Separate names with a comma.
Wanting to join the rest of our members? Feel free to sign up today.
Discussion in 'Bar' started by Mutant, Aug 31, 2013.
Reptilian Jews in fact.
RT is literally a line item in the Russian federal budget. If Putin doesn't like the content, he can have one of his ministers yank the funding or interfere with personnel management. The United States federal government does not own any U.S. broadcast networks. That's a ridiculous analogy, and I think you're smart enough to understand the difference.
It has nothing to do with credentialism. I am coming from an academic mindset, so I do form my opinions through data, empirical reasoning, and my own historical knowledge. The data (i.e., whatever I read or watch in various publications) is the critical part of that equation. If the data is skewed- say, because it's coming from Russian state television- then my opinion and analysis of the situation is going to be flawed. To put it more succinctly, I don't trust bullshit, especially when the bullshitter has no idea what he/she is talking about or is funded by the Russian government.
Your arguments here are basically the following: "The U.S. is lying and it's misrepresenting the truth! It's going to war for reasons that are clearly unrelated to altruism/peace/human rights and creating false evidence! But you know who's really honest and telling it like it is? Russian state television, InfoWars, and some guy on YouTube with ominous background music."
The video you linked to is down, but since you asked for comment on Abby Martin, here you go:
Point-by-point, here's why she has no idea what she's talking about:
1. The media has been reporting on Syria for the past 2 years, not just recently after the CW thing. Coverage may have increased, but that's probably because Assad used CW!
2. Criticizing media is an awesome way to avoid actually presenting a case for your own evidence/analysis.
3. Especially when you're funded by the Kremlin. Have I mentioned that yet?
4. White phosphorous isn't illegal under international law. Using it against civilians or in highly populated areas is. I don't have enough tactical knowledge of the Battle of Fallujah to tell you whether the U.S. should or should not have used it in that instance. Also, we didn't massacre thousands of civilians. We used it to hit buildings that insurgents were hiding out in, and it's meant to be used for that purpose.
5. Remember how RT is funded by the Kremlin? Abby Martin is using an age-old tactic known as "whataboutism." It was a favorite of Soviet leaders who wanted to distract from their own blatant human rights violations, but that clearly has no modern analog: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism So in case you were wondering whether she's being used as a Russian propaganda bullhorn, yep, she is.
6. France's intelligence agency also came to the same conclusion we did about CW usage, and the UN reports she cites aren't yet complete; it's not that they said CW weren't used.
7. There are YouTube videos of Syrians being gassed.
8. The U.S. just today delivered the first cache of weapons for the rebels. You'll recall we had no interest in doing so, but Obama changed his mind once it came out that Assad had used CW a couple of months ago. We may end up giving guns to Al Qaeda, but that's why we're not sending them MANPADS. For my part, I don't think we should be arming the rebels, but that's just my own view.
9. Love how she tosses the phrase "war for profit" in there. Guess who Russia sells a TON of weapons and air defense systems to, and gives chemical weapons to? Syria!
10. If we were in the business of installing "puppet regimes," the current PM of Iraq wouldn't be letting Iran and Russia use his country's airspace to ship weapons to Syria. Nouri al Maliki is about as much a U.S. puppet as Saddam Hussein was. Same with Hamid Karzai.
Got any other sweet RT videos for me?
Care to elaborate on what you think is flawed?
i thought putin's article was awesome. the idiotic response of all the US politicians is just more proof of how much of a completely transparent sham operation this whole syria thing is. i love how on the down low syria has been a hotbed of proxy fighting (including chemical weapons) and the world is consumed with nonsense news for 2 years while the blunt of all the damage was done and now that a couple of people died from a chemical weapon there is all this attention drawn to it. it seems rather selective.
like they actually care about human rights. give me a break. so transparently pathetic.
sorry bro, ermz, and that reporter is dead on. all your points on contention suck. no disrespect.
why exactly is this America's problem??
No worries, guy who called Vladimir Putin awesome and doesn't use capital letters. I think I'll be alright. :Spin:
You really think the American media is any better???
