• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

RussiaGate

Liberals Beware: Lie Down With Dogs, Get Up With Fleas

The New York Times is currently engaged in one of its most ambitious projects: Removing a sitting president from office. In fact, Times columnist Nicolas Kristof even said as much in a recent article titled “How Can We Get Rid of Trump?”

Frankly, it’s an idea that I find attractive, mainly because I think Trump’s views on immigration, the environment, human rights, civil liberties and deregulation are so uniformly horrible, they could destroy the country. But the Times objections are different from my own. The reason the Times wants Trump removed is because Trump wants to normalize relations with Russia which threatens to undermine Washington’s effort to project US power deeper into Central Asia.

Trump’s decision to normalize relations with Moscow poses a direct threat to Washington’s broader imperial strategy to control China’s growth, topple Putin, spread military bases across Central Asia, implement trade agreements that maintain the dominant role of western-owned mega-corporations, and derail attempts by Russia and China to link the wealthy EU to Asia by expanding the web of pipeline corridors and high-speed rail that will draw the continents closer together creating the largest and most populous free trade zone the world has ever seen.

This is what the US foreign policy establishment and, by inclusion, the Times are trying to avoid at all cost. The economic integration of Asia and Europe must be blocked to preserve Washington’s hegemonic grip on world power. That’s the whole deal in a nutshell.
Click to expand...
 
Will Wiley said:
Elixir said:
When WW expresses skepticism rather than outright rejection of a story that implicates El Cheato, that's a solid sign that the story is true.
Click to expand...

Nothing that has been posted is evidence.
Click to expand...

It's been posted that the White House has officially confirmed it. True, this White House has been astonishingly dishonest, but given the context, that counts as solid confirmation.

The prior reporting using anonymous sources was also good evidence. That they were anonymous doesn't merit blanket rejection. That's not how you read the news. A news outfit's reputation depends on their track record, so the real news media are motivated to use good sources. If they have established a track record of reliable sourcing, you can provisionally trust what's been reported. Given the context of this story and sourcing, it could be trusted enough, especially so with this administration with the many staff who want to talk. And as we have now seen confirmed, the anonymous sourcing was in fact trustworthy.

Maybe you're young, but you clearly have yet to learn how to read the news yet. They should teach it in school. I have heard some schools are working on that now.
 
blastula said:
Will Wiley said:
What is IT? YOu said the whitehouse confirmed IT?

1.Who confirmed anything. What evidence do you have?
2.What precisely did they confirm? What evidence do you have?
Click to expand...

Do you know what thread you're in?
Click to expand...

All we know at best is that two people spoke. We don't know, even if the story is true, that the whitehouse confirmed CNN's slant and details of what was said.

You are not only in the wrong thread, you are on the wrong forum. Here, on this forum, we have a community who strive to present evidence.
You need to find another forum if you can't do that.
 
blastula said:
The prior reporting using anonymous sources was also good evidence. That they were anonymous doesn't merit blanket rejection. That's not how you read the news. A news outfit's reputation depends on their track record, so the real news media are motivated to use good sources. If they have established a track record of reliable sourcing, you can provisionally trust what's been reported. Given the context of this story and sourcing, it could be trusted enough, especially so with this administration with the many staff who want to talk. And as we have now seen confirmed, the anonymous sourcing was in fact trustworthy.

Maybe you're young, but you clearly have yet to learn how to read the news yet. They should teach it in school. I have heard some schools are working on that now.
Click to expand...

I understand how you appear to read the news. You listen to anonymous officials then cheer on an invasion of a foreign country and start killing women and children. These claims prove to false. Then years afterwards you claim these same sources are trustworthy.
https://consortiumnews.com/2017/02/03/a-reprise-of-the-iraq-wmd-fiasco/

A Reprise of the Iraq-WMD Fiasco?




The administration was able to launder what were essentially “fake news” stories, such as the aluminum tubes fabrication, by leaking to Michael R. Gordon and Judith Miller of The New York Times. In September 2002, without an ounce of skepticism, Gordon and Miller regurgitated the claims of unnamed U.S. intelligence officials that Iraq “has sought to buy thousands of specially designed aluminum tubes … intended as components of centrifuges to enrich uranium.” Gordon and Miller faithfully relayed “the intelligence agencies’ unanimous view that the type of tubes that Iraq has been seeking are used to make centrifuges.”
Click to expand...

You will excuse me if I don't share your enthusiasm.

Or are you going to claim that when it came to Iraq, you knew those claims weren't true, but on this occasion you know they are?
 
Will Wiley said:
I understand how you appear to read the news. You listen to anonymous officials then cheer on an invasion of a foreign country and start killing women and children. These claims prove to false. Then years afterwards you claim these same sources are trustworthy.
https://consortiumnews.com/2017/02/03/a-reprise-of-the-iraq-wmd-fiasco/

A Reprise of the Iraq-WMD Fiasco?




The administration was able to launder what were essentially “fake news” stories, such as the aluminum tubes fabrication, by leaking to Michael R. Gordon and Judith Miller of The New York Times. In September 2002, without an ounce of skepticism, Gordon and Miller regurgitated the claims of unnamed U.S. intelligence officials that Iraq “has sought to buy thousands of specially designed aluminum tubes … intended as components of centrifuges to enrich uranium.” Gordon and Miller faithfully relayed “the intelligence agencies’ unanimous view that the type of tubes that Iraq has been seeking are used to make centrifuges.”
Click to expand...

You will excuse me if I don't share your enthusiasm.

Or are you going to claim that when it came to Iraq, you knew those claims weren't true, but on this occasion you know they are?
Click to expand...
Geesh, someone likes going to the Iraq well over and over again.
 
