gearhog
-
Posts
1,447 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
42
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Blogs
Downloads
Wiki
Posts posted by gearhog
-
-
Just now, Lawman said:
No a podcast with no disclosed funding, hosted by and guested by the individuals we already talked about, which spends its head space in a constant churn of negative reinforcement to any western actions counter to Russia’s set goals would be a Psyop.
The military industrial fiscal policy of the US isn’t the sole lines of commentary produced by that podcast.
Again you’re desire to repeatedly highlight any example of what you perceive as any negative historical/political actions by our own country while just giving a blind pass to that opponent country’s media (which the Duran has an undeniable connection too) is astounding. Who/what do you think Russia is making and spending the effort of an English speaking news channel for?No disclosed funding = RUSSIA! We didn't talk about the individuals... you did. I talk about information. You're the ad-hominem guy, not me. Can't you at least switch to another logical fallacy to make yourself seem slightly more interesting? You're the one-trick-pony of the high school debate team.
So you're not even going to address the MIC after I've made a legitimate point and say... "Well.... uh... there were other things too!" Weak. I know you'll dodge the question for the 10th time but I'll ask anyway, what other "lines of commentary" are you whining about now?
Apparently, you're easily astounded which doesn't surprise me. I have to live in this country. I simply do not care about Russians or Ukrainians. They're not the threat. Poor governmental leadership and the weak-minded sycophants who place a higher value on enforcing an acceptable narrative than the pursuing the truth are the real threat. Don't misunderstand.. I'm referring to you. I, on the other hand, will continue to critically analyze information from a variety of sources in order to have a more well-informed understanding of these events. If it hurts your feelings, you're just going to have to live with it. Neither your life, nor anyone else's is going to be endangered because someone suggested on a podcast that a corrupt corporatocracy is steering our nation away from the best interests of the American people.
-
1
-
-
10 minutes ago, Lawman said:
Wow you watched the Russian Tucker Carlson and a disgraced lawyer talk about the military industrial complex and can’t figure out the link between that narrative - information domain of warfare - and its translation to effecting actual combat power on the battlefield.
Like I know multi-domain warfare is a relatively new doctrine, and you yourself aren’t in the military, but your inability to understand how this works and repeated denial of it going on is astounding.
Like you can acknowledge implicit bias present in whatever episode but can’t bridge the gap to understand strategic effect. You’d make an excellent Col.But did you die?
So anytime anyone mentions the flooding of the military industrial complex with cash, it's Russian Psyop to gain a battlefield advantage? Is this a new subject for you? Pretty sure the issue of war-profiteering has been around a lot longer than you have. These guys didn't invent that narrative.
With that logic, you can link any dissent or criticism of US involvement in any conflict to enemy propaganda. You're only interested in stifling dissent. Are you telling me there are no critical narratives that can be had? If the truth hurts, maybe you have the problem. If it isn't the truth, show me.
The military industrial complex last year (officially) spent around $12 million lobbying key pro-Ukraine war members of Congress and just received a $50 Billion windfall, in addition to the previous windfalls. https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus?ind=D There are no concerns there?
You have to realize telling everyone "Don't look over there! Nothing to see here!" while implying anyone having a critical position is a Russian shill isn't giving you credibility. You're only shouting down the person, while not disputing the claims. You're only interested in one side of the argument. I want to hear all sides and draw my own conclusions. You don't want anyone doing that.
It's becoming apparent that if you had your way, you'd ensure compliance with the Party rules and eliminate any unauthorized information while monitoring citizens for signs of dissent, and perhaps punish anyone who engages in thought crime or holds a belief contrary to the Party ideology. There's a term for that, but I can't remember it. Any ideas?
-
1
-
-
7 minutes ago, raimius said:
You are missing out, man.
We certainly aren't perfect, as a nation...but at least we didn't justify an invasion by claiming a Jewish guy from a family of Holocaust survivors was a secret Nazi.
Good point. Invading a foreign country under false pretenses is the lowest.
-
7 hours ago, Lawman said:
-You were given multiple examples of the direct connections to state controlled Russian news
-You were given specific guests they have on and their dubious character issues
-You were shown a clear example of the host of the podcast defending a Russian falsehood that it didn’t shoot down MH17 and every insinuation is just a western lie (which he’s done for years)
No you can go listen to it you’ll just be an idiot for taking it seriously.Good morning. Well, here we are. My apologies, for I'm about to put you in grave danger, but it's a risk I'm willing to take in pursuit of the truth. I have a full cup of Black Rifle Coffee, Spirit of '76 roast. It's very good. The packaging is awesome, even inspiring. Let's kick this pig.
The hosts are starting with the front lines. They report that Russia had broken through the Ukrainian front lines in and captured the town of Avdiivka. Did this really happen or is this false information? Fact check: True. The Russians are (were) advancing on a town called Ocheretyne, which is a small town, but lies on a hill and has a railway junction, making it strategically important. One commenter is saying this breakthough puts Russia in a strong position. He quotes a Ukrainian General that the situations at other places on the front lines are terrible. Apparently Russia is planning a large offensive, possibly to capture Kharkiv.
