No it isn’t, read again. That’s a claim by “Wagner-linked Telegram channel”. It can hardly be trusted. No official statement from Putin, investigation is ongoing.
You can’t really expect to just throw several tons of steel and assorted stuff in the air and not have it fall back down. That’s why lighter than air always wins.
Same, those fucking “right-wingers” advocating for universal healthcare, the overthrow of capitalism, and the uprising for the proletariat.
Oh what’s that? That isn’t a right-wing thing? Well I just had the federal government murder you, and obviously the federal government would only murder “right-wingers” so I’m sure it’s you who was mistaken.
No? But if it were politically convenient, he would be framed that way and he’d be dead no matter what. Bsically if you think that the government should murder “right-wingers” you are just a fascist.
I don’t know that I would call that fascism. I think leftist governments (which we do not have) killing right wingers (frequently actual fascists) has been an unfortunate but inevitable part of defending revolutions historically. But a right wing government killing right wingers is something else entirely.
We can more or less expect our right wing government to kill leftists, because it has always done that, continues to, and would be doing a lot more of it now if there were actually more leftists wielding any sort of power. You can about count on one hand the number of right wingers the cops have murdered for political reasons, so I’m not sure the “what if they do it to us” hypothetical is all that illuminating. Because again, they always have been doing it to us.
You might find it in poor taste, but I can understand somebody not being too broken up about the shoe being on the other foot for once. Also, if this guy was posting about shooting the “Marxist” joe Brandon, I’m pretty sure he’s exactly the type of person who would happily shoot as many actual marxists as possible given the right opportunity. So I guess I’m not all that broken up about it either.
Though i do wonder if he had dementia. In which case it is in fact somewhat sad.
A leftwing government killing actual fascists can be fine. A right wing government deploying door-to-door death squads on people some of which happen to include actual fascists is never fine and the only people cheering that shit on are piece of shit cowards or just Liberals, for short.
Well, yes… but what does that have to do with any of this? Is that actually how you would characterize what happened to this guy? Or that the people laughing at the irony of his demise are “liberals cheering on door to door death squads?” That just seems like a deliberate misreading of both the events and the reaction to them.
Look at the comments in this thread. People think that what happened to him is justified, correct, and expected.
Top voted comment is police apologia and giving them the benefit of the doubt, which if you’ve paid attention, should never be granted to the police.
Second comment is “what did he think would happen for threatening the life of a sitting president.” As if posting on facebook should obviously result in the FBI coming to kill you in a predawn no-knock raid.
Tons more with similar sentiment that obviously the police are the good guys here and it was correct that this guy should have been killed by him.
The police force shouldn’t be summarily executing people like this, you’re right about that.
But this post conveys a very strange and counter-productive understanding of what fascism is and what makes someone a fascist. Might as well be saying ‘if you think drinking water shouldn’t be privatised you are just a stalinist’. If we want to stop fascism, we have to understand what it is, and that isn’t it. If anything, a fascist furiously opposes governments murdering “right-wingers”… for pretty obvious reasons.
What’s this soft-ass “oh, but what if they do it to you?” bullshit? I’ll be mad about that a per-case basis when it happens but i’m not gonna be upset some dumbfuck I probably wanted clapped anyways gets clapped.
I would argue it's more a problem of lax corporate safety. That's a ton of weight and those shelves should have been overbuilt as hell. They should have also been regularly checked for sagging and wear.
Get someone killed because you irresponsibly drunk before driving and you get sent to jail. Get someone killed because you wanted to cut costs to make more money, have a slap of the wrist and perhaps pay reparations to the family and off to home you go.
Let people wear what they want. If they want to wear religious clothing, let them. It’s not hurting anyone. This law, while technically applying equally to all religions is very clearly targeted at a single group that has been persecuted for this before
Giving religion safe spaces in society normalizes it. Normalizing religion does hurt people. It hurts the mind’s ability to think rationally, not to mention all the intolerance that seems to come from it.
I disagree. I’m an atheist, and we shouldn’t restrict anyone’s ability to practice their religion unless it actually harms others. This isn’t a safe space, it’s simply persecuting a single religion because the population dislikes Muslims.
Religion is not an exclusively bad thing. It has done harm, but it also does have good effects.
Well, you are wrong that religion is a good thing when people do good in spite of religion rather than because of it. If someone’s belief system is aligned with a particular religion, they can just adopt the practices of that religion without professing faith in it.
Whatever makes them less susceptible to manipulation from religious leaders is a win in my book.