Will, the thread is called RussiaGate. Let's try to keep in reasonable scope of the op.
 
Jimmy Higgins said:
Will Wiley said:
I understand how you appear to read the news. You listen to anonymous officials then cheer on an invasion of a foreign country and start killing women and children. These claims prove to false. Then years afterwards you claim these same sources are trustworthy.
https://consortiumnews.com/2017/02/03/a-reprise-of-the-iraq-wmd-fiasco/

A Reprise of the Iraq-WMD Fiasco?






You will excuse me if I don't share your enthusiasm.

Or are you going to claim that when it came to Iraq, you knew those claims weren't true, but on this occasion you know they are?
Click to expand...
Geesh, someone likes going to the Iraq well over and over again.
Click to expand...

The well of the CIA's lying, propagandizing, torture, and downright thuggery is a deep one. Iraq just happens to be at the top.
 
Harry_Bosch said:
Will Wiley said:
Present some actual real evidence and we can discuss it.
Until you do it's just a circle jerk
Click to expand...

What is the connection between US invasion of Iraq and Russiagate?
Click to expand...

It is part of Putin/authoritarian propaganda to excuse their human rights violations and other bad behavior. "But US does it too..."
 
Axulus said:
Harry_Bosch said:
What is the connection between US invasion of Iraq and Russiagate?
Click to expand...

It is part of Putin/authoritarian propaganda to excuse their human rights violations and other bad behavior. "But US does it too..."
Click to expand...

Trump and the Left: a Case of Mass Hysteria?

Particularly appalling has been the grotesque anti-Russian tirades in an attempt to brand Trump as a “traitor” ripe for impeachment. For the record, all Trump has ever stated is an intention to improve relations with Moscow expressing the view that the two powerful nations should “get along together”, and work, for example, to eliminate ISIS and secure a lasting peace in Syria. Possibly the real reasons that Trump might want to improve US relations with Russia have less to do with personal financial connections, as his critics allege, but part of a calculated response to Russia’s “Eurasian turn” in recent years and designed to detach Moscow from its strengthening strategic and economic alliance with China and Iran; based on an understanding that they would one day form a mighty bloc capable of challenging US supremacy on the world stage not least with regards to the role of the dollar as the main global currency for pegging exchange rates. Regrettably, such considerations are rarely considered by Trump’s overexcited critics who largely eschew political analysis.
Click to expand...
 
Will Wiley said:
Axulus said:
It is part of Putin/authoritarian propaganda to excuse their human rights violations and other bad behavior. "But US does it too..."
Click to expand...

Trump and the Left: a Case of Mass Hysteria?

Particularly appalling has been the grotesque anti-Russian tirades in an attempt to brand Trump as a “traitor” ripe for impeachment. For the record, all Trump has ever stated is an intention to improve relations with Moscow expressing the view that the two powerful nations should “get along together”, and work, for example, to eliminate ISIS and secure a lasting peace in Syria. Possibly the real reasons that Trump might want to improve US relations with Russia have less to do with personal financial connections, as his critics allege, but part of a calculated response to Russia’s “Eurasian turn” in recent years and designed to detach Moscow from its strengthening strategic and economic alliance with China and Iran; based on an understanding that they would one day form a mighty bloc capable of challenging US supremacy on the world stage not least with regards to the role of the dollar as the main global currency for pegging exchange rates. Regrettably, such considerations are rarely considered by Trump’s overexcited critics who largely eschew political analysis.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

I don't have a problem with trying to improve relations with Russia. That's a strawman and not what the thread is about. Given Elixir's response to you about Flynn and Manafort, you must know this.
 
Elixir said:
Will Wiley said:
Present some actual real evidence and we can discuss it.
Until you do it's just a circle jerk
Click to expand...

Flynn.
Manafort.

Your move.
Click to expand...

And what did Flynn do? I mean besides "forgetting" what he did. He merely called russian ambassador and told him not to react to provocations from Obama administrations which russians did. Yes, he stupidly "forgot" to mention it to the FBI. But so have Hillary and her staff many times. As for the law which forbids private people contacting foreign officials this smells Soviet Union style of paranoia. And US officials don't mind breaking it themselves and then blaming other party for being totalitarian. Yes, I am talking about american ambassador talking to opposition in Russia, according to that law that would be illegal.

As for Manafort, he is an ordinary election SOB for hire.
 
barbos said:
As for the law which forbids private people contacing foreign officials .
Click to expand...
No, the law is against people representing the government when they're not in a position to do so.`

You can't speak FOR the government until you AM the government, either elected as an official or appointed to do so on behalf of the elected official.

And US officials don't mind breaking it themselves and then blaming other party for being totalitarian.
Click to expand...
Well, that's silly.
If they're OFFICIALS of the US, they cannot break this law about private citizens illegally presenting themselves as US OFFICIALS.
It's like arresting a cop for impersonating a cop...
 
Since there's a question on the table as to, "Flynn, so what?" I'd like to write that there's a reason the thread is called RussiaGate. This is bigger than just Flynn and Manafort, though that's part of a larger picture that is developing...

Pieces of the puzzle so far (feel free to contribute):
1. The Russians were involved in pro-Trump election propaganda. This is an established reliable fact;
2. Flynn telling Russians behind the scenes that if Trump is elected he will be easy on the Russians. This is an established reliable fact;
3. Certain electronic footprints seem to indicate Russian hacking, though this is not that reliable;
4. Story about Trump and golden showers which also might not be reliable;
5. Trump telling the Russians to find Hillary's emails. This is an established reliable fact;
6. From the op "FBI rejected a recent White House request to publicly knock down media reports about communications between Donald Trump's associates and Russians..."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom