Poll

On the Existence of God and Satan

God Exists and Satan Exists
1 (16.7%)
God does not Exist but Satan does
0 (0%)
God Exists but Satan does not
0 (0%)
Neither God or Satan Exists
1 (16.7%)
Determinating whether God or Satan Eists is impossible, so further discussion on the topic is a waste of time
0 (0%)
Discussion of the presence of God or Satan is worthwhile, since one or the other or both might exist
4 (66.7%)

Total Members Voted: 6

AuthorTopic: Fake Newz  (Read 9448 times)

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 29176
    • View Profile
Re: Fake Newz
« Reply #135 on: December 10, 2016, 10:23:03 PM »
Quote
GO: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/01/health/01docs.html  :icon_study:

I think your point is that the US has a better medical system than Russia did, because they could do quintuple bypass surgery.  My question is, how much would it cost me? - if I can't afford it, then I can't have the surgery, end of story.  At least in Russia (and Cuba) they would do their best you for free.

Watch "Sicko" again, particularly the last bit.

As long as you can work the insurance industry and ignore bills from doctors and dentists, the FSoA system works just fine.  The key is to get the work done before you pay for it, and stiff the doctor or dentist on the bill.  They deserve it, so I got no problem morally with doing this.

When this method ceases to work, you travel outside the country to doctors and dentists who do the same job for one tenth the price.  You get a nice Vacation as a bonus this way.

RE
SAVE AS MANY AS YOU CAN

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 29176
    • View Profile
Re: Fake Newz
« Reply #136 on: December 10, 2016, 10:41:36 PM »
If you read that you would know what I am talking about.

I highly doubt that.  You speak UB Language.  Trying to understand you is like trying to understand Sanskrit.  It is thoroughly impenetrable prose for the most part.  I can occassionally figure out your meanings and get the general drift of your thinking, but in terms of specifics it is complete gobbledegook.  You simply cannot write a clear sentence or coherent paragraph most of the time.  I struggle to figure it out, but often this is a losing proposition.  You just do not write very clearly in the English language.

RE

You could not have read the link. You simply have not followed the discussion. I do not mind clarifying things for you, which involves recapping, reminding you of the subject and what has been covered. This makes the posts twice as long. I am not prepared to expend that effort if no effort is made on your part. If you familiarized yourself with the emails we are discussing, the meaning of the post above would be obvious.

It's not just my problem UB.  PY has the same problem with your prose.  You can't write very well, and it makes your material hard to understand.

RE
SAVE AS MANY AS YOU CAN

Offline Palloy

  • Moderator
  • Sous Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 3754
    • View Profile
    • https://palloy.wordpress.com
Re: Fake Newz
« Reply #137 on: December 10, 2016, 10:52:25 PM »
It is understandable why the Russians would want to hack Hillary's emails, similarly DNC and Podesta.  But why wouldn't they want to hack into Trump's emails too?  No doubt Russian hackers are good, but are not US and Chinese and Israeli hackers just as good?  And surely the hacker with the most motivation to hack Hillary would have been Trump.  And surely the hacker with the most opportunity to hack Podesta would be an Admin (and Trump/Bernie supporter) at Google.  There must be hundreds of people at Google who have Admin passwords, and who could lend the password out to hackers and leave the rest up to them.

All the CIA know is that whoever it was used a Russian IP address to do the hacking, and the results ended up on Wikileaks.  And I've explained how to get a Russian IP address in Using Proxies for Security .

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-10/soft-coup-attempt-imminent-furious-trump-slams-secret-cia-report-russia-helped-him-w
A "Soft Coup" Attempt: Furious Trump Slams "Secret" CIA Report Russia Helped Him Win
Tyler Durden
Dec 10, 2016

Overnight the media propaganda wars escalated after the late Friday release of an article by the Washington Post (which last week admitted to using unverified, or fake, news in an attempt to smear other so-called "fake news" sites) according to which a secret CIA assessment found that Russia sought to tip last month’s U.S. presidential election in Donald Trump’s favor, a conclusion presented without any actual evidence, and which drew an extraordinary, and angry rebuke from the president-elect’s camp.

