The New Russophobia 2

663 posts / 0 new
Last post
ikosmos ikosmos's picture

kropotkin1951 wrote:
It leaves one to conclude that NATO troops on the Russian border and the new "defensive" nukes being developed are a good thing since we know just how evil and underhanded those Russians are. I guess it was not socialism at all but just some inherent cultural failure of the Russian people that makes them so despicable. After all it is not like there are any leaders that the majority of Russians would support that would be toadies to the West so therefore it is apparent the country is irredeemable.

flagged and noted for racism.

ETA: you guys have really out-done yourselves today. Give yourself a huge pat on the back. Because freedom.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

ikosmos wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:
It leaves one to conclude that NATO troops on the Russian border and the new "defensive" nukes being developed are a good thing since we know just how evil and underhanded those Russians are. I guess it was not socialism at all but just some inherent cultural failure of the Russian people that makes them so despicable. After all it is not like there are any leaders that the majority of Russians would support that would be toadies to the West so therefore it is apparent the country is irredeemable.

flagged and noted for racism.

ETA: you guys have really out-done yourselves today. Give yourself a huge pat on the back. Because freedom.

Flag it for sarcasm. You obviously have no sense.

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

I thought that was odd coming from you. However, I notice that you claim "sarcasm" AFTER a complaint about the egregious cultural racism of the post.

Here's one that I find particularly funny. Notice how I precede the humor indicating my purpose. You might want to try that sometime.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

ikosmos If you cannot recognize sarcasm from me then that is your myopia. If you thought I meant what I posted then it is your problem. Do you have any friends that you talk to? Do they joke about serious issues sometime? I actually use sarcasm especially around our biased media coverage on a regular basis.  

6079_Smith_W

He's actually right, ikosmos. It was pretty clear that he was being completely ironic.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

I don't think English is ikosmos' first language, kropotkin. That can make sarcasm harder to pick up on.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Timebandit wrote:

I don't think English is ikosmos' first language, kropotkin. That can make sarcasm harder to pick up on.

If that is true then I will cut him some slack. It was obviously sarcasm and meant as a dig against people who are vilifying Russia. 

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

kropotkin1951 wrote:

ikosmos If you cannot recognize sarcasm from me then that is your myopia. If you thought I meant what I posted then it is your problem. Do you have any friends that you talk to? Do they joke about serious issues sometime? I actually use sarcasm especially around our biased media coverage on a regular basis. 

I'm going to ignore the comments of those who may very well share the ugly views that you claim to parody, and just stick to your remarks. And I'm going to assume that you haven't been here long enough to know that babble has a history, policy, in dealing with "ironic" racism and such.

The policy is that ironic racism is treated pretty well as racism is treated. So you fukced up anyway.

Oh, and thanks for the non apology. Happy trails.

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

I didn't know that Russians were a race. It is amazing that the person I was trying to support is now attacking me for a little humour to highlight the absurd Russophobia that is prevalent in the media, especially on the CBC.

ikosmos I didn't apologize because it was intentional and instead I explained it was sarcasm. I will go back to letting the NATO cheerleaders rant and rave against the stuff you post and butt out of the conversation. It is apparent you have no desire to see anything except anti-Russian sentiment no matter what is posted so I'll leave you to it.

 

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

kropotkin1951 wrote:
I didn't know that Russians were a race. It is amazing that the person I was trying to support is now attacking me for a little humour to highlight the absurd Russophobia that is prevalent in the media, especially on the CBC.

The expression was "cultural racism" upthread. I didn't use it every time. In any case, I can't believe that you need to have someone explain to you that, since people cannot see your face on the internet, you have to explain what you're doing so as to avoid confusion. I actually don't think providing a gratuitous example of cultural racism is really all that funny. At least not without some context, so I know it's a parody or caricature, and not simply a racist "joke". 

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

News story:  "Unarmed black man shot 32 times by police".

Some babbler:  "Well, clearly black lives DON'T matter".

