Tulsi: Trump: Stop hiding Saudi role in 911 and protecting Al Qaeda
DaveSchmidt said:
paulsurovell said:And what, according to Ritter, is that collaboration? How, according to Ritter, does the propaganda function? I can’t speak for Ritter the way you spoke for Paulos, but I’m reading him differently from the way you are, which I hope I’ve already explained.
The "heroics" of the White Helmets are not the reason why Ritter and others (see Seymour Hersh video below) call the WH a propaganda organization. It's the sketchy videos they produce on Assad's alleged use of chemical weapons and the exploitation of their heroics to call for regime-change and an escalation of the war.
Ritter goes a lot further than you give him credit for on this:
Heroism, it seems, can cover myriad sins, even the collaboration with a designated terrorist group to fight a common enemy . . .[ . . . ]There is no escaping the reality that, for all of their heroic rescue work, the White Helmets function as an effective propaganda arm of the anti-Assad movement
I assume Ritter is referring to what I've described as self-evident -- that in order to function in Al-Qaeda-controlled areas, the White Helmets must cooperate with Al-Qaeda. The words "cooperate" and "collaborate" have slightly different nuances, but the essence is the same.
nohero said:
DaveSchmidt said:I can't speak for Ritter either, but as I noted before it seems for Mr. Surovell, if they tell the truth about Assad's atrocities that earns them the pejorative label of "an effective propaganda arm of the anti-Assad movement".
And what, according to Ritter, is that collaboration? How, according to Ritter, does the propaganda function? I can’t speak for Ritter the way you spoke for Paulos, but I’m reading him differently from the way you are, which I hope I’ve already explained.
What Ritter means by WH "propaganda" are their campaigns for regime-change and escalation of the war, their sketchy chemical weapons videos and their descriptions of themselves that no one else has confirmed (as stated in the official Dutch report as well as by Ritter).
DaveSchmidt said:
paulsurovell said:That was unnecessary. English is widely spoken in the Netherlands. The August government report, which I believe I mentioned before, is available in that language.
I recall an earlier debate on whether the Dutch government decision to cut funding from the White Helmets and others had to do with more than accounting issues. Not sure if this article was cited, but I did a Google Translation of the Dutch-language article from the daily Volkskrant:
https://www.volkskrant.nl/nieuws-achtergrond/nederland-stopt-steun-aan-syrische-oppositie-wegens-gebrekkig-toezicht-op-hulpprojecten-britse-organisatie-ontkent-kritiek-~bda7b84e/
Where did you find the link?
DaveSchmidt said:
paulsurovell said:Your certainty about Dr. Paulos’s concurrence aside, those three terms aren’t synonyms.
And I'm sure that he would agree that the choice of which numbers to publish and which numbers to omit has to do with the emphasis, viewpoint -- or narrative -- that a newspaper wants to put forward.
Here's Dr. Paulos's view of the Lancet/Johns Hopkins 2004 report:
https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/WhosCounting/story?id=1432589
Another figure in the news recently has been the number of Iraqis killed in the war. President Bush mentioned last month that in addition to the more than 2,100 American soldiers killed so far in Iraq, that there were approximately 30,000 Iraqis killed. He was likely referring to the approximate figure put out by Iraq Body Count, a group of primarily British researchers who use online Western media reports to compile an extensive list of Iraqi civilians killed. The organization checks the names and associated details of those killed. It necessarily misses all those whose names don't make it into the reports, and it makes no attempt to estimate the number it misses. The group's list contains almost 30,000 names at present.
A study that appeared in the prestigious British medical journal, the Lancet, in October 2004, used statistical sampling techniques to estimate all Iraqis killed because of the war and its myriad direct and indirect effects. The figure researchers came up with at that time -- 15 months ago -- was approximately 100,000 dead, albeit with a large margin of error. The Lancet study used the same techniques that Les F. Roberts, a researcher at Johns Hopkins and lead author of the study, used to investigate mortality caused by the wars in Bosnia, the Congo and Rwanda. Although Roberts' work in those locations was unquestioned and widely cited by many, including British Prime Minister Tony Blair and former Secretary of State Colin Powell, the Lancet estimates on Iraq were unfortunately dismissed or ignored in 2004.
