& what happened in Mosul is barely the tip of the iceberg . . .
When U.S. rivals committed atrocities in Aleppo, Western talking heads were appalled. But when the U.S. supports them in Mosul? Silence.
Mosul, Iraq’s second largest city and the last major Islamic State stronghold in the country, is nearly under Iraqi government control.
The Islamic State, or ISIS, has occupied the city since June 2014. Now, with the help of U.S. airpower, the entire eastern portion of the city has been retaken, and roughly 33 percent of Mosul is in Iraqi government hands. ISIS is “completely surrounded,” according to Western-coalition officials.
But what’s happening in Mosul could be called “massacre” just as easily as it could be called “liberation.” And the choice of words and focus is instructive.
https://wearechange.org/aleppo-crime-hu ... snt-mosul/
Anti-Russian rhetoric
-
rowan
- Posts: 7750
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 11:21 pm
- Location: Istanbul
Re: Anti-Russian rhetoric
If they're good enough to play at World Cups, why not in between?
-
Digby
- Posts: 13436
- Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 11:17 am
Re: Anti-Russian rhetoric
When the protests kicked off none of the major news networks in Russia covered the story, when asked about it a Kremlin spokesperson said "We don't create the editorial policies of TV channels. TV channels show what they think is important ... there are just so many ways to get information, so it's not right to say that the information is restricted in any way,"
And the spokesperson then went on to condemn the illegal protests, which is no doubt the sort of thing one would routinely do for protests not important enough to make the news even if 700 or perhaps as many as 1000 people are detained by police. I did also like that the Kremlin said what made the protests illegal was they'd taken place with official approval and that they had made sites available for people to protests, whether true or not those organising the protests said yes they were offered sites to protest but those sites were outside more populous areas (including none in Moscow) which would've made it tricky for people to get to, and for anyone to know there was a protest.
And the spokesperson then went on to condemn the illegal protests, which is no doubt the sort of thing one would routinely do for protests not important enough to make the news even if 700 or perhaps as many as 1000 people are detained by police. I did also like that the Kremlin said what made the protests illegal was they'd taken place with official approval and that they had made sites available for people to protests, whether true or not those organising the protests said yes they were offered sites to protest but those sites were outside more populous areas (including none in Moscow) which would've made it tricky for people to get to, and for anyone to know there was a protest.
-
Digby
- Posts: 13436
- Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 11:17 am
Re: Anti-Russian rhetoric
Also amusing for protests about government officials taking massive bribes is the further Kremlin dissection of the protests noting people only turned up to protest as they were paid to do so.
Still at least the kids were only criticised, things could be worse, last week a former member of the Russian parliament who'd become critical of Putin was shot dead in the Ukraine (he'd fled to the Ukraine last year). To the untrained eye it might look a lot like he was simply assassinated, Ukraine is calling it terrorism, Russia says it's nothing to do with them
Still at least the kids were only criticised, things could be worse, last week a former member of the Russian parliament who'd become critical of Putin was shot dead in the Ukraine (he'd fled to the Ukraine last year). To the untrained eye it might look a lot like he was simply assassinated, Ukraine is calling it terrorism, Russia says it's nothing to do with them
-
rowan
- Posts: 7750
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 11:21 pm
- Location: Istanbul
Re: Anti-Russian rhetoric
"The Ukraine" is a corrupt oligarchy installed by a CIA-backed coup, with support from right-wing Neo Nazi organizations, that swiftly evolved into a civil war killing tens of thousands.
& regardless what Putin may or may not have done lately, Russia certainly hasn't killed an estimated 10 million people with wars and covert operations throughout the Middle East over the past few decades
If they're good enough to play at World Cups, why not in between?
-
Sandydragon
- Posts: 10524
- Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 7:13 pm
Re: Anti-Russian rhetoric
The thoughts of Andrew Gilligan, remember him, on the suicide of David Kelly.
[quote][/But the government knew – and this is what makes its behaviour towards the BBC and David Kelly so incredible. He came forward to his bosses as my source under a promise that his identity would be kept secret, but was effectively given up to the world after Campbell, in his words, decided to “open a flank on the BBC” to distract attention from his difficulties over the dossier.
Parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee, the FAC, was inquiring into the dossier. After it failed to denounce me to Campbell’s satisfaction, he confided to his diary that “the biggest thing needed was the source out”. That afternoon, on Downing Street’s orders, Ministry of Defence press officers announced that a source had come forward, handed out clues allowing anyone with Google to guess who he was, then kindly confirmed it to any reporter who guessed right. One newspaper was allowed to put more than 20 names to the MoD before it got to Dr Kelly’s.
