Theresa's troll factory smears Putin by association with antisemitic Anglo nutjobs

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

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.

[Garrette]

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

Well, nobody claimed that these people are intelligent, only intelligence. While we're at crude "accusing the other side of doing what we do" operations, and because some of the "slower" parrots here still throw the terms around, from b's latest:

Originally Posted by b

[...] [Institute for Statecraft Expert Team member Mark] Galeotti is the infamous inventor of the 'Gerasimov doctrine' and of the propaganda about Russia's alleged 'hybrid' warfare. In February 2013 the Russian General Valery Gerasimov, then Russia’s chief of the General Staff, published a paper that analysed the way the 'west' is waging a new type of war by mixing propaganda, proxy armies and military force into one unified operation.

Galeotti claimed that Gerasimov's analysis of 'western' operations was a new Russian doctrine of 'hybrid war'. He invented the term 'Gerasimov doctrine' which then took off in the propaganda realm. In February 2016 the U.S. Army Military Review published a longer analysis of Gerasimov's paper that debunked the nonsense (pdf). It concluded:

Gerasimov’s article is not proposing a new Russian way of warfare or a hybrid war, as has been stated in the West.

But anti-Russian propagandist repeated Galeotti's nonsense over and over. Only in March 2018, five years after Galeotti invented the 'Germasimov doctrine' and two years after he was thoroughly debunked, he finally recanted:

Everywhere, you’ll find scholars, pundits, and policymakers talking about the threat the “Gerasimov doctrine” — named after Russia’s chief of the general staff — poses to the West. It’s a new way of war, “an expanded theory of modern warfare,” or even “a vision of total warfare.”

There’s one small problem. It doesn’t exist. And the longer we pretend it does, the longer we misunderstand the — real, but different — challenge Russia poses.

I feel I can say that because, to my immense chagrin, I created this term, which has since acquired a destructive life of its own, lumbering clumsily into the world to spread fear and loathing in its wake.

The Institute for Statecraft's "Specialist in Russian strategic thinking", 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. Like Ben Nimmo he is an aptly example of the quality of the Institute's experts and work. [...]

This analysis does MoA no favors in regard to building credibility. MoA is correct in stating that Western media misunderstood and some Western pols misused Galeotti's "Gerasimov Doctrine" and "hybrid warfare." They are wrong, though in saying that Galeotti recanted (he had no need to recant; he wasn't wrong except in creating a poorly crafted moniker; he was misunderstood). What MoA calls Galeotti's recanting is just his final attempt at explaining what he actually said.

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.

[caveman1917]

Originally Posted by Garrette

This analysis does MoA no favors in regard to building credibility. MoA is correct in stating that Western media misunderstood and some Western pols misused Galeotti's "Gerasimov Doctrine" and "hybrid warfare." They are wrong, though in saying that Galeotti recanted (he had no need to recant; he wasn't wrong except in creating a poorly crafted moniker; he was misunderstood). What MoA calls Galeotti's recanting is just his final attempt at explaining what he actually said.

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:

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.

Where does MoA say that "because some in the West have misunderstood/misused the Gerasimov Doctrine then Russia doesn't do those things"?

Quote:

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.

Nonsense, evidence-free assertions by random dudes (not random even, worse than random, dudes who literally just admitted to hoaxing documents) does not make anything clear.

Quote:

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.

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.

[Garrette]

Originally Posted by caveman1917

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.

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

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.

If it was a hoax, it was not of Galeotti's doing; that's the point, and it is less likely a hoax (for most) than it is a legitimate misunderstanding of what Galeotti was saying. Any other reading of Galeotti's original piece or the piece linked by MoA which says different is either hopelessly ignorant or intentionally deceitful, and since I know that you are quite intelligent and well informed, the first is out. I will hold the second in abeyance on the off chance you're simply taking CE's and MoA's words on this without having done any checking yourself.

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

Where does MoA say that "because some in the West have misunderstood/misused the Gerasimov Doctrine then Russia doesn't do those things"?

Since I quite explicitly stated that those words are MoA's implied conclusion, such words have not, to my knowledge, escaped their pen, so I'll show you where they said it when you show me where I said they said it. Until then, this bit from CE's link shows the gist:

"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

Nonsense, evidence-free assertions by random dudes (not random even, worse than random, dudes who literally just admitted to hoaxing documents) does not make anything clear.

