QUESTIONABLE SOURCE
A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency, and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for profit or influe…
A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency, and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for profit or influence (Learn More). Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact-checked on a per article basis. Please note sources on this list are not considered fake news unless specifically written in the reasoning section for that source. See all Questionable sources.
Overall, we rate Sputnik Questionable based on the frequent promotion of conspiracies and PRO-RUSSIA PROPAGANDA, as well as the use of poor sources and numerous failed fact checks.
So... Do you trust whoever wrote that as unbiased?
Have you noticed that the mainstream U.S. news media has a pronounced anti-Russian bias?
Do you think it isn't worth bothering to check what the other side has to say?
Or are you just looking for someone else's validation of your predisposition to ignore it?
I notice that you didn't question any specific item of "information" (or claims or assertions) in the link I shared about Ukrainian genocide (if that's the term) in the Donbass over the past 8 years -- thousands and thousands of ethnic Russians slaughtered, similar to what the Serbs did to the Bosnians, provoking a NATO bombing campaign.
Now it's Russia's turn to stop ethnic cleansing on their doorstep by an oligarchic thug neo-Nazi regime that bought a Jewish actor as window-dressing to play the role of President???
How much (if any) validitity does that argument have?
How do you go about assessing?
Once again, is it worth the effort to observe what the other side has to say?
Do you have any idea how ridiculous you sound? OK, if you don't trust the US media (which does make errors - the NYT makes corrections regularly) then check out a highly regarded German source.
In fact if you just ask the question "did Ukraine commit genocide against Russians in Ukraine" you will find pages and pages of straight up reporting that establish that this claim by Putin is total nonsense. Absolute balderdash. Yet you continue....to be hoodwinked. Or maybe...
You are simply a bot trolling this forum? Good bye.
Is the US media anti-Russian (or at least anti-Putemkin)? I should hope to kiss a pig it is. At least most of it--not counting the anti-democratic pro-Putemkin fragment on the far right. The overwhelming majority of Americans recognize the corrupt dictator's attempt to impose his totalitarian desires upon his neighbor for what it is. And the media reflects that. And don't waste our time by braying that there is some fair-minded way to paint Russian aggression as anything other than what it is.
You are putting yourself in the same group with Lord Haw Haw and Tokyo Rose--and apologist for brutality and murder, if not outright genocide.
Count me as four. We do not need a provocateur. If you don't like what is offered here, just go elsewhere. Most of us have enough sense to know what is reliable and what isn't.
New York Post is your source about NYTimes? While we are off the original subject, isn’t Jared Kushner’s $2 billion from Mohammed bin Salman (after the Saudi investment people panned JK) a bigger deal than whatever Hunter’s laptop signifies?
Duh. Kushner who has zero experience in managing a $2 billion fund...nothing to bring to an investors table. Isn't that a nice thank you from another murderer? I wonder when the Moscow Trump Tower will be launched?
But some folks are lost in a "belief bubble" (right, Mike?). It's just easier to stay there than face the fact that you might actually have some facts wrong.
Carol, Substack is having a nervous breakdown this morning. First, I didn't get Heather's letter today, so found it online; now my x100 comment showed up under a comment from our PITA.
Actually, it was the New York Post that originally broke the Hunter Biden's laptop story, while the New York Times publicly stuck its head in the sand.
“Stuck its head in the sand” is loaded language, pejorative. “Waited” is one neutral word choice available. Loaded words show your viewpoint and only resound with people inclined to agree with you already.
These media sources are slightly to moderately conservative in bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor conservative causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information but may require further investigation. See all Right-Center sources.
Overall we rate the New York Post on the far end of Right-Center Biased due to story selection that typically favors the Right and Mixed (borderline questionable) for factual reporting based on several failed fact checks.
Analysis / Bias
In review, the New York Post tends to publish stories utilizing sensationalized headlines with emotionally loaded wording such as “Cop cold-cocks unarmed man ‘acting irate’ at restaurant,” and “It’s time for Bill Clinton to take a walk in the Chappaqua woods.” The New York Post also republishes news from other sources, such as the least biased Associated Press. More stories favor the right, but the NY Post does not shy away from reporting negative coverage of the right if it is a big story. They also tend to source their information properly; however, many times, the headline misleadingly exaggerates the actual story they are reporting.
