and ask yourself "who is BEHIND the media"
Mr. Nader represented the crown prince in the three-way conversation in the Seychelles, at a hotel overlooking in the Indian Ocean, in the days before Mr. Trump took office. At the meeting, Emirati officials believed Mr. Prince was speaking for the Trump transition team, and a Russian fund manager, Kirill Dmitriev, represented Mr. Putin, according to several people familiar with the meeting. Mr. Nader, who grew close later to several advisers in the Trump White House, had once worked as a consultant to Blackwater, a private security firm now known as Academi. Mr. Nader introduced his former employer to the Russian.
How much time of total broadcasting time does Hayes spend on Russiagate?
I liked the discussion towards the end (from 31:30 onwards) because it was about strategy. Especially the African-American lady said some sensible things.
How much time of total broadcasting time does Hayes spend on Russiagate?
I often wonder why nobody here seems to watch https://www.democracynow.org/ Methinks this is THE channel for U.S. progressives -- "Russia" is only topic no. 12 on their list. :) Amy Goodman comes right next to Rachel Maddow on top my favorite U.S. journalists list.
Last major piece:
https://www.democracynow.org/2018/2/23/masha_gessen_did_a_russian_troll
This is, by far, the best thing I have read on Russiagate...Sorry, I find this one of the worst well-meaning pieces, judging from the beginning (and then I stopped).
https://www.lrb.co.uk/v40/n01/jackson-lears/what-we-dont-talk-about-when-we-talk-about-russian-hacking
For about a week after the election, pundits discussed the possibility of a more capacious Democratic strategy. It appeared that the party might learn something from Clinton’s defeat. Then everything changed.1) He hasn't paid attention before the election.
A story that had circulated during the campaign without much effect resurfaced: it involved the charge that Russian operatives had hacked into the servers of the Democratic National Committee
Sorry, I find this one of the worst well-meaning pieces, judging from the beginning (and then I stopped).
Two more examples of good journalism, with the added bonus that the first one identifies and critiques some very bad journalism, both from Taibbi in Rolling Stone...
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/taibbi-russiagate-skeptics-take-a-beating-mueller-probe-w517006 (https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/taibbi-russiagate-skeptics-take-a-beating-mueller-probe-w517006)
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/taibbi-russiagate-trump-putin-mueller-and-targeting-dissent-w517486 (https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/taibbi-russiagate-trump-putin-mueller-and-targeting-dissent-w517486)
I wish I had seen this before I wrote all that (or perhaps I don't, since it needed saying), but I seem to have failed to properly describe the timeline, for which this is a direct source. If the link crosses "the Pond" the first 19 minutes of The New Yorker Radio Hour contains an audio interview of Jane Mayer by David Remnick (editor in chief): they are both easy to listen to and describe the background without projection, covering pros and cons, sourcing and timeframe. I think this is much better than most of the material available. https://www.newyorker.com/podcast/the-new-yorker-radio-hour/christopher-steele-and-the-russian-dossier-and-a-north-korean-poet (https://www.newyorker.com/podcast/the-new-yorker-radio-hour/christopher-steele-and-the-russian-dossier-and-a-north-korean-poet)
It lacks the pushy affect that some dislike in Maddow, and is as close to original material as most of us will ever get. Please give it a listen if you want to know more about the context, background, and character of the Steele/Fusion investigation. Being audio is convenient for those busy with other things.
For quiet competence, it's hard to beat. It contains dates, and might clear up the confusion there.
Two more examples of good journalism, with the added bonus that the first one identifies and critiques some very bad journalism, both from Taibbi in Rolling Stone...
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/taibbi-russiagate-skeptics-take-a-beating-mueller-probe-w517006
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/taibbi-russiagate-trump-putin-mueller-and-targeting-dissent-w517486
Looks like. Taibbi is no amateur. Thus the sub-headline here:Two more examples of good journalism, with the added bonus that the first one identifies and critiques some very bad journalism, both from Taibbi in Rolling Stone...
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/taibbi-russiagate-skeptics-take-a-beating-mueller-probe-w517006
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/taibbi-russiagate-trump-putin-mueller-and-targeting-dissent-w517486
I'd disagree with you here, and declare these two Taibbi pieces, plus the one linked to by Terry M, to be examples of bad journalism.
#Russiagate Skeptics Take a Beatingalready disqualifies the piece from reading. I stopped at "Pearl Harbor", which he didn't attribute to anybody, and went on checking who said it.
We don't know for sure where the Mueller probe is going, but don't dare say that out loud
Hugh Hewitt, a conservative pundit with close ties to the administration, also used the New York Times report as a way to attack Rosenstein and suggest Trump should fire Attorney General Jeff Sessions.
I support retaining, giving SC Mueller all he needs. But DAG Rosenstein owes public a status report on where this is going. And if refuses that does give @realDonaldTrump an argument why he needs a new AG to at least brief public much of which skeptical.
Hugh Hewitt.....Why MSNBC ever hired him is beyond me. He is like hiring a lobbyist for the far right. He is pathetic....The people in white hats show up better, against a black background.
Why MSNBC ever hired him is beyond me. He is like hiring a lobbyist for the far right. He is pathetic....
Assange did some fantastic stuff, but he has a big ego and he made a mistake supporting Trump so openly during the elections. I understand why he did it, he wants to get out of his prison, but IMO it undermined trust in Wikileaks.Was he Pro-Trump or Anti-Clinton?
Journalism at its best:
Fox News analyst quits after finally realizing it's a 'propaganda machine'In truth, fake FOX NUUS was brought into existence to eliminate the causes leading to Richard Nixon's resignation as President. Their recent mission is to divert from the treasonous russian footsie actions of "don'T rump" (plus his inhumanity), so "don'T rump" doesn't get impeached.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/fox-news-analyst-quits-finally-231153791.html
Sinclair Broadcasting is basically the LOCAL communications arm of the Republican party:
Watch Sinclair Broadcast Group News Anchors Parrot Their Bosses’ Opinions in Perfect, Deafening Unison
https://slate.com/culture/2018/04/watch-sinclair-broadcast-group-local-news-anchors-parrot-their-bosses-opinions-in-perfect-deafening-unison.html (https://slate.com/culture/2018/04/watch-sinclair-broadcast-group-local-news-anchors-parrot-their-bosses-opinions-in-perfect-deafening-unison.html)
Sinclair and FOX are basically the same as Russia Today (RT) in Russia. They are the mouthpiece of Trump.
Jimmy Dore discusses it too, but watch Michael Moore at the start of the video:Rich and famous, to the envy of Jimmy Dore... (Peddling envy out of context sure qualifies as very bad journalism).
[xxx]
Where would Maddow be without Russiagate?
[...]
LATE NIGHT (per year)
Jon Stewart (The Daily Show): $25-30 million
Jay Leno (The Tonight Show): $20 million
David Letterman (Late Night): $20 million
Jimmy Kimmel (Jimmy Kimmel Live): $10 million
Andy Cohen (Watch What Happens Live): $2 million
NEWS (per year)
Matt Lauer (NBC): $22-25 million
Rachel Maddow (MSNBC): $7 million
Megyn Kelly (Fox News Channel): $6 million
Scott Pelley (CBS): $5 million
Chris Cuomo (CNN): $2.5 million
DAYTIME/SYNDICATION (per year)
Judy Sheindlin (Judge Judy): $47 million
Katie Couric (Katie): $10 million
Michael Strahan (Live with Kelly and Michael): $4 million
Sharon Osbourne (The Talk): $1 million
Aisha Tyler (The Talk): $500,000
There seems to be a consensus here that the White Helmets are an illegitimate or even terrorist organization. I'm not well-versed enough to develop a firm opinion. I would appreciate any links to what members here consider to be a reasoned assessment.I did read your posted piece. There is little I agree with & I'd advise that anyone quoting Eliot "bellingcat" Higgins is almost certainly a source of disinformation.
I know that this article will be seen as anti-Russian propaganda, but I would like to see a reasoned counter to its claims.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/18/syria-white-helmets-conspiracy-theories (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/18/syria-white-helmets-conspiracy-theories)
There seems to be a consensus here that the White Helmets are an illegitimate or even terrorist organization. I'm not well-versed enough to develop a firm opinion. I would appreciate any links to what members here consider to be a reasoned assessment.
I know that this article will be seen as anti-Russian propaganda, but I would like to see a reasoned counter to its claims.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/18/syria-white-helmets-conspiracy-theories (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/18/syria-white-helmets-conspiracy-theories)
I was hoping to escape the American Imperialism vs Russian propaganda dichotomy, and simply analyze the merits of individual sources. I know that is difficult.
Who is mad at Bellingcat, or were you talking in general?Both. It is a standard red flag. Example: Terry.
Who is mad at Bellingcat, or were you talking in general?Both. It is a standard red flag. Example: Terry.
I can't speak for Terry, but I don't think he's mad at Bellingcat. He's just saying one can't rely on it uncritically, because it has clear biases. Just as with RT and Sputnik, or Fox, CNN and MSNBC.Sorry, Neven, you need your brain examined. Serioiusly. Or maybe try to forget about politics and focus on Earth and science. I'm sorry, your all-same-ism is pathological.
I'd advise that anyone quoting Eliot "bellingcat" Higgins is almost certainly a source of disinformation.
Sorry, Neven, you need your brain examined. Serioiusly.
Bellingcat is about producing evidence and checking fake evidence. That's why Putinophiles and Assadophiles don't like it.
Hefaistos, one of those is Russian state media, and the other two are by the journalist that the Guardian piece discussed. I'm aware of what both have written on the issue. The question is if we can discern whether these sources or the Guardian are more reliable. Or perhaps neither are.
Criticism against Beeley includes that most of her evidence is personal accounts from her tour of Syria that was approved by their government, in which her experience contrasts with that of others like Cecilia Udden. Further, the 21stcenturywire site itself is often linked to RT and Sputnik in social media. Perhaps these criticisms are unfounded, but simply stating the views of Beeley and RT will not help.
Above is a screenshot from the WhiteHelmet/AMC video. There is one White Helmet in full uniform on the left “checking” the body. The guy in the centre is unarmed but certainly looks more like a fighter than a first responder and the guy on the right is still wearing what could be identified as a militant headdress while sporting a White Helmet jacket. At this point, according to witness testimony, these bodies had already been picked clean of their valuables and belongings before these faux humanitarians starred in another of their cameo roles as rescue workers.
Bellingcat has the same problem as Rachel Maddow: Too much stuff out there.
If you seriously think NATO and Russia produce the same amount of fake news these days - get your brain examined, pretty please. Buddhists offer workshops on brain self-examination. No need yet to see a psychologist, but you are coming close to clinical symptoms. Sorry.
I can't speak for Terry, but I don't think he's mad at Bellingcat. He's just saying one can't rely on it uncritically, because it has clear biases. Just as with RT and Sputnik, or Fox, CNN and MSNBC.Sorry, Neven, you need your brain examined. Serioiusly. Or maybe try to forget about politics and focus on Earth and science. I'm sorry, your all-same-ism is pathological.
Bellingcat is about producing evidence and checking fake evidence. That's why Putinophiles and Assadophiles don't like it.
A voice from the madhouse:I'd advise that anyone quoting Eliot "bellingcat" Higgins is almost certainly a source of disinformation.
Martin, you seem to be out of arguments?I'm out of patience!
People in the corporate media are catching on to what Dore said two years ago:
Based on the available evidence, it is highly likely the 34+ victims killed in the 1930 attack on the apartment building near al-Shuhada Square were killed as a result of a gas cylinder filled with what is most likely chlorine gas being dropped from a Hip helicopter originating from Dumayr Airbase.
being dropped from a Hip helicopter originating from Dumayr Airbase.
Now, which report is better ?
being dropped from a Hip helicopter originating from Dumayr Airbase.
I don't believe Bellingcat has provided detailed evidence for this, except for two unnamed aircraft spotters. It's impossible to affirm or contest that conclusion without more information.
I'm also not sure there is sufficient evidence to show the cylinders have been dropped from the air. You said the one on the bed should be discarded. The other one on the roof, I haven't looked at properly. Are there close-up pictures of it?
I also still don't understand how it happened exactly. So, the cylinder is dropped, remains stuck in the roof, the gas comes out quickly/slowly and then spreads across the building?QuoteNow, which report is better ?
In principle on-the-ground reports are better than geolocation work connected to a bunch of assumptions (turtles all the way down). Of course, it would've been best if Western journalists would've been there right after it happened.
Either way, missiles shouldn't have been shot. But, of course, they had to be shot.
Only the Nusra Front seized the chemical weapons. Abu Ahmad watched as the al Qaeda affiliate called in 10 large cargo trucks, loaded 15 containers with chlorine and sarin gas, and drove them away to an unknown destination. He did not see what happened to the mustard gas.
Neven, do you have a reference to what he said two years ago ?
Because Jimmy did not provide one.
I'm not sure about using humor as a proxy for wisdom. You could then say the same about more establishment personalities like Stephen Colbert, Jon Stewart, or Samantha Bee.
Dore provides the standard progressive viewpoint, what many would consider the American far left.
Rob, here's another video from two years ago with Dore explaining why there's a silver lining to Donald Trump becoming president, at 1:00 minute in:
https://youtu.be/i7yPY61vCKA?t=62
Yes, the Overton window shifted so far to the right that what is left is considered far left, and what is considered left or moderate is actually right. Whatever you want to label it, Dore has a better grasp of what the systemic problems are than most.America is not like much of the world, as I'm sure you are aware. Non-interventionism and socialism have long been considered "far" left in the US. I don't use that term in any kind of pejorative manner. It's simply descriptive. The reason I'm pointing this out is to explain that Jimmy Dore doesn't have some kind of unique perspective. His views are shared by a large and growing segment of the US population, and represented by outlets like The Nation, OpEdNews, The Humanist Report, Mother Jones, Daily Kos and DemocracyNow. That you think Dore has a good grasp on issues simply means that you have views that align with the American far left.
Oh, and he's funny.Haven't noted that yet. I find him so full of himself that I can't stand him long. Even without the superfluous factual slips and intended smears I find him dis-entertaining. Ha! Does he also dislike Bill Maher?
As usual with Bellingcat, they are jumping to conclusions. This goes for some analyses they've made of chemical attacks in Syria, at least.
Their method is to build up a disguise of credibility, but the chain of evidence is broken at vital points.
E.g., the evidence in Douma isn't clear at all, see:
https://libyancivilwar.blogspot.com.es/2018/04/cw-barrel-bomb-that-wasnt-there.html
Those gas canisters have been tampered with, moved.
And that was before the Syrian army or the Russians got there.
Review
* Midnight April 7/8, just after attack: cylinder seemingly not there
* Sometime April 8: cylinder there, unseen photos
* App. 1 pm April 8 or 9: video of cylinder there (seen frame)
* App. 3 pm April 9: Russian investigators visit, apparently find it not there (can we have video for that part?)
* 7:02 pm April 9 (presumed): video of cylinder there, but in a different position
Comparing the TV4 interior view with the night-time view, something surprising happened. I debunked my own leading argument (at the moment). Guess what? It no longer leads.and
I was stumped and disappointed about this for a minute or two. Then excited to own the inevitable destruction of this point, instead of someone else.and
Separately, my original guess on hole correlation and thus angle of canister below were also wrong. It was a fair enough guess fom what I had, and the whole issue is now moot.
QuoteNow, which report is better ?
In principle on-the-ground reports are better than geolocation work connected to a bunch of assumptions (turtles all the way down). Of course, it would've been best if Western journalists would've been there right after it happened.
being dropped from a Hip helicopter originating from Dumayr Airbase.
I don't believe Bellingcat has provided detailed evidence for this, except for two unnamed aircraft spotters. It's impossible to affirm or contest that conclusion without more information.
I'm also not sure there is sufficient evidence to show the cylinders have been dropped from the air. You said the one on the bed should be discarded. The other one on the roof, I haven't looked at properly. Are there close-up pictures of it?
I also still don't understand how it happened exactly. So, the cylinder is dropped, remains stuck in the roof, the gas comes out quickly/slowly and then spreads across the building?
Do you really believe that all these people conspired at the same time, in the fog of war, a perfectly orchestrated effort to implicate the Syrian government ?
Seriously ?
Do you really believe that all these people conspired at the same time, in the fog of war, a perfectly orchestrated effort to implicate the Syrian government ?
Seriously ?
Why not? The opposition in Douma was organised enough to build what appears to be an extensive and well defended tunnel network and hold out for half a decade against the SAA while lobbing mortars into downtown Damascus, with help from the US and its allies of course.
What makes you think organising a false flag would be too difficult for them?
There's no logic to your premise.
Seriously.
You still would have to explain the 5 points that I noted above.
More than 70 people sheltering in basements have reportedly died, with 43 of those deaths related to symptoms consistent with exposure to highly toxic chemicals. Two health facilities were also reportedly affected by these attacks.
What makes you think organising a false flag would be too difficult for them?
There's no logic to your premise.
Where's the logic in the rebels staging a false flag on themselves, just before negotiating a retreat from the city?
The alternative explanation was that they retreated in response to a chemical attack by Assad, which makes perfect sense.
Where's the logic in the SAA executing a CW attack on Jaish al-Islam at the moment of victory knowing full well it will compromise their Russian political support as well as invite a US missile attack?
In both cases, the one using WMDs faced no credible risk of being dragged before a war crimes tribunal. Why wouldn't they act as we know they did?
Where's the logic in the rebels staging a false flag on themselves, just before negotiating a retreat from the city?
The alternative explanation was that they retreated in response to a chemical attack by Assad, which makes perfect sense.
I think that if Russia had nukes at the time and would have said: We'll nuke you if you nuke Japan, Truman wouldn't have nuked Japan. Truman nukes Japan to 1) show the rest of the world what the USA could do, and 2) simply test the stuff. Besides, Japan couldn't nuke itself to draw in some greater power to punish the US.
It's a weak analogy.
QuoteWhere's the logic in the rebels staging a false flag on themselves, just before negotiating a retreat from the city?
First of all, is it perhaps possible that the rebels who negotiated the retreat, aren't the same rebels who planted a false flag to get the US to shoot off missiles (assuming it was a false flag)? Perhaps one faction of rebels wanted to negotiate, and another faction said: F*** ***t, let's get the Americans involved again.
Or, maybe, if 'the rebels' are a well-organised monolith after all, the plan was to negotiate, while at the same time provoke the Americans into shooting some missiles at Assad's infrastructure, so they have time to regroup again.
Or maybe there are 'rebels' who work closely together with American intelligence agencies and get paid for this kind of work, because the attack it provoked cost at least 150 million USD for the missiles alone. That's big business. The other rebels wouldn't even have to know about this.
So, there you go, three hypothetical arguments off the top of my head to explain the logic of your argument is weak (why negotiate and do false flag at the same time).QuoteThe alternative explanation was that they retreated in response to a chemical attack by Assad, which makes perfect sense.
Perfect sense? In a following comment you say: "The Syrian army was nowhere near victory. The rebels in Douma had massive stores of munitions and adequate food. Taking Douma would have taken months of very costly, very deadly block-by-block operations. Meanwhile, the rebels were close enough to Damascus to shell the city."
But just drop one or two yellow canisters in which not one rebel soldier dies, and they suddenly run away? It doesn't make sense.
If Assad ordered it, it was a really, really stupid move. Somehow I don't think that someone who has held out as long, with both jihadists and the entire West against him, is stupid. So, he's a psychopath, which is entirely possible. But if I were a psychopath and I didn't care about repercussions, I'd drop tens of canisters all at once, to really scare the shit out the jihadists.
But as Rob Dekker says, we can't look into his head. Still, I feel it doesn't make any sense for Assad to do something this stupid.
Weak? You do realize that Russia was also at war with Japan, right?
There may have been multiple reasons for Truman's decision, but bringing the war to a swift conclusion was paramount. It was a war crime, but it worked. It worked then and it worked in Douma.
Russia has signaled its interest in keeping a foothold in Syria. Assad knows that a chemical attack can be denied/obfuscated and he won't face serious consequences, because he enjoys Putin's strong support.
Assad bombed Douma indiscriminately. The fighters were, at least in their own minds, surely protecting the people there. So yes, if the people you're trying to defend can no longer be defended, the army retreats to a more strategically useful site. Which they did.