Again, Galeotti admitted to no such thing because he did not hoax anything, particularly not any documents.

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.

The fact you have upgraded the charge to "hoaxing a document" is ludicrous and beneath you. Even if the claims about Galeotti were true, it wouldn't be hoaxing a document, it would be misrepresenting one. But Galeotti did not do that. I grant you, as I did in my earlier post, that some who read Galeotti took a wrongful meaning from it; I suspect most did so simply because the subject is beyond their normal experience. I further suspect that some intentionally misrepresented it. Welcome to humanity. Where those some had influence, bad on them; point them out and shame them.

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.

[caveman1917]

Originally Posted by Garrette

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. If it was a hoax, it was not of Galeotti's doing; that's the point, and it is less likely a hoax (for most) than it is a legitimate misunderstanding of what Galeotti was saying.

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:

Any other reading of Galeotti's original piece or the piece linked by MoA which says different is either hopelessly ignorant or intentionally deceitful, and since I know that you are quite intelligent and well informed, the first is out. I will hold the second in abeyance on the off chance you're simply taking CE's and MoA's words on this without having done any checking yourself.

You mean any other reading than a "blindly believing" reading? Yes, one could imagine why you'd like that to be true. For all I know he wasn't doing it to seek sensationalism but, indeed, as propaganda knowing what the result would be. Hence why it would be interesting to know how long it took him to come out with it.

Quote:

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.

You basically do nothing else, for example:

Quote:

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.

Quote:

Since I quite explicitly stated that those words are MoA's implied conclusion, such words have not, to my knowledge, escaped their pen, so I'll show you where they said it when you show me where I said they said it.

Ok then, which words of MoA do you claim imply that conclusion?

Quote:

Until then, this bit from CE's link shows the gist:

"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.

Let 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."

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:

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.

Let Q' = "the Russians do not conduct activities similar to those they accuse the West of conducting in the Arab Spring and in Yugoslavia."

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:

They do.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. So you, Galeotti, et al keep repeating ad nauseam. Let me know when you got some evidence.

Quote:

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.

How about you first prove your assertions above and show that it is even relevant in the first place?

Quote:

Again, Galeotti admitted to no such thing because he did not hoax anything, particularly not any documents.

The fact you have upgraded the charge to "hoaxing a document" is ludicrous and beneath you. Even if the claims about Galeotti were true, it wouldn't be hoaxing a document, it would be misrepresenting one.

I said that the Gerasimov Doctrine was "basically a hoax." As in "it may as well have been for the results it had."

Quote:

But Galeotti did not do that.

How do you know that?

Quote:

I grant you, as I did in my earlier post, that some who read Galeotti took a wrongful meaning from it; I suspect most did so simply because the subject is beyond their normal experience. I further suspect that some intentionally misrepresented it. Welcome to humanity. Where those some had influence, bad on them; point them out and shame them.

Galeotti seems mostly hilariously partisan and propagandistic to me. And I don't yet see reason to exclude the "he did it on purpose but kept plausible deniability by saying he was just seeking sensation" possibility. On what basis have you excluded it?

Quote:

But again, Galeotti is not among them. What MoA calls his recanting is him trying to clear up what he said initially.

Maybe, maybe not.

Quote:

Despite the fact I almost never agree with you, I do know that you are both smarter and better than this.

Pah! Rather than your paternalistic telling me what to conclude (ie which propositions I shall consider true with which probabilities, such as what Galeotti did or did not do or what Russia does or does not do) without providing evidence, how about you first fix your own reasoning (ie the 'connection' thing connecting truth-values of some propositions to other propositions) problems with your assertions about P, Q and Q'?

[Garrette]

Originally Posted by caveman1917

How much time did it take him to come out with that after this allegedly legitimate misunderstanding?

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

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.

Ah.This is certainly evil. Far, far more evil, of course, than MoA misrepresenting what Galeotti said. Stop pretending that either you, the Russians, or MoA, have any moral high ground on which to stand in regard to hyperbole or that this is actually an example of terrible hyperbole.

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

You mean any other reading than a "blindly believing" reading?

No. I mean an actual reading without interpretation and highly biased glasses. In your specific case I mean actually reading it. You obviously haven't, so your criticisms are empty.

Originally Posted by caveman1917

Yes, one could imagine why you'd like that to be true.