You:  "THAT'S RACISM!!"

mark_alfred

If the source of sarcasm or irony is self-referential, then it's a failure and should not be written.  IE, if it's "I'm obviously such a wonderfully pure and great poster that what I'm now saying could not be taken seriously", then it's a weak attempt at humour that should be dropped.  If it's a clever social commentary upon world events or known biases, then sure, go ahead.  If not, then just realize that humour is not your forte and state your point clearly instead of hiding behind the cowardice of bad sarcasm.

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

clap clap. That's quite an insightful expression, "the cowardice of bad sarcasm".

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

The latest rabid Russophobia comes in the form of apoplectic "outrage" at Republican nominee Donald Trump.

"He's a Putin stooge," says one. "Will Putin be CC or BCC on Trump's NatSec briefings (G. Kasparov) ?" and so on. This mostly revolves around consternation over Trump's criticism of NATO, re-evaluation of the role of the US in that organization, etc. These are questions that are NEVER raised by status quo supporters from across the US bi-partisan spectrum (or, for that matter, among the Parliamentary cretins here in Canada).

This guy Putin is amazing. Not only is he responsible for virtually everything, including sick walruses at a zoo (!), but he also runs his own Manchurian candidate in Donald Trump.

This shit just gets better and better. Not.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

ikosmos wrote:

This guy Putin is amazing. Not only is he responsible for virtually everything, including sick walruses at a zoo (!), but he also runs his own Manchurian candidate in Donald Trump.

You seem to have forgotten a sarcasm alert when you posted this nasty insult against the democratically elected leader of Russia. Hypocrisy is a wonderful thing to behold.

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

Here, let me pass you a shovel. That hole you're digging needs the proper tools and all.

By the way, here is the piece about Putin and ... walruses ...

Two Walruses Die at Vladimir Putin-backed Oceanarium

You. Just. Can't. Make. This. Shit. Up.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

I get it now. Me, as a bad person, should not be using sarcasm because you think I believe that Russians are evil by nature. You on the other hand see yourself as a good person whose motives could never be questioned so you can use sarcasm.

If you want to complain about the use of sarcasm please refrain from using it yourself. It is sort of like saying, "what I really hate are people who fucking swear."

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

You messed up, k. No biggie. Stop wallowing in it.

When mark_alfred made his above post, I took the opportunity to look up the expression and learned a few things. That's a big part of babble for me. Just a suggestion.

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

Follow-up to non-ban of all Russian athletes at Rio ...

journalists turned activists ...

Quote:
The UK’s Times newspaper, for example, took it upon itself to organize a letter to the IOC. It wrote: “We ask that you ban the entire Russian team from the Rio 2016 Olympics. It is time to take a stand against the institutionalized doping that would otherwise pollute the Games. Now is not a time for half measures.”

The letter was published on the Times’ website not even as an editorial, but under chief sports reporter Martyn Ziegler’s byline with the headline: “Please ban Russia from the Rio games.” It’s like a chief foreign affairs reporter for a British newspaper organizing a letter to the UN calling for sanctions against another country over the wrongdoing of certain individuals in that country and the unproven wrongdoing of others. In other words, totally unprofessional and nothing whatsoever to do with journalism.

But Germany’s Bild tabloid, which is notoriously biased against Russia at the best of times, went a step further, with its chief sports editor Walter Straten announcing that if Russian athletes were allowed to participate in Rio, Bild would have them “exempted” from its medal count and declare all Russian athletes results “null and void”. Yes, all of them. A mature approach, to be sure.

On the same day, the UK’s Guardian published an editorial arguing there was “no place in Rio for cheats” which is absolutely fair enough, if they hadn’t also been calling for clean athletes to be punished along with dopers in an “across-the-board” exclusion of Russian athletes.

Furthermore ...

Quote:
Excited by the prospect of a Russian ban and the opportunities for gloating that it would present, they were perhaps also becoming jittery, worrying the IOC would rule against them and refrain from an outright ban, which in the end it did. In a concerted effort to avoid that and put some more pressure on the committee, they ran stories the day before the IOC decision claiming exactly the opposite outcome in advance.

Not very professional, huh?

Quote:

The Daily Mail, for example, ran with the premature headline: “ENTIRE Russian team of 387 athletes will be banned from competing at the Rio Olympics as punishment for their country’s state-sponsored doping program.”