“These are the same people that said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction,” Trump’s transition team said, launching a broadside against the spy agency. “The election ended a long time ago in one of the biggest Electoral College victories in history. It’s now time to move on and ‘Make America Great Again.’ ”

The Washington Post report comes after outgoing President Barack Obama ordered a review of all cyberattacks that took place during the 2016 election cycle, amid growing calls from Congress for more information on the extent of Russian interference in the campaign. The newspaper cited officials briefed on the matter as saying that individuals with connections to Moscow provided WikiLeaks with email hacked from the Democratic National Committee, Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton’s campaign chief and others.

Without a shred of evidence provided, and despite Wikileaks' own on the record denial that the source of the emails was Russian, the WaPo attack piece claims the email messages were steadily leaked out via WikiLeaks in the months before the election, damaging Clinton’s White House run. Essentially, according to the WaPo, the Russians’ aim was to help Donald Trump win and not just undermine the U.S. electoral process, hinting at a counter-Hillary intent on the side of Putin.

“It is the assessment of the intelligence community that Russia’s goal here was to favor one candidate over the other, to help Trump get elected,” the newspaper quoted a senior U.S. official briefed on an intelligence presentation last week to key senators as saying. “That’s the consensus view.”

CIA agents told the lawmakers it was “quite clear” - although it was not reported exactly what made it "clear" - that electing Trump was Russia’s goal, according to officials who spoke to the Post, citing growing evidence from multiple sources.

And yet, key questions remain unanswered, and the CIA’s report fell short of being a formal U.S. assessment produced by all 17 intelligence agencies the newspaper said, for two reasons. As we reported in November "The "Fact" That 17 Intelligence Agencies Confirmed Russia is Behind the Email Hacks Isn’t Actually…A "Fact", and then also because aside from so-called "consensus", there is - once again - no evidence, otherwise the appropriate agencies would have long since released it, and this is nothing more than another propaganda attempt to build tension with Russia. In fact, the WaPo admits as much in the following text, which effectively destroys the article's entire argument :

    The CIA presentation to senators about Russia’s intentions fell short of a formal U.S. assessment produced by all 17 intelligence agencies. A senior U.S. official said there were minor disagreements among intelligence officials about the agency’s assessment, in part because some questions remain unanswered.

    For example, intelligence agencies do not have specific intelligence showing officials in the Kremlin “directing” the identified individuals to pass the Democratic emails to WikiLeaks, a second senior U.S. official said. Those actors, according to the official, were “one step” removed from the Russian government, rather than government employees. Moscow has in the past used middlemen to participate in sensitive intelligence operations so it has plausible deniability.

    * * *

     

     “I’ll be the first one to come out and point at Russia if there’s clear evidence, but there is no clear evidence — even now,” said Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and a member of the Trump transition team. “There’s a lot of innuendo, lots of circumstantial evidence, that’s it.”

And since even the WaPo is forced to admit that intelligence agents don’t have the proof that Russian officials directed the identified individuals to supply WikiLeaks with the hacked Democratic emails, the best it can do is speculate based on circumstantial inferences, especially since, as noted above, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has denied links with Russia’s government, putting the burden of proof on the side of those who challenge the Wikileaks narrative. So far that proof has not been provided.

Nonetheless, at the White House, Deputy Press Secretary Eric Schultz said Obama called for the cyberattacks review earlier this week to ensure “the integrity of our elections.”

“This report will dig into this pattern of malicious cyberactivity timed to our elections, take stock of our defensive capabilities and capture lessons learned to make sure that we brief members of Congress and stakeholders as appropriate,” Schultz said.

Taking the absurdity to a whole new level, Obama wants the report completed before his term ends on January 20, by none other than a proven and confirmed liar: "The review will be led by James Clapper, the outgoing director of national intelligence, officials said." In other words, the report that the Kremlin stole the election should be prepared by the time Trump is expected to be sworn in.

“We are going to make public as much as we can,” the spokesman added. “This is a major priority for the president.”

