meazza Posted December 19, 2016 Posted December 19, 2016 It's a false flag by Putin to give Erdogan an opportunity to crack down harder and develop even closer ties with Russia. Duh. I thought it would have been a neocon plot to start WWIII to enrich the military industrial complex.
GG Posted December 19, 2016 Posted December 19, 2016 I'm curious how Greg will spin this. That it's neocons' fault?
meazza Posted December 19, 2016 Posted December 19, 2016 (edited) That it's neocons' fault? Everything is. Edited December 19, 2016 by meazza
DC Tom Posted December 19, 2016 Posted December 19, 2016 I thought it would have been a neocon plot to start WWIII to enrich the military industrial complex. Well that goes without saying. Everything is a neocon plot.
meazza Posted December 19, 2016 Posted December 19, 2016 Well that goes without saying. Everything is a neocon plot. Or a Romulan plot to start a war.
GG Posted December 19, 2016 Posted December 19, 2016 Well that goes without saying. Everything is a neocon plot. Ever since the last supper.
keepthefaith Posted December 19, 2016 Posted December 19, 2016 And of course the media, who love him, and the celebrities, who love him even more, will continue to keep him front and center. He's not fading away like Bush did. If only we could have re-elected Obama a few more times. The country would still have hope.
Nanker Posted December 19, 2016 Posted December 19, 2016 Wow. Why did Putin have his Ambassador killed? Climate Change?
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted December 19, 2016 Posted December 19, 2016 Or a Romulan plot to start a war. You can't ever trust a romulan. Ask James Kirk.
DC Tom Posted December 27, 2016 Posted December 27, 2016 http://www.federaltimes.com/articles/stolen-election-assistance-commission-logins-could-lead-to-larger-compromise?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=cyber%2012%2027&utm_term=Editorial%20-%20Cyber%20Weekly
Ozymandius Posted December 28, 2016 Posted December 28, 2016 I thought it would have been a neocon plot to start WWIII to enrich the military industrial complex. AND to use the U.S. to fight Israel's wars. It's both. The neocohens want both the shekels and to protect the motherland.
B-Man Posted January 3, 2017 Posted January 3, 2017 ASSANGE: IT WAS NOT RUSSIA... Obama trying to 'delegitimize' election... Whatever happened to vowed smooth transition?
Tiberius Posted January 3, 2017 Posted January 3, 2017 ASSANGE: IT WAS NOT RUSSIA... Obama trying to 'delegitimize' election... Whatever happened to vowed smooth transition? Don't forget the FBI's interference in election!
keepthefaith Posted January 3, 2017 Posted January 3, 2017 Don't forget the FBI's interference in election! Right, because Hillary should have been permitted to run while concealing her weaknesses and dirty dealings.
DC Tom Posted January 3, 2017 Posted January 3, 2017 Don't forget the FBI's interference in election! [This is an automated response.] You're an idiot. Created by DC Tom-bot, beta version 0.4.
Deranged Rhino Posted January 4, 2017 Posted January 4, 2017 ASSANGE: IT WAS NOT RUSSIA... I'm still highly, highly suspect about where Assange was/is during his blackout. That video technology that's been posted a few times in other threads should be at the top of people's minds. He's supposed to do an AMA on reddit on Thursday and promises to offer "proof of life" -- all that said, it should be interesting to hear what he has to say.
meazza Posted January 4, 2017 Posted January 4, 2017 https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/01/03/the-u-s-doesnt-have-a-problem-with-russia-it-has-a-problem-with-vladimir-putin/?utm_term=.a81059b95d2f#comments DR will label this a neo-con piece.
