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

nan said:

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.

So it wasn't the White Helmets, it was the CIA? 

Paul has accused the anti-Assad faction of gassing themselves. I'm sure you've happened upon similar theories.

No one excused or exonerated anyone.  One is skeptical of the official story. 

You do realize that the CIA of 50 years ago is quite different than the CIA of today, right?

nan said:

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.

Really, was the Iraq war 50 years ago? Amazing how time flies.

nan said:

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.

That's an awful video.  I watched the first part, and the two guys start out with an ad hominem attack on the reporter and speculate about motives, instead of an analysis of what was reported.  You criticize any reference to Snopes (which addresses the actual reporting), and then support this amateurish attack.

Seriously, if your position can only be defended by demonizing rescuers risking their lives in a war zone to save the innocent, consider changing it.

That's what I've been saying! Everytime I open one up, it's awful.

nohero said:

nan said:


...

That's an awful video.
...

The Iraq issue was far more a matter the fault of corruption by high level political appointees in the CIA than the CIA itself.

As for 50 years - you're the one who's still talking about Cuba and the CIA - as if that's pertinent now.

nan said:

Really, was the Iraq war 50 years ago? Amazing how time flies.

drummerboy said:

The Iraq issue was far more a matter the fault of corruption by high level political appointees in the CIA than the CIA itself.


As for 50 years - you're the one who's still talking about Cuba and the CIA - as if that's pertinent now.

nan said:

Really, was the Iraq war 50 years ago? Amazing how time flies.

So, you think the CIA is now a trustworthy source?  They don't lie anymore?  

nohero said:

nan said:

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.

That's an awful video.  I watched the first part, and the two guys start out with an ad hominem attack on the reporter and speculate about motives, instead of an analysis of what was reported.  You criticize any reference to Snopes (which addresses the actual reporting), and then support this amateurish attack.

Seriously, if your position can only be defended by demonizing rescuers risking their lives in a war zone to save the innocent, consider changing it.

The woman who wrote this article writes for Glamour, Elle and some business publications.  She has no background in middle east politics.  Yet here she is presenting herself as an expert on "anti-imperialist activists, "   Seems strange to me.  The other guy interviewed in the article has no personal experience in Syria.  The article is an attack on Vanessa Beeley without presenting her side of the story. They basically make the claim that anyone who criticizes the white helmets is a tool for the Russians. 

Not being funny, nan, but it appears that by “alternative news sources” you mean “conspiracy theorists”. 

I can out-character-assassinate everyobody if you want by talking about the discussions they have on stormfront regarding UK Column. The stormers call them “diverters”. Feel free to look that up.

nan said:
 

nohero said:

That's an awful video.  I watched the first part, and the two guys start out with an ad hominem attack on the reporter and speculate about motives, instead of an analysis of what was reported.  You criticize any reference to Snopes (which addresses the actual reporting), and then support this amateurish attack.

Seriously, if your position can only be defended by demonizing rescuers risking their lives in a war zone to save the innocent, consider changing it.

The woman who wrote this article writes for Glamour, Elle and some business publications.  She has no background in middle east politics.  Yet here she is presenting herself as an expert on "anti-imperialist activists, "   Seems strange to me.  The other guy interviewed in the article has no personal experience in Syria.  The article is an attack on Vanessa Beeley without presenting her side of the story. They basically make the claim that anyone who criticizes the white helmets is a tool for the Russians. 

Your "defense" confirms my description of the video - it's not a substantive commentary.  You should actually read the Guardian article being attacked.  You mistakenly accept the attack on the article that, "They basically make the claim that anyone who criticizes the white helmets is a tool for the Russians."  What they actually write is that the criticisms are manufactured false claims.  The people who wrote the Guardian piece are reporters, of course, and not asking you to rely on their own personal experience.  Instead, they REPORT information from sources who are on the ground and know the truth, like AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL.  Sorry for the all-caps, but it seems to be necessary because those details are ignored.  As the Guardian story describes:

The White Helmets play two roles within Syria. The first is their rescue work: providing an ambulance service, fire service and search and rescue in conflict areas where infrastructure has been decimated.

The second role is the documentation of what is taking place within the country via handheld and helmet cameras.

“This is the thing that has annoyed not just the Assad regime and Russian authorities but a lot of the propagandists who work in their orbit,” said Amnesty International’s Kristyan Benedict, a crisis response manager who specialises in Syria.

