Social media has remarkably small impact on Americans’ beliefs
Reports of social media’s influence on voters are greatly exaggerated
The echo chamber is overstated: the moderating effect of political interest and diverse media
Researchers say fears about ‘fake news’ are exaggerated
Fake News and Bots May Be Worrisome, but Their Political Power Is Overblown
That sophisticated, specific Russian 2016 voter targeting effort doesn’t seem to exist
Showing posts with label russia. Show all posts
Showing posts with label russia. Show all posts
Saturday, June 13, 2020
Sunday, November 11, 2018
The Relevant Questions Theory
Regarding conspiracies, I have a theory I call "The Relevant Questions Theory". It is quite obvious theory, but it can be useful to put it written.
The theory is as follows: if the official version of an event, can not answer 5 relevant questions succesfully, then the conspiracy theory is justified. Notice that the "relevance" of the questions is what will determine the number of unanswered questions that are needed to doubt the official version.
For instance, one question can be enough to justify doubting the official version, if this question is relevant enough. A recent example: the (staged) chemical attack in Douma. The official version is not able to answer the most relevant question of all: why would Assad do it? In this case, one single question is enough to doubt the official version.
If we apply this theory to the event that has likely generated the biggest amount of conspiracy theories of the XXth century, the killing of John F. Kennedy, we can without much thinking, write more than 5 unanswered relevant questions:
- Why Oswald is allowed to come back from the Soviet Union without any trouble? Even bringing his wife Marina, who was the niece of a colonel in the Soviet Ministry of Internal Affairs, with him...
- Why Oswald buys the rifle by post?
- Why Oswald takes a photo with the rifle? (Without considering if the photo is legit or not) Why gives this photo to a friend? Why is it found so late?
- Why shoot Kennedy at Dealey Plaza and not at Houston Street? [https://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user3303/imageroot/2017/10/26/20171027_jfkpara2.jpg]
- How Jack Ruby was allowed to kill Oswald?
- How could JFK's brain get lost? [https://www.theguardian.com/world/shortcuts/2013/oct/21/presidents-brain-missing-mislaid-body-parts]
But there are many more.
Regarding 9/11 -despite I do not want to believe it was an "inside job"-:
"the day after the attacks on the twin towers, with the discovery of a flight manual in Arabic and a copy of the Koran in a car hired by Mohammed Atta and abandoned at Boston airport. (...) In less than a week came another find, two blocks away from the twin towers, in the shape of Atta's passport." [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/mar/19/september11.iraq]
How could Atta's passport, who was piloting one of the planes, survive the plane crashing the tower, the fire in the tower, and the final tower collapse?
But probably this question does not support the "inside job" theory but just arises (very serious) questions about the investigation of the attacks, which is maybe as scary as the "inside job" theory itself.
But "the 5 questions theory" can also be used nowadays, to "quarantine" the stories that the mainstream media tell us.
For instance, regarding the Skripal case:
Did you know that Skripal was caught by the russians in 2004?! I always assumed he had been discovered recently, but no. He was condemned in Russia to 13 years, and exchanged for other spies later...
- So why would the russians want to kill Skripal after 14 years...?
- Why would they exchange him if he was so important as to kill him later...?
- Why would they want to kill him if he was only condemned to 13 years (what for a traitor spy seems a pretty light sentence)...?
Or, as we commented, about the chemical attack in Douma, Syria:
April 04: Trump says the US are going to leave Syria
April 07: Assad accused of chemical attack "forcing" the US to stay
[https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/08/world/middleeast/syria-trump-assad.html]
If you don't see anything suspicious here...
Sometimes, questions have the opposite effect: they serve to weaken a conspiracy theory. The best example is the "moon conspiracy". Here, one simple question, is enough to discredit all moon conspiracy theories: why did not the Soviet Union claim that the moon landing was a hoax, if it was so? So far, I haven't heard anybody answer this question (reasonably).
