La Russophobe has moved!

You should be automatically redirected in 6 seconds. If not, visit
http://larussophobe.wordpress.com
and update your bookmarks.

Sunday, February 04, 2007

The Sunday Funnies Part III: On the Fate of Russian Dissidents



On each of the spent shell casings is written: "I had nothing to gain from this killing."

Source: Ellustrator.

15 comments:

Sergej Varsjinskij said...

"I had nothing to gain from this killing."

Nothing was gained ? Hmmm ... then the target was really insignificant. What a waste of money then, although three rounds do not cost a fortune I'd still opt to sue the guy behind the gun for wasting the taxpayer's money.

La Russophobe said...

SERGEJ: No, you didn't read carefully. It didn't say nothing was gained, it said that the killer claimed he had nothing to gain. One can take an action that does not benefit oneself at all, but benefits others. However, I think the point is that the writer may possibly be lying, and that the more spent shell casings we find the more likely it is that he is lying. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me!

Sergej Varsjinskij said...

The more spent cases we find the more clearly we see that the 'target' was removed by the mafia. The hitman wants to make sure he will earn his blood money.

A truthful and loyal FSB agent would have only used one bullet because he's trained for efficiency and thrift. Ask Litvinenko ;-)

Cyrill said...

Russia is hardly a paragon of efficiency in any area. To assume that FSB is somehow different and is trained so much better then Army, Navy and OMON is wishful thinking.

Sergej Varsjinskij said...

Yeah Cyrill, of course, you must know it. ;-)

Cyrill said...

Yeah Cyrill, of course, you must know it. ;-)
No, I do not know how well FSB killers are trained. But I know general incompetence of Soviet military quite well. Since then it continued with disasters like Kursk and botched up jobs like Nord-Ost and Beslan. I have little reason to assume things have changed much. Now, tell me, what do you base your assumption that FSB killers are better trained then mafia thugs? Брат-2?

Sergej Varsjinskij said...

Cyrill:No, I do not know how well FSB killers are trained.

This is exactly the problem. Picking a few examples and assuming that everything else is of similar 'quality' is simply guessing. And not even educated guessing. It would as uneducated as guessing that the US military failure in Iraq and the failures of US Intelligence in the Middle East permit a generalized assumption regarding the over all 'quality' of American forces or intelligence agencies.

What do I base my 'assumptions' on ? I can tell what I do not base it on. I do not base it on russophobia.

Cyrill said...

I am not assuming anything, only pointing out that your assumption that FSB killers would be much highly trained then other entities in similar lines of work, albeit possible, is not too probable.

There is no generalisation on my part since I am deducing, i.e moving from general to the special, while your example is inductive, i.e a generalisation.

I am not sure why would you refer to russophobia while avoiding my question. Care to elaborate?

Sergej Varsjinskij said...

Let's do it 'bottom up' and start with the last point.

You: I am not sure why would you refer to russophobia while avoiding my question. Care to elaborate?

Sure. The entire blog 'La Russophobe' is based on russophobia. And it is entirely based on assumptions dished out for being facts. I wasn't accusing you of being a russophobe and I didn't avoid your question. I simply said that I do not base my view on Russia / Russians on russophobia but on (mostly) hard facts and personal experience.

Your question: Now, tell me, what do you base your assumption that FSB killers are better trained then mafia thugs? Брат-2?

First of all, I didn't assume. I work on the security sector and part of my job is to protect customers from being kidnapped or killed. I am not the 'gun', I am an analyst. To develop a (hopefuly) successful protective strategy one needs to analyse the 'modus operandi' of the party that might be interested in harming your customer. It is a clear and obvious fact that you can't fully protect a customer because in 'battle' between protector and aggressor the aggressor is the one who decides how much he wants to invest and which level of the maximum risk (of being arrested or killed himself) he will be willing to accept. So the protector mostly reacts and operates passively by increasing the security level to such an extend that the aggressor will either consider his 'operation' being too costly (money) or too risky and restrain from attempting. As soon as bullets fly or bombs explode the stragedy failed and is out through the window.

To be able to analyse the 'modus operandi' you can't simply go to the 'aggressor' and ask him how he does his 'job'. You have to go through hundreds (maybe thousands)of successful and unsuccessful operations and construct a profile of the potential aggressors. After a while you almost exactly know which party works which way and how their abilities look like. And you hope that you took anything and everything into your consideration and will not be surprised.

Last but not least, every aggressor has his own 'modus operandi' and leaves a certain 'business card' behind, for those able and willing to see it. This as much as I want to say.

Cyrill said...

I wasn't accusing you of being a russophobe

Than it was a non sequitur, a straw man or a red herring.

I work on the security sector and part of my job is to protect customers from being kidnapped or killed.

This is all fine, so you are quite familiar with mob killings and kidnappings.

You have to go through hundreds (maybe thousands)of successful and unsuccessful operations and construct a profile of the potential aggressors.

Are you saying that you have analyzed "hundreds (maybe thousands" of FSB murders to conclusively state that in this particular case it was not them?

Sergej Varsjinskij said...

Cyrill, I am not catching your bait. Regardless what I say, you will come up with another question filled with assumptions. Your intentions are obvious, find someone else to play. Bye.

Cyrill said...

A formidable position, when inconvenient questions are considered provocations. Sounds vaguely familiar from the glory days of the USSR.

Sergej Varsjinskij said...

Cyrill wrote ....

Why don't you admit that you aren't Cyrill but rather another appearance of LR !

First I thought you were not willing to read, then that you were simply unable to read.

Now I know that you are nothing but another LR. Carry on !

Cyrill said...

Because I am not. this is me

Sergei, I am not sure what problem do you have with me since I expressed doubt, nothing more. I offered no judgements. I offered a possible explanation that you are welcome to consider or discard in your thought process, but if you are responding to it, my (at least) expectation is to see some back and forth give and take.

Please understand that my willingness or ability to read is largely predicated on what you are willing or able to offer. You have offered a platitude about modus operandi that had a gaping hole in it. Wonderful. Do you expect not to be called on it?

I am not interested in bickering. If you have any information that FSB enforcers perform with demonic presision, quite unlike the rest of similar enforcers from other agencies, please by all means, do so.

Otherwise you offer a peculiar example of misguiderd patriotism that perfomrs like an ostrich and calls any disagreement for a russophobe.

La Russophobe said...

CYRILL: Sergej is a psychopath. He stated that Robert Amsterdam has no idea who I am when in fact this blog is listed on his blogroll and he has written two differentn posts about me. He is banned from commenting on this blog and not worth talking to, insensible to reason and a perfect example of the Russian self-destruction.