Their footage has helped organisations like Amnesty and the Syria Justice and Accountability Center corroborate testimony they receive from people in Syria via phone, Skype and WhatsApp. It allows them to check the aftermath of airstrikes to see whether civilians were targeted and whether there was any military presence or checkpoints.

“That’s really been damaging to the war narrative of Syria and Russia,” said Benedict.

You probably don't like how the Guardian piece discusses the background and veracity of the two writers who support the accusations against the "White Helmets":

Russian state media and a network of supportive alternative news sites continue to cast doubt on investigators’ findings, describing it as “illogical” and “deliberately staged” by militants. The alt-right site Infowars repeated the conspiracy theory, describing the attack as staged by the White Helmets, who were described as an “al-Qaida affiliated group funded by George Soros”. The White Helmets have never received funding from George Soros or any of his foundations.

Some of the most vocal sceptics of the UN’s investigation include the blogger Vanessa Beeley, the daughter of a former British diplomat who visited Syria for the first time in July 2016; a University of Sydney senior lecturer, Timothy Anderson, who described the April chemical attack as a “hoax”; and Eva Bartlett, a Canadian writer and activist who said the White Helmets staged rescues using recycled victims – a claim that’s been debunked by Snopes and Channel 4 News.

You're defending Alex Jones and Infowars (see bolded text for their claims) by siding with people who put out the video attacking the Guardian. 

nan said:

The woman who wrote this article writes for Glamour, Elle and some business publications.  She has no background in middle east politics.  Yet here she is presenting herself as an expert on "anti-imperialist activists, "   Seems strange to me.  The other guy interviewed in the article has no personal experience in Syria. 

Nowhere in the article does Olivia Solon present herself as an expert on anti-imperialist activists. If you click on her byline, The Guardian identifies her as a senior technology reporter, which is an unsurprising beat for an analysis of an online-based “propaganda machine.” (And a specialty that a wide variety of publications would find useful if she chose to write outside articles; a Glamour piece by her that I found, for instance, was about vlogging.)

Also, more sources than just “the other guy” were interviewed. I counted eight.

The article is an attack on Vanessa Beeley without presenting her side of the story.

From the article:

The Guardian contacted Beeley several times asking for comment and she declined to respond to specific queries, saying that the questions put to her were “a disgrace” containing “no relevant facts and are reminiscent of a McCarthyite interrogation”.

The Guardian also contacted Eva Bartlett, who said she had “no interest in participating in your quite evidently already-decided ‘story’ (an odd term for a journalist to use for an article)”.

Why do people on nan's and paul's "side" always hide behind saying they're a victim of McCarthyism? I wonder what their definition of McCarthyism is?

And Nan - the last 3 posts simply eviscerated you - you really should step back and take a look at your information gathering techniques and sources.

drummerboy - I'm still waiting for you to answer my question:  Do you think we can trust the CIA?

nohero-- since we are on the subject--how do you feel about that?  Do you think we can trust the CIA?

Cause that is my position here.  That we can not trust the CIA.  No one here, from what I can tell, is a major expert on Syria.  I see this situation and it seems to follow the pattern of so many we have seen before, as in Iraq and Libya. I have watched videos of Eva Bartlett and Vanessa Beeley and they are substanive because they both have spent significant time on the ground in Syria. We can't always run from information that does not fit what we have been told by mainstream sources (even Amnesty International).  I don't think they are tools of the Russians. Why are they not allowed to express their views for debate on mainstream media?  Why is a woman who  writes for Glamour and wired writing a hit piece on them?  Also, universally respected journalists, such as Seymour Hersch have cast doubt on Assad using nerve gas on his own people: 

https://www.welt.de/politik/ausland/article165905578/Trump-s-Red-Line.html 

In short, I'm skeptical of the narrative provided by my government and I'm keeping my mind open to other views. So shoot me.  As usual.

Here is another credible person, Noam Chomsky, expressing doubt about the Syrian chemical attacks last spring:

https://www.democracynow.org/2017/4/26/chomsky_on_syria_we_must_help

excerpt:

"But, well, there are some things we know for sure. There was a serious chemical weapons attack. Nobody doubts that. It’s plausible that it was the Syrian government, which does raise some questions. It’s not so obvious why the Assad regime would have carried out a chemical warfare attack at a moment when it’s pretty much winning the war, and the worst danger it faces is that a counterforce will enter to undermine its progress. So it does raise some questions. It also—even though maybe you can think up some reason why the Assad regime, which is a murderous, brutal regime, might have done it, there’s even another question as to why the Russians would have allowed it. Now, remember, this is a—the air base is a joint Russian-Syrian base. Russia has plenty of clout in Syria. And for them, it’s a total disaster. They have global concerns, not just local concerns in Syria. So there are some concerns.