Another good example, well-known in Spain, explained (only partly and leaving out many important facts) in the Netflix documentary "The Alcasser Case" is one of the darkest episodes in the Spanish 90s decade: the triple murder of Alcasser [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcasser_Girls]:
- DNA from between 5 and 7 different people were found on the corpses, that didn't belong to the suspects (one was later condemned, another ran away and has never been captured) [https://elpais.com/diario/1997/06/03/espana/865288822_850215.html]. Still now, this mistery has not been solved [https://elpais.com/diario/1996/11/10/espana/847580419_850215.html].
- How could the police find a hospital document that allowed to track one of the accused, in the burial site of the victims in the country after several months, after all kind of weather including windy and rainy days? This document, that had the name of the brother of one of the suspects, didn't fall from a pocket, as it had been torn in several pieces... Meaning that the suspect had allegedly torn it and thrown it away... exactly were he and his accomplices buried three murdered girls...
- How could such a suspect (who forgets a document with his brother's name on a burial site of a triple murder, escape the police and never be found?
I have no theory about what happened, it was such a monstruous crime I have usually avoided it, but such questions require a reasonable answer.
Do you have any such questions to share? About these or any other cases?
The theory is as follows: if the official version of an event, can not answer 5 relevant questions succesfully, then the conspiracy theory is justified. Notice that the "relevance" of the questions is what will determine the number of unanswered questions that are needed to doubt the official version.
For instance, one question can be enough to justify doubting the official version, if this question is relevant enough. A recent example: the (staged) chemical attack in Douma. The official version is not able to answer the most relevant question of all: why would Assad do it? In this case, one single question is enough to doubt the official version.
If we apply this theory to the event that has likely generated the biggest amount of conspiracy theories of the XXth century, the killing of John F. Kennedy, we can without much thinking, write more than 5 unanswered relevant questions:
- Why Oswald is allowed to come back from the Soviet Union without any trouble? Even bringing his wife Marina, who was the niece of a colonel in the Soviet Ministry of Internal Affairs, with him...
- Why Oswald buys the rifle by post?
- Why Oswald takes a photo with the rifle? (Without considering if the photo is legit or not) Why gives this photo to a friend? Why is it found so late?
- Why shoot Kennedy at Dealey Plaza and not at Houston Street? [https://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user3303/imageroot/2017/10/26/20171027_jfkpara2.jpg]
- How Jack Ruby was allowed to kill Oswald?
- How could JFK's brain get lost? [https://www.theguardian.com/world/shortcuts/2013/oct/21/presidents-brain-missing-mislaid-body-parts]
But there are many more.
Regarding 9/11 -despite I do not want to believe it was an "inside job"-:
"the day after the attacks on the twin towers, with the discovery of a flight manual in Arabic and a copy of the Koran in a car hired by Mohammed Atta and abandoned at Boston airport. (...) In less than a week came another find, two blocks away from the twin towers, in the shape of Atta's passport." [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/mar/19/september11.iraq]
How could Atta's passport, who was piloting one of the planes, survive the plane crashing the tower, the fire in the tower, and the final tower collapse?
But probably this question does not support the "inside job" theory but just arises (very serious) questions about the investigation of the attacks, which is maybe as scary as the "inside job" theory itself.
But "the 5 questions theory" can also be used nowadays, to "quarantine" the stories that the mainstream media tell us.
For instance, regarding the Skripal case:
Did you know that Skripal was caught by the russians in 2004?! I always assumed he had been discovered recently, but no. He was condemned in Russia to 13 years, and exchanged for other spies later...
- So why would the russians want to kill Skripal after 14 years...?
- Why would they exchange him if he was so important as to kill him later...?
- Why would they want to kill him if he was only condemned to 13 years (what for a traitor spy seems a pretty light sentence)...?
Or, as we commented, about the chemical attack in Douma, Syria:
April 04: Trump says the US are going to leave Syria
April 07: Assad accused of chemical attack "forcing" the US to stay
[https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/08/world/middleeast/syria-trump-assad.html]
If you don't see anything suspicious here...
Sometimes, questions have the opposite effect: they serve to weaken a conspiracy theory. The best example is the "moon conspiracy". Here, one simple question, is enough to discredit all moon conspiracy theories: why did not the Soviet Union claim that the moon landing was a hoax, if it was so? So far, I haven't heard anybody answer this question (reasonably).
