Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Proofs of UK's anti- Russian Information War


Phaeton80

Recommended Posts

15 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

I am not endorsing Phaeton80's sources or viewpoint necessarily but I do notice an awful symmetry in the fact that many of his detractors are first in line to criticize the mainstream media and get their information from alternative right sites that love to hawk a profitable conspiracy.  It is not out of the question that Western powers use the same methods to discredit Russia. 

That doesn't say that Russia is the good guy in this.  Although when first confronted by the idea of Russia meddling in US elections, many conservatives poo-pooed the idea and even went so far as to say: :So what ,we do it too."  Even our President thinks Russia is innocent because Vladimir Putin said so.  The propaganda-gate swings both ways.

 


These are two interesting statements.. It isnt only 'not out of the question', but logically, objectively, extremely plausible. The observation someone on this thread would almost be forced to use these particular words so as to not be labelled / lamented as some 'conspiracy theorist', as 'an anti Western, pro Russian tinfoil hatter', while it is an extremely rational notion.. is very telling imho.

To immediately add to such 'a dangerous fringy statement' that 'Russia isnt the good guy in this'; thereby re affirming as well as denouncing the ridiculous (almost automated) notion that to criticize the West somehow equals supporting 'not the West'.

Please dont take this as some sort of attack, I'm thankful of your thoughtful response, which I guess is a first in this particular thread.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A case study for anyone wanting to seriously inform themselves regarding, or simply discuss the OP subject matter in earnest.. instead of endlessly throwing around meaningless, childish terms in an superficial attempt at disqualification.

Quote

Media's Use of Propaganda to Persuade People's Attitude, Beliefs and Behaviors

Modern propaganda uses all the media available to spread its message, including: press, radio, television, film, computers, fax machines, posters, meetings, door-to-door canvassing, handbills, buttons, billboards, speeches, flags, street names, monuments, coins, stamps, books, plays, comic strips, poetry, music, sporting events, cultural events, company reports, libraries, and awards and prizes. It is most likely that some of these media uses are surprising, but that only serves to show how easy it is to not even recognize propaganda as such. For the purpose of our paper we will focus on mainly the usage of the press in their tactics of shaping people's opinions. The press (newspapers and magazines) is important because the most current news and issues are spread every day through them. The Dune affect is a term we coined--after the movie Dune--which explains that those who control and have access to media have access to and potential control of public opinion.

Indeed, propaganda is so powerful because everyone is susceptible to it. This is true as explained by Robert Cialdini, an expert in influence, because people exist in a rapidly moving and complex world. In order to deal with it, we need shortcuts. We cannot be expected to recognize and analyze all the aspects in each person, event, and situation we encounter in even one day. We do not have the time, energy, or capacity to process the information; and instead we must very often use our stereotypes, our rules of thumb, to classify things according to a few key features and then to respond without thinking when one or another of these trigger feature are present (Cialdini 6). While this makes people highly susceptible to a propagandist who understands persuasion, in general it is the most efficient for of behaving, and in other cases it is simply necessary. Additionally, propaganda includes the reinforcement of societal myths and stereotypes that are so deeply embedded within a culture that it is often difficult to recognize the message as propaganda.

Since propaganda has become a systematic process it is possible to analyze how the media has used it in shaping our opinions about France having a nuclear bomb versus Pakistan. Propaganda can be broken into ten stages when analyzing it in detail. These stages are: 1) the ideology and purpose of the propaganda campaign, 2) the context in which the propaganda occurs, 3) identification of the propagandist, 4) the structure of the propaganda organization, 5) the target audience, 6) media utilization techniques, 7) special various techniques, 8) audience reaction to various techniques, 9) counterpropaganda, if present, and 10) effects and evaluation (Jowett and O'Donnell 213).

Case Study #1: Social Proof, Societal Norms, Similarity, and Dehumanization

Studying media coverage of Pakistan’s nuclear achievement, it becomes clear that a certain amount of propaganda was used to make Pakistan appear threatening. The fact that Pakistan developed the technology was not what shaped the articles, but rather how this information was presented to the reader. In a sense, the propagandists were looking to turn Pakistan into an enemy of sorts, a country to be feared, instead of embraced.