Yes, one can imagine many things, and in this case they would nearly all be false. I suspect your imaginings are in that group. Frankly, it makes no difference to my world view if Galeotti is proven to be Dick Cheney's more hawkish brother who has never told a truth in his life.

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

For all I know he wasn't doing it to seek sensationalism but, indeed, as propaganda knowing what the result would be. Hence why it would be interesting to know how long it took him to come out with it.

Again, it's in his original article.

Originally Posted by caveman1917

You basically do nothing else, for example:

Mea culpa. Reading that, I'm not sure of the exact wording I intended, but the gist was supposed to be "if you think our conclusions are based on headlines and little evidence, then you are mistaken." Apologies for my rushed and flawed composition.

Originally Posted by caveman1917

Ok then, which words of MoA do you claim imply that conclusion?

You answered your question by quoting me just after this.

Originally Posted by caveman1917

Let 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."

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?

No, and your must wear really want that interpretation to get to it.

Originally Posted by caveman1917

Let Q' = "the Russians do not conduct activities similar to those they accuse the West of conducting in the Arab Spring and in Yugoslavia."

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.

Then you are looking to be confused. Read Galeotti. Read CE's link to MoA (I think she quotes the MoA bit about Galeotti in full -- it's at least close. The Galeotti bit makes clear their implication beyond the specific accusation of "Galeotti finally admits he lied" (obviously my paraphrase), and the remainder of the link buttresses it.

Originally Posted by caveman1917

Yeah, yeah, yeah. So you, Galeotti, et al keep repeating ad nauseam. Let me know when you got some evidence.

This forum is rife with it. I've no desire to reopen that discussion.

Originally Posted by caveman1917

How about you first prove your assertions above and show that it is even relevant in the first place?

My primary assertion is that MoA misrepresented Galeotti in claiming that he lied in his original article about Gerasimov and then that he finally recanted. That is proven, your substanceless histrionics to the contrary notwithstanding.

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

I said that the Gerasimov Doctrine was "basically a hoax." As in "it may as well have been for the results it had."

You said exactly what I quote you as saying:

"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

How do you know that?

I read the original article he wrote. I recommend it. You will undoubtedly find something about which to legitimately complain, but hoaxing a document is not among them.

Originally Posted by caveman1917

Galeotti seems mostly hilariously partisan and propagandistic to me.

I gather. It seems you have created that characterization without supporting evidence to me. Shall we continue with what seems?

Originally Posted by caveman1917

And I don't yet see reason to exclude the "he did it on purpose but kept plausible deniability by saying he was just seeking sensation" possibility. On what basis have you excluded it?

I read it.

Originally Posted by caveman1917

Maybe, maybe not.

No. It's definite. Read both the originating article and what MoA links to.

Originally Posted by 1917

Pah! Rather than your paternalistic telling me what to conclude (ie which propositions I shall consider true with which probabilities, such as what Galeotti did or did not do or what Russia does or does not do) without providing evidence, how about you first fix your own reasoning (ie the 'connection' thing connecting truth-values of some propositions to other propositions) problems with your assertions about P, Q and Q'?

When I am feeling and acting paternalistic, you will know. I have no problem making an honest admission about someone else's knowledge, intelligence, experience, skills, whatever. Both the compliment and the criticism in that statement were truly felt. Still are.

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.

[caveman1917]

Originally Posted by Garrette

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.

Ah.This is certainly evil. Far, far more evil, of course, than MoA misrepresenting what Galeotti said. Stop pretending that either you, the Russians, or MoA, have any moral high ground on which to stand in regard to hyperbole or that this is actually an example of terrible hyperbole.

Your moralisms are boring.

Quote:

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.

No. I mean an actual reading without interpretation and highly biased glasses. In your specific case I mean actually reading it. You obviously haven't, so your criticisms are empty.

Either it was foreseeable or not that the article would get interpreted that way. If it was not foreseeable then why does he himself say that it was at least partially his fault? So it was foreseeable, in which case it would also be foreseeable for someone wanting to create that result on purpose.

Quote:

Yes, one can imagine many things, and in this case they would nearly all be false. I suspect your imaginings are in that group. Frankly, it makes no difference to my world view if Galeotti is proven to be Dick Cheney's more hawkish brother who has never told a truth in his life.

Really? Then why do you bother making assertions about what Galeotti did or did not do?