We readers of LFAA are well-informed, smart, and not vulnerable to propaganda, as we can all see straight through the bullshit. You’re wasting your time (and ours) here; you might have better luck on Facebook or something. I venture that almost all of us just want you to go away. I’d also venture that all of us also support your right to be here and to speak; just don’t be surprised if no one listens or agrees.
Was the New York Times reliable when it dismissed Hunter Biden's laptop as "Russian disinformation"?
Is the New York Times now reliable when it admits that Hunter Biden's laptop is real?
It's no big secret that both the New York Times and the Washington Post flip-flopped their propaganda lines on Hunter Biden's laptop. But you are "smart, well-informed and not vulnerable to propaganda."
It means that your assigning even possible validity to the Russian argument for invading Ukraine destroys your credibility in other matters. When you qualify your quoting the Russian position by asking "How much (if any) validitity does that argument have?", you add credibilty to that position, even if you might believe there is none. Whatever 'historic' validity the Russian argument might claim is negated by their violence in trying to make their point. This reminds me of a murderer's defense attorney who does whatever he or she can to weaken a prosecutor's position.
You argue like a courtroom lawyer, as opposed to having civil exchange of views.
It seems to me that, aside from the oligarchic neo-Nazi plague in Ukraine, Russia's position is comparable to the U.S. position in the Kennedy-era Cuban Missile Crisis.
Perhaps you or someone else could respectfully disagree and explain your reasoning.
Excepts Russia's position is nothing like that. It seems you are trying to be a pseudo intellectual and only using talking points that conflict with each other. There are already 4 NATO countries that border Russia (Poland, Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia). Russia is also clearly the aggressor in this war since Ukraine wasn't even close to joining NATO. In fact Russia invading a sovereign nation because of various claims and reasons that keep changing is just them moving goalposts.
Russia is currently using a mercenary group called Wagner Group with neo Nazi members to kill Ukrainians and committing genocide. Your whole argument boils down to "cool motive, still murder". At the end of the day you either think this war by Putin is justified or not. It's a moral decision and a decision between autocracies and democracies. It seems you've chosen your side mate.
By the way there are Neo Nazi members in certain positions in almost every western democracy, by your position you think those countries should be forcibly invaded? You also go off on a ton of whataboutisms to validate or justify your position, not the best way to debate or argue. In fact it's called gish galloping and arguing in bad faith.
Another whataboutism, based on this logic Russia should invade us because we also had Nazi supporters? You engage in bad faith, because you never respond to anything you are wrong about, but instead just keep nitpicking and deflecting. You have a narrative you keep working backwards from. I include points, you just chose to ignore them lol.
You may remember that Russia also sided with Nazi Germany before they joined the allies and all of the atrocities they committed against Poland? I already made my case that Russia under Putin gaslights and lies and that you argue in bad faith and seem to support what is happening in Ukraine. I don't have to keep proving my case to you. I can't prove a negative. You came on this thread trying to tell everyone else they are wrong and that want us to prove that we are right, if you don't think Russia is wrong by worsening an energy crisis, displacing 2/3rds of Ukrainian children, invading a sovereign nation or prompting a refugee crisis, while also committing war crimes then yes we will disagree. You simply dismiss those things.
I'm not disagreeing that a lot of nations have a white supremacy issue, however that still doesn't give you the right to invade a foreign nation. Additionally the Nazi movement in Ukraine had no government seats or power. Russia on there other hand though is actively employing Nazis via the Wagner Group. Putin is acting like an abusive spouse who takes your hand and hits you with it, while claiming why are you hitting yourself.
That said, it's the internet. We can respectfully disagree but I'm not sure what points you are trying to make outside of just using Russian talking points and being contrary. Putin says nothing good about the "West" but here you seem to be supporting him. The person saying Democracy is a failure and constantly talks about how terrible our country is. Your sources aren't very peer reviewed or reputable either.