One method used to by propagandists to create an enemy is through the technique of social proof. One way in which we process information is by observing what other people are doing that are similar to us or linking them to social norms. "When we are unsure of ourselves, when the situation is unclear or ambiguous, when uncertainty reigns, we are most likely to look to and accept the actions of others as correct" (Cialdini 106). Since it is almost impossible for the common American to be an expert in nuclear cause and effects, he looks to what others say as a means to form his opinion. This allows him to be persuade to an ideology not of his own. Furthermore, it is possible to rely on past stereotypes as form of linking one idea to another group.

For example, articles that took such an approach attempted to use a subset of social proof, where one casts the enemy by declaring it to be a friend of an already established enemy. For instance, in order to persuade the American public to think of Pakistan in such terms, media will link Pakistan to historically defined United States enemies such Libya, Iran, Iraq and the former Soviet Union. This tactic plays on the principle of social proof in which people look for justifications to quickly form their beliefs. Thus, linking to a country America already has shared beliefs about quickly allows one to associate and project the existing beliefs on the new group, which in this case is Pakistan.

Case Study #2: Enemy as Barbarian, and Authority

We will explore another example of how the facts are tinted using propaganda tactics with a focus on how the American media portrays the stability of Pakistan. As with the tactics that link Pakistan to nations that are considered enemies of the United States, the key will be to focus on how the factual information is presented, in what context, to serve what purpose. By media displaying Pakistan as an unstable nation while discussing nuclear technology, it will persuade the public to fear Pakistan. This tactic which is Enemy as Barbarian: threat to culture is intended to create an enemy, by creating a sense that Pakistan is a country that is not worthy of nuclear technology. The idea behind enemy as barbarian is to portray the subject as rude, crude, uncivilized, and animalistic.

[..]

https://web.stanford.edu/class/e297c/war_peace/media/hpropaganda.html


Remember, this is intended to describe the tactics used in modern day propaganda, not advocate the desirability of Pakistani nuclear capabilities. 

 

Edited by Phaeton80
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another case study.. from another one of those 'conspiracy theory websites' - that is to say completely unreliable 'non reputable media outlets' (aka non mainstream) the contents of which should by all means and per definition be ignored because of that - for those that are interested (which.. dont seem to be many :D )

 

Quote

the_economist_31_august_2013.jpg

In a recent poll, 58% of Americans support the bombing of Syria and 19% have "no opinion." This is wonderful news, since it shows how the vast majority of people are easily manipulated and are simply apathetic. In a democracy, the most important but least understood tool is propaganda. Let me share with you the fundamentals of a successful propaganda campaign.

Here are the five rules of public relations a.k.a propaganda:

  • Keep the message simple
  • Make it emotional
  • Don't allow nuances or debates
  • Demonize the opposition
  • Keep repeating the message
     

Rule #1: The principle message has to be simple so that even a 5-year-old can understand. In this case, it was, "Assad used chemical weapons to kill innocent Syrians." The secondary message was, "we should do something about it". Everyone who watched TV or read the mainstream/social media got this message loud and clear.

Rule #2: Make it emotional. Propaganda is just marketing. (In fact, the phrase Public Relations was coined to replace Propaganda when the latter became a dirty word after World War I). Every good commercial has an emotional aspect to it. Emotions stop you from thinking and analyzing. Thus, while selling Pepsi, marketers use sexy women, selling a war requires evoking fear and/or anger.

About 120 years ago, when the U.S. wanted to steal Cuba from Spain, it relied upon the exact playbook. "You furnish the pictures, and I'll furnish the war," said the newspaper oligarch William Randolph Hearst to his cartoonist. The pictures portrayed dying children and brutal Spanish authorities. (Although Spain is white, the picture below used a monstrous person with African American features, since a warmonger could also be racist in those days).

Today, the US government tells the White Helmets, "You furnish the videos, we'll furnish the war." It's the same technique used over and over. Remember during Iraq War 1, when a girl testified before the Congress that Iraqi soldiers were killing newborn babies in incubators in Kuwait? Of course, it turned out to be fake news; and the girl turned out to be the daughter of the Kuwaiti Ambassador.

The Syrian war is also a great study in use of emotional language: "worst chemical attack in Syria in years" (a lie from NY Times that forgot its own article about 52+ chemical attacks by ISIS); "international outrage," "shocked the world," "horrific/deadly/ghastly/heinous chemical attack" etc. Also, the Syrian government is always referred to as "regime" and Assad is always a "dictator" or a "butcher" who "kills his own people." Every word and phrase is designed to have an emotional impact.

