Nope. I named it as an alternative 'narrative'. No more, no less. Try to be fair, please. Always ready to judge, some of you guys seem to be. Always ready to CANCEL any different viewpoint.
This does not make the world a better place, but the opposite.
Is this a place to discuss, as a forum should be, or is it only a place to attack any views differing from the corporate media and politics agenda, I wonder.
And - as seems obvious at this point - no one in this forum seems at all willing to buy your "alternative narratives", why are you still here? Why not abandon us closed-minded fools to our own devices and take your valuable perspectives elsewhere, where they might be better received?
The âMSMâ reporting on the war in Ukraine is âpropagandaâ and the analysis of the Strategic Culture Foundation is an âalternative viewâ and, presumably, the âtruth.â Got it.
Nope. I named it as an alternative 'narrative'. No more, no less. Try to be fair, please. Always ready to judge, some of you guys seem to be. Always ready to CANCEL any different viewpoint.
This does not make the world a better place, but the oppposite.
Is this a place to discuss, as a forum should be, or is it only a place to attack any views differing from the corporate media and politics agenda, I wonder.
You're absolutely not getting 'my points'. I was not trying to 'score any one point' here, at all. I told you before it is a pro-Russian think-tank within the US, that I quoted. So, no Russians. And no need for you to repeat that in a long Wiki quote. If you read my post. And the article. I don't quote anything unread. Perhaps you do, at times? But what the heck.
What I tried was, to deliver an alternative view to the MSM propaganda. Remember, the first victim of an ongoing war is truth.
'nough said.
No you didn't. Where was that stated?
Unless you have made that statement in a past post. Sorry, I don't necessarily back-scroll to try and catch up on every post made.
FYI, I can make as long as a WikiPost as I like comrade. Here in America and on RP we have that right.
So... let me get this straight... you answer to MSM "propaganda" is Russian propaganda? If you are really ambitious maybe you can locate and translate some Chinese propaganda articles while you are at it. Besides I don't even know what MSM "propaganda" you have an objection with that you felt you needed to counter it with Russian propaganda. You want to sell the "Putin was pushed/justified into what he is doing" argument... sorry I'm not buying.
Yes, the first victim of an ongoing war is truth which is why Putin has done his best to kill off "figuratively and literally" those sources that would seek to expose it. Your source: Strategic Culture Foundation connected (as it is) to Russian propaganda isn't interested in truth. Seems that you're in need of a "strategic" rethinking of your geo-political views.
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Mar 27, 2022 - 12:49pm
Ivanhoe wrote:
You're absolutely not getting 'my points'. I was not trying to 'score any one point' here, at all. I told you before it is a pro-Russian think-tank within the US, that I quoted. So, no Russians. And no need for you to repeat that in a long Wiki quote. If you read my post. And the article. I don't quote anything unread. Perhaps you do, at times? But what the heck.
What I tried was, to deliver an alternative view to the MSM propaganda. Remember, the first victim of an ongoing war is truth.
'nough said.
The âMSMâ reporting on the war in Ukraine is âpropagandaâ and the analysis of the Strategic Culture Foundation is an âalternative viewâ and, presumably, the âtruth.â Got it.
No need to check those articles... as you will need to find other "valid" non-Russian propaganda sources to try and make your points.
You're absolutely not getting 'my points'. I was not trying to 'score any one point' here, at all. I told you before it is a pro-Russian think-tank within the US, that I quoted. So, no Russians. And no need for you to repeat that in a long Wiki quote. If you read my post. And the article. I don't quote anything unread. Perhaps you do, at times? But what the heck.
What I tried was, to deliver an alternative view to the MSM propaganda. Remember, the first victim of an ongoing war is truth.
'nough said.
After President Biden called President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia a âbutcherâ and said that he could not remain in power, European officials reacted with a mix of rejection and admiration. The French and British governments distanced themselves from Mr. Bidenâs remarks and the prospect of regime change, while others welcomed his blunt tone.
âI wouldnât use this kind of words,â President Emmanuel Macron of France said in a television interview on Sunday after he was asked to comment on Mr. Bidenâs speech. He said he hoped to obtain a cease-fire and the withdrawal of Russian troops from Ukraine through diplomacy.
âIf we want to do this, we mustnât escalate,â he said, âneither with words nor with actions.â
Britainâs government took a similar stance. (...)