One of the Commenters mentioned former British Colonel Hamish De-Bretton Gordon who wrote this article for the Telegraph detailing how dire the situation is. He goes on to say that the media is full of these types of articles.
Now they're talking about the $61 Billion in aid. Some of the funds are for the Ukrainian economy itself, not for the war. The bulk of the money is going to the military industrial complex. He is claiming that only a small portion of the funds are going directly to Ukraine in the form of weapons, and the rest is going to defense contractors to replenish our own stockpiles. Now this is where some propaganda might be creeping in. I should check on this.
So he actually underestimated the amount that is being given to the U.S. defense industrial base. He is claiming that the amount being given directly to Ukraine will be used up at once, but the time it would take to DIB to complete the manufacturing process would take years. Debatable, but possible. They discuss the gap between the rate of weapons being used and the rate of weapons being replenished while quoting JD Vance "You can't provide more weapons than you have."
He quotes CIA director Williams Burns who said if Ukraine isn't given support it will collapse by the end of the year. Checks out. Their contention is that all of this is about preventing a Ukrainian collapse before the election. That's definitely a biased take, but is it possible?
They ask why Mike Johnson capitulated. They assert that key Republican committee chairs have been pressuring him on behalf of the military industrial complex and he ultimately conceded to their demands. He knew that same pressure was being exerted on House Republicans who would be forced to side with the Democrats and vote against him, which would likely pressure him to resign, so he acted out of self-preservation.
They again say that committee chairs are close to the defense manufacturers and that the want this appropriations bill passed. They also claim that this part of the Republican party and the MIC would rather see Biden than Trump elected. Hmmm. They say the MIC always wins. They say Mike Johnson's political career is toast for passing this bill while completely giving up on the southern border aspect.
They go into what actual systems Ukraine will be getting. They were asking for 150-200 patriot systems and are only going to get a fraction. They make a biased assertion that Russia will simply knock them out with hypersonics and they'll be back to square one. The say this aid bill will slow the war down, produce and effect, the effect wears out, and then you need more.
They quote President Kennedy about sending aid to Vietnam: "It's like drinking a glass of water. For a short time you fee better, but then you need another." I can't find this quote. Might be BS.
They continue to reiterate that a Ukrainian collapse must be avoided by the election. Anything that happens beyond that is not a concern.
And that's it.
How are feeling, @Lawman? Was it as bad as you thought it was going to be? I think you're going to be fine. It wasn't a great podcast. Nothing earth-shattering. I did learn a couple things about the front lines and got a new perspective on Mike Johnson's capitulation. There was clearly heavy bias throughout the podcast, but nothing that indicates Russian disinformation. It was simply an innocuous discussion. Some of it agreeable, some of it disagreeable.
Take some time to process your trauma, and if you want to comment on the specifics here or point out the false information I somehow missed, I'd be more than happy to listen. Have a good day.
-
1
-
-
12 minutes ago, Lawman said:
You know you can be critical of your government without seeking out and deliberately defending a foreign opponents propaganda right?
You don’t have to go full tit on backwards crazy and deny it’s propaganda demanding people show you examples of how some source you’ve been listening too is actually bullshit only to then claim that those examples don’t count or deny any proof of connection to that foreign power.What propaganda have I defended? The single solitary example of foreign propaganda that you've brought to this discussion was from 10 years ago, MH17, has nothing to do with our involvement in Ukraine, and I didn't defend it. I have never listened to the Duran and I know I've said as much. However, I will tomorrow morning over coffee just to see what you're whining about and I'll summarize if for you. I want to see how scary this information is. I'm going to post the notes here and then I'll check back for your response. That's going to be the entertaining part. Are you going to have a meltdown? Are you going act all indignant and dick dance around the issues without ever addressing them? Are you going to provide a rational, well-thought and honest rebuttle (Pffftt...LOL), or are you going to draw yet another weird analogy to eating shit and drinking piss? Three is a trend, isn't it? I guess we'll see.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, nsplayr said:
I have given lengthy, insanely lengthy, explanations and justifications for my views on numerous political and non political topics over literally 15+ years posting here. If this is what you take away, it’s more proof that it was all a massive waste of time! Thank you for confirming my belief that this is all a bad habit that we’d all be better off doing less of.
The truth is my beliefs have changed over time just like anyone else, but also that my values remain relatively stable and those values lead me to overwhelmingly support liberal, Democratic policies rather than ones proposed by the conservatives, libertarians, socialists, etc.
Believe it or not that’s a perfectly reasonable POV to have, just like it’s perfectly reasonable to be 69% consistently conservative GOP, libertarian, or grouchy contrarian and “politically homeless” like most of y’all here are.
Also believe it or not all of this type of conversation is much more effectively had in person. It works so much better when talking to my friends of all political stripes in person, over a late night shift or a beer. As you pointed out, too many people are miserable assholes online even more so than in real life. I try not to be too often, but hey, sometimes it’s hard (sts).
My resolution, although it hasn’t always been kept, is to stop typing political stuff here and to take those thoughts to places where they’re more productively heard and where I can better appreciate other peoples points of view - in person. Or just to STFU and talk about normal stuff like cars, airplanes, kids, sports, etc. Politics is a new national pastime 24/7/364 and honestly the whole country is worse off for it.