Rule #3: No debate allowed. The media and the pundits left absolutely no doubt who the culprit was. Within minutes after the release of pictures/videos, everyone was blaming Assad. So it didn't matter if you listened to ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, Fox, or read the NY Times, WaPo or HuffPo ... everyone was singing the same tune. Tucker Carlson was the only mainstream person who went off the script, but we are taking care of him.

Rule #4: You have to viciously attack anyone who questions the official narrative. We did a great job of attacking independent journalists and bloggers. Vanessa Beeley, Eva Bartlett and Twitter 'influencers' such as @PartisanGirl and @Ian56789 were all maligned as "Russian bots." Ian even got banned from Twitter for a few days. Sites such as 21st Century Wire and Russia Insider were brought down by our hackers during the strikes on Syria.

Rule #5: Repetition is key in any successful campaign - selling a product, a politician or a war. Thus the media saturated the airwaves and the Internet with shocking language and pictures and videos. The West really has only one media outlet, but it comes in 100's and 1000's of different names in order to give the illusion of choice and diversity. Thus when the same message is repeated so many times by so many people, it comes becomes the truth.

https://www.sott.net/article/384204-Syria-A-Case-Study-in-Western-Propaganda

And..

Quote

Let's Call Western Media Coverage of Syria By Its Real Name: Propaganda

In his essential study of the ongoing crisis in Ukraine, University of Kent Professor Richard Sakwa writes that, somewhere down the road, Western media’s reductive, ideological coverage of the conflict “will undoubtedly become the subject of many an intriguing academic study.”

But while, as Sakwa says, the reportage of Ukraine’s civil war by our renowned newspapers has been abysmal and embarrassing, it doesn’t hold a candle to that of Syria, where any pretense of real journalism was done away with long ago. Syria is proof of how low mainstream Western media are prepared to sink in the service of state power; it’s where journalistic standards, like global jihadists, go to die. Rank propaganda is the order of the day. Honest observers are appalled. Stephen Kinzer wrote that “coverage of the Syrian war will be remembered as one of the most shameful episodes in the history of the American press,” while Robert Fisk described the war as “the most poorly reported conflict in the world.” Patrick Cockburn registered a similar concern, writing that “Western media has allowed itself to become a conduit for propaganda for one side in this savage conflict.” This has grave implications:

News organizations have ended up being spoon-fed by jihadis and their sympathizers who make it impossible for independent observers to visit areas they control. By regurgitating information from such tainted sources, the media gives al-Qaeda type groups every incentive to go on killing and abducting journalists in order to create and benefit from a news vacuum they can fill themselves.

So the ideology-driven Western media, in allying themselves with the armed opposition in Syria, have helped to create a situation in which it pays to kidnap and murder people who seek to report the truth. Ergo, they have violated the canons of their profession in the most egregious manner possible. And you’ll have noticed that they’re totally shameless about it. None of this gives them a moment of pause. They keep pumping out the propaganda, day in, day out, never stopping to reflect on the potential consequences. When one story falls apart, they move on to the next one. The most, or perhaps only, important thing is to manipulate public opinion so that it corresponds to government policy. Beyond that, who cares?

The list of media half-truths and outright lies in the context of Syria is endless. Take chemical weapons. Numerous incidents have been cited in the news, most of them small-time (meaning crude attacks with no casualties), all of them blamed on the government. And yet the UN has documented numerous cases in which terrorist outfits, including ISIS, used chemical weapons against civilians and Syrian soldiers. It also heard testimony from witnesses on the ground that opposition fighters were staging chemical attacks with the goal of framing the Syrian military. And contrary to every major media outlet in the West, the UN did not blame Assad for the infamous sarin attack of August 2013, stating after an investigation that “surface-to-surface rockets containing the nerve agent sarin were used” by one of “the parties in the Syrian Arab Republic.” The culprit was not identified. But all of this is irrelevant. We want Assad to be responsible for every chemical incident; therefore, he is. See Trump’s Tomahawk salvo.

https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2017/04/lets-call-western-media-coverage-of-syria-for-what.html


Oh this endless drivel of those non reputable conspiracy theory websites, probably paid by Russia / Syria / Iran / China / ISIS / anti Americans / Snowflake *******s, is just so very tiresome, so very 2001.