Another good example, well-known in Spain, explained (only partly and leaving out many important facts) in the Netflix documentary "The Alcasser Case" is one of the darkest episodes in the Spanish 90s decade: the triple murder of Alcasser [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcasser_Girls]:
- DNA from between 5 and 7 different people were found on the corpses, that didn't belong to the suspects (one was later condemned, another ran away and has never been captured) [https://elpais.com/diario/1997/06/03/espana/865288822_850215.html]. Still now, this mistery has not been solved [https://elpais.com/diario/1996/11/10/espana/847580419_850215.html].
- How could the police find a hospital document that allowed to track one of the accused, in the burial site of the victims in the country after several months, after all kind of weather including windy and rainy days? This document, that had the name of the brother of one of the suspects, didn't fall from a pocket, as it had been torn in several pieces... Meaning that the suspect had allegedly torn it and thrown it away... exactly were he and his accomplices buried three murdered girls...
- How could such a suspect (who forgets a document with his brother's name on a burial site of a triple murder, escape the police and never be found?
I have no theory about what happened, it was such a monstruous crime I have usually avoided it, but such questions require a reasonable answer.
Do you have any such questions to share? About these or any other cases?
Saturday, March 31, 2018
CUI PRODEST (2): The Skripal case
On April 2017 (almost one year ago) I wrote a post about the Latin phrase "Cui Prodest" (Cui Bono). Today that post is more necessary than ever. I will copy it and I will add an update, regarding the last events in the UK, at the end.
It is funny how the allies of Russia (and therefore, enemies of NATO) have a curious attraction for commiting the most stupid acts in the most unconvenient moments. Why would Assad use chemical weapons against innocent population when even his enemies had come to the conclussion that the lesser evil for Syria was the Assad regime?
Or by the way, why would the rebels in Donbass shot down an airplane full of civilians? What woule be the goal? They could never expect to get anymore support than what they got. They could never expect to get the support of the EU, even if Kiev would commit the worst crimes. So what reason would they have? On the contrary, Kiev could use the alleged attack to the Malaysian plane to push their Western allies to get more involved...
And now comes the Skripal case... Why would Putin order such an attack just before the elections in Russia? Even if he really wanted to have Skripal killed, why not wait after the elections? And why use a different system than that so effective in the Litvinenko case? Why use a substance that can be tracked to the Soviet Union? A gas that, by the way, according the New York Times, the US also has...
"Cui prodest" (or "Cui bono") is a latin phrase meaning "whom does it profit?". It points out that "the person or people guilty of committing a crime may be found among those who have something to gain" [Wikipedia].
Cicero attributed this expression "a very honest and wise judge". And it seems indeed that this reasoning, "who profits of something?", should be the first question when looking for a culprit (this does not mean that it has to be the only question).
But as we know that common sense is the less common of all senses, it is often just ignored by the media and the population who benefits from a certain action, and it is often that the person or people blamed by the media do not only not benefit from that act, but the contrary.
I will now put a perfect example of this: the "famous" chemical attack in Syria, that all Western media attributed to Assad even before knowing about the attack. But the thing is, why would Assad do it?! What does he achieve with that?
This question, this doubt, is so obvious that even the New York Times tried to explain it to its readers:
"The diplomatic situation had been looking bright for President Bashar al-Assad of Syria. With the help of Russia, he had consolidated his power, the rebels were on their heels and the United States had just declared that ousting him was not a priority.
So why would Mr. Assad risk it all, outraging the world by attacking civilians with what Turkey now says was the nerve agent sarin, killing scores of people, many of them children? Why would he inflict the deadliest chemical strike since the 2013 attacks outside Damascus?"
So why would Mr. Assad risk it all, outraging the world by attacking civilians with what Turkey now says was the nerve agent sarin, killing scores of people, many of them children? Why would he inflict the deadliest chemical strike since the 2013 attacks outside Damascus?"
I absolutely recommend you this article from NYT because you will see how they completely FAIL to give a reasonable answer.
It is funny how the allies of Russia (and therefore, enemies of NATO) have a curious attraction for commiting the most stupid acts in the most unconvenient moments. Why would Assad use chemical weapons against innocent population when even his enemies had come to the conclussion that the lesser evil for Syria was the Assad regime?
