Did any of your obviously objective, Yugoslav-bombardment supporting "mainstream" media coverage report on the undisputed fact that Donald Uges, a Dutch toxicologist, found a drug treating TB in Milosevic's system, and blamed that fact on Milosevic himself?

Let me answer that for you, because you're a known liar and an extremely lazy one to boot.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/18/international/europe/18milosevic.html?_r=0

Yes, in fact, they did confirm this.

"Court officials confirmed at the news conference that the antibiotic, rifampicin, had been found in a blood sample drawn from Mr. Milosevic in January. Even if investigators determine that rifampicin played no part in Mr. Milosevic's death, the presence of such a potent, nonprescribed medicine in his system suggests some sort of foul play or at least medical manipulation within the walls of the United Nations detention center."

So, what's more believable, Milosevic killed himself while sweeping the floor with the prosecution in the Hague and exposing the NATO campaign as being full of lies, or he was deliberately given a drug to kill him?

But why do you even care, Invictus, you're on record as supporting the Gaddafi assassination via knife to the anus, all in the name of 'human rights', of course. Your commitment to international law as your commitment to sobriety.

*is as strong as

Uh, the former. And the theory isn't that he used it to commit suicide, but that he used it to counter-act his blood pressure meds in order to further draw out the trial. Not so crazy of an idea that he could have gotten it sneaked in to accomplish that goal. His death then either was because he was too successful with his plan or his heart, which really was bad, just gave out on its own. Much more parsimonious than a grand conspiracy, at least.

Your rabid anti-Atlanticism and peculiar affinity for Serbian genocidal actions are making you clutch at straws here. It's really quite pathetic.

What? I'm a drunk now? Where's that coming from? Because I don't want Prohibition 2.0 like you? Go fuck your mother.

You're not even hip on your hospital bombing talking points, Invictus. The theory wasn't that he took the TB meds to draw out the trial, but that he did so in order to insist that he go to Russia for medical treatment, where he could promptly seek asylum.

And if you that's more parsimonious that the notion that a court system that was doing everything it could to rig the trial against him, acting on behalf of powerful actors who did not want to be embarrassed, and who already refused to have NATO commanders come to the stand as witnesses to be cross-examined, and who were already notorious for allowing witnesses to mysteriously vanish or be killed that might incriminate the handful of war criminals who served NATO interests, then you don't know what the fuck parsimonious means.

Milosevic was not a stupid man, knew he was in ill health and would not have engaged in such a ridiculous scheme at the cost of jeopardizing the sole weapon he had left, the public humiliation of NATO.

Handful of apprehended war criminals, I should say. I'm sure you think Naser Oric's what, 2 year stint and Haradinaj and Gotovina's releases were examples of justice. All Serbs are criminals. All non-Serbs are innocents, afterall.

What, you're all of a sudden going to pretend like your constant braggadocio about how much you drink is make-believe? Go circlejerk with a pledge, phony.

I've never boasted about how much I can drink here, and I've been out of undergrad for over a year and a half so the frat boy jabs, if they ever were effective, are now beyond stale.

You're a conspiracy theorist kook. That's plain for anyone who reads this to see.

Right, like the conspiracy that your poor KLA "freedom fighters" killed Serbs for organ trafficking. Oh except that "conspiracy" turned out to be true. Far more elaborate than slipping Milosevic TB medicine to kill him, I might add.

But if NATO's official press releases, or CNN (I repeat myself) didn't report it, it didn't happen.

Also, earth to Mcfly, half the freaks in here are "conspiracy kooks". I don't think your usual antics of playing to the crowd when you have a weak case are going to work at least on that front. Going to have to think up new material. But I doubt your scotch-soaked war loving brain can handle it.

I drink bourbon #murrica

I find it fascinating how Putin will spend hours lambasting someone for the most minor politically incorrect faux pas, but has no problem using a derogatory term such as "drunk" for a well-known addiction.

Refresh my memory as to what you consider to be "the most minor politically incorrect faux pas"?

Is it - infantilizing women? I seem to remember you having a shit-fit about that one.

Yeah sorry no I don't find the two to be in the same category, at least with the current trend of glorifying drug usage and drunkenness. But if you think calling people retards or adult women girls is a trivial matter, so be it.

Which, let's be clear, I don't suffer from. I haven't had a drink this month, now that I think about it.

@Putin

How is alcoholism less serious that obesity? I a vast majority of cases, obesity is directly caused by people's own choices and yet on several occasions you've criticized people for how they refer to fat people.

I find it fascinating how the insulting part of that comment for Invictus and, apparently, abgemacht, was not insinuating that he had a total lack of commitment to international law or supported assassination (which was not for one moment denied), but that he had a lack of commitment to sobriety.

Speaks volumes, I think. Supporter of assassination? Groovy? Gleeful partisan of torture before murder? Awesome. But just don't say I drink too much. *That's* beyond the pale.

You guys rock.

Right thinking people are glad Gaddafi's dead. It's not worth discussing the point with a tyrant fellator like yourself. That's why.

I just don't understand how you justify your position on things. You give people shit for referring to women as girls, but you're a supporter of PETA, which constantly objectives women.

You crucify people who aren't sensitive to people with mental disabilities, but you don't give a shit about people with addictions?

It makes no sense.

And, by the way, in no way am I insulted. I'm just pointing out how internally inconsistent it is.

"How is alcoholism less serious that obesity?"