^_^

Edited by Phaeton80
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Phaeton80 said:


..With hints that the generally accepted stories are very possibly (partly) false, and very possibly against our combined interests, yes; that is a scenario this thread advises to seriously consider. :o (Yeah I know, shocking, right? 'Conspiracy theory nonsense', 'why dont you go live in Russia' and all that).

To which I continue to ask who amongst you have actually taken any real effort to objectively / critically review the material from both sides regarding these events. I would suspect very few of us actually have or would, which ties in with one of the bullitized points I provided (for those that were 'confused' about the OP).

Please be so kind as to point out which gibberish conspiracy theory you speak of here is linked in this thread, put up or shut up. The linked material is all based on fact, and is by no means 'a conspiracy theory'.

Heres a crazy idea; react to actual content instead of throwing around disqualifying terms against the author or the supplied links for a change why not. It might take some time to get used to, but you might actually grow to like it..

Alternatively you could adopt your writing style to actually EXPLAIN what it is you are proposing ? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Phaeton80 said:

These are two interesting statements.. It isnt only 'not out of the question', but logically, objectively, extremely plausible. The observation someone on this thread would almost be forced to use these particular words so as to not be labelled / lamented as some 'conspiracy theorist', as 'an anti Western, pro Russian tinfoil hatter', while it is an extremely rational notion.. is very telling imho.

To immediately add to such 'a dangerous fringy statement' that 'Russia isnt the good guy in this'; thereby re affirming as well as denouncing the ridiculous (almost automated) notion that to criticize the West somehow equals supporting 'not the West'.

Please dont take this as some sort of attack, I'm thankful of your thoughtful response, which I guess is a first in this particular thread.

Yep, you got my number on this.  I know that the Unites States is a player in this game, and we play by the same rules as everybody else, which include every form of military, economic, propaganda, and  covert power.  

A  lot of people like President Trump or at least tolerate him because he did step out from behind the ideology curtain and say America First. Some people find that honesty refreshing. 

Until the rules change, the game is not about ideology or justice or helping mankind, it is about winning.

All of us on the playing field for our respective teams try to influence the play of the game in ways we think it should be played.   That could be  by defiance, persuasion, remaining silent, or walking off the field,

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

Yep, you got my number on this.  I know that the Unites States is a player in this game, and we play by the same rules as everybody else, which include every form of military, economic, propaganda, and  covert power.  

A  lot of people like President Trump or at least tolerate him because he did step out from behind the ideology curtain and say America First. Some people find that honesty refreshing. 

Until the rules change, the game is not about ideology or justice or helping mankind, it is about winning.

All of us on the playing field for our respective teams try to influence the play of the game in ways we think it should be played.   That could be  by defiance, persuasion, remaining silent, or walking off the field,


An evident truth (focus on self- interest instead of 'humanity'), and you are also correct in stating the Trump era has removed all (fake) pretentions of civility, 'cordial politics' coming from the US. Now they not only act like a dragon, but speak like one as well (as opposed to Obama, who spoke like a lamb, but acted like a dragon, to use thesame metaphor). A step backwards, not forwards, imo. There certainly are other means to consolidate ones 'power' compared to excerting military might, the present course will logically lead to self destruction, but thats another discussion.

What hasnt seemed to have changed is the self image Westerners have about the West, about their institutions, their leaders (save Trump), their (ethical, moral, cultural) superiority over 'not the West', 'civilization and all its merits lie in the West'). And eventhough our medialandscape has been caught red handed seeding deceitful content left & right - 'fake news' - some of those lies even fomenting into full blown warfare with extreme consequences on several levels, some of us would still only accept information from thesame outlets, and scream 'conspiracy theorist' if other sources are used - completely ignoring the content of said sources based on that single fact.

We pride ourselves being firmly rooted in the rule of law, we set ourselves apart morally and ethically; yet when objectively observing recent and not so recent actions such a perception seems excessivcely difficult to maintain (numerous instances of swift military and economic acts of war against targets without any real proof, without a semblance of dialogue with the supposed perpetrator even, imagine this happening in a court of law). The mere fact we are (unrealistically) swift in convicting and penalizing 'non Western heads of state and/or criminals', but completely unmoved and lethargic when it comes to our own (ie. George W Bush leading the USA into an illegal war provenly based on blatant deceit with hundreds of thousands of deaths as a result, seeding chaos in the region, in turn spurring on terrorism) should indicate something very, very wrong with this pleasant reality we maintain for ourselves.

