Russia/Ukraine

[iamborome]

I didn’t suggest manipulation. But your underhand debating tactics are also a source of dissuasion for your arguments.

If you could’ve used other sources… why didn’t you? You can’t be upset at critique of your source if the source is a propagandist!

In addition, I don’t just take the word of anyone. Sachs or otherwise. And so using his name as if it is a sledgehammer of evidence is silly too.

Ho hum...

You did suggest manipulation. You said:

"From an interview with Carlson. Where he can control questions and direct narrative to some extent."

What underhand debating tactics?

I told you why I used that source.

My source wasn't Carlson but Sachs, unless you are saying that Carlson somehow manipulated or misrepresented him.

I'm not suggesting that you take what Sachs says at face value. On the contrary I'm suggesting that you find out more about him.

As to using Sachs as a sledgehammer I simply mentioned him along with others as a serious source of opinion in this area, to counter the suggestion by others that my views were somehow eccentric.

 

[Lefty]

I believe this to be true - but why do I get the feeling that I am being set up

I'm not setting you up. It really could be a good exercise.

I don't think either hypothesis is unreasonable, from our distance particularly, with our lack of detailed knowledge. Even a Zelensky or a Putin, with their access to far more information and across all the many military, economic and political aspects, only has detailed info on his own side. It will be impossible to actually know the real situation until the war is over. all we can do is evaluate and speculate, based on what evidence we have. The quality of the evidence and the weight we give to it, that is the skill.

It is quite possible to arrive at a perfectly logical position at different times, based on all the known factors, but be completely wrong in the end because of unknown factors. That doesn't mean your reasoning was bad.

By the same token it is also possible to be completely right in the end despite some pretty poor reasoning. By sheer luck.

It is of course also quite possible, more likely in fact, to arrive at a wrong position, from poor evaluating and poor reasoning.

What you need to do is get your reasoning method right and constantly re-evaluate as more data becomes available. Constantly. And you test your hypothesis. Rigorously. And you test other hypotheses. Rigorously. You assign probabilities based on how each hypothesis stacks up and reject or amend hypotheses accordingly.

So, what evidence are you giving most weight to that suggests Ukraine is/was very close losing? Genuinely interested.

 

[Redwurzel]

A very uplifting documentary

I have watched this film - some Scottish Trade Unionists at British Aerospace East Kilbride tried to stop aircraft parts leaving for Chile in the late 1970s - The media in this country on the whole branded them trouble causing lefties who were acting above their status who were damaging profits at BAE. In the end the film says parts were smuggled out by some unknown uncover persons/groups in the middle of the night and shipped to Chile so the workers had only delayed their passage.

Ref invading for mineral rights - didn't we and the US does this to some degree in Iraq once the invasion was completed in a few days and we didn't find the nuclear weapons we were told Saddam Hussain was hiding?

If anyone looks at the stores on on the Ukraine/Russian war on the BBC website - they are all 100% supporting one side and all support a continuation of the conflict. I can understand it may be difficult to get access from the other side, but the BBC are not standing back as an non participant its as though we are in the war as well. I get the impression the BBC are very much fed stories from one side. Compare with Gaza where the BBC is desperate to stay neutral and almost pleading for the fighting to stop.

 

[boringblock_21]

You did suggest manipulation. You said:

"From an interview with Carlson. Where he can control questions and direct narrative to some extent."

Which doesn’t suggest manipulation, it correctly asserts that if Carlson is the interviewer, he can direct the narrative. This does not imply that your Professor is easily manipulated. Rather it implies that a full gamut of ideas may not have been explored during the interview due to the interviewers bias and unwillingness to explore theories outside of their own beliefs.

What underhand debating tactics?

Incorrectly stating as fact that someone said something they did not.

My source wasn't Carlson but Sachs, unless you are saying that Carlson somehow manipulated or misrepresented him.

Firstly, your source was a Carlson interview, and secondly you already said that I said the Professor was manipulated by Carlson. So did I say that, or are you asking the question?

I told you why I used that source.

Your sentence structure literally said “I picked that article because it had the relevant quotes, BUT I could’ve used other sources”. So again, why not use other sources?

I'm not suggesting that you take what Sachs says at face value. On the contrary I'm suggesting that you find out more about him.

As to using Sachs as a sledgehammer I simply mentioned him along with others as a serious source of opinion in this area, to counter the suggestion by others that my views were somehow eccentric.

You said “I am relying on the opinion and reputation of Professor Sachs” using him and his reputation as a sledgehammer, and citing nothing of his work. With regards finding out more about him, I tried, but I see he has been used as a shill to push the lab origin theory of COVID-19 despite having no scientific qualifications and the majority of scientists agreeing that this is highly unlikely.

