The New Russophobia 2

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

 Some obscene and over-the-top Russophobia is being expressed in the Western MSM and allied regimes regarding the assassination of the Russian Ambassador to Turkey.

 This thread, rather than the one about the assassination is, I think, the appropriate place to post these stories.

  1. Russia infuriated by New York Daily News op-ed, demands apology

 

Quote:
Russia has demanded an official apology from New York Daily News for publishing an op-ed that openly cheers the terrorist-perpetrated assassination of the country's ambassador to Turkey.

The New York Daily News is the fourth-most widely circulated daily newspaper in the United States and has been described as “part of the Democrats-led new McCarthyism.” As of 2014, it is owned and run by Mortimer Zuckerman, a Canadian-born American media proprietor, magazine editor, and investor who previously owned The Atlantic and Fast Company. “

  1. Ukrainian MP glorifies murder of Russian ambassador, calls assassin ‘hero’

 

Quote:
Ukraine has failed to officially condemn the assassination of the Russian ambassador to Turkey, while at least one member of parliament openly glorified the murder.

Volodymyr Parasyuk, Ukrainian Member of Parliament: “... When a man is ready, at the cost of his own life, to take extreme measures for the sake of an idea, for the sake of truth, then it can be said with confidence that he is a hero.”

There is plenty more to add. Other babblers can easily enough find them. You get the idea; that killing Russians is good, that any means to that end justified, and that stoking hatred is a true Western value, trumpeted from the rooftops.

What a cesspool the West has become. One Russian public media figure, disgusted, remarked that he was "surprised" these same media and public figures did not "cheer" the 7-year-old-girls that the terrorists have take to recruiting now.

 

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

Note on terminology.  Sergey Armeyskov notes that perhaps it is time to use a new term to describe this ubiquitous phenomena. He says Russomania, not Russophobia, is a better term to use.

See Russomania

Quote:
It’s not ‘Russophobia‘ because it’s not ‘phobia’ per se (although this element can also be present). It’s a mania, obsession with a conspiracy theory that #TheRussiansDidIt*, based on a belief with no solid proof. Finally, it’s a meme.


ikosmos ikosmos's picture

Here's a year-end Jim Dandy handy way to evaluate Russophobia. This is especially for those who have a healthy skepticism for the "over-the-top" contributions here (by me, in particular!) and find themselves trivializing ... all of it.

Simply replace the word "Russian" with the word "Jew". Still find the Russophobia trivial?

I got this from Vladimir Goldstein who is a regular on Peter Lavelle's Crosstalk over at RT.

 

6079_Smith_W

Except that there is the same distinction as there is between "Jewish" and "Israel", only a bit more blurry because in the case of Russia it is the same word.

If you are talking about untrustworthy thieving Russians, it is likely racism.

If you are talking about a Russian doping campaign, hacking,  bombing, and fake media propaganda, it is actually fair criticism of a government.

voice of the damned

ikosmos wrote:

Here's a year-end Jim Dandy handy way to evaluate Russophobia. This is especially for those who have a healthy skepticism for the "over-the-top" contributions here (by me, in particular!) and find themselves trivializing ... all of it.

Simply replace the word "Russian" with the word "Jew". Still find the Russophobia trivial?

I got this from Vladimir Goldstein who is a regular on Peter Lavelle's Crosstalk over at RT.

 

 

Well, I would think that on most of these issues, the word "Russian" is being used to represent the actions of the Russian government, or at least people representing that government(eg. Olympic athletes). Sort of like when we say "The Americans need to stop supporting dictatorships around the world", it is the US government being referred to, not every single person who holds American citizenship.

But since there is no country whose citizens are generally referred to as "Jews", the comparison doesn't really hold up. Someone who says "The Jews are doing X Y and Z" is likely making an offensive generalization about all Jews.

 

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

Right, more trivialization. Merry Christmas to you too. 

President of Council on American-Islamic Relations, Hussam Alyoush wrote:
I'm sad about the crashed Russian military jet. The TU-154 could have carried up to 180 military personnel instead of just 92!

Tweets of Joy for Russian plane crash.

Hussam Alyoush has close ties to the Democratic National Committee (DNC) in the USA. You know. American "liberals".

 

 

voice of the damned

Yes, that was a pretty offensive tweet. But I don't see how it relates to the claim that using the phrase "The Russians..." in a discussion on geopolitics is the same thing as saying "The Jews...".  

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

Wow. Obtuse, much votd? My claim was that if you want to evaluate whether something is Russophobic or not, ask yourself whether, by replacing "Russian" with "Jew" in statements that (others think) are Russophobic, you also find them offensive?

This isn't rocket science. What a lot of fakery from the usual suspects.

sherpa-finn

OK, let's try that out:

1. The Jewish state is a threat to its neighbours  / The Russian state is a threat to its neighbours.

2. Russian holy men dress up funny / Jewish holy men dress up funny.

3. Jews are really good at chess  / Russians are really good at chess.

4. Russians are really good at hockey / Jews are really good at hockey.

OK, I'm going to give this anaytical tool a 3 out of 4.  (With apologies to Larry Zeidel and Mathieu Schneider.) 

voice of the damned

ikosmos wrote:

Wow. Obtuse, much votd? My claim was that if you want to evaluate whether something is Russophobic or not, ask yourself whether, by replacing "Russian" with "Jew" in statements that (others think) are Russophobic, you also find them offensive?

This isn't rocket science. What a lot of fakery from the usual suspects.

Yes, I find it offensive with "Jews", because I know that it's likely referring to Jewish people in general, regardless of their political affiliations.

I don't usually find it offensive with "Russians"(or "Americans" or "Canadians" etc,) because I know that, in most cases of geopolitical discussion, it's likely referring to the government, which is fair game.  

 

 

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

 

President of Council on American-Islamic Relations, Hussam Alyoush wrote:
I'm sad about the crashed Russian military jet. The TU-154 could have carried up to 180 military personnel instead of just 92!

Tweets of Joy for Russian plane crash.

Tweets of Joy for Russian plane crash.

Tweets of Joy for Russian plane crash.

Tweets of Joy for Russian plane crash.

Tweets of Joy for Russian plane crash.

 

 

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

1.

Yuri Buryukov, Adviser to Ukrainian President Poroshenko wrote:
“It is a paradoxical paradox that residents of the neighboring horde do not understand why we are so happy about the deaths of 80 military men of the horde’s army… A plane of the Russian MoD plonked… We’ve got only one wish – to bring a bottle of Boyaryshnik to the embassy of the horde.”

Buryukov was celebrating not only the deaths of the musicians, ballerinas, humanitarian workers, journalists, etc., in the plane that crashed but also the many that were poisoned by fake alcohol in Siberia recently ...

Truly "European" values in today's Ukraine. That is, if by European we mean the determined sponsorship of terrorists and giddy enthusiasm for the deaths of dozens of civilians ...

Poroshenko's Adviser: a celebration of civilian deaths with a bottle of methyl alcohol ...

2. For those who can read Russian ...

The Top 100 Russophobes of 2016.

What's interesting about the list is how many "liberal" Russians are on the list.

notables include ...

1. Maria Arbatov

2. Michael Abizov

12. Zbignew Brzezinski

31. Boris Johnson

38. Ashton Carter

39. Gary Kasparov

42. Hilary Clinton

56. Angela Merkel

58. Federica Mogherini

62. Francois Hollande

65. Samantha Power

68. Vladimir Posner

69. Petr Poroshenko

76. George Soros

Now, off the top of my head, the only Canada-hating Canadian that comes to mind is former PM Stephen Harper (before he became PM. This stuff got shoved down the rabbit hole of forget by the MSM once he was PM). So I'm going to suggest that when you've got that many Russians on a Russophobic list, you can attribute some of it to familiarity, but some also to the very successful efforts of foreign governments to influence Russian "opinion makers"...

They can brainwash Filipinos to love the USA more than the Philipines. And, they can influence Russians to hate their own country ...

The war of ideas truly is a global phenomena. And we're all being targetted.

 

 

swallow swallow's picture

Can Russians be Russophobes now? Are Jewish critics of Jewish organizations therefore antisemitic? Are American dissidents America-haters? 