6 corporations control 90% of all American media:
The CIA has previously admitted using the news to manipulate the public:
Look at the CIA Bengazi talking points scandal earlier in the year:
Some of the information being falsified isn't even the real scandal. It's the fact that the government are giving out lines for the mass media to echo to the entire population instead of journalists actually investigating and collecting information themselves.
Your government censor the media to make sure they get their message across:
"Quote approval is standard practice for the Obama campaign
It is also commonplace throughout Washington and on the campaign trail
From Capitol Hill to the Treasury Department, interviews granted only with quote approval have become the default position."
If you think you have a free press in America, or anywhere for that matter, then you're burying your head in the sand. Everyone's trying to forward their own agenda so if you want a balanced view of whats going on in the world then you really need to get your news from as many different world viewpoints as you can. So yes that means listening to what the Russians think, and the Chinese, and even those in the Middle East, because all you hear is what your government allows the media to tell you.
Mainstream news is VERY good at making you think you're getting the whole picture by offering two slightly different views, but there's often several other points of view that aren't even mentioned.
A good example was the UK Lib Dem/Conservative argument we had a few months back of whether we should renew 3 or 4 of our nuclear submarines. Throughout the coverage I saw absolutely ZERO mention of scrapping the whole thing and not having a nuclear deterrent! It's all about giving you the illusion of choice.
Because we going to free the fuck out of this shitty ass world don't you know.
I'm done here
This couldn't be any more false:
1. 'clearly good protagonists.' / 'good guys win.' Like the Soviet Union? I disagree, they slaughtered more people than Germany.
2. 'clean, neat ending.' Hmm, what about founding of the state of Israel with England's mandate and the following wars because of it (in fact they are still fighting), the cold war that lasted over 40 years, Korea, Vietnam...? And yeah, add over 60 million people killed and it can hardly be called 'clean and neat.'
3. 'a clearly evil bad guy dressed in black.' Obviously it was not so clear since Germany had huge support from many countries at the time. Only AFTER the war they discovered the death camps and there is some evidence that some of them were in fact Soviet Union camps which they framed as Germany occupied camps. Actually most countries looked the Soviet Union as the larger threat, like US and England did/realized after Germany and Japan & allies surrendered.
I reality there were four entities in WWII: The Allies, the Axis, the Soviet Union and the independent countries like Finland, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland etc...
I realize it may have looked clean and neat from the US watching from TV since there was no war on America's soil...
A few people have stated they were war-weary...I really don't see the justification for the use of such a term. Unless those who said it have done service or live in a country with war inside it's borders. If so I apologise. Otherwise those who are excluded from the direct effects of war should not state the opposite. You might be sick of a war but rarely does it actually affect the westerners who fund it.
Collateral damage? Really? As far as I can tell you did not use this as satire. Collateral damage is double speak and should not be used by anyone who wants to be taken seriously. We are talking about human lives and double speak is the attempt to conceal or twist the truth. At no point should murder be made to sound more pleasant or less offensive, even though in politics it often is.
Double speak is hard to avoid. It is constantly trying to stain our vernacular. If you need any more instruction on this feel free to read anything on the topic by William Lutz or/and Orwell's Politics and The English Language. This specific term has even been avoided by the military and governmental PR for a while now. I think they still use the phrase servicing the target because they don't want to say kill, shoot or murder even though "servicing the target" sounds as if an attack were some kind of hand-job-sex-act.
If there is no difference according to your opinion, then why is using such things a red line? Is it just because its a law? Do you find nothing morally objectionable about a tortuous slaughter compared to a regular genocide? But you will uphold a law? Why not condemn them all? What if the law is an order to genocide? Will you think out of your box then?
Either you have not looked into the biological effects or are assuming what they are.
Sarin gas causes your muscles to contract spasmodically. Your body will evacuate everything inside. You will vomit. You will defecate. You will essentially die from your own diaphragm suffocating you. I have had military training on biological and chemical weapons. Some of the training has stayed in my mind. We were advised against regulation use of the hypodermic needle units supplied. We were told to inject ourselves or our comrades with as many solutions it took until the symptoms stopped. In the case of sarin gas and some other types of horrible shit it would not help at all, we were still advised to inject as there was usually no quick way to tell and because it would be better to risk dying from a possible OD than to die from whatever is going to otherwise kill you.
