Neven, you are jumping from "I doubt everything from every side" to "Sure, have it your way, and assume you have it all right".
No, I'm not jumping. As I've said we are having multiple discussions that are interconnected and intertwined:
1) The details of Russia-related mysteries/crimes
2) What they mean in big picture context
3) The merits of 'open source journalism'
I still doubt a lot from every side when it comes to 1), because we don't know everything, there is very little transparency, and different narratives are being pushed to further different agendas (none of them the people's).
Which is why I try to fast forward to 2). I've already said that I have certain 'hopes' for 1) to convince others of what I think of 2). If some aspects of or the entire official narrative surrounding 1) turn out to be wrong (like with Gulf of Tonkin, or Iraq WMDs, etc), it is easier to convince others that the masses are being played by small factions who try to further their goals (which is always tied to concentrated wealth), as has been done since the invention of agriculture.
Neither one of these two extreme positions takes into account that in order to find the truth, we need to gather evidence, present it, and accept it. And you ignore that in between you were very much attacking the very people who are doing exactly such fact-checking. Like Bellingcat.
Proposing a hpyothesis, 'let's say you're right about everything (1), what does that mean in the big picture context (2)?' , is not taking an extreme position. It's just proposing a hypothesis, where you can discuss different possibilities. Unless you know The Truth, of course.
You're projecting stuff onto me and putting words in my mouth. But the words are there for everyone to see. Of course, I could very well be wrong about everything I say, but at least let me be wrong about the things I
do say, and not the things you
think I'm saying.
Your change of mind is very much like what we see with climate science deniers : First they deny everything, then they attack the fact-checkers (the scientists) and then they roll over saying that even if we accept all the evidence, it does not matter.
I really hate that kind of reasoning, Neven, and I am very disappointed, especially since you rely on evidence and facts and science when it comes to climate change.
Sigh, here we go again. Do you have any idea how easy it is to make these analogies?
"Rob is on a crusade and so he believes everything uncritically that the good volunteers of Bellingcat decide to share. And the white, middle-aged male that he is, he's adamant about telling everyone he's right and they need to shut up, employing debate tactics that border on trolling. Just like a fanatical climate risk denier who thinks Americans For Prosperity is a wonderful, unbiased resource. Either way, down with the commie bastards."
Remember, you're the one
denying that Russia is the bogeyman du jour to further US geopolitical interests (and when I say US, I mean US corporations), which explains the excessive focus it receives, and uniform messaging by the mainstream media. This part of the context must not be discussed because it can't be proven scientifically (or whatever goalpost needs to be shifted to).
Neven, you have done an amazing job in creating a platform where science-oriented people can talk about Arctic Sea Ice decline and climate change. ASIB and ASIF are such a relief from the climate science denier sites that I used to have to argue with (remember I came here in 2011 after arguing on WUWT about the 2011 sea ice minimum?). I thought that here I would find a home of like-minded science-oriented evidence-based reasoning people arguing using the facts and the science instead of opinion.
This. Isn't. Science.
Yes, maybe geolocating an image is. But even then, this evidence (1) needs to be put in a larger context (2), and biases and agendas (3) always turn this context into a narrative. And that's when it ceases to be science and becomes art, and you need more than just a scientific mind that's great at binary thinking (and probably has a leaning towards technocratic authoritarianism).
Especially with all the misery Russia under Putin has caused, in Moldova, in Georgia, in Ukraine, with MH17, and with their targeting hospitals and mosques and chemical weapons use in Syria and more (as the Skripal case), I am utterly disappointed you (and not only you) argue about the fact checkers (like Bellingcat), rather than with the facts, as you would do for climate change issues.
Climate change is a lot more clear-cut than this. I can't make my response any simpler, especially since I'm not allowed to employ whataboutism.
I'm especially appalled by the denial and the endless stream of hypocritical lies out of Russia regarding ALL these acts of aggression and violations of international law, and so it is disheartening to me that you (and not only you) ignore or even attack the fact-checkers that point out these lies.
And this is discussion (3).
Bellingcat is a great initiative. It's when people like Higgins, Toler and Kaszeta flirt with war-mongering, anti-democracy institutions like the Atlantic Council that things get screwed up. It tarnishes the whole thing.
Maybe if they try to become like an Edward Snowden or Chelsea Manning, this perception could change. But I don't think that will ever happen, as that would be the end of the bandwagon. Bellingcat is being used as a propaganda outlet for mainstream media to hide behind, and I feel sorry for all the volunteers who dedicate their time and effort to what on paper seems like a welcome initiative.
But as luck has it, I have just been asked by a client to translate a documentary about Bellingcat, so maybe I'll change my mind.
You make it seem like no justice can be done any more. Russia can do whatever it wants, including even shooting down a civilian airliner. You still use your own political ideology that everything is caused by greed, as well as your opinion that nothing can be known for sure, as an excuse to avoid a discussion about the evidence we have available, and to attack the ones who point it out.
I'm not like that. I like to check the facts and used evidence to show the difference between the truth and the lies. Just like what Bellingcat does.
I really hope at some point you will see that facts are stubborn things. No matter if they are about our climate or about Russian atrocities. And I hope you will see that by fact-checking and using evidence-based reasoning, that propaganda is exposed, and lies are debunked, so that the truth, and with that JUSTICE, can prevail.
Facts don't mean all that much without context. There is no justice without context. What you want, is bloodthirsty revenge. That's dangerous, and a total waste of our time and planet.
It
is possible to denounce the deeds of the Russian government, without letting this denouncement be abused by actors that do similar deeds to further their agenda.
We are not fighting Russia, we are fighting factions on all sides that try to get the masses involved in their goals. It's not a fight between one faction+one part of the masses versus another faction+another part of the masses. The fight is between these factions and the masses.
And we are part of the masses, regardless of borders and differences in race, culture, faith, etc, right?