Once outed, Dr Kelly was openly belittled by the foreign secretary, Jack Straw. The FAC, by the way, didn’t want to question him – its inquiry had finished and its report had already been published – but Downing Street forced it to hold a special hearing anyway. The day before, for several hours, he was intensively coached in the need to “f---” me. Under great pressure, he blurted an untruth in the glare of the TV lights; an untruth which, on the morning of his death, his bosses told him they would investigate.
Dr Kelly defined himself by his work and his reputation for integrity. The fear of losing it must have been terrifying, even if it was almost certainly unfounded. Understanding that is one reason why I am certain that he did indeed kill himself, for all some people’s obsession to the contrary.
They’ll hate this comparison, but there’s an odd symmetry between the Kelly conspiracy theorists and Mr Blair. In both cases, their convictions seem to require them to fit the facts into unusual shapes. For Dr Kelly to have been murdered, as the pathologist’s report makes clear, it would have needed someone to force 29 pills down his throat, making him swallow them without protest. Then they would have had to get him to sit on the ground without any restraint, making no attempt to defend himself, while they had sawn away at his wrist with a knife. That knife, by the way, came from the desk drawer in Dr Kelly’s study, so they’d also have had to burgle his house to get it.
The even more telling question, though, is what motive anyone could have had for murder. Even if you believe the British government goes round bumping off its employees in cold blood, killing David Kelly would simply not have been in its interest. It was guaranteed to create a scandal and a crisis, as anyone with an iota of sense would have known. There’s no need to claim that David Kelly was murdered; his suicide is scandal enough.
quote]
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... rs-on.html
[quote][/But the government knew – and this is what makes its behaviour towards the BBC and David Kelly so incredible. He came forward to his bosses as my source under a promise that his identity would be kept secret, but was effectively given up to the world after Campbell, in his words, decided to “open a flank on the BBC” to distract attention from his difficulties over the dossier.
Parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee, the FAC, was inquiring into the dossier. After it failed to denounce me to Campbell’s satisfaction, he confided to his diary that “the biggest thing needed was the source out”. That afternoon, on Downing Street’s orders, Ministry of Defence press officers announced that a source had come forward, handed out clues allowing anyone with Google to guess who he was, then kindly confirmed it to any reporter who guessed right. One newspaper was allowed to put more than 20 names to the MoD before it got to Dr Kelly’s.
Once outed, Dr Kelly was openly belittled by the foreign secretary, Jack Straw. The FAC, by the way, didn’t want to question him – its inquiry had finished and its report had already been published – but Downing Street forced it to hold a special hearing anyway. The day before, for several hours, he was intensively coached in the need to “f---” me. Under great pressure, he blurted an untruth in the glare of the TV lights; an untruth which, on the morning of his death, his bosses told him they would investigate.
Dr Kelly defined himself by his work and his reputation for integrity. The fear of losing it must have been terrifying, even if it was almost certainly unfounded. Understanding that is one reason why I am certain that he did indeed kill himself, for all some people’s obsession to the contrary.
They’ll hate this comparison, but there’s an odd symmetry between the Kelly conspiracy theorists and Mr Blair. In both cases, their convictions seem to require them to fit the facts into unusual shapes. For Dr Kelly to have been murdered, as the pathologist’s report makes clear, it would have needed someone to force 29 pills down his throat, making him swallow them without protest. Then they would have had to get him to sit on the ground without any restraint, making no attempt to defend himself, while they had sawn away at his wrist with a knife. That knife, by the way, came from the desk drawer in Dr Kelly’s study, so they’d also have had to burgle his house to get it.
The even more telling question, though, is what motive anyone could have had for murder. Even if you believe the British government goes round bumping off its employees in cold blood, killing David Kelly would simply not have been in its interest. It was guaranteed to create a scandal and a crisis, as anyone with an iota of sense would have known. There’s no need to claim that David Kelly was murdered; his suicide is scandal enough.
quote]
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... rs-on.html
-
Digby
- Posts: 13436
- Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 11:17 am
Re: Anti-Russian rhetoric
Not that an official's failure to understand the official secrets act is of any relevance to shooting dead people who disagree with you and arresting school kids who don't believe in theft.
-
rowan
- Posts: 7750
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 11:21 pm
- Location: Istanbul
Re: Anti-Russian rhetoric
No hysterical screams of GENOCIDE !! & TRUMP IS HITLER !! here?? . . . 
As many as 3,864 civilians have been killed in western Mosul since mid-February when the Iraqi army began a wide-ranging campaign to wrest the area from the Daesh extremist group, according to an Iraqi army source.