Except it plainly wasn't stupid. It worked pretty much as Assad might have envisioned. He gets Douma, the fighters go far away from Damascus. Neither Assad nor Russia face consequences that outweigh these gains. Assad lost a few buildings, with plenty of notice for evacuating people and matériel from them. Putin enjoys plausible deniability, though the operation wouldn't have been carried out without his assent. And a vigorous disinformation campaign reduces any risk of further damage by sowing confusion in the West.
Do we really think Assad and Putin are more virtuous than Truman? Not that I'd claim Truman to be better, rather that they're probably comparable.
Weak? You do realize that Russia was also at war with Japan, right?
There may have been multiple reasons for Truman's decision, but bringing the war to a swift conclusion was paramount. It was a war crime, but it worked. It worked then and it worked in Douma.
Again, the weakness of your analogy, is that the USA was the greatest power in the world at the time. It could do anything it wanted, with zero repercussions. Assad can't do anything he wants, because there will be repercussions. Even for things that perhaps he didn't do.
They were surviving in basements and underground tunnels, beyond the direct destructive force of most artillery. But gas is a different thing.QuoteRussia has signaled its interest in keeping a foothold in Syria. Assad knows that a chemical attack can be denied/obfuscated and he won't face serious consequences, because he enjoys Putin's strong support.
You're projecting what you would do. One canister with chlorine and sarin in it, and you wet your pants. I'm totally unconvinced that this would scare any rebel. Hundreds of canisters, maybe. But not one. The rebels would probably welcome hundreds of canisters raining down on them, because that would get Assad in some real trouble.QuoteAssad bombed Douma indiscriminately. The fighters were, at least in their own minds, surely protecting the people there. So yes, if the people you're trying to defend can no longer be defended, the army retreats to a more strategically useful site. Which they did.
You keep contradicting yourself, Steve, and only to defend the corporate media narrative and dismiss any other plausible explanation or hypothesis.
How do you protect your people from a stronger enemy who bombs them indiscriminately, but as soon as one canister is dropped, that's it, we can't protect them anymore. They'd all be perfectly safe, if it weren't for that single blasted canister.
The strategies of warfare weren't invented by Assad, Putin, or Truman. There's no psychology involved--strategy in warfare isn't about the psychology of the actors. There's nothing new under the sun here.QuoteExcept it plainly wasn't stupid. It worked pretty much as Assad might have envisioned. He gets Douma, the fighters go far away from Damascus. Neither Assad nor Russia face consequences that outweigh these gains. Assad lost a few buildings, with plenty of notice for evacuating people and matériel from them. Putin enjoys plausible deniability, though the operation wouldn't have been carried out without his assent. And a vigorous disinformation campaign reduces any risk of further damage by sowing confusion in the West.
Rob says we can't look into Putin's or Assad's heads, but you seem to do nothing else. It's assumption on assumption on assumption, heavily larded with what Steve would so in such and such situation.
Again, you might be right, but there's no way of knowing, and so we can't just go and pick the one theory that coincidentally is pushed and parotted by every corporate media outlet there is.
QuoteDo we really think Assad and Putin are more virtuous than Truman? Not that I'd claim Truman to be better, rather that they're probably comparable.
No, I don't think so, and neither do I think that the jihadists and American military-industrial complex are virtuous! So, why would you trust one over the other? Why would you choose one over the other? Because people in suits on TV who are great at reading teleprompters with a serious face and voice tell you so?
I really don't lend a lot of credence to people in suits on TV. Or to the pronouncements of Assad, Putin, Trump or May.
And I certainly don't think any of these events merit a military response. The US needs to get out of Syria, ASAP. We can't help the people there by staying.
In both cases, the one using WMDs faced no credible risk of being dragged before a war crimes tribunal. Why wouldn't they act as we know they did?
On the other hand, with every White Helmet CW report Assad still faces the very real threat of a US military intervention destroying the SAA ending up with him dancing on the end of a rope like Sadam or copping a bayonet up the arse like Qadaffi.
I really don't lend a lot of credence to people in suits on TV. Or to the pronouncements of Assad, Putin, Trump or May.
And I certainly don't think any of these events merit a military response. The US needs to get out of Syria, ASAP. We can't help the people there by staying.
If this is really what you think, it shouldn't be difficult to be open to other explanations, instead of championing the one we see on the evening news that egged president Trump on to fire his toys.
So now, disbelief of the current western storyline borders on war crimes denial, does it ? I might remark that credulity for dubious sources borders on warmongering.
Some of the borderline warmongers here might ask themselves why people who are otherwise oh, so rational when it comes to climate change, are loath to credit exhortations to war. Perhaps they see something the borderline warmongers do not ?
sidd
But to deny that a chemical weapons attack occurred at all, we would need to believe that scores of people have been involved in a vast and elaborate hoax, executed without any flaws. They would have needed to coordinate without any problems through a war-torn area, to ensure civilians, doctors, aircraft-spotters, and people on social media all came out with the right story at the right time. Plus, they needed to plant a gas canister at the right spot, and produce fake videos to such a high quality they not only fool millions across the world, but also medical experts assessing the symptoms.
It's abundantly clear that toppling Assad's regime would require direct confrontation with committed Russian forces. Nobody's going to do that over a relative handful of dead terrorists. Assad knows this.
With all due respect, Neven, the "other explanations" involves a LOT of people all conspiring flawlessly
The opposition in Douma was organised enough to build what appears to be an extensive and well defended tunnel network and hold out for half a decade against the SAA while lobbing mortars into downtown Damascus, with help from the US and its allies of course.
What makes you think organising a false flag would be too difficult for them?
There's no logic to your premise.
Seriously.
You just made Steve's point that Assad knew he could get away with a CW attack.
For the rest you can just re-read my second reply at the very top of this page. (https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,2272.msg151209.html#msg151209)
Or you can just ignore this, wash rinse and repeat your absurdities as needed, which is what you seem to be doing anyways.
If me then you're saying that ... Assad knows he can get away with pointlessly using CW because ... all he risks is his death and the destruction of his nation state when the US finally does get around to wiping out the relatively limited Russian military presence in Syria?
Do you people even think before posting?
I call that war crime denial.
You mean a hoax in the sense that nobody actually died? No, I don't think that. As for who did it, I'm not sure yet. I'll give you my thoughts on your list, even though they're absolutely worthless.
Man, you are annoying.Well I'm sorry Rob, but arguing with a professional philosopher can be annoying especially when you can't string a cogent argument together.
You did not propose ANY reasonable argument to ANY of the 6 issues I pointed out.
Let's just take ONE : how did somebody smuggle 34 corpses into that house without being noticed ?
And why don't you STOP for a second, and explain why you so aggressively want to show that Assad did not do this, despite the overwhelming amount of evidence that he did ?
I'll give you my thoughts on your list, even though they're absolutely worthless.
I think my 6 points are spot-on, but thank you.
What you are suggesting is that YES somebody died.
That means there WAS a chemical attack, but you are not sure who caused it.
So, if there WAS a chemical attack, and it was NOT Assad, then it must have been somebody else.
The evidence we have is that there was a cylinder on the roof of that house, and 34 corpses were found there.
So are you now suggesting that somebody put that cylinder there, opened the valve, and the people inside died ?
If not, then WHAT is the scenario that makes you believe that that cylinder was NOT dropped from the sky ?
With all due respect, Neven, the "other explanations" involves a LOT of people all conspiring flawlessly :
1) Somebody placing a cylinder in a hole on the roof of the house in question, and
2) Somebody to place 34 bodies (where did they get the bodies?) in that house, without anyone noticing, and
3) put foam on their mouths to make it look like a chemical attack, and
4) aircraft spotters to post on Sentry Syria to record 30 minutes ahead of time to report Hip helicopters to head towards Douma, and
5) doctors from the WHO conspiring to report that 500 people showed “signs and symptoms consistent with exposure to toxic chemicals”
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-ghouta-who/who-500-syrian-patients-show-symptoms-pointing-to-toxic-weapons-exposure-idUSKBN1HI18D
and also neighbors were involved :
6) "All of a sudden some gas spread around us," one neighbor recounted. "We couldn't breathe, it smelled like chlorine."
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/syria-inside-douma-the-site-of-apparent-chemical-attack-2018-04-16/
There is something called "war crimes denial" and you and several other posters here are borderline there.
I know you as being respectful of facts and evidence and logic reasoning when it comes to AGW and Arctic Sea Ice, but your posts here ignoring the evidence and ignoring the reasoning, and instead following some conspiracy theory is not doing you any good.
Excellent first hand account of what's happening inside Syria by Carla Ortiz on the Jimmy Dore show:
QuoteLet's just take ONE : how did somebody smuggle 34 corpses into that house without being noticed ?Dunno... ummmm.... get a security team to secure the place? You'll need a bus driver to bus the actors in. Makeup and camera crew, the White Helmets have very a decent production crew so someones probably got a mate they can call a favour in.
Catering! Always important. And a morgue truck of course.
Cameras ... and .... ACTION!
CNN doing some really bad journalism, smearing an independent progressive media outlet:
...
I hope Dore sues the hell out of those warmongers.
With all due respect, Neven, the "other explanations" involves a LOT of people all conspiring flawlessly :
1) Somebody placing a cylinder in a hole on the roof of the house in question, and
That's easy.
I've also been wondering how it works exactly with a canister dropped from a certain height, punching a hole in a concrete roof (but not falling through), ending up perfectly above the hole with the valve pointing down. Was the gas released immediately or did it seep out, making its way through the building?
Quote2) Somebody to place 34 bodies (where did they get the bodies?) in that house, without anyone noticing, and
That's more difficult, but not impossible to do. It's a war zone, not like thousands of people are living in that street.Quote3) put foam on their mouths to make it look like a chemical attack, and
If you've brought the bodies in from elsewhere, you might have poisoned them elsewhere as well.
Have the bodies already been identified? I think it was Terry who said that certain ethnic groups have been used by jihadists as hostages/shields.
Quote4) aircraft spotters to post on Sentry Syria to record 30 minutes ahead of time to report Hip helicopters to head towards Douma, and
It's enough to just say 'aircraft spotters saw this and that'. Why in this day and age, when people film BUK transporters from their apartments, isn't there any footage of said helicopters? Or is there and I haven't seen it?
Something seems to be cut-off here in your response.Quote5) doctors from the WHO conspiring to report that 500 people showed “signs and symptoms consistent with exposure to toxic chemicals”
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-ghouta-who/who-500-syrian-patients-show-symptoms-pointing-to-toxic-weapons-exposure-idUSKBN1HI18D
and also neighbors were involved :
The number of victims vary wildly (http://libyancivilwar.blogspot.co.at/2018/04/douma-cw-massacre-see-sawing-death-toll.html). How reliable is this? The Fisk article
Quote6) "All of a sudden some gas spread around us," one neighbor recounted. "We couldn't breathe, it smelled like chlorine."
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/syria-inside-douma-the-site-of-apparent-chemical-attack-2018-04-16/
If the neighbour had said the opposite, would it have been reported by CBS? What do other neighbours say?
Back in the Bush days, I was working for a Dutch news agency. At some point one of those terrorist leaders in the deck of cards had allegedly been bombed by a US stealth fighter. The Pentagon showed footage of the bombing and of the house that was destroyed, and so everybody dutifully reported. But there was footage of the neighbours as well, who said American soldiers had come at night and detonated the empty building. I said to the editor: Why don't you put this in the segment, sounds very newsworthy to me. The editor replied: No time, and besides, what do those guys know that the Pentagon and CNN don't?
QuoteThere is something called "war crimes denial" and you and several other posters here are borderline there.
You do the exact same thing in the US intervention thread.
QuoteI know you as being respectful of facts and evidence and logic reasoning when it comes to AGW and Arctic Sea Ice, but your posts here ignoring the evidence and ignoring the reasoning, and instead following some conspiracy theory is not doing you any good.
AGW and Arctic sea ice loss are based on science, I can look at data myself, look at satellite imagery, read papers, attend conferences, interview scientists. This stuff is much more murky and prone to bias distortion due to massive propaganda from all directions.
It can be interesting to treat this as some murder mystery that needs be solved, but in the end, the details don't matter that much (even though they're horrific). What this is all about, is about groups of people doing whatever they can to increase their piece of the pie of concentrated wealth, either because they own some part of it, or because they get rewarded for making it bigger. We are not part of these groups (although we are unwittingly and unwantingly complicit in their actions), but they will make us think we are by dividing us.
So, how do we not get caught up in the false choice between monsters like Putin/Assad and US Empire?
Re:"But somehow he believes that that CNN article applies to Dore's channel ?"
It names him. As one might have found if one had watched and listened to the show to completion.
Jimmy took the trouble to read it out loud while displaying it on the screen.
Ads also appeared on The Jimmy Dore Show channel, a far-left YouTube channel that peddles conspiracy theories, such as the idea that Syrian chemical weapons attacks are hoaxes."
http://money.cnn.com/2018/04/19/technology/youtube-ads-extreme-content-investigation/index.html
Screw CNN.
"Or is CBS now also part of your conspiracy theory ?'
Yes.
sidd
"Or is CBS now also part of your conspiracy theory ?'
Yes.
sidd
OK. So who is in this conspiracy theory so far ?
We have :
- The White Helmets,
- 500 locals,
- local medical staff,
- aircraft spotters,
- the WHO,
- CBS,
- Swedish channel 4,
Did I forget anyone ? How about the CIA and MI6 ? I'm sure they will feel left-out if your don't include them in your ever less likely conspiracy theory that the Douma chemical attack was a hoax or a false flag attack (by the way, did you guys make your mind up which one it was : A hoax or false flag ?). Can't be both.
It's a much more extensive that that, you have just scratched the surface.
Wow. So you don't have a problem with the conspiracy theory that some people in the opposition will actually gas 34 people, then bring them to a house, where they display them, all the time coordinating with all the other groups in a monumental staging event, but you DO have a problem with the straightforward theory that Assad military tossed that cylinder out of a helicopter. Even though Assad did that many, many times before.
The crucial part is of course that reported this 30 min BEFORE the attack, so if they were not telling the truth they must have been part of the conspiracy that you seem to promote.
If you're fine with how this all worked out, without any due process, and think there's enough of a basis to bomb another country (breaking international laws along the way), by an idiot at the trigger like Donald Trump no less, you're creating precedents for even worse stuff along the way.I don't think Rob or anyone else here is fine with how this all worked out. It's possible to both analyze evidence as it's presented AND to disagree with the response of the US, UK and France.
I'm simply saying that you are not going to get an accurate representation of US politics and media by only watching his show.
But some 'far right' media will leave you less informed than...watching no news at all!
I don't think Rob or anyone else here is fine with how this all worked out. It's possible to both analyze evidence as it's presented AND to disagree with the response of the US, UK and France.
As I have shown before, the standard position of the establishment left has been to acquire further information. The standard position of the far left and the far right is for non-intervention.
It is my opinion that you have a poor understanding of US politics and media because your exposure is largely filtered through the selective far left lens of Jimmy Dore. Again, I'm not passing judgment on his views. I'm simply saying that you are not going to get an accurate representation of US politics and media by only watching his show.
Don't forget that I have been indoctrinated all my life with American cultural imperialism.
I'm glad that Jimmy Dore is only a small portion of your media consumption, and I apologize for suggesting otherwise.
The CNN segment was rather ridiculous to me. He was bent out of shape by one sentence at the very end of a lengthy article pointing out that some advertisers were paying for spots on programs they weren't aware of.
The description of Dore as a far left site that pushes conspiracy theories is a fair characterization in my view. It doesn't mean he's wrong.
If the establishment left isn't communist, anarchist or socialist, then ask yourself: What is it?This is exactly my point. In Europe, socialism is mainstream/establishment left. In the US, it is not. The official Democratic platform is one that promotes many left wing policies, but stops well short of socialism: https://www.democrats.org/party-platform (https://www.democrats.org/party-platform)
We believe our military should be the best-trained, best-equipped fighting force in the world, and that we must do everything we can to honor and support our veterans. And we know that only the United States can mobilize common action on a truly global scale, to take on the challenges that transcend borders, from international terrorism to climate change to health pandemics.
How would you react if they equate you to nazis and pedophiles? Of course, he's happy they did so, because it will make him stronger and he probably can sue CNN for slander.I don't think good journalists should be flinging mud at each other (CNN included). The CNN article was not a hit piece on Dore, even though it did mention him negatively (which they probably should not have done). Responding with a rant like that and threatening to sue tells me that Dore is reactionary and immature, at least in this case. He claims it's about journalism, not money, while his complaint is against a smear aimed at demonetizing his channel. Seems incredibly hypocritical, especially considering that he brought this same demonetizing issue up last year.
Even people who are more moderate left and dislike Dore for being so outspoken, thought it wasn't fair to describe Dore the way the CNN reporter did.The moderate left dislikes Dore because he's socialist, not because he's outspoken. And of course you'll find individual opinions that cross political lines. Cenk Uygur is definitely not moderate left though.
It's not a fair description because a) he does much more than that, and b) doubting mainstream narratives isn't the same as pushing conspiracy theories. You can disagree with his style, or whatever, but Dore has quite a firm grasp of the systemic problems the US is facing.He is indeed pushing the same conspiracy as many in these threads. Doubting the mainstream narrative is not necessarily the same as pushing conspiracy theories. But claiming a hoax or a false flag is pushing a conspiracy. And again, he could be right. But the CNN statement is entirely factual if 1) hoaxes and false flags are considered conspiracies and 2) his show promotes far left viewpoints. I agree that the statement was unprofessional and unwise. But calling it slander and threatening to sue is right out of the Monckton or Trump playbook.
And the establishment 'left' isn't going to solve them. Quite the contrary, they're part of the problem, some of them consciously so.Yeah, we have a whole thread devoted to that topic. I'm not an apologist for the establishment left, or any other political creed. I don't think Rob or Steve are either. I think calling anyone who doesn't ascribe to Dore's hoaxes a warmonger is unproductive at best. There's an inherent contradiction in your proposed link between the Western media's narrative and warmongering, given that much of the US accepts the narrative while also opposing the missile strikes. It is that very large contingent encompassing the moderate left, libertarians and Tea Party that I think you are misreading. This isn't the same atmosphere as 2003.
a) the gas attack did not occur (which is labelled in the quote as "hoax")The "hoax" is that the attack was staged, not just that it didn't happen.
b) It did, but Assad didn't do it (labelled as "false flag")"False flag" implies that a covert action took place to achieve a deliberately deceptive appearance, not just that Assad didn't do it.
On the left, I would say communists or anarchists are the rough equivalent to Nazi sympathizers.
I keep hearing this take from anti-communist liberals. And I don't think I've ever seen anyone actually provide a thought out reason to it. I'd love it if you could be the first.As Neven implied, I'm not trying to justify or assess the merits of any position, my own included. I'm just trying to portray the American political landscape as it stands today. Communists and Neo-Nazis each have memberships that amount to less than 10,000. I consider that to be fringe.
I don't think Rob or anyone else here is fine with how this all worked out. It's possible to both analyze evidence as it's presented AND to disagree with the response of the US, UK and France.
Fair enough, but I think you should let Rob speak for himself. There are plenty of people who are convinced that Assad is responsible for the chemical attack, and thus anything goes. I don't agree with the argument, but one can make it.
To go through the attack itself is sort of interesting as a mystery that needs to be solved, but we could be doing that every day because this kind of atrocities happen every day, all around the world. Personally, I'm more interested in how it fits in the bigger picture of things. It's interesting to talk about how much ice melted in the Bering Sea Okhotsk today, but in the end it's AGW we want to know about.
That means fighting (Russian/Syrian) war-propaganda by using publicly available evidence.
Because in a war, publicly available open source evidence is all you can rely on.
The rest is just talk.
That's why the open source journalism like Bellingcat is so important in separating fact from propaganda in the mess that is Syria.
That means fighting (Russian/Syrian) war-propaganda by using publicly available evidence.
Because in a war, publicly available open source evidence is all you can rely on.
The rest is just talk.
That's why the open source journalism like Bellingcat is so important in separating fact from propaganda in the mess that is Syria.
This is a very detailed timeline of original appearances of videos and photos of the Douma chemical incident. Throws up many discrepancies.
(Yes. I know it is by Steve McIntyre, of all people !)
Yes I anticipated an ad hominem attack re McIntyre.
But I am trying to be fair minded, this is not climate related and credit that he has done a large amount of work piecing this together.
The altering of the dead bodies from video to video I find particularly disturbing.
Appearance of foam in later videos on bodies that lacked foam in earlier videos.
