Reply With QuoteRussia, China, and Trump for that matter, have no such qualms.
The media won't lie directly. They use selective reporting; discuss some of the facts, while leaving out others that might show a different narrative. That's what you need to watch out for. And sadly, it's not something you can control or regulate. That's why most of them do it and get away with itOriginally Posted by Jason Moyer
Russia, China, and Trump for that matter, have no such qualms.
One of America's most famous stand-up comedians is lavishing Putin with praise. This was even shown on Russian TV as sort of a justification for the invasion:
https://twitter.com/american_bridge/...208775683?s=21
Blaming the west for Russia's invasion of Ukraine is on par with blaming Russia for the US/European invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. If there had been a strong leader in Russia in 01 or 03 both wars could have been avoided m i rite.
Of course they lie. It's just more obvious in foreign news reporting.
When I realized they not only lie, but they make boldface lies that are repeated a thousand times across government-funded medias and NGOs, citing each other, cross-referencing each other, promoting narratives they predetermine to manufacture consent in the populace, that was a through-the-looking-glass moment for me. Intelligence also uses news clearinghouses like AP, Reuters, and a French one I forget the name of, to disseminate their narratives, and then mainstream media, overwhelmingly privately-owned, picks them up and repeats them. State media like UK's BBC will say/not say whatever the establishment wants, although this is pretty typical.
There's even a desire to want to believe lies on the part of the populace itself. The stuff they accuse China of works just fine on rightwing conservatives, but it works especially well on center-rightists like US Democrats, because concerning the mistreatment of minority, slavery, genocide, it's a projection of real American history, and there's a strong desire to want to displace that guilt onto a third party as hatred. A huge uptick of hate crime against Asian Americans followed the Anti-China propaganda. Biden condemned it on TV while approving more government funding for fake news on China. You can look this up yourself, 300 million per year for 5 years in one bill, and then an additional 500 million in another. That's not including the billions already being spent on USAGM.
Trump is yet another interesting twist. He didn't invent fake news, but as a part of the privileged class, he knows all about it. By simply pointing out the existence of fake news, he neutralizes whatever accusation his opponent throws up due to the increasing lack of public trust in institutions. The guy's an innovator! And once it's been done there will be imitators.
Last edited by Jashin; 25th Feb 2022 at 04:02.
Believe that is NOT and "invasion" but a "military occupation" so the Ukraine will become a protectorate of Russia Federation.
Like Iraq for USA and UK.
We all know that Putin is smart.
Problem is, he's a tyrant too backing Gazprom interests all over the world.
As far as a person's last words can go, this is one for the history books:
https://twitter.com/OneNationCon/sta...93201940361229
Waiting for "de-debunkers" to proclaim "It's a faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaake!!!1111 There's no war!!!!1111 False flag!!!111111"
Well, they'll have their work cut out for them, as it was livestreamed by one of the coast guards up until their last moment.
https://twitter.com/leahmcelrath/sta...27746572251143
History teaches us that appeasing bullies has a down side, especially when the population is punished by sanctions.
Also sanctions will have a huge effect on people who don't even know their needs are integrated into the Russian economy and supply chains.
Whether those pains are enough to stop Putin, we don't know. He is sick in the head. I think he would understand a gesture like increasing NATO presence on the opposite border of Ukraine. Certainly he got permission to act based on how quickly NATO and the UN abandoned the military option and leaving Ukraine to be picked off with impunity. It also signals that his imperialist strategy is worth the risk, because there is little down side for him personally.
And that's the key, this isn't a nation to nation fight. Like T***p, it's all about Vlad.
NATO and the UN are also about meeting force with force, in repelling aggressive war, to prevent tyrants from getting a foothold, to discourage their ambitions and to protect civilians. NATO and the UN have arguably failed to do the very thing they were designed and intended to do. To respond with force to illegal war.
You can't stop crazy people saying "FAKE" with ANY kind of document. That's the main problem in the world today.
It's impossibile now that "souverainism" have infected all the world as the new image of old National Socialism. Here in Italy a good number of italians are just EXALTED by Putin as a new Mussolini-like "liberator figure" fighiting "U$A" and "EU" - comically seen as the new URSS - power for the good.
