Russia will only respond to events in a matter that serve the interests of Russia-not some personal vendetta. As that Russian saying goes…”you can’t force someone to like you” All this tells me is that Obama is being manipulated and is stupid enough to fall for it. He is only hurting himself.
And no doubt he has it coming for allowing it to happen. Nothing personal.
No Justice!
No Peace!
RR
The title of this CT was Russian Diplomacy. “Dear” Catherine as Peter called her began with the hopeful event of most parties at last talking. But then the usual counterweight to diplomacy, force, commandeered the program.
Peter could only interject his usual passion, colorful language and paper-thin attempt at the fairness and equal time etiquette.
Greg communicated his machismo and stupidity mainly through his body language and facial expression. His carefully covered contempt for “the professor” whom he immediately prefaced with disagreement was perhaps conveyed by avoiding the mention of her name, Catherine.
Professor Marandi, as most liberals do, began with saying he was not sure. But he had his ducks all lined up and could have easily won had this been a debate in progressive circles, not only because of his facts but also his demeanor. His lack of depth or a real education was evident in his ignorant belief that Al Qaeda had pulled off 9/11, so typical of politically correct liberals. But fear and loss of status may also have been a factor in his timidity.
In the general population of militarism represented by Greg, Marandi would have been the loser. The hawk, Greg, and the dove, Marandi, joined hands, however, over 9/11. I always said the 9/11 separates the wheat from the chaff and the men from the boys as well as the women from the girls.
Catherine, the Syrian, won my heart before she said a word. I don’t know if it was the background, her attire, her features or her sex. She also had her facts straight and her rhetoric was crisp as in the West’s “playing: change the leader.”
Peter began, as I recall, by saying “steady as she goes” and that Washington was clueless. I choose to think the first phrase referred unconsciously to Catherine.
That Washington is clueless seems to substantiate my feeling that Cross Talk operates at a High School level of sophistication. But let that pass.
You don’t have to believe that Al Qaeda was responsible for 9/11 to use it as an argument against US policy. The US says Al Qaeda is responsible and then they support the so called guilty party. That contradiction is very powerful when confronting a North American zombie.
You mean the deliberately manipulated by all sorts of powerful interests other than their own, those people? I feel nothing but pity. You know I heard a story relayed during the 70th anniversary of the End of WW2 Moscow of a women towards those that had taken her loved one’s…the combatants, if she had any animosity. She replied ” How could I, they were nothing but soldier’s like my own” And yes the cognitive dissonance that is being generated is excellent and will lead to change…We have to do everything we can to keep it up. Seems even and “idiot” gets the picture when they get the facts. Keep up the Good Work!
Cheers,
RR
“But fear and loss of status may also have been a factor in his timidity.” Lack of courage, character is the reason. You cannot speak the truth in academia and expect to get anywhere other than marginalized. And if you do speak the truth, the political upshot or any solution that would seriously upset the status quo…is unacceptable. Chomsky for example. At best any such program of action would serve as a diversion to real change. Got to pay that mortgage!
RR
Chomsky’s genius was formulating and repackaging the study of Language into some thing that the USAF and the US in general could fund. On war and peace, he is not all bad, or all good. If Richard Strauss and Martin Heidegger had to be Nazi members to be what they are, I think it is reasonable to assume that there is a certain amount of “going along to get along” which is unavoidable once one reaches a certain position. Here is his latest: http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/33519-the-empire-of-chaos-an-interview-with-noam-chomsky
Had you asked me two years ago, I never would’ve said that he speaks with a forked tongue.
Mohammad Ramandi says the extremists carried out 9-11 and london bombing? what a joke, this guy should have said it as it is instead repeating same words US/Isreael made us to swallow.
He is just assuming the position of the generally accepted narrative. You know, narrative. He’s being ironic. Iranians get accused of saying all kinds of crazy sh*t, so why add to the stereotype.
Yeah, Professor Ramandi is just blaming the tool, not the toolmaker. Why bother. He could blame the toolmaker out loud if he wanted, but he just doesn’t want to stir that particular pot at the moment. Nobody does on RT. They want to stay on the air.
Ann, says “Saker believes jihadists were an element in 9/11.”
They were, but I urge more caution and precision in the use of language, because this is important.
The last thing of Saker’s on this that I heard pointed primarily to the “Deep State” and included Israel. Christopher Bollyn’s evidence in regard to Israel is massive and stunning. https://youtu.be/sw4UDcmOqp4) and overlaps our own neocons. At 11:15 of that linked video Bollyn relates how the head of the Mossad predicted in 1979 an “arab terrorist” attack on America’s tallest building. How did he know 22 years in advance? Bollyn gives the answer, which will not disappoint, with what you already know.