Or by the way, why would the rebels in Donbass shot down an airplane full of civilians? What woule be the goal? They could never expect to get anymore support than what they got. They could never expect to get the support of the EU, even if Kiev would commit the worst crimes. So what reason would they have? On the contrary, Kiev could use the alleged attack to the Malaysian plane to push their Western allies to get more involved...
And now comes the Skripal case... Why would Putin order such an attack just before the elections in Russia? Even if he really wanted to have Skripal killed, why not wait after the elections? And why use a different system than that so effective in the Litvinenko case? Why use a substance that can be tracked to the Soviet Union? A gas that, by the way, according the New York Times, the US also has...
Wednesday, May 10, 2017
POST-TRUTH And Other Lies
The main assumption of the prophets of the horrors of the Post Truth (sometimes called simply fake news) is that there is an official truth (brought to you by the corporate media), and that whatever contradicts that "truth" are the lies that the media is now snobbishly calling Post-Truth (*).
But the fact is corporate media lie, hide the truth and manipulate on a daily basis.
They have been telling each other lier since printed press exists, but they don't like someone else telling them. And they hate not being the only ones to be able to reach the masses.
But you may be one of those who believe that corporate media don't lie, at least not on purpose, maybe sometimes just by accident.
1st Case Study: Panama Papers
Remember the Panama Papers? Well, there were several interesting facts about them, or more precissely, about how the media treated them.
- First, I think it is quite surprising that the BBC made 4 tweets about Putin's friend before making any tweet about David Cameron's father (who was also in the papers), burying it in a secondary account with only around 300K followers (while Putin's friend deserved the most popular account, with several milions of followers.
But the most interesting aspect were the questions about the source of the papers. While we have seen how all western media assume russian hackers (under Putin's orders) are behind any leak in the USA or the EU even without any proof (or just the word of the CIA or the NSA, which means the same), asking who was behind the Panama Papers was like defending Putin himself. And the most funny thing, saying that Soros and the US government were behind the Papers was spreading fake news, although anyone could check it with just a few clicks in the website of one of the organizations (https://www.occrp.org/en - go to the bottom of the website).
But the fact is corporate media lie, hide the truth and manipulate on a daily basis.
They have been telling each other lier since printed press exists, but they don't like someone else telling them. And they hate not being the only ones to be able to reach the masses.
But you may be one of those who believe that corporate media don't lie, at least not on purpose, maybe sometimes just by accident.
1st Case Study: Panama Papers
Remember the Panama Papers? Well, there were several interesting facts about them, or more precissely, about how the media treated them.
- First, I think it is quite surprising that the BBC made 4 tweets about Putin's friend before making any tweet about David Cameron's father (who was also in the papers), burying it in a secondary account with only around 300K followers (while Putin's friend deserved the most popular account, with several milions of followers.
But the most interesting aspect were the questions about the source of the papers. While we have seen how all western media assume russian hackers (under Putin's orders) are behind any leak in the USA or the EU even without any proof (or just the word of the CIA or the NSA, which means the same), asking who was behind the Panama Papers was like defending Putin himself. And the most funny thing, saying that Soros and the US government were behind the Papers was spreading fake news, although anyone could check it with just a few clicks in the website of one of the organizations (https://www.occrp.org/en - go to the bottom of the website).
2nd Case Study: Chemical attack in Syria of the April 4th, attributed to Assad.
It was fascinating to see how all western media accused Assad of the chemical attack in Syria, without any evidence and without even wondering why the hell would he do that.
The New York Times tried to answer this question, arguing that "rather than an inexplicable act, analysts say, it is part of a carefully calculated strategy of escalating attacks against civilians."
First, this "analysts say" sounds too much to the "some people say" of the Fox News.
Second, and most important, it just doesn't answer the question seriously. Even if this alleged "calculated strategy of escalating attacks against civilians" was real, it doesn't answer the question "WHY NOW?". Let's be serious here, if Assad wanted to do this, he could just perfectly wait until his position was safe.