These last 15 months have considerably raised the American death toll, the IBC numbers, and any update that may be in the works for the Lancet's staggering 100,000 figure. In fact, if the Lancet estimates rose at a rate proportional to the IBC's numbers since October 2004 -- from about 17,000 then to about 30,000 -- the updated figure would be approximately 175,000 Iraqis dead since the war began.
paulsurovell said:
I assume Ritter is referring to what I've described as self-evident -- that in order to function in Al-Qaeda-controlled areas, the White Helmets must cooperate with Al-Qaeda. The words "cooperate" and "collaborate" have slightly different nuances, but the essence is the same.
I don't know if your assumption is correct, but I do know that "cooperate" and "collaborate" aren't interchangeable.
And another piece by John Allen Paulos on the Lancet study of civilian deaths in Iraq:
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2004/dec/16/science.highereducation
The vital statistics of war
You can't count the cost of violent conflicts, but we should try harder to keep track of civilian deaths, argues John Allen Paulos
John Allen Paulos
Wed 15 Dec 2004 20.12 EST First published on Wed 15 Dec 2004 20.12 EST
Travelling in Indochina recently after reading reports of civilian deaths in Iraq since March last year, I naturally thought of civilian deaths during the war in Vietnam. Estimates of the number of Vietnamese killed in the Indochinese war vary considerably, but in 1995 Vietnam released a report indicating that approximately four million civilians were killed, in addition to one million combatants. These horrendous numbers have not been seriously challenged, but, depressingly, they haven't been the object of much interest either.
And Iraq? Estimating civilian war deaths is always an iffy, lonely and thankless undertaking, so it is heartening that efforts to do so in Iraq have been more prominent than any in Vietnam. Published last month in the Lancet, research conducted in Iraq by Les Roberts of the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health and his associates makes an earnest effort to provide a plausible range for the number of Iraqi civilian deaths.
To do this, the researchers first surveyed the Iraqi civilian war deaths in 33 clusters of 30 households each. The clusters were selected from across the country. Projecting these neighbourhoods' higher death rate since the war on to the country as a whole, they then argued that the number of civilians killed since the war is approximately 100,000, more specifically, somewhere between 8,000 and 194,000. The authors of the report further conclude, "Violence accounted for most of the excess deaths, and air strikes from coalition forces accounted for most violent deaths."
There are reasons to be sceptical (but certainly not dismissive) of the 100,000 figure. One, of course, is that the interval is quite large, reflecting the sample size and study design. Given the conditions in Iraq, the sample clusters were not only small, but sometimes not random either. When one neighbourhood cluster couldn't be visited, say because of blocked roads, another was substituted. Unless this was done in some systematic manner, biases could have arisen. Fallujah was excluded as being clearly unrepresentative, but since deaths from airstrikes are not uniformly distributed around the country, there are problems with its exclusion as, of course, there would be with its inclusion.
Furthermore, some of the study's assumptions were less than certain. The 100,000 figure depends crucially on a comparison of the death rate before and after the invasion, and there have been claims that the researchers pegged the pre-invasion rate too low. The estimate also depends on truthful reporting by the families involved, since a death certificate was often not available. It depends as well on the strictness of the criteria for attributing a death to the war, looser standards leading to a higher number of deaths.
However, even if the number of civilians killed is not as large as the Lancet study suggests, the number is no doubt bigger than the figure reported by Iraq Body Count. IBC is a group of British researchers who compile as extensive a list of Iraqi civilians killed as they can from published reports, hospital records and morgue reports. They check and fully document the names and associated details of those killed. They necessarily miss those whose names don't make it into the lists, but make no attempt to estimate the number they miss. Their list contains about 16,000 names.
So what's the real number? My personal assessment, and it's only that, is that the number is somewhat more than the IBC's confirmed total, but considerably less than the Lancet figure of 100,000. Interestingly, the number of civilians said to have been killed by Saddam Hussein during his long reign, which is usually put at 300,000, is probably overstated as well, since only a small fraction of these have appeared in mass graves.
Cost-benefit analyses of wars, although crude and reductive, are necessary tools for policy-makers. Too often, however, they overestimate benefits and underestimate costs, in particular those arising from civilian war deaths. At least (and contrary to General Tommy Franks' haughty assertion, "We don't do body counts"), every effort should be made to keep a reasonably accurate count of civilians killed including, when possible, their names and ages. For attempting to do so in wartime Iraq, the Lancet researchers and the IBC should be saluted.