People are sold by the 10-years long Putin propaganda all over european nationalists (as they see Ukraine as an USA pawn so they're happy with the military occupation as a "liberation" act).
NATO is a purely defensive alliance originally established to protect the member nations (primarily Western Europe) from the USSR during the Cold War. One of the main reasons Putin pushed forward now was that Ukraine had actively been seeking membership in NATO for several years, which meant that he would have faced all the member nations if Ukraine was attacked after they had been accepted as a NATO member.
The UN is so ineffective because US, Russia and China are all permanent members of the UN Security Council and the Security Council needs a unanimous vote to take any major UN action. And it shouldn't take much thought to see why Russian would vote against any UN action against them. One could argue that the real purpose of the UN (at least in the eyes of those three) is to prevent a fourth major power from gaining a foothold.
I'm not saying it is easy but the choice seems to be fight the fascists now or do it later, when they have entrenched themselves and have perverted the mechanisms of government and elections.
NATO and the UN are purely defensive against aggressive war. That doesn't mean being complacent in the face of aggression, even by members of that alliance. If not, then what are NATO and the UN supposed to defend against?
I'm 100% certain both sides are and will continue to use propaganda to gain sympathy for their cause, but yeah. Part of the problem, at least in this country, is that so much news consists of editorializing and the average person isn't intelligent enough to distinguish between the reporting of events and opinions. We used to have regulations requiring any broadcast editorial content to be accompanied by at least one alternate viewpoint, and basically when those were removed we ended up with Fox News presenting one opinion over and over, then CNN slowly began copying their sensationalist editorial style, now we have a million "news" sources that are nonstop stream of opinions. This is why I stick to NPR and BBC, which makes most of my British friends laugh because apparently they're viewed as massively conservative.
NATO only defends members, it doesn't go out seeking fights. Ukraine isn't a member.
Russia is a permanent member of the UN Security Council and can veto any proposed UN action against Russia.
Leaving aside that NATO is a purely defensive organization that has only mobilized a handful of times- three no-fly zones to support UNSC resolutions in peacekeeping operations, and once in support of an Article 5 invocation, IE defending a member under attack- NATO military intervention is off the table to begin with. This post has a good summary near the beginning, but the tl;dr is that the sort of military support that the US and allies provided in Syria (let alone a conventional boots-on-the-ground involvement) is likely to lead to escalation against a near-peer adversary, and nobody's anxious for a nuclear exchange. Putin understands this, understands how NATO works, and will not provoke a NATO response, so NATO member states can aid the Ukrainians indirectly without risk of escalation.
Last edited by catbarf; 25th Feb 2022 at 15:03.
You have convinced me comrade. The AP and Reuters are propaganda though they are the most trusted news in the world. Only Pravda and Putin tell the truth. Any fool can see that Russia is beset by enemies on all sides and has no choice but to invade the world.
Nobody wants to or even tried to convince you. I mean you can't even read what I wrote correctly. Only thing you did with a hint of thought is to selective quote what I wrote.
Me: Intelligence uses clearinghouses to embed and disseminate narratives.
You: AP, Reuters are propaganda.
The world is a complex place, only a fool thinks in 100% absolutes. High-level interactions between and within countries are invisible to the average person, which makes media's take so influential for better or worse.
But hey, don't let me call you out, you're one of them redpills, and you know the truth!
Last edited by Jashin; 25th Feb 2022 at 16:01.
Clearly your publishers clearinghouse intelligence with high level truth invisible to the average person or any person has beaten me. Surely one must trust Matrix quotes over reality.
Edit: Damn. I ran him off. Come back! I was just Jashin! It's getting so you can't hint that you know why folks are trying to discredit legitimate news at a time when Putin is trying to twist it to his favor.
Come back baby. I didn't mean it. You still have Italy like the fuhrer did!
Last edited by Tocky; 25th Feb 2022 at 18:13.
Here we go. The most pathetic thing I've read of late
So f I understand Putin's strategy here, he's trying to fast track his neighbors into joining NATO? Because it seems like the one incentive not to join was that you had some assurance you wouldn't get invaded by Russia by not joining... and now that means nothing.
Or as the meme puts it:
Posting Permissions