“Those who have fled the combat areas are reporting high civilian casualties,” Army Brigadier-General Thaer Al-Mousawi told Turkish Anadolu Agency.
Al-Mousawi also said that nearby refugee camps and field hospitals had received more than 22,000 injured Mosul residents since the start of the army campaign almost six weeks ago.
Read: Civilians bear brunt of US, Iraq assault on Mosul
In terms of material damage, the army officer said that more than 10,000 residential homes in western Mosul had been destroyed over the same period.
He went on to assert that Iraqi forces had so far driven Daesh militants from slightly more than half of western Mosul.
On Wednesday, an Iraqi army officer in western Mosul – who requested anonymity as he was not authorised to speak to the media – told Anadolu that as many as 43 civilians were believed to have been killed in an attack launched “in error” by a US-led coalition airstrike.
On the same day, Iraqi officials announced that the bodies of some 80 dead civilians had been pulled from the rubble of destroyed buildings in both sides of the city.
On Thursday, another airstrike, likely again launched by the US-led coalition or its Iraqi allies, bombed two residential compounds, killing 237 civilians in a single air raid.
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20170 ... offensive/
As many as 3,864 civilians have been killed in western Mosul since mid-February when the Iraqi army began a wide-ranging campaign to wrest the area from the Daesh extremist group, according to an Iraqi army source.
“Those who have fled the combat areas are reporting high civilian casualties,” Army Brigadier-General Thaer Al-Mousawi told Turkish Anadolu Agency.
Al-Mousawi also said that nearby refugee camps and field hospitals had received more than 22,000 injured Mosul residents since the start of the army campaign almost six weeks ago.
Read: Civilians bear brunt of US, Iraq assault on Mosul
In terms of material damage, the army officer said that more than 10,000 residential homes in western Mosul had been destroyed over the same period.
He went on to assert that Iraqi forces had so far driven Daesh militants from slightly more than half of western Mosul.
On Wednesday, an Iraqi army officer in western Mosul – who requested anonymity as he was not authorised to speak to the media – told Anadolu that as many as 43 civilians were believed to have been killed in an attack launched “in error” by a US-led coalition airstrike.
On the same day, Iraqi officials announced that the bodies of some 80 dead civilians had been pulled from the rubble of destroyed buildings in both sides of the city.
On Thursday, another airstrike, likely again launched by the US-led coalition or its Iraqi allies, bombed two residential compounds, killing 237 civilians in a single air raid.
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20170 ... offensive/
If they're good enough to play at World Cups, why not in between?
-
Digby
- Posts: 13436
- Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 11:17 am
Re: Anti-Russian rhetoric
Was that anything to do with Russia?
Mind, who'd mod this board
Mind, who'd mod this board
-
rowan
- Posts: 7750
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 11:21 pm
- Location: Istanbul
Re: Anti-Russian rhetoric
No hysterical screams of GENOCIDE !! & TRUMP IS HITLER !! here??
That flew right by you then . . .
That flew right by you then . . .
If they're good enough to play at World Cups, why not in between?
-
Digby
- Posts: 13436
- Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 11:17 am
Re: Anti-Russian rhetoric
No idea what point you're making.
The comment made was that some Russian citizens have been detained/arrested and had their peaceful protests broken up by riot officers, and this has been done despite the fact under Russian law they have a right to free speech. What the citizens were protesting were the absurd levels of corruption by a senior Russian politician, though he's by no means an isolated figure.
There's a further comment that the same group of senior party figures who clamped down on domestic news coverage of the protests, and had children arrested for saying stealing is bad are the same group who most likely last week were behind the assassination of a former Russian politician who'd become a vocal critic of Putin's and was simply gunned down in Ukraine. And thus whilst there is in theory a right to free speech in Russia it's laughable to think anyone would agree there's free speech in practice, and that's the point under discussion
Whilst there are other bad things in the world, and there are other bad actions by government's other than Russia's none of the comments pertain to Mosul, Hitler or Trump, which is why they were put on a thread about Russia. Though I'd concede it's not quite the right thread it is the one that's often used for Russian stories, it's just this one isn't an anti-Russian story, indeed the bravery of those protesting speaks volumes for the character for many Russians who'd have known they might face harsh sanctions, it's conceivably anti-Russian government but that's a very, very different thing to being anti-Russian
The comment made was that some Russian citizens have been detained/arrested and had their peaceful protests broken up by riot officers, and this has been done despite the fact under Russian law they have a right to free speech. What the citizens were protesting were the absurd levels of corruption by a senior Russian politician, though he's by no means an isolated figure.