Tiberius Posted January 4, 2017 Posted January 4, 2017 Right, because Hillary should have been permitted to run while concealing her weaknesses and dirty dealings. Oh, turns out there was nothing to hide. FBI threw the election
Deranged Rhino Posted January 4, 2017 Posted January 4, 2017 WashPost Is Richly Rewarded for False News About Russia Threat While Public Is Deceived IN THE PAST six weeks, the Washington Post published two blockbuster stories about the Russian threat that went viral: one on how Russia is behind a massive explosion of “fake news,” the other on how it invaded the U.S. electric grid. Both articles were fundamentally false. Each now bears a humiliating editor’s note grudgingly acknowledging that the core claims of the story were fiction: The first note was posted a full two weeks later to the top of the original article; the other was buried the following day at the bottom. (snip) But while these debacles are embarrassing for the paper, they are also richly rewarding. That’s because journalists — including those at the Post — aggressively hype and promote the original, sensationalistic false stories, ensuring that they go viral, generating massive traffic for the Post (the paper’s executive editor, Marty Baron, recently boasted about how profitable the paper has become). (snip) WHETHER THE POST’S false stories here can be distinguished from what is commonly called “Fake News” is, at this point, a semantic dispute, particularly since “Fake News” has no cogent definition. Defenders of Fake News as a distinct category typically emphasize intent in order to differentiate it from bad journalism. That’s really just a way of defining Fake News so as to make it definitionally impossible for mainstream media outlets like the Post ever to be guilty of it (much the way terrorism is defined to ensure that the U.S. government and its allies cannot, by definition, ever commit it). (snip) Whatever the motives, the effects of these false stories are exactly the same as those of whatever one regards as Fake News. The false claims travel all over the internet, deceiving huge numbers into believing them. The propagators of the falsehoods receive ample profit from their false, viral “news.” And there is no accountability of the kind that would disincentivize a repeat of the behavior. (That the Post ultimately corrects its false story does not distinguish it from classic Fake News sites, which also sometimes do the same.) (snip) As this excellent timeline by Kalev Leetaru documents, the Post did not even bother to contact the utility companies in question — the most elementary step of journalistic responsibility — until after the story was published. Intelligence officials insisting on anonymity — so as to ensure no accountability — whispered to them that this happened, and despite how significant the consequences would be, they rushed to print it with no verification at all. This is not a case of good journalism producing inaccurate reporting; it is the case of a media outlet publishing a story that it knew would produce massive benefits and consequences without the slightest due diligence or care. (snip) A VERY COMMON dynamic is driving all of this: media groupthink, greatly exacerbated (as I described on Saturday) by the incentive scheme of Twitter. As the grand media failure of 2002 demonstrated, American journalists are highly susceptible to fueling and leading the parade in demonizing a new Foreign Enemy rather than exerting restraint and skepticism in evaluating the true nature of that threat. It is no coincidence that many of the most embarrassing journalistic debacles of this year involve the Russia Threat, and they all involve this same dynamic. Perhaps the worst one was the facially ridiculous, pre-election Slate story — which multiple outlets (including The Intercept) had been offered but passed on — alleging that Trump had created a secret server to communicate with a Russian bank; that story was so widely shared that even the Clinton campaign ended up hyping it — a tweet that, by itself, was re-tweeted almost 12,000 times. (snip) Beyond the journalistic tendency to echo anonymous officials on whatever Scary Foreign Threat they are hyping at the moment, there is an independent incentive scheme sustaining all of this. That Russia is a Grave Menace attacking the U.S. has — for obvious reasons — become a critical narrative for Democrats and other Trump opponents who dominate elite media circles on social media and elsewhere. They reward and herald anyone who bolsters that narrative, while viciously attacking anyone who questions it. Hmmm... who owns the Washington Post again? Certainly not a contracted CIA asset, right? I wonder what his motive might be. It's a puzzler.
B-Man Posted January 4, 2017 Posted January 4, 2017 DAVID HARSANYI: Democrats are more likely to believe the Russians installed Donald Trump into the presidency than Republicans are to have ever believed Barack Obama was a Muslim. Why are Democratic constituencies such cesspits of paranoia and outdated beliefs?
Recommended Posts