Cause of death in situ sarin or in situ chlorine poisoning ? It doesn't seem likely to me that chlorine could kill people on the spot. McIntyre makes point that victims lack essential characteristics of nerve agent poisoning e.g. (1) rather than pupils being contracted to a pinprick (miosis), they are, if anything, dilated; (2) per Denis O'Brien, nerve agent victims lose bowel control, but no evident soiling. Etc.
“Something was working on the nervous system,” said a doctor who asked not to be named. “Chlorine doesn’t do that. While there was clearly chlorine on some of the people we treated, there was also something else.”https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/12/syria-attack-experts-check-signs-nerve-agent
Of course then there is the other claim that victims may have died elsewhere (perhaps suffocated in a fire) and were brought after death to the massacre house.
Appearance of foam in later videos on bodies that lacked foam in earlier videos.
I think McIntyre only mentioned ONE such case : A woman who has foam on her left cheek in the second video. However, in the first video only her right cheek is visible. So I don't understand why McIntyre concludes that 'foam was applied'. Did I miss something ?QuoteCause of death in situ sarin or in situ chlorine poisoning ? It doesn't seem likely to me that chlorine could kill people on the spot. McIntyre makes point that victims lack essential characteristics of nerve agent poisoning e.g. (1) rather than pupils being contracted to a pinprick (miosis), they are, if anything, dilated; (2) per Denis O'Brien, nerve agent victims lose bowel control, but no evident soiling. Etc.
I don't have enough experience to conclude anything here.
I'd just like to note that we don't know what killed these people.
Here's a funny example of bad journalism (from CNN, of course):
Here's a funny example of bad journalism (from CNN, of course):
By bad luck, too, the doctors who were on duty that night on 7 April were all in Damascus giving evidence to a chemical weapons enquiry,
As Dr Assim Rahaibani announces this extraordinary conclusion, it is worth observing that he is by his own admission not an eyewitness himself
I'm sorry, Rob. I just thought that a CNN reporter sniffing a backpack that might be contaminated with God knows what, was pretty funny.A real nose for the news. ;D
I'm sorry, Rob. I just thought that a CNN reporter sniffing a backpack that might be contaminated with God knows what, was pretty funny.Nothing is funny about the chemical attack. Also you ignored the first two points of my response.
Rob, next you're going to ask for the facts concerning a SNL sketch? ;)
In another video Dore says that the backpack sniff test was broadcast live on CNN, but they cut it out afterwards.
Can you imagine if somehow we would receive incontrovertible evidence that Assad actually didn't do this? That it was a false flag operation? It's a frightening possibility. How many more people will lose their trust in corporate media, intelligence services and world leaders?
I'm actually hoping that Assad really did it.
A month ago, a piece published by the Southern Poverty Law Center depicted a political scene ripe for barely hidden collaborations between the far right and a fraction of the Western left, such as the American ANSWER coalition or Party for Socialism and Liberation embracing similar foreign policy talking points as white nationalists.
A left truly independent of state-enforced narratives and emancipated from its own neo-Orientalism would place concern for civilians above all else. It would realise that the biggest perpetrators of war crimes in Syria have been the Assad forces, responsible for above 90% of civilian casualties.
Finally, a left empathic with the suffering of civilians abroad would realise that the limited military action against the Syrian regime only serves to preserve the semblance of what once was supposed to be a inviolable red line,—and that ultimately neither the red line itself, nor the feeble attempts at maintaining it will save Syrians from bombing, starvation, arrests and forced conscription.
Jokes about WMDs and drones are cool, but Michelle Wolf's media attack too much for DC elites (https://www.rt.com/op-ed/425615-michelle-wolf-correspondents-dinner/)
What is ‘too far’ when it comes to political comedy? Mocking the media for ripping off Trump coverage, or joking about how (oops!) you didn’t find any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, after all?
That was a joke made by former president George W. Bush at the 2004 White House Correspondents' Dinner. Then there was the time former president Barack Obama joked that he could kill the Jonas Brothers with predator drones if they tried to date his teenage daughters — because, you know, killing people with predator drones is obviously hilarious.
Bush and Obama took heat for those jokes at the time, but the backlash was minimal in comparison to the slating Michelle Wolf has gotten over the past three days since she took the stage at the WHCD.
Wolf burned down the house at the Washington Hilton during the annual gathering, which assembles a who’s who of journalists, government officials and celebrities. She was caustic. She was irreverent. She sent the left and right into fits of blind rage. Wolf was the comedian the WHCD didn't know it needed.
Her scathing monologue was designed to let no one off the hook. Republicans, Democrats, the media — no one escaped the night unscathed and Wolf is facing a massive backlash for jokes that were supposedly ‘mean-spirited’ and went ‘too far.’
Now, to be fair, many are defending and applauding Wolf for having the guts to eviscerate everyone in the room without fear or favor. But there are also a lot of crybabies among the DC media and political elite.
CNN anchor Jake Tapper made sure to look suitably offended and as uncomfortable as possible when Wolf made a crude joke about Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, lest anyone assume the very serious journalist finds jokes about powerful people funny.
MSNBC’s chief foreign affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell was so offended by a joke comparing White House press secretary Sarah Sanders to super villain Aunt Lydia in the hit TV series The Handmaid’s Tale, that she actually tweeted on Sanders’ behalf demanding an apology from Wolf. MSNBC's Mika Brzezinski, Peter Baker and Maggie Haberman of the New York Times, and Politico's Kyle Cheney, were some of the other journalists that expressed shock and disbelief at Wolf's jokes.
But America's best known journalists were not simply offended by a comedian mocking a woman who they believe lies to them from a podium every single day about issues of serious consequence. That may have been a cover for what they were most maddened by: her wholly justified attacks on the journalists sitting in front of her.
Mocking the 24-hour news cycle, Wolf complained that journalists “could be covering everything” but instead are focused squarely on three topics: “Trump, Russia and Hillary.” To the CNN journalists in the room, she quipped: “You guys love breaking news — and you did it, you broke it.”
Then came the real zinger.
“You guys are obsessed with Trump. Did you used to date him? Because you pretend like you hate him, but I think you love him. I think what no one in this room wants to admit is that Trump has helped all of you,” she cracked. “He has helped you. He’s helped you sell your papers and your books and your TV. You helped create this monster, and now you’re profiting off of him.”
Ouch.
As I wrote on Twitter after Wolf’s performance, if there is one thing I learned living in Washington D.C., it’s that too many journalists in that bubble spend a lot of their social time ingratiating themselves to power and feeling very pleased with themselves for doing so. They will tell you it’s all about getting close to sources, but it’s not. They see the powerful as their friends, not their foes.
On more than one occasion, I met established journalists in DC who boasted about their friendships with and closeness to the Clintons, Kennedys, Bushes etc. in clear attempts to impress younger reporters.
There is a myth that DC journalists can simultaneously hobnob with White House officials and also do their jobs properly. But it’s impossible. You can’t be a journalist whose job it is to hold powerful people to account, when you’re hanging out and knocking back drinks with those powerful people at Bullfeathers after work.
Comedian Jimmy Dore put it well in an interview with journalist Glenn Greenwald about this very topic recently: “It’s why in wartime, they don’t let you fraternize with the enemy. Because you can’t look at a guy’s kids and then shoot him.” In other words, if journalists are going to do their jobs properly, they need to be suitably detached from the people they are covering.
But, as I said, what hurt them most of all was not Wolf’s attacks on their powerful friends. It was her attacks on the media itself. She hit them where it hurt. She embarrassed and ridiculed them. She called them out in a way few with a platform have been able to do.
Responding to the backlash, the White House Correspondents’ Association quickly threw Wolf under the bus, releasing a statement regretting that Wolf’s performance was “not in the spirit” of the event. Understandable to a degree, given that the event is usually more of an opportunity for self-congratulation than public ridicule.
For those who don't want to waste too much time and neurons, the most plausible explanation suffices.I really don't lend a lot of credence to people in suits on TV. Or to the pronouncements of Assad, Putin, Trump or May.
And I certainly don't think any of these events merit a military response. The US needs to get out of Syria, ASAP. We can't help the people there by staying.
If this is really what you think, it shouldn't be difficult to be open to other explanations, instead of championing the one we see on the evening news that egged president Trump on to fire his toys.
P.S.: Wow, Neven, are you now seriously consuming RT? Isn't Jimmy Dore enough?
Wolf’s performance has both lauded and criticized, but Fey suggested on NBC’s “Today” show that people should have expected her set would be what it was.
“She is filthy and she is mean — which is what we love about her. Because those are wonderful qualities for comedians, and terrible qualities for free-world leaders.” — SETH MEYERS, comparing Michelle Wolf with President Trump
Trump 'monster' created by the 'obsessed' media: White House Correspondents' dinner comedian
That was a really good Medium article (https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/atlantic-council-explains-why-we-need-to-be-propagandized-for-our-own-good-fd3470254ea5), Terry. Thanks.
What is the threat, specifically? That it makes the public less willing to go to war with Russia and its allies? That it makes us less trusting of lying, torturing, coup-staging intelligence agencies?The threat is to the concept of facts and truth. -- Just because others are sometimes lying (or perhaps simply stupid - Hanlon's razor), there's no reason to turn to professional liars like RT etc. But that's exactly what the alt-left are doing, incl. folks here.
That was a really good Medium article (https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/atlantic-council-explains-why-we-need-to-be-propagandized-for-our-own-good-fd3470254ea5), Terry. Thanks.
I sometimes try to get establishment loyalists to explain to me exactly why we’re all meant to be terrified of this “Russian propaganda” thing they keep carrying on about.
western mass media outlets are owned by western plutocrats, and those plutocrats have built their empires upon a status quo that they have a vested interest in preserving, often to the point where they will form alliances with defense and intelligence agencies to do so. They hire executives and editors who subscribe to a pro-establishment worldview, who in turn hire journalists who subscribe to a pro-establishment worldview, and in that way they ensure that all plutocrat-owned media outlets are advancing pro-plutocrat agendas.
I should note that Braw is a Senior Fellow at the Atlantic Council, the shady NATO-aligned think tank with ties to powerful oligarchs whose name comes up when you look into many of the mainstream anti-Russia narratives, from the DNC hack to the discredited war propaganda firm Bellingcat to Russian trolls to the notorious PropOrNot blacklist publicized by the Washington Post.
"If you don't trust MSM, and you don't trust western intelligence agencies,"
Quite.
"you believe that Russian media networks and intelligence agencies are more trustworthy"
Not so.
The first thing i wonder when i read news media is "who wants me to believe this and for what reason ?"
Quite deconstructionist, if you will. Of course, that's just me.
"western mass media outlets are owned by western plutocrats, and those plutocrats have built their empires upon a status quo that they have a vested interest in preserving, often to the point where they will form alliances with defense and intelligence agencies to do so. They hire executives and editors who subscribe to a pro-establishment worldview, who in turn hire journalists who subscribe to a pro-establishment worldview, and in that way they ensure that all plutocrat-owned media outlets are advancing pro-plutocrat agendas."
Precisely. Look up "Mighty Wurlitzer". Going on for a very long time.
"western mass media outlets are owned by western plutocrats, and those plutocrats have built their empires upon a status quo that they have a vested interest in preserving, often to the point where they will form alliances with defense and intelligence agencies to do so. They hire executives and editors who subscribe to a pro-establishment worldview, who in turn hire journalists who subscribe to a pro-establishment worldview, and in that way they ensure that all plutocrat-owned media outlets are advancing pro-plutocrat agendas."
Precisely. Look up "Mighty Wurlitzer". Going on for a very long time.
From what I found there is the allegation that the CIA was controlling the media back in the 50's.
That's a completely different theory than the one by Caitlin Johnstone, who asserts that the "plutocrats" control the media.
So which is it ? CIA or plutocrats ?
Or did the plutocrats take over from the CIA at some point in time ? Or is the CIA controlled by the plutocrats ?
I'm just curious how this works in conspiracy theory land.
September Clues reveals no planes were involved in 911.
What appeared on TV were computer generated images.
http://www.septemberclues.info/
Earth is not flat
Black Boxes were not recovered at "ground zero" :o
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unrecovered_flight_recorders
Earth is not flat
Black Boxes were not recovered at "ground zero" :o
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unrecovered_flight_recorders
Incineration will do that to a black box. Flight 93's was recovered.
Earth is not flat
Black Boxes were not recovered at "ground zero" :o
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unrecovered_flight_recorders
Incineration will do that to a black box. Flight 93's was recovered.
I thought black boxes were virtually indestructible.
Watch September Clues if you care about the truth.
Earth is not flat
Black Boxes were not recovered at "ground zero" :o
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unrecovered_flight_recorders
Incineration will do that to a black box. Flight 93's was recovered.
I thought black boxes were virtually indestructible.
Watch September Clues if you care about the truth.
911 conspiracy theries belong right here in this thread.
These are good examples of bad journalism where all sorts of nonsence is reported.
As reprehensible as the Bush regime was any involvement at any level in murdering thousands of US citizens could never be covered up. The US justice system is not yet that broken that the people capable of this would expect never to be held to account.
As a result, the full extent of the 9/11 simulation - heroes, victims and villains - is revealed as the absurd, fabricated drama that it is.
http://www.septemberclues.info/vicsims.shtml
As a result, the full extent of the 9/11 simulation - heroes, victims and villains - is revealed as the absurd, fabricated drama that it is.
http://www.septemberclues.info/vicsims.shtml
That site's owner has an illuminating .pdf file containing his report of his investigation of the names of the victims. It reads like the rantings of a paranoid schizophrenic. Here's one quite amusing passage:
"And did you know Chapter 16 Verse 17 of the Bhagavad Gita describes the personality of the arrogant demoniac who performs arrogant “pseudo-rituals” to display their wealth? Surely, they can’t be this silly, to initiate their sim-Genesis with such signs. Well, that is the religious shouting which disguises calculations."
And the moon landing never happened.
And the earth really is flat.
Sandy Hook was a hoax.
Right.
Earth is not flat
Steve stated :And the moon landing never happened.
And the earth really is flat.
Sandy Hook was a hoax.
Right.
Human Habitat Index answered :Earth is not flat
Does that mean that moon landing never happened, and that Sandy Hook was a hoax ?
Sidd I like that. Don't trust any statement of authority.
So would you agree with me that 'open source' journalism, where anyone can verify the evidence because it is publicly available, is the ONLY way left over to find out the difference between the truth and propaganda ?
Does that mean that moon landing never happened, and that Sandy Hook was a hoax ?Yes
Earth is not flat
Black Boxes were not recovered at "ground zero" :o
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unrecovered_flight_recorders
Incineration will do that to a black box. Flight 93's was recovered.
I thought black boxes were virtually indestructible.
Watch September Clues if you care about the truth.
911 conspiracy theries belong right here in this thread.
These are good examples of bad journalism where all sorts of nonsence is reported.
As reprehensible as the Bush regime was any involvement at any level in murdering thousands of US citizens could never be covered up. The US justice system is not yet that broken that the people capable of this would expect never to be held to account.
What are people's thoughts, is there any consensus that we can build on how to judge what is good and bad journalism?
What are people's thoughts, is there any consensus that we can build on how to judge what is good and bad journalism?
What are people's thoughts, is there any consensus that we can build on how to judge what is good and bad journalism?
From one Nev to another: Good journalism speaks truth to power.
And that's the problem that I and many others have with mainstream, corporate media. Because of the way it is set up, it inherently can speak to power only so far. And that's not very far nowadays.
Ergo, on the whole, mainstream, corporate media is bad journalism. It's designed to condition people and keep their thinking within a narrow, tribalistic, black-and-white way of thinking. Because that's what makes the money flow. Distract and disorient.
Now, I listened to the whole interview, and I did not once hear him talk about 'open source' journalism. Instead, Pilger denies Douma's chemical attack ever happened, and complements Fisk for his report about Douma, since Fisk talked to a 'doctor' who told him nothing happened. Remember that was that 'doctor' who talked English very well, and was not present in the hospital at the time of the attack.
Pilger is right.
Not everyone is up to seeing that. Oh well. Hersh, Fisk, Pilger and Chomsky are wonderful human beings who speak truth to power almost every time they open their mouths or write something down. Another million journalists like that the whole world would be a much better much safer enjoyable place to live.
It's true if the doctor says so that he wasn't inside the hospital when the filming occurred. That's what Fisk reported. he didn't make it up, he reported what the Doctor said. That's what honorable ethical journalists do. Those that do not are not credible.
Be clear however, that doctor never said there was a (chemical) attack and many others who were there nearby have confirmed that as being the case. He was speaking about the hospital and the video. All is 'open source' information, so it's questionable why Bellingcat have not included that 'point of view' from known first hand witnesses in their non-stop 'reporting' about this issue.
Besides this Rob, I believe there are several huge holes in the opinions/theory you believe about Fisk and doctors. I'll explain a few for the benefit of everyone here. That doctor spoke good english. What that means and why it is important for Fisk to state is there was little to no likelihood that Fisk misunderstood what he was saying and more importantly what precisely he meant. There was no translator intermediary. That's significant.
The doctor as reported worked in that very hospital.
This means that first he spoke fluent Arabic. Not only could he hear what was being said in the video, but he also knew what the locals the staff and other doctors had told him in the preceding days before Fisk arrived.
Fisk was reporting what that Doctor knew as a result of being a hearsay witness of the events. Being a doctor there is a degree of default ethics and credibility in his story told to Fisk and Fisk properly recorded that for us to consider. His words carry some weight. I believe both of them but you and others for some unknown reason do not.
Reading your past comments here it seems that you have never ever heard of Robert Fisk before this event. You also rubbished the wikipedia entry that reported on his multiple awards. Why anyone would do that based on an absence of accurate knowledge about Fisk is incredible. Because Robert Fisk would be the #1 western investigative journalist in the middle east for the last 40 years. His reputation for accuracy, honesty, credibility, ethics, reliability and truthfulness is without peer. Even Osama Bin laden knew him to be an honourable man who would not lie about anything. He was interviewed 3 times by Fisk. I assume you don't know that either. Because if you did I doubt you would have been so keen to insult his qualifications as an award winning journalist in the first place.
So the big question here is not how untrustworthy Robert Fisk's reporting is, the question is the credibility of your own personal opinions, beliefs and background knowledge of the ME in general and Syria in particular. You're no journalist Rob. Please try to keep that in mind. To put that in a humourous way Bellingcat isn't worthy to tie up Fisk's shoelaces. ;D
Lastly, and this is really a good one. That doctor as reported accurately by Fisk said the 2 or 3 doctors who were on duty and present when the video/s were done were away. They were in fact enroute or already in the Netherlands for that OCPW meeting and press conference. For some unknown reason you dispute the reports by this doctor because he wasn't present. OK, fair enough on face value, you're a doubting Thomas. Nothing wrong with that principle.
But here's the rub. Those doctors who were present did in fact confirm exactly what the doctor told Fisk. 2-3 days after the date Fisk filed his news report. Now given this information is 'open source' and out there in the wild, it begs the question why Rob doesn't already know this? It's been over a week at least.
And why it is that Bellingcat that champion of accuracy and 'open source' analysis has not reported on what those Doctors those first hand credible ethical professional knowledgeable witnesses had to say about those videos taken while they were present in that very room?
The people in that video were not suffering from a chlorine gas attack. They were all suffering from hypoxia having been underground in a tunnel / shelter when some bombing occurred. They were overcome with dust and a lack of air. eg “what you see are people suffering from hypoxia—not gas poisoning"
That is why they were being washed down with water to remove excess "dust" to stop it getting worse, and is why they were being given Ventolin to help open up the air-ways in their lungs to help them breathe better.
What I saw in the videos were just as traumatizing for the children as the bombing was. They were scared out of their minds trying to breathe with screaming panicking adults all around them. This was obvious to me the first time I saw those videos. It was obvious to me immediately that what I was seeing had nothing to do with the proper treatment for a major chlorine gas attack that supposedly had killed hundreds of people.
I don't feel it necessary to provide a link to those doctor witnesses confirming the Fisk report of what his Doctor said to him and why. A great test to see how effective 'Open Source' journalism can really be.
Maybe Bellingcat have published the correct up-to-date information since I last looked at their website yesterday.
... some people go look at Mann's Hockey Stick graph and all they can see is lies and fraud. I think they are extremely Biased. They might possibly be deluding themselves but they are definitely not thinking straight or being rational about it. Happens a lot in my experience. So much for us being the smartest species on Earth. Go figure! :D
What are people's thoughts, is there any consensus that we can build on how to judge what is good and bad journalism?
Seems as though everyone that actually went there comes back with the same story.