My assessment of the habitual mendacity of the mainstream news media, including its deplorable coverage of the situation in Ukraine, together with my inclinication to condemn the genocidal imperialism emanating from Washington, D.C., has been strongly influenced over the past three decades by my reading of Davison Budhoo's 100-page resignation letter from the International Monetary Fund, which I view as essentially honest, and which is a taboo subject, blacked out of the mainstream news media.
And now, for the first time, the first 29 pages are readily available online. I'll share a few quotes:
"To me resignation is a priceless liberation, for with it I have taken the first big step to that place where I may hope to wash my hands of what in my mind’s eye is the blood of millions of poor and starving peoples. Mr. Camdessus, the blood is so much, you know, it runs in rivers."
"The charges that I make are not light charges - they are charges that touch at the very heart of western society and western morality and post-war inter-governmental institutionalism that have degenerated into fake and sham under the pretext of establishing and maintaining international economic order and global efficiency."
"Will the world be content merely to brand our institution as among the most insidious enemies of humankind? Will our fellowmen condemn us thus and let the matter rest? Or will the heirs of those whom we have dismembered in our own peculiar Holocaust clamor for another Nuremberg?
"I don’t mind telling you that this matter has haunted me; it has haunted me particularly over the past five years. It has haunted me because I know that if I am tried I will be found guilty, very guilty, without extenuating circumstance."
"In guilt and self-realization of my own worthlessness as a human being, what I would like to do most of all is to so propel myself that I can get the man-in-the-street of North and South and East and West and First and Second and Third and Fourth and All Other Worlds to take an interest in what is happening to his single planet, his single habitat, because our institution was allowed to evolve in a particular way in late twentieth century international society, and allowed to become the supra-national authority that controls the day-to-day lives of hundreds of millions of people everywhere."
"We get away with our works of Dracula hiding behind the mask of Superior Technocracy and a Greater Wisdom striving for “financial balance” and “structural adjustment” in the Third World."
"And so it goes on and on and on. And nothing changes in the developing world except more death and destitution for the people in the slums, and more power for the Fund. And with the passing of every meeting our staff becomes even more reinvigorated; they wield a sharper and more bloodied tool; an even more terrifying Executor’s Axe stand poised for service everywhere in the South. And the children scream, Sir; my God, how they scream!"
(Budhoo is referring here to the incessant screaming of starving infants. When they stop screaming, you know that death is near.)
So it sounds like we both agree genocide is bad and that countries shouldn't kill people for resources or for the whims of people in power. If that is the case then you should then call what Russia is doing as bad. But instead you keep on gish galloping to detract from the initial point of discussion. Russia and China are becoming the very thing throughout history that they have claimed to hate based on recent actions.
I too agree that rich countries should do more to fix the poor countries they colonized and destroyed. Nothing you are talking about is blacked out or taboo. You just keep ignoring what is right in front of your face and instead keep deflecting to other topics because you are made at inequity in the world and keep trying to blame it on something simple and easy to point out. If you don't like America then run for office and try to change it. Sometimes absolute power corrupts absolutely and people in power will do anything to stay in power. Human beings are tribal and the American dream is having more than other people, and more powerful countries throughout history have done this and will continue to do this in future as long as we continue to vote for terrible people. You aren't pointing out anything groundbreaking, but you do keep on detracting from what we were originally discussing.
In your view if Journalists aren't reporting exactly the narrative that you want then it must be wrong. Even though they are risking their lives in warzones right now. You don't even seem to realize the double think that you keep committing in almost every comment.
Finally, you say something is taboo but are able to find a link to it online. There are lots of left leaning and right leaning publications that talk about the history and bad effects of colonization and various monetary means as levers against poor countries. Again though, that isn't what we were originally discussing. You haven't refuted or answered any questions that people or myself have asked you. It's like having a conversation with a toddler, which means at this point I'm the idiot for continuing to engage you.
But while I'm at it, I'd like you to bring up one example where the main stream media as you call it (which fox is the biggest media company in the US is part of) has lied about what is happening in Ukraine and not corrected their reporting to accurately reflect what is going on. Because we have the words from the Kremlin, Putin, and every single member of the EU telling us what is going on. But your "truth" and facts are what's really happening I guess.