Having used the verb "saluted," I note that, since efforts to count civilian deaths will miss many, we can do something else of a symbolic nature. In Arlington, Virginia, there is the very moving Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, as there is in Westminster Abbey. To those should be added a tomb for the unknown civilian.
· John Allen Paulos is a professor of mathematics at Temple University, Philadelphia, and author of Innumeracy and A Mathematician Plays the Stock Market. www.math.temple.edu/paulos
paulsurovell said:Although Roberts' work in those locations was unquestioned and widely cited by many, including British Prime Minister Tony Blair and former Secretary of State Colin Powell, the Lancet estimates on Iraq were unfortunately dismissed or ignored in 2004.
Thanks for the Paulos pieces. He doesn't say who was dismissing or ignoring the estimates, but because they were reported widely when the Lancet study came out, and had been cited hundreds of times in the MSM by the time Paulos was writing 15 months later, I can only guess he meant national leaders.
It's interesting what he did in those pieces: Fill them with caveats about the accuracy of the 100,000. It's also interesting what he didn't do: Use the rough Lancet figures in other calculations to extract tertiary conclusions. He's simply saying it's good to have the estimates, because they're better and more revealing than what we had before. I'd agree.
paulsurovell said:Where did you find the link?
At the end of this article:
nohero said:
nan said:See my post prior to the one you quoted. Whatever "posted evidence" you claim is, in a word, garbage. It was pointed out to you, but you keep returning to it. Sorry to use the term "garbage", but when you challenge me "Is there no doubt in your mind?" I may as well be clear about why what you posted doesn't create doubt at all.
nohero said:Right, and I've talked about it as well and posted evidence against them. I don't think Snopes or Wikipedia or the Guardian are valid as the last word on the White Helmets. We are not going to agree on that, but eventually things will come out and we shall see. I don't see how you can not be at least somewhat skeptical after all that has been posted. Is there no doubt in your mind?
nan said:See my post prior to this one for links to where we've already talked about this, over the course of some months. I've nothing further to add.
nohero said:No one argued for anything other than not taking propaganda at face value. If the WH is making all their own videos, we cannot be sure they are real and not staged. Since they are in favor of regime change, they are not neutral. One should be skeptical, don't you think?
If someone were to argue here that the White Helmets should stop rescuing people, and stop showing how Assad's forces are targeting civilians, I would disagree.
We can't be certain, but we can use our heads to not let garbage be part of what we consider.
And as Mr. DaveSchmidt pointed out already, you're completely misinformed about George Soros. I would only add that there is "garbage evidence" out there which makes all the claims that you've been hoodwinked by about him, especially the part about earning his fortune in the collapse of the Soviet Union. Also, before you mention it, he was not a Nazi collaborator.
nan said: I am not an expert on George Soros or his funding (did not hear that he funded the WH), but he did make his fortune over in Russia during the 1990's when vulture capitalists were buying up huge assets for pennies on the dollar and the Russian people were starving. I have heard that the Russians remember that and hate him.
Whatever money he had before, my point is that George Soros made lots of money in Russia through the Loans for Shares program, which was good for the oligarchs and disastrous for the Russia people. And thanks for suggesting I was going to say he was a Nazi collaborator--did not know you could read minds. Another great talent--trying to associate people with Nazi collaborator accusations so you can smear them. Low blow. I expect better from you.
nan said:
nohero said:Whatever money he had before, my point is that George Soros made lots of money in Russia through the Loans for Shares program, which was good for the oligarchs and disastrous for the Russia people. And thanks for suggesting I was going to say he was a Nazi collaborator--did not know you could read minds. Another great talent--trying to associate people with Nazi collaborator accusations so you can smear them. Low blow. I expect better from you.
nan said:See my post prior to the one you quoted. Whatever "posted evidence" you claim is, in a word, garbage. It was pointed out to you, but you keep returning to it. Sorry to use the term "garbage", but when you challenge me "Is there no doubt in your mind?" I may as well be clear about why what you posted doesn't create doubt at all.
nohero said:Right, and I've talked about it as well and posted evidence against them. I don't think Snopes or Wikipedia or the Guardian are valid as the last word on the White Helmets. We are not going to agree on that, but eventually things will come out and we shall see. I don't see how you can not be at least somewhat skeptical after all that has been posted. Is there no doubt in your mind?
nan said:See my post prior to this one for links to where we've already talked about this, over the course of some months. I've nothing further to add.
nohero said:No one argued for anything other than not taking propaganda at face value. If the WH is making all their own videos, we cannot be sure they are real and not staged. Since they are in favor of regime change, they are not neutral. One should be skeptical, don't you think?
