bleeding heart

Overthere, Your "certainty" on the matter might be too confident.

But what, really, is the "bias" people keep pointing out? Argus strongly implied that there is a leftist, "politically correct" bias against conservatives...but that begs the question of (very recent) suspensions of Waldo, cybercoma...and yours truly. So in what direction does this supposed "bias" turn, exactly?

Obviously and unambiguously satire....a joke thread, with a video posted from the popular and very well known satirical organization called "The Onion"....is trolling? Look, fellas, I'm trying very hard, and in a very gentlemanly fashion, to continue to give you the benefit of the doubt. Why undermine such a thing as that? So let me educate you a little bit: if this thread is trolling, then every political joke made on this site, by anyone and for any reason, and without exception, is "trolling." By definition. So...that is your stance? Really?

But I am not saying, nor have ever said, that Russian media isn't full of deceitful and distorted propaganda. I said explicitly that it IS. Unambiguously. I also said that Russian propaganda was cruder...in part due to the fact that their propaganda is, presumably, usually intentionally propaganda, whereas ours (with some notable exceptions) is more often than not unintentional...or least complicated by several inherited and internalized factors...such as, for example, patriotism, which makes people stupid, and makes for poor reporting. And it's not a matter of a "lazy media" to alter its editorial and journalistic policy on word-usage in precise accord with the behavior of its government. "Laziness" does not imply such active agency. A case like that is either intentionally-misleading propaganda...or simple servility. I couldn't say which.

Tim, Tim, Tim, you keep undermining your own argument. The link you provide cites 102 000 "Scientifically-verifiable" deaths as a direct result of the conflict. They call this their "conservative estimate"...which is what I called it too. They claim the number could be as high as 180 000--and so does the East Timorese government....a fact which you ignore, by citing that the 102 000 number is "endorsed by the East Timorese government." That's correct...they endorse it because the number is scientifically-verifiable, not because they think it is the actual number. They cite approximately 180 000...with the distinct possibility of it being notably higher. It's like Iraqi Body Count--no one (well, except George W. Bush) accepts that their numbers are correct; no one. Including Iraqi Body Count. but everyone endorses it, because it is a conservative number that is absolutely verifiable. Which is why I offered no "exaggeration" at all, as you know full well: since the numbers range from 100 000 (stated as "conservative" by the source itself), to 180 000 (the most common number used, including by the East Timorese government) and up to well over 200 000 by many other sources, I stated, accurately, that the number I gave was "conservative-to middling." Perhaps I might have just said "middling." But okay, let's keep to the pretence that the lower number is correct, based on what can be verified. Because you're focusing on this (albeit not with total honesty)..and quite willfully ignoring the parts for which you have no answer. That is, the major parts of my argument. So what of the rest of my argument...the meat of it? First, that several Western governments, through multiple administrations, knowingly, intentionally and materially aided in state terrorism and mass murder, and are by definition complicit in those crimes...and so, by definition, many of these miserable men are war criminals. Okay, so that's a truism. Second--directly to my point on propaganda, the point which you ignore: very little of this story appeared in the mainstream media, including the so-called "liberal" CBC, BBC, Washington Post, NYTimes, etc....you can link currently to a brief BBC "history" of the event, in which Western--including British--crucial and important support are completely vanished from the story. That's propaganda. Cruder than usual, in fact...it's Soviet-style. Occasionally, bits and pieces dripped out, thanks to the work of leftist and libertarian fringe media, as well as the work of East Timorese activists and their international supporters. But mostly, major media ignored it....except to now and then talk about Suharto's bad behavior, free of context and Western interventionism, in the style of the BBC piece I mentioned. It took 25 years for the story to gain enough momentum to make even a smarmy little gangster like Bill Clinton worry about the heat. OK, so that's the premise which started our back-and-forth--my one example of Western-backed mass murder--which extrapolates out to a lot of different horror stories, some of them also resulting in monumentally-huge mass murders, with eager Western support. I find it hard to believe you're unaware of any of it, by the way, the depredations in Cambodia or Laos or several Latin American countries. And your example was...climate change, as the most serious Western propaganda. Nice. As for your listing of "Mao, Stalin, Rwanda"....I agree, actually, that they were worse than Indonesia's rapey-torture-y-murderey-performance in East Timor, due to the sheer number of victims. I would add a couple others to the list as well, notably the Congo and Haiti (oops...that's another one in which Western nations bear direct and intentionally murderous responsibility, so you might wish to ignore it). But again, it's evident you aren't reading my posts...you seem to have an elementary familiarity with something vaguely related to what I've written, so I assume you're skimming them for "debating points." Because...I reiterate yet again....I said "one of." You see? "One of." So you mentioned three that are worse...I added two more. No doubt we could come up with a couple of others (but again, some of them are going to indict our own countries and leaders, and I see that you loathe that conversational direction...because you don't like to be reminded that we and our cherished allies are actually--literally--terrorists and mass killers of the innocent.) Either way, if we've got, oh I dunno, ten or less, than "one of" is reasonable and accurate... ....even for those of us who think that Western-sponsored murders of 102 000+ is a trivial thing, and an irritating "ideological" stance...when actually, it is the dismissal of such huge numbers of killings that bespeaks of ideology, if not outright doctrinal obedience.

