Who Meddled more Putin or Trump? The Collusion Thread visits Venezuela

Have you actually read anything he has written in the past year?

paulsurovell said:

yahooyahoo said:

Greenwald is very biased.  Just an FYI.

"Most Humiliating Debacle in Ages..."
Seriously?  A story about an email sent to Don Jr. is the most humiliating media debacle in ages?

paulsurovell said:

Glenn Greenwald discusses on Fox his article on the false Russiagate report by CNN and MSNBC. But he also accuses Fox of "disinformation."

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/glenn-greenwald-calls-out-the-disinformation-from-fox-news-on-fox-news/

How is Glenn biased?

dave23 said:

nan said:

dave23 said:

I'm not surprised you support Assad and the idea that he's "supported by the people" has the usual intellectual rigor I've witnessed.

I'm not a foreign policy expert by any means.  But, I've been reading the accounts of people who have actually been there versus people just reporting on it and I'm inclined to believe them more.  Also, the history of the CIA.  They lie.  A lot.  And start wars.  So, healthy skepticism is a good way to go. 

Maybe read up on the White Helmets (and try to avoid the conspiracy theories about them), who have not only "been there," but have been in the middle of it all.

The White Helmets are considered to be a fraud by some investigative reporters.  

I think it is good to hear all sides of the story, including the one not on CNN and MSNBC and other news sources that are always on the side of more war.

LOST said:

nan said:

dave23 said:

I'm not surprised you support Assad and the idea that he's "supported by the people" has the usual intellectual rigor I've witnessed.

I'm not a foreign policy expert by any means.  But, I've been reading the accounts of people who have actually been there versus people just reporting on it and I'm inclined to believe them more.  Also, the history of the CIA.  They lie.  A lot.  And start wars.  So, healthy skepticism is a good way to go. 

There were Americans who went to Stalin's Soviet Union and said that they "had seen the future, and it works".

Young leftists went to Cuba in the 70s with the Venceramos Brigade and came back saying that Cuba was a Worker's Paradise.

Do you really think Assad was freely elected? You think American elections are "rigged" but those in Syria are free and fair? You think Assad lets visitors see the truth?

John McCain went to Syria more than once and sees Assad as totally evil. 

nan said:

The White Helmets are considered to be a fraud by some investigative reporters.  

Yep. Some paranoiacs think they are responsible for the gas attacks.

Skepticism is healthy, but delusional support of murderous dictator is not.

nan said:

I think it is good to hear all sides of the story, including the one not on CNN and MSNBC and other news sources that are always on the side of more war.

Putin and Assad are on the side of more war.

dave23 said:

nan said:

The White Helmets are considered to be a fraud by some investigative reporters.  

Yep. Some paranoiacs think they are responsible for the gas attacks.

Skepticism is healthy, but delusional support of murderous dictator is not.

I'm not going to get into this here with you because it is not related to the topic of this thread.  I would suggest you try to have an open mind and consider that mainstream media might not always present the truth (remember the Iraq War?).   Check out reporting by Eva Bartlett and Vanessa Beasley. They go to Syria all the time.  They also get slammed as conspiracy nuts so before you start throwing that at me, I already know (remember the Iraq War?)   Also Tulsi Gabbard, who went there recently.  Things are not always as they seem.

Two views (I have not read either in full).

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/18/syria-white-helmets-conspiracy-theories

https://www.rt.com/uk/413551-white-helmets-guardian-syria/

While the White Helmets might seem like the poster children for feel-bad humanitarianism, they've in fact become the target of a internet smear campaign, one designed to bolster the regime of Syrian president Bashar al-Assad and undermine its opponents, including the United States. Various White Helmet "truthers"—who range from Assad and his supporters to Russian embassies, and even to Alex Jones—accuse the group of staging rescue photos, belonging to al Qaeda, and being pawns of liberal bogeyman George Soros. The story of how that conspiracy grew is a perfect distillation of how disinformation can spread unchecked, supplanting fact with frenzy where no support exists.

https://www.wired.com/2017/04/white-helmets-conspiracy-theory/

nan said:

I'm not going to get into this here with you because it is not related to the topic of this thread.  I would suggest you try to have an open mind and consider that mainstream media might not always present the truth (remember the Iraq War?).   Check out reporting by Eva Bartlett and Vanessa Beasley. They go to Syria all the time.  They also get slammed as conspiracy nuts so before you start throwing that at me, I already know (remember the Iraq War?)   Also Tulsi Gabbard, who went there recently.  Things are not always as they seem.

