Article

2004-09-22 Caucasus/Russia/Central Asia

Russian Cancels Pardon Request in Chechen Case

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Paul Moloney 2004-09-22 4:04:20 AM|| || Front Page|| [3 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Colonel Budanov was convicted last year of kidnapping and strangling Elza Kungayeva, 18, who he said he suspected was a sniper, but only after a second trial on the charges.

That is a lie. The sniper charge against the victim was Budanov's contention from the very start.

This is absurdedly easy to determine. Why did the NY Times writer seek to write this egregious lie?

Colonel Budanov is obviously leaning into the strike zone and taking one for the team.

Posted by badanov 2004-09-22 7:44:15 AM|| [http://www.rkka.org/title-boris.gif] 2004-09-22 7:44:15 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 It seems to me that "only after a second trial on the charges" is going to the first part of the sentence, the one about Budanov being convicted. Clumsy wording, but hardly a lie.

As for murdering scum Budanov "taking one for the team", yeah I agree that Putin is on murdering scum Budanov's team. I wonder how he will be repaid, though. I could think of a dozen ways that the Russian government could make it worth his while to cancel his plead for amnesty.

Seems that Putin doesn't want to *fully* reveal Russia as yet. Probably only after he reconquers Georgia.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-09-22 8:32:11 AM|| 2004-09-22 8:32:11 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 Didn't you also say the sniper charge didn't come out until after the second trial, Aris?

And you may be able to read and write the English language, but either you failed to notice the lie or you choose to deliberately ignore it. Which is it?

And Aris, there is no question the writer meant to write what was written; that Col. Budanov came up with an excuse only after a second trial. That is the lie. You told the same lie a day or two ago.

The implications are clear from the phrasing what the writer meant to say.

Posted by badanov 2004-09-22 9:10:05 AM|| [http://www.rkka.org] 2004-09-22 9:10:05 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 No, I'm quite sure I *never* said anything about when the sniper charge came out. I'm absolutely certain about that.

Badanov, you don't know the meaning of commas. I'm replacing two of them with parentheses to show you how the sentence in the article is meant:
Colonel Budanov was convicted last year of kidnapping and strangling Elza Kungayeva, 18, (who he said he suspected was a sniper), but only after a second trial on the charges.

These are commas creating an internal sentence that can be removed without altering the meaning of the external sentence. We do study grammar in Greece. In short, the external sentence is "Colonel Budanov was convicted last year of kidnapping and strangling Elza Kungayeva, 18, but only after a second trial on the charges." and the internal sentence is "he said he suspected [Elza Kungayeva] was a sniper".

Once again I don't care if you accept facts or not. But though the wording was awkward, people who know about the function of commas could figure out what was meant. The reference to "after a second trial" makes sense only in the context of the conviction, not Budanov's claim. If it was about Budanov's claim it would have been *during* a second a trial.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-09-22 9:46:08 AM|| 2004-09-22 9:46:08 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 That the reference to the second trial concerns the conviction (and not the claim) is *further* indicated by the immediately following sentence that says: "The first trial had ended in acquittal"

Thematic connection, see?

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-09-22 9:53:14 AM|| 2004-09-22 9:53:14 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 Aris: This is supposed to be journalistic writing, not literature. The way journalists are supposed to write must leave no questions about what the writer meant. That was not done here and it is open to my interpretation. You may well study the language but I use the language and I know the language and how journalism is supposed to be.

Therefore, that sentance is a lie.

Posted by badanov 2004-09-22 10:07:17 AM|| [http://www.rkka.org] 2004-09-22 10:07:17 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 I already admitted it that clearly this is clumsy sentencing. Ofcourse the journalists are supposed to write in ways that leave no question about what was meant, and this was not done here.

Which means that the writer was an incompetent writer. Not that he was a liar.

But ofcourse you are not content with the idea that the journalist was simply incompetent, you have to claim he's a liar instead -- then you can feel properly wronged and angry at the bias of the eeevil llyyying meeedia.

But I'm afraid that the burden of proof falls on you to show an intent to deceive on the part of the journalist.

I think it's much more reasonable to simply consider him a clumsy writer IMO. But go on repeating whatever suits your fancy.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-09-22 10:37:44 AM|| 2004-09-22 10:37:44 AM|| Front Page Top

09:36 OldSpook
04:07 OldSpook
04:02 OldSpook
02:34 OldSpook
02:24 OldSpook
02:19 OldSpook
00:47 OldSpook
00:42 OldSpook
00:40 OldSpook
00:35 OldSpook
00:34 OldSpook
23:34 Anonymous
16:52 Alaska Raul
01:52 Anonymous
08:36 Mike Sylwester
02:23 Pappy
02:11 Zenster
01:30 Long Hair Republican
01:01 trailing wife
00:58 trailing wife
00:47 Super Hose
00:23 lex
00:16 lex
00:10 Memesis