In that context, what role did the “element” of the “jihadists” play? They played a SECONDARY role of strategic MISDIRECTION. They were the fall guys, the patsies, the cover story. As they are in Syria. A necessary element, but not the primary long term planning element by any means whatsoever! They are the throwaways, mere tools, bit actors in a major production by someone else much higher up. Cannon fodder.
Precision is important. Otherwise too many will settle for the official, absurd conspiracy theory, which Corbett Report ridicules the most effectively: https://youtu.be/hgrunnLcG9Q
OMG Peter has really got a live neo tonight…I can’t stand it when these people talk…too bad..how can people hold that view – That Syria no longer exists and that its been fragmented…yikes.
It’s as if the guy from Philly was illuminated with special knowledge, being in possession of The Plan. The problem is that while “failing to plan is planning to fail,” no one can fathom the feckless logic/dynamics of human interaction.
Neil Clark is a journalist, writer, broadcaster and blogger. He has written for many newspapers and magazines in the UK and other countries including The Guardian, Morning Star, Daily and Sunday Express, Mail on Sunday, Daily Mail, Daily Telegraph, New Statesman, The Spectator, The Week, and The American Conservative. He is a regular pundit on RT and has also appeared on BBC TV and radio, Sky News, Press TV and the Voice of Russia. He is the co-founder of the Campaign For Public Ownership @PublicOwnership. His award winning blog can be found at http://www.neilclark66.blogspot.com. He tweets on politics and world affairs @NeilClark66
Published time: 7 Nov, 2015 10:33Edited time: 7 Nov, 2015 14:44
Who are the unpeople? Human beings whose views don’t matter a jot to self-styled ‘democrats’ in the West, even though in some cases – in fact, in most cases, they constitute the majority.
TrendsEU refugee & migrant influx, Syria unrest
What do these groups of people have in common?
* The millions of Syrians – perhaps a majority – who support their government, or at least regard it as preferable to the alternatives.
* Iranians who voted for Ahmadinejad in the 2009 Presidential election.
* Belarusians who support President Lukashenko.
* Libyans who did not support the violent NATO-backed ‘revolution’ against Muammar Gaddafi.
* People who lived in communist countries in Eastern Europe and who thought there were positive aspects of life under communism.
* Ukrainian citizens who did not support ‘EuroMaidan’.
* Venezuelans who voted for Chavez and Maduro.
* Russians who support United Russia or the Communist Party.
* Labour party members and registered supporters who voted for Jeremy Corbyn in the leadership election.
The answer is that all of the above are examples of ‘unpeople’ – human beings whose views don’t matter to Western Democrats.
A belief in democracy should mean respecting the idea that all peoples’ views are equal. However, that’s not the way it works in today’s so-called ‘democracy.’ Today, those who have the wrong views (i.e. views which don’t align with the interests of Western elites) are treated as if they don’t exist.
[…]
I admire the ability of the Crosstalk preparation staff to assemble a variety of participants in these programs. I join others in wishing the discussions were twice as long, so that rather than the appearance of unfairness which sometimes develops there would be time for each to state their views and have a rebuttal in enough depth to be able to compare both.
Greg’s claim during the program was that Washington was using its military might in support of Syrian Kurds – so to get onto the question of which ‘moderates’ exist, I would like to have heard more on that particular point. I have read that the Kurds in Syria are a different community from the Kurds in Iraq and from those in Turkey though they have a common ethnic heritage. Just as do Christians in many eastern countries and around the world. Is that what we should have done for the Christians around the world? The ones in Iraq didn’t get much ‘help’ as I recall. Nor in Syria.
Perhaps we need to have a discussion about separate ethnicities and what it means to militarize them against the state in which they exist, which seems to be Washington’s modus operandi from the getgo. As well articulated by Greg in his rapid fire list of ‘moderate’ groups vs terrorists. Such a list could be made in any country in the world, even, I may say, in any family! It’s bogus and destructive to the very democracy he claims to represent, and the panelists responded accordingly.
No, this is not weakness, this is letting Russia know that they did it with a kind of schoolyard nyah, nyah, nyah-nyah nyah!
http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/obama-too-busy-cracking-jokes-care-about-224-dead-people/ri11003
Russia will only respond to events in a matter that serve the interests of Russia-not some personal vendetta. As that Russian saying goes…”you can’t force someone to like you” All this tells me is that Obama is being manipulated and is stupid enough to fall for it. He is only hurting himself.
And no doubt he has it coming for allowing it to happen. Nothing personal.
No Justice!
No Peace!
RR
The title of this CT was Russian Diplomacy. “Dear” Catherine as Peter called her began with the hopeful event of most parties at last talking. But then the usual counterweight to diplomacy, force, commandeered the program.