The move comes after Democrats in Congress pressed the White House to reveal details, to Congress or to the public, of Russian hacking and disinformation in the election.

On Oct. 7, one month before the election, the Department of Homeland Security and the Director of National Intelligence announced that “the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of emails from U.S. persons and institutions, including from U.S. political organizations.” “These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the U.S. election process,” they said.

Trump dismissed those findings in an interview published Wednesday by Time magazine for its “Person of the Year” award. Asked if the intelligence was politicized, Trump answered: “I think so.”

“I don’t believe they interfered,” he said. “It could be Russia. And it could be China. And it could be some guy in his home in New Jersey.”

Worried that Trump will sweep the issue under the rug after his inauguration, seven Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee called on Nov. 29 for the White House to declassify what it knows about Russian interference. The seven have already been briefed on the classified details, suggesting they believe there is more information the public should know. On Tuesday this week, leading House Democrats called on Obama to give members of the entire Congress a classified briefing on Russian interference, from hacking to the spreading of fake news stories to mislead U.S. voters.

Republicans in Congress have also promised hearings into Russian activities once the new administration comes in.

Obama’s homeland security adviser Lisa Monaco said the cyberinterference goes back to the 2008 presidential race, when both the Obama and John McCain campaigns were hit by malicious computer intrusions.

* * *

An interesting aside to emerge from last night's hit piece and the Trump team response is that there is now a full blown turf war between Trump and the CIA, as NBC's Chuck Todd observed in a series of late Friday tweets:

    The implication in the Trump transition statement is that he doesn't believe a single thing from the CIA.

    — Chuck Todd (@chucktodd) December 10, 2016

    Is the next Commander-in-Chief is signaling that the CIA won't be a major player in his national security team?

    — Chuck Todd (@chucktodd) December 10, 2016

    So stunned by the Trump transition statement on the Post-CIA-Russia story that I half expect a walk back by tomorrow

    — Chuck Todd (@chucktodd) December 10, 2016

    How helpful is it for the CIA's reputation around the world if the next US questions their findings so publicly? Good luck Mike Pompeo

    — Chuck Todd (@chucktodd) December 10, 2016

To which Glenn Greenwald provided the best counterargument:

    Yes, the CIA's sterling reputation around the world for truth-telling and integrity might be sullied if someone doubts their claims... https://t.co/2uyQXvFdOK

    — Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) December 10, 2016

    When is it hardest to get people not to blindly accept anonymous, evidence-free CIA claims? When it's very pleasing to believe them.

    — Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) December 10, 2016

However, of the mini Tweetstorm, this was the most important aspect: the veiled suggestion that in addition to Russia, both the FBI and the Obama presidency prevented Hillary from becoming the next US president...

    While Obama's FBI director smeared Hillary, Obama sat on evidence of Russian efforts to elect Trump that had basis in evidence.

    — Franklin Foer (@FranklinFoer) December 10, 2016

... which in light of these stunning new unproven and baseless allegations, she may very well have renewed aspirations toward.

* * *

So while there is no "there" there following the WaPo's latest attempt to fan the raging fires of evidence-free propaganda, or as the WaPo itself would say "fake news", here is why the story has dramatic implications. First, the only two quotes which matter:

    "...there is no clear evidence — even now,” said Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and a member of the Trump transition team. “There’s a lot of innuendo, lots of circumstantial evidence, that’s it.”

     

    * * *

     

    "...Obama wants the report before he leaves office Jan. 20, Monaco said. The review will be led by [PROVEN LIAR] James Clapper, the outgoing director of national intelligence, officials said."

And then the summary:

    Announce "consensus" (not unanimous) "conclusion" based in circumstantial evidence now, before the Electoral College vote, then write a report with actual details due by Jan 20.
    Put a proven liar in charge of writing the report on Russian hacking.
    Fail to mention that not one of the leaked DNC or Podesta emails has been shown to be inauthentic. So the supposed Russian hacking simply revealed truth about Hillary, DNC, and MSM collusion and corruption.
    Fail to mention that if hacking was done by or for US government to stop Hillary, blaming the Russians would be the most likely disinformation used by US agencies.
    Expect every pro-Hillary lapdog journalist - which is virtually all of them - in America will hyperventilate (Twitter is currently on fire) about this latest fact-free, anti-Trump political stunt for the next nine days.