If someone were to argue here that the White Helmets should stop rescuing people, and stop showing how Assad's forces are targeting civilians, I would disagree.
We can't be certain, but we can use our heads to not let garbage be part of what we consider.
And as Mr. DaveSchmidt pointed out already, you're completely misinformed about George Soros. I would only add that there is "garbage evidence" out there which makes all the claims that you've been hoodwinked by about him, especially the part about earning his fortune in the collapse of the Soviet Union. Also, before you mention it, he was not a Nazi collaborator.
nan said: I am not an expert on George Soros or his funding (did not hear that he funded the WH), but he did make his fortune over in Russia during the 1990's when vulture capitalists were buying up huge assets for pennies on the dollar and the Russian people were starving. I have heard that the Russians remember that and hate him.
The Nazi smear is another "alternative fact" claimed about Soros, like the one you posted. I mentioned it as a preemptive measure, just in case.
Here's some background reading on all the nonsense made up about him.
https://www.vox.com/2018/6/11/17405784/george-soros-not-a-nazi-trump
nohero said:
nan said:The Nazi smear is another "alternative fact" claimed about Soros, like the one you posted. I mentioned it as a preemptive measure, just in case.
nohero said:Whatever money he had before, my point is that George Soros made lots of money in Russia through the Loans for Shares program, which was good for the oligarchs and disastrous for the Russia people. And thanks for suggesting I was going to say he was a Nazi collaborator--did not know you could read minds. Another great talent--trying to associate people with Nazi collaborator accusations so you can smear them. Low blow. I expect better from you.
nan said:See my post prior to the one you quoted. Whatever "posted evidence" you claim is, in a word, garbage. It was pointed out to you, but you keep returning to it. Sorry to use the term "garbage", but when you challenge me "Is there no doubt in your mind?" I may as well be clear about why what you posted doesn't create doubt at all.
nohero said:Right, and I've talked about it as well and posted evidence against them. I don't think Snopes or Wikipedia or the Guardian are valid as the last word on the White Helmets. We are not going to agree on that, but eventually things will come out and we shall see. I don't see how you can not be at least somewhat skeptical after all that has been posted. Is there no doubt in your mind?
nan said:See my post prior to this one for links to where we've already talked about this, over the course of some months. I've nothing further to add.
nohero said:No one argued for anything other than not taking propaganda at face value. If the WH is making all their own videos, we cannot be sure they are real and not staged. Since they are in favor of regime change, they are not neutral. One should be skeptical, don't you think?
If someone were to argue here that the White Helmets should stop rescuing people, and stop showing how Assad's forces are targeting civilians, I would disagree.
We can't be certain, but we can use our heads to not let garbage be part of what we consider.
And as Mr. DaveSchmidt pointed out already, you're completely misinformed about George Soros. I would only add that there is "garbage evidence" out there which makes all the claims that you've been hoodwinked by about him, especially the part about earning his fortune in the collapse of the Soviet Union. Also, before you mention it, he was not a Nazi collaborator.
nan said: I am not an expert on George Soros or his funding (did not hear that he funded the WH), but he did make his fortune over in Russia during the 1990's when vulture capitalists were buying up huge assets for pennies on the dollar and the Russian people were starving. I have heard that the Russians remember that and hate him.
Here's some background reading on all the nonsense made up about him.
https://www.vox.com/2018/6/11/17405784/george-soros-not-a-nazi-trump
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/02/paranoia-about-george-soros-thrives-in-hungary-russia-and-israel-too.html
Just in case what? That I turn out to be the nut you want everyone to think I am? Stop putting words and associations in my mouth. I have not even looked at any of that and at this point we are only discussing Soros in terms of Russia.
nan said:
nohero said:Just in case what? That I turn out to be the nut you want everyone to think I am? Stop putting words and associations in my mouth. I have not even looked at any of that and at this point we are only discussing Soros in terms of Russia.
nan said:The Nazi smear is another "alternative fact" claimed about Soros, like the one you posted. I mentioned it as a preemptive measure, just in case.