This, the Mail said, was according to well-placed sourceswhich obviously were not that well-placed at all. The Sun ran with the same story, adding a “good riddance” to their headline and claiming underneath that 387 athletes would certainly be banned. Both papers have since reported on the IOC decision, but neither original story has been updated to reflect reality.

Whoops. I bet they're apoplectic with "justifiable" rage now.

Russia: Off With their heads!

 

p.s. for k. Notice the scare quotes. That's a dead giveaway for satire, etc.

 

NorthReport

What a bullshit thread!

We had a chance to honour clean atheletes and instead we get this kind of dribble.

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

Russia Did It!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

A handy review of the idiocy follows.

Quote:
BBC, CNN, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, The Daily Beast, The Atlantic, every neocon/neo-liberal publication and almost all of western media is blaming Russia for absolutely everything.

There follows a video of the Clinton campaign animal droppings claiming Russia coordinated the DNC hack, etc.

Quote:

The list of lies is never ending, but what is truly depressing is that lots of people actually believe the lies, which only makes the spin doctors use the ‘Russia did it’ card more often.

  • Russia invaded Ukraine because twitter told us so, and a BBC journalist saw 5 Russian guys in fatigues cross over the Russian Ukraine border…which makes for a huge military invasion not seen since US and UK tanks rolled into Iraq.
  • Russia annexed Crimea against the wishes of the majority 3% that voted to stay in bankrupt, chaotic, Ukraine…while the minority 97% voted to join the Russian Federation where stability makes life so dull, compared to the US coup installed government in place in Kiev.
  • Russia is planning to invade Estonia and overrun Lativa, because what country does’t want to rule over the oil rich, gold rich Baltic nations.
  • Russia is moving towards NATO, as tectonic plates under Russian soil magically shift Russia’s borders closer to Europe.
  • Syria is Russia’s fault, because they just would not stand back and let the US bring the wonderful neo-liberal life to secular, stable Syria.
  • Libya, Russia’s fault for not helping NATO bomb the country into democracy.
  • Clinton email scandal…a Russian plot to destroy honest Hillary.
  • Trump…born and trained in Moscow from early childhood, and planted in New York for the sole purpose of winning the Presidency and destroying America.
  • Russian athletes…all dopers, every single one of them.
  • Rain in London…Putin’s fault. US mass shooting, Russia did it. Ebola, Russian virus. Zika, Russian mosquitoes. LGBT bullying, Russian laws. Black Live Matter, Putin organised campaign to destabilize US.
  • Having a bad day…blame Russia, blame Putin.

And, wait, there's more. Anytime the narrative falls apart, and the establishment gets caught with its pants down, then it's "Putin's useful idiots" who are responsible.

The Federalist: "Edward Snowden is Vladimir Putin's Useful Idiot."

National Review: "Donald Trump, Putin's Useful Idiot".

The Guardian: "Alex Tsipras looks to Moscow but risks becoming Putin's useful idiot".

The Guardian: "Is Jeremy Corbyn Putin's latest "useful idiot" in Europe?"

Politico: "Is Juncker in danger of becoming Putin's "useful idiot" ?"

Forum: "We're all Putin's 'useful idiots' ".

The first Cold War was not like this. One needs to watch Dr. Strangelove to really get this fucking nuts.

bekayne

ikosmos wrote:

 

The first Cold War was not like this. 

Correct. Both parties' nominees having had financial ties to the USSR would have been considered treasonous.

josh

bekayne wrote:

ikosmos wrote:

 

The first Cold War was not like this. 

Correct. Both parties' nominees having had financial ties to the USSR would have been considered treasonous.


Only one is in debt to the Russians. Only one has promised to weaken NATO. Only one party's files were broken into. And its file on its opponent stolen. A lot of smoke. We'll see if a fire develops.

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

bekayne wrote:
Both parties' nominees having had financial ties to the USSR would have been considered treasonous.

If you think this is relevant, then by all means show us some evidence of "financial ties" to present-day Russia by either of the nominees. Otherwise, it surely looks like you're regurgitating the unsubstantiated and lurid Russophobic claims of the MSM.

(grabs popcorn)

bekayne

ikosmos wrote:

bekayne wrote:
Both parties' nominees having had financial ties to the USSR would have been considered treasonous.