Quote:

Mea culpa. Reading that, I'm not sure of the exact wording I intended, but the gist was supposed to be "if you think our conclusions are based on headlines and little evidence, then you are mistaken." Apologies for my rushed and flawed composition.

Again yeah, yeah, yeah, so you lot keep repeating ad nauseam. But I'm sorry, I just care more about the evidence than about mere endless assertion that it exists.

Quote:

No, and your must wear really want that interpretation to get to it.

Then define your use of the term "implication" because under the standard definition it exactly does mean "not (p and not q)".

Quote:

Then you are looking to be confused.

Hardly, you claim that Q is an implication of P and at the same time claim that it is possible that P is true and Q is not true.

Quote:

Read Galeotti. Read CE's link to MoA (I think she quotes the MoA bit about Galeotti in full -- it's at least close. The Galeotti bit makes clear their implication beyond the specific accusation of "Galeotti finally admits he lied" (obviously my paraphrase), and the remainder of the link buttresses it.

Let's make it simple, quote the words from MoA which you assert imply Q and Q'.

Quote:

My primary assertion is that MoA misrepresented Galeotti in claiming that he lied in his original article about Gerasimov and then that he finally recanted. That is proven, your substanceless histrionics to the contrary notwithstanding.

Sure. Doesn't mean Galeotti didn't deliberately do it as propaganda though. It would be hardly difficult for someone who would want to do it as propaganda to come up with "use a snappy headline that gives the wrong impression but then put some words deep in the text for plausible deniability" or something. Again, it depends on whether you consider the result to have been foreseeable or not, and apparently Galeotti himself considers it to be so since otherwise he wouldn't be at least partially at fault.

More importantly, doesn't negate the larger impact irrespective of whether Galeotti did it by accident or on purpose.

Quote:

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.

I was accurate the previous time too, which I see you haven't really addressed. Please explain how P can imply Q yet it still being possible that P is true and Q is not true. And of course, yes, your conclusion "We are agreed; Russia does do it" doesn't follow from "MoA does not imply that Russia does not do those sorts of things" - why would you even bother me with that?

Quote:

I gather. It seems you have created that characterization without supporting evidence to me. Shall we continue with what seems?

Nope, reached it on the basis of his "I’m Sorry for Creating the ‘Gerasimov Doctrine’" article which was directly linked to by MoA. Also the reason I wasn't particularly putting much value in reading more of him.

Quote:

I read it.

So was the misunderstanding foreseeable or not?

Quote:

No. It's definite. Read both the originating article and what MoA links to.

It was definitely unforeseeable? Then why would he need to apologize?

Quote:

When I am feeling and acting paternalistic, you will know. I have no problem making an honest admission about someone else's knowledge, intelligence, experience, skills, whatever. Both the compliment and the criticism in that statement were truly felt. Still are.

When you demonstrate that my reasoning needs fixing, I will do it.

I have.

Quote:

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.

Sure it does, (P => Q) => ~(P & ~Q)

Quote:

Then you brought up a Q' which is for all intents and purposes Q restated

Yes, hence why I gave it a ' rather than its own letter, because you claimed that it was different from Q ("more specifically" to be precise) so that's what I went with.

[Garrette]

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.

[caveman1917]

Originally Posted by Garrette

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.

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:

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.

What does that even mean, what the hell are you talking about? How can one of my statements be its own misstatement? What statement are you talking about?

Quote:

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.

This is what you quoted in your original answer to my question:

Originally Posted by Garrette

"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."

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:

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.

Then maybe you should show one of my purported errors or fallacies, I've shown one of yours which you've now simply replaced with another one.

Quote:

And I very much mind when that person excoriates others for not going to sources and then adamantly refuses to do so themselves.

I asked you for the relevant information from that source, since you read it, namely whether the misunderstanding was foreseeable or not. You did not answer. If it was definitely not the case that Galeotti did it on purpose then it must have definitely not been foreseeable, because if it were then it's still no less possible for Galeotti to have written it with the intention of getting that result.

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:

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.

I didn't say anything about your motivations. I said you were being paternalistic, which you were.

Quote:

Ah, well. Maybe next time.

How about this? If I read the article and it shows that it was unforeseeable that it would be misunderstood then I made a fool of myself (as did Galeotti for claiming to be at least partially at fault for something unforeseeable), and if it doesn't show that it was unforeseeable then you made a fool of yourself (by hammering on about me not having read it even there would be no information gained by having done so).