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

duplicate post

 

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

Well, in the opionion of the makers of that Top 100 list, sure, Russians can be Russophobes. I actually drew attention to that fact. I suppose a "critic" would be someone in the parliamentary opposition (eg, the Communists)  but I would not call all "critics" Russophobes without qualification.

Have you ever listened to Gary Kasparov? Anything less than an immediate nuclear attack on Russia he views as "wimpy" and "liberal". He thinks Russians should be "innoculated" against certain thoughts they have, and the country must be made to suffer (after Putin is overthrown, natch!) for Ukraine, Crimea, etc. Russians probably view his politics as Americans now view the (anti-semitic) politics of the late Bobby Fischer. As in, off the deep end and contemptible. Never mind Russian cops - ordinary people would probably like to give him a black eye.

I mean, there is an enormous, well paying market -  in the USA in particular - for Russians that denounce their own country on cue. People make their entire career on this basis alone. Just look at the mock whistleblower McLaren and his "witnesses" in regard to doping in Russia. These people are getting rich saying exactly what is expected of them.

We simply don't have such a rich collection of Canada-phobic public figures making their living trashing the country to a foreign audience. What idiot would pay for that?

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

OH, look. The petulant Obama regime ... going out with a bang.

US expels 35 Russian diplomats, closes 2 compounds

Quote:
Thirty-five Russian diplomats have been expelled from the US, according to a statement from State Department. President Obama described those expelled as “intelligence operatives,” also announcing the closure of two Russian compounds, in New York and Maryland.

The Russian diplomats would be given 72 hours to leave US soil. They are expelled for acting in a "manner inconsistent with their diplomatic status," the statement reads.

The Russian staff will also be denied access to the New York and Maryland compound as of noon on Friday, the source added.

 

 

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

The Russian Embassy, tired, I suppose, of the nonsense of the Obama regime, has a laugh ...

Russian Embassy, UK wrote:
President Obama expels 35 Russian diplomats in Cold War deja vu. As everybody, including USian people, will be glad to see the last of this hapless admin.

Ker-eist. When the Russian Embassy is laughing at you, you're phucked. Just go golfing already, Mr. President.

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

A Mecouris wrote:
Like many of Obama’s other recent moves, this one is not really targeted at Russia.  The additional sanctions will hardly affect Russia, though the wholesale expulsion of Russian diplomats will undoubtedly complicate the work of Russian diplomatic missions in the US.

The true target of these sanctions is Donald Trump.

By imposing sanctions on Russia, Obama is lending the authority of the Presidency to the CIA’s claims of Russian hacking, daring Trump to deny their truth.

If Trump as President allows the sanctions to continue, he will be deemed to have accepted the CIA’s claims of Russian hacking as true.  If Trump cancels the sanctions when he becomes President, he will be accused of being Russia’s stooge.

It is a well known lawyer’s trick, and Obama the former lawyer doubtless calculates that either way Trump’s legitimacy and authority as President will be damaged, with the insinuation that he owes his Presidency to the Russians now given extra force.

Like so many of Obama’s other moves in the last weeks of his Presidency, it is an ugly and small minded act, seeking to undermine his successor as President in a way that is completely contrary to US tradition.

Can you say "Crash and Burn" ? This President is leaving a burning hulk of the Oval Office.

Really classy. aha ha ha ha.

See BREAKING: Obama imposes more sanctions on Russia over claims of Russian hacking

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

Putin: Russia will not expel anyone in response to US sanctions

Quote:
The Russian president has rejected a suggestion of the foreign ministry to expel 35 American diplomats in response to a similar move by the US. He said Obama’s act was designed to provoke a reaction, but Russia would not take the bait.

“We reserve the right to retaliate, but we will not sink to the level of this irresponsible ‘kitchen’ diplomacy. We will take further moves on restoring Russian-American relations based on the policies that the administration of President-elect Donald Trump adopts,” Russian President Vladimir Putin said in a statement published by the Kremlin website.

That Putin. He's just like Hitler.

Tongue out

 

Edzell Edzell's picture

All hail the new Russo-American empire !!

Where will it lead?

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

Well, of course, another Non-Aggression Treaty. And the division of Poland.

But which one is Hitler?

bekayne

ikosmos wrote:

And the division of Poland.

No, Iran will do.

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

The Iranians know very well, if they didn't figure that out with the US sponsorship of Iraq and their chemical weapons in the Iran/Iraq War, that after the Western/jihadist dismemberment of Syria, Iran would be next. This is a very powerful motivation for helping Syria to remain as a single, sovereign state.

It also coincides with the right thing to do.

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

Patrick Lawrence in The Nation: The Perils of Russophobia

"Anyone too young to remember HUAC and the destruction the Cold War wrought should study up. We are a few short steps away from both."

Cue babbler Smith. Nothing to see here. Move along.

Quote:
It is essential, as I suggest, to understand our moment in historical context. Then each of us must decide, just as those called before the HUAC had to: Do I acquiesce or participate in this freakish exercise in crowd control and fear-mongering, or do I repudiate a propaganda campaign as irrational and morally wrong as any concocted during the McCarthy years? At last the question confronts us, and it is especially acute this time for those self-described as progressives: Is one a descendant of that muddled, gutless lot known as Cold War liberals, or does one insist on clear sight and principle even in the face of the ideological blasts our corporate media deliver daily?

Think it through: This is the imperative of our moment—a significant moment, because the American propaganda machine is now unusually challenged. Its efficacy is no longer the certainty it was during the Cold War decades. My own view, to be clear straightaway, is without ambivalence. It is our minds that are the objects of this onslaught: They are finally what is at issue. Surrender yours to this most flagrant case of scapegoating—hatred and anxiety conjured from thin air—and your place in the history books will be with the ghosts of all the shrill Cold Warriors and cowering chumps of decades past.

So? Which is it? Cowering chump? Or champion of freedom?

6079_Smith_W

Hey, don't blame me. I was looking in there to find something. I read some spooky warnings, but nothing to idicate that anyone is doing anything remotely comparable to the House Unamerican Activities Commission.

Hell, he didn't even mention the Washington Post article and the supposed list.

Of course the only real lists being compiled are those by Trump, going after those who have worked on climate change, and his enemies: 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-department-energy-names...

Trump's handlers warning about consequences

http://www.liberalamerica.org/2016/12/15/kellyanne-conway-criticize-trum...

Trump banning and threatening media

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/03/donald-trump-banned-publicat...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/02/26/donald-trump-v...

Of course if there is one big reason why there is unlikely to be another McCarthyite scare, it isn't in Washington, but in Hollywood. The studio system as it was in those days simply no longer exists.

 

bekayne

ikosmos wrote:

The Iranians know very well, if they didn't figure that out with the US sponsorship of Iraq and their chemical weapons in the Iran/Iraq War, that after the Western/jihadist dismemberment of Syria, Iran would be next. This is a very powerful motivation for helping Syria to remain as a single, sovereign state.

It also coincides with the right thing to do.

The reason I mention Iran: didn't you notice the Trump appointees who want war with Iran?  How would Trump get his choice for Secretary of State confirmed by Senators like McCain and Graham?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-zoPgv_nYg

NDPP

Obama's Expulsion of Russian 'Spies' From the US is Deeply Ironic  -  by David Climenhaga

http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/djclimenhaga/2016/12/obamas-expulsion-ru...

"So the Russians stand accused - on as yet unpersuasive evidence -- of acting like journalists, and like Canadians and Israelis, and like Republican state governors, and, worst of all, like Americans! No wonder our American cousins are in a full blown swivet.

Believe me, Donald Trump is going to be a spectacularly terrible president. It's going to be ugly. Bigly ugly. And there are a lot of people who share the blame for this - including the Democrats for running a candidate as egregiously bad as Clinton.

But the Russians? Seriously?"

NDPP

Greetings and hallucinations. Uncle Sam appears seriously deranged and we all know how he can get when he's that way...

 

Russian Operation Hacked A Vermont Utility Showing Risk To US Electrical Grid Security, Officials Say

http://yahoo.com/news/m/8572b72b-75cc-3e5a-84e9-9d51b7ee0e8a/ss_russian-...

"A code associated with the Russian hacking operation dubbed Grizzly Steppe by the Obama administration has been detected within the system of a Vermont utility, according to US officials.

While the Russians did not actively use the code to disrupt operations, according to officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a security matter, the discovery underscores the vulnerabilities of the nation's electrical grid..."

