Bluelight

Thread: Dead Russian journalist Arkady Babchenko turns up alive at news conference

Results 1 to 16 of 16
  1. Collapse Details
    Dead Russian journalist Arkady Babchenko turns up alive at news conference 
    #1
    Senior Moderator
    Current Events and Politics
    Music Discussion
    swilow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Shielding off the weakening beams of salvation shining upon the mournful gloom of Earth
    Posts
    30,398
    Gun
    Russian journalist Arkady Babchenko turns up alive at news conference after staged murder
    C NEWS
    A Russian journalist supposedly shot dead in Ukraine has appeared alive at a news conference in an apparent attempt to expose Russian agents.

    Key points:
    Babchenko said he was sorry to friends and family who thought he had died
    He said his death had been faked in an elaborate plot to catch those trying to kill him
    SBU says it has arrested the perpetrator of the crime and will bring organisers to justice
    Police said Arkady Babchenko, a critic of the President Vladimir Putin, was found by his wife covered in blood in their Kiev home on Tuesday (local time).

    The 41-year-old had reportedly been shot several times in the back and died in an ambulance on the way to hospital.

    But on Wednesday afternoon he was revealed at a news conference with the head of Ukraine's security service to say his death had been faked in an elaborate plot to catch those trying to kill him.
    Read more
    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
     
    #2
    Senior Moderator
    Current Events and Politics
    Music Discussion
    swilow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Shielding off the weakening beams of salvation shining upon the mournful gloom of Earth
    Posts
    30,398
    Just plays into the "fake news" narrative imo. But I am interested in hearing more justification for this.
    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
     
    #3
    They could never get away with faking the death of someone high-profile.
    That's a conspiracy theory
    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
     
    #4
    Moderator
    Current Events & Politics

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    4,521
    Quote Originally Posted by JGrimez View Post
    They could never get away with faking the death of someone high-profile.
    That's a conspiracy theory
    High profile? Is that a joke?

    And no, conspiracy theories, as in your kind of conspiracy theories, as I've explained before, are overly complex theories that go against the accepted view of experts.

    But you continually try and muddy to waters to try and give credibility to your theories. Well guess what, the idea that someone in authority would send out a dishonest press release isn't the same thing at all as suggesting the existing of widespread chemical CIA mind control or that 9/11 involved planted explosives.

    I was gonna post to this thread earlier but my battery went dead before I could. I wrote that only a retard wouldn't be able to recognize the difference between reasonable doubt in press stories and the level of insane selective denial in trumpian "fake news". At which point I immediately realized that, most people ARE retarded. Swillows right, it does add to the confusion.

    Though personally I'm of the view that such people should be ignored and that it's a lot simpler to just not give a shit what happens to the world.
    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
     
    #5
    Shadowmeister
    Senior Moderator
    Psychedelic Drugs
    Trip Reports
    Philosophy and Spirituality
    The Dark Side
    Shadowmeister's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Nowhere
    Posts
    31,381
    Yeah have you ever heard of this guy before the initial story? I hadn't.
    Reply With Quote
     

  6. Collapse Details
     
    #6
    Moderator
    Current Events & Politics

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    4,521
    Quote Originally Posted by Xorkoth View Post
    Yeah have you ever heard of this guy before the initial story? I hadn't.
    Nope, but that's not the point, seems to me JGrimez is just trying to argue that this is even remotely like the crazier over the top conspiracy theories he argues for, and by extention of this could happen they could happen too.

    But it's not, telling the media someone barely anyone's heard of is dead isn't at all similar to a conspiracy to somehow fill the world trade center with explosives then crash planes in them cause supposedly they couldn't collapse without the explosives (even though they both could and they'd tried to collapse them once before in the early 90s). Or that the CIA has developed in secret the ability to control people's minds with magic drugs and magic TV subliminal messaging. Or that fluoride is a mind suppressing agent. Or that the whole moon landing was a crazy elaborate hoax. Or that millions of experts are perpetuating an elaborate hoax by telling people that pumping enormous amounts of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere could cause a greenhouse effect that could cause enormous damage to society and the economy. For.. Grant money? Presumably. Or that school shootings are a hoax with nobody actually killed at all employing crisis actors in order to implement gun control. Eventually. Seems we need hundreds of shootings for decades before we get to the gun control part.