Back to step 1 on my BO.net AA journey, “I am powerless over my desire to talk politics with you miserable bastards here, and that waste of time and effort has become unmanageable.” 🤣
How many times are you tell everyone on BO.net about how bad posting on BO.net is? Give it a rest.
-
11 minutes ago, nsplayr said:
Good thing you’re not a mil officer then! You seem to genuinely not like America very much. No mention that Russians have no rights under Putin other than what he allows. The brazen murders around the globe. Invading neighboring countries, etc.
🇺🇸 I for one find is to be the good guys the vast majority of the time despite our faults and I have hope for an even better future. I plan to work toward that rather than wallow in our faults and apologize for enemies. To each his own I guess!
This dumb shit again? You guys are incapable of learning.
-
2 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:
II only bring this up because I get the sense from gearhog that he is legitimately interested in honing his own beliefs and incorporating as much new data into them as possible. Even though I do not agree with a lot of his conclusions. That's the value I get from this board as well. I get the sense that you believe your positions are already perfected. At least that's how you communicate them. In that case, yeah you are definitely wasting your time.
That is how I feel about it. This forum could probably be a 20+ year record of my constantly shifting beliefs. What I posted back in 2002 with regard to how I felt about my career, US foreign policy, conflict was definitely much different than it is now. I've become less pragmatic and more of an idealist. I have a lot of scribbled notes on my desk, but one reads Wisdom and Knowledge, Courage, Humanity, Justice, Temperance, Transcendence. The six character traits of strength and virtue. I believe I suck at all of those things compared to where I think I should be. There are a lot of people I admire that exemplify those traits, but some of them actually worked and debated for years, often bitterly, to create a framework for an entire nation based on those traits. Maybe seeing it dismantled is what raises my ire. Maybe I have a disdain for people who are willfully ignorant that we in the US don't get to stay awesome without addressing the greater threats to our way of life.
Russia hasn't tried to abridge my freedom of speech by working with media outlets to push one narrative while censoring others.
Russia hasn't shown up to American's homes to inquire about their social media posts.
Russia hasn't lately tried to curtail my right to bear arms.
Russia doesn't have a legal policy allowing for warrantless searches and monitoring of American citizens.
Russia didn't try to coerce me into taking a dangerous experimental vaccine.
Russia didn't threaten my job if I didn't
Russia didn't weaponize the US Justice system.
Russia didn't devalue my savings.
Russia didn't charge me more than twice the average American income in taxes.
Russia didn't send our earnings to foreign governments and defense corporations.
Russia didn't indebt my grandchildren with insane spending.
Russia isn't simultaneously funding the expansion of multiple large-scale conflicts that threatens to involve people I care about.
Russia didn't try to get me to comply with zero-emission climate change goals.
Russia didn't intentionally create an immigration crisis.
I could go on for days about what Russia didn't do, but I could easily summarize their share of the direct threat being posed to my way of life right now, where I sit: 1%. So hearing someone bitch about an unspecified bit of false information the Russian government may slipped into an obscure podcast could be making me a tad irritable. I should be better. 😄
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
-
51 minutes ago, Lawman said:
it’s piss. it’s piss. it’s piss. It was piss before and it’ll be piss tomorrow. its piss. drinking piss.
11 hours ago, Lawman said:like choosing to eat what is clearly a turd in between two slices of bread
What is wrong with you. I don't think Russian disinformation is your biggest problem. 🤣
-
2 hours ago, Lawman said:
Just one example since you still can’t get it through your head what their guests are doing in that show and what they are advancing.
They have a 25 minute video advancing the narrative that Russia didn’t shoot down MH17 and attempting to discredit the unclassified investigation.
If you believe that it’s because you don’t have access to stuff some of us do, and you’re an idiot swallowing Russian disinformation in an attempt to build distrust.All 172 pages of this thread pertain to the conflict between Russia and Ukraine. That conflict has been going on for over 2 years now. For much of that time, you're calling everyone who is critical of our support for the conflict shills for Russia. I've pressed you for two pages now to cough up an example. Finally, you relented. Sometime in the last few hours, you had to go searching the internet for one. How much time did you spend?
What did you ultimately come up with? That someone on that podcast called into question the downing of MH17. YGBFSM. An event that happened 10 years ago and completely irrelevant to this entire thread. That's it? That's the finest example of Russian disinformation in the context of the Rus-Ukr war you could come up with? You didn't even know it existed until today, and you had to go looking for it. I even conceded that most of RT could be propaganda. Hell, even I could give you 10 better examples of Russian disinfo that actually pertain to our discussion. But citing that as the slam dunk "Gotcha!" should be embarrassing for you. But I know it's not.
This debate is going circular. You don't like where some people get their information. Boo-hoo. What are you going to do about it? Nothing. But what if you could? If there was a big red button on your desk that prevented people from listening to the Duran podcast, would you push it?
1 hour ago, nsplayr said:You are 96.9% likely not convincing anyone of anything who didn’t already agree with you.