Peter could only interject his usual passion, colorful language and paper-thin attempt at the fairness and equal time etiquette.
Greg communicated his machismo and stupidity mainly through his body language and facial expression. His carefully covered contempt for “the professor” whom he immediately prefaced with disagreement was perhaps conveyed by avoiding the mention of her name, Catherine.
Professor Marandi, as most liberals do, began with saying he was not sure. But he had his ducks all lined up and could have easily won had this been a debate in progressive circles, not only because of his facts but also his demeanor. His lack of depth or a real education was evident in his ignorant belief that Al Qaeda had pulled off 9/11, so typical of politically correct liberals. But fear and loss of status may also have been a factor in his timidity.
In the general population of militarism represented by Greg, Marandi would have been the loser. The hawk, Greg, and the dove, Marandi, joined hands, however, over 9/11. I always said the 9/11 separates the wheat from the chaff and the men from the boys as well as the women from the girls.
Catherine, the Syrian, won my heart before she said a word. I don’t know if it was the background, her attire, her features or her sex. She also had her facts straight and her rhetoric was crisp as in the West’s “playing: change the leader.”
Peter began, as I recall, by saying “steady as she goes” and that Washington was clueless. I choose to think the first phrase referred unconsciously to Catherine.
That Washington is clueless seems to substantiate my feeling that Cross Talk operates at a High School level of sophistication. But let that pass.
Dennis,
Nicely put.
I am also a huge fan of Catherine. Really smart, super articulate and with a real strong moral core.
If she ever goes into politics proper, she would be dynamite.
” Really smart, super articulate and with a real strong moral core.
If she ever goes into politics proper, she would be dynamite”.
Actually, someone with those qualities – which I agree she has – would be hopelessly handicapped in politics.
You don’t have to believe that Al Qaeda was responsible for 9/11 to use it as an argument against US policy. The US says Al Qaeda is responsible and then they support the so called guilty party. That contradiction is very powerful when confronting a North American zombie.
You mean the deliberately manipulated by all sorts of powerful interests other than their own, those people? I feel nothing but pity. You know I heard a story relayed during the 70th anniversary of the End of WW2 Moscow of a women towards those that had taken her loved one’s…the combatants, if she had any animosity. She replied ” How could I, they were nothing but soldier’s like my own” And yes the cognitive dissonance that is being generated is excellent and will lead to change…We have to do everything we can to keep it up. Seems even and “idiot” gets the picture when they get the facts. Keep up the Good Work!
Cheers,
RR
Yes, people are manipulated. Those who want the truth, though, will find it. Pity implies they have no responsibility for their beliefs.
“But fear and loss of status may also have been a factor in his timidity.” Lack of courage, character is the reason. You cannot speak the truth in academia and expect to get anywhere other than marginalized. And if you do speak the truth, the political upshot or any solution that would seriously upset the status quo…is unacceptable. Chomsky for example. At best any such program of action would serve as a diversion to real change. Got to pay that mortgage!
RR
Chomsky’s genius was formulating and repackaging the study of Language into some thing that the USAF and the US in general could fund. On war and peace, he is not all bad, or all good. If Richard Strauss and Martin Heidegger had to be Nazi members to be what they are, I think it is reasonable to assume that there is a certain amount of “going along to get along” which is unavoidable once one reaches a certain position. Here is his latest: http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/33519-the-empire-of-chaos-an-interview-with-noam-chomsky
Had you asked me two years ago, I never would’ve said that he speaks with a forked tongue.
If you can say the stupidest things articulately and lie with a straight face on TV, there is a place for you in an American think tank.
Mohammad Ramandi says the extremists carried out 9-11 and london bombing? what a joke, this guy should have said it as it is instead repeating same words US/Isreael made us to swallow.
He is just assuming the position of the generally accepted narrative. You know, narrative. He’s being ironic. Iranians get accused of saying all kinds of crazy sh*t, so why add to the stereotype.
actually if you’ve listened to Saker’s podcasts, he also thinks that definitely the Jihadists were an element in 9/11….
Yeah, Professor Ramandi is just blaming the tool, not the toolmaker. Why bother. He could blame the toolmaker out loud if he wanted, but he just doesn’t want to stir that particular pot at the moment. Nobody does on RT. They want to stay on the air.
Ann, says “Saker believes jihadists were an element in 9/11.”
They were, but I urge more caution and precision in the use of language, because this is important.
The last thing of Saker’s on this that I heard pointed primarily to the “Deep State” and included Israel. Christopher Bollyn’s evidence in regard to Israel is massive and stunning. https://youtu.be/sw4UDcmOqp4) and overlaps our own neocons. At 11:15 of that linked video Bollyn relates how the head of the Mossad predicted in 1979 an “arab terrorist” attack on America’s tallest building. How did he know 22 years in advance? Bollyn gives the answer, which will not disappoint, with what you already know.