Go troll elsewhere if you aren't going to be part of the solution.
Your position, to which you are entitled, is clarified by your second paragraph's words.
(Regarding the Cuban Missile Crisis, the U.S. did not want an 'offensive' Russian threat ninety miles from our shores while our present support of independent nations in Eastern Europe is a 'defensive' one, as was our presence in Turkey in 1962. I believe that the Russians withdrew missiles from Cuba and we withdrew them from Turkey to resolve the issue.)
There is value in learning how those with radically different opinions think or more likely feel. It only takes few minutes to read John Schmeeckle's posts. They highlight how entrenched people can be in their worldview. I want to avoid that so I will take the thoughts he expresses into consideration. I know Ukranian refugees with family still in the country. Speaking many languages (Russian, Ukranian, Polish, etc.) besides English, they have sources of information and knowledge I don't. So far they would disagree with JS's assertions.
Assertions have some basis in fact. Or they are opinions. Which we all are entitled to have. But JS is either lying or he he is willfully ignorant or worse. In this case the true facts are there to read - everywhere.
If there is any factual basis for these "assertions" by Putin, a mass murderer, I would like to read them today.
That is vaguely worded, without any specific examples. Russia has been complaining about Ukrainian atrocities -- wanton killings of civilians in the breakaway portions of the Donbass -- for years.
I'll pose my old question once again, followed by an example:
Whose fake news do you believe?
Is the New York Times reliable? Was the New York Times reliable when it dismissed Hunter Biden's laptop as "Russian disinformation"? (Mwah hah hah...)
Is the New York Times now reliable when it admits that Hunter Biden's laptop is real?
Ignoring his posts is ignoring what many Americans believe. You may disagaree with them but they are there and his posts provide a microcosm of what they think, enabling us to "know the enemy." Not doing so can be dangerous. In Sun Tzu's "The Art of War," which is applicable in political as well as military situations, it is written that "If you know the enemy and you know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle." (Chapter 3 - Attack by Strategem - No. 18) Hence, his comments here help us in 'knowing the enemy,' and therefore should not be ignored.
QUESTIONABLE SOURCE
A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency, and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for profit or influence (Learn More). Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact-checked on a per article basis. Please note sources on this list are not considered fake news unless specifically written in the reasoning section for that source. See all Questionable sources.
Overall, we rate Sputnik Questionable based on the frequent promotion of conspiracies and PRO-RUSSIA PROPAGANDA, as well as the use of poor sources and numerous failed fact checks.
Source: Media Bias Fact Check
So... Do you trust whoever wrote that as unbiased?
Have you noticed that the mainstream U.S. news media has a pronounced anti-Russian bias?
Do you think it isn't worth bothering to check what the other side has to say?
Or are you just looking for someone else's validation of your predisposition to ignore it?
I notice that you didn't question any specific item of "information" (or claims or assertions) in the link I shared about Ukrainian genocide (if that's the term) in the Donbass over the past 8 years -- thousands and thousands of ethnic Russians slaughtered, similar to what the Serbs did to the Bosnians, provoking a NATO bombing campaign.
Now it's Russia's turn to stop ethnic cleansing on their doorstep by an oligarchic thug neo-Nazi regime that bought a Jewish actor as window-dressing to play the role of President???
How much (if any) validitity does that argument have?
How do you go about assessing?
Once again, is it worth the effort to observe what the other side has to say?
Is our fake news better than theirs?
Do you have any idea how ridiculous you sound? OK, if you don't trust the US media (which does make errors - the NYT makes corrections regularly) then check out a highly regarded German source.
https://www.dw.com/en/fact-check-russia-falsely-blames-ukraine-for-starting-war/a-60999948
In fact if you just ask the question "did Ukraine commit genocide against Russians in Ukraine" you will find pages and pages of straight up reporting that establish that this claim by Putin is total nonsense. Absolute balderdash. Yet you continue....to be hoodwinked. Or maybe...
You are simply a bot trolling this forum? Good bye.