 

"We on the left" seem to have become infected too...

https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/814965336239906816

Happy New Year! May you live in interesting times.

 

 

 

 

6079_Smith_W

Do you not understand that this is a real thing?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cyber-attacks

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/russia-cyber-warfare-election-hack-1.3896613

I mean, if you think those actions are a good thing because they are an attack on NATO and western imperialists, fine. But to question that they are being done is at this point absurd. It is not just the Democrats who have experienced it, or the Americans.

 

6079_Smith_W

Oh, and further to the impending McCarthyism:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/facebook-ban-sessums-trump-backers-f...

Quote:

Facebook temporarily banned bestselling author and journalist Kevin Sessums after he described Donald Trump supporters as a “nasty fascistic lot” in a post.

Sessums said the comment was in reaction to a tweet by ABC political analyst Matthew Dowd, who said that he had been called by “lovely ‘christian’ Trump fans: a Jew, faggot, retard.”

If that dynamic was there, it doesn't seem to be directed at the people Lawrence claims are under threat..

NDPP

It's called Russophobia Smith. And you've got it bad.

 

6079_Smith_W

What... because he dared to call someone a fascist for saying things like that?

josh

6079_Smith_W wrote:

What... because he dared to call someone a fascist for saying things like that?

Don't let them get to you. The site of supposed leftists embracing fascists Putin and Trump is nauseating.

6079_Smith_W

No worries. As I was asking, if he or others here think the cyberattacks and propaganda are a good thing because they are directed at bringing down western imperialism, that is their privilege. But to pretend that they don't exist is at this point absurd. This has not just been directed at Hillary Clinton.

I'll stop short of calling them deranged though. That is not what is going on here.

 

NDPP

'Spy Nests'

https://youtu.be/uxTm1GV8pmI

"Russian diplomats asked to vacate holiday homes in US."

 

CIA, White House Owe US People Proof of Russian Role in US Election

https://youtu.be/3K-WQcLG82g

"John Kiriakou, a former CIA agent turned whistleblower says Washington must present solid proof or admit the allegations are politically motivated."

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

6079_Smith_W wrote:

No worries. As I was asking, if he or others here think the cyberattacks and propaganda are a good thing because they are directed at bringing down western imperialism, that is their privilege. But to pretend that they don't exist is at this point absurd. This has not just been directed at Hillary Clinton.

I'll stop short of calling them deranged though. That is not what is going on here.

I hate cyber attacks and propaganda. I also hate spies and their lies. I happen to believe that all spy agencies are engaged in hacking into other countries systems. I also believe China, the US, Israel and Russia undoubtedly have the capability to hack whatever they want to if they put resources to it.  Seems to me that they didn't try to hack the various computer voting machines.

YOu have a story that says the US security establishment claims its true and you actually take it on face value.  WMD's, babies murdered in incubators, viagra fueled rape squads. Given the list of things that US security agencies have accused other countries of I remain a skeptic.

Quote:

 Point 1 for all Russophobes, but especially the “progressive” variety: There are costs attached to this swoon into perfect gullibility. It leaves the door open to worsening what is already a dangerous level of global tension, and chief among those served are the Pentagon, its NATO subsidiary, military contractors, and Capitol Hill warmongers who act in behalf of these three. Ask yourself, liberal: Is this where I line up? Suddenly you are willing to take the CIA’s word for anything at all? You accept what the Times publishes as true—and the complete truth, nothing left out—because it is in the Times? Given the historical record in both cases, this is very odd. So is the fact that capital “D” Democrats are now leading the Russophobic charge. That used to be the work of rightist reactionaries. One feels like Rip van Winkle, awakening to find the world a different place.

https://www.thenation.com/article/the-perils-of-russophobia/

6079_Smith_W

Well sure, but my point is it is NOT just the Americans. And there actually is evidence. The curious thing about all of these so-called skeptical articles is that none of them look at that evidence, even though it has been corroborated by several sources. They all dismiss it because it comes from security companies - ironically, the people who have the technical expertise when it comes to security.

Kind of like dismissing medical evidence because you can't trust doctors. But feel free.