There's a further comment that the same group of senior party figures who clamped down on domestic news coverage of the protests, and had children arrested for saying stealing is bad are the same group who most likely last week were behind the assassination of a former Russian politician who'd become a vocal critic of Putin's and was simply gunned down in Ukraine. And thus whilst there is in theory a right to free speech in Russia it's laughable to think anyone would agree there's free speech in practice, and that's the point under discussion
Whilst there are other bad things in the world, and there are other bad actions by government's other than Russia's none of the comments pertain to Mosul, Hitler or Trump, which is why they were put on a thread about Russia. Though I'd concede it's not quite the right thread it is the one that's often used for Russian stories, it's just this one isn't an anti-Russian story, indeed the bravery of those protesting speaks volumes for the character for many Russians who'd have known they might face harsh sanctions, it's conceivably anti-Russian government but that's a very, very different thing to being anti-Russian
-
rowan
- Posts: 7750
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 11:21 pm
- Location: Istanbul
Re: Anti-Russian rhetoric
That's the point you keep making, yes. I'd say there are far worse matters going on that you seem entirely disinterested in...
As many as 3,864 civilians have been killed in western Mosul since mid-February when the Iraqi army began a wide-ranging campaign to wrest the area from the Daesh extremist group, according to an Iraqi army source.
“Those who have fled the combat areas are reporting high civilian casualties,” Army Brigadier-General Thaer Al-Mousawi told Turkish Anadolu Agency.
Al-Mousawi also said that nearby refugee camps and field hospitals had received more than 22,000 injured Mosul residents since the start of the army campaign almost six weeks ago.
Read: Civilians bear brunt of US, Iraq assault on Mosul
In terms of material damage, the army officer said that more than 10,000 residential homes in western Mosul had been destroyed over the same period.
He went on to assert that Iraqi forces had so far driven Daesh militants from slightly more than half of western Mosul.
On Wednesday, an Iraqi army officer in western Mosul – who requested anonymity as he was not authorised to speak to the media – told Anadolu that as many as 43 civilians were believed to have been killed in an attack launched “in error” by a US-led coalition airstrike.
On the same day, Iraqi officials announced that the bodies of some 80 dead civilians had been pulled from the rubble of destroyed buildings in both sides of the city.
On Thursday, another airstrike, likely again launched by the US-led coalition or its Iraqi allies, bombed two residential compounds, killing 237 civilians in a single air raid.
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20170 ... offensive/[/quote]
As many as 3,864 civilians have been killed in western Mosul since mid-February when the Iraqi army began a wide-ranging campaign to wrest the area from the Daesh extremist group, according to an Iraqi army source.
“Those who have fled the combat areas are reporting high civilian casualties,” Army Brigadier-General Thaer Al-Mousawi told Turkish Anadolu Agency.
Al-Mousawi also said that nearby refugee camps and field hospitals had received more than 22,000 injured Mosul residents since the start of the army campaign almost six weeks ago.
Read: Civilians bear brunt of US, Iraq assault on Mosul
In terms of material damage, the army officer said that more than 10,000 residential homes in western Mosul had been destroyed over the same period.
He went on to assert that Iraqi forces had so far driven Daesh militants from slightly more than half of western Mosul.
On Wednesday, an Iraqi army officer in western Mosul – who requested anonymity as he was not authorised to speak to the media – told Anadolu that as many as 43 civilians were believed to have been killed in an attack launched “in error” by a US-led coalition airstrike.
On the same day, Iraqi officials announced that the bodies of some 80 dead civilians had been pulled from the rubble of destroyed buildings in both sides of the city.
On Thursday, another airstrike, likely again launched by the US-led coalition or its Iraqi allies, bombed two residential compounds, killing 237 civilians in a single air raid.
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20170 ... offensive/[/quote]
If they're good enough to play at World Cups, why not in between?
-
Digby
- Posts: 13436
- Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 11:17 am
Re: Anti-Russian rhetoric
Are you per chance using a cut and paste approach to moving a discussion on a thread about Russia away from Putin's corruption and the corruption of his cohorts?
-
morepork
- Posts: 7530
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 1:50 pm
Re: Anti-Russian rhetoric
This is the cut and paste journalism kindy Fred.
-
rowan
- Posts: 7750
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 11:21 pm
- Location: Istanbul
Re: Anti-Russian rhetoric
No, just wondering why you're so obsessed with this when it's going on everywhere, while at the same time the US and its allies, including Britain, are bombing countries to rubble and slaughtering hundreds of civilians - without a peep out of you ...Digby wrote:Are you per chance using a cut and paste approach to moving a discussion on a thread about Russia away from Putin's corruption and the corruption of his cohorts?