Thanks Bill.
Yes, can we all just stop talking intelligently to this guy/bot? He/it is without merit. Good riddance !
https://www.blatantpropaganda.org/propaganda/articles/journalists-are-intellectual-prostitutes-says-John-Swinton-of-the-New-York-Times.html
Is the US media anti-Russian (or at least anti-Putemkin)? I should hope to kiss a pig it is. At least most of it--not counting the anti-democratic pro-Putemkin fragment on the far right. The overwhelming majority of Americans recognize the corrupt dictator's attempt to impose his totalitarian desires upon his neighbor for what it is. And the media reflects that. And don't waste our time by braying that there is some fair-minded way to paint Russian aggression as anything other than what it is.
You are putting yourself in the same group with Lord Haw Haw and Tokyo Rose--and apologist for brutality and murder, if not outright genocide.
Now that's over-the top. You ooze contempt, and you revel and delight in your anti-Russian bigotry. Shame on you.
I only oozed contempt? Clearly, I fell short. I'll try to do better next time.
❤️
I second Jon Margolis. Many people on this site do. Sickening the stuff you are saying.
https://www.blatantpropaganda.org/propaganda/articles/journalists-are-intellectual-prostitutes-says-John-Swinton-of-the-New-York-Times.html
You risk being 'hoist by your own petard.'
Amen. Biting my tongue. A lot.
Me too.
Count me as four. We do not need a provocateur. If you don't like what is offered here, just go elsewhere. Most of us have enough sense to know what is reliable and what isn't.
Really?
Is the New York Times reliable? Was the New York Times reliable when it dismissed Hunter Biden's laptop as "Russian disinformation"? (Mwah hah hah...)
Is the New York Times now reliable when it admits that Hunter Biden's laptop is real?
https://nypost.com/2022/04/01/new-york-times-finally-admit-hunters-laptop-is-real-but-only-to-protect-joe-biden/
New York Post is your source about NYTimes? While we are off the original subject, isn’t Jared Kushner’s $2 billion from Mohammed bin Salman (after the Saudi investment people panned JK) a bigger deal than whatever Hunter’s laptop signifies?
I vote ignoring. We're only feeding this guy.
Duh. Kushner who has zero experience in managing a $2 billion fund...nothing to bring to an investors table. Isn't that a nice thank you from another murderer? I wonder when the Moscow Trump Tower will be launched?
But some folks are lost in a "belief bubble" (right, Mike?). It's just easier to stay there than face the fact that you might actually have some facts wrong.
Carol, Substack is having a nervous breakdown this morning. First, I didn't get Heather's letter today, so found it online; now my x100 comment showed up under a comment from our PITA.
Actually, it was the New York Post that originally broke the Hunter Biden's laptop story, while the New York Times publicly stuck its head in the sand.
“Stuck its head in the sand” is loaded language, pejorative. “Waited” is one neutral word choice available. Loaded words show your viewpoint and only resound with people inclined to agree with you already.
https://www.blatantpropaganda.org/propaganda/articles/journalists-are-intellectual-prostitutes-says-John-Swinton-of-the-New-York-Times.html
Please take your hostility and condescension elsewhere.
RIGHT-CENTER BIAS
These media sources are slightly to moderately conservative in bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor conservative causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information but may require further investigation. See all Right-Center sources.
Overall we rate the New York Post on the far end of Right-Center Biased due to story selection that typically favors the Right and Mixed (borderline questionable) for factual reporting based on several failed fact checks.
Analysis / Bias
In review, the New York Post tends to publish stories utilizing sensationalized headlines with emotionally loaded wording such as “Cop cold-cocks unarmed man ‘acting irate’ at restaurant,” and “It’s time for Bill Clinton to take a walk in the Chappaqua woods.” The New York Post also republishes news from other sources, such as the least biased Associated Press. More stories favor the right, but the NY Post does not shy away from reporting negative coverage of the right if it is a big story. They also tend to source their information properly; however, many times, the headline misleadingly exaggerates the actual story they are reporting.
Source: Media Bias Fact Check
The NY Post is just Fox News exemplified. Thought you were biting your tongue, Barbara. Yeah, me neither!