1. I have an open mind. Suggesting that the CIA gassed Syrians is not "having an open mind."

2. Your mind is awfully closed if you think I don't read so-called alternative media. Arrogance is not the same as having an open mind.

3. Plenty of media who got Iraq wrong went to Iraq. Simply going to Syria does not make one a Syrian expert, especially if your conclusion is that the "people" of Syria "support" Assad.

4. No, things aren't always what they seem. But that doesn't mean warmongers like Putin and Assad are worthy of defending. Your dislike of war and your skepticism are very selective.

nan said:


I'm not going to get into this here with you because it is not related to the topic of this thread.  I would suggest you try to have an open mind and consider that mainstream media might not always present the truth (remember the Iraq War?).   Check out reporting by Eva Bartlett and Vanessa Beasley. They go to Syria all the time. 

Snopes on Ms. Bartlett:  https://www.snopes.com/syrian-war-victims-are-being-recycled-and-al-quds-hospital-was-never-bombed/

Snopes on Ms. Beasley's "White Helmets" story:  https://www.snopes.com/syrian-rescue-organization-the-white-helmets-are-terrorists/

Spoiler alert - neither person is reliable re: the White Helmets.

As I said, I am aware of the smear job on Ms. Bartlett and Ms. Beasly, including Snopes. As I predicted, you all came back with the the stuff I said you would. Where is the smear for Tulsi Gabbard, who also thinks along the same lines?  I would suggest that those of you who just run to Snopes (which is in fact biased--not fake--but biased, and sometimes flat out wrong), that you watch some of her videos on YouTube.  She is a serious person, and as I keep saying, the CIA lies. They interfere in elections and they overthrow governments and they LOVE to plant stories in the news.  Also, we should be respectful of this thread and not hijack it.  So start another thread if you want to talk about Syria.  

Yes, the "alternative" media has the same echo-chamber elements as the "mainstream" media.

ETA: Thread drift is part of the Internet's nature, and I don't think it's much a drift since Paul has made nearly identical defenses of Putin and Assad. It's all in the realm of not being able to say Russia and Syria are warmongering because Iraq and CIA.

nan said:

Where is the smear for Tulsi Gabbard, who also thinks along the same lines? 

Something tells me you haven’t the New Yorker profile.

nan said:

As I said, I am aware of the smear job on Ms. Bartlett and Ms. Beasly, including Snopes. As I predicted, you all came back with the the stuff I said you would. Where is the smear for Tulsi Gabbard, who also thinks along the same lines?  I would suggest that those of you who just run to Snopes (which is in fact biased--not fake--but biased, and sometimes flat out wrong), that you watch some of her videos on YouTube.  She is a serious person, and as I keep saying, the CIA lies. They interfere in elections and they overthrow governments and they LOVE to plant stories in the news.  Also, we should be respectful of this thread and not hijack it.  So start another thread if you want to talk about Syria.  

Calling the Snopes pieces "smear jobs", without actually addressing the facts and citations in those stories, is like Trump shouting "Fake News".  The smears of the White Helmets are planted stories that are debunked by real journalists. 

DaveSchmidt said:

nan said:

Where is the smear for Tulsi Gabbard, who also thinks along the same lines? 

Something tells me you haven’t the New Yorker profile.

I did read it and it was what I expected to read.  So, yes, it was like a quietish smear, but it was not like the snopes ratings.

nohero said:

nan said:

As I said, I am aware of the smear job on Ms. Bartlett and Ms. Beasly, including Snopes. As I predicted, you all came back with the the stuff I said you would. Where is the smear for Tulsi Gabbard, who also thinks along the same lines?  I would suggest that those of you who just run to Snopes (which is in fact biased--not fake--but biased, and sometimes flat out wrong), that you watch some of her videos on YouTube.  She is a serious person, and as I keep saying, the CIA lies. They interfere in elections and they overthrow governments and they LOVE to plant stories in the news.  Also, we should be respectful of this thread and not hijack it.  So start another thread if you want to talk about Syria.  