You’re also, IMHO, being both a weird contrarian AND a useful idiot for clear Russian IO propaganda, but that’s just my opinion. I admittedly haven’t read your entire library and carefully parsed the facts from the BS. And I don’t plan to.
There is absolutely room for debate on how, when, why and how much we should support Ukraine’s continued fight against the Russian invasion vs other possible policies we might choose instead. But not if the opening argument for that proposed policy change is based on what you heard on the PutinTV.net podcast, that’s just not gonna pass muster in this forum of what should be relatively informed mil personnel, nor should it.
Love you too though 😘
Your opinion is duly noted. And disregarded. If you believe there is room for debate on why and how much we should support Ukraine.... WTF do you think it is that we're doing here? Arguing for the sake of arguing? What is the opening argument that was heard on the Podcast? You just created another strawman. BC never cited any specific claim that originated from that podcast. He just said it was a good listen. Don't think so? Piss and moan all you want.
-
6 hours ago, nsplayr said:
My man, I say this with more experience than 69% of the people here...you abso-fucking-lutely are wasting your time here. I would know!
Yet here you are. Again. Claiming that participating in this forum is a waste while you, yourself, participate in the forum. How many times have you quit the forum forever now? 4,5? But I'm glad you're here. It means you read what I posted. I'm not asking expecting you to agree with it, only think about it.
4 hours ago, Lawman said:No… they don’t…
Again, the particular podcast in question is linked directly to Russian state sponsored media and has frequent guests that are so corrupted as to have registered under the foreign agents act or to have been flat disbarred/disgraced or fled western countries and now shill so as not to be extradited.
These aren’t viable/reliable sources of perspective just because they enjoy internet popularity. These are highly compromised individuals providing an outlet for a foreign power’s influence campaign which is designed to erode confidence and cause civil resistance and government disfunction.
And no… you don’t need to listen to a broad depth of content from an Alex Jones type character to know it’s nonsense and bullshit. Similarly you don’t need to listen to not just pro but deliberate government controlled/influenced media to “get the real story” or whatever other BS. That’s like choosing to eat what is clearly a turd in between two slices of bread to find out for sure if you do or don’t like the taste.That's like saying you can't listen to JRE because he's had murderers, anti-semites, drug-users, Jones, Tucker, and other critics of the government. You don't have to agree with any of it. The words aren't going to hurt you, but at the very least, you can learn and understand how words and language are being manipulated to influence you. Again, I thoroughly enjoy reading your posts. I now know and understand that your method of attempting to convince people to avoid content is not to address the content, but use name-calling, ridicule, ad-hominem, ad-nauseum, genetic fallacies, circular-arguments, generalization, appeal to authority, etc, etc, etc. You appear to have checklist for all the logical debate fallacies and are doing your best to check every single one. I'm not sure if you realize you're doing it. But it's fun to watch someone use the same disingenuous tactics to tell people why they shouldn't watch/listen/read someone else's disingenuous propaganda tactics.
You brought it up: Would you say your comments here are to promote government confidence, suppress civil resistance and support government function? What does that sound like to you?
-
1 minute ago, Lawman said:
Your exact statement “there isn’t enough time”
Those are your words as to why you don’t cull more sources to form a broad collective understanding (you know what we do in the intelligence disciplines).
So you’re going to waste that finite resources to listen to a podcast with direct ties to Russian media that has the aforementioned hosts on. Again, we don’t need to listen to Jones/Tucker/Maddow’s episode on a subject to understand the slants and bad research or blatant fabrications that will be baked into it. Because it isn’t news. Duran has exactly that problem only worse because of their direct ties to a geopolitical foe with an active IA campaign against NATO, Europe in general, and our own country/population. If you’re dumb enough to have to sit and listen too it in order to attempt to discover what’s real and what’s fake or highly corrupted in that, you’re wasting time, same as you’re doing here. But if you want to listen to Scott Ritter be interviewed in his opinions don’t waste the rest of your time here. You’ve got big important “facts” to discover.I wasn't going to, but I am now. I want to see for myself what it is you're so afraid of. Actually, you do need to listen to something to understand it. Otherwise, aaagain.... you're only regurgitating someone else's conclusion.
As I said, we also have intel and propaganda campaigns. Would you say those are more or less robust than those of Russia? I say more. It's also a well documented fact that those tools have been used on our own citizens. I don't give the first flying fuck about any Russian politician, soldier, or citizen. The direct threat they pose to my life is insignificant compared to my own government and people who would advocate for censorship. And I'm definitely not going to allow them or you dictate to me what I can and can't think. Wish no one would listen to Duran? Wish in one hand, shit in the other, and see which one fills up first.
Perhaps you saw it, but I posted this earlier today. It's an excerpt taken from the The Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787. John Madison, June 29th. You should read some of it if your online bias check website deems it safe for you.
The means of defence against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people. It is perhaps questionable, whether the best concerted system of absolute power in Europe could maintain itself, in a situation, where no alarms of external danger could tame the people to the domestic yoke.