First, this "analysts say" sounds too much to the "some people say" of the Fox News.
Second, and most important, it just doesn't answer the question seriously. Even if this alleged "calculated strategy of escalating attacks against civilians" was real, it doesn't answer the question "WHY NOW?". Let's be serious here, if Assad wanted to do this, he could just perfectly wait until his position was safe.
Why did the western media believe the US army so blindly? How many times have we heard that the US government or army had indisputable evidence about some crime but we never got to see that evidence?
And why should we believe the word of the US government or army? It is not like they haven't lied before about chemical weapons in order to bomb one country (just think of Iraq).
So why didn't the western media consider that it could have been the rebels?
First, we know that the rebels have used chemical weapons several times already:
"Khan al Asal, 19 March 2013: 111. The United Nations Mission collected credible information that corroborates the allegations that chemical weapons were used in Khan al Asal on 19 March 2013 against soldiers and civilians."
"Jobar, 24 August 2013: 113. The United Nations Mission collected evidence consistent with the probable use of chemical weapons in Jobar on 24 August on a relatively small scale against soldiers…"
"Jobar, 24 August 2013: 113. The United Nations Mission collected evidence consistent with the probable use of chemical weapons in Jobar on 24 August on a relatively small scale against soldiers…"
"Ashrafiah Sahnaya, 25 August 2013 117. The United Nations Mission collected evidence that suggests that chemical weapons were used in Ashrafiah Sahnaya on 25 August 2013 on a small scale against soldiers." [United Nations website]
Second, there are serious reasons to believe that the rebels (aided by foreign governments) have been planning and probably had already executed false flag attacks:
"Accumulating evidence offers persuasive proof that Syrian rebels supported by Turkish intelligence – not Syrian Army troops – bear responsibility for the infamous sarin nerve-gas attack killing hundreds of people on Aug. 21, 2013 in Ghouta, a suburb of Damascus. The incident bears all the earmarks of a false-flag attack." [Mintpress News]
zerohedge explains why the April attack could be in fact another false flag action, including a removed article from The Daily Mail from 2013!
"Leaked emails have allegedly proved that the White House gave the green light to a chemical weapons attack in Syria that could be blamed on Assad's regime and in turn, spur international military action in the devastated country.
A report released on Monday contains an email exchange between two senior officials at British-based contractor Britam Defence where a scheme 'approved by Washington' is outlined explaining that Qatar would fund rebel forces in Syria to use chemical weapons. "
A report released on Monday contains an email exchange between two senior officials at British-based contractor Britam Defence where a scheme 'approved by Washington' is outlined explaining that Qatar would fund rebel forces in Syria to use chemical weapons. "
And like this we could continue, with endless examples of how corporate media lie, hide and manipulate. We could remember the Noam Chomsky case against The New York Times regarding Cambodja and East Timor (nowadays could be Syria and Yemen), we could remember how they convinced the American people to "free" Kuwait on fabricated stories, how the Kosovo war was promoted by Madeleine Albright with the collaboration of the media, we could go on and on (and maybe we will add some more examples in the future).
Other study cases:
The death of Aylan Kurdi
When the horrible photo of Aylan Kurdi's small body appeared in the newspapers, to say that the main reason of his family's trip was that his father wanted new teeth was a lie, fake news, although the aunt of the child herself, who paid for the trip, explained it in tv.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22FenqnfWQk]
But the "truth" was that the Kurdi family were escaping war the war in Syria, although they came from Turkey were Aylan's father, although with small salary, had a job.
[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3232251/Aylan-father-s-REAL-story-Abdullah-Kurdi-forced-deny-smuggler-new-questions-emerge-picture-shook-world.html].
Gulf War
"Although there were human rights abuses committed in Kuwait by the invading Iraqi military, the alleged incidents which received most publicity in the US were inventions of the public relations firm hired by the government of Kuwait to influence US opinion in favor of military intervention." "Among many other means of influencing US opinion, (...) the firm arranged for an appearance before a group of members of the US Congress in which a woman identifying herself as a nurse working in the Kuwait City hospital described Iraqi soldiers pulling babies out of incubators and letting them die on the floor.[98]
The story was an influence in tipping both the public and Congress towards a war with Iraq: six Congressmen said the testimony was enough for them to support military action against Iraq and seven Senators referenced the testimony in debate. The Senate supported the military actions in a 52–47 vote. However, a year after the war, this allegation was revealed to be a fabrication. The woman who had testified was found to be a member of Kuwait's Royal Family, in fact the daughter of Kuwait's ambassador to the US.[98] She hadn't lived in Kuwait during the Iraqi invasion.