[Garrette]

Originally Posted by caveman1917

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.

All of this:

Originally Posted by caveman1917

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.

You mean any other reading than a "blindly believing" reading? Yes, one could imagine why you'd like that to be true. For all I know he wasn't doing it to seek sensationalism but, indeed, as propaganda knowing what the result would be. Hence why it would be interesting to know how long it took him to come out with it.

Galeotti seems mostly hilariously partisan and propagandistic to me. And I don't yet see reason to exclude the "he did it on purpose but kept plausible deniability by saying he was just seeking sensation" possibility.

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.

Originally Posted by caveman1917

What does that even mean, what the hell are you talking about? How can one of my statements be its own misstatement? What statement are you talking about?

See the exchange here:

Quote:

Originally Posted by caveman1917

Nonsense, evidence-free assertions by random dudes (not random even, worse than random, dudes who literally just admitted to hoaxing documents) does not make anything clear.

Originally Posted by Garrette

Again, Galeotti admitted to no such thing because he did not hoax anything, particularly not any documents.

The fact you have upgraded the charge to "hoaxing a document" is ludicrous and beneath you. Even if the claims about Galeotti were true, it wouldn't be hoaxing a document, it would be misrepresenting one.

Originally Posted by caveman1917

I said that the Gerasimov Doctrine was "basically a hoax." As in "it may as well have been for the results it had."

Originally Posted by Garrette

You said exactly what I quote you as saying:

"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."

To summarize the above:
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

This is what you quoted in your original answer to my question:

Originally Posted by Garrette

"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."

Originally Posted by caveman1917

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.

Now, I see, and yes, that answer was sloppy or rather it was incomplete. But it’s a nitpick on your part given that in other responses I mentioned the gist of the whole Galeotti bit by MoA and had simply tried to pick one sentence as an example. I could add MoA’s quotation of Military Review (which MoA accepts as accurate):

“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.

Originally Posted by caveman1917

Then maybe you should show one of my purported errors or fallacies, I've shown one of yours which you've now simply replaced with another one.

Sure. See the bit about the statement you tried to change above.

Originally Posted by caveman1917

I asked you for the relevant information from that source, since you read it, namely whether the misunderstanding was foreseeable or not. You did not answer.

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.

Originally Posted by caveman1917

I didn't say anything about your motivations. I said you were being paternalistic, which you were.

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.

Originally Posted by caveman1917

How about this? If I read the article and it shows that it was unforeseeable that it would be misunderstood then I made a fool of myself (as did Galeotti for claiming to be at least partially at fault for something unforeseeable), and if it doesn't show that it was unforeseeable then you made a fool of yourself (by hammering on about me not having read it even there would be no information gained by having done so).

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.

[caveman1917]

Originally Posted by Garrette

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?

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:

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.

Saying something like "it's possible that he did a propaganda-by-headline thing" is not the same as saying "it's immoral to do a propaganda-by-headline thing." You're just seeing what you want to see.

Quote:

And none of that gets into your specious generalization about Americans.

Anecdotal for sure, and it's indeed perfectly possible that the generalization is specious, but it has stood out in my experience. Give them a simple factual statement such as "it is possible that X happened" and they'll immediately start going on about "good" and "evil" and blah blah blah. Might be a result of that religious thing that America has going, plenty of people going atheist and not directly believing in God anymore but still having that more fundamental thought process seeing everything in terms of "good" and "evil" and such.

Quote:

See the exchange here:
To summarize the above:
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?

But I did say ~X, just two sentences above the one you quoted in the same post:

Originally Posted by caveman1917

it doesn't in any way make the Gerasimov Doctrine anything less than basically a hoax.

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:

Now, I see, and yes, that answer was sloppy or rather it was incomplete. But it’s a nitpick on your part given that in other responses I mentioned the gist of the whole Galeotti bit by MoA and had simply tried to pick one sentence as an example. I could add MoA’s quotation of Military Review (which MoA accepts as accurate):

“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.

You still need to show how that implies what you say it implies, because it doesn't seem to.

Quote:

Sure. See the bit about the statement you tried to change above.

I didn't change any statement. This was my original statement:

Originally Posted by caveman1917

it doesn't in any way make the Gerasimov Doctrine anything less than basically a hoax.

and this was my restatement:

Originally Posted by caveman1917

I said that the Gerasimov Doctrine was "basically a hoax." As in "it may as well have been for the results it had."