I didn't say it was "the worst mass murder since the Holocaust.;'" I said it was one of the worst paroxysms of mass murder since the Holocaust"...and when you cite the 18600 number (which is almost certainly lowballed in any case) you leave out 160 000 killed (intentionally killed, mind) through starvation...as assessed by the UN, which you cite. You might be surprised that some of us actually mean what we write...so "one of" has meaning, that can be found out. Either you intentionally lowball it--talk about insult to victims!--or you failed to read beyond what you mistakenly thought was a "winning point." You've forgotten that I've looked into the subject...and you knew nothing at all about it. Caution should be watchword. (And how is "since the Holocaust" an insult to the victims...of the Holocaust?" Ye gods. So, according to the low-to-mid-range estimates, somewhere between 150 000 and 200 000 people were murdered...that is, up to a third of the population. As I said....preferring to use the conservative-to-middling estimates. Including the UN, which you cite. You're being careless. Don't let carelessness slip into apologetics, is my sincere advice.

I don't normally bump threads...but in this case, many people were wondering if the prize would seem defensible in a few years or not. A few years is now up. It's an illogical way to look at it, but ok, let's take it at face value: .....Ummmm.....Nope. Fail.

Tim: No, the "narrative" I've offered is solid...a lot more solid and rich in info than your "climate change propaganda" rebuttal. First of all, Indonesia was loathe to have a newly-independent (from Portugal) left-leaning nation at its doorstep, especially as its independence might influence other small, weak nations in Suharto's Imperial crosshairs. Ford and Kissinger met with the Indonesians, and gave the green light for an invasion. They asked only that Suharto keep the use of American weapons and training (which they were to continue to provide for the next 25 years, along with the UK, Australia, and other beacons of freedom....Canada and Japan also sided with Indonesia)...silent. Wouldn't play well domestically, and they figured that keeping silent would make "less chance of people talking in an unauthorized way." This bit is taken from the radical lefty anti-American lies known as "declassified documents released by the National Security Archive." Well, the Cold War Americans, Brits and Aussies liked their enemies mildly socialist, and their friends right-wing horror-chamber overseers, in the Latin American style. Within months, 60 000 were dead, and the numbers of rapes-as-method-of-warfare are considered to be monumental. Whatever the incontrovertible facts are, tens of thousands of murdered peasants, very few of them armed, is understood everywhere...including by the US State Department. Over the next quarter century, through several successive administrations in several Western powers--a wholly bipartisan form of supporting massive state terrorism in line with Saddam Hussein at his worst moments--somewhere between 130 000 and 250 000 East Timorese were murdered...many outright, many through an intentional policy of starvation. Women and children took the usual brunt, though E.T. Fretelin forces (once lauded for being Western allies in World War 2) took very heavy casualties as well. Rapes, mutilations, and torture were widespread, predictably. In late 1975, the UN General Assembly called upon Indonesia to stop its illegal and murderous incursion. But US ambassador Daniel Patrick Moynihan, as he boasted later in his memoirs, "The Department of State desired that the United Nations prove utterly ineffective in whatever measures it undertook [with regard to the invasion of East Timor]. This task was given to me, and I carried it forward with not inconsiderable success." (He later called his behavior "shameless"...too little, too late, obviously). Paul Wolfowitz was also a great defender of Suharto. So, greenlighting the invasion, military support, training (in contravention of American law, to say nothing of international)...and diplomatic mucking about, to ensure that the pseudo-fascists would triumph over the non-aggressive, non-aligned but Western-friendly burgeoning nation of Timor-Leste. What's maybe most telling is that, when activists (left-wing, as well as a scattering of Catholic groups) began making too much noise, Clinton got nervous. In 1999, he told the Generals that the gig was finally up (after he'd supported and defended them for six years, of course, culminating in a particularly vicious massacre earlier that year, echoing another that had occurred in 1991. And so on, back for a generation. The UN went in...and the killing was stopped. Bloodlessly, immediately. And so could have been achieved at any time over the previous 25 years, so dependent was Indonesia on US good will...and material aid, not incidentally. http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB62/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesian_occupation_of_East_Timor http://easttimorgovernment.com/history.htm http://www.etan.org/ http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199910--.htm