    Almost all being theories that would require extreme coordination by enormous numbers of people with nobody leaking it seemingly out of a desire to simply be as evil as possible, not to mention requiring that almost all experts in the relevant fields go along with it. Except for a few hold outs with questionablly relevant qualifications whom we should use as the basis to bring into question the substantially larger group with substantially better arguments from significantly more relevant qualifications from much more relevant backgrounds.

    All in the name of "asking questions" as if saying that is supposed to be inherently and automatically a mark of intelligent, independent rational thinking.
    Reply With Quote
     

  7. Collapse Details
     
    #7
    Senior Moderator
    Current Events and Politics
    Music Discussion
    swilow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Shielding off the weakening beams of salvation shining upon the mournful gloom of Earth
    Posts
    30,398
    Quote Originally Posted by JGrimez View Post
    They could never get away with faking the death of someone high-profile.
    That's a conspiracy theory
    Well, they did it.

    Please please don't derail this thread mate.
    Reply With Quote
     

  8. Collapse Details
     
    #8
    Bluelighter Roger&Me's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    all posts made by the Bluelight username "Roger&Me" are works of fiction and are for entertainment purposes only.
    Posts
    24,099
    Post
    Quote Originally Posted by JessFR View Post
    But it's not, telling the media someone barely anyone's heard of is dead isn't at all similar to a conspiracy to somehow fill the world trade center with explosives then crash planes in them cause supposedly they couldn't collapse without the explosives (even though they both could and they'd tried to collapse them once before in the early 90s). Or that the CIA has developed in secret the ability to control people's minds with magic drugs and magic TV subliminal messaging. Or that fluoride is a mind suppressing agent. Or that the whole moon landing was a crazy elaborate hoax. Or that millions of experts are perpetuating an elaborate hoax by telling people that pumping enormous amounts of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere could cause a greenhouse effect that could cause enormous damage to society and the economy. For.. Grant money? Presumably. Or that school shootings are a hoax with nobody actually killed at all employing crisis actors in order to implement gun control. Eventually. Seems we need hundreds of shootings for decades before we get to the gun control part.
    Top post. I call these "connect the dots" theories (my use of the word "theory" in this post is technically inaccurate, but I trust you know what I mean): they start with an outlandish premise and then pick and choose facts which are connected together into a highly improbably narrative that eventually leads to the desired conclusion. And any facts which refute the narrative are either dismissed or refuted by some other cherry-picked assertion. But the world is also full of real conspiracies, and by that I mean small groups of people who are secretly scheming together toward nefarious ends. An easy way to tell this connect the dots malarky apart from a real criminal conspiracy is that the scope of a connect the dots theory usually is too large to be kept secret. People are notoriously bad at keeping secrets, and the more people who are involved, the harder it gets. At a certain point, it just becomes impossible to keep anything secret if too many people know about it (that's the entire reason our intelligence agencies compartmentalize secrets by parsing everything into discrete sections which are accessible only to the people who need to know that information in order to do their jobs).

