Discussion in 'Politics' started by Greatest I am, Jul 14, 2015.
And you have evidence of that or are you are you just expressing your irrational beliefs?
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Almost every article in the Western press about the Ukraine conflict is evidence of lies and creation of anti-russian hate, in combination with fascistic propaganda.
During the last months, there have been some minor improvements, it becomes possible to criticize some of the most fanatic Ukrainian Nazi gangs, in particular from the Asow bataillon or the Right Sector. This gives those who believe only Western press some possibility to compare what has been preached last year and now, but you obviously will not use this possibility. Democratic sheeple have no memory, so that one can write today one thing and tomorrow something completely different. As in Syria, where the initially "peaceful demonstrants" have somehow transformed into the fundamentalist IS.
So go ahead and prove they don't offer salvation in the afterlife. Hairdressers also offer people a hope of being part of a dreamworld fantasy of fame and glamour, taking advantage of people's weakness to want to look sexy and famous.
Oh, well then you should be able to provide examples of such lies and fascistic propaganda. So where is the evidence which would lead a reasoned non biased person to believe what you believe?
Ok, another one of your anti democracy rants. Unlike your Mother Russia where the state owns and controls the press, it has always been possible in the Western press to criticize anyone anywhere and it is common for the Western press to be critical of everyone everywhere - just listen to a US presidential press conference which is broadcast in Western media. Unlike your beloved Mother Russia, the Western press is varied and not centrally controlled and openly competes with other news agencies to be credible and report the news quickly and accurately. With the exception of Fox News, unlike Mother Russia, Western media isn't scripted or censored.
Yeah it's obvious from your writings you despise democracy and would rather have someone else (e.g. Putin) tell you what to think, what to believe and what to do - docility at its best.
Ok, let's take a look what we have actually about the Ukraine. I start with the most prominent example of Western Press, New York Times. Let's take something actual. Like this, from the day of my posting:
What do we find? Something about the latest leaked MH17 video.
Here is the source of this: http://www.news.com.au/national/ful...-17-minute-video/story-e6frfkp9-1227444629703 a video with length 4.13, and a full transcript. What given NYT? Only 1.08 (1.02 content) length. What is told about this?
"Video obtained by News Corp. Australia purportedly shows the direct aftermath of the crash of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, which was shot down over eastern Ukraine one year ago, killing 298 people."
Given that only around 25% of this video are given, a clear lie. Are there interesting parts which have been snipped, interesting information which has been withheld? Of course, the transcript contain, in particular:
Nothing about this is part of the NYT article. Thus, the cut was clearly not made with the aim to cut irrelevant things, but to hide what not fits into the Western version.
Ok, let's have a look how other Western media report about the same video.
Here a links to German variants of the same hiding in the German media: https://propagandaschau.wordpress.c...gesichts-eines-neu-aufgetauchten-mh17-videos/ The version also does not mention the theory that MH17 was shut down by a Sukhoi fighter.
http://www.n24.de/n24/Nachrichten/Panorama/d/6991874/-es-ist-widerlich--das-anzusehen-.html shows at least a 2 min cut, but also hides the critical claims.
http://www.blick.ch/news/ausland/ne...len-das-gepaeck-der-mh17-opfer-id3983144.html the same.
http://www.n-tv.de/politik/Video-zeigt-rauchendes-Wrack-von-Flug-MH17-article15538181.html the same.
Are other English sources better than NYT?
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/07/17/europe/ukraine-mh17-aftermath-video/ shows almost the same cutted part, and also hides the version of the people in this video.
It appears that some of this video was already used by the BBC earlier, http://www.stuff.co.nz/entertainmen...orp-mh17-exclusive-video-broadcast-a-year-ago again without mentioning the theory of the guys on the video, and without the part of the video where they make these claims.
http://www.nbcnews.com/video/video-shows-immediate-aftermath-of-mh17-crash-486092355674 shows also only an 1.30 cut
Daily Mail contains an even worse variant of a lie: "The footage shows the immediate aftermath of Flight MH17 with Russian-back rebels initially believing that had shot down a Ukrainian air force jet." http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3164706/Shocking-footage-shows-moment-Russian-backed-rebels-rifled-MH17-victims-belongings-following-crash-left-298-passengers-dead.html
I hope you understand that this "partial truth" is even a worse lie than simply saying nothing.
But, yes, I have found a Western source which mentions the theory:
"“It’s a civilian!” said the commander. And then, in a revealing admission: “They [headquarters] say the Sukhoi brought down the civilian plane and ours brought down the fighter.""
