|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
![]() |
#81 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 5,345
|
It appears that these guys are just flat out political campaigners who have also been going after the SNP as well - all funded by HM Government.
|
__________________
"I love sex and drugs and sausage rolls But nothing compares to Archie Gemmill's goal" |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#82 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,702
|
Originally Posted by Childlike Empress
The Military Review article also does not support MoA's implied conclusion. MoA does get the direct conclusion correct, but the thrust is that because some in the West have misunderstood/misused the Gerasimov Doctrine then Russia doesn't do those things. Both the MR article and Galeotti's writings (including the alleged recanting) make it clear that Russia does, indeed, engage in those types of activities and did so in Crimea. There are nuanced differences in what they do/did and what Russia understands the West of doing during the Arab Spring and in Yugoslavia, but those differences are evidence that a slightly different charge is required not that the accused is innocent. |
__________________
My kids still love me. |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#83 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 6,028
|
He admits the whole thing was made up, not just the name of the doctrine but admits that the paper was not discussing Russian strategy but Russian understanding of Western strategy. That he then proceeds to make some evidence-free assertions about how Russia is still really doing it doesn't in any way make the Gerasimov Doctrine anything less than basically a hoax.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos "We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons "Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#84 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,702
|
He does no such thing. He says in what MoA says is his recanting, the same thing he said in his original piece, i.e., that the Gerasimov Doctrine isn't really a doctrine, and that it is about a method for Russia to counter what it saw as the West's method for bringing about regime change. He recanting isn't a recanting because he had nothing to recant; he was correcting those who took what he said and used it as if it meant something else.
Originally Posted by caveman1917
As to the "unevidenced assertions" bit, if you think Galeotti, Military Review, or I, have come to conclusions regarding Russia's actions in Ukraine, then you misunderstand not only the purpose of those articles but of our own knowledge in the area. As that is not the topic of this thread, and as the topic has its own lengthy discussions elsewhere on this forum, I'll forego heading down that rabbit hole with you. Regardless if Russia is lily white reference Ukraine, the point stands that Galeotti had nothing to recant and did not in fact recant.
Originally Posted by caveman1917
"an expert of disinformation and hybrid warfare, created a non-existing Russian doctrine out of hot air and used it to press for anti-Russian measures." They are correct that neither "hybrid warfare" nor the "Gerasimov Doctrine" are Russian doctrines. The implication is that they do not conduct activities which fall under what many in the West mistakenly think comprise hybrid warfare or the Gerasimov doctrine. More specifically, the implication is that the Russians do not conduct activities similar to those they accuse the West of conducting in the Arab Spring and in Yugoslavia. They do. There are differences in detail, but the larger difference is in the view of what role those activities take. We can go deeper in another thread, perhaps, but I suggest you start with the Jan-Feb 2016 Military Review article that MoA references.
Originally Posted by caveman1917
Originally Posted by caveman1917
But again, Galeotti is not among them. What MoA calls his recanting is him trying to clear up what he said initially. Despite the fact I almost never agree with you, I do know that you are both smarter and better than this. |
__________________
My kids still love me. |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#85 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 6,028
|
How much time did it take him to come out with that after this allegedly legitimate misunderstanding? And even if the misunderstanding was legitimate that doesn't necessarily exonerate Galeotti, since he made the "snappy title" to seek sensationalism and public coverage of his blog. Doesn't sound very professional.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Let Q = "Russia does not conduct activities which fall under what many in the West mistakenly think comprise hybrid warfare or the Gerasimov doctrine" So just to get this straight, you are asserting that it is impossible for both P and ~Q to be true at the same time?
Quote:
Anyone with the property "an expert of disinformation and hybrid warfare" could trivially disprove you by simply making up a doctrine out of hot air on the spot. It's perfectly possible for P and ~Q and ~Q' to be true at the same time, I find your assertions to the contrary confusing.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos "We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons "Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#86 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,702
|
In his original comments about Gerasimov's speech; that's the point. Look it up if you like; it isn't long. He specifically claims that it isn't a doctrine and that Gerasimov didn't really originate it.