 

[iamborome]

Which doesn’t suggest manipulation, it correctly asserts that if Carlson is the interviewer, he can direct the narrative. This does not imply that your Professor is easily manipulated. Rather it implies that a full gamut of ideas may not have been explored during the interview due to the interviewers bias and unwillingness to explore theories outside of their own beliefs.


Incorrectly stating as fact that someone said something they did not.


Firstly, your source was a Carlson interview, and secondly you already said that I said the Professor was manipulated by Carlson. So did I say that, or are you asking the question?


Your sentence structure literally said “I picked that article because it had the relevant quotes, BUT I could’ve used other sources”. So again, why not use other sources?


You said “I am relying on the opinion and reputation of Professor Sachs” using him and his reputation as a sledgehammer, and citing nothing of his work. With regards finding out more about him, I tried, but I see he has been used as a shill to push the lab origin theory of COVID-19 despite having no scientific qualifications and the majority of scientists agreeing that this is highly unlikely.

This is going nowhere.

 

[Hap]

This is going nowhere.

As someone, in Pokrovsk, is quite likely saying this morning in Russian.

Citing questionable sources, that all hold the same narrow opinion, isn’t indicative of a broader more balanced understanding. Where is your balance? What have you said that isn’t linked in some way to far right propaganda?

As for expert opinion, even the most educated, free thinking, minds can be found to be quite wrong sometimes.

Einstein made himself look pretty silly, when it came to the theory of Plate Tectonics.

Question. Are the collapsing Ukr lines in Donbas actually that? Or *are they a slow enemy-degrading tactical withdrawal to more favorable prepared defensive positions? I don’t know, but we will find out about now, I suspect.

*Edit for typo.

 

[Hap]

I have watched this film - some Scottish Trade Unionists at British Aerospace East Kilbride tried to stop aircraft parts leaving for Chile in the late 1970s - The media in this country on the whole branded them trouble causing lefties who were acting above their status who were damaging profits at BAE. In the end the film says parts were smuggled out by some unknown uncover persons/groups in the middle of the night and shipped to Chile so the workers had only delayed their passage.

Ref invading for mineral rights - didn't we and the US does this to some degree in Iraq once the invasion was completed in a few days and we didn't find the nuclear weapons we were told Saddam Hussain was hiding?

If anyone looks at the stores on on the Ukraine/Russian war on the BBC website - they are all 100% supporting one side and all support a continuation of the conflict. I can understand it may be difficult to get access from the other side, but the BBC are not standing back as a non participant its as though we are in the war as well. I get the impression the BBC are very much fed stories from one side. Compare with Gaza where the BBC is desperate to stay neutral and almost pleading for the fighting to stop.

I agree with most of that. We in the UK have plenty of history of land grab through conquest. Tbf there can’t be many powerful countries that haven’t done this. Our history is more recent than some, more disproportionate due to the size of our country, but often every bit as brutal and wrong.

The Beeb is interesting to me. Much of what they print seems to indicate that Ukr are losing. I can’t decide if it’s to galvanize support behind Ukr by promoting urgency and fear, or if there is a bias towards the RF. Obviously the opposite of your take on it. I can’t decide.

Until recently the hand in charge at the Beeb had strong right wing leanings and maybe similar influences remain intact. The RF made quite significant inroads into the British political establishment and still has influence there, if diminished somewhat.

Something feels off to me. And I’m usually a supporter of the Beeb. Although more in theory, over practice as time goes on.

 

[Centralscrutinizer]

This is going nowhere.

It's just another thread that proves fmttm isn't the place to have mature discourse about almost anything

 

[afcb_acklam]

It's just another thread that proves fmttm isn't the place to have mature discourse about almost anything

does such a place exist on the interweb?

 

[BlindBoyGrunt]

Rather it implies that a full gamut of ideas may not have been explored during the interview due to the interviewers bias and unwillingness to explore theories outside of their own beliefs.

There's a word for that.

 

[Centralscrutinizer]

does such a place exist on the interweb?

Yes. There are places online where people can discuss issues in a mature and civil way.

 

[Redwurzel]

I do think wider debate is not encouraged on certain subjects in this country this tends to produce very fixed thinking. The result is that people can jump on you if you mention something out of line with fixed views.

I remember mentioning in the 1980s that Catholics were heavily discriminated against in NI and people would in say England not accept it. The normal reaction is that they support the Provisional IRA who are just interested in planting bombs in pubs and shops. Because that was the daily story the average person received in the English media. Now documentaries give a more realistic picture of what was the deeper causes of the Troubles. I remember Gerry Adams had his voice physically silenced or dubbed if he appeared in the UK media.

An interesting point was that those strongly opposing me 100% felt they were right and I can understand that because they had just been exposed to one set of information. An extreme example would be Germany 1939-45 where many ordinary and normally reasonable citizens believed much of the Nazi propaganda especially young people who would gladly sacrifice their life for the cause.

 

[boringblock_21]

It's just another thread that proves fmttm isn't the place to have mature discourse about almost anything

Don’t be so pessimistic.

If mature discourse is flouncing when someone questions your source, you’re in the right place

If mature discourse is incorrectly saying someone said something they didn’t because you called the mainstream media propagandists while you simultaneously quote from an avowed propagandist of 30 years, you’re in the right place

If mature discourse is emphasizing the title “Professor” before quoting the name of an economist to back up your claim of objectivity on geopolitics, you’re in the right place

If mature discourse is playing the ref when you feel the debate is drifting, you’re in the right place

For what it is worth, I am not jumping on iamborome. Quite the opposite. Evidence? Well first I apologised in my initial message because I was trying not to be immature and antagonist. I did so because I wanted to be clear that I was not commenting on the Russia Ukraine situation, but saying that I think it is problematic in a debate to argue the MSM is propaganda if you quote an interview from a propagandist. Secondly, I somewhat agree with iamborome on the point that western powers are not necessarily better than the Russian leaders. I struggle to see too much difference between the UK/USA actions in Iraq and those of Russia in Ukraine.

Finally, I want to be very clear about this because in threads like this things can get out of hand quickly, I am not personally attacking any of you. As I’ve said elsewhere, I actually appreciate the debate in this thread from all sides because you are all clearly knowledgeable about something I know little to nothing about.

 

[Redwurzel]

Refer Ukraine/Russia - I would recommend a book called "Prisoners of Geography" by Tim Marshall. Was for sale in The Works bookshops for £2.

TM is part of the Western Liberal Elite holding senior position at Sky and the BBC i.e. no friend of Putin.

But in his book he does to his credit, put himself at times in the shoes of others and explains what he thinks Putin wants and what others want. Just read the first long paragraph of the introduction.

I have the 2019 edition - I hope more recent ones have not been edited/censored.

The book was also endorsed by Sir John Scarlett who was a controller at the British Secret Intelligence Service (MI6) 2004 - 2009.

TM also writes about football fans!

 

[Hap]

I don't know the poster iamborome and am generally happy to see other points of view. But once someone says that other's opinions are laughable and biased, and that they actually know what's really going on, it will raise the eyebrow. I thought it was trolling at one point - I don't think that now.

I felt their very forthright assertions deserved questioning, but they didn't really stand up, as being balanced.

It seems they have an issue, and deep dislike, with Western governments. They don't seem to mind stretching the facts a little to suit that agenda. I don't love the Western governments myself tbh...

They probably shouldn't have called me fatty...

 

[Centralscrutinizer]

Refer Ukraine/Russia - I would recommend a book called "Prisoners of Geography" by Tim Marshall. Was for sale in The Works bookshops for £2.

TM is part of the Western Liberal Elite holding senior position at Sky and the BBC i.e. no friend of Putin.

But in his book he does to his credit, put himself at times in the shoes of others and explains what he thinks Putin wants and what others want. Just read the first long paragraph of the introduction.

I have the 2019 edition - I hope more recent ones have not been edited/censored.

The book was also endorsed by Sir John Scarlett who was a controller at the British Secret Intelligence Service (MI6) 2004 - 2009.

TM also writes about football fans!

It's a good book. One called Power of geography as well.

 

[iamborome]

Don’t be so pessimistic.

If mature discourse is flouncing when someone questions your source, you’re in the right place

If mature discourse is incorrectly saying someone said something they didn’t because you called the mainstream media propagandists while you simultaneously quote from an avowed propagandist of 30 years, you’re in the right place

If mature discourse is emphasizing the title “Professor” before quoting the name of an economist to back up your claim of objectivity on geopolitics, you’re in the right place

If mature discourse is playing the ref when you feel the debate is drifting, you’re in the right place

For what it is worth, I am not jumping on iamborome. Quite the opposite. Evidence? Well first I apologised in my initial message because I was trying not to be immature and antagonist. I did so because I wanted to be clear that I was not commenting on the Russia Ukraine situation, but saying that I think it is problematic in a debate to argue the MSM is propaganda if you quote an interview from a propagandist. Secondly, I somewhat agree with iamborome on the point that western powers are not necessarily better than the Russian leaders. I struggle to see too much difference between the UK/USA actions in Iraq and those of Russia in Ukraine.