But this is a quite special source, directed toward the East, thus, to people who are able to get information from Russian sources too, not the American sheeple.
And there is another source, which gives information about the critical part of the transcript too: http://www.rt.com/news/310082-mh17-video-another-aircraft/ Pure Russian propaganda, of course.
As a libertarian, I despise any state. The democratic state is only a particular example of this. And, no, I don't like the Russian state too. I simply support it now because the multipolar world order Russia wants is clearly less evil than the unipolar US empire which the US wants - for all the people around the world, but mainly for those outside the big power centers.[/QUOTE]
That was a load of crap, that doesn't even remotely fulfill what you were challenged to do. What you did was analogous to a squid spraying ink to mask its escape. You were asked to provide evidence to back up your assertions with respect to the Western media. You haven't done that. So I again challenge you to provide some evidence the to back up your assertions.
What is funny, is you believe without question whatever the state owned and operated Russia press publishes and the Russian press is anything but "multipolar" which you claim to adore whereas you believe nothing sourced from the Western press which is by its very nature multipolar. It's funny in a sad sort of way. You are a hot mess of contradictions my friend.
As a libertarian/anarchist you despise any state, except the Russian state and similar autocracies and you despise democracies as you have repeatedly written in this thread.
I have done what is possible, in a form quite close to an ideal experiment. I have made a general claim that Western media lie, consistently, about the Ukraine.
So, what can I do to prove it, with an amount of work below a dissertation in political sciences? I think, nothing better than to look at the actual news about the Ukraine in the leading Western media and to find there an example for manipulation is even imaginable. If you have a better idea, please propose it.
So I have looked at the latest news about the Ukraine in a leading Western paper, usually considered as high quality (according to actually low standards), namely NYT. And I have found something in the extremely small timespan of two days. With a remarkable possiblity to prove the lies, because much better information was available on a non-suspect Western (Australian) source.
The particular manipulation which I have found there - the hush up of the version the people in this video have made - was also a nice chance to check if the Western media are somehow coordinated or not. And the result was quite remarkable. All the media I have looked at on the first pages of the google search have made exactly the same manipulation - the local version that the airplane was shut by a Sukhoi fighter was hidden. The only exception was RT, a Russian TV sender, and Radio Free Europe, which has Eastern Europeans as their target, thus, people, who also have access to Russian information sources, so that such a trivial manipulation would be too dangerous.
If your claims about the Western press would be correct, it should be easy for you to find more Western sources, which give information about the content of this video, including the particular theory of these guys on the ground, immediately after the shutdown, who have - plausibly without any coordination by some propaganda ministry, simply because there was not enough time for this, distributed the theory that the plane was shut by an Ukrainian Sukhoi fighter.
Sorry, but please learn the meaning of "unipolar world" and "multipolar world" in modern geopolitics. It has nothing to do with the press in a particular state. It is about the whole world. In a unipolar world, there is one center (the US) which has the power to control the whole world. In a multipolar world, there are different power centers - say, the US, Russia, China, India, Europe, Japan - each independent. The press in each of these centers may be controlled by the local power, the point is that there is no global power which controls them all. And non of this local power centers has the aim to control the whole world.
So, if I talk about a multipolar world, I'm not talking about internal Russian things. I'm talking about the global situation.
What I have claimed about the Gleichschaltung of the Western media I have demonstrated nicely, finding within two days an actual example of coordinated silencing of the, I would say, most important aspect of the video, namely, the evidence about seemingly undistorted versions of what has happened a few minutes ago. It is your turn to find Western publications which consider this aspect of the video in some detail. So, I challenge you to prove your claim
by presenting descriptions in the Western press which accurately present the openly accessible evidence given in the transcript
No. I despise the Russian state as well, but classify it as less evil than the American state. But there are, of course, also states which I consider less evil than Russia in a lot of aspects.
I have to acknowledge that I think that a sufficiently military powerful state like Russia is a necessity today for the whole world - because it is the main protection against the totalitarian horror of a US-governed world government. But personally I prefer not to live in Russia or China, as well as in the US. All three are far too totalitarian for me.
But, of course, given that I don't want to conquer any state, I do not care at all about democracy. It would give me a way to conquer power by winning democratic elections - but, because I don't want this, I don't care if I have this possibility. I care much more about the personal freedom which the states leave to me. And in this relation, an authoritarian state may give me much more freedom than a democratic one. (It may be also the other way - and it was, in Soviet time.