It was a hoax!
Who's paying for your news is always a good question to ask.
looks like propornot fake news list is atlantic council, same ones who fund eliot higgins, among others:
What I really hope for is this atrocious inhuman violence and evil all over Syria stops in the very next second!
For the record I had not seen those 3 pages of information before today.
I don't have a theory to give you details on
...
I don't want to intrude into this thread and bore people. I also wish to lay down a few ground rules for how the discussions will proceed including it being an adhom free zone. Like progressive step by step discussion where you can act like the Prosecution Lawyer, Bellingcat is the 'police investigators' with the key evidence and I'll respond and question that as if I'm the Defense Barrister. Other readers here can be the Jury if they want, and they can decide who won the case at the end. Whether the charges are proven beyond a reasonable doubt or not?
...
How does that sound to you Rob?
Rob would you please clarify something for me. Are those two pages you gave the urls for the sum total of all the evidence Bellingcat has about the alleged Douma incident on the 7th April?
That was a really good Medium article (https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/atlantic-council-explains-why-we-need-to-be-propagandized-for-our-own-good-fd3470254ea5), Terry. Thanks.
the discredited war propaganda firm Bellingcat
Possibly Rob is the "resident expert on bellingcat", but I knew and interacted with Eliot Higgins before he came up with that moniker.
So, how about you respond to that first and also answer my last question directly? A yes or no is not too difficult. You are the resident expert on bellingcat here not me. Why can't you address the separate thread issue even? A simple no will be fine if you're not interested and I'll move on.
If you followed the Ukraine situation at all you'll remember Graham Phillips as the brave British journalist who was always showing up at awkward times with his camera running.Hahaaaahaha... A brave "embedded reporter" for Russia.
Hahaaaahaha... A brave "embedded reporter" for Russia.
The Michael Cohen Revelations Are a Crash Course in Shady Corporate Entities
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-michael-cohen-revelations-are-a-crash-course-in-shady-corporate-entities (https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-michael-cohen-revelations-are-a-crash-course-in-shady-corporate-entities)
The premise of diplomatic outreach was to create conditions for eventual coöperation with Iran on other flashpoints in the world’s most volatile region. Instead, danger looms for deepening tensions in hot spots such as Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, and Yemen—countries where the United States and Iran have rival interests. “By forfeiting American leadership in the one successful multilateral deal in the volatile Middle East, Trump could possibly make a bad situation worse,” Wendy Chamberlin, a former career diplomat who is now the president of the Middle East Institute, in Washington, told me. Trump Destroys the Iran Deal—and a Lot More
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/trump-destroys-the-iran-dealand-a-lot-more
Israeli Operatives Who Aided Harvey Weinstein Collected Information on Former Obama Administration Officials
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/israeli-operatives-who-aided-harvey-weinstein-collected-information-on-former-obama-administration-officials
Belhaj rendition: UK apology over Libyan dissident treatment.
The settlement is the first time ministers have apologised for a specific act involving British security agencies.
More about the case here, Neven:
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-44070304
The look on BBC's anchor Jo Coburn when Home Affairs Correspondent Dominic Casciani mentions MI6's involvement in torture during a live interview today.
I thought they would have had a delay on these "live" interviews. Oops !
Rob would you please clarify something for me. Are those two pages you gave the urls for the sum total of all the evidence Bellingcat has about the alleged Douma incident on the 7th April?
Why don't you address the evidence in these two urls first.
To make it easier and less time consuming for both of us, how about instead you chose only one piece of evidence that you accept as a highly compelling part of the bellingcat narrative?
ASILurker isn't the only one here having a problem with Bellingcat.
E.g.:That was a really good Medium article (https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/atlantic-council-explains-why-we-need-to-be-propagandized-for-our-own-good-fd3470254ea5), Terry. Thanks.
P.S./Edit: Quoth article:Quotethe discredited war propaganda firm Bellingcat
Poison gas, which kills with particular cruelty and indiscriminateness, has been internationally outlawed since shortly after the First World War, but in Syria it has become a conventional weapon. (Human Rights Watch has confirmed more than fifty government attacks.) Assad regularly uses chlorine for tactical advantage, and it works—the attack on Douma, coming at the end of two months of bombardment, forced rebels to surrender one of their last important strongholds. But he is also making a point: he is showing Syrians that he will do whatever it takes to hold on to power, that they are helpless, that no one will come to their aid.
Who can argue otherwise? Most of the gas attacks have gone unremarked upon in the outside world, unless they result in horrible pictures, and in those cases the Western response has been so uncertain that it has only encouraged Assad to keep going. Whether the American President is a judicious rationalist who cares about international law and disdains the cowboy image or an impulsive narcissist who is indifferent to every norm and just wants to look tough, the images from Syria are the same.
Trump is in an especially bad position to respond to these atrocities. Unlike every other President since Jimmy Carter, he doesn’t even offer human rights the compliment of hypocrisy. His foreign policy is simple: might makes right. He has championed brutal rulers, like the Philippine President, Rodrigo Duterte, and the Saudi royal family; shrugged at genocidal killings in Burma; and pushed our military to use levels of violence that have sent civilian casualties in Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan soaring. Under Trump, it is nearly impossible for refugees from the Syrian civil war to find a haven in this country. John Bolton, his new national-security adviser, describes international organizations and treaties as threats to U.S. sovereignty. On what ground can the Administration punish Assad for defying an international weapons ban and killing civilians?
Seven years of indecision have left us the weakest outside power in the war. Russia and Iran have committed fighters, weapons, aircraft, and a readiness to justify any inhumanity and tell any lie on behalf of their client in Damascus, and now Assad is close to the ultimate Pyrrhic victory. Turkey, defying American pleas, is waging a brutal campaign against the Kurdish People’s Protection Units, our only reliable partner and the ground force largely responsible for crushing the Islamic State. U.S. diplomacy was never aligned with the leverage in Syria that comes with force, and now we have no diplomacy at all. Any action that Trump takes will be feckless at best and possibly disastrous—triggering conflict with Russia, or the war with Iran that Bolton and others want—for there is no strategy to guide it except to “bomb the shit out of them” and get out. Even a joint attack with European allies would be empty without a larger effort to negotiate an end to the war.
ASILurker isn't the only one here having a problem with Bellingcat.
E.g.:That was a really good Medium article (https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/atlantic-council-explains-why-we-need-to-be-propagandized-for-our-own-good-fd3470254ea5), Terry. Thanks.
P.S./Edit: Quoth article:Quotethe discredited war propaganda firm Bellingcat
I know. And it is disappointing.
This is supposed to be a forum where people argue scientifically, and with reason and evidence.
Since in open source journalism the evidence is there for everyone to verify and criticize, I would have expected that this method would be welcomed with open arms.
Instead, we see relentless attempts to discredit Bellingcat and Eliot Higgins personally with ad hominem attacks, lots of criticism of their associations and funding. But NO attempt to discredit them on the evidence and reasoning they present.
It's really not difficult to discredit and open-source journalism article. Just point out a mistake in their geolocation, or any other part of the analysis. Or point out a mistake in their reasoning.
There are many open-source investigations that have been discredited because the journalist made a mistake.
The thing with Bellingcat is that they are very good in their analyses, and their conclusions are conservative. They don't overreach. In fact, they have never been proven incorrect in their any part of their analysis or conclusions. They are the best in uncovering the truth based on open source information.
Which makes them a BIG threat for everyone who has a pre-conceived opinion, has a bias, or is in the business of spreading propaganda
MartinNot for me. I understand Internets dynamics, having used it since last century. My first email ca. 1992 from a VAX account took 1 day to cross the Atlantic... Post 9/11 2001 I was part of a subversive/artistic group, fooling and feeding the primitive NSA algorithms with crazy email texts (then they got stuck/delayed in Taiwan), playing virtual brain surgeon, catching google bots in self-replicating pages until my server broke down...
Facebook! You maintain a presence on Facebook!
My understanding is that this alone can alter your internet experience. Cambridge Analytica isn't the only one using that data.
SorryGood. I'm an unrepentant anti-metaphysicist and anti-theist (forget atheism, the other side of the god coin.) No god (incl. no not-god, it's all superfluous neuron wasting bullshit), no rebirth (except within one's lifetime - there's the rub).
I'm an unrepentant Pastafarian. No god but the one true FSM.
Ramen
Terry
but what does it have to do with Russiagate and the Media?The dynamics of bullshit bubbles is nothing new to me. E.g. you "enjoy" your Russian bullshit bubbles.
Caitlin Johnstone on How to Silence RT Forever
https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2018/05/07/how-to-silence-rt-forever/
Should appease everyone - of maybe not. :)
Terry
It always comes back to RT. Because of the network’s relatively high profile in comparison to other Russian media, it has been made into an ideal Emmanuel Goldstein for the empire’s daily Two Minutes Hate. RT is now so completely reviled by establishment loyalists that citing it in an online debate will be taken as an instant debunk of not just the point you were trying to make but of your entire position (and often your humanity itself by getting you labeled a “Russian bot”), even if your citation is comprised entirely of independently verifiable facts.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4zYlOU7Fpk
Luckily for the screaming hysterical Big Brother devotees, there is a very easy and 100 percent guaranteed way to get RT removed from western airwaves forever. Are you ready? Here it is:
Allow leftist and antiwar perspectives to be voiced on western mainstream media.
That’s it. That’s the whole entire recipe for RT’s destruction. If western media simply ceased deliberately excluding leftist and antiwar voices from mainstream discourse, there would no longer be any demand for RT’s output, since the only reason anyone outside of Russia watches RT is to get perspectives they can’t get anywhere else.
A few leftist, antiwar and activism-oriented programs on stations like BBC and MSNBC is all it would take to kill any interest in RT’s programming and steal their entire audience. They wouldn’t ever have to have a single Russian on their programs; there is an abundance of home-grown talent with clear antiwar, anti-capitalism, pro-environment perspectives to keep reliably churning out fresh content on a daily basis, and there is simply no way RT’s feeble budget would be able to keep up.
(...)
This is a surefire way to get rid of RT without violating the US Constitution, committing unprecedented acts of government censorship, or having anything whatsoever to do with the Kremlin. But of course, we all know that it will never happen.
It will never happen because RT is not the real enemy. Leftists and antiwar activists are the real enemy.
Caitlin Johnstone on How to Silence RT Forever
https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2018/05/07/how-to-silence-rt-forever/
Should appease everyone - of maybe not. :)
Terry
Wow, very strong stuff.
Some quotes:Quote[...]
Allow leftist and antiwar perspectives to be voiced on western mainstream media.
That’s it. That’s the whole entire recipe for RT’s destruction. If western media simply ceased deliberately excluding leftist and antiwar voices from mainstream discourse, there would no longer be any demand for RT’s output, since the only reason anyone outside of Russia watches RT is to get perspectives they can’t get anywhere else.
A few leftist, antiwar and activism-oriented programs on stations like BBC and MSNBC is all it would take to kill any interest in RT’s programming and steal their entire audience. They wouldn’t ever have to have a single Russian on their programs; there is an abundance of home-grown talent with clear antiwar, anti-capitalism, pro-environment perspectives to keep reliably churning out fresh content on a daily basis, and there is simply no way RT’s feeble budget would be able to keep up.
[...]
It will never happen because RT is not the real enemy. Leftists and antiwar activists are the real enemy.
It will never happen because RT is not the real enemy. Leftists and antiwar activists are the real enemy.
But mainstream media has become a corporate monopoly (thanks to Bill Gates)Rupert Murdoch...
Last time I cared about polit stuff was before/during the Iraq war. Dunno what I read back then, but I was on Joschka Fischer's side, doubting the "mainstream" war mongers' narrative.
Is this your way of KIS (Keep It Simple) ?
You refused multiple requests that were reasonable and polite to cooperate. You refused to KISSMIF.
"To make it easier and less time consuming for both of us, how about instead you chose only one piece of evidence that you accept as a highly compelling part of the bellingcat narrative? "and I complied, suggesting that you follow the scientific method and start with the first video in the first link, and answer some questions that raises IF your theory that no gas attack happened is correct :
For your information as an encouragement to think carefully first. I have worked with both scuba tanks and commercial gas cylinders as large as the ones in the videos and a little larger. I know all about "frosting" from a rapid and from a slow steady discharge of the contents. I know how fast that frosting appears and how fast that frosting evaporates depending on the gas contents, the surrounding air, temps and humidity.
You shut out MSNBC, The New York Times, The Guardian, the Washington Post, but take RT as reliable? This is indeed propaganda, and ill-informed at that. I used to appreciate RT's climate coverage, but I doubt their politics is not as advertised in its name: Russia Today. Anyone who thinks Putin isn't up to all kinds of harm isn't paying attention. Anyone who thinks Trump and the modern Republican power party are not the main source of harm since at least Reagan is ignoring the monstrous wounds of real evil while picking at scabs.
For the best news going, I do recommend The New Yorker
9) Noting here that white foam like that is NOT a symptom of chlorine gas poisoning.Nope:
The first effect produced by the irritant action of the gas is a profuse exudation of a thin, light yellow, albuminous fluid by the bronchial mucous membrane, as well as a very active secretion by the lachrymal and salivary glands; these are the results of protective reflexes, the object of which is to dilute the irritant poison and render it innocuous. At the same time spasm of the bronchial muscles occurs in an attempt to obstruct the passage of the gas into the alveoli. In severe cases the bronchial secretion and spasm not only fail to protect the alveoli, but obstruct the entry of air into the lungs, to such an extent that the patient becomes asphyxiated and may die before the fluid is expectorated and the spasm relaxes.
...
In your theory, how do you explain that frosting ?
AND " if there was no gas discharge as you allege."
"if there was no gas discharge as you allege."
I never alleged that.
So what are the possibilities if this scene was staged? How did the frosting appear on the tank when the video was taken?
1) The cylinder was planted on the patio before the 7th of april or on the night.
2) The cylinder was partly full with gas, and not necessarily chlorine.
3) There was a 'headchopper' on the patio when the video was taken.
4) Using a spanner he removed the tap/regulator, called down to the guys below and said "Hey ok, start videoing, the tank has frosting on it it now! Quick! Hurry up! Allahu Akbar my brothers!"
5) OR the tap was opened first until it was empty and then he used a spanner to remove the tap without the pressure in the tank.
6) The dead bodies were already dead for a day or several days before the 7th april.
7) They planted the bodies at the scene (not in the basement) as shown in the video.
8) Several minutes before the video was taken someone went around and sprayed white foam into the noses and mouths of some of the bodies.
The FFM also noted the presence of chemicals that can neither be explained as occurring naturally in the environment nor as being related to chlorine. Furthermore, some of the medical signs and symptoms reported were different to those that would be expected from exposure to pure chlorine. There was insufficient information and evidence to enable the FFM to draw any further conclusions on these chemicals at this stage.
Samples tested by the OPCW-FFM include Diisopropyl methylphosphonate (DIMP), Isopropyl methylphosphonate (IPMPA aka IMPA), and Methylphosphonic acid (MPA), which are not byproducts of chlorine gas, but have been detected in all Sarin attacks in Syria where chemical analysis was performed by the OPCW, including the August 21st 2013 Damascus attacks, the March 30th 2017 Al Lataminah attack, and the April 4th 2017 Khan Sheikhoun attack.
I simply peplied to your point 9).tl;dnr - except:9) Noting here that white foam like that is NOT a symptom of chlorine gas poisoning.Nope:
Quoth http://www.vlib.us/medical/gaswar/chlorine.htmQuoteThe first effect produced by the irritant action of the gas is a profuse exudation of a thin, light yellow, albuminous fluid by the bronchial mucous membrane, as well as a very active secretion by the lachrymal and salivary glands; these are the results of protective reflexes, the object of which is to dilute the irritant poison and render it innocuous. At the same time spasm of the bronchial muscles occurs in an attempt to obstruct the passage of the gas into the alveoli. In severe cases the bronchial secretion and spasm not only fail to protect the alveoli, but obstruct the entry of air into the lungs, to such an extent that the patient becomes asphyxiated and may die before the fluid is expectorated and the spasm relaxes.
Hi Martin, thanks for the extra info and questioning what was presented.
In this case it fails on a couple of points. First it contradicts the claims made several times on the Bellingcat website (url given above) of what kind of 'chemical agent' was present. Have another look.
that foam substance is not a result of chlorine poisoningAs my quote says: "very active secretion by the [...] salivary glands"
I am sorry but what you think that ref is saying does no actually refer to what I have said and why I have said.It does.
That quote does not actually refer to the images shown in the video in question. Two different things entirely.It is about high doseage chlorine gas poisoning. Chlorine is chlorine at any location in the universe.
I am fairly certain I have done a good job of ripping this Example of Bad Journalism to shreds. :)I am not. And please keep yourself shorter. Your longish rambling texts are beyond my patience.
Dems Give Up on Trying to Get Cable News to Care About Anything but Russia
The party wants to talk health care. They really do. But they can’t get cable bookers or programmers to care.
Throughout the spring and early summer of 2017, congressional Democrats put together a comprehensive legislative and messaging plan to serve as the party’s foundation for the 2018 midterm elections.
It centered around running against the concentration of economic power—chiefly within the pharmaceutical industry—and an ambitious, multi-faceted approach to enhancing conditions for workers both within and outside the workplace.
The title was a bit cookie-cutter—”A Better Deal”—but the document was the result of numerous stakeholder meetings, strategy sessions, and late-night conferring.
Naturally, the party wanted to have a flashy debut. So lawmakers went to Berryville, Virginia—a town in a district that Democrats had lost in the 2016 elections but were poised to flip in the upcoming cycle—to formally announce the plan. When they came back to D.C, they conducted additional press briefings in hopes of flooding the news cycle.
And then Jared Kushner stepped out of the West Wing to a horde of cameras, to proclaim his innocence in the still nascent probe into Russian election meddling. “Let me be very clear,” Kushner said. “I did not collude with Russia, nor do I know of anyone else on the campaign who did so.”
In an instant, the public relations push was upended. Much of the media still covered “A Better Deal.” But cable news largely ignored it, choosing instead to chase the shiny new object presented before them by the president’s son-in-law.
“In print and other places [coverage] was great. It was online. The Times did two big stories on it. The Post had a huge picture and story. And it was everywhere else online,” said one senior Democratic Senate aide involved in the PR push. “But cable news focused on Kushner.”
Go placidly amid the noise and haste... and remember what peace there may be in silence.Authoritarians, Kings, & dictators always tell the people they suppress to have such attitudes. Remember: Speaking up leads to health problems.
A problem we're also seeing in the ASIF microcosmos:QuoteDems Give Up on Trying to Get Cable News to Care About Anything but Russia
The party wants to talk health care. They really do. But they can’t get cable bookers or programmers to care.
...
Very bad journalism, exactly as TPTB want it to be.
A Better Deal!
Visions of government health care, higher wages, workers rights, but I never heard of it, and I doubt that many of the voters have either.
MSM Misinformation: Comparing the Wikipedia Page of the White Helmet Terrorists with the Actual Images From Their Own Facebook Accounts
https://clarityofsignal.com/2018/05/17/msm-misinformation-comparing-the-wikipedia-page-of-the-white-helmet-terrorists-with-the-actual-images-from-their-own-facebook-accounts/
There is a lot of information and images on this page clearly connecting white helmets with terrorists such as Al Nusra.
This is not being reflected on the white helmets wiki page.
Alas, the Wikipedia controversy related to the White Helmets grows even larger due to this manipulation against those that dare to expose the White Helmets as terrorists, and particularly so now that Jimmy Wales the founder of Wikipedia has chimed in and done nothing to stop the lies and smears.
I see no straightforward solutions to this democracy-killing trend.
I see no straightforward solutions to this democracy-killing trend.
Yes, there is. Stop watching mainstream news. Stop protecting it, promoting it and linking to it online. Stop voting for the lesser evil. Make a demand.
Watch RT and Jimmy Dore instead? Vote Trump?I see no straightforward solutions to this democracy-killing trend.
Yes, there is. Stop watching mainstream news. Stop protecting it, promoting it and linking to it online. Stop voting for the lesser evil. Make a demand.
So it was Halper. There's no such thing as an ex-spook. This boy has been slimy since 1980.Thanks sidd!
"a long-time CIA operative with extensive links to the Bush family who was responsible for a dirty and likely illegal spying operation in the 1980 presidential election."
Apparently was setting up Page and Papadoupolos before the investigation began ...