    But not every weird occurrence is a connect the dots theory. Vladimir Putin, for example (I'll use him as my example, but he's by no means unique in this respect within the authoritarian sphere), has become extremely adept at using them as cover for his murderous, psychotic acts. It's an aspect of the entirely new approach to chekism which Putin has crafted to exploit the viral, memetic phenomena which infest the internet (and, most powerfully, social media) and distort how people think. He's realized that if, for example, he wants to kill a dissident, he can orchestrate some sort of bizarre situation surrounding the murder (or not, but it helps), and then if he's blamed for it he can just claim (or imply, or have his state media apparatus imply) that it's an outlandish conspiracy theory. Since there are so many of these bullshit theories floating around, we've all developed a reflex-mechanism which involuntarily dismisses any theory we hear on the internet that sounds bizarre. But that's a fallacy, because whether it sounds bizarre is irrelevant, our focus should be on whether the theory is plausible based on its scope. And, of course, only after it meets the threshold requirements of 1) actually being possible from a physical/technical standpoint, and 2) being plausible when considered in light of the cultural and governmental realities of the location where the event allegedly occurred.

    For example, it's implausible to believe that the United States orchestrated the 9/11 attacks against citizens of its own country, for a multitude of reasons. Not the least of which being that, despite all its obvious problems, the United States is a democracy with a history of democratic self-governance going back over 350 years -- when the country gained its independence, Americans already had about 140 years of experience with democracy under our belt. The one and only time we were ever subjected to autocratic rule, Americans were able to tolerate that shit for about twelve seconds before deciding we'd rather just take our chances and declare war on the most powerful empire in the history of the world. The idea that Americans, acting as agents of their own government, would orchestrate a terrorist attack against their fellow citizens (especially a bunch of mostly rich white people inside of an iconic American landmark in the middle of downtown Manhattan), is utterly laughable. We had a revolution because a bunch of dirty "lobsterbacks" (what we called British soldiers: 18th century equivalent of "pig") were sleeping on our couches and looking through our panty drawers. Given our reaction those comparatively modest abuses by agents of our (then) government, do you really think Americans would commandeer their own government apparatus and use it to murder 3,000 of their fellow compatriots? Fuck off. America's done some bad stuff in its history, but that's not in the same ballpark -- it's not even the same fucking sport.

    But, in contrast, it's totally plausible, and indeed probable, to conclude that Putin and the FSB orchestrated the so-called "Russian apartment bombings" which occurred in September, 1999. In its entire history, Russia has had maybe one election that approached anything you could refer to as "free and fair" while managing to keep a straight face. Autocracy is the only form of government that Russia has ever known. Voting is so new in Russia that it might as well have been invented yesterday. Most of the figures whom Russians most revere in their own history have all been villainous mass-murderers. That's true going back thousands of years. And Putin is cut from the same mold. He was a chekist, and "once a chekist, always a chekist." While the Russian state intelligence apparatus has gone by many names throughout its history, which invariably reflect the Russian fetish for acronyms (GPU, OGPU, NKVD, NKGB, MGB, and KGB), before settling into its current tripartite configuration (FSB, SRV, and GRU), it's always been the exact same institution: the Cheka. And bombing Russian citizens is something any chekist would do in a millisecond, maybe even just for fun. There is no analogue of chekism in the West, so the concept is totally alien to us, but the renowned Soviet historian Abdurakhman Genazovich has described it as follows:

    It is not accurate to conclude that the Political Bureau of the Central Committee of the Communist Party is a supreme (sovereign, controlling) power. The Political Bureau is only a shadow of the real supreme power that stands behind the chair of every Bureau member . . . The real power thinks, acts and dictates for all of us. The name of the power is NKVD, MVD, or MGB. The Stalin regime is based not on the Soviets, Party ideals, the power of the Political Bureau or Stalin's personality, but on the organization and the techniques of the Soviet political police where Stalin plays the role of the first policeman.