Originally Posted by caveman1917
What it really shows is that you haven't read the original Galeotti statement, and this despite your oft-repeated remonstrances to go to the source.
Originally Posted by caveman1917
Originally Posted by caveman1917
I'm moderately familiar with Galeotti, and quite familiar with Military Review, and Parameters, and Proceedings, and SWJ, and other US military journals. I'm also familiar with Soviet military operations and practices. There are others with which I have varying levels of familiarity above armchair general. What I do care about is when something is presented as counter to my experience, causing me to investigate. Such happened here. Turns out, MoA was wrong; you continue their error.
Originally Posted by caveman1917
Originally Posted by caveman1917
Originally Posted by caveman1917
Originally Posted by caveman1917
Originally Posted by caveman1917
Originally Posted by caveman1917
Originally Posted by caveman1917
The rest isn't relevant to that, but it is relevant to the implication that Russia does not do that sort of thing. You don't believe that MoA actually implied that. That's fine; I can take your stance for sake of argument. MoA does NOT imply that Russia does not do those sorts of things of which they accuse the West in regard to the Arab Spring and Yugoslavia. Hooray. We are agreed; Russia does do it. So I needn't show you what I offered. Good; time is short. Of course, you can pull out your logic equations -- accurately this time -- and show that failing to imply something does not mean that the something isn't believed or isn't true. I grant that. Of course, if it's not implied then the hubbub over Galeotti loses all meaning except semantically.
Originally Posted by caveman1917
"The accused, Galeotti and the West in general, don't seem to be innocent of the charge of hoaxing a document purporting to prove Russia's alleged strategy."
Originally Posted by caveman1917
Originally Posted by caveman1917
Originally Posted by caveman1917
Originally Posted by caveman1917
Originally Posted by 1917
When you demonstrate that my reasoning needs fixing, I will do it. What I said is that MoA claimed P and implied Q. I further said that both P and Q are untrue (though the Q bit is secondary to my point). You asked if I am saying that P and ~Q cannot be simultaneously true. That doesn't follow. Then you brought up a Q' which is for all intents and purposes Q restated, and I admit I do not follow the import of your bit about someone with the qualities of P disproving it. |
__________________
My kids still love me. |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#87 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 6,028
|
Your moralisms are boring.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
More importantly, doesn't negate the larger impact irrespective of whether Galeotti did it by accident or on purpose.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos "We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons "Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#88 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,702
|
What a load of tosh undeserving of the detailed responses I've given so far.
Complaints about my moralizing? Good god, man, that's your specialty here. You admit you haven't read the original (I knew it already, as proven by my stating it). You can't be sussed to admit that you misstated what you had already stated and that I proved you actually said by quoting it. According to your reasoning about Galleoti that means you meant it. Your P and ~Q nonsense would hold water if I had ever said that it was strictly P that implied ~Q, which I very specifically didn't. And quote what implies what I say it implies? I did. In my original answer to your question. You've made a fool of yourself here, caveman1917, which I did not expect, but there you have it. I don't mind discussing with someone with whom I disagree, even if I lose the argument. I do mind when that someone refuses to admit an error or fallacy, of which you have made several. And I very much mind when that person excoriates others for not going to sources and then adamantly refuses to do so themselves. I actually didn't expect it because regardless what you mistakenly think about my motivations, I actually do respect you and many of your arguments, but in this matter you have made a complete and utter mess of it and have shown a willingness for hypocrisy I did not think you have. Ah, well. Maybe next time. ETA: For the record, the above is still not paternalistic. It's disdainful. |
__________________
My kids still love me. |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#89 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 6,028
|
Nah you're just projecting, the only moralizing so far has been from you, I made no moral judgments whatsoever. Claiming that it's "my specialty here" is simply ludicrous, I challenge you to find even a single moral judgment I made here (not just in this thread but in any other). This particular projection is such a typically American kind of thing btw.