Agree to disagree I guess. I think we’re better off without sky fairies, regardless of whether they’re named Zeus, Jesus, Allah, whatever. The society that I’d want to live in would discourage public practices of religion.
Another point I should have made above. As Dawkins says, normalizing religion gives the especially nutty and violent ones room to breathe. They don’t stick out so badly when their neighbor believes and practices 90% of what they do.
As you are a minority population member who supports democratically limiting the religious beliefs of members of the population, I have to ask if you’ve ever considered that such beliefs may backfire spectacularly against you?
Absolutely. And that behaviour should be condemned. But punishing people for their choices of clothing is not the way to go. Target the harmful ideas, not people’s personal expression.
Ok but how does a school do that? You have young women being raised in a harmful faith where they are taught harmful things. The school can’t stop that. They can prohibit wearing harmful clothing in school.
I support encouraging kids to express themselves, but schools can set limits to what is appropriate and what is prohibited expression. And the abaya is the opposite of freedom to express themselves. It represents shame, conformity, and the subjucation of women, backed by a faith that tells them they are less than men.
First off, the abaya is not a burka. It’s a fairly standard clothing item. The idea that an abaya in itself is harmful is absurd.
The harm comes from limiting the freedom of self expression. And that’s what France is doing now. Most Muslim girls in the west are fairly progressive, they don’t feel that they’re being forced to wear what they wear. So what happens then when the government actually infringes on their self expression? It’s not gonna make them look kindly on the institutions that will teach them western values, they will gravitate more to the institutions that will teach them Muslim values.
If you want rid people of their conservative ideals, you do that through education. If you try to force people to conform, you’ll get blowback and people only get more radical.
An abaya is a long outer gown or robe, covering the legs to the ankles, the arms to the wrists, to be worn over clothing. It can be worn by men or women, but women are required to dress modestly and cover their skin. It’s not commonly worn in France except by muslim women conforming to the modest dress code.
Kids aren’t allowed to wear any religious adornments in French schools. No caps, crosses, or satanic tee shirts. That ban has been in place for almost 20 years, along witb burquas, niqab, and other ostentatious displays of religious expression.
It sucks, I beleave this was the wrong move because its a government acting as a parent to school kids, trying to hevy handedly disrupt that child’s religion. Wanna get these kids “free from their opressive religion”? Talk to them as a peer. Social movements are there to do that, even ones that work mainly in the school system.
Couldn’t they’ve picked a less extreme way of handling this situation than “we are your parents, we think you shouldnt have to dress like that so now you wont”.
It is very efficient at having people talk about it, and temporarily forget all the places missing teachers, the sad state of a lot of school buildings, the lack of recognition (and decent salary) that’s been the norm for decades at this point, and actual issues regarding kids.
The law is there to remind that no religious sign or clothe are accepted into the public system. People who disagree with it can go to the private school.
Except it’s been extended beyond religious clothing. An abaya is not specifically a religious clothing or something mandated by a religion, it is something worn in some places where people happens to be of that religion. No religious texts calls for it, where other things like burka and headscarfs where more directly linked to islam. Here, it’s a dress, that people in arabic countries wear. It’s literally fashion police.
France is the country of human rights, it protects by the right of asylum any person who is the victim of persecution in his country. The School of the Republic allows any dress, as long as it is not proselytising.
This prohibition is not compatible with private life, freedom of religion, the right to education and the principle of non-discrimination. This dress is part of a logic of religious affirmation. It is compulsory for women in Qatar. There is no evidence that a student in France is forced or not to wear the abaya.
This story of the abaya illustrates a question that runs through the whole of society: the question of boundaries. It seems increasingly difficult to impose rules, to apply them, without running the risk of being accused of authoritarianism.
I’m saying France’s institutions either can handle religious garb, in which case they are needlessly persecuting people, which is objectively evil, or they can’t, in which case the French are focusing on the wrong things and should fix their institutions.
67 women did refused took off their abaya.There is about 3 millions students in France. They still can join religious private schools if they don’t want to go to the public school.
Does it need to be? Like if they want everyone to wear something very specific and French, then they should do uniforms. Until then, no one is required to wear something of “French culture.” Like I’m a huge fan of punk and metal. I’m 34 years old and still wear band shirts. It’s arguably not the typical culture of my country, but should that matter? Would kids be kicked out of school for that?