Or, as a reader put it, this is a soft coup attempt by leaders of Intel community and Obama Admin to influence the Electoral College vote, similar to the 1960s novel "Seven Days in May."
The State is a body of armed men

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 29176
    • View Profile
Re: Fake Newz
« Reply #138 on: December 11, 2016, 12:46:34 AM »
WHAT?

RE
SAVE AS MANY AS YOU CAN

Offline JRM

  • Sous Chef
  • ****
  • Posts: 3190
    • View Profile
Re: Fake Newz
« Reply #139 on: December 11, 2016, 07:41:32 AM »
God Exists and Satan Exists
 God does not Exist but Satan does
 God Exists but Satan does not
 Neither God or Satan Exists
 Determinating whether God or Satan Eists is impossible, so further discussion on the topic is a waste of time
 Discussion of the presence of God or Satan is worthwhile, since one or the other or both might exist

A false choice is no choice at all.

I tried to cover all possible choices.  Is there another choice I should have included? ???  :icon_scratch:

RE

I'm sure lots of other possibilities exist.  The one I would have liked to have included is "God both exists and does not exist".  I would have selected that one.  Another possibility, of course, is "Only God exists" (pantheism), which has a number of variants, too.

There are several ways in which the statement (bold & underlined above) can be understood, and only one of those requires a non-classical,  paraconsistent logic (e.g., dialetheism) to be reasonable or rational.

I am both a non-theist and a mystic pantheist. For me, God is a fiction, but the entire Cosmos (all being/existence) is The Divine.  I also subscribe to dialetheism in such matters.

The Divine is revealed in the awakened heart, which awakens the eyes and the rest of the senses to its Reality.
My "avatar" graphic is Japanese calligraphy (shodō) forming the word shoshin, meaning "beginner's mind". --  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoshin -- It is with shoshin that I am now and always "meeting my breath" for the first time. Try it!

Offline JRM

  • Sous Chef
  • ****
  • Posts: 3190
    • View Profile
Re: Fake Newz
« Reply #140 on: December 11, 2016, 07:45:25 AM »
PS -

There are thousands of "gods" and versions of the notion of "God".  This complicates things when we talk about it.
My "avatar" graphic is Japanese calligraphy (shodō) forming the word shoshin, meaning "beginner's mind". --  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoshin -- It is with shoshin that I am now and always "meeting my breath" for the first time. Try it!

Offline JRM

  • Sous Chef
  • ****
  • Posts: 3190
    • View Profile
Re: Fake Newz
« Reply #141 on: December 11, 2016, 08:01:51 AM »
On the topic of "Fake News"....

It's a very real problem, and the "solution" provided by Facebook, Google, Twitter... is a remedy far worse than the problem itself.

In this time of suddenly naked fascism in the USA (unconcealed, in your face) there are now too many stinging insects buzzing about to swat.  They (the fascists) like it that way.  Shock and awe politics, we might call it.
My "avatar" graphic is Japanese calligraphy (shodō) forming the word shoshin, meaning "beginner's mind". --  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoshin -- It is with shoshin that I am now and always "meeting my breath" for the first time. Try it!

Offline roamer

  • Global Moderator
  • Waitstaff
  • *****
  • Posts: 849
    • View Profile
Re: Fake Newz
« Reply #142 on: December 11, 2016, 09:44:55 AM »
Quote
It's a very real problem, and the "solution" provided by Facebook, Google, Twitter... is a remedy far worse than the problem itself.

You got that right JRM.  The centralized nodes of the net seem to be manufacturing or supporting disinfo just fast enough to outpace any coherent organisation.  Insidious.  If it is as it seems it really begs the question of why Donald Trumps brand of incoherent populism got through? 