The point, which you are resolutely ignoring, us that the New York TIMES flip-flopped on its propaganda line about Hunter Biden's laptop.
Whose fake news do you believe?
Enough is enough. Starting to suck all the oxygen out of the room. From here on out we should just ignore.
https://www.blatantpropaganda.org/propaganda/articles/journalists-are-intellectual-prostitutes-says-John-Swinton-of-the-New-York-Times.html
It was the New York Post that originally broke the Hunter Biden's Laptop story, while the New York Times resolutely stuck its head in the sand.
That rather proves Barbara’s point.
We readers of LFAA are well-informed, smart, and not vulnerable to propaganda, as we can all see straight through the bullshit. You’re wasting your time (and ours) here; you might have better luck on Facebook or something. I venture that almost all of us just want you to go away. I’d also venture that all of us also support your right to be here and to speak; just don’t be surprised if no one listens or agrees.
Hmmm...
Was the New York Times reliable when it dismissed Hunter Biden's laptop as "Russian disinformation"?
Is the New York Times now reliable when it admits that Hunter Biden's laptop is real?
It's no big secret that both the New York Times and the Washington Post flip-flopped their propaganda lines on Hunter Biden's laptop. But you are "smart, well-informed and not vulnerable to propaganda."
Yeah, right.
https://www.blatantpropaganda.org/propaganda/articles/journalists-are-intellectual-prostitutes-says-John-Swinton-of-the-New-York-Times.html
And what about "her emails"? OMG, the treachery of it all.
Me three and I am in no mood this morning.
Me neither.
???
Perhaps you actually know what that means, but I'm not convinced.
It means that your assigning even possible validity to the Russian argument for invading Ukraine destroys your credibility in other matters. When you qualify your quoting the Russian position by asking "How much (if any) validitity does that argument have?", you add credibilty to that position, even if you might believe there is none. Whatever 'historic' validity the Russian argument might claim is negated by their violence in trying to make their point. This reminds me of a murderer's defense attorney who does whatever he or she can to weaken a prosecutor's position.
You argue like a courtroom lawyer, as opposed to having civil exchange of views.
It seems to me that, aside from the oligarchic neo-Nazi plague in Ukraine, Russia's position is comparable to the U.S. position in the Kennedy-era Cuban Missile Crisis.
Perhaps you or someone else could respectfully disagree and explain your reasoning.
Excepts Russia's position is nothing like that. It seems you are trying to be a pseudo intellectual and only using talking points that conflict with each other. There are already 4 NATO countries that border Russia (Poland, Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia). Russia is also clearly the aggressor in this war since Ukraine wasn't even close to joining NATO. In fact Russia invading a sovereign nation because of various claims and reasons that keep changing is just them moving goalposts.
Russia is currently using a mercenary group called Wagner Group with neo Nazi members to kill Ukrainians and committing genocide. Your whole argument boils down to "cool motive, still murder". At the end of the day you either think this war by Putin is justified or not. It's a moral decision and a decision between autocracies and democracies. It seems you've chosen your side mate.
By the way there are Neo Nazi members in certain positions in almost every western democracy, by your position you think those countries should be forcibly invaded? You also go off on a ton of whataboutisms to validate or justify your position, not the best way to debate or argue. In fact it's called gish galloping and arguing in bad faith.
You give the impression of wanting to disagree but not making your case.
Regarding Wall Street Nazi-lovers from a long time back, see
http://tarpley.net/online-books/george-bush-the-unauthorized-biography/chapter-2-the-hitler-project/
Another whataboutism, based on this logic Russia should invade us because we also had Nazi supporters? You engage in bad faith, because you never respond to anything you are wrong about, but instead just keep nitpicking and deflecting. You have a narrative you keep working backwards from. I include points, you just chose to ignore them lol.
