Global Implications of the Ukraine Crisis

[Walsingham]

 

But I am saying that allowing anything undetected and unprovable to influence your personal behaviour is logically indistinguishable from going mad.

 

With bit editing that would be is excellent phrase to put in t-shirts that support atheism. 

 

 

Small quantities of madness are necessary for virtue though. I wouldn't want to argue aginst patriotism. Just because most of my compatriots are lazy swivel eyed p***s doesn't stop me enjoying Rule Britannia and paying my taxes.

[BruceVC]

 

So unfortunately as usual you are basing your argument on a spurious premise. You say "why do you choose to believe one version over the other".

 

Lets take 9/11, Al-Qaeda perpetuated 9/11. This is not the view of one source or one country. In summary

 

• Every Western international news channel has the same story, 9/11 was committed by Al-Qaeda
• Al-Jazeera and other non-Western news channels have the same story
• Al-Qaeda has admitted planning and committing 9/11
• There are numerous interviews with Al-Qaeda members and other people where they discuss and share why AQ planned 9/11
• There are whole organizations and security companies  that were and are dedicated to 9/11 and the causes of 9/11. Surly you cannot think that if 9/11 was some sort of conspiracy we wouldn't have some sort of proof by now
• Individuals like Julian Assange and Edward Snowden have made it there goal in life to expose the USA for all its "skulduggery and dishonesty". If there was this great secret how come there have been NO credible examples of it that these people would have loved to bring to the worlds attention. Especially with Snowden who had access to the NSA information

So a dismissal of  a conspiracy theory is not based on one story or view. Its a combination of the facts and reality of a situation

 

 

I don't think you understand what spurious actually means. But seeing how you can't seem to distinguish between "perpetuate" and "perpetrate", this shouldn't come as a surprise. I wonder if you actually do this sort of thing on purpose, like oby's occasionally mangled grammar. If that's the case, props for the low key trolling.

 

I'll start off by saying that I'm not terribly interested in 9/11 conspiracy theories and don't really follow the latest trends. Regardless, the first four points are circular logic, "this is the truth because it's the official accepted version and the official version is the true one". The fifth point has some merit, but if you dig a bit into the official 9/11 findings, you can see the conclusions fail to address some relevant issues. Not in my opinion, but in that of people in the know. It's probably not realistic to expect a final report that squashes all possible doubts, but that's not a blank check for sloppiness.

 

The fifth point is, by far, the one that best proves just how uninformed and biased you are. The NSA has openly admitted to colluding with big tech firms to organize a massive, automated illegal surveillance ring. This is not a conspiracy theory, it's a full-fledged, straight up, no-nonsense, billion dollar conspiracy that was exposed only because an insider blew the whistle. Start by reading up on XKEYSCORE and PRISM and go from there. This stuff isn't even secret, it's on the NYT and Wikipedia, for Pete's sake.

 

None of this means that every conspiracy theory out there is to be believed. But it means you should be careful with what sources you choose to trust and that you should be mindful of attempts to dismiss claims or questions solely by virtue of them being labelled "conspiracy theories" regardless of their merit.

 

 

Thanks for the correction on "perpetuate" and "perpetrate". That was an unintentional mistake, I have no issues with you correcting me on any perceived incorrect usage of words.

 

But spurious is valid in my post,  your view is false and incorrect

Edited April 11, 2014 by BruceVC

[Rostere]

Guys, can you please stop writing so much so fast.  There's so much stuff and I haven't got the time to reply until possibly tomorrow...

[Mor]

 

I'm saying that if you take the logic that an absence of evidence is evidence of guilt then you may as well start burning witches.

 

Only that's not at all what's being suggested in this thread. I'm curious, why do people insist on putting stock on what official and mainstream sources say, by default, without any sort of critical review or personal fact checking, when said sources have been known to stretch the truth, misrepresent, make mistakes and outright lie in the past. I suspect this is related to the theorised innate psychological vulnerability of people to authority figures, but there has to be more to it than that.

 

Because you seem to lack any "critical review or personal fact checking" leaning on official and mainstream Russian nationalized news, which has proven track record of completely slanted propaganda reportage according to a script provided by the Kremlin. While dismissing every other source as biased.