The details of the Hill & Knowlton public relations campaign, including the incubator testimony, were published in John R. MacArthur's Second Front: Censorship and Propaganda in the Gulf War (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1992), and came to wide public attention when an Op-ed by MacArthur was published in The New York Times. This prompted a reexamination by Amnesty International, which had originally promoted an account alleging even greater numbers of babies torn from incubators than the original fake testimony. After finding no evidence to support it, the organization issued a retraction. President Bush then repeated the incubator allegations on television." [Wikipedia]
Obama's great uncle and Auschwitz
Remember when Obama lied about his uncle liberating Auschwitz?
Never heard of that? Not a surprise, because the same mainstream media that are so eager to audit Trump's lies, do't seem to care much about Obama's lies. But he did say that his uncle (in fact it was his great uncle, but ho cares about such "small" details...) liberated Auschwitz (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVRaA_Z7430), despite the fact that it was the Soviet Army that liberated it
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auschwitz_concentration_camp#Evacuation.2C_death_marches.2C_and_Soviet_liberation).
For instance, if you search "obama+auschwitz" from site nytimes.com, the only results you get back is from a blog entry (https://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/27/obamas-staff-corrects-wwii-story/). The official excuse given was the Obama's uncle helped liberated another, less known camp, Buchenwald, and he had "simply" confused the names.
Can you imagine what the press would have said if Trump had made such "mistake"? If you think it is not so important that the President of the USA doesn't know who liberated the most infamous concentration camp in WW2 history, maybe you think this is more important (despite not being either in any NYT fact-check:
"He pushed a tax plan to soak the rich, ripped NAFTA for hurting the middle class and tore into John McCain for supporting a bankruptcy bill that sided with wealthy bankers "at the expense of hardworking Americans." Obama may not have run to the left of Samuel Gompers or Cesar Chavez, but it's not like you saw him on the campaign trail flanked by bankers from Citigroup and Goldman Sachs. What inspired supporters who pushed him to his historic win was the sense that a genuine outsider was finally breaking into an exclusive club, that walls were being torn down, that things were, for lack of a better or more specific term, changing.
Then he got elected.
What's taken place in the year since Obama won the presidency has turned out to be one of the most dramatic political about-faces in our history. Elected in the midst of a crushing economic crisis brought on by a decade of orgiastic deregulation and unchecked greed, Obama had a clear mandate to rein in Wall Street and remake the entire structure of the American economy. What he did instead was ship even his most marginally progressive campaign advisers off to various bureaucratic Siberias, while packing the key economic positions in his White House with the very people who caused the crisis in the first place. This new team of bubble-fattened ex-bankers and laissez-faire intellectuals then proceeded to sell us all out, instituting a massive, trickle-up bailout and systematically gutting regulatory reform from the inside." [https://www.commondreams.org/news/2009/12/13/obamas-big-sellout-president-has-packed-his-economic-team-wall-street-insiders]
War in Bosnia
Western media explained us for years (and still do) how Milosevic planned and guided the ethnic cleansing in Bosnia.
Well, one thing is sure: they didn't have any evidence of that, as the International Court for the Former Yugoslavia has made clear:
"...there was no sufficient evidence presented in this case to find that Slobodan Milošević agreed [with Radovan Karadžić] with the common plan [of ethnic cleansing]"
[http://www.icty.org/x/cases/karadzic/tjug/en/160324_judgement.pdf]
So, if after more than 20 years the tribunal created to investigate the war crimes was not able to find any evidence linkin Milosevic with the ethnic cleansing, what was the news accusing him based on? It means they were lacking any fact.