 

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

6079_Smith_W wrote:

The curious thing about all of these so-called skeptical articles is that none of them look at that evidence, even though it has been corroborated by several sources. They all dismiss it because it comes from security companies - ironically, the people who have the technical expertise when it comes to security.

Kind of like dismissing medical evidence because you can't trust doctors. But feel free.

You sir are once again beating the crap out of a straw person. But then again that is always your default when confronted with a reasonable argument.

What I love about you is that you rightly claim that you are immune to US propaganda and still somehow independently arrive at the same conclusions 99% of the time. 

Frankly if the Democratic establishment had not sandbagged Sanders and actively supported Hillary in truly mind boggling anti-democratic machinations there would be only one story to talk about. Sanders kicks Trump's Ass Back to the Dragon Den. Instead they stole the nomination and are now whining that someone tried to steal the election by outting their nasty dirty tricks campaign.

Quote:

 As this magazine demanded in an editorial last week, let’s see the evidence supporting all these allegations of Russian interference in the American political process. Robby Mook, who managed Hillary Clinton’s campaign, asserted within a couple of hours of the first e-mail leaks last summer that the Democrats were certain it was the Russians—and certain, somehow, of their motives. That bit of chicanery has ever since been my cue: I will believe it when I see proof and emphatically not before. A few points here: One, a number of highly qualified intelligence veterans, including the estimable Ray McGovern, now say the e-mail caches at issue were almost certainly leaked, not hacked—an inside job. This, too, deserves more light, never mind you have read not one word of it in the corporate media. Two, assume for a sec that Russia is indeed the responsible party. Next to Washington’s routinely vicious cyber-sabotage campaigns, the exposed material stacks up as little more than a frivolous gossip column. 

jjuares

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Well sure, but my point is it is NOT just the Americans. And there actually is evidence. The curious thing about all of these so-called skeptical articles is that none of them look at that evidence, even though it has been corroborated by several sources. They all dismiss it because it comes from security companies - ironically, the people who have the technical expertise when it comes to security.

Kind of like dismissing medical evidence because you can't trust doctors. But feel free.

 

 


I am sorry but I just can't share the outrage. I have no problem believing that the Russians may be behind the hacking. Which means that they shared some embarassing personal correspondence that may have influenced some voters. But my goodness look how the Americans have involved themselves in the governance of other nations, coups, bribery, invasions etc.

6079_Smith_W

jjuares wrote:

I am sorry but I just can't share the outrage. I have no problem believing that the Russians may be behind the hacking.

I am not asking you to share any outrage. I didn't even say I was outraged. My point, as I just said, was not whether or not anyone thinks Russia was right, or whether the Americans deserved it.

But I am relieved there is someone here who recognizes that this happens, and isn't reflexively rejecting it.

So far all we have is people dismissing it out of hand because you can't trust the CIA or security experts, ignoring the evidence that is there, and the fact this same very specific  malware has been used in attacks in Europe. Instead, the latest narrative is that it was a disgruntled insider just because someone said so.

Not to mention there was a warning about this attack long before this even became an issue.

 

 

voice of the damned

@post 439, jjuares 

 Personally, I'm not "outraged", in the sense of "How dare anyone do such a dastardly thing to the wonderful Americans!" It's more just that, if(and I'm saying IF) the Russians hacked the major American political parties with the intent of influencing the elections, it has some pretty serious implications, both for domestic American politics and the international arena. (By way of comparison, you don't have to think George McGovern was a good guy in order to see why Watergate would be considered a big deal.)

As for the truth of the allegations, well, I can believe that the hack was carried out by the Russians, by the Chinese, by the French, by the Vatican, or by some dreadlocked slacker sitting proverbially in his mother's basement. I can also believe that the CIA is fabricating large parts of this story in order to undermine the Russians.

But on that last point...

If the CIA is just making stuff up to demonize the Russians, this particular method of doing so would be a bit of a double-edged sword, to say the least. Because this isn't just the CIA saying "Russia hacked the American political parties", it's the CIA saying "Russia hacked the American political parties in order to help get Trump elected." Trump, of course, being the guy who ended up winning the election.

