (suffocation, potential groping by Biden).

      1. Haha… I don’t support Obama.

        1. Why? He scrunched up his butt cheeks that resulted in you getting a splitting headache?

          1. Lol… what are you talking about? Put together a cogent argument please.

            1. I’m asking why you don’t support Obama and proposed a possibility. Your head was up his ass, no? And if he tightened his buttocks while your head was up there it might have hurt. This hurt could have led to a migraine (more hurt). Hence, you no lomger supporting Obama. Fully cogent.

              1. No, still not cogent. And still not an Obama supporter.

                Keep this nonsense going if you must. It’s totally undermines what you have to say about anything.

                1. It is cogent. It may be incorrect. But cogent.

                  When dealing with trolls, I practice the silver rule. Hence, with you, the snark.

              2. No, still not cogent. And still not an Obama supporter.

                Keep this nonsense going if you must. It’s totally undermines what you have to say about anything.

                1. Lyle|2.27.15 @ 11:50PM|#
                  “No, still not cogent. And still not an Obama supporter.”

                  Correct. Obo isn’t nearly statist enough for Lyle to support him.
                  Lyle, when you learn that the state is not the god, you might have something worth reading.
                  Until then, you just one more infantile piece of shit waiting to be told what to do.

    2. So he can spend the rest of his life in a rape cage in the US?

      1. No, so he’s not killed one day by Putin. If he’s in America, he’ll have Reason by his side and help in fighting whatever punish may come his way.

        Edward Snowden has absolutely no hope in Russia.

        1. Fewer days in Russia while being at least partially “free” versus more days in a federal “rape you in the ass” prison?

          1. Maybe he could room ith Bradl…Chelsea Manning and get to be the Top without resistance.

          2. Let me think… prison or… Stoli and blondes… such a difficult choice.

        2. Lyle|2.27.15 @ 10:52PM|#
          “No, so he’s not killed one day by Putin. If he’s in America, he’ll have Reason by his side and help in fighting whatever punish may come his way.”

          Lyle, you keep posting your fantasies as if they had some relation to reality.
          And, so far, you haven’t offered one shred of evidence that you’re other than a statist fuck who dreams.

        3. Been injecting turkey blood?

          1. The DNA matched.

        4. How cogent of you. Refusing to defend a post. And you really wondered why I ad hominemed?

        5. Still waiting for a response to my post. Or is your heard truely up Obama’s rear end?

  26. I wonder how long it’ll be before Obama starts gunning down Americans. Oh, that’s right! He’s already been doing it for years.

    1. How has Obama been gunning people down in the streets of America?

  27. Start working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life.

    ……………. http://www.Work4Hour.Com

  28. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8012 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here…

    http://www.work-mill.com

  29. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8012 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here…

    http://www.work-mill.com

  30. Sometimes man you jsut have to roll with it dude.

    http://www.GoAnon.tk

  31. Sophia . you think Teresa `s blog is amazing, last tuesday I got a great new Smart ForTwo since I been making $8292 this – 4 weeks past and-a little over, $10 thousand this past munth . this is actually the coolest work I have ever done . I actually started nine months/ago and practically straight away was bringing home more than $80.. per-hour .

    pop over to this web-site http://www.tradevalt.com

  32. until I saw the check ov $7131 , I be certain that…my… friend was like actualy bringing home money parttime on their apple laptop. . there aunt has done this for only about seventeen months and just took care of the morgage on there mini mansion and bourt themselves a Ford Focus .

    take a look at the site here http://www.tradevalt.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.