If you think this is relevant, then by all means show us some evidence of "financial ties" to present-day Russia by either of the nominees. 

https://www.google.ca/search?q=clinton+foundation&rlz=1C1CHWA_enCA626CA6...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/inside-trumps-financial-ties-to-...

 

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

If you're not able to summarize any evidence in your own words, then you don't understand the "evidence" well enough to confirm it.

(grabs another mouthful of popcorn)

bekayne

ikosmos wrote:

If you're not able to summarize any evidence in your own words, then you don't understand the "evidence" well enough to confirm it.

(grabs another mouthful of popcorn)

You keep saying it's worse now than it was then. Could you imagine a US presidential candidate during the Cold War who:

-had a campaign manager had worked as an advisor to the leader of a Warsaw Pact country?

-a foreign policy advisor who regularly appeared as a commentor on Soviet TV?

-another advisor who had worked with the Soviet Ministry of Chemical and Petroleum Industries (Министерство химической и нефтеперерабатывающей промышленности)?

I'll get my popcorn.

 

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

bekayne wrote:
You keep saying it's worse now than it was then.

It is worse now that then. The apoplectic and endless Russophobic missives of the MSM are re-gurgitated even by alleged "progressives" on a thread dedicated to exposing Russophobia in the media.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

bekayne, ikosmos has to stick to the script. His boss wouldn't like it if he didn't.

 

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

bekayne wrote:

ikosmos wrote:
The first Cold War was not like this.

Correct. Both parties' nominees having had financial ties to the USSR would have been considered treasonous.

OK, so I see I've been lured into some scumbag tricks. Meh. That's the best you can do.

Look, Russia is now a capitalist country. So it's apples and oranges. Capitalist firms drian profits from there, etc.. Under the socialist regime of course it would have been different. Socialism was the enemy. And, judging by your remarks, you agree....

What is still true is my original claim, unmuddied by your balderdash. Everything that is wrong in the world is blamed on Russia. Sick walruses, DNC e-mail disasters, you name it.

And that was the gist of the article.

It's sort of entertaining reading all these attempts to troll this thread with the latest, juiciest examples of Russophobia. I don't have to dig for it; it comes here by itself.

Happy trails.


ikosmos ikosmos's picture

Not a bad summary ...

Trump and Those Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Russians

Quote:
This is a re-run of American establishment paranoia that dominated the Cold War decades, when any political challenger for high office in the US could be blackballed by mere assertion that he was a fellow-traveller of the Soviet Union. Today, “communism” is replaced with allegations of being friends with Moscow “tyranny”.

A factual summary:

1. The e mail leaks were by Wikileaks.

2. The leaks show how "Democrat party leadership has from the outset sought to make sure Hillary Clinton becomes the presidential nominee by crushing her populist rival Bernie Sanders."  At least one key DNC leadership person was dismissed (then promptly hired on by the shameless Clinton campaign).

3. The "source" of the claim is the Atlantic Council - a xenophobic, Russophobic institution closely aligned with NATO.

4. "The claims made against Russian state hackers are unverifiable. They are simply assertions from a partisan source, which are then amplified into seeming fact by the dutiful Western media."

5. Trump's recent indifference to "sacred" NATO fictions are the issue here. The proponents of war are apoplectic with rage.

In conclusion,

Quote:
It is a disturbing sign of how brainwashed Western public discourse is that when someone questions Washington’s reckless war beat towards Moscow, then that person is summarily dismissed as a Kremlin tool.

This is the practice of a totalitarian system, ironically under the illusion of a free-thinking, independent media.

Yup. American politics is a sick joke. A circus.

ikosmos ikosmos's picture
bekayne
6079_Smith_W

The Atlantic Council isn't the source.

Quote:

Julian Assange of Wikileaks gave a soft disavowal of claims that his whistleblowing organization is in cahoots with Russian intelligence, “Well, there is no proof of that whatsoever,” he said. “We have not disclosed our source, and of course, this is a diversion that’s being pushed by the Hillary Clinton campaign.”