Calling the Snopes pieces "smear jobs", without actually addressing the facts and citations in those stories, is like Trump shouting "Fake News".  The smears of the White Helmets are planted stories that are debunked by real journalists. 

Eva Bartlett and Vanessa Beasly are real journalists.  You did not spend any time listening to them before plugging in Snopes.  Neither of us are big experts on Syria.  I'm willing to listen to different sides. 

nan said:

nohero said:

nan said:

As I said, I am aware of the smear job on Ms. Bartlett and Ms. Beasly, including Snopes. As I predicted, you all came back with the the stuff I said you would. Where is the smear for Tulsi Gabbard, who also thinks along the same lines?  I would suggest that those of you who just run to Snopes (which is in fact biased--not fake--but biased, and sometimes flat out wrong), that you watch some of her videos on YouTube.  She is a serious person, and as I keep saying, the CIA lies. They interfere in elections and they overthrow governments and they LOVE to plant stories in the news.  Also, we should be respectful of this thread and not hijack it.  So start another thread if you want to talk about Syria.  

Calling the Snopes pieces "smear jobs", without actually addressing the facts and citations in those stories, is like Trump shouting "Fake News".  The smears of the White Helmets are planted stories that are debunked by real journalists. 

Eva Bartlett and Vanessa Beasly are real journalists.  You did not spend any time listening to them before plugging in Snopes.  Neither of us are big experts on Syria.  I'm willing to listen to different sides. 

Just to recap-

First, someone brought up the White Helmets.

You said: "The White Helmets are considered to be a fraud by some investigative reporters."  You identified two.

I read a critical analysis of their reports and cited it.  I didn't "spend any time listening to them before plugging in Snopes" because I'm neither qualified to analyze, nor have the amount of time to do that, nor have ready access to materials to do so.

You didn't address what was raised in the critical analysis.  You just called it a "smear", without giving a reason.  Just because it criticizes the reports you say you relied on, doesn't make it a "smear". 

nohero said:

nan said:

nohero said:

nan said:

As I said, I am aware of the smear job on Ms. Bartlett and Ms. Beasly, including Snopes. As I predicted, you all came back with the the stuff I said you would. Where is the smear for Tulsi Gabbard, who also thinks along the same lines?  I would suggest that those of you who just run to Snopes (which is in fact biased--not fake--but biased, and sometimes flat out wrong), that you watch some of her videos on YouTube.  She is a serious person, and as I keep saying, the CIA lies. They interfere in elections and they overthrow governments and they LOVE to plant stories in the news.  Also, we should be respectful of this thread and not hijack it.  So start another thread if you want to talk about Syria.  

Calling the Snopes pieces "smear jobs", without actually addressing the facts and citations in those stories, is like Trump shouting "Fake News".  The smears of the White Helmets are planted stories that are debunked by real journalists. 

Eva Bartlett and Vanessa Beasly are real journalists.  You did not spend any time listening to them before plugging in Snopes.  Neither of us are big experts on Syria.  I'm willing to listen to different sides. 

Just to recap-

First, someone brought up the White Helmets.

You said: "The White Helmets are considered to be a fraud by some investigative reporters."  You identified two.

I read a critical analysis of their reports and cited it.  I didn't "spend any time listening to them before plugging in Snopes" because I'm neither qualified to analyze, nor have the amount of time to do that, nor have ready access to materials to do so.

You didn't address what was raised in the critical analysis.  You just called it a "smear", without giving a reason.  Just because it criticizes the reports you say you relied on, doesn't make it a "smear". 

No, someone brought up the white helmets in a conversation we were having. You make it sound like I went out of my way to attack them.  Then I simple said that they were considered a fraud by some investigative reporters, which is true.  I also said that people often smeared the reporters (there was a story on that just today in a major British newspaper) so I wanted you all to know that I was already aware of that.  I was thinking to myself, " I know Nohero is going to post Snopes in about 10 minutes, but maybe if I let him know I already know about that he will check out the journalists instead.  No, I doubt it."  Then, predictably, you posted Snopes, and are expecting me to give you a point by point analysis on a topic you, admittedly, don't even know much about. It's almost if trying to smear me is more important than the subject. Humm? Anyway, I did do that analysis, when I was first aware of those journalists, but it was quite awhile ago and I don't remember what what I found out, except that I still find them credible. I specifically said that I was aware of these journalist and thought them interesting.  I did not say I was an expert on Syria and was ready to have a big debate.  I also said that I did not want to hijack this thread.  So, go start another thread and I'll be over as soon as I can.  It is a subject I am interested in learning more about and will be spending more time on soon.  I'm also going to be reading a book on the CIA called The Devil's Chessboard, as soon as I finish Shattered about Hillary Clinton's doomed campaign (so bad).   So, much reading, so little time.  Happy Holidays to you too! 