What I am suggesting here is nothing new. This was a big issue 237 years ago among our founding fathers as much as it was an issue a thousand years ago. That you so aggressively, yet naively assert that we have only the most noble of intentions on a rapidly growing list of conflicts is just proud ignorance. If I want the truth, I have to consider the perspective of someone on the outside looking in. I have a strong marriage of 26 years. Due in large part in our ability to listen and try to understand another perspective even though it may be flawed.
I'm not wasting my time here. The ideas I'm submitting are for your benefit least of all. You're unreachable. You can go listen to or not listen to whatever you want. Participate in your own delusional projection of calling other people shills while simultaneously engaging in it yourself. Do not care. What you are is a generic amalgamation of bad faith and bad reasoning. Sort of boiled down Great Value version of every neocon in position of power, and I have the opportunity challenge it. Some people may not agree, but I think it's going really well.
-
1
-
-
Just now, Lawman said:
I like the part where you cut the entire part of my post out answering the questions you are now asking. Go google the names I mentioned that appear on the Duran and tell us why we should listen to them peddle their argument.
Like I said I don’t think for a second you are arguing from a point of intellectual honesty, I think you’re just trying to be contrarian and are willing to ignore all the declassified info on Russian IA operations and demand further context to meet some impossible threshold.
As was mentioned directly above, I don’t need to care if Alex Jones also thinks the sky is blue, there are plenty of places I can find the same information from somebody that doesn’t think things like chemtrails are making the frogs gay. Getting your “in depth analysis” of the Ukraine war from a podcast with direct ties to Russian state media/propaganda and acting like you’re informed because of it falls in that same category.False. You didn't answer those questions. You just named a few more sources that shouldn't be listened to without substantiating it.
Now you're telling me to Google your defense. "Whatever pops up on Google Search results is what my position is." LOL Really? You can't form an original critical thought of your own? "If you want to know what I think, Google it." For the third time, you should reread your posts before you hit submit reply.
Your standard for intellectual honesty is "Do you agree with me?". If content doesn't agree with your opinion, it's obviously Russian propaganda. If someone listens to that content, they're obviously a shill. And you're calling me a contrarian? Ridiculous and hypocritical. Of course I am aware of all the Russian IA. But you act as if coming into contact with it carries the same risk as getting herpes from your mom. We're all adults and we can discern the risks and bad information. Have you not also read the chilling ways in which our own Intel agencies influence public opinion? I'm not talking about Russians. F them. I mean the ways in which our govenment manipulates our people. It's out there classifed and unclassifed. "Google it."
At this point, it's obvious you don't even know what the "in depth analysis" is. You've adopted a weak position and you'd rather die defending it than abandon it an seek a better one. Par for the neocon adjacent.
19 minutes ago, Lawman said:So now you want to play the “I was just asking a question” victim card?
There are multiple alternatives mentioned in the just last few pages not alone this whole thread.
Podcasters like
Peter Zeihan
Think tanks like
Institute for study of war
CSIS
Brookings institute
Council on foreign relations…
Or maybe just use any number of media bias checks that exist that would tell you things like business insider and dubiously linked podcasts probably isn’t the place to be getting in depth truthful foreign policy analysis.Another dodge. Accuse me of "playing victim" for asking a question, so as to not answer the question again.
I'm subscribed to Zeihan and have been since someone else on this forum recommended him about a year ago. He has some great points. He also comes up with some BS while stumbling through the mountains. I also read and have even posted content from those other sources here on this forum. Yes, there's a lot of good stuff, but there's some questionable stuff as well. I'll read it all.
Again, you appear to outsource all of your bullshit detection to third party internet websites. Media bias checks? Why wouldn't you just read it for yourself and decide? You're like drop-shipper of BO.net. You're just marketing and selling other peoples products, or critical thinking skills.
-
1
-
-
28 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:
While I agree with the concept of debating the content and not the source, the only realistic way to do anything useful is to filter out sources that do not meet a certain standard. Being correct sometimes is not a high enough standard.
As an example, it is unrealistic to expect someone to spend time disproving the many insane things Alex Jones says regularly. Even though he's right sometimes, and even though he's right sometimes when everyone else is burying the story. It's just the peril of dealing with unlimited information.
As an intermediate solution, you can ignore a source with an obvious bias. A sort of "recusal" for media. I'm this case, it's rational to discard Russian-government-controlled media when discussing a war Russia is waging. Yeah, they'll be right sometimes. Too bad so sad. There's not enough time in the day to vet sources with a huge bias when other sources exist. I wouldn't trust the Ukrainian press releases either, nor waste time with them.
There's not enough hours in the day to read all the things I want to read or watch. To be efficient with my time, I make personal choices as to where I get the most value. You likely do the same, but I wouldn't apply a label to you because of where you sift through info. I also wouldn't spend more time ridiculing you for where you seek info than it would take for me to read what you'd be referring to.
In this case, the podcast that has his panties in a twist looks to be about 20 min long. The title is "Preventing Ukraine Collapse during the US election." That could be the title of any Western Neocon slanted podcast. Lawman isn't ignoring information that doesn't meet a standard, he's waving his arms like a crazy person shouting "Don't look over here!". At some point, one has to ask, "Well... why?" Now I want to know what you're acting all weird about.