 

You guys are like a religious people on an atheist board, who suffer from major cognitive dissonance and lacking any proof to validate their system of belief they lash at foundations of the "other side" trying to diminish it or de-legitimize it so they can feel like they are both on similar footing. Similarly here, you started by attacking the "west", the "western media", trying to claim that Russian nationalized state media instead of providing one sided regulated POV is more open and diverse then the media across the "westren" world. Then you tried to deflect from Russian actions with apple and orange scenarios (which to you feel the same), trying to blame the west for the situation, legitimize it by claiming that its better off this way, had a little streak of Russian super power national hard on, and defaulting to internet conspiracy crap. Because :/ I suppose you feel that if you can google some crap to support your argument your are still in the game or by dismiss this whole thing is our mental issues due to some aversion from authority figures it sits well with you or something of the sort ..

[Mor]

Also some political cartoons:

 

Putin diplomacy:

 

 

 

 

Putin end game, little vulgar, but why not.

 

 

 

 

How To Deter Putin:

 

 

 

 

[Malcador]

Would be funny if Mor is Oby.

[213374U]

Guys, can you please stop writing so much so fast.  There's so much stuff and I haven't got the time to reply until possibly tomorrow...

 

What's this? Letting RL get in the way of your online battles? For shame.

[Sarex]

Edited April 11, 2014 by Sarex

[Drowsy Emperor]

 

 

I'm saying that if you take the logic that an absence of evidence is evidence of guilt then you may as well start burning witches.

 

Only that's not at all what's being suggested in this thread. I'm curious, why do people insist on putting stock on what official and mainstream sources say, by default, without any sort of critical review or personal fact checking, when said sources have been known to stretch the truth, misrepresent, make mistakes and outright lie in the past. I suspect this is related to the theorised innate psychological vulnerability of people to authority figures, but there has to be more to it than that.

 

Because you seem to lack any "critical review or personal fact checking" leaning on official and mainstream Russian nationalized news, which has proven track record of completely slanted propaganda reportage according to a script provided by the Kremlin. While dismissing every other source as biased.

 

You guys are like a religious people on an atheist board, who suffer from major cognitive dissonance and lacking any proof to validate their system of belief they lash at foundations of the "other side" trying to diminish it or de-legitimize it so they can feel like they are both on similar footing. Similarly here, you started by attacking the "west", the "western media", trying to claim that Russian nationalized state media instead of providing one sided regulated POV is more open and diverse then the media across the "westren" world. Then you tried to deflect from Russian actions with apple and orange scenarios (which to you feel the same), trying to blame the west for the situation, legitimize it by claiming that its better off this way, had a little streak of Russian super power national hard on, and defaulting to internet conspiracy crap. Because :/ I suppose you feel that if you can google some crap to support your argument your are still in the game or by dismiss this whole thing is our mental issues due to some aversion from authority figures it sits well with you or something of the sort ..

 

 

And BBC and CNN have a track record of unbiased journalism.

LOL

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

I'm saying that if you take the logic that an absence of evidence is evidence of guilt then you may as well start burning witches.

 

Only that's not at all what's being suggested in this thread. I'm curious, why do people insist on putting stock on what official and mainstream sources say, by default, without any sort of critical review or personal fact checking, when said sources have been known to stretch the truth, misrepresent, make mistakes and outright lie in the past. I suspect this is related to the theorised innate psychological vulnerability of people to authority figures, but there has to be more to it than that.

 

Because you seem to lack any "critical review or personal fact checking" leaning on official and mainstream Russian nationalized news, which has proven track record of completely slanted propaganda reportage according to a script provided by the Kremlin. While dismissing every other source as biased.

 

You guys are like a religious people on an atheist board, who suffer from major cognitive dissonance and lacking any proof to validate their system of belief they lash at foundations of the "other side" trying to diminish it or de-legitimize it so they can feel like they are both on similar footing. Similarly here, you started by attacking the "west", the "western media", trying to claim that Russian nationalized state media instead of providing one sided regulated POV is more open and diverse then the media across the "westren" world. Then you tried to deflect from Russian actions with apple and orange scenarios (which to you feel the same), trying to blame the west for the situation, legitimize it by claiming that its better off this way, had a little streak of Russian super power national hard on, and defaulting to internet conspiracy crap. Because :/ I suppose you feel that if you can google some crap to support your argument your are still in the game or by dismiss this whole thing is our mental issues due to some aversion from authority figures it sits well with you or something of the sort ..

 

 

And BBC and CNN have a track record of unbiased journalism.

LOL

 

 

There is no such thing as an international news channel that doesn't have an element of bias. But at least they try to present both sides of the debate, unlike RT

[Malcador]

BBC maybe, CNN presenting another side ? Hmm.

[BruceVC]

BBC maybe, CNN presenting another side ? Hmm.