We were simply talking about different instances of the use of the term hoax in my post.

Originally Posted by Garrette

1) You have constructed a thought process that ends in blame on Galeotti regardless how I answer

That's just silly, you're just making stuff up now. I explicitly stated that if it was unforeseeable then he would not be at fault, even partially. Indeed, if you had answered with "unforeseeable" I would blame Galeotti even less than he blames himself.

Quote:

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.

There's nothing nonsensical about it, it's about the only relevant information that could be gained from the article. At this point we have two possibilities:

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:

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.

Imaginings? You literally started talking about "evil" out of the blue.

Quote:

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.

That would be a tu quoque for one. More importantly there's no point reading a source if no information would be gained from it, and you've already given the relevant information (ie foreseeable or not). If you looked more carefully at what I said you could see that I also said "an informative set of sources". You read sources with the goal of getting information from them, not just out of principle.

Quote:

Have a good evening.

You too.

[Childlike Empress]

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

[...] To summarise, what we have here are some Americans pretending to be Russians pretending to be Americans, with the aim of smearing a political candidate with what they knew to be a false accusation. And yet we are meant to trust these same people as neutral reporters on the matter of Russian ‘meddling’ in American democracy. It strikes me that they have something of a credibility problem.

There is, of course, a lot of nonsense on social media, some of it just the outpourings of deluded individuals, and some of it the automated products of so-called ‘troll factories’. Unfortunately, the lead in combatting this (in my mind, much exaggerated) problem has been taken by highly partisan actors who are themselves less than trustworthy. New Knowledge is one example. The Integrity Initiative in the UK is another. So too are the numerous reports about Russian information warfare produced by organizations such as the Institute of Modern Russia and the Centre for European Policy Analysis, as well as the books churned out by Luke Harding, Timothy Snyder, and others, all of whom spread fear of Russian disinformation while presenting a very odd version of reality themselves. In the case of New Knowledge, they even admit to deliberately deceiving American voters. As so often, those claiming to protect us against external enemies in fact threaten us more than the alleged enemies themselves.

[varwoche]

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

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:

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.

[Childlike Empress]

^ ANY excuse to keep head in sand welcome.

[applecorped]

Originally Posted by dudalb

I sort of like the nickname "Vlad The Impaler" for Puty.

Vlad The Inhaler

[applecorped]

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

^ ANY excuse to keep head in sand welcome.

[Childlike Empress]

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

[...] The Corbyn camp is far from the only progressive force to be targeted with this smear tactic. That it is revealed to be part of a Western government–backed operation is yet another reason to consider the fixation with Russian social-media activity in a new light. There is no indication that the disinformation spread by employees of a St. Petersburg troll farm has had a discernible impact on the US electorate. The barrage of claims to the contrary is but one element of an infinitely larger chorus from failed political elites, sketchy private firms, shadowy intelligence officials, and credulous media outlets that inculcates the Western public with fears of a Kremlin “sowing discord.” Given how divorced the prevailing alarm is from the actual facts—and the influence of those fueling it—we might ask ourselves whose disinformation is most worthy of concern.

[applecorped]

Originally Posted by Garrette

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.

[Mycroft]

Originally Posted by Abooga

It is. I´ll see if this Christmas Holidays I´ll get some time to read about Syrian and Ukranian war, Assange etc. media biases, that many of these alternative journalists often mention in relation to this issue. At the moment I can´t. It´s a lot of reading.

Yet somehow without having the time to educate yourself you still seem capable of forming opinions on these issues.

Originally Posted by Abooga

Everyone knows that, it´s just that your only reply to the issue raised by the source I quoted was pointing out its partisanship, with no comment about whether the content might be right or not.

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.

Originally Posted by Abooga

And the thing is that this particular partisanship would be warranted if the claims were right, and Assange were really a hero smeared by Evil Western Empire or whatever, so your mention of it would beg the question. That´s what we´d be engaging on in this thread, whether Assange and all these alternative media outlets are right or not...

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.

Originally Posted by Abooga

This is not a scientific paper but a public forum and I don´t necessarily have to engage in proofs all the time, I can also present interesting information, leads, links, related to the OP and see where they take us. If you don´t want to contribute please don´t add waffle to the thread just saying that you won´t do it. Waste of space.