Offline JRM

  • Sous Chef
  • ****
  • Posts: 3190
    • View Profile
Re: Fake Newz
« Reply #143 on: December 11, 2016, 02:12:35 PM »
If it is as it seems it really begs the question of why Donald Trumps brand of incoherent populism got through?

It's still the same Internet Wild West as it has been, since the would-be filtering hasn't yet been enacted.  Thank heavens!  If it does get enacted as planned, perhaps "news" will come to be even more fully synonymous with propaganda than it already has been.

I'm all for some mechanism to call out the bullshitters, but without limiting access to divergent, diverse and dissenting perspectives on the world.  I suspect the deep down dilemma here is that even Faux News is commonly mistaken by nitwits as "fair and balanced".  If we can figure that one out -- how to respond to such a phenomenon -- we may be able to preserve the basis for reasonable public discourse via the airwaves, internet, etc.
My "avatar" graphic is Japanese calligraphy (shodō) forming the word shoshin, meaning "beginner's mind". --  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoshin -- It is with shoshin that I am now and always "meeting my breath" for the first time. Try it!

Offline Palloy

  • Moderator
  • Sous Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 3754
    • View Profile
    • https://palloy.wordpress.com
Re: Fake Newz
« Reply #144 on: December 16, 2016, 12:34:48 AM »
This is a well-reasoned article summing up the whole affair.  It is a pity that he allowed himself to quote Julian Assange and former Ambassador to the UK Craig Murray, as they are biased too and haven't provided any evidence to back up their claims either.

If it was a hack, then there would be traces left in NSA traffic logs, which they would have been only to keen to share with us if it implicated Russia.  I suspect it was a leak, not by way of internet traffic, but by trusted Admins (at GMail for the Podesta account) copying the data to hard media and then smuggling it out of the building in their lunch box.

http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2016/12/15/hypocrisy-behind-the-russian-election-frenzy.html
Hypocrisy Behind The Russian-Election Frenzy
Robert Parrry
15.12.2016

As Democrats, the Obama administration and some neocon Republicans slide deeper into conspiracy theories about how Russia somehow handed the presidency to Donald Trump, they are behaving as they accused Trump of planning to behave if he had lost, questioning the legitimacy of the electoral process and sowing doubts about American democracy.

The thinking then was that if Trump had lost, he would have cited suspicions of voter fraud – possibly claiming that illegal Mexican immigrants had snuck into the polls to tip the election to Hillary Clinton – and Trump was widely condemned for even discussing the possibility of challenging the election’s outcome.

His refusal to commit to accepting the results was front-page news for days with leading editorialists declaring that his failure to announce that he would abide by the outcome disqualified him from the presidency.

But now the defeated Democrats and some anti-Trump neoconservatives in the Republican Party are jumping up and down about how Russia supposedly tainted the election by revealing information about the Democrats and the Clinton campaign.

Though there appears to be no hard evidence that the Russians did any such thing, the Obama administration’s CIA has thrown its weight behind the suspicions, basing its conclusions on “circumstantial evidence,” according to a report in The New York Times.

The Times reported: “The C.I.A.’s conclusion does not appear to be the product of specific new intelligence obtained since the election, several American officials, including some who had read the agency’s briefing, said on Sunday. Rather, it was an analysis of what many believe is overwhelming circumstantial evidence — evidence that others feel does not support firm judgments — that the Russians put a thumb on the scale for Mr. Trump, and got their desired outcome.”

In other words, the CIA apparently lacks direct reporting from a source inside the Kremlin or an electronic intercept in which Russian President Vladimir Putin or another senior official orders Russian operatives to tilt the U.S. election in favor of Trump.

More ‘Group Thinking’?

The absence of such hard evidence opens the door to what is called “confirmation bias” or analytical “group think” in which the CIA’s institutional animosity toward Russia and Trump could influence how analysts read otherwise innocent developments.

For instance, Russian news agencies RT or Sputnik reported critically at times about Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, a complaint that has been raised repeatedly in U.S. press accounts arguing that Russia interfered in the U.S. election. But that charge assumes two things: that Clinton did not deserve critical coverage and that Americans – in any significant numbers – watch Russian networks.