nohero said:Whatever money he had before, my point is that George Soros made lots of money in Russia through the Loans for Shares program, which was good for the oligarchs and disastrous for the Russia people. And thanks for suggesting I was going to say he was a Nazi collaborator--did not know you could read minds. Another great talent--trying to associate people with Nazi collaborator accusations so you can smear them. Low blow. I expect better from you.
nan said:See my post prior to the one you quoted. Whatever "posted evidence" you claim is, in a word, garbage. It was pointed out to you, but you keep returning to it. Sorry to use the term "garbage", but when you challenge me "Is there no doubt in your mind?" I may as well be clear about why what you posted doesn't create doubt at all.
nohero said:Right, and I've talked about it as well and posted evidence against them. I don't think Snopes or Wikipedia or the Guardian are valid as the last word on the White Helmets. We are not going to agree on that, but eventually things will come out and we shall see. I don't see how you can not be at least somewhat skeptical after all that has been posted. Is there no doubt in your mind?
nan said:See my post prior to this one for links to where we've already talked about this, over the course of some months. I've nothing further to add.
nohero said:No one argued for anything other than not taking propaganda at face value. If the WH is making all their own videos, we cannot be sure they are real and not staged. Since they are in favor of regime change, they are not neutral. One should be skeptical, don't you think?
If someone were to argue here that the White Helmets should stop rescuing people, and stop showing how Assad's forces are targeting civilians, I would disagree.
We can't be certain, but we can use our heads to not let garbage be part of what we consider.
And as Mr. DaveSchmidt pointed out already, you're completely misinformed about George Soros. I would only add that there is "garbage evidence" out there which makes all the claims that you've been hoodwinked by about him, especially the part about earning his fortune in the collapse of the Soviet Union. Also, before you mention it, he was not a Nazi collaborator.
nan said: I am not an expert on George Soros or his funding (did not hear that he funded the WH), but he did make his fortune over in Russia during the 1990's when vulture capitalists were buying up huge assets for pennies on the dollar and the Russian people were starving. I have heard that the Russians remember that and hate him.
Here's some background reading on all the nonsense made up about him.
https://www.vox.com/2018/6/11/17405784/george-soros-not-a-nazi-trump
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/02/paranoia-about-george-soros-thrives-in-hungary-russia-and-israel-too.html
A big source of smears against Soros is the Netanyahu government. A fact that is unmentionable by @nohero.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/17/opinion/george-soros-israel-hungary.html
Oct 9, 2018 at 10:07pm Edited
paulsurovell said:
nan said:A big source of smears against Soros is the Netanyahu government. A fact that is unmentionable by @nohero.
nohero said:Just in case what? That I turn out to be the nut you want everyone to think I am? Stop putting words and associations in my mouth. I have not even looked at any of that and at this point we are only discussing Soros in terms of Russia.
nan said:The Nazi smear is another "alternative fact" claimed about Soros, like the one you posted. I mentioned it as a preemptive measure, just in case.
nohero said:Whatever money he had before, my point is that George Soros made lots of money in Russia through the Loans for Shares program, which was good for the oligarchs and disastrous for the Russia people. And thanks for suggesting I was going to say he was a Nazi collaborator--did not know you could read minds. Another great talent--trying to associate people with Nazi collaborator accusations so you can smear them. Low blow. I expect better from you.
nan said:See my post prior to the one you quoted. Whatever "posted evidence" you claim is, in a word, garbage. It was pointed out to you, but you keep returning to it. Sorry to use the term "garbage", but when you challenge me "Is there no doubt in your mind?" I may as well be clear about why what you posted doesn't create doubt at all.
nohero said:Right, and I've talked about it as well and posted evidence against them. I don't think Snopes or Wikipedia or the Guardian are valid as the last word on the White Helmets. We are not going to agree on that, but eventually things will come out and we shall see. I don't see how you can not be at least somewhat skeptical after all that has been posted. Is there no doubt in your mind?
nan said:See my post prior to this one for links to where we've already talked about this, over the course of some months. I've nothing further to add.
nohero said:No one argued for anything other than not taking propaganda at face value. If the WH is making all their own videos, we cannot be sure they are real and not staged. Since they are in favor of regime change, they are not neutral. One should be skeptical, don't you think?
If someone were to argue here that the White Helmets should stop rescuing people, and stop showing how Assad's forces are targeting civilians, I would disagree.