Tim, I am just now going to answer you, but in deference to Shady's request, I'm moving the discussion into the "Propaganda on Ukraine" thread, also here in "The Rest of the World" topics.

Uh, no, it is your prejudices which make you think your pet peeve is "the best illustration of Western propaganda," a preposterous stance. Hell, Indonesia and East Timor alone (under a single regime) constitutes one of the worst paroxysms of mass murder since the Holocaust....and barely any mainstream journalists, and not one single President or Prime Minister, has managed to point out that the monumental death toll is a direct result of Western complicity (the US and UK far in the lead, perhaps predictably)...and that it was wholly intentional, with material aid to ensure that the murders, rapes, starvation etc continued. And when journalists do speak of it, they usually talk about the way the West "looked away" as it was all occurring....which is the literal opposite of the truth. Now, Tim, you didn't even know about this--one of the great crimes--and you're a smart and knowledgeable man. So what does that tell you about propaganda?

Oh, and Shady...after I've schooled you so thoroughly in something that I know far more about than you do--that is, my own opinion--are you really going to coyly "ask" whether I'm "denying the events"? I already re-posted, through quotations, my own remarks on the Russian incursions. My remarks are unambiguous.

No, there are far more obvious illustrations of propaganda. Most of them involve violence or subversion by Western governments elsewhere (notably in developing countries). This makes sense, because propaganda's efficacy is hugely enhanced by things such as nationalism, and indoctrinated beleifs in the benevolence of one's own society in its foreign dealings.

So...I take it the "argument"--apparently at bottom an objection to a piece of satire from The Onion--hinges around the fact that, yes, Bush is a dirty little criminal...but so is Paul Martin! Fine. If that helps you, then sure, Martin is doubtless a degenerate...as well as the murderous little aristocrat who is the subject of the OP. So we're all in agreement!

The RT aside, propaganda in places like Russia tends to be a lot more crude. So in fact, a strong argument can (and has been) made that Western propaganda is a lot more effective. In large part because there is some debate--even heated debate--but it usually falls within strict parameters of "acceptable discourse," whereas the harsher facts are relegated to the margins...and often ignored altogether. So it's true that we occasionally have outright, Soviet-style propaganda--the Jessica Lynch story, for example; or the "Independent analysts"--Retired generals given talking points straight from the Pentagon--selling the Iraq war. But that is not usually the case. Our propaganda is more insidious...in large part because it is believed by the sincere and professional journalists who are its purveyors. So, for example, when the NYTimes decides that it's not going to call waterboarding "torture" anymore...this coincided, unsurprisingly, with revelations of the US committing the act. The Times had long referred to waterboarding as "torture" but changed its editorial policy in collusion with the performance of the US government. That's propaganda, explicitly so....and probably very few Times journalists even comprehended the fact. They weren't being dishonest. They were feeding the public doctrinal "truths" that they themselves had fully internalized. That's why they could report on the atrocities of Pol Pot, arguably even with some accuracy and probably with strong and intrepid reporting....while ignoring the simultaneous mass terror and murder occurring under Suharto....whose horror chamber was aided by Western arms and diplomatic shenanigans, primarily from the US and UK. That's propaganda. And I bet the Soviets were a little jealous of its efficacy. I don't mean to single out the Times; you'll find the same thing with the Globe and Mail, National Post, CBC, BBC....all of them, though admittedly with an occasional, actually journalistic flourish. But the near-uniformity and unanimity is pretty sad, and sometimes startling.

Doubtless in part the Muslim population at the university. They would, quite understandably, avoid giving offense to the Jewish part of the school population for similar reasons.