So if the content hasn't met a standard, can I at least know what the standard is? Maybe a few examples? That's not an unreasonable request. Pretending to be indignant because someone has the audacity to ask what your problem or why the content hasn't met your standard, doesn't automatically grant you credibility. If one of the standards is having an active interest in the conflict, shouldn't we condemning a few US media outlets as well? That's just a test for hypocrisy. If Lawman is unwilling or unable to name any, then he's a hypocrite, and deserves to be relegated to the status of RT, Pravda, and the like. He is no more honest than they.
-
1
-
-
48 minutes ago, Lawman said:
No kidding, and your lack of access would be why those of us finding your repeated defense of state sponsored propaganda so eye rolling.
What is this, a half dozen or so exchanges we've now had? Each time, I ask what is the specific information you're disputing. Each time, you dodge the question and choose the ad-hominem tactic. You're just keep repeating a fallacious argument. Let's look at the information in a vacuum and evaluate the thing you're upset about. So what's it like on the inside of an actual vault? Do you get to see who killed JFK? Is there a top secret file on the Duran that enlightens you to something you can only allude to, but not actually say. I wouldn't know, but I'm mystified and super impressed.
48 minutes ago, Lawman said:
Gee I wonder.Where did you get this screen shot? What was in the video? What did he say that was wrong? The best defense against bad information is good information, not no information. As should be apparent, I thoroughly... thoroughly... enjoy challenging an opposing viewpoint. A lot. I wouldn't be pursuing this if I didn't know for a fact your position was weak. I know it is because you won't go anywhere near the crux of the issue. You're trying way too hard to dismiss any threatening information wholesale before it's heard, even by you, by attacking the source. I'll even concede to you it's possible that the vast majority of info coming from these sources completely fabricated, but it's impossible that all of it is. I'll wade through a ton of BS to find an ounce of truth, even yours.
What is the Russian propaganda being peddled here that you have a problem with?
You've made it abundantly clear where that information is being broadcast from, I just want to know what the information is that you don't like. Let's dispense with your haughty condescending ego performance around RT and get down to brass tacks. So, let me repeat the question:
What is the Russian propaganda being peddled here that you have a problem with?
-
30 minutes ago, nsplayr said:
Saying RT is the same as privately-owned US news outlets working with the government at times is laughable. Especially from a fellow military officer. This is exactly the point of view Russia would like you to have! So well done there.
Reminds me of the video below. While Trump is not technically wrong from a very cynical POV, the worldview is wrong IMHO in that in puts the U.S. government on the same morally equivalent ground as the Russian government, and again, as a mil officer I sincerely hope you don’t actually believe that!
I am not a military officer.
-
1
-
-
I've been making my way through this page. Fascinating debates by our founding fathers about their concerns when writing the Constitution.
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/debcont.asp
I found this passage pertaining to John Madison's speech to be particularly relevant today. It's from June 29th.
"His great fear was that their Governments would then have too much energy, that these might not only be formidable in the large to the small States, but fatal to the internal liberty of all. The same causes which have rendered the old world the Theatre of incessant wars, & have banished liberty from the face of it, would soon produce the same effects here.
The weakness & jealousy of the small States would quickly introduce some regular military force against sudden danger from their powerful neighbours. The example would be followed by others, and would soon become universal. In time of actual war, great discretionary powers are constantly given to the Executive Magistrate. Constant apprehension of war, has the same tendency to render the head too large for the body. A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty.
The means of defence against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people. It is perhaps questionable, whether the best concerted system of absolute power in Europe could maintain itself, in a situation, where no alarms of external danger could tame the people to the domestic yoke.
The insular situation of G. Britain was the principal cause of her being an exception to the general fate of Europe. It has rendered less defence necessary, and admitted a kind of defence which could not be used for the purpose of oppression.
-These consequences he conceived ought to be apprehended whether the States should run into a total separation from each other, or shd. enter into partial confederacies. Either event wd. be truly deplorable; & those who might be accessary to either, could never be forgiven by their Country, nor by themselves."
-
4
-
-
6 hours ago, Lawman said:
That’s a lot of noise to tell us we need to accept RT like it’s somehow not a proven outlet of state propaganda while attempting to cloak your BS in “nobody hates America.” And look now youre telling us “approved narratives” and other such tells. Yes obviously you are arguing from a point of honest debate…
Nobody accused you of hating America, I accused Bashi of being a shill and in this case you of being simply contrarian for the purpose of arguing. Whatever your motivations are for doing that it’s your problem.
Nobody can pass judgement on a podcast with direct links to a Russian propaganda outlet? We need to sample stupid from close range to not recognize it from afar? Did you notice I’m not the only one pointing out the nature of the source he openly admitted to following. Man what would cause that… I don’t know the fact some of us have more intimate knowledge of what’s going on over there than some Russia tied podcaster and enjoy the access (along with several others on here) to know that.
By the way you have still yet to admit to whether RT is a reputable source of information or a state sponsored propaganda outfit.The only person who has mentioned or linked to RT is you. Am I wrong? Quote the post. The best you can do is... stil... a random unsourced screenshot of an unknown person claiming the podcast is linked, but by multiple layers of separation. This is called the "straw man argument" and you can add it to your growing list of dubious debate tactics. It would be so cool if you would just acknowledge, address, and debate the actual specific pieces of information you disagree with. You'll also find it's much easier than using your repertoire of tactics to do anything but.