This is, of course, the same Assange who boasts responsibility for helping find Snowden a home in Russia and Wikileaks publicly criticized the Panama Papers for implicating Putin in financial misdeeds. He’s also an outspoken frequent critic of Hillary Clinton’s time at the State Department. A damning document dump the weekend before Clinton’s nomination arguably aligns with both Russian interests and his own.

https://www.wired.com/2016/07/heres-know-russia-dnc-hack/

Yeah, just russophobia.

 

swallow swallow's picture

No major US politician during the Cold War would have dared urge the USSR to interfere in US politics - cold war hatred of the USSR was too strong. 

Today, a major party nominee for president can urge Russia's government to interfere in US politics, and even praise the Russian leader, and there is no political cost to him. Because most Americans don't give two shits one way or the other about Russia, so there's no real political cost to praising its leader. 

What would have been "treason" during the cold war is now routine - the image of Russia in the USA is much improved from cold war days, in pther words. 

NorthReport

That's just because they did so well in the Olympics. Wink

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

How bad is it? All criticism of the US regime is treated as treason.

 

Quote:
In the past few days, a number of Democrats have revived a long-dormant practice: accusing those to their left of being Kremlin operatives, and discrediting their political opponents with allegations of grand KGB conspiracies. As questions are raised over whether the Russian government hacked the Democratic National Committee’s email servers, certain political elites have used the opportunity to revive an eerily familiar political tactic, one with its roots in the 1950s.

All of this is very ugly indeed. By conspiratorially positing that those who disagree with them are either intentionally or unintentionally serving the interests of the Kremlin, liberals are reviving the some of the darkest aspects of 20th century political discourse. Just as the movement against the Vietnam War was once accused of being run out of Moscow, and just as the Civil Rights movement was supposedly filled with Communist agitators, liberals have once again revived one of the nastiest traditions in the history of American political smear tactics: the McCarthyist innuendo. Throughout the Cold War, members of the political establishment attempted to discredit those on the left through invocations of the specter of the KGB.

Franklin Foer has a reply to those who accuse him of red-baiting. Because the Russian government is no longer communist, he says, he cannot be engaging in McCarthyism. But the harmfulness of the method is not affected by changes in the political form of the Russian state. The 1950s witch-hunt would have been just as damaging even if the Soviet Union had been an entirely imaginary entity. By inflating Russia’s evils to absurd extremes, and then accusing others of enabling them, one directly recreates the Cold War means of silencing dissent. By treating Russia as an all-purpose bogeyman, even when the U.S. routinely engages in similar behavior, one replicates an atmosphere that allows all criticism of the U.S. to be treated as traitorous.

But the issue here is not really whether the Russian government was behind the DNC hack. It’s that liberals are using the hack, plus a lot of wild, speculative theories about Trump, to avoid substantive criticisms from both their left and right. They have complained that the hack is “clearly intended to do maximum political damage to Democrats on the eve of the convention” and that the Russians are “trying to sabotage an American election.” (Although it was evidently Julian Assange, rather than Vladimir Putin, who chose to time the email release to coincide with the DNC.) These lines leave something unacknowledged: what the “damage” and “sabotage” actually was. In fact, the DNC emails were damaging because they disclosed true facts about the inner workings of the party. Thus to complain about sabotage is to complain that the public found out the truth. If searching my partner’s phone reveals evidence that they have been constantly cheating on me, they may well be right to complain that I should not have looked at the phone, or that what I have done is “worse than Watergate.” Ultimately, though, the search is less important than what it has turned up.

 

Democrats are Red baiting like its 1956.

swallow swallow's picture

Maybe "blue-baiting" would be more accurate, Russia being conservative-natioanlist now? 

They are attempting to do what they would have done in 1956, yes. And in 1956, it would have been game over for Trump. Today, not so much - because "Russophobia" is considerably reduced from where it was in 1956. 

josh

ikosmos wrote:

How bad is it? All criticism of the US regime is treated as treason.

 

Quote:
In the past few days, a number of Democrats have revived a long-dormant practice: accusing those to their left of being Kremlin operatives, and discrediting their political opponents with allegations of grand KGB conspiracies. As questions are raised over whether the Russian government hacked the Democratic National Committee’s email servers, certain political elites have used the opportunity to revive an eerily familiar political tactic, one with its roots in the 1950s.