We can't be certain, but we can use our heads to not let garbage be part of what we consider.
And as Mr. DaveSchmidt pointed out already, you're completely misinformed about George Soros. I would only add that there is "garbage evidence" out there which makes all the claims that you've been hoodwinked by about him, especially the part about earning his fortune in the collapse of the Soviet Union. Also, before you mention it, he was not a Nazi collaborator.
nan said: I am not an expert on George Soros or his funding (did not hear that he funded the WH), but he did make his fortune over in Russia during the 1990's when vulture capitalists were buying up huge assets for pennies on the dollar and the Russian people were starving. I have heard that the Russians remember that and hate him.
Here's some background reading on all the nonsense made up about him.
https://www.vox.com/2018/6/11/17405784/george-soros-not-a-nazi-trump
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/02/paranoia-about-george-soros-thrives-in-hungary-russia-and-israel-too.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/17/opinion/george-soros-israel-hungary.html
Wow! Will have to look closer at this guy. Glad you are informing nohero.
nan said:
paulsurovell said:Wow! Will have to look closer at this guy. Glad you are informing nohero.
A big source of smears against Soros is the Netanyahu government. A fact that is unmentionable by @nohero.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/17/opinion/george-soros-israel-hungary.html
Paul and nohero are both pointing out smears against Soros. Bear that in mind when you look closer.
DaveSchmidt said:
nan said:Paul and nohero are both pointing out smears against Soros. Bear that in mind when you look closer.
paulsurovell said:Wow! Will have to look closer at this guy. Glad you are informing nohero.
A big source of smears against Soros is the Netanyahu government. A fact that is unmentionable by @nohero.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/17/opinion/george-soros-israel-hungary.html
Are you a Soros fan?
nan said:Are you a Soros fan?
I don’t know. Can he close a game against the Yankees?
Here's a smear of Democrat Tom Malinowski, running against Rep. Leonard Lance, based on a smear of George Soros, based on a smear of J Street, because it opposes the illegal and immoral Israeli occupation of the West Bank:
https://www.insidernj.com/malinowskis-ultra-left-albatross-george-soros-j-street/
If you replace the name George Soros with Bill Browder would you still call these smears?
Oct 10, 2018 at 8:25am Edited
ridski said:
If you replace the name George Soros with Bill Browder would you still call these smears?
Better yet, replace the name George Soros with "White Helmets".
[Edited to add] After all, Soros came up earlier in this thread because one of the smears of him involves the claim that the White Helmets video footage is fake.
nan said:
paulsurovell said:Wow! Will have to look closer at this guy. Glad you are informing nohero.
nan said:A big source of smears against Soros is the Netanyahu government. A fact that is unmentionable by @nohero.
nohero said:Just in case what? That I turn out to be the nut you want everyone to think I am? Stop putting words and associations in my mouth. I have not even looked at any of that and at this point we are only discussing Soros in terms of Russia.
The Nazi smear is another "alternative fact" claimed about Soros, like the one you posted. I mentioned it as a preemptive measure, just in case.
Here's some background reading on all the nonsense made up about him.
https://www.vox.com/2018/6/11/17405784/george-soros-not-a-nazi-trump
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/02/paranoia-about-george-soros-thrives-in-hungary-russia-and-israel-too.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/17/opinion/george-soros-israel-hungary.html
Neither of y'all bothered to read what I posted. If you did, you would have seen these words in the second url I posted: "paranoia-about-george-soros-thrives-in-hungary-russia-and-israel-too". I highlighted them above for your convenience.
If you went even further, and read the articles before saying that it's "unmentionable" by me that Netanyahu and his cronies would smear Soros, you would have seen this:
Given the not-so-subtle anti-Semitic undertones in much of the anti-Soros activism, it’s also alarming to see it so enthusiastically embraced by the current government of Israel. The Israeli right has criticized Soros for some time now over his support for the liberal pro-peace group J Street and organizations like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch that regularly criticize Israeli policies. More recently, Netanyahu has accused Soros of being behind the campaign against his government’s controversial plan to deport African migrants. The prime minister’s son Yair spread an anti-Semitic meme that suggested Soros was behind the ongoing corruption allegations against the Netanyahu family. Former KKK Grand Wizard David Duke and the neo-Nazi website Daily Stormer both endorsed Yair’s attack on the 87-year-old Holocaust survivor.
