zn wrote:

Well, you said you liked the fact Cole had connections with the CIA. Do you give Hersh the same deference?

Lot to clear up here. What I liked when I fell for the (misreported) idea that he was a consultant for the CIA was that THEY were getting info from HIM. That is, knowledge, info, insight, expertize. I would rather have that then political appointees makin up stuff that suits an agenda.

In this case, with Hirsh, it’s the other way around. Normally, right, you say you don’t trust the CIA. I normally say they are not a unitary thing. So it did not surprise me that one clique in the CIA is aghast at Trump’s ignorance.

But there are threads to this story that are not being addressed. So for example at one point the Russian story was that there was sarin present because the Syrians had bombed a jihadi facility that had sarin in it. So the Russians were basically saying, yeah there was sarin, but it didn’t come from the Syrians. Now the story is, well no there was no sarin. That’s just one example of all the inconsistencies that are out there.

There are several accounts of this that say no we tested and YES there was sarin.

Meanwhile Hirsch famously denied the Syrians were using sarin in 2013, when we know they were–they even publicly stated they would dismantle that weapons program, with external oversight. (All very similar to Hussein.)

In terms of your other points.

1. I don’t buy the narrative that in doing this Asad would be desperate etc. I am not sure where that narrative comes from, but it never struck me as real. He uses chemical weapons already and would just add sarin to the list for the same reasons…that he is showing his enemies are simply not safe. It’s the same logic the Saudis use in Yemen—they make war on the population to (presumably) undermine confidence that they can be opposed. (Or that’s the intent. It’s not working in Yemen either.) Asad doesn’t do this not out of desperation, but with a strong Russian presence essentially making him immune, out of impunity. He has the impunity, is ruthless, and shielded from any effects. He does not worry about consequences. There won’t be any.

2. Putin is deranged, but not in the ways you imply. But that’s not relevant. There are no consequences for either Asad or Putin for doing this. So if Putin was even involved, it just looks like cold calculation on his part.

3. Hirsch has been wrong before and on the same issue—he denied the Syrians used sarin in 2013. In terms of his investigatory skills, he didn’t use those. This is not a full blooded real wide investigation—he reports on the views of a couple of sources. For example he never even addresses the fact that the French and Turks and OPCW (Organisation For The Prohibition Of Chemical Weapons) did find evidence of sarin. Can someone like Hirsch be wrong? Well sure they CAN. Is he right or wrong this time? Well there are conflicting accounts and he is just one person in that mix.

4. First, we don’t know the number…who knows if it’s significant. Second, we get one account among many (from people you say you normally don’t trust) and that looks to me like it could mean there’s actually division within the particular agencies involved (which again doesn’t surprise me, they are never one homogenous thing). Did we get an inside report on what the consensus is among the intel professionals? No, so far it looks like a dissenting position. One which apparently only Hirsch has heard.

None of those points hold up enough for me to dismiss the idea that there are conflicting stories so far.

What am I accusing YOU of? Buying into one of the narratives. Which isn’t an “accusation.” This happens all the time with complex and shadowy issues like this. I see on your part a sincere and honest claim that one set of accounts is more valid. Well it’s the same for me, just from a different side of this. I just have all sorts of hesitations about that narrative, for what seem to me anyway to be good reasons.

===============

Well there’s a lot there i disagree with. For starters i dont buy the idea that ANY narrative has been ‘proven’ regarding the 2013 attack. I think there are different narratives and none has been proven. You disagree. You buy into one of the narratives. I am open to various narratives because i dont think any have been proven. And i’ve read the same stuff you have.

On the latest chemical incident, I have the same exact view. I dont buy any of the narratives. You do. I’ve read the same stuff you have. I dont think any of the narratives have been proven. I think its just as likely Hersh is right as it is the ‘mainstream’ narrative is right.

Again for emphasis — i did not say i bought into the Hersh view. I think he may be right. I think he may be ‘part’ right and part wrong. I think the Putin version might be right (which is different from the Hersh view). I think any number of narratives may be right.

I am skeptical of all the narratives.

I sure as hell dont trust ‘anything’ the CIA or mainstream corporate-media have to say abut any of this.

I suspect much of my growing skepticism about ‘anything’ i read anymore, comes from the changes in media-ownership. Over the last two decades (as you know) media ownership has gone from 50 big corpse, to about 6 now. I think the media is much much much easier to influence/control now than ever before. This dynamic coupled with all the basic ‘deep-state’ stuff (which is NOT a conspiracy-theory — i recommend the vids i posted under the jimmy carter thread) leads me to a more ‘skeptical’ perspective than i’ve ever had before…. Blah blah blah…i could go on.

w
v

zn wrote:

Postol is controversial too and has come up before.

As far as I am concerned, he went after the writer and didn’t address the argument. He also doesn’t address the fact that Hirsch also denied in 2013 that Syria was using sarin, yet those incidents led to the Syrians publicly agreeing to destroy their nerve gas weapons.

This looks like it;s devolving into one of those left v. left things that happens. For example the Counter-Punch people declaring Juan Cole consulted for the CIA.