You may remember that Russia also sided with Nazi Germany before they joined the allies and all of the atrocities they committed against Poland? I already made my case that Russia under Putin gaslights and lies and that you argue in bad faith and seem to support what is happening in Ukraine. I don't have to keep proving my case to you. I can't prove a negative. You came on this thread trying to tell everyone else they are wrong and that want us to prove that we are right, if you don't think Russia is wrong by worsening an energy crisis, displacing 2/3rds of Ukrainian children, invading a sovereign nation or prompting a refugee crisis, while also committing war crimes then yes we will disagree. You simply dismiss those things.
I'm not disagreeing that a lot of nations have a white supremacy issue, however that still doesn't give you the right to invade a foreign nation. Additionally the Nazi movement in Ukraine had no government seats or power. Russia on there other hand though is actively employing Nazis via the Wagner Group. Putin is acting like an abusive spouse who takes your hand and hits you with it, while claiming why are you hitting yourself.
That said, it's the internet. We can respectfully disagree but I'm not sure what points you are trying to make outside of just using Russian talking points and being contrary. Putin says nothing good about the "West" but here you seem to be supporting him. The person saying Democracy is a failure and constantly talks about how terrible our country is. Your sources aren't very peer reviewed or reputable either.
My assessment of the habitual mendacity of the mainstream news media, including its deplorable coverage of the situation in Ukraine, together with my inclinication to condemn the genocidal imperialism emanating from Washington, D.C., has been strongly influenced over the past three decades by my reading of Davison Budhoo's 100-page resignation letter from the International Monetary Fund, which I view as essentially honest, and which is a taboo subject, blacked out of the mainstream news media.
And now, for the first time, the first 29 pages are readily available online. I'll share a few quotes:
"To me resignation is a priceless liberation, for with it I have taken the first big step to that place where I may hope to wash my hands of what in my mind’s eye is the blood of millions of poor and starving peoples. Mr. Camdessus, the blood is so much, you know, it runs in rivers."
"The charges that I make are not light charges - they are charges that touch at the very heart of western society and western morality and post-war inter-governmental institutionalism that have degenerated into fake and sham under the pretext of establishing and maintaining international economic order and global efficiency."
"Will the world be content merely to brand our institution as among the most insidious enemies of humankind? Will our fellowmen condemn us thus and let the matter rest? Or will the heirs of those whom we have dismembered in our own peculiar Holocaust clamor for another Nuremberg?
"I don’t mind telling you that this matter has haunted me; it has haunted me particularly over the past five years. It has haunted me because I know that if I am tried I will be found guilty, very guilty, without extenuating circumstance."
"In guilt and self-realization of my own worthlessness as a human being, what I would like to do most of all is to so propel myself that I can get the man-in-the-street of North and South and East and West and First and Second and Third and Fourth and All Other Worlds to take an interest in what is happening to his single planet, his single habitat, because our institution was allowed to evolve in a particular way in late twentieth century international society, and allowed to become the supra-national authority that controls the day-to-day lives of hundreds of millions of people everywhere."
"We get away with our works of Dracula hiding behind the mask of Superior Technocracy and a Greater Wisdom striving for “financial balance” and “structural adjustment” in the Third World."
"And so it goes on and on and on. And nothing changes in the developing world except more death and destitution for the people in the slums, and more power for the Fund. And with the passing of every meeting our staff becomes even more reinvigorated; they wield a sharper and more bloodied tool; an even more terrifying Executor’s Axe stand poised for service everywhere in the South. And the children scream, Sir; my God, how they scream!"
(Budhoo is referring here to the incessant screaming of starving infants. When they stop screaming, you know that death is near.)
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oJzvpfFzIKu76oE1CkzZlarRiVpYIggFMFzSt6OgHx0/mobilebasic"
So it sounds like we both agree genocide is bad and that countries shouldn't kill people for resources or for the whims of people in power. If that is the case then you should then call what Russia is doing as bad. But instead you keep on gish galloping to detract from the initial point of discussion. Russia and China are becoming the very thing throughout history that they have claimed to hate based on recent actions.