Quote:
Quote:
Are you now claiming that all the following are true at the same time? 1) You quoted from MoA the following: "an expert of disinformation and hybrid warfare, created a non-existing Russian doctrine out of hot air and used it to press for anti-Russian measures." 2) You quoted from MoA that which implies Q. 3) P = "an expert of disinformation and hybrid warfare, created a non-existing Russian doctrine out of hot air and used it to press for anti-Russian measures." 4) P does not imply Q. Because that's, again, inconsistent.
Quote:
Quote:
Why would I need to read something to see if it has a certain property (ie being foreseeable to be misunderstood in a certain way) when the author himself implies that it has that property (by stating that he is at least partially at fault for the purported misunderstanding)? Are you claiming that this article definitely shows that the misunderstanding was not foreseeable? Because otherwise I don't see what the problem is with me not reading it. What information, exactly, do you think would be gained by reading it?
Quote:
Quote:
|
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos "We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons "Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#90 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,702
|
All of this:
Allow me to anticipate your false rebuttal that none of this is a moral judgment. It is; you simply couch it well so that you have the plausible deniability of which you accuse Galeotti. Or were the reasons you could imagine about why I’d “like that to be true” critical but amoral? Frankly, I don’t care if you moralize or not; I’ve a fairly thick skin. But since you seem intent on finding moralization where it isn’t and denying it where it is, I’ve responded this once. And none of that gets into your specious generalization about Americans. See the exchange here:
Quote:
Let X be what you actually said. Let Y be me pointing out that X is false. Let ~X be the thing you made up as if it were X. Let Z be you acting as if the above did not happen. Are you saying that if you claim ~X and ignore X and Y that Z will be the truth?
Originally Posted by caveman1917
“Gerasimov’s article is not proposing a new Russian way of warfare or a hybrid war, as has been stated in the West.” I could also add their quotations from Galeotti’s piece that they call a recanting, but I’ll let you go back and read those if you like. Sure. See the bit about the statement you tried to change above. I did not answer for two reasons. 1) You have constructed a thought process that ends in blame on Galeotti regardless how I answer 2) It’s nonsensical. Foreseeable? Of course it’s foreseeable. It is foreseeable that anything presented to the public will be misunderstood or misrepresented by someone somewhere. Perhaps you meant “reasonably foreseeable”. If so, then my answer is somewhat the same. There are those with one bias who will take it to mean what many in the West mistakenly took it to mean. There are those with another bias who will take it to mean what MoA and you have mistakenly taken it to mean. This is regardless of whether Galeotti named it sensationally or stoically. The “somewhat” caveat comes from the fact that Galeotti admittedly gave it an eye-catching name; that means he falls short of the perfectly stoic end of the scale. It does not mean he slides all the way down that scale to Russia-bashing-propagandist. Oh, pish tosh. The jabs about paternalism and moralizing are precisely that along with you imaginings regarding why I would want to see something as true. Own it. And, no, I have not been remotely paternalistic unless you are using a strange definition. I could see how I could initially be seen as condescending, but I haven’t been that, either. I don’t barter in discussions such as this nor make deals to score points. Choose to read it or not. The choice speaks to the validity of your criticisms of others for not going to the source. And that’s it for tonight for me and possibly tomorrow (possibly not). Have a good evening. |
__________________
My kids still love me. |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#91 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 6,028
|
The reason was that it would be convenient for your conclusion to assert that your reading is the only possible one. And as far as I care that is neither moral nor immoral, it just is what it is.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
My point is that my use of the term "hoax" in that post wasn't literal as in faking a document, but generally as in "something which may as well have been faking a document for the results it had." Besides, by your literal interpretation of the term "hoax" I would have claimed that the West in general (as in journalists etc) has faked a document, how would you expect that to go? All them lining up by the dozens at a desk putting in a letter each? We've had information going around about a paper by a Russian general which purportedly explained a Russian Gerasimov Doctrine. Irrespective of how that all came to be, the result is indistinguishable from it having been a hoax (hence "basically a hoax").
Quote:
Quote:
and this was my restatement: We were simply talking about different instances of the use of the term hoax in my post.