Yes, RT is an outlet for state propaganda. This is not new information and I thought it was so obvious that I didn't need to make a confession to you. We in the US, also have dozens of media outlets coordinating with government officials to censor dissenting information and distribute approved information. That shouldn't be new information, either. Do you not know this? It's just a fact of life that both sides carry water for both governments. Objectively, usable information can still be gleaned. There is virtually no unbiased information floating around out there. All of it has to be taken with a grain of salt, deconstructed, and it's parts evaluated. Not only do you refuse to do any of this, but admit that you don't even know who has deemed that info as false. And then you wave it around to everyone shouting "PROOF!" It's mind-bending.
I'm not here just to be contrarian. My motivations are not a problem for me or anyone else. I'm not being creative here. Lying takes effort and this is effortless. These things are as apparent to me as going inside, pointing up and saying "Hey, the sky is blue" and being met with a chorus of angry people saying "Why did you go outside? WTF? Putin also thinks the sky is blue you Russian shill! It's not always blue, sometimes it's gray, liar! Whatabout the clouds? They're white, moron!" I only want people to consider than they're being manipulated.
What is the alternative to Bashi or me or anyone else posting here with a different perspective? Would you rather have a little circle jerk with only the people who wear the same blinders you do? That's what it seems like. You're actually arguing that you don't have first hand knowledge or critical thinking skills. You just let other strange people on the internet tell you what info you should and should not look at. I find it fascinating anyone operates like that.
-
1
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:
Bashi is getting a bit close. Continuously proclaiming the inevitability of Russian victory and arguing that Ukrainian corruption sets them up as an unworthy ally. Especially when there are plenty of examples of much bigger countries being defeated/repelled by well-funded underdogs. But he's also just a troll
But yeah, the character attacks as Russian shills is getting old.
If it weren't for the US, wouldn't Russia win? Virtually all of our leadership has been saying this. There's countless examples of Ukrainian corruption. It's been over two years. I've lost count of the funding, but I think we're closing in on $200 Billion, yet the front lines haven't moved much at all. What are we going to get for another $200 Billion? Who exactly is bleeding whom dry? It's not apparent. I don't want to believe that maybe we're the ones being played, but I have to wonder.
Just a mention of the players involved elicits an overwhelming bias. If we were somehow able to examine this exact same battlefield scenario while replacing the names of the states involved with Moravia, Tiberistan, etc.. I think many people would feel differently. One of us may post a vid of a Russian plane crash, and another responds with Ukr tank on fire. No one knows what's going on. It's all third hand information. The only thing that can be known is that the war is still raging.. when it shouldn't be. If winning this war was as important as they'd like you to believe - it'd have already been over. As I've said before: there's no money in the cure.
I'd think by now people would understand the playbook. It's just routine now.
1. Find a crisis and exacerbate it. If one doesn't exist, create it.
2. Full-court press on the propaganda front to appeal to public fear and garner support.
3. Transfer hundreds of billions of dollars from the public sector to the private sector.
It's like taking candy from a baby and everyone's falling for it. Every. Single. Time. Let's just admit we're completely lost in apathy and gullibility.
-
1 hour ago, Lawman said:
There isn’t “one bad review” or whatever of the given podcast we are talking about. To borrow your metaphor you would have to “ignore multiple closings for health code so you could see yourself what all the fuss is about.”
No we don’t need to waste time and energy deciding of places with records like RT or others have a credible position.That restaurant metaphor wasn't mine. You seem to have this blind implicit trust in anyone that happens to be in a position of authority. Wouldn't you want to know why something was deemed unsafe rather than just accept anything someone says at face value just because they happen to be aligned with your beliefs? It's easy to fool someone, but it takes 10x the effort to convince most people that they've been fooled. You're so deep into the approved narrative that you're unwilling to even listen.
In this case, the link/play button for the podcast in question was directly in front of your face, one click away. But you chose to navigate away/open up another page, do a google search, screenshot a random claim of that podcast being Russian propaganda, which was substantiated only by other media outlets making baseless claims. Then you had to copy/save/upload/post it, and act all condescending like it was the gospel, while not one step in your entire process contained an original thought of your own, a source, or specific point. It's bewildering that you, a self-proclaimed professional military officer, would try to pass this off as some sort of astute deductive reasoning. It's so glaringly intellectually dishonest, it's insulting that you would expect anyone to even consider that you might have a valid position.
It seems crazy to me that you somehow thought that was the best/most honest COA. If you were correct in your assessment, it would have been far easier for you, and more difficult for me to refute, if you'd have listened to 5-10 minutes and said "Here are some of the claims being made... and they're false Russia propaganda because here are the facts..." I could respect that. But we both know why that didn't happen: When you know your position can't be adequately defended or finding a flaw in the opposing argument proves too difficult... name-calling, hyperbole, and ad hominem are the preferred tactics. Not one person on this website has ever, ever, been a cheerleader for Russia as much as you would like to paint them as such.