I mean, were talking about an illegal war initiated based on clearcut deceit, which all 'reputable' mediaplatforms supported / boosted, resulting in hundreds of thousands of civilian and US military deaths, costing the US taxpayer ~750 billion, as well as inadvertantly creating chaos in the region, in turn cultivating terrorism like nothing before it. No reprecussions, nowhere, nobody; Bush is living like a 21st century king, and the government as well as the media which facilitated this deceit are untouched, and worst of all: we - are - unmoved. Red flag, a strong indication.

Anyway, the OP doesnt aspire to lament the struggle to (remain in) power on the global chessboard instead of feigning a humane quality.. The OP laments the rather obvious fact we are blissfully unaware and/or in denial of that fact; specifically the undesirable aspects that come with it (lying and deceiving).. Even more specifically; perception management, aka propaganda used against its own, and not necessarily in the interests of its own (understatement).

Hope this wasnt confusing.. ;)

Edited by Phaeton80
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Phaeton80 said:


An evident truth (focus on self- interest instead of 'humanity'), and you are also correct in stating the Trump era has removed all (fake) pretentions of civility, 'cordial politics' coming from the US. Now they not only act like a dragon, but speak like one as well (as opposed to Obama, who spoke like a lamb, but acted like a dragon, to use thesame metaphor). A step backwards, not forwards, imo. There certainly are other means to consolidate ones 'power' compared to excerting military might, the present course will logically lead to self destruction, but thats another discussion.

What hasnt seemed to have changed is the self image Westerners have about the West, about their institutions, their leaders (save Trump), their (ethical, moral, cultural) superiority over 'not the West', 'civilization and all its merits lie in the West'). And eventhough our medialandscape has been caught red handed seeding deceitful content left & right - 'fake news' - some of those lies even fomenting into full blown warfare with extreme consequences on several levels, some of us would still only accept information from thesame outlets, and scream 'conspiracy theorist' if other sources are used - completely ignoring the content of said sources based on that single fact.

We pride ourselves being firmly rooted in the rule of law, we set ourselves apart morally and ethically; yet when objectively observing recent and not so recent actions such a perception seems excessivcely difficult to maintain (numerous instances of swift military and economic acts of war against targets without any real proof, without a semblance of dialogue with the supposed perpetrator even, imagine this happening in a court of law). The mere fact we are (unrealistically) swift in convicting and penalizing 'non Western heads of state and/or criminals', but completely unmoved and lethargic when it comes to our own (ie. George W Bush leading the USA into an illegal war provenly based on blatant deceit with hundreds of thousands of deaths as a result, seeding chaos in the region, in turn spurring on terrorism) should indicate something very, very wrong with this pleasant reality we maintain for ourselves.

I mean, were talking about an illegal war initiated based on clearcut deceit, which all 'reputable' mediaplatforms supported / boosted, resulting in hundreds of thousands of civilian and US military deaths, costing the US taxpayer ~750 billion, as well as inadvertantly creating chaos in the region, in turn cultivating terrorism like nothing before it. No reprecussions, nowhere, nobody; Bush is living like a 21st century king, and the government as well as the media which facilitated this deceit are untouched, and worse of all: we - are - unmoved. Red flag, a strong indication.

Anyway, the OP doesnt aspire to lament the struggle to (remain in) power on the global chessboard instead of feigning a humane quality.. The OP laments the rather obvious fact we are blissfully unaware and/or in denial of that fact; specifically the undesirable aspects that come with it (lying and deceiving).. Even more specifically; perception management, aka propaganda used against its own, and not necessarily in the interests of its own (understatement).

Hope this wasnt confusing.. ;)

Perfectly clear, thanks Phaeton80. 

I think every country on earth have these sorts of illusions; a sense of superiority, be that moral or physical. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its undeniable that western powers and corporations use propaganda and half truths and outright lies. Its also true that Eastern powers and corporations do the exact same thing.

Equally I would suggest that the majority are more likely to believe their own guys story and not to objectively question it.

The whole Ukraine episode would probably make a good case study for investigating the phenomenon

So what can we do? Nothing more than question, evaluate and decide irrespective of the source of information - what is likely to be truth to any matter. A healthy disregard for authority would come in handy in these circumstances.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

Perfectly clear, thanks Phaeton80. 

I think every country on earth have these sorts of illusions; a sense of superiority, be that moral or physical. 