Well, sure, like I said, I don't mind who or who does not receive an honorary degree. But when someone repeatedly says things like "Judaism is a cult of death," or "When Americans burn flags, we should flex our muscles and say, 'This is your last warning,'" or "We are at war with Christianity; and in war there is no middle ground.".... ....well, whether someone cares about honorary degrees or not, they'll at least say that Brandeis might have had a point.

Well, BC_2004,, doubtless a lot of people could be satirized for their support of the war--whether pre-or post-invasion. One could do interesting artistic things with all these figures, malleable and distorted due to lack of spines.....

Kimmy's probably right about the fine young actor...and just ask the Seinfeld cast what it means to be typecast. On the other hand, actors are always saying how much fun it is to play a villain.

Again, you're not paying attention to what I write, and so are compelled to argue with...I don't know, some phantom. You're right, it would be ridiculous to paint Western propaganda (which you euphemistically refer to as "reactions") as a way to justify Putin's annexation. Fortunately, I have done no such thing. To quote myself, in the post to which you initially responded (albeit without reading it): My "justification" is so subtle that it is stated as the opposite of "justification"! How coy of me.....

No...the truth is quite relevant, and we should be trying to understand everything we can. Unless "relevance" means what powerful Western leaders inform you to think. Read Big Guy's insightful post, and then rethink it.

All good points...and if anybody has an objection to the argument--that is, an objection to the laws that we are all mandated to follow--they should take it up with their representatives, and ask if they might give us more leeway on an act that civilized people consider abhorrent...while the "realists" try to define what is and is not "acceptable torture." (I await their ethical acrobatics on this subject with anticipation.)

I did not undertake an institutional analysis of the press....,I said we were equally beset by propaganda in this case....and linked to a piece that discusses the propaganda. I note you have not a single answer to any of the points raised...preferring instead to fantasize that I'm a Bush-like apologist for Vladimir Putin, whom I have here denounced for outright criminality and a Russian flank of lies. It appears your only issue, then--since it isn't with anything I've actually written--is that I'm pointing out Western propaganda. If anything, folks' hostility to such an exercise only underscores the urgency of the subject.

Ah....so you chose, for reasons of your own, not to read the first four lines in my post. And the only thing I equated was the propaganda. I even gave you direct and explicit examples....which you can counter-argue, if you wish; or, barring that, you could invent bizarre notions like my "excuses for Vladimir," which nowhere exist. And so you've chosen. Unbecoming, indeed.

As some have been pointing out all along, the deceitful propaganda war goes both ways. That is, I agree fully, without reservation, that Russia has been feeding half-truths, deceptions and outright lies to everybody as part of their campaign. I also agree that the incursions have been illegitimate....and that, whatever genuinely pro-Russia sentiment exists, that Russia has been acting behind the scenes to promote instability and violence. But the Western entities have been equally, and as ferociously, dishonest...and most of the "mainstream media" has taken on its traditional role of stenographer for false information. Do people not care when their own leaders, through our "independent" media, are lying directly into their faces? And how does it feel to learn one has been parroting those lies, like an obedient toddler? Hilarious, were it not so serious. For example, when City Hall was seized by Euromaidan street fighters, one of their first acts was to unfurl several flags...prominent among them" Nazi flags, SS lightning bolts, Iron crosses, the Ku Klux Klan's "Celtic Cross," and the Confederate flag. this was evidently NOT "news fit to print," as the NY Times would have it. Other media have taken their lead, and avoided the story...which is publically available, of course, so it's not as if they had no access to what is incontrovertibly a newsworthy report. As perhaps predictable, the far-right extremists have gained important roles in the new government. Andriy Parubiy, head of the National Security council (who has just announced sending the Reserve Unit of the National Guard to the "Front line") is a well known neo-Nazi and militant White Nationalist. He is openly enamoured with the so-called "Hero of Ukraine," Stepan Bandera, a Nazi collaborator responsible for the murder of thousands of Jews and Poles in his dream for a "racially pure" Ukraine. Western leaders are quite explicitly pretending that none of this is going on; they aren't even saying "our sonofabitch," as they did with Suharto and Saddam; they're pretending there IS no "sonofabitch." And the sordid details go much further....all "propaganda" according to the propagandizing Western media....if it comes up at all. Which is mostly does not. http://consortiumnews.com/2014/04/16/ukraine-through-the-us-looking-glass/

...including the dead Iraqi child following him around in his dreams. http://www.theonion.com/video/george-w-bush-debuts-new-paintings-of-dogs-friends,35799/