 

Malc do you and others honestly actually watch CNN International? Not CNN USA. There is a difference

 

I do, there are numerous talk shows and documentaries that give an objective view on global news. Every night there are shows like Global Exchange which is broadcast from Abu Dhabi and basically only discusses the BRICS countries and the Middle East. Then there is the absolutely superlative Fareed Zakaria who has interviews with some of the most interesting people in the world and is not pro or anti American, he discusses the relevant news and you get many different perspectives. I can give many more examples but I think you get my point

 

So I don't get this unfair characterization of CNN as biased, because they are present much more objectivity than myopic views on events in the world

[Malcador]

Zakaria is superlative ? Hm, never really impressed by his interviews.  CNNi is supposedly better but I don't think we get it here or pay for it.  Subtlety is probably a stronger suit in the West when it comes to things like this so never think they're nice and tidy.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

I think it's because the truth is complex and it's usually hard to know what to do next. In fact I'd go so far as to argue that your conspiracy believers have a GREATER need for authority figures, because they live in a world where power players control big events.

 

 

"The main thing that I learned about conspiracy theory is that conspiracy theorists actually believe in a conspiracy because that is more comforting. The truth of the world is that it is chaotic. The truth is, that it is not the Jewish banking conspiracy or the grey aliens or the 12 foot reptiloids from another dimension that are in control. The truth is more frightening, nobody is in control. The world is rudderless."

 

-Alan Moore

On another forum I post on, someone posted this about 30 minutes ago. Bit strange.

[Hurlshort]

CNN is probably the most balanced when it comes to the major US news networks, but that isn't saying a whole lot.  

 

Honestly I've never found it that difficult to pick up on media bias.  If a story interests me, I check multiple sources to get a good look at it.

[213374U]

 

 

I think it's because the truth is complex and it's usually hard to know what to do next. In fact I'd go so far as to argue that your conspiracy believers have a GREATER need for authority figures, because they live in a world where power players control big events.

 

"The main thing that I learned about conspiracy theory is that conspiracy theorists actually believe in a conspiracy because that is more comforting. The truth of the world is that it is chaotic. The truth is, that it is not the Jewish banking conspiracy or the grey aliens or the 12 foot reptiloids from another dimension that are in control. The truth is more frightening, nobody is in control. The world is rudderless."

 

-Alan Moore

On another forum I post on, someone posted this about 30 minutes ago. Bit strange.

 

 

 

Edited April 11, 2014 by 213374U

[Mor]

 

...the "western media", trying to claim that Russian nationalized state media instead of providing one sided regulated POV is more open and diverse then the media across the "westren" world...

 

And BBC and CNN have a track record of unbiased journalism.

LOL

 

LOL what?! Many people find that the media either emphasizing trivial [to them] stuff or being flat-out biased [in their POV]. This is true of local media and outside coverage of local events, especially for people who never consumed news from other media outlet and get their first bath of fire during time of crisis. With that said we still can find a diverse media reportage from a cross the map, which is polarized in our countries and across the "westren" world. So what are you suggesting? that every outlet in the USA is biased (from CNN to FOX news), in the UK (from BBC to dailymail?), France, Germany.... Sweden, Finland. So to you everyone out there are biased in their reportage, hiding the truth and only Russia who tuned in to Putin daily national news gets it right? Russia who gets direction and quotas on what to broadcast from the Kremlin, who featured at the top of censorship list and bottom of freedom of press, they are the only one who present diverse opinion from across the map to help you decide? the only one who got the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you Putin? If so then I guess you are special in that way and it explains why you guys put so much into "conspiracy theories", because in the land of censorship some ideas can only be shared through non mainstream media.(unlike here where every fart get its 5minutes of fame)

[Malcador]

He's not in Russia, though who knows maybe he's in the censorship laden hell that is outside the shining halls we reside in.

[Mor]

I didn't said he did, only noted that the only thing laughable in that comparison was placing Russian media on the same footing with "westren" media (westren as in the generic term that some of you guys have been lumping us into).

 

No system is perfect, which is why using several sources on controversial subjects is advisable, especially during time of rapidly developing crisis where major outlets may not have established reportage teams (I sometime check aljazera as well), but bottom line it is important to keep things in perspective.

[Zoraptor]

He's not in Russia

And it's really rather tiresome seeing Mor reflexively press the 'must be Russian' button whenever someone disagrees with him. Even asterisking oby ain't Russian.