"The professor’s interactions with Trump advisers began a few weeks before the opening of the investigation ... "
https://theintercept.com/2018/05/19/the-fbi-informant-who-monitored-the-trump-campaign-stefan-halper-oversaw-a-cia-spying-operation-in-the-1980-presidential-election/ (https://theintercept.com/2018/05/19/the-fbi-informant-who-monitored-the-trump-campaign-stefan-halper-oversaw-a-cia-spying-operation-in-the-1980-presidential-election/)
sidd
Watch RT and Jimmy Dore instead? Vote Trump?
[...] The Daily Caller News Foundation (the nonprofit arm of the Daily Caller) has received at least $825,814 in combined funding from Koch-controlled foundations. As reported at Daily KOS, the Daily Caller was one of the main beneficiaries of climate change denial funding through Koch foundations, and “also seems to be the final destination of sorts for the conservative media pipeline.”
[...](my bold italics)
False claim propagation in the climate misinformation echo chamber
Given that the paper’s claims and methods do not stand up to scientists’ scrutiny, how did the media react to it? We have compiled a list of the most influential blog posts and news outlet coverage. With the exception of the article in The Guardian, where scientists detailed the study’s flaws, none of the publications listed below interviewed any scientists with expertise on the subject to hear their assessment of the quality of the new publication—standard practice among professional science journalists.
The diagram below shows that the articles mostly rely heavily on each other—like in an echo chamber—with very few outside sources included in the reporting. A first wave of “reporting” appeared in The Spectator, The Daily Caller, The Daily Wire, and Breitbart, which were then largely copied and pasted in a second wave of posts with larger audiences, including Young Conservatives and Milo Yiannopoulos’ blog.
[...]
A Simple Litmus Test
In the "Mueller Investigation & Cohen Investigation" thread an avid commenter seriously cited (https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,2301.msg155028.html#msg155028) the Daily Caller... So this is one of the alternatives to evil "Mainstream Media"? :'(
There is a simple litmus test if a source might be something to take seriously:Check the f-ing climate reporting!The "Daily Howler", as it is known in climate science circles fails it spectacularly. I find it quite concerning that someone frequenting this very forum dares quoting this anti-science propaganda rag.
Quoth https://www.desmogblog.com/michael-bastaschQuote[...] The Daily Caller News Foundation (the nonprofit arm of the Daily Caller) has received at least $825,814 in combined funding from Koch-controlled foundations. As reported at Daily KOS, the Daily Caller was one of the main beneficiaries of climate change denial funding through Koch foundations, and “also seems to be the final destination of sorts for the conservative media pipeline.”
The Daily Howler plays an important role in the conservative climate denial bubble:
Quoth https://climatefeedback.org/false-claim-global-warming-natural-propagates-climate-misinformation-echo-chamber/Quote[...](my bold italics)
False claim propagation in the climate misinformation echo chamber
Given that the paper’s claims and methods do not stand up to scientists’ scrutiny, how did the media react to it? We have compiled a list of the most influential blog posts and news outlet coverage. With the exception of the article in The Guardian, where scientists detailed the study’s flaws, none of the publications listed below interviewed any scientists with expertise on the subject to hear their assessment of the quality of the new publication—standard practice among professional science journalists.
The diagram below shows that the articles mostly rely heavily on each other—like in an echo chamber—with very few outside sources included in the reporting. A first wave of “reporting” appeared in The Spectator, The Daily Caller, The Daily Wire, and Breitbart, which were then largely copied and pasted in a second wave of posts with larger audiences, including Young Conservatives and Milo Yiannopoulos’ blog.
[...]
Figure – The network of outlets, blogs, and social media profiles who have shared and endorsed the claim of the GeoResJ paper. Dot sizes are proportional to the total number of shares and interactions on social media; arrows represent citations from an article to its source.
Good journalism is like a good CPA. They LOOK FOR FACTS from MULTIPLE INDEPENDENT SOURCES.
And they also look at the HISTORY of those sources being accurate or not. That is why FOX has been such a FARCE over the years. They DONT look for facts; they don’t use corraborating sources; they don’t use sources with a history of being correct.
When a company hands their financial statements to a CPA firm to produce an audit ... the CPA firm then looks to INDEPENDENT SOURCES to either corraborate or negate the information in the financials. In other words, a good CPA is SKEPTICAL of EVERYONE, and is continually on a hunt for THE TRUTH .... just as a good journalist is.
If Rudi Giuliani now says “the President can’t be subpoenaed” ... good journalists have dug into what Rudi has said in the past (which just so happens to be the OPPOSITE) of what he is saying now.
Journalism is a hunt for the truth .... plain and simple.
For instance, The Guardian was offering some really bad journalism on the Skirpal case.I'd like to see that.
The daily caller is undoubtedly a rag, but even a blind pig finds an acorn now and then. In this case they broke the Halper story in april. Nobody else would cover it.Maybe because the Daily Caller was informed by Page or Papadop or Nunes. The whole story I find unsurprising. Me dunno what all the fuss is about (except the Trump baby is now crying about it), so I just glanced over it. It is known since long that Page and Papadop were under surveillance, and the Halper thing exactly fits the picture.
If you ignore every source that doesn't report to your liking on every issueHere exactly is the problem: Confirmation bias.
I see no straightforward solutions to this democracy-killing trend.
Yes, there is. Stop watching mainstream news. Stop protecting it, promoting it and linking to it online. Stop voting for the lesser evil. Make a demand.
For instance, The Guardian was offering some really bad journalism on the Skirpal case.
Just to show that it's silly to dismiss a news source in its entirety based on one aspect or 'litmus test', here's some of the really great stuff that Jimmy Dore is doing to spread awareness and offer a platform for progressive politicians to reach out to voters. Now, if I were living in California, I'd be investing as much free time as I have to help support this fantastic lady:
Martin doesn't really think that Jimmy Dore does a comedy show does he?
“In fact, the entire OPCW account is based on witness testimonies and material evidence provided by selected NGOs as well as medical records offered by the same questionable sources, including Belgium-based Same Justice/Chemical Violations Documentation Center of Syria (CVDCS), the notorious Syrian Civil Defense (SCD) – better known as White Helmets – and the US-based Syrian American Medical Society (SAMS).”
In particular, the evidentiary value of samples taken close to the time of the allegation,
supported by photographic and video evidence and in association with witness
testimony, was balanced against the evidentiary value of the FFM visiting the site
some time later to collect its own samples.
I'm glad Jimmy Wales has his ducks in a row, and as he said about the complaints about the White Helmets : "those complaints are so wrong" and "show me some diffs" of where you think the edits where not according to standard wiki rules.
Here's my question: Please name the USA Media Broadcasters who would meet the Ofcom Broadcasting Code standards.
Bellingcat is fine. They sustain all their claims with evidence, and have never been proven wrong.
Bellingcat is fine. They sustain all their claims with evidence, and have never been proven wrong.
About that, read what this Bellingcat insider has to say...
...I must consider Bellingcat to be nothing more than trolls impersonating journalists. Bellingcat appears to be less legitimate than Fox News."
That is coming from the guy who has build Bellingcats fotoanalysis software..
https://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/729-All-Mouth,-No-Trousers.html
Using ELA, we cannot determine the authenticity of this picture: we cannot tell if it is real, and we cannot tell if it is fake. We can only conclude that this is a low quality picture and that the black text on white annotations were added last. If there was a higher quality version of this picture (without the annotations), then we would have a better chance at detecting any potential alterations.
The difference in the error levels between areas D and C cannot be explained by the image’s
content. While error level differences may be caused by blurry image content, the clouds on
the right side are sharply defined structures, so the error levels should not exhibit any
significant deviations from the central part of the image in this field.
Therefore, it is highly likely that the cloud in Picture 4 is not part of the original image and was added later.
Picture 4 was taken between 1 June 2014 and 18 June 2014.Which proves that the Russian Ministry of Defense lied about the date this picture was taken.
The same three regions in the ELA analysis conducted by Bellingcat are evident across multiple filters in Tungstène that show differences in quantization, compression, and noise. In an unaltered image, the central region of the image is unlikely to appear starkly different from the clouds. The cloud on the left side of the image is almost certainly digitally altered or added; the cloud on the right is more than likely altered.
Again, we know the labels have been added and, according to the Russian Ministry of Defense, the field has also been blurred to hide the resolution of the satellite.
But the image shows other signs of manipulation that call into question its integrity. These manipulations include signs that the two Buk launchers do not match the underlying image, suggesting that they have been enhanced or added digitally from another image. Two filters show obvious signs of tampering – artifacts left by software such as Photoshop.
Rob Dekker, you talk too much and you say too little.
The missile "originated" from Russia's 53rd anti-aircraft missile brigade from the city of Kursk in western Russia, Paulissen said — a "part of the Russian armed forces."
The investigators' findings support earlier conclusions from the U.K. "citizen investigative journalist" group Bellingcat, which said more than two years ago that photographs from the day the plane was shot down linked the Buk missile to Russia's 53rd brigade in Kursk, as NPR's Corey Flintoff wrote at the time.
I heard Mr Higgins being interviewed live on a radio program today. He didn't paint the coming press conference in that light. He did say that from what he had been told by the JIT investigators during the previous few days they have no evidence at all of any Russia state or Putin involvement in this matter.
I heard Mr Higgins being interviewed live on a radio program today. He didn't paint the coming press conference in that light. He did say that from what he had been told by the JIT investigators during the previous few days they have no evidence at all of any Russia state or Putin involvement in this matter.
Do your have a reference to that interview ?Yes. Wasting your time asking me for an url. Ask Higgins he'd know.
Here's a nice one from one representative of establishment media:
\
It's an opinion. You can agree or disagree.
Here are the keys to writing good journalism:
•Get the facts. All the facts you can.
•Tell your readers where you got every bit of information you put in your story.
•Be honest about what you do not know.
•Don't try to write fancy. Keep it clear.
•Don't write negative articles about Jeff Bezos or Amazon.
Claiming to be a cardiologist, Twitter user @Thomas_Binder posted a tweet in the aftermath of the chemical attack in Syria last month accusing medical workers of faking a photo in which victims of the attack were pictured receiving life-saving care. Binder later admitted that the information in his tweet was wrong, but by the time he did so, the false claim had already been retweeted over ten thousand times and used to propagate a smear campaign against the volunteer rescue group known as the White Helmets.
Back to the real world, the Bellingcat findings published yesterday provide an example of excellent investigative journalism
I think it was Rob in the recent past casting negative aspersions on the credibility of both Robert Fisk and Seymour Hersh as journalists because they presented alternative evidence and views than Bellingcat's fictions about Syria.
One of the most telling things to me about MH17 is not what has been said by the US Government and Intel/Mil chiefs but instead they have not said. I mention this mode of operating on another thread today.You Putin lovers all want the US military to make public all they know about MH17.
The second most telling thing is the distinct lack of evidence provided by the U.S. Intel/Mil to the investigators or to the public that is in their possession about movements and Coms traffic in eastern Ukraine in the days and weeks leading up to and following the loss of MH17.
Unfortunately it's not 1986 anymore. The world has changed significantly since then. And not in a good way.
Bad journalism (Maddow is just as crazy as Hannity now)Yes, bad journalism. But in a different sense: Content free Rachel Maddow bashing. That's no journalism at all.
Bad journalism (Maddow is just as crazy as Hannity now):
Bad journalism (Maddow is just as crazy as Hannity now):
Now you're insulting Dore and Kulinski :) Hannity is Trump's Goebbels. Oops, now I insulted Goebbels' intelligence.Bad journalism (Maddow is just as crazy as Hannity now):
I'm not sure why you are saying that, since Hannity at this point has more in common with Dore and Kulinski than he has with Maddow.
Smearing somebody (like Maddow) who points out that Trump gave in too soon is not productive.Exactly. Squabbling children. Circular firing squad. Playing in the hands of the political right - and then whine and complain. Idiotic and disgusting. When will they ever learn?
If anything, supposedly left-wing journalists smearing left-wing journalists like Maddow suggests that the political left in the US is divided more than ever.
Bernie said to "bring people together".
Guys like Dore and Kulinski smearing Maddow is not helping in uniting the left.
And without unity, the political right will prevail.
Is that enough content to fill the neuron void? :)Someone should watch TRMS more often. But, boy, she's talking soo fast :)
"While employing a handful of compromised fig leaves, the Guardian has ruthlessly smeared anyone who has sought to challenge the status quo: Julian Assange, Russell Brand, Hugo Chavez, Noam Chomsky, Edward Herman, John Pilger, George Galloway and many others. It has also been complicit in the great war crimes of Iraq, Libya and Syria....
An example of Good Journalism
Glen Ford frames reality quite well and more accurately here too:
Trump campaigned in 2016 for normal relations with Russia, an end to the U.S. regime change offensive, and opposition to so-called “free” trade, thus uniting most of the ruling class against him. It turned out that Trump’s wholly unexpected appeal for peaceful relations with Russia did not deter huge majorities of Republicans from voting for him in the primaries and the general election. The political conclusion was inescapable: If white Republicans were not wedded to the permanent war agenda -- or cared more about maintaining white supremacy at home than funding endless hostilities abroad -- then where was the mass constituency for the bipartisan War Party? If Trump’s “deplorables” weren’t wedded to the War Party, then who was?
and
Trump’s surprise election threw the bulk of the elite, the corporate media, the military-industrial complex, and the spooks of the intelligence agencies, into panic, as they confronted a crisis of legitimacy for the Warfare State. Now firmly aligned with Hillary Clinton and the Democrats, their response was to pre-empt Trump’s threatened rapprochement with Russia with a massive anti-Putin campaign. The elites realized they had to recreate -- on the fly, with no factual basis -- a war fervor that no longer existed among the masses of people, through Russiagate. In the chaotic process, they have further delegitimized virtually every U.S. institution, all the while putting the onus for the damage on the Vladimir Putin.
https://blackagendareport.com/chaos-imperial-big-house
(hat tip to sidd)
Obama's wholly unexpected appeal for peaceful relations with RussiaThat's called the Obama Russia reset. There is even a Wiki page about it :
Obama's surprise election
That consortiumnews.com opinion piece was written by Alexander Mercouris.
A bit of background check tells a lot about this guy :
https://www.stopfake.org/en/russian-media-columnist-alexander-mercouris-struck-off-over-claim-that-senior-law-lord-had-him-kidnapped/
Another author on Kremlin’s Sputnik International will be A. Mercouris, disbarred for deceiving a client. Now A. Mercouris is a columnist of RT, Voice of Russia and russia-insider.com.
The personal problems that Mercouris had, that made him do some misdeeds as a barrister, are, however, totally unrelated to his current position as chief editor at The Duran. I think his analysis of russiophobia is excellent, and great journalism.
About 770,000 results (0.68 seconds)
Search Results
Trump talks to Hannity on the phone nearly every night to 'decompress ...
www.nydailynews.com/.../trump-talks-hannity-phone-night-report-article-1.3990081
May 15, 2018 - Fox News host Sean Hannity calls the White House switchboard nearly every night after his show to speak to President Trump, according to a ...
Donald Trump and Sean Hannity's Late Night Calls - NYMag
nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/.../sean-hannity-donald-trump-late-night-calls.ht...
May 13, 2018 - Donald Trump and Sean Hannity like to talk before bedtime. Here's a look at life inside the bunker of Fox News' resident Trumplegänger.
Trump reportedly talks to Sean Hannity most nights before bed ...
www.businessinsider.com/trump-sean-hannity-talk-before-bed-2018-5
May 14, 2018 - President Donald Trump and Fox News host Sean Hannity apparently talk on the phone every night, according to a report from New York ...
Report: President Trump and Sean Hannity talk nearly every weeknight
https://www.usatoday.com/story/...trump...hannity...every-weeknight.../607595002/
I get that some of you hate Rachel Maddow - yes, I said hate, because the rejection of facts and bias are visceral rather than logical. She has her "beat" and her research team and work are as good as it gets. The last few days she's been focusing on the children separated at the border, and I've often heard her on a range of topics. MSNBC is in no way like Fox. Fox is largely fact-free and presents opinion from the right. MSNBC is a serious news organization that fills a hole in reporting on the more progressive end of the scale. They are not warmongers; that is a ridiculous assertion, not based on evidence. It is tempting to think that many people don't like a woman who presents more like a man than a woman, direct and "unfeminine".
Hannity is OK?
Who said he was OK .... no one ..... so who are you talking to besides the "air"?
I suspect that such biases may underly the overblown criticism of Pelosi, Feinstein, and Hillary Clinton, and many others.
Oh that's plain silly. Not by men and women or LGBTIQ on the left liberal progressive pro-community side of politics - it isn't. The criticisms are obviously always about what they say what they do and what they VOTE in Congress.
Everyone has their opinions. Your's are not better by default. I was simply pointing that obvious facts of the world. Plus go do your own research on voting records - I am not your slave.
University of Birmingham, told us although Moscow became militarily involved in the Syrian conflict in 2015, they had a propaganda office at the presidential palace in Damascus since the beginning. “From the very start you could see how they were putting out muddled story lines just to make you uncertain about what’s happening,” he told us.
The White Helmets, also known by their official title Syria Civil Defense, are a non-governmental organization made up of volunteers who carry out rescue efforts in rebel-held territory while wearing small cameras. Aside from saving lives, they have been credited with documenting war crimes. Thus, they are targets of frequent (but unproven and unfounded) smears that they are terrorists who are staging “false flag” attacks.
Lucas told us attacking medical facilities and first responders then accusing them of terrorism is a Russian tactic, because first responders in Syria — where it’s extremely difficult and dangerous for foreign journalists to enter — are often key reporters of atrocities:
The Russians would go after hospitals and first responders and the propaganda would come out that you shouldn’t trust information from White Helmets or doctors because they’re aligned with the terrorists. They were deliberately bombing the area but saying you can’t trust anyone who is reporting it.
Official Russian government channels are not the only sources of misleading information. Lucas pointed to a coterie of Western social media personalities and bloggers who have concentrated their efforts on running interference for the Assad regime.
Now read the words of Dmitry Pchelintsev as they appeared in MediaZona, a small independent online publication focused on police brutality and the prison system in Russia: “The man in surgical gloves cranked the DC generator with wires attached to my toes. The calves of my legs started contracting violently, I was paralyzed with pain. They threw me on the floor, pulled my underpants down and tried to attach the wires to my genitals. I clenched my teeth so hard that my mouth was full of blood and shards of broken teeth.”
Mr. Pchelintsev, a 26-year-old anti-fascist activist from the industrial town of Penza, told his lawyer about this in February — and then, he has said, he was tortured again to make him disown his statement.
He is part of what his torturers — Russia’s main intelligence agency, the F.S.B. — allege is a conspiracy to commit acts of terrorism during the World Cup to provoke “popular masses for further destabilization of the political climate in the country.” Nine young men have been charged in the case with “creating a terrorist cell.” One managed to flee the country; the others have been arrested, tortured and made to confess to being part of an underground terrorist organization called “the Network.” There’s no evidence that any such organization or plot existed.
Things get even weirder: A seamstress in Kazan, one of the World Cup host cities, says she was framed by a police officer who pretended to be a customer with a very specific request to make a life-size doll of Zabivaka, the 2018 World Cup’s mascot — and then charged her with violating FIFA’s copyright rules.
None of this should come as a surprise. President Vladimir Putin has given the Russian security services free rein in the lead-up to the World Cup.
ASILurker: Pot meet kettle. I suggest you block his posts (you can go to your profile and find this function with a little fiddling), since your comments are an escalation and undermine what you have to say. On the merits, Rob Dekker is less abusive than you are, and more accurate as to reality.Susan
ASILurker: Pot meet kettle. I suggest you block his posts (you can go to your profile and find this function with a little fiddling), since your comments are an escalation and undermine what you have to say. On the merits, Rob Dekker is less abusive than you are, and more accurate as to reality.Susan
In recent posts you've defended the White Helmets, perpetuated the myth of Syrian gas attacks, and accused the Russians of exactly the same torture methods that we've documented as having taken place under the watch of America's most recently vetted CIA chief.
Vetted I might add, by so many of the Corporate Democrats you defend so nobly, that she is now the public face of America's CIA.
Now you defend Rob Dekker and advise the victim to block Rob's vitriolic posts?
Would you prefer that I bold and quote each paragraph you have so recently penned?
Nice multi-person personal attacks, fact free as usual, and oblivious to the vitriol you yourself have evidenced in this comment. You appear to ignore anything anyone posts with content you don't want to believe, except as material for serial insults.
