'I Do Not Know Why We Persecute Jehovah's Witnesses,' Putin Says

[Judith Sweeney]

@James Thomas Rook Jr. ..... Data tilts head... Shades of Rossum's Robots!!

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

7 minutes ago, Judith Sweeney said:

@James Thomas Rook Jr. ..... Data tilts head... Shades of Rossum's Robots!!

I am so impressed by that arcane  reference!

[Samantha87Smith]

On Sun Dec 23 2018 at 5:10 PM, The Librarian said:

@Samantha87Smith Can you help us with your Russian > English translation of the meaning?

Did he mean "Prosecute" or "Persecute"? See the last few posts above.

In Russian "преследовать" can be translated as "prosecute" or "persecute". Maybe it is better to ask the president what did he mean by saying this :D 

[TrueTomHarley]

Even an inverted barley flapjack soaks up the syrup sometimes. 

Because it was @James Thomas Rook Jr., I followed the normal course of wisdom and asked him what had he been smoking.

But now it seems more likely that Putin did indeed say “prosecute,” a term familiar to his world, and not “persecute,” a term not.

 It probably amounts to the same thing. What, is he suggesting that they should be rounded up and detained without prosecution? 

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

It probably amounts to the same thing. What, is he suggesting that they should be rounded up and detained without prosecution? 

No, TTH, it probably does NOT amount to the same thing.  The two words have nuances that make them completely different ... which is what this WHOLE CONVERSATION has been about.

Words have intonation, flavor, nuance, and emotional indexes, depending on culture, context, and time and circumstance of usage.

Soft words in one language are hard words in another.  The same word used in street slang, an Elder's meeting, and in a court of law will be quite different, due to "environmental" factors, and common usage.

Once again, you are trying to soften and justify that you are wrong.

.... And as to your question ... if you don't understand the answer intuitively, an explanation is beyond the amount of work I want to devote to an answer.

[TrueTomHarley]

14 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

if you don't understand the answer intuitively, an explanation is beyond the amount of work I want to devote to an answer.

What do you think? Do his words indicate he’s about to ratchet up the pressure?

No insults, please. (Be like me.) Tell me what you think.

[Space Merchant]

@James Thomas Rook Jr. Well the 777 crew said persecution. And 100% of them are Russian born. I believe I made it known to you of following /Russian sources for some time now.

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

What do you think? Do his words indicate he’s about to ratchet up the pressure?

No insults, please. (Be like me.) Tell me what you think.

If my understanding of the Russian Mind ... and Putin's mind is correct, he is going to reverse the prosecution of Jehovahs'a Witnesses, before 2020, as I stated two days ago on another thread.

He thinks like an adult, when all around him, on BOTH sides, everyone else is thinking like petulant children.

[Space Merchant]

@James Thomas Rook Jr. The only obstacle is the Duma and the Russian Orthodox Church. The RoC are like children, if they cry about something, Putin will take action directly and or indirectly. You play Pokemon Go in a Church, the Kremlin will somehow get involved. You like poetry and the FSB don't like it, well, they'll come for you. Like the Bible or like to crack jokes? In Russia, jokes crack you, and your Bible will be taken and or used as a means to take you down. Want to save your home? The Duma will prevent you from doing that and will get the RU police involved and most likely push you and your sign to the ground and then arrest you. We need not start with singing. And yin Chechnya, you have to be vigilant - or else.

 

The jokes may be something to laugh at, but when the Russians triad are serious, they'll do something to you.

[JW Insider]

9 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Do his words indicate he’s about to ratchet up the pressure?

Just a little more longwinded opinion here.

I think his tone and most of his words were intended to portray himself as someone who recognizes that there were and are human rights issues to take care of now and to avoid in the future. He also is is to be seen as a source of wise advice, giving the impression that if he had just known some of these issues in advance that he would have known better ways to handle these things. But he also recognizes that some issues are too complex to make snap decisions about on the spot. He gives the impression that he is generally knowledgeable, perhaps had an idea about some of these issues, but was really just now learning the specifics, either on the spot or from reading the papers provided in preparation for the meeting.

Otherwise he would be portraying himself and therefore the Russian nation as knowingly culpable in any of the errors that had been made in the name of the state. That's the big difference in using the term to mean "prosecute" vs "persecute." If he had intentionally used the term to mean "persecute" this would have been very much at odds with that tenor -- it admits national culpability -- and that he KNOWS there is national culpability. That's why it is very different from "prosecute" which admits only procedural error at most, e.g., too strict a definition being put on the word "extremist," and therefore something that could potentially be redressed merely through a change or adjustment in judicial procedure, if deemed necessary.

To me, his words indicate that he would not be averse to a positive change in the procedure against "extremist" groups, especially when these are generally seen as "Christian" groups. It seems he would be more forgiving of first time offenses of trying to proselytize. I don't get the impression that he, on his own, will want to make a big deal of what happened with the Witnesses. But he will no doubt be informed again of the JW status and will be more knowledgeable each time he is re-informed, and this could easily lead to a situation very soon where he asks for a change to the procedure against JWs. The JWs may have to "compromise" in the sense of being more of an autonomous religious group in Russia that doesn't give the impression that it merely takes all marching orders from outside of Russia (New York). To work well in Russia, the state wants to know that tens of thousands of people are not going to suddenly begin carrying "Religion is a Snare and a Racket" signs in the streets, or drink Kool-Aid, or collect money for a corporation in Wallkill, New York where instruction will trickle down through other branches to update rules about where new Halls will be built, what to do about national anthems, military service, blood transfusion policy, or look to an internal judicial system that could be seen as competing with or overriding that of the state. 

When he is advised again about the JWs, he will be concerned about how it looks to his own nation, outside international organizations, how it reflects on himself, and therefore, if making a change is useful or worth the effort. I don't get the impression he is anxious to make a big deal about it. I see it very possible that his own advisors on these issues could talk him out of doing something, even if he thinks it is advisable. I see right now as a good time for the WTS HQ to help orchestrate the leverage of human rights organizations.

Getting 8 million people to write the same set of letters is not as impressive to him as it seems to us, because it only proves that the very thing he doesn't want in a Russian religion, exists to the nth degree in our religion: that everyone follows orders from the same HQ outside of Russia.

[TrueTomHarley]

Everyone here is wrong. It was a letter from a small child at our Kingdom Hall that did the trick:

https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2018/08/when-putin-opens-my-letter.html

 

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

....... sigh .......