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.

Originally Posted by Abooga

Have a read:
https://www.mintpressnews.com/the-in...on-war/253014/

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.

Originally Posted by Abooga

They don´t seem to welcome journalists very effusively.

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!

Originally Posted by Abooga

And as far as I know they haven´t offered a clear, transparent and comprehensive explanation about their activities either. Failure of communication or secrecy? As I say, secrecy should not be warranted if they engage in what they say they do...

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.

[Venom]

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

So the UK state-sponsored "Integrity Initiative" has been caught spreading disinformation about Corbyn and others, insinuating that they work as tools for the leader of the free world, Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin.

[Beerina]

"The leader of the free world" wouldn't be jailing his political opponents and murdering journalists and defectors who expose him.

[caveman1917]

Originally Posted by Beerina

"The leader of the free world" wouldn't be jailing his political opponents and murdering journalists and defectors who expose him.

Exactly.

[Childlike Empress]

Originally Posted by caveman1917

Exactly.

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.

[Mycroft]

Originally Posted by caveman1917

Exactly.

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

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.

The Tu Quoque fallacy is always the first bullet from the magazine.

[Mycroft]

Originally Posted by caveman1917

Exactly.

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

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.

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.

[3point14]

Originally Posted by Mycroft

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.

Subtly different opinion on her release here:


https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...est-journalist

[Childlike Empress]

Originally Posted by 3point14

Subtly different opinion on her release here:


https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...est-journalist

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.

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by varwoche

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.

I will give Putin credit in one area: he has found his useful idiots on both the left and the right,something which no Soviet Leader could have done in a million years.
I note that one of our left wing Putin worshippers here also is a defender of Uncle Joe......

[dudalb]

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".

[Mycroft]

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

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.

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.

[Childlike Empress]

Originally Posted by PressTV

[...] The journalist has said she is being treated like a criminal. She has been handcuffed and shackled, had her hijab forcibly removed, and photographed without her headscarf upon arrival at the prison.

"It was very distressing to hear that her hijab was taken off and mug shot taken without it and I was relieved to hear she now has her hijab. We just want mom home,” Sarah said.

“She was given short-sleeved clothing that does not comply with her religious dress code and she was forced to wrap a t-shirt on her hair as a temporary head-covering,” her children said.

“The police had refused to give her halal or vegetarian meals, effectively denying her food and meaning she has only been able to eat a little bread since being detained,” they added.

The children have also transferred money to their mother but she has not been notified of it, they said. [...]

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.

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by Mycroft

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.

The Gulag was not known for concern for it's resident religious beliefs.

[Mycroft]

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

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.

After reviewing the first 5 PDF's and a few random samplings of the next 20 and finding nothing at all to support this alarmism, I'm wondering if you can't pinpoint the material you find significant in order to save the rest of us from wasting our time?

[dudalb]

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.

[Childlike Empress]

Leak keeps on leaking, part 6 just released.

Originally Posted by Cyberguerilla

While the UK Government keeps on defying our demands for an honest and unbiased investigation into the Institute for Statecraft and the Integrity Initiative’s meddling in domestic affairs of sovereign European states, Chris Donnelly’s team awkwardly try to justify their illegal activity paid for by the British taxpayers.

The Integrity Initiative’s German cluster held a meeting in Berlin on the 31st of January 2019. A well-known British intelligence officer Harold Elletson and the cluster’s chief Dr Hannes Adomeit co-chaired the event. They again made an effort to divert people’s attention from the organisation’s wrongful activity in the European Union. However their pathetic attempt has been shattered to pieces by irrefutable evidence that we have been and will continue to share with you.

Today we are talking about the way Chris Donnelly used his agents in the FCO to obtain millions of British taxpayers’ pounds through grant foundations: Conflict, Stability and Security Fund and Counter Disinformation and Media Development Programme (ex Russian Language Strategic Communications Programme). We demand that the organisations’ spending of budget money be subject to public control and their activity be absolutely transparent! [...]

[Childlike Empress]

Originally Posted by dudalb

Lishshitz

That's ANTISEMITIC!!!!1

[Childlike Empress]

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

That's ANTISEMITIC!!!!1

Just for amusement, he just referred to Lipstadt as "Lisstadt" here. I don't think I have to help you in drawing conclusions here.