If you believe that, I've got a swamp in Florida to sell you. That's why I only look at your posts when I have the stomach to read them. Your consistent promotion of the Putin propaganda version does not enhance your credibility. You apparently don't read anything I say for content except when you want to promote alternative realities.
The personal problems that Mercouris had, that made him do some misdeeds as a barrister, are, however, totally unrelated to his current position as chief editor at The Duran. I think his analysis of russiophobia is excellent, and great journalism.
Hefaistos, the piece by Mercouris is a fact free opinion piece. Why do you say this is "excellent, and great journalism" ? Just because you agree with his opinion ?
Nowhere in this article do I see any mention of the facts : Of Russia's aggression in Georgia, or in Ukraine, or Russia annexing Crimea, or shooting down MH17, or the Skripal poisoning (other than the mention that Skripal deflected to the west), no mentioning of the Russian bombing of hospitals in Syria, nor of the Russian interference in the US elections (and 26 other countries), no mentioning of Russian support for Assad using chemical weapons, nor any mention of Russia threatening nuclear war with the west.
Any of these are examples of increased Russian aggression, which did not go unnoticed in the free world, and Mercouris ignores all of it.
He then simply asserts "russiophobia" without context. This makes his piece a fact-free, biased piece of pro-Russian propaganda, and yes, in that context it is good to check out the author, where we find out, surprise, surprise, that he is a a columnist of RT, Voice of Russia and russia-insider.com.
You could have known, since consortiumnews.com is on the propornot.com list for repeatedly spreading Russian propaganda.
I suspect that such biases may underly the overblown criticism of Pelosi, Feinstein, and Hillary Clinton, and many others.
Oh that's plain silly. Not by men and women or LGBTIQ on the left liberal progressive pro-community side of politics - it isn't. The criticisms are obviously always about what they say what they do and what they VOTE in Congress.
Please show us a good piece of journalism which shows that the voting records of Pelosi, Feinstein, and Hillary Clinton differ from the left liberal progressive side of politics. Because I'm a left liberal progressive voter and I find their voting record to be excellent.
Yes, it is good Journalism. It paints the overall picture, it analyzes and explains why the British establishment is blinded by russophobia.
Why do you so often spice up your posts with your hate of Russia? You repeatedly mention totally unrelated things just to display your hate....
Paula Slier booted at Ukrainian border.
Didn't the NYT prove that Saddam had WMDs?
Greenwald on the bankruptcy of MSNBC:Wrong thread. This is not about smear journalists. Greenwald is neither good nor bad. He is just an angry useful idiot with an axe to grind (if not worse). His recent fame is for his smear of Hillary and his effective Trump campaign collusion.
"NBC News and MSNBC have essentially merged with the CIA and intelligence community and thus use their tactics. The network is filled with former Generals and CIA officials who are part of the community that pioneered these smear tactics of accusing journalists and critics they dislike of being traitors, spies and Kremlin loyalists. Indeed, Nance sometimes appears on MSNBC along with former CIA Director John Brennan, who MSNBC also hired as an “analyst.” This is who they are."
https://theintercept.com/2018/07/08/msnbc-does-not-merely-permit-fabrications-against-democratic-party-critics-it-encourages-and-rewards-them/
Greenwald Smears Nance, MSNBC, Dems in Order to Stand Up For Russia, Steinand fuck "your" fucken Pulitzer... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_Greenwald
(...)
Greenwald must have learned something from his frequent stints on Fox, because he then compares Nance to Joe McCarthy, says “NBC News and MSNBC have essentially merged with the CIA and intelligence community and thus use their tactics” (his entire body of proof? NBC/MSNBC has hired John Brennan and a few military and intelligence officials as paid experts) and broadens his attacks on the Democratic Party as a whole, citing Howard Dean’s “secret” associations with corporate interests to “prove” that the Dems are coordinating false attacks on our wonderful brothers and sisters in the Kremlin to advance their own aims.
What do I say to all of this? Fuck you, Glenn Greenwald, you useful and willing tool of the Kremlin. Fuck you for undermining the Clinton campaign in 2016, and fuck you for your upcoming attempts to undermine the Dems in 2018. Fuck you sideways.
Re: Wrong threadThat was with tongue in cheek
Re: Wrong thread
Mr. Buddy began the thread, i will defer to his opinion. Or, if Neven has strong feelings, to him
Not even close- Alex is so way far gone. Doesn't mean he isn't right once in a while.
Either FOX needs to hire Alex Jones (bat shit crazy of Infowars) OR ..... Alex needs to go to work for FOX. Because FOX and InfoWars are on the same path these days.
Satire from The Borowitz Report
Republicans Accuse Rosenstein of Secretly Plotting to Uphold Constitution
By Andy Borowitz
WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—House Republicans on Thursday accused the Deputy Attorney General, Rod Rosenstein, of “secretly and nefariously” implementing a plot to uphold the United States Constitution.
In a joint press conference, Representatives Mark Meadows, of North Carolina, and Jim Jordan, of Ohio, said that they had “ample evidence” that Rosenstein was prepared to protect the Constitution “by any and all means at his disposal.”
“There is only one way to describe Rosenstein’s obsession with putting the Constitution before all other concerns,” Meadows said. “Conflict of interest.”
“It is almost as if Rod Rosenstein had taken some kind of solemn oath to defend a centuries-old document,” Jordan said. “This should make every American very, very scared.”
Though the Republicans have shelved their articles of impeachment against Rosenstein for now, they hope that their impeachment threat will send a clear message to Rosenstein that his reckless allegiance to the Constitution will no longer be tolerated.
“If, going forward, Rosenstein uses his position at the Department of Justice to seek justice, he will be crossing a red line,” Meadows said.
Trump vs. the Times: Inside an Off-the-Record Meeting, David Remnick, 30 July
On July 20th, the new publisher of the Times, A. G. Sulzberger, visited the Oval Office at the invitation of President Trump. The meeting was meant to be off the record. As a matter of policy, Dean Baquet, the executive editor of the Times, will not attend such meetings without being able to report on them. Instead, Sulzberger went to the session accompanied by James Bennet, the editorial-page editor. The meeting, which Trump clearly intended as a way both to introduce himself to Sulzberger and to complain about coverage, became, in the course of more than an hour, something a great deal more revealing.
....
Not surprisingly, Trump took up much of the seventy-five-minute session extolling his accomplishments, real and imagined. He also wanted to sell Sulzberger and Bennet, to explain to them just why he was so critical of the press and routinely brands the “failing” Times and so many other outlets as “fake news.”
.... “fake news” first entered the language in the late nineteenth century; it came to the fore most recently as a way of describing fabricated stories, not a few of them engineered for profit in Russia and other foreign countries. Trump adopted the phrase for his own purposes during the 2016 campaign and has deployed it as a weapon in his broader attempt to delegitimize the news outlets—the Times, the Washington Post, CNN, and many more—that he views as political adversaries, and to create a kind of parallel universe of “alternative facts” and realities.
During the Oval Office discussion, Sulzberger pointed out to Trump that foreign leaders, particularly authoritarians and despots, have taken up Trump’s language and angle of attack. And the reason is not hard to discern: autocrats from Manila to Yangon, Ankara to Caracas, Beijing to Moscow, have found it advantageous to point out that even the President of a country that gave primacy to freedom of speech and the press in its Constitution disdains the news media as “fake.”
Last year, the Chinese state news agency denied a report that police had tortured Xie Yang, a human-rights activist, as “essentially fake news.” The Syrian President, Bashar al-Assad, denied an Amnesty International report on the thousands of people who died in a military prison between 2011 and 2015 by telling Yahoo News, “You can forge anything these days. We are living in a fake-news era.” U Kyaw San Hla, a top security official in Rakhine State, in Myanmar, denied ethnic cleansing in the country, insisting, “There is no such thing as Rohingya. It is fake news.” (Two Reuters journalists who exposed the killings of ten Rohingya are currently on trial in Myanmar and face up to fourteen years in prison.) In Venezuela, President Nicolás Maduro went on the Russian state channel RT and declared that “Venezuela is being exposed to bullying by the world media besieging us. . . . This is what we call ‘fake news’ today, isn’t it?” After the Cambodian government put journalists in prison, expelled Radio Free Asia, and closed dozens of radio stations and the Cambodia Daily, Prime Minister Hun Sen went on the offensive against critical coverage in the West, saying, “I would like to send a message to the President that your attack on CNN is right. American media is very bad.”
....
The Times publisher told the President that he was even more concerned about Trump branding the press as “enemies of the people”—a phrase used by the Jacobins in eighteenth-century France and by Stalin at the height of the Great Purge, in the late nineteen-thirties. (When Nikita Khrushchev denounced Stalin, in the fifties, he said that “the formula ‘enemy of the people’ was specifically introduced for the purpose of physically annihilating such individuals.”) Sulzberger argued that the use of such a phrase was inflammatory, dangerous to journalists both in the United States and abroad. Journalists were getting threats, he told the President. Some news outlets were posting armed guards at their offices. Journalists abroad were being imprisoned, murdered. To inflame that situation with such rhetoric was a true danger, a match lowered to a tinderbox. Sulzberger pressed this point twice, both in the middle of the session and toward the end.
Strikingly, Trump did not argue and at least pretended to take it onboard. He did not apologize, by any stretch, but he tried to get across the possibility that he would think about it.
....
The problem is that Trump’s assault on the press has been remarkably effective. He is by no means the first President to resent or attack the press. ... But none has ever waged battle with the press so obsessively. Trump’s ferocious attacks at rallies and on social media give a direction and a language to his amplifying outlets: Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson, Rush Limbaugh, the Drudge Report, Breitbart, and countless trolls online.
Trump’s capacity to create alternative and polarizing realities, to divert attention from his failures and scandals, to inflame his opponents, and to foment a general atmosphere of culture war and mutual recrimination is perhaps his greatest political talent. ...
Steve Bannon, once Trump’s chief ideologist, put the matter well earlier this year when he told Michael Lewis, “We got elected on Drain the Swamp, Lock Her Up, Build a Wall,” he said. “This was pure anger. Anger and fear is what gets people to the polls.” Bannon added, “The Democrats don’t matter. The real opposition is the media. And the way to deal with them is to flood the zone with shit.”
... as the crowd booed the reporters, Trump added the Orwellian finisher: “What you’re seeing and what you’re reading is not what’s happening.”Quote... dying newspaper industry. No matter how much they try to distract and cover it up, our country is making great progress under my leadership and I will never stop fighting for the American people! As an example, the failing New York Times ...
... and the Amazon Washington Post do nothing but write bad stories even on very positive achievements - and they will never change!
Jimmy Dore goes full-on on RTHahaaaaahahaha... now he's officially a Russian agent!
YouTube has removed Alex Jones' page, following bans earlier Monday from Apple and Facebook.
The Alex Jones Channel, which counts 2.4 million subscribers, still appeared in YouTube search results by midday Monday, but presented only a take-down notice when users clicked in.
"This account has been terminated for violating YouTube's Community Guidelines," the notice said.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/06/youtube-removes-alex-jones-account-following-earlier-bans.html
It's a start.
Alex is a crazy ass. Saying that- this is a start to fascism. Slippery slope.
Alex is a crazy ass. Saying that- this is a start to fascism. Slippery slope.
Yes, when you allow corporations to decide what is permissible discourse and what not, which alternative media source is next?
YouTube is a privately-owned platform. They get to decide what is allowed to be on their platform.
Anyone who doesn't like it can seek out some capital to start their own video hosting site. There are alternatives already.
You think government should force YouTube to permit all comers, regardless of what the platform owners want? Wouldn't that be fascist?
In the past couple of years, researchers have pioneered a newer technique using low-frequency radio waves or a magnetic field, both of which can penetrate the body without causing damage. The waves serve to heat iron oxide nanoparticles injected or genetically targeted to the body region of interest. In a process similar to optogenetics, the heated nanoparticles open an ion channel called TRPV (transient receptor potential vanilloid), allowing calcium ions into the cell.
It seems only a matter of time before we use similar technology to treat neurological and mental health problems originating in the brain. Toward this end, some researchers are working with gold nanoparticles, which, when exposed to special light, can generate enough heat to make a neuron fire without the need to alter its genes.
More research is needed, but these systems are potentially more precise and less invasive than existing techniques for altering brain activity such as deep brain stimulation. With so much progress on a variety of fronts, some form of human mind control – and the treatments and benefits it confers – should be here before long.
QuoteYou think government should force YouTube to permit all comers, regardless of what the platform owners want? Wouldn't that be fascist?
So, if YouTube would shun gays or black people from its website, and the government wouldn't allow it, would that be fascist? Again, it's a matter of principle. It's too simple to say, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, they're companies and they can do as they please. For that their service is too important to the public.
Thus, non-discriminatory practices in commerce are typical in many countries. Still, forcing an entity to permit posting of any and all materials is hardly reasonable regulation. These organizations thus have community guidelines they enforce.
Right, and as an added argument, they can say: 'They' did it to Alex Jones too.
Or like Kyle Kulinski explains in the video I posted (if I remember correctly), three out of four people that aren't allowed to speak on college campuses, are actually leftists. But all everyone talks about is Milo and Ben Shapiro.
The situation with corporate media as the mouthpiece for concentrated wealth, is already problematic enough. This kind of stuff may mean there is no way back, and Americans will de facto live in a 1984-type world (many already are).
So, if we should prevent censorship of online discussion, should climate change deniers be permitted to post freely on ASIF?
What's good for the goose. . .
Right, and as an added argument, they can say: 'They' did it to Alex Jones too.
Or like Kyle Kulinski explains in the video I posted (if I remember correctly), three out of four people that aren't allowed to speak on college campuses, are actually leftists. But all everyone talks about is Milo and Ben Shapiro.
The situation with corporate media as the mouthpiece for concentrated wealth, is already problematic enough. This kind of stuff may mean there is no way back, and Americans will de facto live in a 1984-type world (many already are).
So, if we should prevent censorship of online discussion, should climate change deniers be permitted to post freely on ASIF?
What's good for the goose. . .
It's interesting to me, because I've been seeing a lot of this on the blogosphere today, and there have been some people on the left kind of celebrating this. And then when people come out there... I mean, I don't like Alex Jones either. We don't disagree that he publishes a lot of despicable stuff, but don't you see the slippery slope here? And they're like: Well, they're a private company and they can do what they want. It's like, man, you're sounding a lot like the people that are defending the NFL not allowing players to kneel during the anthem. You're sounding a lot like those people. They're a private company.
Alex Jones has, among other things, made the lives of the parents whose young children were gunned down in Sandy Hook a living hell, by encouraging his followers to attack them as "crisis actors". They've had to hide from actual violence. His incitements to violence are not freedom of speech. He's a profit center. If you believe somebody who supports incitements to violence and mayhem based on lies, that's an indication that you are being led by the nose. Here's a more honest assessment:
Should megacorporations that essentially offer a marketplace as a service have the right to censor?In light of the Trump election, the Rohingya crisis, a few other atrocities, where Facebook played a role, plus the technically necessary censorship of Twitter bots, customer privacy protection, etc. etc. ...
Is there a risk that this constitutes a slippery slope?Looks like slippery slopes all around. (Censorship or fascism, stupidity amplification...)
Alex Jones has, among other things, made the lives of the parents whose young children were gunned down in Sandy Hook a living hell, by encouraging his followers to attack them as "crisis actors". They've had to hide from actual violence. His incitements to violence are not freedom of speech. He's a profit center. If you believe somebody who supports incitements to violence and mayhem based on lies, that's an indication that you are being led by the nose.
Here's a more honest assessment:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WyGq6cjcc3Q (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WyGq6cjcc3Q)
Should megacorporations that essentially offer a marketplace as a service have the right to censor?
Where Dore is only talking about having "more speech" against the hate mongerers like Alex Jones, John Oliver actually delivers. In his own brilliant way.
I don't see why that is such a big deal.
When Neven referenced Usenet it reminded me of the early days when everyone was 'in the clear' and used their real names, place of work, even their phone numbers. Things sure seemed so much more civil. Then AOL happened and things went psycho.
Serious question.
What if everyone online(internet/LAN/wireless) was required to be 'transparent'? No more avatars, only live humans with a unique ID (thinking along the lines of what Google is doing).
https://www.google.com/landing/2step/
While most multi-factor authentication is used for security the flip side of the technology could be extended to everything we interact with on the networks. Could it change how we express ourselves? Would it reduce the level of misleading information, propaganda and fraud?
For deep thinkers read this:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/digital-imprimatur/
That's Jimmy Dore's idea of "more speech" ?Where Dore is only talking about having "more speech" against the hate mongerers like Alex Jones, John Oliver actually delivers. In his own brilliant way.
Well, Jimmy Dore spit Alex Jones in the face not too long ago,
and I'm sure he's done several segments on him over the years, so there you go.I'm not so sure of that. You have an example of where Dore addresses Jones ?
Progressive (more or less) commentators like Kyle Kulinski, David Pakman and Sam Seder have segments on Alex Jones all the time.I'm sure you are right. But an example would be nice.
What I like about the John Oliver bit, is that he does it with satire, which is the most powerful way of addressing bad stuff.Agreed.
C'mon Neven.I don't see why that is such a big deal.
That's because you have trouble separating your personal tastes from general principles. You stand 100% behind establishment narratives, so as long as corporate media doesn't get turned off, there's not much of a problem.
Simply shutting things down, because you don't like them, is never going to solve anything and gets you further and further away from a free society.
I'm not so sure of that. You have an example of where Dore addresses Jones ?
QuoteProgressive (more or less) commentators like Kyle Kulinski, David Pakman and Sam Seder have segments on Alex Jones all the time.
I'm sure you are right. But an example would be nice.
C'mon Neven.
ASIF is not different from corporate platforms.
There are rules that users need to comply with.
You currently impose them at will. At your own discretion.
For example, if ISIS starts posting on ASIF, what would you do ?
I hope you would shut them down.
If you are a bigger company, you need to post some rules, so that you can shut them down with reason. That's not "establishment narratives" but just common sense.
Facebook and Youtube did not shut down Alex Jones because they "don't like them".
They shut him down because he violated their posting guidelines against hate speech and inciting violence.
Would that serve as a good example of posting guidelines for ASIF ?
Climate Change Denialists Never Had It So Good. So Why the Angst?
Despite having unprecedented influence in Washington to achieve a fossil fuel-first agenda, conservative interests are eyeing events outside the Beltway with unease.
The highest Trump administration official to appear at the conclave was Brooke Rollins ... [who] serves in the White House as assistant to the president in the Office of American Innovation. Heartland President Tim Huelskamp, a former Kansas Congress member who chaired the Tea Party caucus, asked her if Trump would take on the endangerment finding and other "golden calves of the left." ....
Jay Lehr, the Heartland Institute's science director, noted the "major role" that Heartland played in urging Trump to withdraw from the Paris climate accord.
Lehr asked Rollins if Trump would stay the course. "People keep thinking he could still back down," he said.
"All of my experience has proven out that when this president says he believes in something, then there is no one more bold or courageous or fearless," Rollins said. "Does that mean I can say today he will never change his mind? No. But it does go to the question of how important organizations like Heartland and Texas Public Policy Foundation are."
QuoteWould that serve as a good example of posting guidelines for ASIF ?
We can discuss that elsewhere.
I know everything I need to know about Alex Jones, and he is nauseating. We are approaching the anniversary of the Nazi racist attacks in Charlottesville with some apprehension, given Trump's continuing encouragement of hatred and violence.Indeed. Relating this discussion to the warming climate/ shrinking cryosphere; it is the utterly amoral attitude of people such as Jones and his admirers that lets us trash the ecosystems upon which we all depend. Freedom of speed is not absolute, but the bar needs to be set very high (low?) so that restricting it is very very rare.
A teacher with no children goes on several big flights a year. She has a lifestyle far more sustainable than a family of 5, no matter how little they travel.
The idea of supposed ‘balance’ when confronted by “campaigns of disinformation and hate” is especially problematic. In Belfast in the 1980s, even with the bombs going off, balance meant hearing from both unionists and nationalists, Protestants and Catholics. But more recently how can any news organisation ‘balance’ the overwhelming weight of worldwide scientific opinion about MMR vaccines or climate change with the crackpot anti-vaccine theories of Andrew Wakefield or of those who claim climate change is somehow ‘fake news’?