In that context, what role did the “element” of the “jihadists” play? They played a SECONDARY role of strategic MISDIRECTION. They were the fall guys, the patsies, the cover story. As they are in Syria. A necessary element, but not the primary long term planning element by any means whatsoever! They are the throwaways, mere tools, bit actors in a major production by someone else much higher up. Cannon fodder.
Precision is important. Otherwise too many will settle for the official, absurd conspiracy theory, which Corbett Report ridicules the most effectively: https://youtu.be/hgrunnLcG9Q
OMG Peter has really got a live neo tonight…I can’t stand it when these people talk…too bad..how can people hold that view – That Syria no longer exists and that its been fragmented…yikes.
It’s as if the guy from Philly was illuminated with special knowledge, being in possession of The Plan. The problem is that while “failing to plan is planning to fail,” no one can fathom the feckless logic/dynamics of human interaction.
Somewhat related to topic, and nothing we don’t know, but a well articulated article:
https://www.rt.com/op-edge/321154-elites-unpeople-west-democracy/
Meet the ‘unpeople’ – Whose views don’t matter to West’s faux-democrats (OP-ED)
Neil Clark
Neil Clark is a journalist, writer, broadcaster and blogger. He has written for many newspapers and magazines in the UK and other countries including The Guardian, Morning Star, Daily and Sunday Express, Mail on Sunday, Daily Mail, Daily Telegraph, New Statesman, The Spectator, The Week, and The American Conservative. He is a regular pundit on RT and has also appeared on BBC TV and radio, Sky News, Press TV and the Voice of Russia. He is the co-founder of the Campaign For Public Ownership @PublicOwnership. His award winning blog can be found at http://www.neilclark66.blogspot.com. He tweets on politics and world affairs @NeilClark66
Published time: 7 Nov, 2015 10:33Edited time: 7 Nov, 2015 14:44
Who are the unpeople? Human beings whose views don’t matter a jot to self-styled ‘democrats’ in the West, even though in some cases – in fact, in most cases, they constitute the majority.
TrendsEU refugee & migrant influx, Syria unrest
What do these groups of people have in common?
* The millions of Syrians – perhaps a majority – who support their government, or at least regard it as preferable to the alternatives.
* Iranians who voted for Ahmadinejad in the 2009 Presidential election.
* Belarusians who support President Lukashenko.
* Libyans who did not support the violent NATO-backed ‘revolution’ against Muammar Gaddafi.
* People who lived in communist countries in Eastern Europe and who thought there were positive aspects of life under communism.
* Ukrainian citizens who did not support ‘EuroMaidan’.
* Venezuelans who voted for Chavez and Maduro.
* Russians who support United Russia or the Communist Party.
* Labour party members and registered supporters who voted for Jeremy Corbyn in the leadership election.
The answer is that all of the above are examples of ‘unpeople’ – human beings whose views don’t matter to Western Democrats.
A belief in democracy should mean respecting the idea that all peoples’ views are equal. However, that’s not the way it works in today’s so-called ‘democracy.’ Today, those who have the wrong views (i.e. views which don’t align with the interests of Western elites) are treated as if they don’t exist.
[…]
I stopped listening to the Hegemon’s memes spokesperson at 8 minutes in.
“Brutal dictator who killed 300,000, chemical weapons…..”
Why waste time listening to manufactured industrial vilespeak?
I admire the ability of the Crosstalk preparation staff to assemble a variety of participants in these programs. I join others in wishing the discussions were twice as long, so that rather than the appearance of unfairness which sometimes develops there would be time for each to state their views and have a rebuttal in enough depth to be able to compare both.
Greg’s claim during the program was that Washington was using its military might in support of Syrian Kurds – so to get onto the question of which ‘moderates’ exist, I would like to have heard more on that particular point. I have read that the Kurds in Syria are a different community from the Kurds in Iraq and from those in Turkey though they have a common ethnic heritage. Just as do Christians in many eastern countries and around the world. Is that what we should have done for the Christians around the world? The ones in Iraq didn’t get much ‘help’ as I recall. Nor in Syria.
Perhaps we need to have a discussion about separate ethnicities and what it means to militarize them against the state in which they exist, which seems to be Washington’s modus operandi from the getgo. As well articulated by Greg in his rapid fire list of ‘moderate’ groups vs terrorists. Such a list could be made in any country in the world, even, I may say, in any family! It’s bogus and destructive to the very democracy he claims to represent, and the panelists responded accordingly.