And there are further concerns. There has been—the White House did put out a careful—you know, a justification, an intelligence report, to explain and account for, showing why they had absolute confidence that it was a Syrian government attack. This was analyzed closely by a very serious and credible analyst, Theodore Postol, professor at MIT, who has a long record of highly successful, credible analysis. He’s a highly regarded strategic analyst and intelligence analyst. And he gave a pretty devastating critique of the White House report. You might—you can pick it up online and take a look at it. So there certainly are some questions.

That there’s—that Syria is capable of a monstrous act like that, the Syrian government, that much is not in doubt. But one question that arises is: Before doing something, could you find out what happened? OK? I mean, let’s have an inquiry, take a look and see what in fact actually happened. There are plenty of cases where things—where it looked as though things happened, but they didn’t. And remember that reporting from Syria is extremely difficult. If reporters go into the rebel-held areas and don’t do what they’re told, you know, get your head cut off. Patrick Cockburn and others have written about this. You just can’t seriously report from those areas. There are obvious questions when you’re reporting from the government side. So the reporters are—there are very good reporters doing a serious, courageous job, but there’s not much you can do. So we just don’t know a lot. Well, those are the circumstances in which the 59 Tomahawk missiles were launched. That’s pretty easy. It’s easy to sit in Washington and push a button and say, “Go kill somebody.” That’s considered courage, you know, macho, showing how strong we are . . . "

nan said:

Why are they not allowed to express their views for debate on mainstream media? 

They were allowed for this mainstream article. They declined.

Why is a woman who  writes for Glamour and wired writing a hit piece on them?  

Has written (on occasion) for Glamour and Wired. Writes for The Guardian, as a senior technology reporter.

Also, universally respected journalists, such as Seymour Hersch have cast doubt on Assad using nerve gas on his own people: 

Hersh’s late-career work is not immune to skepticism, either, even from fans of his earlier accomplishments.

nan said:

Do you think we can trust the CIA?

Do you trust the KGB and Assad? If not, then I don't see why you care about this issue since there would be no actors that are remotely trustful. 

DaveSchmidt said:

Why is a woman who  writes for Glamour and wired writing a hit piece on them?  

Has written (on occasion) for Glamour and Wired. Writes for The Guardian, as a senior technology reporter.

A key point that keeps getting lost. The piece's focus is not the Middle East.

The woman who wrote the piece in the Guardian has no background in Asia or the middle east.  Why is she writing this piece?  No I don't trust Assad or the KGB.  I'm interested in what journalist on the ground are saying.  I don't know why they did not respond to that article, but since it was a smear piece, they were probably afraid of having their words twisted. They were not being asked to speak on video--although that can be edited too.  Remember when Jill Stein had her remarks cut out on the PBS News? (YouTube google: "Jill Stein Censored on PBS NewsHour"). Perhaps if it was a fairer venue they would.  They do appear on panels and you can watch them on YouTube. Chomsky and Hersch are good sources, and there is the report that Chomsky referenced:

"Theodore Postol, professor at MIT, who has a long record of highly successful, credible analysis. He’s a highly regarded strategic analyst and intelligence analyst. And he gave a pretty devastating critique of the White House report. You might—you can pick it up online and take a look at it. So there certainly are some questions."

nan said:

The woman who wrote the piece in the Guardian has no background in Asia or the middle east.  Why is she writing this piece? 

This question has been answered here, and reiterated just before you asked it again. I’ll chalk it up now as only a rhetorical one. 

I don't know why they did not respond to that article, but since it was a smear piece, they were probably afraid of having their words twisted. 

That may be. That is not the same as not being allowed.

Just because another poster chimed in does not mean the question is resolved. I still think it is questionable that a person with a  background writing for Glamor was chosen to write an investigative piece on Syria. If people ask you for comments and then twist them around and misrepresent what you have said it the same as not being allowed - IMHO.  Either way, your view is not being heard. 

DaveSchmidt said:

nan said:

The woman who wrote the piece in the Guardian has no background in Asia or the middle east.  Why is she writing this piece? 

This question has been answered here, and reiterated just before you asked it again. I’ll chalk it up now as only a rhetorical one. 

I don't know why they did not respond to that article, but since it was a smear piece, they were probably afraid of having their words twisted. 

That may be. That is not the same as not being allowed.

drummerboy said:

Why do people on nan's and paul's "side" always hide behind saying they're a victim of McCarthyism? I wonder what their definition of McCarthyism is?