Well thanks for that thoughtful response Gardener, I guess that pretty much wraps up the thread then. :mellow:

I apologize for coming across as rude (as opposed to certain others, who seem perfectly comfortable to do so), but you have done nothing but spew out meaningless ad- hominems and generic disqualifiations, ridicule.. only to lazily add an open door like that as some sort of gracious gift.

I'd think you would have a somewhat different opinion if you were on the other side of the proverbial fence, if you were hailing from 'not the West', the receiving end.. This ofcourse besides the fact you seem utterly unmoved in regards to the dire implications of what has been posed. Including but not limited to illegal warfare, possibly culminating in world conflict, based on that Western propaganda poised to 'consolidate' full spectrum dominance. At which point most of us will regret our lethargic disposition, by accepting this deceit - because thats exactly what were doing - we are setting ourselves up for a very very bad time indeed.

Edited by Phaeton80
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Phaeton80 said:


Well thanks for that thoughtful response Gardener, I guess that pretty much wraps up the thread then. :mellow:

I apologize for coming across as rude (as opposed to certain others, who seem perfectly comfortable to do so), but you have done nothing but spew out meaningless ad- hominems and generic disqualifiations, ridicule.. only to lazily add an open door like that as some sort of gracious gift.

I'd think you would have a somewhat different opinion if you were on the other side of the proverbial fence, if you were hailing from 'not the West', the receiving end.. This ofcourse besides the fact you seem utterly unmoved in regards to the dire implications of what has been posed. Including but not limited to illegal warfare, possibly culminating in world conflict, based on that Western propaganda poised to 'consolidate' full spectrum dominance. At which point most of us will regret our lethargic disposition, by accepting this deceit - because thats exactly what were doing - we are setting ourselves up for a very very bad time indeed.

I'm sure you are correct Phaeton80. If I was a dirty, greasy foreigner, then I'd believe in MY country, and be suspicious of Perfidious Albion. As a proud Brit, and even better, an Englishman by the Grace of God, I live in the assured knowledge that England is the best country in the world, and upholds the highest standards of behaviour. Everybody else smells, and cheats. Especially at Cricket !!

This has been the case since the beginning of time, and I see no reason for it to change in the near future :) 

Edited by RoofGardener
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, RAyMO said:

Its undeniable that western powers and corporations use propaganda and half truths and outright lies. Its also true that Eastern powers and corporations do the exact same thing.

Equally I would suggest that the majority are more likely to believe their own guys story and not to objectively question it.

The whole Ukraine episode would probably make a good case study for investigating the phenomenon

So what can we do? Nothing more than question, evaluate and decide irrespective of the source of information - what is likely to be truth to any matter. A healthy disregard for authority would come in handy in these circumstances.


That (promoting critical thought as an essential trait, a responsibility for every citizen), but also prosecution of those government officials who lie(d) to us, especially, especially those used for warfare.. which should be prosecuted with extreme prejudice. As long as we accept these lies like we are and have been doing, we are our own worst enemy.. because you and I will be the victims of such a potential culmination, not those who fomented it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

I'm sure you are correct Phaeton80. If I was a dirty, greasy foreigner, then I'd believe in MY country, and be suspicious of Perfidious Albion. As a proud Brit, and even better, an Englishman by the Grace of God, I live in the assured knowledge that England is the best country in the world, and upholds the highest standards of behaviour. Everybody else smells, and cheats. Especially at Cricket !!

This has been the case since the beginning of time, and I see no reason for it to change in the near future :) 


Try and deflect with your shrewd humor all you like Potter.. I stand by what was said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Phaeton80 said:


Try and deflect with your shrewd humor all you like Potter.. I stand by what was said.

I'd actually agree with what you said. The thing is... 

  1.  Every nation does this, with the possible exception of the Federated States of Micronesia1
  2. Nobody cares.

Notes:

(1) Actually, I'm wrong about that. The Federated States of Micronesia has a local propaganda campaign against Spain, following that latter's attempts to claim sovereignty over the  Kapingamarangi archipelago !

Edited by RoofGardener
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another example to ponder..

As was stated earlier, the US spend a whopping 750 billion (to 1.1 trillion) in the Iraq farce, based on proven deceit, while those responsible are either living like kings, or even still active in government affiliated positions in some form or another. No significant reaction, not from the media, not from the masses (the first more or less resulting in the second). I think we can all agree 'outrage' would not be unfitting, at all. And if theres talk of threats to 'national security', this would be a pretty whopping variant of just that.