All of this is very ugly indeed. By conspiratorially positing that those who disagree with them are either intentionally or unintentionally serving the interests of the Kremlin, liberals are reviving the some of the darkest aspects of 20th century political discourse. Just as the movement against the Vietnam War was once accused of being run out of Moscow, and just as the Civil Rights movement was supposedly filled with Communist agitators, liberals have once again revived one of the nastiest traditions in the history of American political smear tactics: the McCarthyist innuendo. Throughout the Cold War, members of the political establishment attempted to discredit those on the left through invocations of the specter of the KGB.

Franklin Foer has a reply to those who accuse him of red-baiting. Because the Russian government is no longer communist, he says, he cannot be engaging in McCarthyism. But the harmfulness of the method is not affected by changes in the political form of the Russian state. The 1950s witch-hunt would have been just as damaging even if the Soviet Union had been an entirely imaginary entity. By inflating Russia’s evils to absurd extremes, and then accusing others of enabling them, one directly recreates the Cold War means of silencing dissent. By treating Russia as an all-purpose bogeyman, even when the U.S. routinely engages in similar behavior, one replicates an atmosphere that allows all criticism of the U.S. to be treated as traitorous.

But the issue here is not really whether the Russian government was behind the DNC hack. It’s that liberals are using the hack, plus a lot of wild, speculative theories about Trump, to avoid substantive criticisms from both their left and right. They have complained that the hack is “clearly intended to do maximum political damage to Democrats on the eve of the convention” and that the Russians are “trying to sabotage an American election.” (Although it was evidently Julian Assange, rather than Vladimir Putin, who chose to time the email release to coincide with the DNC.) These lines leave something unacknowledged: what the “damage” and “sabotage” actually was. In fact, the DNC emails were damaging because they disclosed true facts about the inner workings of the party. Thus to complain about sabotage is to complain that the public found out the truth. If searching my partner’s phone reveals evidence that they have been constantly cheating on me, they may well be right to complain that I should not have looked at the phone, or that what I have done is “worse than Watergate.” Ultimately, though, the search is less important than what it has turned up.

 

Democrats are Red baiting like its 1956.


The issue is whether the Russian government broke in and stole information from a political party. And if so, why,

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

ikosmos wrote:

You messed up, k. No biggie. Stop wallowing in it.

With the deepest respect may I suggest you go fuck yourself.

6079_Smith_W

You know ikosmos, accuracy aside, the material you post isn't actually a problem. This gratuitous trolling and baiting (and the histrionics, as if you are the only one who has ever been ignored by the mods) is way more annoying. 

Give your head a shake. I don't give a shit how often you want to wear out the word Nazi on me, but kropotkin is actually one of the ones defending your position. Everyone in this room knows you are the one missing the point here.

 

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

6079_Smith_W wrote:
You know ikosmos, accuracy aside, the material you post isn't actually a problem. 

So address the material. If you're just going to re-gurgitate the missives of the bought-and-paid-for MSM, then don't be surprised if you're the subject of well-deserved mockery.

rabble.ca is alternative media. Make it so.

6079_Smith_W

I have done ikosmos, on numerous occasions. Do you even get why I mentioned that? And do you even get that what I am giving you here is friendly advice if you want to be taken seriously?

I am talking about you trolling kropotkin.You think "alternative media" is shorthand for needling people and making personal attacks? Not in my books. And you aren't helping whatever your cause is by turning on people, especially those who are defending you.

You are grossly misreading things here, and frankly you are making a fool out of yourself by trying to bluster your way out of it.

 

 

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

Not to be outdone, rabble.ca's own blogger, David Climenhaga, retorts ...

Quote:
The Pulitzer should go to the Times again -- only, this time, for fiction.

bwa ha ha ha. bwa ha ha ha. Please stop. All this laughing really hurts!

rabble blogger David Climenhaga: New York Times coverage of Russian hacking deserves another Pulitzer -- for fiction!

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

It was a matter of time ...

Oh look! It's Vlad The Impaler! Yes! He really WILL suck your blood!