When Lord Lawson used to appear regularly on television to pontificate on the supposed lack of evidence on climate change to ‘balance’ the informed opinions of the best climate scientists worldwide, I wondered why anyone should take seriously the scientific wisdom of a not especially distinguished former chancellor of the exchequer. Would you trust Lord Lawson’s ‘expertise’ to fix your teeth after he read a couple of books on dentistry? So why did he become the go-to ‘balance’ guy for climate scepticism on television and radio?
.
.
.
Lord Lawson, when not offering his expert opinions on climate change, premenstrual tension, or whatever else he claims to know about, is seeking French residency.
Eventually, after two days our account was restored, receiving mixed messages from the Facebook team claiming it was due to instability, and explaining the company had to temporarily suspend our account in order to secure it as they had detected “suspicious activity”(my emph.)
snippet copy
Max Blumenthal @MaxBlumenthal 4h4 hours ago: "And it looks like Caitlin Johnstone (@caitoz) was just bounced from Twitter for saying mean things about John McCain. Everyone okay with this political purge? And who’s next?"
The latest from Caitlin:
Twitter Shut Down My Account For “Abusing” John McCain
Posted by invica on unsorted more info there
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,2346.msg168034.html#msg168034
WaPo calls for Brennan to be fired:There's Good Journalism, Bad Journalism - then whatever it is that the Washington Post prints. 8)
" ... start to restore in U.S. intelligence agencies some semblance of responsibility to the Constitution and the public."
Good or bad journalism ? It depends ... on your position ... in 2014 ...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2014/07/31/obama-should-fire-john-brennan/ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2014/07/31/obama-should-fire-john-brennan/)
sidd
Discussing Infowars and RT as though they are journalistic sources is beyond laughable (your link to "Disobedient Media"). Infowars is is nothing but batshit crazy in order to enrich himself ...... and RT is nothing more than an arm of the Russian government.
"Silicon Valley and the corporate media are far more effective in conjuring alternative realities than the chaotic Trump White House. Trump tells lies that are easily countered
"bully pulpit"hmmm shouldn't that read "bullshit pulpit"?
There was a time when we took pride in not stooping to 'their' level."bully pulpit"hmmm shouldn't that read "bullshit pulpit"?
There was a time when we took pride in not stooping to 'their' level."bully pulpit"hmmm shouldn't that read "bullshit pulpit"?
Terry
One of the most salient features of our culture is that there is so much bullshit. Everyone knows this. Each of us contributes his share. But we tend to take the situation for granted. Most people are rather confident of their ability to recognize bullshit and to avoid being taken in by it. So the phenomenon has not aroused much deliberate concern. We have no clear understanding of what bullshit is, why there is so much of it, or what functions it serves. And we lack a conscientiously developed appreciation of what it means to us. In other words, as Harry Frankfurt writes, "we have no theory."
Frankfurt, one of the world's most influential moral philosophers, attempts to build such a theory here. With his characteristic combination of philosophical acuity, psychological insight, and wry humor, Frankfurt proceeds by exploring how bullshit and the related concept of humbug are distinct from lying. He argues that bullshitters misrepresent themselves to their audience not as liars do, that is, by deliberately making false claims about what is true. In fact, bullshit need not be untrue at all.
Rather, bullshitters seek to convey a certain impression of themselves without being concerned about whether anything at all is true. They quietly change the rules governing their end of the conversation so that claims about truth and falsity are irrelevant. Frankfurt concludes that although bullshit can take many innocent forms, excessive indulgence in it can eventually undermine the practitioner's capacity to tell the truth in a way that lying does not. Liars at least acknowledge that it matters what is true. By virtue of this, Frankfurt writes, bullshit is a greater enemy of the truth than lies are.
Harry G. Frankfurt is Professor of Philosophy Emeritus at Princeton University. His books include The Reasons of Love (Princeton), Necessity, Volition, and Love, and The Importance of What We Care About.
QuoteRather, bullshitters seek to convey a certain impression of themselves without being concerned about whether anything at all is true. They quietly change the rules governing their end of the conversation so that claims about truth and falsity are irrelevant. Frankfurt concludes that although bullshit can take many innocent forms, excessive indulgence in it can eventually undermine the practitioner's capacity to tell the truth in a way that lying does not.
An accurate description of Martin's comments @ASIF? Or Rob? Or Jimmy Dore?
"For the liberal, the educated classes in America, the status quo is sacred. And they would rather have any version of Brave New World, than to contemplate actual radical change."
The irony is that when CNN posts an article like this, they're actually sowing discord and disinformation in the United States. That's the irony. They're the ones actually pushing propaganda in a political way to deceive people and influence people in a dishonest way. This is disinformation.
small extract from a long article by Dr. Joseph Dillard a psychotherapist
Our imprisonment by scripting
"Most Americans have no idea that what we are fed by the news media is nothing more than a portrayal of what powerful corporations want us to believe, that what happens to pass as education is as often as not mere propaganda, that what we learn in church may have very little or nothing to do with the truth, that what our parents teach us may be nothing more than an accumulation of their own personal biases, no doubt a rather subtle modification of what they were taught by their parents. And through such a process, governments and nations around the world wield control as to what their citizens, believe, value, and do." -Doug Soderstrom
We grow up scripted into the role expectations of our families and cultures. We are saturated with the prevailing groupthink of our peers at school and at work. Power at all levels, by its nature, generates ideological narratives that manufacture our consent, and awareness of this process is generally understood as a transition into personal autonomy. The ascent from emotional, pre-rational childhood to objectification and reasoning can be viewed as a movement from internalized mass mind groupthink sleepwalking to rational discrimination based on what might be summarized as “Spockian” common sense.[5] Spock is an archetype of orange, mid-personal level, rationality. However, most orange rationality is in the service of vaguely perceived and largely misunderstood prepersonal beliefs, preferences, expectations, scripts, and emotions. We think we are at healthy orange when we are actually manufacturing our consent through the power of intellectual rationalization. While we have learned to use reason in its defense, our center of gravity remains emotional, enmeshed in cognitive distortions and biases.[6] We can see this occurring continuously in the “thinking” of others in the media and on blog posts, but we typically lack the objectivity to see it in ourselves. As we shall see, Wilber appears to be a victim of this common form of blindness, and if he is, you and I probably are as well.
Slaves to Groupthink
http://www.integralworld.net/dillard19.html
McCain is a hero, Cohen said Trump knew about the infamous Trump Tower meeting, and now CNN comes with this:
...
"Most Americans have no idea that what we are fed by the news media is nothing more than a portrayal of what powerful corporations want us to believe
Boy .... that's a tough choice. Do I watch US television knowing that advertisers are trying to sell me products ..... OR ..... do I watch Russian government financed television where I would believe what the Russian government wants me to believe.
Choices .... choices ..... choices. Boy ..... this is a tough one. ;)
Good question. Did you try to give feedback? I didn't try it myself. Maybe you should do like Real Clear Politics does with polls and rank the different sites that claim to rank bias. FiveThirtyEight does something similar with their polling sources but with more input variables.https://mediabiasfactcheck.com
When someone quotes or links to a news source on the web (not social media or blogs) I recommend checking their bias rating at the above website. They cover both US and international news sources. This is completely different than sites like Accuracy in Media (https://www.aim.org/) or Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting (http://fair.org/).
OK. Looks to me they rank sites based on user feedback - per that panel that exists on every page.
But where do I go to check the bias level, the objectivity, and reliability of conclusion's accuracy of mediabiasfactcheck.com? :)
Completely avoided the topic Lurk. I only threw in the AI bit because it gets under your skin. :)
Good to see you're not obsessed with AI at least. But can it slice bread and fry an egg too? Probably can because it can do everything else perfectly. :)
Today, organoids that resemble different regions of the human brain are routinely spun up from stem cells in large batches in laboratories around the world. Researchers have refined their recipes since the technique was first described five years ago, but the process is surprisingly hands-off: after a few nudges from scientists, stem cells grow into spheres with about a million neurons through a naturally occurring choreography that mirrors early brain development in the womb. At Day 100, Mr Qian's minibrains resemble a portion of the prenatal brain in the second trimester of pregnancy.
"People are more worried about if they reach a certain level - if it's really like a human brain. We're not there; we're very far from there," said Hongjun Song, who leads the laboratory at Penn's Perelman School of Medicine, where Mr Qian works. "But the question people ask is, 'Do they have consciousness?' The biggest problem I have so far is I think, as a field, we don't know: What is consciousness? What is pain?"
Re: media not " telling you anything about anything."
Mmm. The media are quite useful in one respect. Their narratives are what they want you to believe. So, qui bono ? who will benefit if the story is sold ? that points directly at their paymasters.
For much the same reason, i used to read the opinion pages of, for example WSJ,NYT,WaPo and the like. Apart from the whole "fascination of the horrible" bit, but i digress.
sidd
Re: nationalization of goofacetwit, perhaps amazon
I do not trust the government with the power. Rather than nationalization, i think antitrust breakup, sherman act style. But not a conventional breakup like the ATT in the 1980s. (That's quite instructive, but not directly relevant)
Background:
Goofacetwit makes money by selling ads. How do they get those ads get in your face ? That's a long story.
Let's say, you are a typical person. You look at a typical site on your device of choice. There are around ten ad positions on the page displayed. Each ad in those ad positions has won an auction, before the page displays.
What is the auction based on ? You. The advertiser and the auctioneer have unnervingly close guesses as to your hat size and how long your dick is. (Apologies to the ladies.)
Time was that advertisers would just use the goofacetwit auction platforms. Not any more. They dont trust each other anymore. The ad placement has run thru two, three more internal auctions in shadow markets before it even gets to goofacetwit. Or amazon. For each ad placement position on the page you are looking at. And at the end of the line, the ad inflicts itself on your eyeballs.
Ain't technology wonderful ?
So how to fix ?
1)Privacy laws with teeth and effective enforcement
2)Split ad auctions away from goofacetwit and have the auctions run as a regulated utility, hiding viewer information from advertisers and goofacetwit. (This can actually be done in the context of differential privacy, i have been working on this for a couple years)
Do i think this will happen ? Perhaps in the EU, but not for a long time in the USA, where the legislators are bought and sold by the very entities we are trying to protect against. And that won't stop until Citizen's United and the Buckley decision are overturned.
Realistically in the USA, legislative and enforcement change will not happen until system shock. In the meantime, all i can say is, mask yourself. Use ad blockers. Disable scripting. Use VPNs. What the hell, use lynx in a text terminal. For the truly paranoid, there are further measures.
But. remember, it ain't paranoia if they really are watching you.
sidd
Bad lie-by-omission journalism:
An expert on rationality, judgement, and strategy, Julia Galef notes that "our capacity for reason evolved to serve two very different purposes that are often at odds with each other. On the one hand, reason helps us figure out what’s true; on the other hand, it also helps us defend ideas that are false-but-strategically-useful. I’ll explore these two different modes of thought — I call them “the scout” and “the soldier” — and what determines which mode we default to. Finally, I’ll argue that modern humans would be better off with more scout mode and less soldier mode, and I’ll share some thoughts on how to make that happen.” Galef is founder of the Update Project and hosts the podcast Rationally Speaking.
QuoteAs the founder of a forum which prides itself on scientific thinking and evidence based reasoning you should ENCOURAGE efforts like Bellingcat and open source journalism, instead of actively smearing Eliot Higgins and allowing these threads to turn into a fact-free Russian propaganda outlet.
I don't know what this forum prides itself on, but I actually do encourage independent, alternative journalism. Which brings me back to my problem with Bellingcat: The driving forces behind them associate themselves with neocon, war-mongering, fracking-pushing think tanks.
In principle, an initiative like Bellingcat is fantastic. In practice, people like Higgins and Toler screw it up by being so openly biased. If this weren't so, I wouldn't even pay attention to it, but to me this looks like a ploy by TPTB to circumvent the distrust people have for mainstream media (rightfully so). If it isn't some form of astroturfing, it's very close to it.
The reporters started with the mountain range that can be seen in the background of the video. A source in Cameroon told the BBC team the ridge looked similar to one in the northern part of the country, and using Google Earth footage of that area they were able to confirm that it matched the location—a town close to the Nigerian border, where Cameroonian soldiers have been fighting the jihadist group Boko Haram. The BBC reporters also matched trees, roads, and buildings in the area to those appearing on Google Earth. And they were also able to pinpoint the time: A building in the video has walls, but the same building on Google Earth has no walls until November of 2014, meaning the shootings must have taken place after that.
Another building in the area that was demolished after February of 2016 allowed the team to further pinpoint the time range, and looked at the shadows cast by the soldiers allowed them to narrow it ever further, to between March 20 and April 5, 2015. The BBC team also managed to confirm that—contrary to the Cameroonian government’s denials—the weapons used in the video (Serbian-made Zastava M21 rifles) are used by some of the Cameroonian army, and images posted to Facebook of soldiers in the region showed that they do in fact wear the kind of camouflage pattern that the killers in the video do.
After weeks of denying that the video showed members of the Cameroonian army, the government changed its tune in August and announced that seven members of the military had been arrested and were under investigation for the killings. Although the BBC investigation didn’t cause the government to change its mind, the fact that it was able to prove that specific soldiers were involved, in such a comprehensive and detailed way, is an inspiring use of digital journalism, and could help convict them.
Austria’s interior ministry lists ‘critical media’
An email sent to the police accused several domestic media of ‘one-sided and negative reporting.’
A four-page email sent to the police includes a list of “critical media” — specifically naming Falter, Der Standard and Kurier — which, according to the ministry, “have unfortunately (…) operated a very one-sided and negative coverage of the interior ministry and the police.”
The mail, seen by some of the media under attack, including Der Standard, suggests “minimizing the communication with those media” as far as legally possible, and urges against “enabling exclusive coverage.”
Austria’s interior ministry, headed by the right-wing Freedom Party (FPÖ), has accused several domestic media of “one-sided and negative” reporting, and advised the police which media to talk to and how to communicate with them.
The mail, sent under the name of interior ministry spokesman Christoph Pölzl, also lists media “that are willing to cooperate” and approves talking points such as migration.
Maybe Neven can comment on this development.
https://www.politico.eu/blogs/on-media/2018/09/austria-press-interior-ministry-lists-critical-media/QuoteAustria’s interior ministry lists ‘critical media’
An email sent to the police accused several domestic media of ‘one-sided and negative reporting.’
A four-page email sent to the police includes a list of “critical media” — specifically naming Falter, Der Standard and Kurier — which, according to the ministry, “have unfortunately (…) operated a very one-sided and negative coverage of the interior ministry and the police.”
The mail, seen by some of the media under attack, including Der Standard, suggests “minimizing the communication with those media” as far as legally possible, and urges against “enabling exclusive coverage.”
Austria’s interior ministry, headed by the right-wing Freedom Party (FPÖ), has accused several domestic media of “one-sided and negative” reporting, and advised the police which media to talk to and how to communicate with them.
The mail, sent under the name of interior ministry spokesman Christoph Pölzl, also lists media “that are willing to cooperate” and approves talking points such as migration.
Seems to be a real shift to the right in Europe these days.
Enter the social media companies. The best mechanism for suppressing oppositional viewpoints and promoting pro-government narratives is the private sector, in particular “technology giants, including Facebook, Google, YouTube, and Twitter,” which can “determine what people see and do not see.”
Watts adds, “Fortunately, shifts in the policies of social media platforms such as Facebook have had significant impact on the type and quality of the content that is broadcast.”
The private sector, therefore, must do the dirty work of the government, because government propaganda is viewed with suspicion by the population. “Business and the private sector may not naturally understand the role they play in combating disinformation, but theirs is one of the most important…. In the West at least, they have been thrust into a central role due to the general public’s increased trust in them as institutions.”
But this is only the beginning. Online newspapers should “consider disabling commentary systems—the function of allowing the general public to leave comments beneath a particular media item,” while social media companies should “use a grading system akin to that used to rate the cleanliness of restaurants” to rate their users’ political statements.
Strong-arm tactics still have a role, of course. Citing the example of WikiLeaks editor Julian Assange, Watts declares that “governments need to create consequences” for spreading “disinformation” similar to those meted out for “state espionage” – which can carry the death penalty.
What Watts outlines in his document is a vision of a totalitarian social order, where the government, the media, and technology companies are united in suppressing oppositional viewpoints.
The most striking element of the document, however, is that it is not describing the future, but contemporary reality. Everything is in the present tense. The machinery of mass censorship has already been built.
https://www.greanvillepost.com/2018/10/23/western-media-attacks-critics-of-the-white-helmets/
Across the West, establishment apologists are being mobilised to defend the White Helmets. The horrendous suffering of Syria is of no import to these mercenaries.
https://blackagendareport.com/great-un-blackening-corporate-project-erase-black-people-politics
sidd
Malaysian airlines flight MH17 may be the Lusitania of the modern era. Had the West not caused conflict on Russia’s doorstep the incident would not have taken place but the propagandists are hard at work evading responsibility and assigning blame they ought to share.
https://orientalreview.org/2018/10/24/western-media-attacks-critics-of-the-white-helmets/?utm_source=samizdat&utm_medium=partner&utm_campaign=free
Red, please stop posting from greanvillepost.com. It's a known Russian propaganda outlet. It's on propornot.com for a reason because it's a conspiracy theory website.
You can see that, since you do not produce ANY link to ANY factual statement.
Just opinions by Paul Craig Roberts that "ideas of the elite are awful" and claims that Alex Jones is a threat to "the elites control over the explanations"....
Sure, Red. Whatever you say.
Red, please stop posting from greanvillepost.com. It's a known Russian propaganda outlet. It's on propornot.com for a reason because it's a conspiracy theory website.
You can see that, since you do not produce ANY link to ANY factual statement.
Just opinions by Paul Craig Roberts that "ideas of the elite are awful" and claims that Alex Jones is a threat to "the elites control over the explanations"....
Sure, Red. Whatever you say.
Rob it's just journalism man, you don't have to read it.
Another one from the propornot.com list ?
Really are we now just one step away from having people here that support Alex Jones ?
Rob, you really touch my heart with your crusade against anything written on sites that for some reason or other are on a Atlantic council/NATO list called propornot.
No, we cannot think for ourselves!
No, we aren't capable of critical analysis!
Yes, we are misled by Russian propaganda!
Yes, our souls have to be saved!
Thanks Rob! You really are our white knight.
Bellingcat got those photos from their Ukrainian sources,
I don't see that Russian MoD presents conspiracy theories, they present some facts on where the BUK that fired on MH17 was (in Ukraine) and some good criticism of a lot of photo evidence given to Bellingcat by some Ukrainians.
It's a task for the MH17 investigation to deal with these facts and informations. I hope they will do it objectively, and neutrally,
and without having to yield to pressures from the Ukrainian side, as they have a veto on what's presented in the reports.No. Ukraine does not have a veto on what's presented.
I also hope that Bellingcat will become more open and scientifically minded in the way they treat 'evidence'.
When the US wakes up, they will understand that the three biggest problems they face are in large part because you have a media company masquerading as a news company, that has been promoting HORRIBLE policies for the US.
When the US wakes up, they will understand that the three biggest problems they face are in large part because you have a media company masquerading as a news company, that has been promoting HORRIBLE policies for the US.
CNN,MSNBC :P
Hey Rob,
It appears all the criticism we have against Bellingcat is true.
I'm interested to hear your mental gymnastics of a response to this article:
http://exiledonline.com/shamiwitness-when-bellingcat-neocons-collaborated-with-the-most-influential-isis-propagandist-on-twitter/
The most innocent clues can sometimes help crack a case. The objects are all taken from the background of an image with sexually explicit material involving minors. For all images below, every other investigative avenue has already been examined. Therefore we are requesting your assistance in identifying the origin of some of these objects. We are convinced that more eyes will lead to more leads and will ultimately help to save these children.
Hey Rob,
It appears all the criticism we have against Bellingcat is true.
I'm interested to hear your mental gymnastics of a response to this article:
http://exiledonline.com/shamiwitness-when-bellingcat-neocons-collaborated-with-the-most-influential-isis-propagandist-on-twitter/
Yet another Bellingcat smearing article. And look ! This one is about some tweets from Higgins that are from 2013/2014 !
I'm really puzzled about which mental gymnastics you used to draw the conclusion that based on these tweets, "It appears all the criticism we have against Bellingcat is true.".
Incidentally, who is "we" in your claim ? Does anyone else here think that Zizek has a point ?
He provided a platform and support for a literal ISIS recruiter.
Bellingcat told people to follow an ISIS member that was tweeting about raping captured Kurdish women.