Originally Posted by Garrette
Quote:
1. Galeotti accidentally caused that whole Gerasimov Doctrine thing. 2. Galeotti deliberately did a propaganda-by-headline thing. In order for him to have deliberately done it (propaganda-by-headline is a thing you know, where a misleading headline and possibly introductory paragraph is written but where further in the text it gives a different picture, in the knowledge that a lot of people will only read the headline and perhaps the first paragraph and just skim the rest) it needed to have been foreseeable (or "reasonably foreseeable" or whatever you want to call it) for him that writing the article that way would likely result in such misinterpretation. Hence, whether it was foreseeable or not is pretty much the only information which would allow us to exclude possibility 2. But since it apparently was foreseeable then the answer remains that we don't know whether he did it deliberately or not.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos "We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons "Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#92 |
Ewige Blumenkraft
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ivory Tower
Posts: 16,270
|
When Mycroft told us about those (commissioned by the) "senate reports" ruminating the Muh Russia data from facebook et al, one of the two was written by some group named "New Knowledge". On the same day these reports came out, the New York Times ran a very interesting story about election meddling in Alabama which, if we follow the logic of Theresa's and others' troll factories, has brought the narrow victory to Doug Jones. Central in it, "experimenting" with the "Russian methods": The guys from "New Knowledge". With a $100.000 bucks spent to make it seem as if Russian bots support the campaign of his republican opponent!
Make sure to check the NYT article or try this summary which concludes:
Originally Posted by Paul R
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#93 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Puget Sound
Posts: 12,498
|
The alt rabbit hole of Putin worship, where CTs are foisted with an abandon rarely seen, and where "pre$$titutes" are seen as the enemy, is hard to grasp when the pre$$titutes behave against the deep state. It's hard to keep track of the false flags, the false false flags, and of course the false false false flags.
|
__________________
To survive election season on a skeptics forum, one must understand Hymie-the-Robot.
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#94 |
Ewige Blumenkraft
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ivory Tower
Posts: 16,270
|
^ ANY excuse to keep head in sand welcome.
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#95 |
Rotten to the Core
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 18,882
|
|
__________________
All You Need Is Love. |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#96 |
Rotten to the Core
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 18,882
|
|
__________________
All You Need Is Love. |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#97 |
Ewige Blumenkraft
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ivory Tower
Posts: 16,270
|
Excellent dissection of the content of the "senate studies" and contextualization with Integrity Initiative and the New Knowledge false flag by Aaron Mate in The Nation: New Studies Show Pundits Are Wrong About Russian Social-Media Involvement in US Politics
Originally Posted by Aaron Mate
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#98 |
Rotten to the Core
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 18,882
|
|
__________________
All You Need Is Love. |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#99 |
High Priest of Ed
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 19,377
|
Yet somehow without having the time to educate yourself you still seem capable of forming opinions on these issues.
At no point did I volunteer to do your work for you. That you expected me to fact-check a partisan source you found was your own unreasonable expectation. I did what I would have done for myself, which was to dismiss the source once I recognized its partisanship. It’s kinda like reading Fox news. Sure, they could have the right of it, but rather than spend my time (which is also limited) sussing out the bias, I prefer to start with a different and less biased source. If you prefer to start with biased sources, that is your right, but you’re not right to criticize me for having a different methodology. Which is your way of saying they could have it right. Sure. They could. Again, at no point did I volunteer to do your work for you by fact-checking the source you brought to the table. If you want it fact-checked then do it yourself, my time is not less precious than yours. You are free to put as much or as little effort into making your argument as you want. If you want to criticize me for not taking the time to fact-check your source that you say you don’t have time to do, then that’s BS and I’m calling you out for it. That I choose not to fact-check your source the way you want it done instead of the way I would do it on my own is not the same as me as not wanting to contribute. Just like you I will contribute in the manor of my own choosing, which is independent of your expectations. I’ve read it. “Mintpress news” is not what I would call a reliable source. Having read the article, I’d say it’s also partisan, high on opinion, low on factual content. Supported by one anecdote where Mohamed Elmaazi showed up unannounced and without an appointment and was declined an interview, and then a few days later Kit Klarenberg of Sputnik Radio also showed up unannounced and without an appointment and was kicked out by a young staffer, and then later on they created a conspiracy theory about that staffer because they got his name and were able to look him up on the internet and learned he once worked for the Bernie Sanders campaign. Somehow they think that must mean he was an agent within the Sanders campaign. Evidence? We don't need no steenking evidence! I’d point out that the different between what they say they do and how Mintpress news describes what they do is all in the spin Mintpress puts on it. Take away the spooky adjectives and the alarmist rhetoric and there really is nothing left. |
__________________
Hamilton 68: Tracking Russian internet propaganda |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#100 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 1,885
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#101 |
Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 29,369
|
"The leader of the free world" wouldn't be jailing his political opponents and murdering journalists and defectors who expose him.