6079_Smith_W

From Climenhaga's article: 

Quote:

Publishing documents is weaponizing them! Who knew? I thought this was called "journalism,” or, now and then, "history."

I guess that makes the phone book "journalism" too. As for Wikileaks, their repeatedly getting proprietary over stolen information, and threatening to sue actual journalists for doing their jobs turns the notion that they are journalists into a joke.

Or maybe he means the Melania Trump school of copy/paste/dump journalism.

And is he playing deliberately ignorant? Information leaked to attack an opponent is a "weapon", whether it contains some truth or not. And the key aspect of that here (and what makes it NOT journalism) is that motive, and that it is all being directed at the DNC and the Clinton campaign.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/27/us/politics/assange-timed-wikileaks-re...

He sidesteps a question about Trump by saying what he does will be "completely unpredictable"? Who does he think he is fooling?

 

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

Peter Lavelle: "Putin Did It!"

Peter Lavelle wrote:
If one relies on Western mainstream media and those who claim to represent the Western world, it is easy to come to the conclusion that Russian President Vladimir Putin is the most evil political figure in the world.

Actually, it would not be a gross exaggeration to claim Putin is responsible for just about all that afflicts the human condition today. One simple sentence says it all: “Putin did it.” The list of his sins is long and repeated endlessly. The fact is the West is infuriated by Russia’s refusal to accept its place in the world assigned by the Washington consensus. And Putin gets all the blame for this (and all the credit at home among Russians).

Lavelle summarizes foreign policy matters, esp. the role of the hegemon in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria since the end of the Cold War.

"Instead of a coherent foreign policy, the West, particularly its media, prefers a narrative in which an invented cartoon figure is the essence of all-evil in the world and “against our values. This of course is not a foreign policy, but it is a rejection and a refusal to entertain simple commonsense. It is also foreign policy failing to achieve Washington’s goals when attempting to stare down and isolate Russia."

"... a rejection and a refulsal to entertain simple common sense." Yup.

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

Here's why trying to ban Team Russian from the Olympics was a big mistake ...

Basically, Mercouris argues, the individual athletes are going to sue the ass off WADA. And, lo and behold, the IOC is ALREADY distancing itself from that institution. The whole process may take some considerable time ... but the writing seems already to be on the wall.

Quote:
Already Russian athletes who were barred unfairly from competing in Rio because of the decisions of the IAAF and the IOC are saying they will bring cases in court, which will presumably be based on discrimination and lack of due process.  Though there will no doubt be many legal obstacles to overcome, they will have the full backing of the Russian state which all but guarantees that they will have access to the very best lawyers who are all but guaranteed to find ways round.

If or rather when these cases are brought to court the grotesque unfairness and lack of due process that has marked this whole affair will be brought into stark relief.  Moreover the evidence that appeared in the two WADA reports will finally be brought under proper scrutiny.  Should that evidence unravel claims for compensation could be large.  At that point the damage those behind the campaign might suffer would go well beyond mere embarrassment.

Possibly because the IOC knows this it is hurrying to distance itself from WADA...


.................................................

I notice that Canadian Dick Pound has already bailed from WADA and moved along to a lucrative job with the Olympic Broadcasting Services (the monopoly on such arrangements, wherever the event takes place). I wonder if Beckie Scott will do something similar and bail from the WADA Athlete Committee (that she currently chairs). Time will tell.

............................................................

Quote:
Though as is usual with most cases that go to court it is unlikely that we will hear much about them for many months or even years, there is no doubt that over the next few weeks the Russian legal counter-offensive will start.  Though Team Russia will get to Rio in severely truncated and demoralised form, this is not the end of the affair.  On the contrary it has only just begun.


ikosmos ikosmos's picture

... and, because we can't be serious all the time ...



Quote:
“If you are rooting ­for Trump,
You are a toxic waste­ dump”.
“It’s as if you are r­ooting for Putin”,
“It’s worse than shoo­ting and looting”.
“So if you are trumpi­ng for Trump,
It’s as bad as puttin­g for Putin,
It means that you are­ polluting
The polls from fallac­ious sump.”

 

Russian Propaganda, Multiple Sarcasms: TrumPutin

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Pages

Topic locked