Similarly, the yet-unproven charge that Russia organized the hacking of Democratic National Committee emails and the private email account of Clinton’s campaign chairman John Podesta assumes that the Russian government was responsible and that it then selectively leaked the material to WikiLeaks while withholding damaging information from hacked Republican accounts.

Here the suspicions also seem to extend far beyond what the CIA actually knows. First, the Republican National Committee denies that its email accounts were hacked, and even if they were hacked, there’s no evidence that they contained any information that was particularly newsworthy. Nor is there any evidence that – if the GOP accounts were hacked – they were hacked by the same group that hacked the Democratic Party emails, i.e., that the two hacks were part of the same operation.

That suspicion assumes a tightly controlled operation at the highest levels of the Russian government, but the CIA – with its intensive electronic surveillance of the Russian government and human sources inside the Kremlin – appears to lack any evidence of such a top-down operation.

Second, WikiLeaks editor Julian Assange directly denies that he received the Democratic leaked emails from the Russian government and one of his associates, former British Ambassador Craig Murray, told the U.K. Guardian that he knows who “leaked” the Democratic emails and that there never was a “hack,” i.e. an outside electronic penetration of an email account.

Murray said, “I’ve met the person who leaked them, and they are certainly not Russian and it’s an insider. It’s a leak, not a hack; the two are different things.”

‘Real News’

But even if Assange did get the data from the Russians, it’s important to remember that nothing in the material has been identified as false. It all appears to be truthful and none of it represented an egregious violation of privacy with some salacious or sensational angle.

The only reason the emails were newsworthy at all was that the documents revealed information that the DNC and the Clinton campaign were trying to keep secret from the American voters.

For instance, some emails confirmed Sen. Bernie Sanders’s suspicions that the DNC was improperly tilting the nomination race in favor of Clinton. The DNC was lying when it denied having an institutional thumb on the scales for Clinton. Thus, even if the Russians did uncover this evidence and did leak it to WikiLeaks, they would only have been informing the American people about the DNC’s abuse of the democratic process, something Democratic voters in particular had a right to know.

And, regarding Podesta’s emails, their most important revelation related to the partial transcripts of Clinton’s paid speeches to Wall Street banks, the contents of which Clinton had chosen to hide from the American people. So, again, if the Russians were involved in the leak, they would only have been giving to the voters information that Clinton should have released on her own. In other words, these disclosures are clearly not “fake news” – the other hysteria now sweeping Official Washington.

In the mainstream news media, there has been a clumsy effort to conflate these parallel frenzies, the leak of “real news” and the invention of “fake news.” But investigations of so-called “fake news” have revealed that these operations were run mostly by young entrepreneurs in places like Macedonia or Georgia who realized they could make advertising dollars by creating outlandish “click bait” stories that Trump partisans were particularly eager to read.

According to a New York Times investigation into one of the “fake news” sites, a college student in Tbilisi, Georgia, first tried to create a pro-Clinton “click bait” Web site but found that a pro-Trump operation was vastly more lucrative. This and other investigations did not trace the “fake news” sites back to Russia or any other government.

So, what’s perhaps most telling about the information that the CIA has accused Russia of sharing with the American people is that it was all “real news” about newsworthy topics.

What Threat to Democracy?

So, how does giving the American people truthful and relevant information undermine American democracy, which is the claim that is reverberating throughout the mainstream media and across Official Washington?

Presumably, the thinking is that it would have been better for the American people to have been kept in the dark about these secret maneuverings by the DNC and the Clinton campaign and, by keeping the public ignorant, that would have ensured Clinton’s election, the preferred outcome of the major U.S. news media.

There’s another double standard here. For instance, when a hack of — or a leak from — a Panamanian law firm exposed the personal finances of thousands of clients, including political figures in Iceland, Ukraine, Russia and other nations, there was widespread applause across the Western media for this example of journalism at its best.