I am not attempting to claim the authority of experience over which is worse, I hate credentialism but personally knowing these facts and having worked with military grade weapons I would rather die from regular ordinance than gas. I think the argument stands on its own feet regardless of who is saying it. I cannot see why anyone would choose the alternative after doing a little reading.
The horrible but legally established religious entity shinto christ cult of Aum Shinrikyo deployed sarin many times, even internationally. Most people know the Tokyo subway incident but the first was aimed at a neighbourhood, where the judges set to rule against the cult in some land dispute lived. They conducted their early experiments in Australia. This group eventually manufactured VX gas. When their compound was raided by police anthrax agents and ebola cultures were found. The religious group apparently had enough chemical stockpiles to produce sarin gas sufficient to kill 4 million people.
James Lewis, told a hostile and evidently incredulous roomful of Japanese reporters gathered at an Aum office Monday that the cult could not have produced the rare poison gas, sarin, used in both murder cases. He said the Americans had determined this from photos and documents provided by Aum. - Washington Post, May 5, 1999
According to these reports, they stated that Aum Shinrikyo could not have produced the gas used in the attack - Dear Colleagues: Integrity and Suspicion in NRM Research, by Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi
A compound with a lab, plastic bags, coke bottles and an old refrigeration truck were used for their attacks. Now this doesn't mean the rebels are the perpetrators but some people here think its very hard to do. It really is not.
China was invaded by Japan in July 7, 1937. The rape of Nanking was December 13, 1937. Nothing done by america. Then the attack of pearl harbor December 7, 1941. The day after Franklin Roosevelt gave the 'May we never forget Pearl Harbor' speech. Not one mention of china. There was this though: I ask that the Congress declare that since the unprovoked and dastardly attack by Japan on Sunday, December 7th, 1941, a state of war has existed between the United States and the Japanese empire.
The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings were 6 & 9 August 1945. On August 6, 1945 Harry S. Truman did not once mention china. He did say this: Sixteen hours ago an American airplane dropped one bomb on Hiroshima and destroyed its usefulness to the enemy...The Japanese began the war from the air at Pearl Harbor. They have been repaid many fold. And the end is not yet.
There seems to be no thread or reason given by the establishment immediately after the atomic bombs concerning the invasion of China or the rape of Nanking, only Pearl Harbor. I fail to see the connection between the two or how it is relevant. This might not have been your argument. In which case i am assuming its the "They did something bad first" argument.
I have heard this argument before. It was from my young nieces and I'm sure it is used all over the globe in school-yards everywhere. One bad act does not negate the other. If two countries commit betrayals of humanity than they are both to blame. The order of the acts does not matter. You cannot justify the rape of some civilians by nuking some other civilians into extinction.
I am really getting tired of America's apologists and their stupid statements saying that a government or any government could be judged to have emotional motivations or should be judged on such emotions instead of their actions. America is a weak representative democracy which only supports democracies aligned to it. It has and currently subverts other nations democratic rights and democracies that oppose Americas interests. It also does not prosecute its own domestic enemies of democracy who activity stifle their vote. America does not prosecute its own war criminals, current and old, regardless of seeking out war criminals of other nations. Until America gets its act together it cannot claim to act responsibly in war or intervention and it is foolish to suggest otherwise.
I understand that action might possibly need to be taken but far too often does America start an event or get involved in conflicts and very rarely is a country left better off.
this is just a gigantic propoganda smokescreen operation. the primary objective from day one and even for a long time is to get assad out since he does not play ball with the US.
calling russia/china/syria "enemies" is just retarded. they are simply business competition.
what angers me is the usage of nationalism and patriotism and "international morality" as a public relations police.
this is the same thing as google vs apple for smartphone dominance except google is saying apple are terrorists and they must be stopped because they try to sell phones too.
1. Nobody is calling Russia/China enemies except John McCain and uninformed people. They're strategic competitors and, at times, allies. China is actually pretty reasonable and Russia has cooperated on critical issues like nuclear threat reduction.