Someone needs informing, but it ain't me.
paulsurovell said:
Here's a smear of Democrat Tom Malinowski, running against Rep. Leonard Lance, based on a smear of George Soros, based on a smear of J Street, because it opposes the illegal and immoral Israeli occupation of the West Bank:
https://www.insidernj.com/malinowskis-ultra-left-albatross-george-soros-j-street/
Could outline what are the "good" Soros smears and the "bad" Soros smears? Does it depend on who is doing the "smearing" and for what cause?
nohero said:
nan said:Neither of y'all bothered to read what I posted. If you did, you would have seen these words in the second url I posted: "paranoia-about-george-soros-thrives-in-hungary-russia-and-israel-too". I highlighted them above for your convenience.
paulsurovell said:Wow! Will have to look closer at this guy. Glad you are informing nohero.
nan said:A big source of smears against Soros is the Netanyahu government. A fact that is unmentionable by @nohero.
nohero said:Just in case what? That I turn out to be the nut you want everyone to think I am? Stop putting words and associations in my mouth. I have not even looked at any of that and at this point we are only discussing Soros in terms of Russia.
The Nazi smear is another "alternative fact" claimed about Soros, like the one you posted. I mentioned it as a preemptive measure, just in case.
Here's some background reading on all the nonsense made up about him.
https://www.vox.com/2018/6/11/17405784/george-soros-not-a-nazi-trump
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/02/paranoia-about-george-soros-thrives-in-hungary-russia-and-israel-too.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/17/opinion/george-soros-israel-hungary.html
If you went even further, and read the articles before saying that it's "unmentionable" by me that Netanyahu and his cronies would smear Soros, you would have seen this:
Given the not-so-subtle anti-Semitic undertones in much of the anti-Soros activism, it’s also alarming to see it so enthusiastically embraced by the current government of Israel. The Israeli right has criticized Soros for some time now over his support for the liberal pro-peace group J Street and organizations like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch that regularly criticize Israeli policies. More recently, Netanyahu has accused Soros of being behind the campaign against his government’s controversial plan to deport African migrants. The prime minister’s son Yair spread an anti-Semitic meme that suggested Soros was behind the ongoing corruption allegations against the Netanyahu family. Former KKK Grand Wizard David Duke and the neo-Nazi website Daily Stormer both endorsed Yair’s attack on the 87-year-old Holocaust survivor.Someone needs informing, but it ain't me.
Well thanking you for mentioning it. I hope you continue to speak critically of Netanyahu and his nefarious policies. But don't expect @sbenois to "like" it.
Lots of information:
SYRIA EXCLUSIVE: Vanessa Beeley Meets the White Helmets and Armed Group Leader in Daraa Al Balad
White Helmet to Beeley: “Of course, here we do not belong to any one, but someone in the Western area, for example, might be Nusra Front.”
Beeley: “So White Helmets may also be Nusra Front?”
White Helmet: “Of course! They might be Nusra Front and run a White Helmet center, so this means all his colleagues are also Nusra Front, but not in my area.”
One of Beeley’s takeaways from this: Many White Helmet factions are led by the Nusra Front.
Beeley has other takeaways, including an emphasis, from the Syrian’s second quote above, that one Nusra Front means all Nusra Front in a White Helmet crew (and, her logic dictates, that one Free Syrian Army member then means all FSA). But going from “might be” to “many are” is a notable reportorial leap.
Excellent article. Thanks, Nan.
It's heavily documented and very nuanced; gives a good sense of what it's like to be on the ground in Syria.
Syria and Russia blame Al Qaeda rebels for chemical weapons attack on government-controlled Aleppo.
Syria has asked OPCW to investigate.
US media, politicians, muted.
Tells you something about US media and politicians.
In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.
Featured Events
-
Stephen Whitty Presents - Hometown Movie Stars: The Celebrated Actors Of CHS
May 6, 2024 at 7:00pm
For Sale
Garage Sales
-
HUGE Rummage sale to benefit the Bloomfield High School Robotics Team Sale Date: Apr 27, 2024
More info
Advertisement
I can't speak for Ritter either, but as I noted before it seems for Mr. Surovell, if they tell the truth about Assad's atrocities that earns them the pejorative label of "an effective propaganda arm of the anti-Assad movement".