I have never seen a student excluded for wearing a group T-shirt in France into the public school. Secularism is a pillar of any modern society, which should not be a source of division but a link between all sensitivities and communities. Abdelali Mamoun, an imam at the Paris mosque, mentions that in Islam there is no religious dress, but that the abaya is an outfit advocated by fundamentalists.
So if the problem is people excluding others because that person practices a different religion, then the problem isn’t the person practicing the religion, it’s the fuck sticks excluding them.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not a fan of religion. I’m fairly anti-theistic. Especially for the Abraham’s religion. And out of the three, especially Islam. I am also against the religion telling women how to dress for the reasons they do.
But I don’t think this should be the schools decision. I don’t think they should tell kids they can’t dress a certain way based on the fact that it’s religious. If a kid wants to wear a cross necklace or a shirt that says something about Jesus, cool. A Yamaha? That’s fine. I might not personally be for it, and think it’d weird for kids, but also I don’t think that’s for me or the school to decide.
Just as I’m against the authoritarian religion telling these girls what to wear
I’m also against an authoritarian government doing the same.
“But secularism!”
Secularism doesn’t necesarily mean keeping religion out of everyone’s life. Just out of the government and school. Teachers shouldn’t preach it. Laws shouldn’t be mandated around it. But that doesn’t mean no one gets to practice it in anyway shape or form. It just means they don’t have any say I no the system based on their religion.
And banning something because it’s also worn by fundamentalist makes it sound even dumber. I was raised Mormon. They wear a lot of things people wear on a lot of occasions. I wouldn’t say to ban those types of clothing because the Mormons wear them. That’s fucking stupid. No more long sleeve shirts? How about blouses? If a woman happens to like those, too bad apperantly. Fundamentalists also wear them, so now they’re no longer allowed.
“We are banning all religious clothing, but also all clothing worn by religious people.”
Oh I see, you’re actually just a blatant racist. That explains why you expect others to give a shit about your opinions on certain jokes too I suppose.
I’m definitely a weirdo, I’ll give you that. But you’re a genuine scumbag so I’ll take weirdo all day long :) x
You know who are really the fucking worst? Racists.
Racism is not just for a person’s nationality or whatever your twisted definition is anyway, but when it comes to religion and race there is a blurring.
Judaism is a religion too, but you think anti semitic people aren’t racist?
Racism is attributing negative traits to people based on their perceived belonging to cultural, biological, religious, national origin, and to allow this to legitimate their subordination.
Racism is not just for a person’s nationality or whatever your twisted definition is anyway, but when it comes to religion and race there is a blurring.
…No there isn’t?
Judaism is a religion too, but you think anti semitic people aren’t racist?
Nope! not unless they hate jews for their race, if they are like me and just hate jews for their religion they are good.
It would have been better if they took each other out or at least if he started enough unrest so russia has take to more military out of ukraine to deal with him
I read it more like “he tried to roll the dice without anteing up”. Who the hell does that? Russia definitely wouldn’t be better with Prig, but it’s a hell of a thing to watch either way.
So he releases a video of himself in Africa. Then a plane with his name on the roster flies from Belarus to Moscow gets shot down. Anyone know if any planes belonging to Wagner flew from Africa to Belarus recently? This might be trick.
Yeah my wife is convinced he wasn’t on the plane and this is subterfuge. I think Putin had him shot down to make a point, as he’s done with pretty much every other real threat he’s encountered.
The likelihood he was anywhere near the location where he was filmed is slim to none. These guys are always moving after they record something, and are long gone by the time it is released.
Why he was dumb enough to re enter Russian airspace is a separate matter.
I just heard on the news the plane was confirmed to have been in Africa just recently. Also please explain, why a trick since both the Russian government and the Wagner leftovers confirmed it? The guy signed his death certificate once he cancelled his little Moscow tour two months ago and we all know it.
Yeah, it’s definitely suspicious how this plane crash happened just two months after the coup attempt. It seems like someone wanted to silence him for good. I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s more to this story than meets the eye.
“Christopher Steele - former head of the Russia desk at Britain’s foreign intelligence agency (MI6) - says it’s “inevitable” that this would be Prigozhin’s ending.”
“We were told some weeks ago, in fact, that there had been a contract taken out on Prigozhin inside Russia by senior people in the business community.”
That’s kind of concerning, since it seems to suggest that business leaders in Russia support Putin and weren’t aiming for a coup of their own, unless Prigozhin was somehow a threat to whatever coup they might be planning (if it was being planned at all). Granted, “senior people in the business community” are probably all Putin cronies anyways.
bbc.co.uk
Top