    To tell that NKVD is a state secret police means to tell nothing to the point. The Intelligence Service is also a secret police, but in the eyes of the Britons its existence is as natural as the Health Ministry. To tell that NKVD is a body of mass inquisition also tells nothing to the point, because the Nazi Gestapo also was a mass inquisition, although its chief Heinrich Himmler would not be fit to serve as a sergeant of the Soviet State Security Service. To tell that NKVD is "a state within the state" means to belittle the importance of NKVD because this question allows two forces: a normal state and a supernormal NKVD: whereas the only force is Chekism. A state Chekism, a party Chekism, a collective Chekism, an individual Chekism. Chekism in ideology, Chekism in practice. Chekism from the top to the bottom.
    Source: "Technology (or 'Mechanism,' possibly) of Power" by Genazovich (the original text is available only in Russian, I apologize to non-speakers)


    That was a bit of a long-winded rant. But I was illustrating the point that an organization like the Cheka plausibly could execute some seemingly outlandish schemes -- even ones which may seem relatively large in scope -- and doing so would just be natural. But, in contrast, American intelligence agencies are nothing like that. Our intelligence agencies do something entirely different. They approach intelligence as a multidisciplinary scientific field. Sure, CIA has conducted some pretty frightening and heinous operations (such as the MKULTRA program in the 60's, or the torture of "enemy combatants" following 9/11), but it's worlds apart from the extraordinary psychopathic cruelty which chekists exhibit on a daily basis.

    If any CIA agent were asked by a superior to orchestrate a terrorist attack on New York city, the agent immediately would report it to the FBI and their superior would be arrested. If you picked a CIA agent at random, it would probably be a dorky white guy who had been chugging keystone lights in a dorm room at Columbia or Yale several years prior. You really think you're gonna get one of those people to bomb fucking New York City? Get real. That being said, a connect the dots theorist would just straight-up refute that assertion. They'd point to a bunch of shady shit that we know CIA actually has done (torture, MKULTRA, Iran-Contra, etc.), and they'd imply that since CIA did this other shady shit, it's capable of doing pretty much anything else -- including killing three-thousand American citizens and destroying millions upon millions of dollars of American property. Right in the middle of downtown Manhattan at 9 o'clock in the morning on a Tuesday, no less. Fuck off.

    Sorry for the length, but I couldn't get my point across without writing a lot (and maybe I still didn't convey it exactly as I intended, but c'est la vie). I guess my most basic point is that some stuff is actually plausible while other stuff just plain isn't. In order to make that determination, you have to consider life in all its staggering complexity. You have to consider technical, scientific, cultural, legal, and psychosocial factors, among others. And you must consider information from a wide variety of primary and secondary sources, which requires reading actual books -- big thick ones, and lots of them, over many years. It's not the same thing as doing a google search and getting lost in a click-spiral of schizo conspiracy websites.
    Last edited by Roger&Me; 31-05-2018 at 13:49. Reason: spelling, punctuation, and suggesting alternative interpretations of translated words
    Reply With Quote
     

  9. Collapse Details
     
    #9
    The point is, the trusted media said he was dead.

    Until he turned up at a press conference.

    This is not a derailment.

    These are facts.
    Reply With Quote
     

  10. Collapse Details
     
    #10
    Quote Originally Posted by JessFR View Post
    Though personally I'm of the view that such people should be ignored
    If I'm one of the retards you're referring to, then you're doing the absolute worst job of ignoring me. But feel free to do so at any time.
    Reply With Quote
     

  11. Collapse Details
     
    #11
    Moderator
    Current Events & Politics

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    4,521
    Quote Originally Posted by JGrimez View Post
    If I'm one of the retards you're referring to, then you're doing the absolute worst job of ignoring me. But feel free to do so at any time.
    Technically, I never said that I was gonna stop replying to you, what I said was that I wasn't gonna engage in an in depth debate about conspiracies anymore.
    Last edited by JessFR; 31-05-2018 at 18:37.
    Reply With Quote
     

  12. Collapse Details
     
    #12
    Just proving a point. If the report about that dead guy came out, and the next day I came in here saying "I've got reports that this man faked his own death" holy moly can you imagine the torrent of abuse and shriek of "conspiracy theorist!" I would receive? Jess would destroy me.