Finally, I want to be very clear about this because in threads like this things can get out of hand quickly, I am not personally attacking any of you. As I’ve said elsewhere, I actually appreciate the debate in this thread from all sides because you are all clearly knowledgeable about something I know little to nothing about.

Boringblock...I don't want to get into a sterile argument with you either. It felt like you were not really engaging with me or trying to understand where I was coming from. Instead it came across as though you arguing about arguing. Lets leave it there.

 

[Lefty]

Refer Ukraine/Russia - I would recommend a book called "Prisoners of Geography" by Tim Marshall. Was for sale in The Works bookshops for £2.

TM is part of the Western Liberal Elite holding senior position at Sky and the BBC i.e. no friend of Putin.

But in his book he does to his credit, put himself at times in the shoes of others and explains what he thinks Putin wants and what others want. Just read the first long paragraph of the introduction.

I have the 2019 edition - I hope more recent ones have not been edited/censored.

The book was also endorsed by Sir John Scarlett who was a controller at the British Secret Intelligence Service (MI6) 2004 - 2009.

TM also writes about football fans!

It's a really good book. It's been remarkable to me ever since reading it how often world events have subsequently appeared to confirm Marshall's observations/thoughts.

 

[boringblock_21]

Boringblock...I don't want to get into a sterile argument with you either. It felt like you were not really engaging with me or trying to understand where I was coming from. Instead it came across as though you arguing about arguing. Lets leave it there.

I fully appreciate that point, and I did consider before posting whether I was actually contributing anything to the actual debate. I decided I wasn’t but I would post anyway Appreciate the book recommendation from Redwurzel et al.

 

[iamborome]

I don't know the poster iamborome and am generally happy to see other points of view. But once someone says that other's opinions are laughable and biased, and that they actually know what's really going on, it will raise the eyebrow. I thought it was trolling at one point - I don't think that now.

I felt their very forthright assertions deserved questioning, but they didn't really stand up, as being balanced.

It seems they have an issue, and deep dislike, with Western governments. They don't seem to mind stretching the facts a little to suit that agenda. I don't love the Western governments myself tbh...

They probably shouldn't have called me fatty...

Hap I apologise if I was too forthright. One tends to get worked up on certain issues. I don't have a deep dislike of Western governments per se. I dislike many of ways certain western governments behave. It tends to go hand in hand with power. The sins of the British Empire are now being committed by the US Empire. You don't know me well enough to say that I am not being balanced. I read very widely from all corners of the political spectrum. I start every day with the MSM in the form of The Guardian, The Independent and for my sins, The Telegraph (a dystopian parallel universe). I then read the independent media including such sites as Media Lens, Consortium News, Counterpunch, Democracy Now, The Duran, Moon of Alabama and independent journalists like Jonathan Cook and economists like Michael Hudson and many, many, others. My world view was very much influenced by reading Noam Chomsky years ago on US foreign policy, the nature of power and the propaganda model - the way in which the MSM serves power (see his book: "manufacturing Consent"). In fact there is a relevant article by Media Lens on the way in which the MSM have distorted the public discourse on the war in Ukraine here:

Did The West Provoke The Ukraine War? Sorry, That Question Has Been Cancelled

Is it possible for an entire 'mainstream' media system - every newspaper, website, TV channel - to completely suppress one side of a crucial argument without anyone expressing outrage, or even noticing? Consider the following. In February 2022, Nigel Farage, former and future leader of the Reform

www.medialens.org

I recall one thing Chomsky said that stuck with me (this doesn't apply to the Boro at all!)

"I remember, in high school, I was pretty old, I suddenly asked myself at one point, why do I care if my high school team wins the football game? I mean, I don't know anybody on the team, you know? They have nothing to do with me. I mean, why am I cheering for my team? It doesn't make any sense, you know? But the point is, it does make sense. It's a way of building up irrational attitudes of submission to authority. And you know, group cohesion, behind leadership elements. In fact, it's training in irrational jingoism. "

It reminded me of all the times I had been involved in arguments where I was defending Britain's role in the world. Why was I doing that? Was it some sort of tribal mentality? I didn't have to choose sides. In fact doing so only stops you from getting at the truth. I decided for then on that I would stop doing it and just look objectively at the facts. It was a liberating feeling and leads to a balanced view, rather than irrational bias.

When I express my views on issues like Ukraine, I immediately get a certain kind of push back from others which just makes me think: these people have already picked sides and are demonstrating bias. They accuse me of hating the West, or of being pro-Russian and say things like: " well why don't you go and live in Russia then". You get my point?

I think I will stop there for now.