The comment risked âturning the war for the defense of Ukraine to a familiar one of American aggression,â Patrick Wintour, the Guardianâs diplomatic editor, wrote on Sunday, âAny unseating of Russiaâs president is that countryâs business, not that of the U.S. president.â He called the remarks âa badly needed giftâ to a Russian government that is skilled at depicting the United States as an âimperialistic bully.â (...)
Correctamundo. Yet, the thoughts given in that article are part of a greater narrative, detailing western hegemony, Maidan, etc. If one follows that (greater) narrative, the conclusion I gave seems quite evident (maybe not only to me).
I tried to. It is possible it is way over my head . . . Or it essentially is gibberish.
Yea, unfortunately I wasted on my time on it and unless you wish to read and support Russian propaganda... not worth spending any time on. This is what I found about the online site it is posted on:
Strategic Culture Foundation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Strategic Culture Foundation is a Russian think tank that primarily publishes an online current affairs magazine of the same name. It is regarded as an arm of Russian state interests by the United States government.
According to a 2020 United States Department of State report, the Strategic Culture Foundation is directed by Russia's Foreign Intelligence Service, and is closely affiliated with Russia's Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
It has been characterized as a conservative, pro-Russian propaganda website by U.S. media.
Strategic Culture Foundation has a pattern of sharing articles with other Russia-controlled outlets such as Global Research, New Eastern Outlook, and SouthFront.
The Washington Post reported in September 2020 that Facebook had banned a Russian disinformation network operated by the Strategic Culture Foundation â a network that âhelped spread conspiracy theories aimed at English-speaking audiences, including by fueling false rumors that the coronavirus was produced as a bioweapon and that a potential vaccine would include tracking technology.â The Postâs report stated that the Strategic Culture Foundation âalso spread false information that Bill Gates, the tech executive and philanthropist, was leading efforts to create a vaccine with surveillance capabilities.â The Postâs report called the Strategic Culture Foundation âa phony think tankâ.
In April 2021, the United States Department of the Treasury imposed sanctions on the Strategic Culture Foundation because of their efforts to influence US elections.
psst... you're dealing with a German neo-Nazi who for months saw in Putin a possible strong-man to save us all from the terrors of pluralism and liberal democracy - the kind of guy who will bring us all back to the straight and narrow. Just Ivanhoe hasn't got the balls to admit openly that he is actually a fascist and now that Putin has unmasked the dark side of the whole fascist enterprise, laying siege to civilian populations and killing civilians in a direct rerun of Nazi Germany's occupation of Russia/Ukraine in 1941, all Ivanhoe can do is grasp for a ridiculously incoherent argument that paints Putin as some kind of victim of the "heinous liberal order".
Your accusation has been recorded and forwarded to the board management. I am not talking to you anymore, since this is only one in a number of ad-hominems you played on me, pretending you have the sole right of 'truth' and 'glory' in yo little shameful ass.
oh, I am sorry, I thought you thought that bolded part was a good thing!
psst... you're dealing with a German neo-Nazi who for months saw in Putin a possible strong-man to save us all from the terrors of pluralism and liberal democracy - the kind of guy who will bring us all back to the straight and narrow.
Just Ivanhoe hasn't got the balls to admit openly that he is actually a fascist and now that Putin has unmasked the dark side of the whole fascist enterprise, laying siege to civilian populations and killing civilians in a direct rerun of Nazi Germany's occupation of Russia/Ukraine in 1941, all Ivanhoe can do is grasp for a ridiculously incoherent argument that paints Putin as some kind of victim of the "heinous liberal order".
You don't seem to be able to discuss politics beyond your own bias. Your accusation has been recorded and forwarded to the board management. I am not talking to you anymore, since this is only one in a number of ad-hominems you played on me, pretending you have the sole right of 'truth' and 'glory' in yo little shameful ass.
Correctamundo. Yet, the thoughts given in that article are part of a greater narrative, detailing western hegemony, Maidan, etc. If one follows that (greater) narrative, the conclusion I gave seems quite evident (maybe not only to me).