Many of us here have, however, reasonably argued that our US leadership shares some (not all) amount of the blame for the origination of the chaos and conflict we are experiencing, as well as the continuous funding and intensification of multiple conflicts on multiple fronts. No one here hates America, and no one wants America to fail. But it's easy for our obviously corrupt leadership to lead us further into trouble when they have people like you willing to do these ridiculous logical gymnastics to justify their actions and cock block dissident voices because you don't want to be proven wrong.
-
1
-
-
45 minutes ago, Lawman said:
Oh no… there is no way to actually find out about a place without going there… restaurants and hotels must be such an adventure for you…Uh… yeah? I do around 8 overnights a month, and I make it a point to explore new places, look at the menu, and experience things for myself. I don’t understand how you mean that as a criticism.
What would you suggest? Read a single review and repeat it to everyone I know without any first hand knowledge? This is what I meant when I asked if you read your posts from the perspective of others. I’m sure it sounded like a zinger in your own head, but….??
-
1
-
-
7 minutes ago, Lawman said:
Don’t just be contrarians and pretend to be arguing from a position of honesty. “Who fact checks the fact checkers” is just chaff and flare strategy for people that know their source would never hold up.
Is RT at state funded propaganda site or not? Do I need to watch what guests they have this week to make that determination myself or can I just go off the well known fact.
It’s like knowing I don’t need to talk to MTG to know she’s a moron. Screaming “Jewish space lasers” or any other such absurdities removes you from the adult table. Same is true when you are telling us all not to be “fooled by the narrative” and listening to a podcast hosted by RT and funded by mysterious sources.That's a lot of typing to say you don't know what info you're labeling as Russian propaganda, but it isn't going to stop you.
-
2 minutes ago, Lawman said:
That guy is advancing Russian propaganda now openly admitted in a site full of professional military officers from various points of perspective to all call him out on his stupidity.
He is a Shill, and yet he continues to do it. Sorry but not sorry whatever he did in whatever life before he pretty much flushed to become that old crazy Vet on your street screaming about whatever “liberal conspiracy” or other noise.I noticed you never addressed any specific claims in the podcast. If you are an honest person, what specific claims or false information were in that podcast that you feel were dangerous and subversive?
You didn't listen to it. You just googled it and the proof you provided was a screenshot of an unknown website that actually uses the word "accuses" in reference to other media outlets making claims about the podcast being Russian propaganda. How is that any more substantive than you simply making those claims without any proof and no screenshot. Again, I find it difficult to believe you, a professional military officer, is posting these things without pausing, stepping back, and seeing how little sense it makes.
I don't know anything about that podcast and my schedule is full, so I probably won't listen... but why should anyone trust you for slapping RP labels on something, only because it was posted by BC? I read one of your earlier posts on population or whatever earlier and it actually made sense, but what if I were to dismiss it because I automatically label everything you say as BS? You're not being honest.
-
5 minutes ago, Lawman said:
No I was pointing out that specific podcast from the absolute absurd claim by our local useful idiot that everything on our side is a lie and the proof is on a dubious state funded post cast used by the Russians to advance their BS.
And if you want to go down the “do we have Psyop” you should see what happened to all our actions post peace dividends. We basically unfunded that part of the State Dept and wonder why so many places seem to be cozy with China over Belt and Roads.
Diplomacy/statecraft/foreign policy is my A-holes vs the other sides A-holes, and I know which one has my and my children’s better interests in mind.Curious, do you ever read what you write from the perspective of someone else? You often make some good points, yet sometimes post things that are bizarre. These things jump off the page when I read them as glaringly obvious. Perhaps you don't realize name-calling and hyperbole in the first sentence makes your position seem weaker.
You seem to be affirming that "Yes, we do have PsyOp programs" and "the ends justifies the means", which is a widely accepted Machiavellian principle. That those means won't also be used against you should your interests diverge seems incredibly naive.
And lastly, you seem to be calling the people on your side A-holes while simultaneously expressing faith that those same assholes have you and your children's best interests in mind. It seems completely inverted because you're the one defending them for foreign policy decisions that will result in conflict for you and your family. You care about them more than they care about you. I'm not trying to attack you, but it does seem crazy to me.
-
1
-
Russian Ukraine shenanigans
in General Discussion
Posted · Edited by gearhog
Oh, the mystery. I'll ask again, what's it like on the inside of a real-life squadron vault? Lots of old dusty scrolls and microfilms? Again, I'm super impressed by your NIPR/SIPRNet access where all the secrets of the universe are held, but claiming that you have super-dooper access to "highly-classified" intel so you can claim authority status without substantiating it is transparent. I did a year as an STS ADO working every day in the SCIF and another year TDY to the third floor vault at AMC/A3 Tactics. Both experiences were about as enlightening as watching you dodge hard questions. Your "access" is about as impressive as the Comm Sq's ability to keep the network running.
What did I say "they" are "really doing"? I think it's funny that you know I'm prepared to the hilt to get into the weeds and write extensively on any of these issues, which is why you'll continue to make vague references yet never go anywhere near the specifics of any of them because you know I'll waylay your position. Real clever, and timid. I'll continue to point it out every single time.