If they're good enough to play at World Cups, why not in between?
-
Digby
- Posts: 13436
- Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 11:17 am
Re: Anti-Russian rhetoric
Corruption and oppression isn't quite as prevalent all across Europe as it is in Russia, and as Russia is European (sort of) it is perhaps of more interest than many corrupt areas, all news being local and all that.rowan wrote:No, just wondering why you're so obsessed with this when it's going on everywhere, while at the same time the US and its allies, including Britain, are bombing countries to rubble and slaughtering hundreds of civilians - without a peep out of you ...Digby wrote:Are you per chance using a cut and paste approach to moving a discussion on a thread about Russia away from Putin's corruption and the corruption of his cohorts?
It's not much of an obsession though, last post on here was almost 3 weeks back before yesterday's effort, and my last comment on bombing by Britain and its allies was last weekend.
-
rowan
- Posts: 7750
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 11:21 pm
- Location: Istanbul
Re: Anti-Russian rhetoric
Not Western Europe. But Ukraine and (NATO member) Turkey are more corrupt & murderous than Russia, by some distance, Israel's many times worse and let's not even start with the Saudis. That's quite apart from the US itself, of course . . .Digby wrote:Corruption and oppression isn't quite as prevalent all across Europe as it is in Russia, and as Russia is European (sort of) it is perhaps of more interest than many corrupt areas, all news being local and all that.rowan wrote:No, just wondering why you're so obsessed with this when it's going on everywhere, while at the same time the US and its allies, including Britain, are bombing countries to rubble and slaughtering hundreds of civilians - without a peep out of you ...Digby wrote:Are you per chance using a cut and paste approach to moving a discussion on a thread about Russia away from Putin's corruption and the corruption of his cohorts?
It's not much of an obsession though, last post on here was almost 3 weeks back before yesterday's effort, and my last comment on bombing by Britain and its allies was last weekend.
If they're good enough to play at World Cups, why not in between?
-
Stones of granite
- Posts: 1638
- Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 9:41 pm
Re: Anti-Russian rhetoric
I'm afraid this is more Rowan misinformation. You should apply for a job in Donald Trump's office.rowan wrote:Not Western Europe. But Ukraine and (NATO member) Turkey are more corrupt & murderous than Russia, by some distance, Israel's many times worse and let's not even start with the Saudis. That's quite apart from the US itself, of course . . .Digby wrote:Corruption and oppression isn't quite as prevalent all across Europe as it is in Russia, and as Russia is European (sort of) it is perhaps of more interest than many corrupt areas, all news being local and all that.rowan wrote:
No, just wondering why you're so obsessed with this when it's going on everywhere, while at the same time the US and its allies, including Britain, are bombing countries to rubble and slaughtering hundreds of civilians - without a peep out of you ...
It's not much of an obsession though, last post on here was almost 3 weeks back before yesterday's effort, and my last comment on bombing by Britain and its allies was last weekend.
From Transparency International's Corruption Index.
RANK COUNTRY/TERRITORY SCORE
18 United States 74
75 Turkey 41
131 Russia 29
131 Ukraine 29
So, Russia and Ukraine are equally corrupt, which is no surprise as they have the same tradition of oligarchy and criminal politicians. Turkey is considerably less corrupt even though it's exactly a beacon of transparency and democracy, while the US lags Western Europe but isn't even close to your implication.
So, next you'll dwell on the " murderous" bit, so I'll just leave this photo of what Russia did to "their own" city of Grozny in the Chechen War.
-
canta_brian
- Posts: 1262
- Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 9:52 pm
Re: Anti-Russian rhetoric
Rowan, there is a perfectly good Syria thread for you to cut and paste mosul information on.
I don't want to speak for anyone else, but I certainly believe we live in a world where the indiscriminate bombing of Mosul by the Americans (although the Iraqi army provided the targets in this latest incident), and the Russian government being corrupt are not mutually exclusive. Pointing at one is not a defence for the other.
I don't want to speak for anyone else, but I certainly believe we live in a world where the indiscriminate bombing of Mosul by the Americans (although the Iraqi army provided the targets in this latest incident), and the Russian government being corrupt are not mutually exclusive. Pointing at one is not a defence for the other.