    oh and how many blamed Putin instantly when they heard about this? (if they heard about the death before the resurrection)
    Reply With Quote
     

  13. Collapse Details
     
    #13
    Moderator
    Current Events & Politics

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    4,521
    Quote Originally Posted by JGrimez View Post
    Just proving a point. If the report about that dead guy came out, and the next day I came in here saying "I've got reports that this man faked his own death" holy moly can you imagine the torrent of abuse and shriek of "conspiracy theorist!" I would receive? Jess would destroy me.

    oh and how many blamed Putin instantly when they heard about this? (if they heard about the death before the resurrection)
    If you had real evidence I might not destroy you, but I don't believe you know real evidence when you see it.

    You're right though, since you wouldn't have good evidence, in this kind of situation, I'd say you were engaging in conspiracy theorist shit, and in this situation I'd be factually wrong. But I'd still be right that you were probably wrong to believe it.

    For example, let's say hypothetically it turned out that the moon landing really were a hoax, virtually all the people who believed it was a hoax before then were still wrong to believe it was a hoax. They had a correct belief arrived to for incorrect reasons. As I've said before, it's all about probability.

    Though in practice I've never seen you, or almost any conspiracy theorist produce a conspiracy that was as simple as someone faking their death cause someone wanted to kill them. Conspiracy theorists choose what they believe in part because it serves a psychological need and part of that need involved discovery and peeling back the layers of a conspiracy, as a result they are always crazy convoluted. The only conspiracies conspiracy theorists believe in that are this simple are the ones everyone believes in that they use to argue the stupid ones are plausible as well, which they aren't.
    Reply With Quote
     

  14. Collapse Details
     
    #14
    Senior Moderator
    Current Events and Politics
    Music Discussion
    swilow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Shielding off the weakening beams of salvation shining upon the mournful gloom of Earth
    Posts
    30,398
    Quote Originally Posted by JGrimez View Post
    The point is, the trusted media said he was dead.

    Until he turned up at a press conference.

    This is not a derailment.

    These are facts.
    The trusted media thought he was dead.

    This is maybe a bona fide conspiracy, not a conspiracy theory.
    Reply With Quote
     

  15. Collapse Details
     
    #15
    ^ right, and people like Jess (sorry to pick on you) would knee-jerk label something a "conspiracy theory" before honestly investigating the claims, but then as evidence comes out proving that it actually happened, it becomes the more valid and acceptable "conspiracy". This cherry-picking/shifting goalposts is my issue. It's the classic fallacy of appeal to ridicule (which is offensive when someone takes something seriously). Keep in mind that other people have different opinions, and they're not inherently stupid or crazy just for thinking outside the box. This is actually super offensive and prejudiced but I have a thick skin.

    The line between genius and insanity - I snorted it
    Quote Originally Posted by JessFR View Post
    Though in practice I've never seen you, or almost any conspiracy theorist produce a conspiracy that was as simple as someone faking their death cause someone wanted to kill them.
    If I brought this possibility up previously you would tell me how this is impossible because it's so complicated, having people involved etc etc. But now that it happened you say it's "simple". Whatever. I've tried explaining to you the differences between stupid people and smart people but you refuse to listen and continue to throw them both into the same conspiracy nutjob pool. Disappointing.
    Reply With Quote
     

  16. Collapse Details
     
    #16
    Moderator
    Current Events & Politics

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    4,521
    It is simple, and no matter what you think I'm sure I'd have said that had it ever come up, which for the reasons I said earlier it wouldn't have.

    This only requires the complicity of a small number of authorities. And the interest level is far too low for the risk of a leak to be too likely to destroy it. But as always you gotta believe that I'm in denial of some sort or blind cause you can't comprehend that someone could see all the evidence you've seen and not come to your conclusion.

    But for what it's worth, I don't mind you "picking" on me. I honestly don't have any feelings of animosity towards you. It's nothing personal.
    Reply With Quote
     

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •