advertisement


Trump Part 13

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yank said:
If we had a properly functioning State Department, maybe this wouldn't have happened. Normally, prior to an international meeting, wouldn't both sides inform each other of protocol details?
Click to expand...
State Department rep. - *Yes, Trump is coming and he will have the nuclear football in attendance."
Chinese security official - "You actually let him near that? Are you sure?"
 
maxflinn said:
I hate to be a party pooper but some reality is always good:

https://off-guardian.org/2018/02/18...-observer-view/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
Click to expand...
Max, I suggest you read the indictment, if you haven't already done so. I would make the same recommendation to both the author of the article in the Observer, and the author of the rebuttal you linked to.

The indictment is what it is. It states there is evidence of an organised, well-financed (source of funding unclear) campaign by a group of Russian nationals to influence the US Presidential election.

In some ways, the Observer piece turns it into something it's not, but the piece you linked to goes to the opposite extreme and seems intent on completely rubbishing the significance of the indictment. I could challenge it on just about every single point but I don't have the time or the inclination, and many of the points I would make have already been made by me (and others) in posts on this topic.

Suffice to say any article that resurrects the Seth Rich conspiracy theory has to be taken with a large pinch of salt (I clicked on the link to the Seth Rich article and found it a feeble blend of supposition and innuendo - the author of the piece you linked to should have applied the same scepticism to it as he did to the Observer piece).

The only potentially valid point I can see in the article is that other states do it too. But that's pure whataboutery in the context of the Mueller investigation. Also, I only clicked on one of the author's links supporting that claim and it seemed pretty weak - according to the Guardian article the USA was merely trying to "develop" software to shill on social media.

The article looks impressive because it presents itself as a detailed point by point analysis of the Observer piece but, in reality, I think it's pretty weak.
 
Also try reading the Guardian or Observer piece rather than some bullshit extremist blogsite interpretation!

PS Maxflinn, please stop posting your rabid Putin/Trump/alt-right revisionist shite here. I can only accept credible sources here. I refuse to have pfm dragged into the pro-Trump fake news propaganda cycle. You may be dumb enough to fall for it, but I really don’t want to be a publisher/distribution hub for it.
 
One thing that amuses me is how the author of that article happily quotes France's Head of Cyber Security saying there is no evidence of Russia's involvement in the hacking of the Macron campaign's servers (caveat: I haven't fact-checked this quote), while completely dismissing claims about Russian hacking from the US and UK intelligence communities. Selection bias in action.
 
droodzilla said:
One thing that amuses me is how the author of that article happily quotes France's Head of Cyber Security saying there is no evidence of Russia's involvement in the hacking of the Macron campaign's servers (caveat: I haven't fact-checked this quote), while completely dismissing claims about Russian hacking from the US and UK intelligence communities. Selection bias in action.
Click to expand...

drood.

my position is to not believe anything that comes from any intelligence agency, with extra skepticism when it's from a nation of the anglo-imperial tradition.
 
i am not sure if people here actually UNDERSTAND that the 'Russian hacking' being referred to so often by corporate media is in fact the 'outing' of the e-mails revealing Ms. Clinton's conversation with the DNC people about railroading Mr. Sanders ...?? Nobody ever claimed (except solely by innuendo) that there was ever interference by the Russian state beyond this. Obviously there is much deflection happening here!
 
vuk said:
drood.

my position is to not believe anything that comes from any intelligence agency, with extra skepticism when it's from a nation of the anglo-imperial tradition.
Click to expand...


TECHNICALLY the job of most intelligence agencies is 'counter intelligence' - which means planting false information more often than not. As I'm sure you're aware.
 
vuk said:
drood.

my position is to not believe anything that comes from any intelligence agency, with extra skepticism when it's from a nation of the anglo-imperial tradition.
Click to expand...
I agree, scepticism is often required (although, as is the case with most things, excess of virtue can lead to vice). However, I was highlighting the internal inconsistency in the article max linked too - it enthusiastically endorses mainstream or government sources when they support the author's position and rubbishes them if they don't.
 