2. Do you know anything about Syria's foreign policy and the things it has done since the Assad family came into power? If you did, it would take an enormous amount of mental gymnastics to pretend Syria is a "good guy" in the international system. Syria was was one of 7 countries that didn't sign the Chemical Weapons Convention. Gee, wonder why they didn't do that?
National security interests will always fall into a venn diagram with elite and popular concerns over democratization and human rights. That's practically a slogan for post-Cold War U.S. foreign policy, and in many cases our Cold War outlook.
By the way, if you think Obama has been trying to oust Assad "from day one," I suggest you read this article.
3. So we should just be like "Oh Syria, u so crazy, of course you can gas your citizens! Not only will we not try to stop you, we won't even talk about it?" You're out of your mind if you think human rights isn't a universal value upheld by all democracies, not just the United States. And if you read my previous posts, you'd see why American exceptionalism has something to do with the Syria issue: nobody else is willing to do jack about the situation and they leave it to us, even when we don't want to get involved.
4. That is literally the dumbest international relations analogy I have ever read, bar none, and I've read a ton of Tom Friedman op-eds
hope u guys don't take offense, but I enjoy calling a spade a spade A lot of you seem to have an unfortunate cognitive dissonance going on where you dislike U.S. foreign policy and reactionarily have the need to declare Assad, Syria, Russia, China, et. al. bastions of freedom and totally cool guys. They're not. They're not awful either (Assad aside), but you're engaging in an incredibly intellectually dishonest game of false equivalence when you say Vladimir Putin is awesome.
Why can't you just admit that, despite your dislike of U.S. foreign policy, on balance the "bad guys" are actually, in point of fact, pretty goddamn evil? I can take issue with U.S. foreign policy in Latin America and still think Hugo Chávez was an incompetent despot, for example. You can have opinions while simultaneously being honest with yourself and the people in these countries who have to deal with political repression and poor living standards. The fact that people have a need to subscribe to some sort of contrarian frame of reference really does a discredit to their level of intelligence and humanistic values.
Damn some of you guys really get into talking about this stuff. You should have your own podcasts or radio talk show.
OK, so these are the people you want to help and support?
IMO they are animals.
looooool I've said 3X now that I don't think we should be arming the rebels, or attacking Assad for that matter. It's not in the U.S. national interest and it won't help much, if at all. I'm just arguing against ludicrous conspiracy theories and saying people should form an informed view of the situation.
the us has been arming and helping rebels since day one. it is in their interest to remove assad. anyone with half a brain knows syria is essentially a proxy war between the west and east.
as far as them having chemical weapons, it's people like who are naive and say "we should let him gas their citizens??"
1) first of all, where is the proof he is gasing his citizens? he has a lot to lose and nothing to gain by doing so.
2) second of all, is it ok for 100,000 citizens to die and then worry a few hundred get "gassed"?
3) many countries use chemical weapons, including the u.s. in iraq.
4) if you think the u.s. actually cares about humanitarian values than you are a real gullible person and there is no sense in arguing.
and on top of that, assad and iran, have every right to have chemical weapons because their regional neighbor israel is armed to the teeth with more. put yourselves in the position of the arab states, someone comes in and stakes their claim on land occupied by your allies.
if north korea all of a sudden came into Alabama and put up a state wouldn't the same thing happen but the other way around. every "good 'ole boy" from the south would become a Hezbollah terrorist trying to get their land back.
my main point isn't even about a conspiracy, it's just about all the hypocritical bullshit on the part of the west because one countries rebels are another countries freedom fighters.
there is no such thing as goodwill or enforcing humanitarian things. that's why NO ONE in the public is in support of getting involved (even though they are already involved for a long time)
if that was the case there are so many violations of human rights and crazy wars and genocide that go unrecognized, and ignored. why? because Rwanda has no national interest to the west. Turkey has the US by the balls and committed the second greatest mass murder in the last 100 years that goes unrecognized by the west (including Israel, whose main people suffered in a genocide as well), and those are just two examples where if the US was truly an "exception moral nation" they would have done something.