Interestingly, as soon as the White Helmets were brought up this whole thread went EXACTLY as I expected it to.

ridski said:

Interestingly, as soon as the White Helmets were brought up this whole thread went EXACTLY as I expected it to.

It went as I had feared.

More or less predictable, but there's still aspects of that POV I don't really get. For instance, why are there no threads denouncing the accusations that North Korea was behind some major cyberattacks baseless? We have mainstream/corporate media and American intelligence services accusing a historical American adversary of nefariousness, plus the threat of nuclear war looming in the background, yet nary a quote from The Intercept or Democracy Now or Raw Story on this has appeared on MOL (unless I missed it -- always possible). 

Maybe the missing ingredient is Russia? There is a long historical connection between America and Russia, after all. Perhaps there's something specific to having Russia as a topic that gives it a leg up in capturing American attention?

Yeah, most people probably think of NK as a joke who can't be taken seriously (though their nukes are changing that).  And most of our opinion makers remember the cold war, so Russia conveniently fits into the villain category.

And if you looked at Putin standing next to Kim Jong Un, who would you think is the bigger threat?

PVW said:

More or less predictable, but there's still aspects of that POV I don't really get. For instance, why are there no threads denouncing the accusations that North Korea was behind some major cyberattacks baseless? We have mainstream/corporate media and American intelligence services accusing a historical American adversary of nefariousness, plus the threat of nuclear war looming in the background, yet nary a quote from The Intercept or Democracy Now or Raw Story on this has appeared on MOL (unless I missed it -- always possible). 

Maybe the missing ingredient is Russia? There is a long historical connection between America and Russia, after all. Perhaps there's something specific to having Russia as a topic that gives it a leg up in capturing American attention?

OK, so, as I mentioned, I am well aware of the smear campaign against Eva Bartlett and Vanessa Beeley. Here is a link to the article I mentioned from the Guardian:

How Syria's White Helmets became victims of an online propaganda machine

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/18/syria-white-helmets-conspiracy-theories

And here is an analysis of that article, revealing how it is written by an unqualified writer and provides no real evidence to support the sensationalist headlines.  Yet, will be taken as fact by many because it is published in the mainstream media.  Similar to what goes on in the Russia investigation.

Did the CIA coordinate their gas attacks in Syria with the White Helmets or were they just happy coincidences?

The CIA lies and interferes with the governments of other countries.  Given the history, it is always good to be a skeptic when it comes to regime change anywhere.  Feel free to make the case that I am wrong about that. 

You’re not wrong that it’s good to be a skeptic. It’s just that being a skeptic is a mantle that’s easier to claim than it is to wear without becoming one-sided.

nan said:

The CIA lies and interferes with the governments of other countries.  Given the history, it is always good to be a skeptic when it comes to regime change anywhere.  Feel free to make the case that I am wrong about that. 

As I've mentioned multiple times, skepticism is healthy, conspiracy-thinking is not. Critical thinking toward public info is great, imagining that the CIA gassed Syrians just because they've done some bad things in the past is not. 

How is this different than all the other times?  Did you see the released JFK papers?  The CIA was going to start a false flag attack in Miami and blame it on Cuba.  They were willing to kill American citizens to get us on their side to invade and take over another country.  They have backed coups in several other countries. How can we trust them to be honest this time?  Not that far fetched.  Baseless smear attacks in major newspapers makes it look more suspicious.

nan said:

Yet, will be taken as fact by many because it is published in the mainstream media.

Baseless smear attacks in major newspapers makes it look more suspicious.

For the record, the Top 25 Censored Stories contained a few that were listed despite being covered by the mainstream, major Guardian.

One can certainly be skeptical of the CIA without excusing or exonerating Assad and Putin.