Ok, so following the logic we (the “West”, NATO… EU) were baiting Russia into attacking the Ukraine and they did what we wanted them to do? This was our plan all along and now we have the conflict that we were hoping for? So we have no one to blame but ourselves for Putin’s actions? Your conclusion is not only not self-evident it’s delusional. The article (slanted as it is) tries to provide historical context to current events but certainly stops short of saying that Putin’s actions are justified. I doubt that your conclusion represents anything but a small minority.
psst... you're dealing with a German neo-Nazi who for months saw in Putin a possible strong-man to save us all from the terrors of pluralism and liberal democracy - the kind of guy who will bring us all back to the straight and narrow. Just Ivanhoe hasn't got the balls to admit openly that he is actually a fascist and now that Putin has unmasked the dark side of the whole fascist enterprise, laying siege to civilian populations and killing civilians in a direct rerun of Nazi Germany's occupation of Russia/Ukraine in 1941, all Ivanhoe can do is grasp for a ridiculously incoherent argument that paints Putin as some kind of victim of the "heinous liberal order".
Ok, so following the logic we (the âWestâ, NATO⦠EU) were baiting Russia into attacking the Ukraine and they did what we wanted them to do? This was our plan all along and now we have the conflict that we were hoping for? So we have no one to blame but ourselves for Putinâs actions? Your conclusion is not only not self-evident itâs delusional.
The article (slanted as it is) tries to provide historical context to current events but certainly stops short of saying that Putinâs actions are justified. I doubt that your conclusion represents anything but a small minority.
You are correct, again. In the US, as well as in Europe there will only be a small minority, as you said. Taking this on to a global scale, however, the US and Europe appear to be a (very) small minority when compared to the uh so small rest of the world, i.e. China, India, Africa, Southamerica, etc.
The former 3rd World and developing markets have begun to successfully turn against western hegemony so far. Like it or not. #MultipolarWorld
And the US surely doesn't like it. Much less the military-industrial complex of the West, which again equals the US, GB and Israel, foremost.
Correctamundo. Yet, the thoughts given in that article are part of a greater narrative, detailing western hegemony, Maidan, etc. If one follows that (greater) narrative, the conclusion I gave seems quite evident (maybe not only to me).
Ok, so following the logic we (the âWestâ, NATO⦠EU) were baiting Russia into attacking the Ukraine and they did what we wanted them to do? This was our plan all along and now we have the conflict that we were hoping for? So we have no one to blame but ourselves for Putinâs actions? Your conclusion is not only not self-evident itâs delusional.
The article (slanted as it is) tries to provide historical context to current events but certainly stops short of saying that Putinâs actions are justified. I doubt that your conclusion represents anything but a small minority.
âTell me again just who is the real Putin's bitch ?â
Ok, if you insist: Trump
âHe says a lot but has not done much to actually deliver things that directly benefit Ukraine.â
This is a joke right? Youâre trying to be funny? You havenât really kept up on the whole Ukraine conflict?
Tell me what steps do you think Trump would have taken against Russia if he was leading us now? He would have helped to spearhead a raft of sanctions against Russia? How many NATO meetings would he have been a part of? Would he have provided additional funding to Ukraine? Yea, my bet is that he would just sit on his ass not knowing what the hell to do and waiting until everything just âworks outâ. Or he would try and lead by his âgutâ which means the same thing.
1. Under Trump, the Afghanistan exit would not have happened. At least not in this way.
2. Putin would probably not have invaded Ukraine.
But that is all the same now... as the shit has already hit the fan.
Can we get real for a minute ? Biden has Russia (Putin) negotiating on the behalf of the USA for the Iran Nuclear Treaty.
Tell me again just who is the real Putin's bitch ? Could it have anything to do with Biden's slow walking everything to help out Ukraine ? He says a lot but has not done much to actually deliver things that directly benefit Ukraine. He won't let them have Poland's MIG's. He won't even say that Ukraine might, could or should win. He is now walking back all the claims that sanctions would deter Putin from acting by denying the claim was ever made in the first place. There is plenty of video that proves otherwise.
Still no buyers remorse ? Even if he starts WW III ?
âTell me again just who is the real Putin's bitch ?â
Ok, if you insist: Trump
âHe says a lot but has not done much to actually deliver things that directly benefit Ukraine.â
This is a joke right? Youâre trying to be funny? You havenât really kept up on the whole Ukraine conflict?
Tell me what steps do you think Trump would have taken against Russia if he was leading us now? He would have helped to spearhead a raft of sanctions against Russia? How many NATO meetings would he have been a part of? Would he have provided additional funding to Ukraine? Yea, my bet is that he would just sit on his ass not knowing what the hell to do and waiting until everything just âworks outâ. Or he would try and lead by his âgutâ which means the same thing.