On the other hand, we have a convoy 1500 migrants - generally people like me and you in dire circumstances, partly.. even arguably significantly because of Western policies - being labelled as murderers, rapists, leeches / pariahs, 'a threat to national security'.. 'a threat to the US economy', 'threatening the wealth / wellbeing of the native population'.. keeping the 'reputable media outlets', and thus the nation, occupied, raging and internally at arms for months and months.

Now I might be losing the plot here, but that seems to fit the crazy category pretty nicely, on several levels.. And few if any seem to recognize that fact.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Phaeton80 said:

Another example to ponder..

As was stated earlier, the US spend a whopping 750 billion (to 1.1 trillion) in the Iraq farce, based on proven deceit, while those responsible are either living like kings, or even still active in government affiliated positions in some form or another. No significant reaction, not from the media, not from the masses (the first more or less resulting in the second). I think we can all agree 'outrage' would not be unfitting, at all. And if theres talk of threats to 'national security', this would be a pretty whopping variant of just that.

On the other hand, we have a convoy 1500 migrants - generally people like me and you in dire circumstances, partly.. even arguably significantly because of Western policies - being labelled as murderers, rapists, leeches / pariahs, 'a threat to national security'.. 'a threat to the US economy', 'threatening the wealth / wellbeing of the native population'.. keeping the 'reputable media outlets', and thus the nation, occupied, raging and internally at arms for months and months.

Now I might be losing the plot here, but that seems to fit the crazy category pretty nicely, on several levels.. And few if any seem to recognize that fact.

Iraq is 6000 miles away, and unlikely to harm the USA. And after 10 years, Americans are bored of hearing about them.

The economic migrants are MUCH closer, and indeed are approaching the USA's southern border. They are new, and exciting. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

I'd actually agree with what you said. The thing is... 

  1.  Every nation does this, with the possible exception of the Federated States of Micronesia
  2. Nobody cares.


Id suppose you'd have a somewhat different opinion in regards to the caring thingy if your son or daughter died in Iraq, oh mighty armchair potterer.

Its people like you who facilitate or even defend the relentless, normalised deceit, just as long as youre personally unharmed by them ofcourse. Those are some wonderful personal traits you keep piling up there.

Also, might I humbly suggest you erm.. gt*o of this thread if you dont care about its subject? Wouldnt want to usurp too much of your precious time, your thoughtful insights are undoubtedly needed elsewhere, spread the wisdom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Phaeton80 said:


Id suppose you'd have a somewhat different opinion in regards to the caring thingy if your son or daughter died in Iraq, oh mighty armchair potterer.

Quite possible, but I haven't, they didn't, so I dont ! 

4 minutes ago, Phaeton80 said:

Its people like you who facilitate or even defend the relentless, normalised deceit, just as long as youre personally unharmed by them ofcourse. Those are some wonderful personal traits you keep piling up there.

And it's people like you what cause unrest. http://www.montypython.net/scripts/fishlic.php . I bet you don't even HAVE a fish license !

3 minutes ago, Phaeton80 said:

.....Also, might I humbly suggest you erm.. gt*o of this thread if you dont care about its subject? Wouldnt want to usurp too much of your precious time, your thoughtful insights are undoubtedly needed elsewhere, spread the wisdom.

 

Nice try, but no cigar. 

Edited by RoofGardener
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know youre trolling the hell out of this thread dont you.. And you also know you yourself would have probably ´reported´ such behaviour if it were you who started the thread.

I guess hypocrites will do what hypocrites do.. Talking about hypocrites, noticed your little pal And Then passionately upvoting all the childish, void posts you and others like you have been seeding on here, obviously still holding a passionate resentment from past exchanges? I certainly have.

Sad bunch of old people supporting eachother in their infantile tendencies against someone who doesnt conform or is seen as a threat to their specific worldview, my goodness what a sad state of affairs. To reach such a respectable age, only to sit on a forum all day regurgitating shallow ad hominems and ridiculisation at a level of which even any given 'special education' schoolyard would blush. Not you though, you lavish in it. Remarkable.

Play on old man, play on. :tsu:

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Phaeton80

We know Russia attempted to have two people horribly murdered on British soil and, as a result of their carelessness, killed a British citizen. 