|
__________________
"Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales now! More, cheaper, better games, right? Right? |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#102 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 6,028
|
|
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos "We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons "Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#103 |
Ewige Blumenkraft
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ivory Tower
Posts: 16,270
|
btw, the latest in the line of inconvenient journalists thrown into jail without charge by the Empire is the great Marzieh Hashemi, Press TV anchor and US citizen who made the mistake to return to US soil to visit her family. Took the goons almost a week to even admit yesterday that they did snatch her in broad daylight. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#104 |
High Priest of Ed
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 19,377
|
|
__________________
Hamilton 68: Tracking Russian internet propaganda |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#105 |
High Priest of Ed
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 19,377
|
Hey look, she was released!
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local...131_story.html Almost as though the cover story of her being a material witness for a grand jury investigation were literally true. |
__________________
Hamilton 68: Tracking Russian internet propaganda |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#106 |
Pi
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 16,855
|
|
__________________
Up the River! |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#107 |
Ewige Blumenkraft
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ivory Tower
Posts: 16,270
|
Kudos to the Guardian for an actually good article mentioning the "uproar" that indeed happened internationally, and even linking to a statement on the PressTV website. She has released a video message by now, showing her class as she doesn't whine about her own treatment but makes this about the general, ridiculous situation. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#108 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 42,539
|
|
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty. Robert Heinlein. |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#109 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 42,539
|
I just thought of a name for the Russian Strategy of undermining their opponents by trying to put people or situations that create chaos in place. Call it "The Rasputin strategy".
|
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty. Robert Heinlein. |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#110 |
High Priest of Ed
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 19,377
|
Even you put "uproar" in quotes. The headline implies she was released due to the "uproar", but it seems more likely she was released because she delivered the testemony they wanted and they were done with her.
So, in stark contrast to the tu quoque fallacy that brought her to this thread, she wasn't jailed to silence her, nor was she murdered as Putin likes to do to his enemies. The most egregious crime done to her was to be denied halal food while in custody. Let me tell you I am totally with you guys on that one. She should definately have been served halal food while in custody. At the same time, I suspect I care more about that issue than you guys do, and am pretty certain that a society run by CE or CM1917 wouldn't allow prisoners the food of their religious choice either. |
__________________
Hamilton 68: Tracking Russian internet propaganda |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#111 |
Ewige Blumenkraft
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ivory Tower
Posts: 16,270
|
Originally Posted by PressTV
Anyway, the "blame things we do on what we want you to believe are your enemies" stunts this thread is mainly about are continuing to be exposed, with the fifth batch of the "Integrity Initiative" leaks published two days ago. Some research threads are a bit hanging in the air atm, but I'm optimistic more insiders will feel empowered to shine some light on them in the very near future. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#112 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 42,539
|
|
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty. Robert Heinlein. |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#113 |
High Priest of Ed
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 19,377
|
|
__________________
Hamilton 68: Tracking Russian internet propaganda |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#114 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 42,539
|
Deborah Lishshitz, of "Denial" fame, has a book coming out on cureent day Anti Semitism.
From the Amazon blurb, she thinks that Anti Semeitism is on the rise both on the hard line left and right of the political spectrum. Should upset a lot of people on both sides of the p;olitical spectru, which is a strong point in it's favor. |
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty. Robert Heinlein. |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#115 |
Ewige Blumenkraft
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ivory Tower
Posts: 16,270
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | |
|
|