So that's what you think is trivial compared to alcoholism? Fat shaming? It's not. Both are serious. I shouldn't use alcoholism as a punchline, but nor should you insist that you can engage in fat-shaming, or that you can simply assert data about obesity being the fault of the "obese" as uncontroversial fact and get away with it. There's plenty of evidence suggesting that 'obesity' is genetic, there are plenty of thin people who aren't healthy, there are plenty of larger people who are healthy. Size isn't the alpha and omega of health. The fat shaming epidemic, which is pervasive, leads to denial of medical care, misdiagnosis, consumer discrimination, job discrimination, bad-body image which itself causes eating disorders, mental health issues, and a whole host of problems.

The CDC itself has drastically reduced its earlier absurd estimates about deaths attributable to obesity. Fat-shaming has led to junk science masquerading as science. And people eat it up because either they are self-loathing or they think they're better than others based on their genetically produced body size.

I can only say that the main difference between the two, although you dispute it, is alcoholism's (almost always) purely self-inflicted nature and the genetic origins of body size. Also alcoholism doesn't appear to lead to the same kinds of discrimination that fat people have to deal with. For instance (as a just a small illustration), barely anybody talked about GW Bush's past behavior, as compared to the litany of jokes/complaints about Chris Christie's gerth, or the size of Hilary Clinton's ankles (which, as an important sidepoint, fat-shaming and misogyny are closely intertwined). I've not heard of anyone being driven to another form of disorder because of being routinely publicly humiliated for being an alcoholic. There seems to be, and I have personal anecdotal experience with this, a high level of tolerance/forgiveness for the disease of alcoholism as compared to other things. Which is not to say there shouldn't be forgiveness for it.

Also, obesity is not linked to violence, nor is obesity linked to reckless endangerment of the public welfare - both connected to alcohol. And being large is not glorified in society, as drinking heavily is. So there is that aspect as well - it was this point in particular I was reacting to in this instance (foolishly).

"I'm just pointing out how internally inconsistent it is."

No, you're salty over the girl/woman issue. And you're jumping on me this as revenge. That's the sum of it.

I don't support PETA's sexualized campaigns. But for whatever reason you give Invictus a pass on gay rights even though he supports the party of Bachman and Steve King. I don't have to support everything a group does to support the overall purpose of the organization. And sorry to say there are no alternative groups doing the heavy lifting for animal rights. And I'm going to abandon animal rights just because I don't agree with everything someone does. I'm going to call it out internally and work for change from within.

That concept you've never understood. I get it. It's all or nothing with you. And anything less is hypocrisy. What the fuck ever.

"but you don't give a shit about people with addictions?"

I have many people in my life who suffer from addictions. But the people who suffer far more are the people who bend over backwards to help them out while they fleece them and exploit them based on family connections and friendships. So don't lecture me about fucking addictions or mental illness, just because you want to win a cheap debate point. You tolerate people who humiliate schizofrenics, you don't say a fucking word. You tolerate people who degrade women, you don't say a fucking word. You tolerate racists, you don't say a fucking word. You tolerate all sorts of nastiness on this forum without speaking up, and the only people you like to dress down is anybody who calls any of that shit out.

And why, because you're pissed about the use of the word girl.

Congrat-u-fucking-lations.

So what is, exactly, that you are arguing, abgemacht? I suppose that it should be open season on any vulnerable group, and they should actively humiliated on whatever basis people want to humiliate them on. The point isn't, that you disprove of calling anybody drunk. If so you would have whined about it 1,000 times over about Krellin. It's that you want any kind of criticism of this activity to stop, period. So you can continue infantilizing women, calling people retards, making fun of fat people at your leisure, is that right?

"No, you're salty over the girl/woman issue."

That's preposterous. I stopped referring to women as girls since Thucy/mafia made essentially the same argument as you did a year ago, but without all the self-righteous bullshit.

"It's all or nothing with you."

Projection at it's finest.

My argument is fairly simple: someone who advocates so hard for the disenfranchised shouldn't refer to alcoholics as drunks. Since we both agree on that, I'm not sure what more needs to be said.

"nor should you insist that you can engage in fat-shaming, or that you can simply assert data about obesity being the fault of the "obese" as uncontroversial fact and get away with it."

Your in prose is robust, but no need to come on so heavy, Putin. Though you make a stout argument, you should really weigh your options - sometimes it comes across as a bit too broad. It's a hefty choice you need to make, I guess. Still, I think your detractors grossly underestimate your capacity for largesse. I think they're just thick though.

"but without all the self-righteous bullshit."

Self-righteous my ass. All I said was that if they're 12 or younger they aren't children, and you flipped out.

But I suppose being a narrow-minded bro-ish dick isn't a criminal offense in your eyes. We're supposed to kiss your ass and tell you it's ok, while coddling you and telling you that maybe you should reconsider. Your tonality is never a problem. Anybody who dares speak up to you assholes has to mind your feelings all the time.

"Projection at it's finest."

Cute retort. If you only it had any substance to it.

All or nothing? I'm a communist who supports Obama.
All or nothing? I'm a LGBTQ ally who supports Putin.
All or nothing? I'm a womens' rights ally who supports PETA.

All of which you and the rest bitch about, so which is it?

Talk about internal consistency. Fix your own stupid-ass attack on me first, doctor.

*are children

"Self-righteous my ass. All I said was that if they're 12 or younger they aren't children, and you flipped out."

Putin, this all happened a year ago. Maybe longer. Why are you still talking about it?

"Cute retort. If you only it had any substance to it. "

It's all or nothing with you in terms of how you react to the forum. Someone could agree with 99% of what you say and you'd still fly off the handle, accusing them of being imperialist conservative racists.