tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5491095.post432669932599403351..comments2024-01-09T17:16:02.647+07:00Comments on JOTMAN: Kommersant interview with Victor BoutJotmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02485510513271661365noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5491095.post-81127017140566336822008-10-13T12:50:00.000+07:002008-10-13T12:50:00.000+07:00Thanks for the very interesting translation. I ag...Thanks for the very interesting translation. I agree with earlier comments that Mr. Bout's version of events should not be dismissed out of hand just because they conflict with "official truth". Since "secret evidence" of guilt is best refuted by open presentation of counter arguments establishing innocence I hope that Mr. Bout and his lawyers will, as far as possible, follow that path.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5491095.post-65396625032791769452008-10-12T18:42:00.000+07:002008-10-12T18:42:00.000+07:00Very interesting interview regardless to which sid...Very interesting interview regardless to which side the reader belongs. More light into the very unusual and abnormal proceeding, where the first hearing lasted 12 hours, and adding this second round we have more than 20 hours in total. Thus far, the American government failed to present evidence in support of their allegations, but they are so far successful in stalling the matter that supposed to be concluded within 82 days under the Thai law for seven month. This is all about politics and nothing more; it is about a tyrant regime that done everything by laying and misrepresenting the facts. Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Somalia, Kenya, Sudan, Pakistan, and … plenty more of destruction under the motto of “Exporting Democracy.” What is the difference from exporting any other ideology ones may believe, it could be communism, socialism, extremism, or killing by the name of democracy. <BR/><BR/>If there was some democracy under the Bush regime, an American war veteran who served the United States and the American people could have had a day in court, I agree with Bout unconditionally regarding the case of Richard Chichakli. Guilt should be debated in court not under secret evidence and fascist tactics called “OFAC.” Nonetheless, I also believe that the Bout-Chichakli matter is of certain national interest to the US government, the Russian, and others including the Syrian regime that was supposed to be replaced by an American supported president named Ammar Chichakli should everything gone as planned!<BR/><BR/>Too many stories, and plenty of unknown except for the disastrous world created by the Bush regime, a world built on lies, death, and destruction around the globe, reaching the financial destruction of the US economy, and the “American Dream.”<BR/><BR/>One interesting thing said in this interview which I know personally for a fact, is the reference to the truth brokered by Bimba between two African tribes, I actually had seen the event on Youtube in a film posted by “westwind10.” I think the people deserve to see the truth through thorough examination of factual matter, not secret evidence that were initially instigated and presented by the accusers. Let us voice our concern, and let the guilty party pay based on facts not opinions, “innocent until proven guilty” is the rule.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5491095.post-17105607246018450872008-10-11T13:31:00.000+07:002008-10-11T13:31:00.000+07:00interesting article. especially considering that ...interesting article. especially considering that till now it was the first time Bout was given a chance to talk and express his side of story at all.<BR/><BR/>I do not agree with ""famous journalist from Czar family" Sanjuro though ! :)<BR/><BR/>but anyway you already mentioned that it is just his own opinion.<BR/><BR/>I want to point out however the usage of phrase "conspiracy theories". somehow it reflects the common tactic of Western MSM (especially Fox) to silence opponent. this phrase has become a common cliche already, which anyone uses at whim to gain false credibility and divert attention from the subject raised by person towards ... his reputation and personality. in such a way the whole subject is being switched : instead of actually trying to address the arguments made by person, attention is being focused on whether he has enough credibility or even sanity. (often phrase "conspiracy theory" is followed by stronger word "nut" for emphasis). and since the credibility / sanity / reputation of person is placed in doubt - the assumption or conclusion is automatically being made that whatever he might say simply can't be even taken into consideration or perhaps even heard as anything serious. <BR/><BR/>although the funny thing is: if so (if indeed this person is a "conspiracy theory nut" who doesn't deserve serious consideration) - then why at all listen to him, talk to him / about him ? :) why not simply ignore him completely and whatever issues related to him? or perhaps decide everything for him without him - since anyway he has no credibility? although legal system is based on principle of "presumption of innocence" - which in turn implies that the burden of proof lays on accuser - not the accused, who is given right to speak and have an advocate, not simply be silenced and convicted without charges or trial.<BR/><BR/><BR/>so, this whole thing of challenging opponent for debate and at the same trying to silence him <BR/>is an obvious contradiction, which is very evident especially in many popular TV shows where opponent is invited, challenged and than "dismembered". <BR/><BR/>and it is just one of such cliche-phrases, along with some other like "politically correct" (in Thailand the most favorite is to accuse opponent of "Lèse majesté"). all such stick-labels became so much overused and common nowadays that they sound more like insult or obscenity ! which makes it sufficient simply to utter such phrase only once in someone's address to make it stick firmly. <BR/><BR/>however it is nothing new and nothing else than ... "attack on person" (a logical fallacy) - old, good, sure and cheap trick. :)<BR/><BR/>so, I think to be consistent mysterious reader Sanjuro (who somehow never makes any comments here himself, yet quoted many times as some "of course famous journalist" :) ) supposed to shed some light upon this debacle, since he expected Bout's talk to be convincing and finds it unconvincing. and therefore, presumably he knows and understands better than Bout himself.<BR/><BR/>however instead he employs circular reasoning :<BR/>"his conspiracy theories did not sound very convincing either"<BR/><BR/>why they are not convincing? because they are "conspiracy theories". and why they are "conspiracy theories" - because they are not convincing. :)<BR/><BR/>and then he actually admits that it doesn't even matter to him whether it is convincing or not, truth or lie (or half truth = lie). he says:<BR/>"I was more concerned..."<BR/>well, here we go ! so, actually he was more concerned, or rather indignant that: how come a reporter plays "softball" with Bout and gives him a credit of doubt - instead of taking the same stance as "of course famous journalist" Sanjuro! namely: why reporter is being so "unprofessional" and not TOTALLY dismisses whatever and anything Bout has to say as 'conspiracy theory', and plays 'hardball' on him : makes efforts to expose him as a liar, "conspiracy nut" etc, accordingly asks him provocative questions and FILTER everything he pronounces through the prism of ALREADY PASSED verdict: "gulty, desperate, conspiracy nut..." ?! outrageous ! so unprofessional this Kommersant reporter ! send her to Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannety to learn professional journalism ! :) <BR/><BR/>well, I think since Sanjuro is such a regular reader and so good in English that he does such a good translation (this I'm saying without any sarcasm) - then perhaps he should come out from his hide-away and express his opinions as one of us, mortals, who can only comment. unless he is too "of course famous journalist" ;) ?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com