-
rowan
- Posts: 7750
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 11:21 pm
- Location: Istanbul
Re: Anti-Russian rhetoric
Mosul's not in Syria, Canta. I know you probably don't know much about it, but it has been the scene of wholesale civilian slaughter recently by America and its allies (who include Britain), but strangely you guys have shown zero interest in that, which seems to me to be a very extreme case of selective morality. America has killed an estimated 10 million people with its Middle Eastern wars and operations, 4,000 since last month alone, with Britain in tow every step of the way. The reality is Britain itself is a nation with a far more evil history than any other, and the legacy of that is denialism, unaccountability, arrogance and hypocrisy, culminating in this need to constantly point the finger at others.canta_brian wrote:Rowan, there is a perfectly good Syria thread for you to cut and paste mosul information on.
I don't want to speak for anyone else, but I certainly believe we live in a world where the indiscriminate bombing of Mosul by the Americans (although the Iraqi army provided the targets in this latest incident), and the Russian government being corrupt are not mutually exclusive. Pointing at one is not a defence for the other.
If they're good enough to play at World Cups, why not in between?
-
canta_brian
- Posts: 1262
- Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 9:52 pm
Re: RE: Re: Anti-Russian rhetoric
Yes, my slip. But the point still stands. The two are not mutually exclusive. Your endless posting on the same subject is irrelevant in regards to what is and isn't rhetoric in regards to Russia.rowan wrote:Mosul's not in Syria, Canta. I know you probably don't know much about it, but it has been the scene of wholesale civilian slaughter recently by America and its allies (who include Britain), but strangely you guys have shown zero interest in that, which seems to me to be a very extreme case of selective morality. America has killed an estimated 10 million people with its Middle Eastern wars and operations, 4,000 since last month alone, with Britain in tow every step of the way. The reality is Britain itself is a nation with a far more evil history than any other, and the legacy of that is denialism, unaccountability, arrogance and hypocrisy, culminating in this need to constantly point the finger at others.canta_brian wrote:Rowan, there is a perfectly good Syria thread for you to cut and paste mosul information on.
I don't want to speak for anyone else, but I certainly believe we live in a world where the indiscriminate bombing of Mosul by the Americans (although the Iraqi army provided the targets in this latest incident), and the Russian government being corrupt are not mutually exclusive. Pointing at one is not a defence for the other.
-
morepork
- Posts: 7530
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 1:50 pm
Re: Anti-Russian rhetoric
Bung a few in the random funny images thread as well. Why not?
-
morepork
- Posts: 7530
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 1:50 pm
Re: Anti-Russian rhetoric
In Soviet Russia, thread cut and pastes YOU.
-
Donny osmond
- Posts: 3223
- Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 5:58 pm
Re: RE: Re: Anti-Russian rhetoric
[emoji23] gets me every timerowan wrote:
Blah blah ranty blah
.... denialism, unaccountability, arrogance and hypocrisy, culminating in this need to constantly point the finger at others.
It was so much easier to blame Them. It was bleakly depressing to think They were Us. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.
-
rowan
- Posts: 7750
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 11:21 pm
- Location: Istanbul
Re: Anti-Russian rhetoric
Interesting story on anti-Russian propaganda:
The demonization of Russia didn’t actually begin at the Ukrainian crisis of 2014 or even during the Syrian crisis. There were always a few crazies in the back of the room (like John Mccain and Mitt Romney) pushing the narrative, but no one was listening to them. However Russia’s successful defiance of the U.S. in Syria and Ukraine triggered the equivalent of a temper tantrum on the part of the U.S. and European ruling elite. Obama in particular got egg in the face several times during these crises, and this created an emotional link for those who were committed to supporting the Obama administration no matter what. Russia had made their leader look bad. Therefore Russia was an enemy. This phenomenon is an expression of the pack instinct. The Alpha must be protected at all costs.
The counterattack became a question of repetition and psychology, rendering the facts irrelevant. Rather than acknowledge that over 95% of the Crimean people voted to reunite with Russia in a referendum that no one has been able to discredit in any meaningful way, or the fact that under international law, the right to self determination is a valid premise for such a reunion, the mainstream media blurred the issue with a simple slur, parroted endlessly: Russian aggression, Russian aggression, Russian aggression.
THE LONG TERM CONSEQUENCES
The short term political utility of tying Trump to Russia has blinded many on the left to the long term effect such a strategy is bound to have. Consider for a moment the implications of an entire generation being raised in the United States right now marinating in news and commentary which frames Russia as enemy number #1 (or #2 depending on where Trump supposedly fits). The facts and specifics won’t matter to these formative minds. It all boils down to sentiment. This sentiment can (and likely will) be used in ways that those fomenting it never imagined.
A recent poll by Reuters found that a stunning 82% of Americans now view Russia as a threat. This is a ticking time bomb.