I too agree that rich countries should do more to fix the poor countries they colonized and destroyed. Nothing you are talking about is blacked out or taboo. You just keep ignoring what is right in front of your face and instead keep deflecting to other topics because you are made at inequity in the world and keep trying to blame it on something simple and easy to point out. If you don't like America then run for office and try to change it. Sometimes absolute power corrupts absolutely and people in power will do anything to stay in power. Human beings are tribal and the American dream is having more than other people, and more powerful countries throughout history have done this and will continue to do this in future as long as we continue to vote for terrible people. You aren't pointing out anything groundbreaking, but you do keep on detracting from what we were originally discussing.
In your view if Journalists aren't reporting exactly the narrative that you want then it must be wrong. Even though they are risking their lives in warzones right now. You don't even seem to realize the double think that you keep committing in almost every comment.
Finally, you say something is taboo but are able to find a link to it online. There are lots of left leaning and right leaning publications that talk about the history and bad effects of colonization and various monetary means as levers against poor countries. Again though, that isn't what we were originally discussing. You haven't refuted or answered any questions that people or myself have asked you. It's like having a conversation with a toddler, which means at this point I'm the idiot for continuing to engage you.
But while I'm at it, I'd like you to bring up one example where the main stream media as you call it (which fox is the biggest media company in the US is part of) has lied about what is happening in Ukraine and not corrected their reporting to accurately reflect what is going on. Because we have the words from the Kremlin, Putin, and every single member of the EU telling us what is going on. But your "truth" and facts are what's really happening I guess.
Go troll elsewhere if you aren't going to be part of the solution.
Your position, to which you are entitled, is clarified by your second paragraph's words.
(Regarding the Cuban Missile Crisis, the U.S. did not want an 'offensive' Russian threat ninety miles from our shores while our present support of independent nations in Eastern Europe is a 'defensive' one, as was our presence in Turkey in 1962. I believe that the Russians withdrew missiles from Cuba and we withdrew them from Turkey to resolve the issue.)
That's a nice Orwellian use of the word "defensive."
Obviously, you like to engage in polemics, an exercise to which an old professor of mine introduced me.
You are confused. Putin is entirely different from Russians.
And next you'll be saying that Biden isn't an American.
I dont equivoquate like you do. How do you spell that word? Traveling and no internet service.
???
There is value in learning how those with radically different opinions think or more likely feel. It only takes few minutes to read John Schmeeckle's posts. They highlight how entrenched people can be in their worldview. I want to avoid that so I will take the thoughts he expresses into consideration. I know Ukranian refugees with family still in the country. Speaking many languages (Russian, Ukranian, Polish, etc.) besides English, they have sources of information and knowledge I don't. So far they would disagree with JS's assertions.
Assertions have some basis in fact. Or they are opinions. Which we all are entitled to have. But JS is either lying or he he is willfully ignorant or worse. In this case the true facts are there to read - everywhere.
If there is any factual basis for these "assertions" by Putin, a mass murderer, I would like to read them today.
That is vaguely worded, without any specific examples. Russia has been complaining about Ukrainian atrocities -- wanton killings of civilians in the breakaway portions of the Donbass -- for years.
I'll pose my old question once again, followed by an example:
Whose fake news do you believe?
Is the New York Times reliable? Was the New York Times reliable when it dismissed Hunter Biden's laptop as "Russian disinformation"? (Mwah hah hah...)
Is the New York Times now reliable when it admits that Hunter Biden's laptop is real?
https://nypost.com/2022/04/01/new-york-times-finally-admit-hunters-laptop-is-real-but-only-to-protect-joe-biden/
The deal breaker for me was when Schmeekle thought the words “innocent” used to describe Ukraine and “dictator” used to describe Putin were debatable.
❤️(Heart not working on your comment.) Guess I'm just trying to stay civil. It's difficult. There seems to be more hostility here today than usual.
Time to put Der Schmeeckle on the Ignore List.
Plop him
Ignoring his posts is ignoring what many Americans believe. You may disagaree with them but they are there and his posts provide a microcosm of what they think, enabling us to "know the enemy." Not doing so can be dangerous. In Sun Tzu's "The Art of War," which is applicable in political as well as military situations, it is written that "If you know the enemy and you know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle." (Chapter 3 - Attack by Strategem - No. 18) Hence, his comments here help us in 'knowing the enemy,' and therefore should not be ignored.