The applause was deafening despite the fact that at least one of the principal “news agencies” involved was partly funded by the U.S. government. The Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP), a USAID-backed non-governmental organization, also was earlier involved in efforts to destabilize and delegitimize the elected Ukrainian government of President Viktor Yanukovych.

“Corruption” allegations against Yanukovych – pushed by OCCRP – were integral to the U.S.-supported effort to organize a violent putsch that drove Yanukovych from office on Feb. 22, 2014, touching off the Ukrainian civil war and – on a global scale – the New Cold War with Russia.

Yet, in the case of the “Panama Papers” or other leaks about “corruption” in governments targeted by U.S. officials for “regime change,” there are no frenzied investigations into where the information originated. Regarding the “Panama Papers,” there was simply back-slapping for the organizations that invested time and money in analyzing the volumes of material. And there were cheers when implicated officials were punished or forced to step down.

So, why are some leaks “good” and others “bad”? Why do we hail the “Panama Papers” or OCCRP’s “corruption evidence” that damaged Yanukovych – and ask no questions about where the material came from and how it was selectively used – yet we condemn the Democratic email leaks and undertake investigations into the source of the information?

In both the “Panama Papers” case and the “Democratic Party leaks,” the material appeared to be real. There was no evidence of disinformation or “black propaganda.” But, apparently, it’s okay to disrupt the politics of Iceland, Ukraine, Russia and other countries, but it is called a potential “act of war” – by neocon Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona – to reveal evidence of wrongdoing or excessive secrecy on the part of the Democratic Party in the United States.

Shoe on the Other Foot

Russian President Putin, while denying any Russian government attempt to tilt the election to Trump, recently commented on the American hypocrisy about interfering in other nations’ elections while complaining about alleged interference in its own or those of its allies. He described a conversation with an unnamed Western “colleague.”

Putin said, “I recently had a conversation with one of my colleagues. We touched upon our [Russian] alleged influence on some political processes abroad. I told him: ‘And what are you doing? You have been constantly interfering in our political life.’ And he replied: ‘It’s not us, it’s the NGOs’. I said: ‘Oh? But you pay them and write instructions for them.’ He said: ‘What kind of instructions?’ I said: ‘I have been reading them.’”

Whatever one thinks of Putin, he is not wrong in describing how various U.S.-funded NGOs, in the name of “democracy promotion,” seek to undermine governments that have ended up on Official Washington’s target list.

And another aspect of the hypocrisy permeating Official Washington’s belligerent rhetoric directed toward Russia: Aren’t the Democrats doing exactly what they accused Trump of planning to do if he had lost the Nov. 8 election, i.e., question the legitimacy of the results and thus undermine the faith of the American people in their democratic system?

For days, Trump’s unwillingness to accept, presumptively, the results of the election earned him front-page denunciations from many of the same mainstream newspapers and TV networks that are now trumpeting the unproven claims by the CIA that the Russians somehow influenced the election’s outcome by presenting some Democratic hidden facts to the American people.

Yet, this anti-Russian accusation not only undermines the American people’s faith in the election’s outcome but also represents a reckless last-ditch gamble to block Trump’s inauguration – or at least discredit him before he takes office – while using belligerent rhetoric that could push Russia and the United States closer to nuclear war.

Wouldn’t it be a good idea for the CIA to at least have hard evidence before the spy agency precipitated such a crisis?
« Last Edit: December 16, 2016, 12:41:51 AM by Palloy »
The State is a body of armed men

Offline Hobogre

  • Rookie
  • Dishwasher
  • *
  • Posts: 2
    • View Profile
    • Lustaci
Re: Fake Newz
« Reply #145 on: September 11, 2017, 04:00:14 PM »
woah... that's a lot to read and to review how did you get those URL's that is a quite research talent,

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
6 Replies
949 Views
Last post April 03, 2017, 01:48:47 AM
by RE
0 Replies
114 Views
Last post May 02, 2017, 02:08:29 AM
by Slogger
Fake Newz Kills

Started by Guest History

0 Replies
110 Views
Last post August 05, 2017, 04:58:35 AM
by Guest