 

As for bias western media are as bad as RT, they're just (somewhat) better at hiding it and use more subtle techniques like false balance (interview Tartars on a 1:1 basis with others to provide 'balance', even if they're 1/8 of the population, cherry pick to get psychotic sounding interviewees with opposing views), acritical restating of governmentally supplied 'facts' (Iraq can hit London in 45 minutes; John Kerry says there's no real separatism in Crimea so there isn't whatever prior referendum and actions show), allowing the presentation of poorly researched facts (Tartars were a majority prior to Stalin's deportation, still occasionally stated as fact; transparent ballot boxes = travesty, despite them being used in France and India and shown on the same news sources without comment) and just plain selective reporting and weasel words (our side= activists; their side = separatists/ rioters; we intervene, Putin invades; we have governments, they have regimes etc etc). The last especially is straight from 1984, might as well actually be saying Putin regime doubleplusungood, our government doubleplusgood.

 

Most westerners think our media is better due to simple confirmation bias- they say what people want to hear, confirm our obvious superiority and hence are, obviously, correct. But five minutes research shows what a load of slanted garbage we're actually being presented with. And if I can do that for free they, with all their resources, should be able to do it on a professional level, but they don't. They're capable of it, they just don't want to.

Edited April 11, 2014 by Zoraptor

[Malcador]

If so then I guess you are special in that way and it explains why you guys put so much into "conspiracy theories", because in the land of censorship some ideas can only be shared through non mainstream media.(unlike here where every fart get its 5minutes of fame)

Well thought you meant they were Russian as they are in land of censorship or something.

[BruceVC]

 

He's not in Russia

And it's really rather tiresome seeing Mor reflexively press the 'must be Russian' button whenever someone disagrees with him. Even asterisking oby ain't Russian.

 

As for bias western media are as bad as RT, they're just (somewhat) better at hiding it and use more subtle techniques like false balance (interview Tartars on a 1:1 basis with others to provide 'balance', even if they're 1/8 of the population, cherry pick to get psychotic sounding interviewees with opposing views), acritical restating of governmentally supplied 'facts' (Iraq can hit London in 45 minutes; John Kerry says there's no real separatism in Crimea so there isn't whatever prior referendum and actions show), allowing the presentation of poorly researched facts (Tartars were a majority prior to Stalin's deportation, still occasionally stated as fact; transparent ballot boxes = travesty, despite them being used in France and India and shown on the same news sources without comment) and just plain selective reporting and weasel words (our side= activists; their side = separatists/ rioters; we intervene, Putin invades; we have governments, they have regimes etc etc). The last especially is straight from 1984, might as well actually be saying Putin regime doubleplusungood, our government doubleplusgood.

 

Most westerners think our media is better due to simple confirmation bias- they say what people want to hear, confirm our obvious superiority and hence are, obviously, correct. But five minutes research shows what a load of slanted garbage we're actually being presented with. And if I can do that for free they, with all their resources, should be able to do it on a professional level, but they don't. They're capable of it, they just don't want to.

 

 

You can't seriously believe that RT and other Western news channels portray the news in the same way?

 

But I want to discuss a more interesting point. What's wrong with thinking that Western culture is superior? Lets not use the word superior, it sounds arrogant. Lets say that Western culture gives its citizens the highest quality of life.

 

http://www.numbeo.com/quality-of-life/rankings_by_country.jsp

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/top-countries-on-oecd-better-life-index-2013-5?op=1

 

 

Do you dispute these links? The Cold War is over, Western ideology has won. Lets not ignore the fact that despite some of the issues in Western culture we offer our citizens the best and most favourable options for a happy and prosperous lifestyle

[Drowsy Emperor]

You're still stuck in the 90's "end of history" Fukuyama thinking. That period is gone.

 

 

 

BBC and the more sophisticated British media are masters at presenting biased news as impartial although with enough experience picking up the agenda behind the news becomes easier.

 

Russia Today seems so biased to you because you're not used to hearing anyone's viewpoint other than your own media, which is in anything pertaining international relations usually in total collusion with state politics.

[Malcador]

Not too sure about that, some of RT's stuff is pretty cringeworthy. Then again the stuff I have seen is on par with FOX news.

[BruceVC]

You're still stuck in the 90's "end of history" Fukuyama thinking. That period is gone.

 

 

 

BBC and the more sophisticated British media are masters at presenting biased news as impartial although with enough experience picking up the agenda behind the news becomes easier.

 

Russia Today seems so biased to you because you're not used to hearing anyone's viewpoint other than your own media, which is in anything pertaining international relations usually in total collusion with state politics.

 

How did I know Sarex was going to agree to that

 

You and I have had this discussion before and we both know we won't convince each other, so this is a good case of a " Lets agree to disagree"