In a similar way, I don't care much about the mass media - I do not trust them all. But I know the technology of extracting useful information from propagandistic sources - I have learned it in Soviet times. The easy part of it is if you have propaganda from two different sides, and can compare them. In the time of the internet, this is already sufficient, even if one would restrict oneself to internet presentations of mass media. With all the independent internet sources, the job to find reliable information becomes quite easy. But I know even how to extract nontrivial information from the propaganda of only one side.
And I know simple methods to identify the level of propaganda in a given article, even without external sources of verification. All you have to do is to take care about the use of emotionally loaded words, and about the information which is given about the position of the other side. In this sense, let's finish with some point where I agree with you:
Indeed, this was a collection of links to NYT, NBC, BBC, Daily Mail, and German sources N24, ZDF, Stern, Blick, NTV, all this Western press, and all this manipulating their readers in the same way, by hiding the most interesting information of this video. Indeed a load of crap.
If there was some coordination is not that clear - anyway they all know the party line that MH17 was shot down by a BUK owned by the rebels, thus, they know in this case what has to be hidden, even without much coordination. But the fact remains unchanged - the Western press is a load of crap.
Well that was a more than a little distortion. The fact remains, you cannot support your beliefs about the Western press or the Russian state controlled press. You have made some very serious accusations against the Western press going so far as to call it fascist (e.g. Ukraine). Further the truth isn't evidence of coordination. The truth is simply the truth. It isn't evidence of coordination.
You claim to like multiple sources yet you uphold to only one, you view and read only one except when challenged to do otherwise and you believe only the state owned and controlled Russian media sources. That is docility my friend.
First of all, I have not even claimed that this particular case would be a proof of coordination.
But much more important is that we are not talking here about truth, but about hiding the truth. The most interesting information in this video was what the commander has talked about. They have looked for the remains of two planes, the civil plane and a Sukhoi fighter plane, and claimed that the Su fighter has shot the plane, and, then, was shot too. This was the version told to the commander.
This information was hidden. Deliberately hidden, because it was the most interesting news from this video, and all the cited articles have been about this video. The Western interest of hiding this information is obvious - it is in contradiction with the Western and Ukrainian version (a Novorussian BUK has shot MH17) and in support of the Russian version (which has given evidence about an Ukrainian Su fighter near the plane. The hiding of important, relevant information, because it is in contradiction with the own propaganda, is a classical example of propaganda lies. The same manipulation has been found in several Western sources, from America, Germany, Swiss, and UK.
But, I repeat myself, this is not a proof of coordination, the explanation that they all know the general party line, thus, know what has to be hidden even without any further coordination, and follow the general rule, is sufficient to explain this too.
I have found two sources who have not hidden the critical point. One was RT, a Russian source, the other one Free Europe/Liberty, a source with the aim to reach Russian citizens, who have independend sources of information, so that hiding this point would have no effect. The source which I have referred to as the original, which delieverd the full transcript, was an Australian one, thus, not Russian.
The sources I believe are, in fact, not Russian sources. In fact, I have seen other cases where the Russian media have been as full of lies as the Western ones, no difference at all. And I do not look TV at all, except some links to youtube videos, so RT is not a source of information for me. It is more reliable than Western media - as has been supported by this particular example - but I prefer to get my information from the internet. Thus, your claims about what I believe are your own phantasy.
I think so as people do not think of these things and they should.
That is what sells copy.
It is up to us not to give them what they want.
Talking animals and water walking genocidal son murdering Gods, as well as the curse of a bunch of virgins waiting to service us in heaven.
Those are their actual beliefs. They aren't lying when they say they believe that.
No one is that stupid unless insane.
You really want government officials deciding what beliefs you can hold and share? That's insane. You know they would go after atheists first.
That would be the last group that would need sanction.
Atheists tend to deal with facts. Not fictional and supernatural genocidal son murderers.
It would be illegal to say there is no God, because you can't prove it.
At least it is not said to con someone out of their cash.
Your statement is a logical fallacy and if we teach decent grammar to our kids, they would know to phrase it in a way that is not a logical fallacy.
Remember the atheist bus signs. There is probably no God.
If atheists can be that careful with their statement then so should religions.
Shame on Americans who protect and support the Bill of Rights? Interesting position.
The government has no place adjudicating religious issues. Plus it's not a con if the conman believes their own delusion.
Separate names with a comma.