So, if the CIA is lying about their belief in Russian involvement, they're pretty much deliberately calling into question the national loyalty of the president-elect. Because even if they don't come out and say that he knew about and/or approved the hack, if you're someone who is ready to believe that Where There's Smoke There's Fire, this is probably gonna be all the evidence you need to hear.

Why the CIA would be willing to do that to the incoming POTUS, when they could just as easily fabricate allegations that embarass Russia without undermining Trump, I don't know. Another explanation might be that they just really do hate Trump, and making him look bad was all part of the plan.

 

 

 

 

 

6079_Smith_W

voice of the damned wrote:

it's the CIA saying "Russia hacked the American political parties in order to help get Trump elected." Trump, of course, being the guy who ended up winning the election.

There is no proof of that motive and those who found the Russian hack to be a near certainty also say that would be virtually impossible to prove. So yes, it is an opinion. But it is one advised by a good deal of past evidence of similar attacks in Europe, and strong circumstantial evidence in this case.

And frankly the best example of complete fabrication and bias was Comey's action in the last week of the campaign. That has since been proven to be based on absolutely nothing.

 

 

josh

jjuares wrote:
6079_Smith_W wrote:

Well sure, but my point is it is NOT just the Americans. And there actually is evidence. The curious thing about all of these so-called skeptical articles is that none of them look at that evidence, even though it has been corroborated by several sources. They all dismiss it because it comes from security companies - ironically, the people who have the technical expertise when it comes to security.

Kind of like dismissing medical evidence because you can't trust doctors. But feel free.

 

 


I am sorry but I just can't share the outrage. I have no problem believing that the Russians may be behind the hacking. Which means that they shared some embarassing personal correspondence that may have influenced some voters. But my goodness look how the Americans have involved themselves in the governance of other nations, coups, bribery, invasions etc.

No question. That was wrong. And this was wrong.

jjuares

josh wrote:
jjuares wrote:
6079_Smith_W wrote:

Well sure, but my point is it is NOT just the Americans. And there actually is evidence. The curious thing about all of these so-called skeptical articles is that none of them look at that evidence, even though it has been corroborated by several sources. They all dismiss it because it comes from security companies - ironically, the people who have the technical expertise when it comes to security.

Kind of like dismissing medical evidence because you can't trust doctors. But feel free.

 

 


I am sorry but I just can't share the outrage. I have no problem believing that the Russians may be behind the hacking. Which means that they shared some embarassing personal correspondence that may have influenced some voters. But my goodness look how the Americans have involved themselves in the governance of other nations, coups, bribery, invasions etc.

No question. That was wrong. And this was wrong.


But there is no moral equivalence here. Jaywalking and murder are both crimes but......

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Jaywalking and murder are both crimes but......

But what?

We don't punish jaywalkers in the same way that we do murderers.  And law enforcement does have the time and resources to be concerned with both.

This argument usually comes with an implied false dilemma; that because one thing is plainly worse than the other, we cannot possible consider them both.

What's funny is that if some cheating Russian athlete is caught cheating and barred from some or other competition because of that, it's treated as an even WORSE tragedy than the other two.  So much for any honest attempt at some perspective.

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

I love this denouncing of Russia in the Russophobia thread by people who noisily insist that there is no Russophobia, anywhere and, certainly not by themselves.

Round up the usual Russian suspects.

bekayne

ikosmos wrote:

I love this denouncing of Russia in the Russophobia thread by people who noisily insist that there is no Russophobia, anywhere and, certainly not by themselves.

Round up the usual Russian suspects.

So you can never denounce any action by the Russian government, or you're a Russophobe?

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

That seems to be the name of the game.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
I love this denouncing of Russia in the Russophobia thread by people who noisily insist that there is no Russophobia, anywhere and, certainly not by themselves.

Denying or ignoring Russophobia is an example of Russophobia.  Similarly, disparaging the Boot is a Bootable offense.

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

The Putin regime is pretty well as neo-liberal, domestically, as our own. There's plenty to criticize there for those geniunely interested in the domestic struggles in that country. The mock liberals are a diversion but anyone with half a brain can see through those 5th columnists.

Foreign policy wise, however, as far as I'm concerned, Russia is playing a brilliant role in the world today. They deserve our respect and praise.

That's it.

Pages

Topic locked