It is a strategic error to assume anti-Russian propaganda will always work in the favor of the political left. Remember the original Mccarthyism. Neocon Republicans like John Mccain and Mike Pence would like nothing more than a chance to clip Putin’s wings, and in the right context that’s exactly what they would attempt to do. By linking Russia to Trump (arguably one of the most hated political figures in American history) the left is unwittingly laying the psychological groundwork for war.
If and when the moment comes where a Republican president decides to escalate tensions with Moscow (by direct or proxy intervention), “progressives” will find themselves in an extremely uncomfortable dilemma: either they get carried along with their enemies in the wave of anti-Russian sentiment they helped create, or they try to reverse tack and play opposition.
Reversing tack wouldn’t be easy under any circumstances, but it the midst of a crisis it would be all but impossible, and such protests would be easily shot down with snippets of their own words. Hypocrisy is after all, a vulnerability in and of itself.
More here: http://stormcloudsgathering.com/demoniz ... carthyism/
The demonization of Russia didn’t actually begin at the Ukrainian crisis of 2014 or even during the Syrian crisis. There were always a few crazies in the back of the room (like John Mccain and Mitt Romney) pushing the narrative, but no one was listening to them. However Russia’s successful defiance of the U.S. in Syria and Ukraine triggered the equivalent of a temper tantrum on the part of the U.S. and European ruling elite. Obama in particular got egg in the face several times during these crises, and this created an emotional link for those who were committed to supporting the Obama administration no matter what. Russia had made their leader look bad. Therefore Russia was an enemy. This phenomenon is an expression of the pack instinct. The Alpha must be protected at all costs.
The counterattack became a question of repetition and psychology, rendering the facts irrelevant. Rather than acknowledge that over 95% of the Crimean people voted to reunite with Russia in a referendum that no one has been able to discredit in any meaningful way, or the fact that under international law, the right to self determination is a valid premise for such a reunion, the mainstream media blurred the issue with a simple slur, parroted endlessly: Russian aggression, Russian aggression, Russian aggression.
THE LONG TERM CONSEQUENCES
The short term political utility of tying Trump to Russia has blinded many on the left to the long term effect such a strategy is bound to have. Consider for a moment the implications of an entire generation being raised in the United States right now marinating in news and commentary which frames Russia as enemy number #1 (or #2 depending on where Trump supposedly fits). The facts and specifics won’t matter to these formative minds. It all boils down to sentiment. This sentiment can (and likely will) be used in ways that those fomenting it never imagined.
A recent poll by Reuters found that a stunning 82% of Americans now view Russia as a threat. This is a ticking time bomb.
It is a strategic error to assume anti-Russian propaganda will always work in the favor of the political left. Remember the original Mccarthyism. Neocon Republicans like John Mccain and Mike Pence would like nothing more than a chance to clip Putin’s wings, and in the right context that’s exactly what they would attempt to do. By linking Russia to Trump (arguably one of the most hated political figures in American history) the left is unwittingly laying the psychological groundwork for war.
If and when the moment comes where a Republican president decides to escalate tensions with Moscow (by direct or proxy intervention), “progressives” will find themselves in an extremely uncomfortable dilemma: either they get carried along with their enemies in the wave of anti-Russian sentiment they helped create, or they try to reverse tack and play opposition.
Reversing tack wouldn’t be easy under any circumstances, but it the midst of a crisis it would be all but impossible, and such protests would be easily shot down with snippets of their own words. Hypocrisy is after all, a vulnerability in and of itself.
More here: http://stormcloudsgathering.com/demoniz ... carthyism/
If they're good enough to play at World Cups, why not in between?
-
rowan
- Posts: 7750
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 11:21 pm
- Location: Istanbul
Re: Anti-Russian rhetoric
All very true . . .
. . . For a decade now, the influential media has been building fear of and animosity against Russia and its president Vladimir Putin. For example, the media spread the establishment’s story that NATO’s buildup of weapons and forces near the Russian border is a reaction to Russian aggression. In its coverage, the media downplayed the U.S. violation of its pledge not to expand NATO ‘one inch’ to the east if the Soviet Union would allow Germany to be reunited. Unfortunately, the Clinton, Bush and Obama administrations all violated that pledge. Perhaps the media didn’t think NATO’s expansion to Russian borders might have been viewed as a provocation to Russia.
However, a key insider saw things very differently. In 1996 George Kennan, architect of the containment policy towards the Soviet Union, warned that NATO’s expansion into former Soviet territories would be a “strategic blunder of potentially epic proportions.” In 1998, Thomas Friedman solicited Kennan’s reaction to the Senate’s ratification of NATO’s eastward expansion. Kennan said: ”I think it is the beginning of a new cold war. I think the Russians will gradually react quite adversely and it will affect their policies. I think it is a tragic mistake. There was no reason for this whatsoever. No one was threatening anybody else.”