====================
Well, you said you liked the fact Cole had connections with the CIA. Do you give Hersh the same deference? 🙂

link:http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/06/27/hershs-new-syria-revelations-buried-from-view/
June 27, 2017
Hersh’s New Syria Revelations Buried From View
by Jonathan Cook

“…see link…
….So let us set aside for a moment the specifics of what happened on April 4 and concentrate instead on what Hersh’s critics must concede if they are to argue that Assad used sarin gas against the people of Khan Sheikhoun.

1. That Assad is so crazed and self-destructive – or at the very least so totally incapable of controlling his senior commanders, who must themselves be crazed and self-destructive – that he has on several occasions ordered the use of chemical weapons against civilians. And he has chosen to do it at the worst possible moments for his own and his regime’s survival, and when such attacks were entirely unnecessary.

2. That Putin is equally deranged and so willing to risk an end-of-times conflagration with the US that he has on more than one occasion either sanctioned or turned a blind eye to the use of sarin by Assad’s regime. And he has done nothing to penalise Assad afterwards, when things went wrong.

3. That Hersh has decided to jettison all the investigatory skills he has amassed over many decades as a journalist to accept at face value any unsubstantiated rumours his long-established contacts in the security services have thrown his way. And he has done so without regard to the damage that will do to his reputation and his journalistic legacy.

4. That a significant number of US intelligence officials, those Hersh has known and worked with over a long period of time, have decided recently to spin an elaborate web of lies no one wants to print, either in the hope of damaging Hersh in some collective act of revenge against him, or in the hope of permanently discrediting their own intelligence services.

Hersh’s critics do not simply have to believe one of these four points. They must maintain the absolute veracity of all four of them.”

Glenn Greenwald on the ‘deep state’

PA Ram wrote:

Bob Murray just sued him and HBO.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/murray-energy-sues-hbo-over-john-oliver-show-report/article/2626740

=================

And Bob Murray will lose.

w
v

zn wrote:

<So no, no american president you named has as much blood and authoritarian oppression on his hands as Putin.

===============

Yes, i hear you. And we completely disagree on that.

26,000 bombs in one year.

Also, i dont think I’m reducing things down to slogans or oversimplifying. Though i think a ‘certain amount of that’ unavoidable due to the nature of message-board-posting.

Anyway, we will continue to disagree on this, and it will continue to pop up, so lets both just continue to say what we want and not let it get personal.
I got no ‘heat’ here.

w
v

“..My point on that is simply that the “but we’re bad too” argument might work with a rightie, who might be unaware of the problems built into american foreign policy…”

I dunno zn. I could be wrong, but i get the impression that you dont think Obama/Clinton/CIA are as bad as I think they are.

Remember that thread where i used the word ‘murder’ and you wouldnt use it. It didnt fit your world-view. I think there are significant differences on how we view the corporotacracy. I dont think its a ‘semantic’ difference.

I think Obama was WAAAAAY more dangerous and murderous than Putin. You disagree with that.

No big deal. It really isnt. At least to me.

w
v

zn wrote:

wv wrote:

You say Obama would not ‘engage in openly criminal activity’. To me that is a meaningless statement because the laws themselves can be ‘criminal’.

As I see it you;re giving purist leftist lectures to leftists.
But…we know all this stuff.

================

Well but to ‘me’ you are the one that often sounds like you are ‘lecturing’.

But i chalk it up to ‘internet communication’. People sound like they are lecturing when they are just posting. I’m not lecturing. I have gone out of my way to say ‘imho’ etc.

As far as the “but we all know this stuff” — Well, but we are disagreeing. So how do you account for the disagreement? If we all ‘know this stuff’ then we must be disagreeing on ‘something’, yes?

And how am i giving Putin a pass on anything? I clearly said he is a gangster. How is that giving him a pass? Do you even read what i write?

w
v

zn wrote:

Gangster means engaging in and supporting openly criminal activity. Obama never did that. Putin relies on it.

A president engaging in a war that may or may not be questionable is not that. It’s a different thing. Obama was never going to have any of us murdered for speaking out against him, either.

In terms of engaging in bloody wars, Putin did THAT too. Far more than Obama. Or Clinton. The body count is higher AND he got territorial gains out of it.

There is no comparison. Acting like there is, to me, just means erasing a lot of important distinctions for no real gain.

====================

Ok, well i prettymuch disagree with much that. We just see it differently.

You say Obama would not ‘engage in openly criminal activity’. To me that is a meaningless statement because the laws themselves can be ‘criminal’. If the laws allow a President to drop 26,000 bombs on people — how can we even pretend say that is ‘lawful’ ? Did we all vote on those bombs? Did we all have a say on who to drop them on? There was nothing democratic or ‘lawful’ about any of it. Imho.
So i see Obama/Trump/Clinton/Bush’s conduct as ‘criminal’. You see it as ‘lawful’. (edit- I and i ‘suspect’ this is getting at the ‘crux’ of our disagreements of late. I’ve been trying to figure out the what/why of our disagreements. I think maybe it has something to do with this difference in how we view ‘law’. I dunno, though.)