And Nan - the last 3 posts simply eviscerated you - you really should step back and take a look at your information gathering techniques and sources.

McCarthyism is when they start blaming anyone they don't like as being in with the Russians.  The lastest one is Jill Stein.  Supposedly Jill Stein is now a Russian spy.  Even if you hate Jill Stein, you have to see this is total The Onion level bs.  

Edited to add -- Oh, and they are also going after Lee Camp on "Redacted Tonight"  He's related to General Lee from the Civil War, but evidently, according to NPR and the New York Times, he's in with the Russians now. He thought it was so funny that he wrote a spoof:  

Lee Camp: How To Create NPR’s Propaganda – As Seen In a Hit Piece Against Me

by my count, there are about 123 questions of mine that you've never responded to, so I'll wait til you catch up.

nan said:

drummerboy - I'm still waiting for you to answer my question:  Do you think we can trust the CIA?

I respond to all of your questions, unless they require 3+ hours of research to respond and I know you will just ignore the answer, which is about 75%.

This question is simple "Yes" or "No"   Do you think we can trust the CIA?

drummerboy said:

by my count, there about 123 questions of mine that you've never responded to, so I'll wait til you catch up.

nan said:

drummerboy - I'm still waiting for you to answer my question:  Do you think we can trust the CIA?

nan said:

drummerboy - I'm still waiting for you to answer my question:  Do you think we can trust the CIA?

nohero-- since we are on the subject--how do you feel about that?  Do you think we can trust the CIA?

Cause that is my position here.  That we can not trust the CIA.  No one here, from what I can tell, is a major expert on Syria.  I see this situation and it seems to follow the pattern of so many we have seen before, as in Iraq and Libya.

Speaking for myself, I did not make any comment about the CIA.  As for who I trust, I trust Amnesty International.  They are "major experts" and "on the ground" in Syria, albeit not hobnobbing with Bashir Assad.

Speaking of evaluating comments based on time spent in Syria -

nan said:

Here is another credible person, Noam Chomsky, expressing doubt about the Syrian chemical attacks last spring:

I'll evaluate what he wrote based on its contents.  But if your criteria for evaluating a commenter is time spent "on the ground" in Syria, or expertise on Syria, then you shouldn't then be citing Chomsky.  And since you did, you're undercutting your own complaints about the Guardian article.

nan said:

I still think it is questionable that a person with a  background writing for Glamor was chosen to write an investigative piece on Syria.

Thankfully, a “background” writing for Penthouse never got in the way of Sy Hersh’s universal respect.

 I always though Amnesty International was a good organization.  However, I have come across some criticism of their work in Syria as not up to their usual standards:  https://timhayward.wordpress.com/2017/01/23/amnesty-internationals-war-crimes-in-syria/ 

Chomsky has expertise on Syria and foreign policy in general and the CIA. He does not make any solid conclusions on this situation and speaks with caution. He is no Assad fan. He notices some familiar patterns and he references Hersch's work and the MIT professor's critique of the white house report.  I doubt you would have a problem with someone criticizing a white house report these days.

nohero said:
Speaking for myself, I did not make any comment about the CIA.  As for who I trust, I trust Amnesty International.  They are "major experts" and "on the ground" in Syria, albeit not hobnobbing with Bashir Assad.

Speaking of evaluating comments based on time spent in Syria -

nan said:
Here is another credible person, Noam Chomsky, expressing doubt about the Syrian chemical attacks last spring: 

I'll evaluate what he wrote based on its contents.  But if your criteria for evaluating a commenter is time spent "on the ground" in Syria, or expertise on Syria, then you shouldn't then be citing Chomsky.  And since you did, you're undercutting your own complaints about the Guardian article.

let's put it this way - I'd believe the CIA over you and your videos any day of the week.

And the only posts of yours that I ignore is when you are non-responsive to one of my own posts and instead go off on a bunch of tangents to avoid addressing my arguments.

nan said:

I respond to all of your questions, unless they require 3+ hours of research to respond and I know you will just ignore the answer, which is about 75%.

This question is simple "Yes" or "No"   Do you think we can trust the CIA?

drummerboy said:

by my count, there about 123 questions of mine that you've never responded to, so I'll wait til you catch up.

nan said:

drummerboy - I'm still waiting for you to answer my question:  Do you think we can trust the CIA?

nan said:

The woman who wrote the piece in the Guardian has no background in Asia or the middle east.  Why is she writing this piece? 

If you read it--or understood it--you'd know.

See next post.