The mainstream U.S. media also downplayed the importance of the U.S. supported 2014 Ukrainian coup, a major provocation that caused Russia to react as Kennan had predicted. Even George Friedman, CEO of Stratfor, a U.S. firm involved in analyzing intelligence, spoke about this coup that the media hailed as a revolution: “It really was the most blatant coup in history.”
The media continues the campaign against Russia by hyping the unsubstantiated claim that the Russian government hacked the Democratic National Committee’s emails and somehow provided the emails to Wikileaks. This problematic charge further bolsters the perception of Russia as our enemy, making the idea of war more palatable.
Disappointingly, the influential U.S. media ignores a strong challenge to this claim from former intelligence officials (Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity) who have a very good track record in evaluating evidence. Adding to the concern about these claim, it is important to remember that the CIA’s political leadership has a major credibility problem. Moreover, Julian Assange of Wikileaks, denied receiving the emails from the Russian government. Given these concerns and the lack of any solid evidence being shown to the public, a responsible media would certainly have carefully investigated the charge before unnecessarily heightening tensions between two powers with nuclear weapons.
Accuracy in reporting is especially important now since Russian and U.S./NATO forces are operating in close proximity along the Russian border and in Syria. Any small miscalculation could set off a nuclear conflict with unbelievably dire consequences for life on the planet. For example, studies by well-informed scientists have clearly demonstrated that there are no winners in a nuclear conflict. Therefore, it is past time for the mainstream U.S. media to live up to its responsibilities to the public and to carefully investigate claims instead of simply being a shameless propaganda tool of the U.S. political and military establishment.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/03/29/ ... ropaganda/
. . . For a decade now, the influential media has been building fear of and animosity against Russia and its president Vladimir Putin. For example, the media spread the establishment’s story that NATO’s buildup of weapons and forces near the Russian border is a reaction to Russian aggression. In its coverage, the media downplayed the U.S. violation of its pledge not to expand NATO ‘one inch’ to the east if the Soviet Union would allow Germany to be reunited. Unfortunately, the Clinton, Bush and Obama administrations all violated that pledge. Perhaps the media didn’t think NATO’s expansion to Russian borders might have been viewed as a provocation to Russia.
However, a key insider saw things very differently. In 1996 George Kennan, architect of the containment policy towards the Soviet Union, warned that NATO’s expansion into former Soviet territories would be a “strategic blunder of potentially epic proportions.” In 1998, Thomas Friedman solicited Kennan’s reaction to the Senate’s ratification of NATO’s eastward expansion. Kennan said: ”I think it is the beginning of a new cold war. I think the Russians will gradually react quite adversely and it will affect their policies. I think it is a tragic mistake. There was no reason for this whatsoever. No one was threatening anybody else.”
The mainstream U.S. media also downplayed the importance of the U.S. supported 2014 Ukrainian coup, a major provocation that caused Russia to react as Kennan had predicted. Even George Friedman, CEO of Stratfor, a U.S. firm involved in analyzing intelligence, spoke about this coup that the media hailed as a revolution: “It really was the most blatant coup in history.”
The media continues the campaign against Russia by hyping the unsubstantiated claim that the Russian government hacked the Democratic National Committee’s emails and somehow provided the emails to Wikileaks. This problematic charge further bolsters the perception of Russia as our enemy, making the idea of war more palatable.
Disappointingly, the influential U.S. media ignores a strong challenge to this claim from former intelligence officials (Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity) who have a very good track record in evaluating evidence. Adding to the concern about these claim, it is important to remember that the CIA’s political leadership has a major credibility problem. Moreover, Julian Assange of Wikileaks, denied receiving the emails from the Russian government. Given these concerns and the lack of any solid evidence being shown to the public, a responsible media would certainly have carefully investigated the charge before unnecessarily heightening tensions between two powers with nuclear weapons.
Accuracy in reporting is especially important now since Russian and U.S./NATO forces are operating in close proximity along the Russian border and in Syria. Any small miscalculation could set off a nuclear conflict with unbelievably dire consequences for life on the planet. For example, studies by well-informed scientists have clearly demonstrated that there are no winners in a nuclear conflict. Therefore, it is past time for the mainstream U.S. media to live up to its responsibilities to the public and to carefully investigate claims instead of simply being a shameless propaganda tool of the U.S. political and military establishment.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/03/29/ ... ropaganda/
If they're good enough to play at World Cups, why not in between?