I dont think there’s anything ‘lawful’ about the foreign policy of the United States. Apparently you disagree.

I dont know how you can NOT see that the US gets all kinds of ‘territorial gains’ by supporting murder and atrocities and torture all over the globe. Giving Saudi Arabia BILLIONS of dollars so that gains can be made in the middle-east. The US gets its ‘territorial gains’ in many ways. Sometimes its by supporting gangster-states, etc. To me thats just a different ‘form’ of gangsterism. But its still gangsterism. Its just a little more sophisticated than the Russian way.

Now, as i noted a US Gangster is different than a Russian Gangster. A US-gangster is not going to have you or me murdered for speaking out, as you said. True. Putin probably would. Agreed.

But then Putin hasnt dropped 26,000 bombs on innocent people, either. So they are both Gangsters in my eyes. But different kinds.

Btw, i think Putin understands this very well. From listening to him, i get the impression he looks at all nations as Gangster-states. Especially the US.

• This reply was modified 8 years, 10 months ago by wv.

PA Ram wrote:

wv wrote:

Would you agree he seems to be very popular in Russia? Or not?

I don’t know if you watched the Navalny interview or not but I think he answered that better than I can.

I don’t know, first of all, how much any numbers that the Kremlin puts out can be trusted. But Putin does have some problems. Also–importantly–there is no real opposition to him because they can’t even get their message out. Putin is sort of all there is–and he plays on nationalism to pump up any popularity he has. Are the Russian people thrilled with their conditions? I think they more or less accept it. The high priced shops are very expensive for ordinary Russians. Yes–there are things there these days that weren’t there during the Soviet era. At least in the cities. But how much has life really changed for most Russians?

I’m not trying to be cute but looking at this through a Western lens doesn’t work.

What is the alternative for them? They don’t even know.

Does he probably have some good numbers? Perhaps. But I’m not sure that he is as popular as he would like the West to believe.

Russians aren’t dumb. They KNOW there is corruption. It’s just something they live with. It’s how things are done.

Picking at nationalist themes is good for Putin.

But there is no getting rid of Putin.

He and Medvedev essentially play tag team between Prime Minister and President.

Putin will leave when he is ready to leave. He won’t be “voted” out. He takes out any real threats.

So what does it matter? How can we know how people there really feel?

===================

Well, I dunno, Pa. I dunno.

How many billions of dollars of weapons has Putin given places like Saudi Arabia and Israel? How do we measure ‘gangsterism’ ? The US-presidents turn the CIA loose on the world, and arm all kinds of murderers, dictators and terrorists.
Why dont you call Obama a ‘gangster’ ? Because he hasnt bumped off individuals running against him? Ok, but what about all the innocents his war-policies killed?

And what did Putin inherit? What kind of conditions did he inherit in Russia,
compared to US presidents.

w
v

zn wrote:

I understand you think all that. But with due respect zn, all i see you doing is repeating the CIA line about Putin.

There’s not just 2 lines on Putin…the Russian propaganda one, and the CIA one. In fact I wouldn;t know what the CIA line on Putin is. For all I know they like him or are jealous.

One of the things I read, for example, is the critique of Putin offered by Russian leftists.

There’s an entire body of info and ideas out there that isn;t simply from the pro-american official version or from Putin’s own propaganda machine. It’s not a simple dichotomy.

Have you ever tried to tell a pro-Israeli american that in fact Israel is problematic and that saying so is not simply repeating the anti-Israeli Iranian view? One of the things I say is that there is an internal Israeli left critique of current Israeli politics.

When issues are this big, it;s not personal. Pro-Israeli americans, though, can try to make it emotional and personal and do get offended. Either way pro-Israeli americans don’t make a case by quoting Netanyahu.

And besides, every time someone tells leftists that the West has its own anti-democratic issues and forces, it’s no argument. We know. That kind of line may work with righties who don;’t know, but, it doesn’t work with lefties who do know.
…

=================

Well I’m not sure who said there are only two sides to the Putin thing but it wasn’t me. So, I dont know why you are telling me that. Since i already know there are many notions about Putin. But one of those notions Dominates in the MSM –“putin is a gangster, putin is a gangster…” Nothing more. Just a simplistic “putin is a gangster” meme. From all the usual sources.

Why dont you post some things by your leftwing russian critics of Putin? Where do you find such articles?

w
v

zn wrote:

For example you say he “kills people a lot” — who has killed more innocents — Putin or Obama? Bush? Clinton?

Discounting Bush, that’s clearly Putin.

Georgia, Ukraine, Crimea, Chechnya, internal killings and imprisonings, Syria (where Russian planes attack hospitals as a direct and deliberate strategy).

With all due respect, all I see you doing, WV, is repeating Putin’s own pro-Putin line. Most of which is obfuscation and deflection.

And even if those guys were equivalent (and they aren’t all equivalent) that’s no defense of Putin. Logically that stance ought to lead you to condemn Putin just as much and just as hard.

==============

I understand you think all that. But with due respect zn, all i see you doing is repeating the CIA line about Putin.

No big deal though. Just disagreement. Especially on Syria.

w
v