Drood, I'm on a smartphone so can't respond as I'd like to your posts. Hopefully I can during the week.

Tony, OffGuardian is a left-wing anti-war blog made up of former Guardian readers appalled at the direction it has taken, ie, becoming the Neocon regime change propaganda, anti-Corbyn, pro-Neoliberal mouthpiece you like so much.

You might want to consider the notion that everyone who doesn't swallow the warmongering US Neocon establishment anti-Russian narrative is a Trump/Putin/alt-right fanboy :rolleyes:
 
vuk said:
drood.

my position is to not believe anything that comes from any intelligence agency, with extra skepticism when it's from a nation of the anglo-imperial tradition.
Click to expand...
Vuk, Only the Russian intelligence agency does bad things.

The CIA, NSA and of course the FBI - home to pfm's very own Junior G-Man hero: Special Agent Mueller - can be completely trusted to only ever do good and tell the truth, as of course can Mi5, Mi6....
 
What exactly is “OffGuardian”? It looks like an artfully designed con job. Posing as one thing while proselytising another. The identities and provenance of its authors would be enlightening.
 
vuk said:
my position is to not believe anything that comes from any intelligence agency, with extra skepticism when it's from a nation of the anglo-imperial tradition.
Click to expand...

Yet you watch and are hugely influenced by content on Russia Today?!
 
maxflinn said:
Drood, I'm on a smartphone so can't respond as I'd like to your posts. Hopefully I can during the week.

Tony, OffGuardian is a left-wing anti-war blog made up of former Guardian readers appalled at the direction it has taken, ie, becoming the Neocon regime change propaganda, anti-Corbyn, pro-Neoliberal mouthpiece you like so much.

You might want to consider the notion that everyone who doesn't swallow the warmongering US Neocon establishment anti-Russian narrative is a Trump/Putin/alt-right fanboy :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Where did you read that? How do you know it's true? Even if it started off that way, are you confident it hasn't been colonised by the alt-right or Putin trolls since?

You see how easy it is to be sceptical about anything and everything? And how hard it is to refute such scepticism?

For what it's worth I just had a quick google of "offguardian" and couldn't find anything to verify the claim in bold above. I also struggle to find the names of the writers at the offguardian site so I can't google their names to ascertain their background.

I'm not necessarily suspicious of this (maybe the site is too little known to register) but I'm challenging you on your own terms. You're sceptical of mainstream sources (rightly so, in some cases) but you appear to accept a lot at face value when you read your alternative sources.

I look forward to your response in due course. Meanwhile, keep on truckin'!
 
maxflinn said:
You might want to consider the notion that everyone who doesn't swallow the warmongering US Neocon establishment anti-Russian narrative is a Trump/Putin/alt-right fanboy :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

i kind of 'half suspect' that the term 'alt right' is a bit of a perjorative misnomer meant also to cover most of the conscientious left ...
 
Jonathan said:
TECHNICALLY the job of most intelligence agencies is 'counter intelligence' - which means planting false information more often than not. As I'm sure you're aware.
Click to expand...
I’m confused- do you not need intelligence to find out what to counter?
 
TheDecameron said:
What exactly is “OffGuardian”? It looks like an artfully designed con job. Posing as one thing while proselytising another. The identities and provenance of its authors would be enlightening.
Click to expand...
Bit of a stretch to call it a "con" (it's obviously *not* The Guardian. But I agree with your point about who is responsible for the site. We shouldn't just take it at face value.
Jonathan said:
i kind of 'half suspect' that the term 'alt right' is a bit of a perjorative misnomer meant also to cover most of the conscientious left ...
Click to expand...
Not really. I draw a distinction. I just happen to think some people on the left have been duped into aligning themselves with the far-right.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


advertisement


Back
Top