Europol has started a project to stop child abuse, and bring perpetrators to justice, by crowdsourcing the tracing of objects shown on child abuse pictures :
https://www.europol.europa.eu/stopchildabuseQuoteThe most innocent clues can sometimes help crack a case. The objects are all taken from the background of an image with sexually explicit material involving minors. For all images below, every other investigative avenue has already been examined. Therefore we are requesting your assistance in identifying the origin of some of these objects. We are convinced that more eyes will lead to more leads and will ultimately help to save these children.
This is an entirely new form of journalism / criminal investigations :
crowd-sourced and for a great cause.
Bellingcat started a project to document and organize responses to these Europol requests :
https://checkmedia.org/bellingcat/project/741
Personally, I've been spending some time trying to geo-locate these picture from Europol :
(https://www.europol.europa.eu/sites/default/files/styles/europol_large/public/images/2018-4-g4.png?itok=r35fwMZh)
The question is : Which city is this ?
The apartments in the left-top of the picture have a similar style to the apartments in the Tai Tam (Hong Kong suburb), and the hills kind of match the Shenzhen/Hong Kong skyline. But I can't get a solid geo-location yet...
Hello Europol. Im quite sure i found it. 21km north from Shenzhen. 22° 43.375'N 114° 3.192'E Hills ok, rooftop ok, surrounding buildings ok, road ok, blue roof ok, arch house background ok, larger houses ok. I would say 99,9%. Please confirm that you look in to this one?
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DqyYRDHWsAUhgfc.jpg)
Perhaps the outcomes of such investigations should be undertaken by official Law enforcement officers and kept private, lest issues arise about unfair trials due to media info being placed all over the internet and on the nightly news?
Yet here you are posting this: Here is the street view, where you can see the matching buildings and tree lining, and the blue road sign etc etc.
https://maps.baidu.com/#panoid=09005700121709171701307018S&panotype=street&heading=80.6&pitch=-0.56&l=4&tn=B_NORMAL_MAP&sc=0&newmap=1&shareurl=1&pid=09005700121709171701307018S
The building from which the Europol picture was taken is this one :
https://maps.baidu.com/#panoid=09005700121709171701043658S&panotype=street&heading=167.37&pitch=42.48&l=4&tn=B_NORMAL_MAP&sc=0&newmap=1&shareurl=1&pid=09005700121709171701043658S
The home of an accused pedophile I hear you say? Is that correct? Perhaps the outcomes of such investigations should be undertaken by official Law enforcement officers and kept private, lest issues arise about unfair trials due to media info being placed all over the internet and on the nightly news?
Not that any "accused" person could ever be deemed innocent, right? Or lest some crazed right wing nutjob decided she might want to target an online commenter who was promoting the clinton and democrats 24/7 with a new pipe bomb - gosh there are some crazy nutters out there, right?
Besides why would anyone care if their privacy was breached on the internet unless they were already GUILTY of something ? :)
( yeah, I'm shaking my head in disbelief, still )
When is Bellingcat going to post recipes, so we can all go: OMG, they invented bread! ;D
Is that jealousy I hear, Neven ?
When is Bellingcat going to post recipes, so we can all go: OMG, they invented bread! ;D
Is that jealousy I hear, Neven ?
Yes, I want to invent bread too!
Sure, it's interesting in itself, but it's also a bit of a hype, a hype that serves a purpose.
I know you think there is some alternative motive here, but why don't you give it a try ?
You may be surprised by what you find.
I think it is important enough for a journalist of your statue to understand the concept of "open source" investigations and why it is so successful in separating truth from lies.
He provided a platform and support for a literal ISIS recruiter.
Eliot did nothing like that, and neither was the guy an "ISIS recruiter".QuoteBellingcat told people to follow an ISIS member that was tweeting about raping captured Kurdish women.
Bellingcat didn't tell anyone to follow this guy, and neither was he an ISIS member, and I have not seen any tweet where he was tweeting about raping captured Kurdish women.
Look, zizek, all that Eliot did here was mention the guy's twitter name in some 5 tweets back in 2013/2014. That's it.
The rest you fabricated out of thin air, for which you have ZERO evidence.
Just stick to the facts, bro, and stop reading and posting Russian propaganda and lies.
And besides, what did Bellingcat or Eliot Higgins ever do wrong to you to deserve this kind of fact-free smearing ?
He provided a platform and support for a literal ISIS recruiter.
Eliot did nothing like that, and neither was the guy an "ISIS recruiter".QuoteBellingcat told people to follow an ISIS member that was tweeting about raping captured Kurdish women.
Bellingcat didn't tell anyone to follow this guy, and neither was he an ISIS member, and I have not seen any tweet where he was tweeting about raping captured Kurdish women.
Look, zizek, all that Eliot did here was mention the guy's twitter name in some 5 tweets back in 2013/2014. That's it.
The rest you fabricated out of thin air, for which you have ZERO evidence.
Just stick to the facts, bro, and stop reading and posting Russian propaganda and lies.
And besides, what did Bellingcat or Eliot Higgins ever do wrong to you to deserve this kind of fact-free smearing ?
Did you not read the article at all?
Bellincat literally tweeted asking people to follow ShamiWitness
ShamiWitness close to literally tweeted about raping Kurdish women.
ShamiWitness is literally in jail for recruiting people to ISIS
I think you are confused here. Here, from your article, Eliot gave a list of people to follow about Syria, and it does NOT include ShamiWitness.
That was another guy, Charles Lister :
(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fexiledonline.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2018%2F07%2FScreen-Shot-2018-07-28-at-9.51.46-PM-465x507.png&hash=3dabe7eb7bf5eda8af34a9b5f4d4312a)
But even if ShamiWitness was recommended as a source of jihadi news in a tweet or two, its a really long stretch to "He provided a platform and support for a literal ISIS recruiter.".
Mark Ames REALLY, REALLY, REALLY wants to smear Eliot and Bellingcat with this, but only finds, what is it, FIVE (5) tweets from Eliot (out of Eliot's 220,000 tweets over the past 4 years) where this guys is even mentioned.
So Eliot was not that close to this guy. In fact, he lists him as being a "parrot" of ISIS :
(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fexiledonline.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2018%2F07%2Feliothiggins-downplay-shamiwitness1-465x250.png&hash=443b32ffbbb226e47159ecd80ba162d8)
QuoteShamiWitness close to literally tweeted about raping Kurdish women.
I see one tweet there, but it doesn't say anything about raping Kurdish women.
QuoteShamiWitness is literally in jail for recruiting people to ISIS
Is he ? You have a link to that ?
"He provided a platform and support for a literal ISIS recruiter.".
ShamiWitness is literally in jail for recruiting people to ISIS
Zizek, with Lurk in the middle blaming me for denial, this has turned into an unhealthy discussion.Any discussion with you is unhealthy. You have never ever ever ever accepted any criticism that paints the west as imperialist - as an enemy. No matter how damning, no matter how trivial, you always stay strong to support the anglo narrative.
Let me just briefly make my points again, and then you can respond as you wish, but I'm done on this subject.
I think you are taking an extreme position that is no longer supported by the facts.
For example, you mention the TWO (2) #FF tweets where Higgins mentioned ShamiWitness together with other jihadi news sources.
Sending out 2 tweets is a LOT different than claiming (as you did) thatQuote"He provided a platform and support for a literal ISIS recruiter.".
I think you are confused here. Here, from your article, Eliot gave a list of people to follow about Syria, and it does NOT include ShamiWitness.
And regarding ShamiWitness being "a literal ISIS recruiter", that is still to be determined.
The last thing I know is that he is still awaiting trial.
That's a LOT different from your claim that :QuoteShamiWitness is literally in jail for recruiting people to ISIS
If it were so obvious that he was "recruiting people to ISIS", then I would have expected the prosecution to move forward quickly with a trial.
But ShamiWitness mostly just parroted propaganda on Twitter, and it's not obvious he has committed any crime at all. So now it looks like India does not exactly know what to do with this guy, and that's why he has not been in trial yet (even after 4 years).
Now, I really don't know if this guy has broken the law or not.
No evidence has been presented either way.
But with your statement you make this guy guilty until proven innocent.
And that is taking an extreme position that is no longer sustained by the facts.
Incidentally, how long can India keep somebody in jail without a trial ?
I'm not sure what's better here. Rob on the verge of supporting an ISIS member to prove a point. Or the irony of him requesting a formalized "innocent until proven guilty".
Just to remind our readers, Rob is a man who calls for war against nations based on evidence from open-sourced journalism. Rob is okay with bombing the shit out of countries because some non-arabic gamer in England posted a bunch of pictures with ms paint red circles. But when someone admits to being an ISIS member, talks about raping kurds, posts pictures of decapitated kurds - it's time give this guy the benefit of the doubt. Due process suddenly becomes important.
Those are the FACTS
How is that post an ad hominem attack? I'm highlighting how Rob likes to play fast and loose with "facts" so it suits his narrative. I'd like to call that an example of...... bad journalism!
I'm not sure what's better here. Rob on the verge of supporting an ISIS member to prove a point. Or the irony of him requesting a formalized "innocent until proven guilty".
Just to remind our readers, Rob is a man who calls for war against nations based on evidence from open-sourced journalism. Rob is okay with bombing the shit out of countries because some non-arabic gamer in England posted a bunch of pictures with ms paint red circles. But when someone admits to being an ISIS member, talks about raping kurds, posts pictures of decapitated kurds - it's time give this guy the benefit of the doubt. Due process suddenly becomes important.
Those are the FACTS
IMO, Zizek is right. Not that it means much in the greater scheme of things, or even this forum, but he is right.
It appears all the criticism we have against Bellingcat is true.https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,2272.msg178682.html#msg178682
I'm interested to hear your mental gymnastics of a response to this article:
I'm really puzzled about which mental gymnastics you used to draw the conclusion that based on these tweets, "It appears all the criticism we have against Bellingcat is true.".and I also noted that this was quite dated (2013/2014).
What the fuck Rob? ... He provided a platform and support for a literal ISIS recruiter.https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,2272.msg179035.html#msg179035
Bellingcat told people to follow an ISIS member...
...should I just disappear from these threads ?
...
And at a very high level : What did open source journalism, and Bellingcat specifically, ever do wrong to any of you, for you to be fighting so hard to discredit them ?
Rob is not a bot.
And at a very high level : What did open source journalism, and Bellingcat specifically, ever do wrong to any of you, for you to be fighting so hard to discredit them ?
I and others have tried to explain several times, but you do not seem to even acknowledge other viewpoints on this matter, let alone be open to them. I'll be posting my views on Bellingcat one more time this week (after viewing that documentary several times), but I'll do it in the Russia thread.
The only reason to discuss it here, is that Bellingcat has been elevated in an attempt to supersede the discussion of good and bad journalism (in other words, general trust in media), and the reason why it is defended so vehemently - and any critic is on some arbitrary list - is that people simply have to fall in line with a certain narrative.
The problem being that this narrative leads to war and misery (and big profits for a small group of people (in the US, Russia, Saudi Arabia, the EU, Israel, Ukraine, etc).
Thanks. Yet Lurk has found a way to insult me regardless. Did you notice ?
I did read all the previous explanations, but they don't make any sense at all to me.
So, I'm looking forward to your clear explanation of your opinion about Bellingcat on the Russia thread.
I don't see that Bellingcat's uncovering the "narrative" of the truth has led to war and misery.Could you clarify ?
Thanks. Yet Lurk has found a way to insult me regardless. Did you notice ?
Yes, I noticed. You insult him too all the time, so stop whining/trolling/playing the victim like a climate risk denier. He's on moderation, you're not.
QuoteI did read all the previous explanations, but they don't make any sense at all to me.
Indeed, which leaves two possibilities:
1) They don't make sense.
2) You're not capable of making sense of them, because your mind is closed.
You think it's 1), I think it's 2). Like I said, you aren't even willing to acknowledge analysis that differs from conventional(/conditioned) thought.
Thanks, Rob, but I'm not a journalist of any statue. I'm just a guy who follows Arctic sea ice, and I write about it as an activist, fueled by a certain world view. That world view cannot be taught in a workshop. It takes a life to develop, and 'open source' journalism can't do much to influence it, because I try to base it on universal principles, not on worldly events, or an interpretation thereof.https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,2272.msg179195.html#msg179195
Interesting that you allow ad hominem insults through while he is on moderation.
Sure. Here is your latest explanation as to why "open source" investigations are just not your thing :
Now, what am I supposed to make of that response, Neven ?
Is my mind closed (2), as you suggest, or does your explanation simply does not make sense (1) ?
Higgins has made huge mistakes, is still making them, and his Twitter behaviour is appalling, undermining his credibility and trustworthiness in serious ways.
Did he ? Name ONE mistake Higgins made. Because he has been spot-on in every one of his posts ever since he started blogging.
But once again : what is your problem with Higgins and Bellingcat ?
If you don't like the work they do, you could just leave it be.
Why, Neven, why ?
Did he ? Name ONE mistake Higgins made. Because he has been spot-on in every one of his posts ever since he started blogging.
Asides from all the speculation,
leaving stuff out that doesn't fit the narrative and ignoring possible alternatives,
the biggest mistake Higgins made, was teaming up with neocon, war-mongering outfit the Atlantic Council.
All Higgins cares about, is getting attention. And probably money too.
QuoteBut once again : what is your problem with Higgins and Bellingcat ?
If you don't like the work they do, you could just leave it be.
No problem, you just stop presenting it as the Holy Grail of journalism as a science.
Bernie Sanders is the most liked politician in America right now. How many establishment media pieces have you seen, getting people ready for Bernie's 2020 run? Where they talk about 'oh, he's so popular, he's selling out stadiums all over the place, his policy agenda polls overwhelmingly well, here, look at the numbers, 70% for his Medicare-for-all bill, 58% for his free college-bill, 58% for raising taxes on the rich'. When was the last time you saw an excited piece in mainstream media about Bernie Sanders, who is the most liked politician in the country, running in 2020? You haven't seen it? But we have seen it about Joe Biden. We have seen it about Cory Booker and Kamala Harris. Literally, we've seen it about them.
How do you explain that? You explain it by pointing out that the media hires safe mouthpieces for the establishment.
Higgins has made huge mistakes, is still making them, and his Twitter behaviour is appalling, undermining his credibility and trustworthiness in serious ways.
Did he ? Name ONE mistake Higgins made. Because he has been spot-on in every one of his posts ever since he started blogging.
Asides from all the speculation,
leaving stuff out that doesn't fit the narrative and ignoring possible alternatives,
the biggest mistake Higgins made, was teaming up with neocon, war-mongering outfit the Atlantic Council.
All Higgins cares about, is getting attention. And probably money too.
QuoteBut once again : what is your problem with Higgins and Bellingcat ?
If you don't like the work they do, you could just leave it be.
No problem, you just stop presenting it as the Holy Grail of journalism as a science.
You nailed it, Rob. You've proven it scientifically.
... I can't help you with that.
Rob, I've answered those questions thoroughly before. What use is there in answering them again, if you won't even acknowledge them, let alone remember what I said? You simply don't want to hear anything outside of your bubble. I can't help you with that.
Rob, I've answered those questions thoroughly before. What use is there in answering them again, if you won't even acknowledge them, let alone remember what I said? You simply don't want to hear anything outside of your bubble. I can't help you with that.
But Neven, you did NOT answer ANY of these questions.
Let me state them once more :
- Can you give an example of any "speculation" by Higgins, which turned out to be wrong ?
- Can you give an example of where a "possible alternative" turned out to be right, and Higgins' statements turned out to be wrong ?
and
- Can you give an example of an Atlantic Council report that is "war-mongering" ?
Let me remind you that these questions are directly on your claims about Bellingcat and open source journalism. Should be easy for you to answer if you meant what you said.
Rob, I've answered those questions thoroughly before. What use is there in answering them again, if you won't even acknowledge them, let alone remember what I said? You simply don't want to hear anything outside of your bubble. I can't help you with that.
But Neven, you did NOT answer ANY of these questions.
Let me state them once more :
- Can you give an example of any "speculation" by Higgins, which turned out to be wrong ?
- Can you give an example of where a "possible alternative" turned out to be right, and Higgins' statements turned out to be wrong ?
and
- Can you give an example of an Atlantic Council report that is "war-mongering" ?
Let me remind you that these questions are directly on your claims about Bellingcat and open source journalism. Should be easy for you to answer if you meant what you said.
Others have posted a multitude of links discussing these things. I can spend hours and hours, looking for details that corroborate my statements, but you will simply ignore everything.
Links to RT? Jimmy Dore? Hahaaaaahaha... Else, no links, just parroting transparent smear. Maybe something got lost in between Lurk's epic ramblings, but all I recall is Russian propaganda bullshit against Bellingcat.Rob, I've answered those questions thoroughly before. What use is there in answering them again, if you won't even acknowledge them, let alone remember what I said? You simply don't want to hear anything outside of your bubble. I can't help you with that.
But Neven, you did NOT answer ANY of these questions.
Let me state them once more :
- Can you give an example of any "speculation" by Higgins, which turned out to be wrong ?
- Can you give an example of where a "possible alternative" turned out to be right, and Higgins' statements turned out to be wrong ?
and
- Can you give an example of an Atlantic Council report that is "war-mongering" ?
Let me remind you that these questions are directly on your claims about Bellingcat and open source journalism. Should be easy for you to answer if you meant what you said.
Others have posted a multitude of links discussing these things.
(...)
The intern's reach for the mic is slowed down, and the "chop" motion is accelerated. Here's an annotated side by side comparison:
Bad Journalism, does that include when the administration releases a doctored video ?
https://twitter.com/aymanndotcom/status/1060407290472398849 (https://twitter.com/aymanndotcom/status/1060407290472398849)QuoteThe intern's reach for the mic is slowed down, and the "chop" motion is accelerated. Here's an annotated side by side comparison:
Here's the video released by Sarah Sanders:
https://twitter.com/PressSec/status/1060374680991883265 (https://twitter.com/PressSec/status/1060374680991883265)
Bad Journalism, does that include when the administration releases a doctored video ?
https://twitter.com/aymanndotcom/status/1060407290472398849 (https://twitter.com/aymanndotcom/status/1060407290472398849)QuoteThe intern's reach for the mic is slowed down, and the "chop" motion is accelerated. Here's an annotated side by side comparison:
Here's the video released by Sarah Sanders:
https://twitter.com/PressSec/status/1060374680991883265 (https://twitter.com/PressSec/status/1060374680991883265)
One more time- it wasn't the WH. And Acosta was being an ass.
It's pretty clear the WH doctored the video.
One more time- it wasn't the WH. And Acosta was being an ass.
It's pretty clear the WH doctored the video.
Trump would like the US to become more like Putin's Russia where journalist who ask difficult questions are murdered.
Oh really?
President Trump would like journalists who ask difficult questions murdered.
How nice of you to say so.
I sure do hope the NSA has 'your number' and are keeping an eye on you ..... and I do hope Neven didn't 'cull' my little comment on Paranoia. Such basic education to raise awareness really is needed imo.
Trump would like the US to become more like Putin's Russia where journalist who ask difficult questions are murdered.
Oh really?
President Trump would like journalists who ask difficult questions murdered.
How nice of you to say so.
I sure do hope the NSA has 'your number' and are keeping an eye on you ..... and I do hope Neven didn't 'cull' my little comment on Paranoia. Such basic education to raise awareness really is needed imo.
Noted: You can't quote me without subtly changing my words
Are you like, OK or ill or what?
I did quote your words ... verbatim in the QUOTE without any change at all - can you see that maybe?
“I think you know there are a lot of white folks out there who are not necessarily racist who felt uncomfortable for the first time in their lives about whether or not they wanted to vote for an African-American,” Sanders told The Daily Beast, referencing the close contests involving Andrew Gillum in Florida and Stacey Abrams in Georgia and ads run against the two. “I think next time around, by the way, it will be a lot easier for them to do that.”
Neven has been Gaslighted so many times by posters here that I'm surprised he doesn't look like a piece of toast. Actually, could you post a recent photo Neven so I can be sure about that. I might be wrong. :)
“Oh, well that’s not altered, that’s sped up,” said Conway of the altered video, somehow managing to keep a straight face. The dictionary definition of the word “altered” is to be “made different in some way.”
“They do it all the time in sports to see if there’s actually a first down or a touchdown,” she told Wallace. “I have to disagree with the overwrought description of this video being doctored as if we put somebody else’s arm in there.”
Trump would like the US to become more like Putin's Russia where journalist who ask difficult questions are murdered.
President Trump would like journalists who ask difficult questions murdered.)