Why anyone British or allied would speak out in their support is an utter mystery. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Phaeton80 said:

The OP laments the rather obvious fact we are blissfully unaware and/or in denial of that fact; specifically the undesirable aspects that come with it (lying and deceiving).. Even more specifically; perception management, aka propaganda used against its own, and not necessarily in the interests of its own (understatement).

Another good point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/19/2019 at 1:02 PM, Tatetopa said:

:So what ,we do it too."

You don't consider this a valid point?  Obama spent Federal funds to make an attempt to defeat Netanyahu and he did it because of personal animus.  Governments have always played such games.  The only difference this time is that the "wrong" candidate won and a reason for the defeat had to be presented.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Phaeton80 said:

You know youre trolling the hell out of this thread dont you.. And you also know you yourself would have probably ´reported´ such behaviour if it were you who started the thread.

I guess hypocrites will do what hypocrites do.. Talking about hypocrites, noticed your little pal And Then passionately upvoting all the childish, void posts you and others like you have been seeding on here, obviously still holding a passionate resentment from past exchanges? I certainly have.

Sad bunch of old people supporting eachother in their infantile tendencies against someone who doesnt conform or is seen as a threat to their specific worldview, my goodness what a sad state of affairs. To reach such a respectable age, only to sit on a forum all day regurgitating shallow ad hominems and ridiculisation at a level of which even any given 'special education' schoolyard would blush. Not you though, you lavish in it. Remarkable.

Play on old man, play on. :tsu:

So we're all out to get you, is that it Phaeton80 ? 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, and then said:

You don't consider this a valid point?  Obama spent Federal funds to make an attempt to defeat Netanyahu and he did it because of personal animus.  Governments have always played such games.  The only difference this time is that the "wrong" candidate won and a reason for the defeat had to be presented.

It is true.  We do it too.  That is not a reason or justification to do more of it in our government or  allow more of it out of a sense of fair play from others. Governments have always played such games and will continue to do so.

If you buy into America First, then I would think you would be opposed to any meddling by foreign powers in our elections. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 21-1-2019 at 6:42 PM, Setton said:

@Phaeton80

We know Russia attempted to have two people horribly murdered on British soil and, as a result of their carelessness, killed a British citizen. 

Why anyone British or allied would speak out in their support is an utter mystery. 


You know no such thing mr Setton.

We do know blame was all but immediately assigned to Russia based on the 'of a type developed by Russia' (which says very little indeed about the source of this particular chemical agent, even if it is Novichock - given numerous other political and possibly even non political entities have had access to it after the fall of the USSR) soundbite, we do know penalties were swiftly dealt to Russia based on thesame (lacking) 'evidence', and we do know that any- and everyone in the public eye who dared to ask critical questions was immediately publicly hung out to dry with extreme prejudice, extreme agression (see Corbyn, for instance). We also do know that Boris Johnson was caught blatantly lying about Porton Down scientist's statements in regards to the degree of certainty the agent was indeed 'Russian Novichock'.

They were immediately accused, sentenced, penalised, and silenced.. which is a pattern not unique to this event. I am not saying they are innocent, I am saying the process is rife with anomalies, fallacies and generally undesirable aspects - which would certainly not stand in any judicial process.

One of the other things we do know, is that Western propaganda is the only variant which fomented a 21st century illegal war of agression against a sovereign nation which resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths, creating utter chaos in the region as well as creating a terrorist breedingground we are still dealing with to this very day. Another thing we do know, is that if any other non- Western nation would have been responsible for such a blatant crime against humanity, it would be branded Evil Incarnate.. and would for all intents and purposes, be reduced to ashes by now (probably by 'good old civilized world defender', the USA).

Why calling for a critical disposition in general, asking for the rule of law even in cases like this - especially given our own tendency to call others to order which do not wield this civilized 'rule of law instead of rule o/t jungle' ideology - could be interpreted as 'speaking out in support of Russia' is a bit of a mystery to me tbh. Im speaking out in support of US, because you can bet your bottom dollar the real victims in such (possible) political deceit like the Iraq war are you and me, not Putin, not May, us.

Edited by Phaeton80
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Phaeton80 said:

You know no such thing mr Setton.

Actually we do. We have intelligence services for exactly that. Thanks to them, we know who was targeted, who carried out the attack, how they did it and where they disposed of the evidence. 

The only thing we don't know is exactly who ordered the attack - Putin himself or someone in the GRU without his authorisation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.