War in Kosovo
They also told us how NATO was bombing Serbia to stop ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, although this was a lie, becasue the so called ethinc cleansing, started after the bombing, as proven in this documentary from the BBC
[http://genome.ch.bbc.co.uk/bf9e62b3abd846d398e2629c4fbf10d5]
Syrian Observatory for Human Rights
One example that I have already covered in previous posts is the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. As Wikipedia says, it "is frequently quoted by major Western news media, such as Voice of America, Reuters, BBC, CNN and National Public Radio."
But if you continue until the description of this organization you will have a surprise: "The organisation is run by one man, Rami Abdulrahman (sometimes referred to as Rami Abdul Rahman), from his home in Coventry. He is a Syrian Sunni Muslim who owns a clothes shop." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Observatory_for_Human_Rights)
Cologne New Years Eve
"Several media outlets at first did not cover the story and, according to Jörg Luyken, only started reporting on the incidents on 5 January, after a wave of anger on social media made covering them unavoidable.[49] This delay was criticised by several politicians, including Hans-Peter Friedrich.[192] The public television channel ZDF later acknowledged that they had failed to report on the incidents despite having sufficient knowledge to do so.[193][194]
ZDF later called the delay in reporting a "clear misjudgment", and said since then, it has been "over-whelmed with hate and anger".[176] This has reinforced discontent previously held by parts of the German public with news coverage relating to the European migrant crisis, as well as a readiness to support the idea of the "Lügenpresse" (literally lying press).[176][195]
The delay in reporting on the assaults in the media lead to accusations that the authorities and the media attempted to ignore or cover up the attacks to avoid criticism against the current asylum and migration policy of the government.[1][196][197] The BBC's Gavin Hewitt wrote, "What has fuelled the sense of crisis is the suspicion - now widely held - that the German establishment is not telling the truth."[176] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Year%27s_Eve_sexual_assaults_in_Germany#Criticism_of_late_media_reporting]
(*) About the origins of the post-truth concept:
It is funny that the concept post-truth is now used by the media to talk about Russia and other non-aligned countries, because in their origin it was almost dedicated to american politcs:
"According to Oxford Dictionaries, the term post-truth was first used in a 1992 essay by the late Serbian-American playwright Steve Tesich in The Nation. Tesich writes that following the shameful truth of Watergate, more assuaging coverage of the Iran–Contra scandal and Persian Gulf War demonstrate that "we, as a free people, have freely decided that we want to live in some post-truth world."[10][11] In 2004, Ralph Keyes used the term "post-truth era" in his book by that title.[12] The same year American journalist Eric Alterman spoke of a "post-truth political environment" and coined the term "the post-truth presidency" in his analysis of the misleading statements made by the Bush administration after 9/11.[13] In his 2004 book Post-democracy, Colin Crouch used the phrase "post-democracy" to mean a model of politics where "elections certainly exist and can change governments," but "public electoral debate is a tightly controlled spectacle, managed by rival teams of professionals expert in the techniques of persuasion, and considering a small range of issues selected by those teams." Crouch directly attributes the "advertising industry model" of political communication to the crisis of trust and accusations of dishonesty that a few years later others have associated with post-truth politics.[14]
The term "post-truth politics" was coined by the blogger David Roberts in a blog post for Grist on 1 April 2010, where it was defined as "a political culture in which politics (public opinion and media narratives) have become almost entirely disconnected from policy (the substance of legislation)".[15][16]" [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-truth_politics]
Other study cases:
The death of Aylan Kurdi
When the horrible photo of Aylan Kurdi's small body appeared in the newspapers, to say that the main reason of his family's trip was that his father wanted new teeth was a lie, fake news, although the aunt of the child herself, who paid for the trip, explained it in tv.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22FenqnfWQk]
But the "truth" was that the Kurdi family were escaping war the war in Syria, although they came from Turkey were Aylan's father, although with small salary, had a job.
[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3232251/Aylan-father-s-REAL-story-Abdullah-Kurdi-forced-deny-smuggler-new-questions-emerge-picture-shook-world.html].
Gulf War
"Although there were human rights abuses committed in Kuwait by the invading Iraqi military, the alleged incidents which received most publicity in the US were inventions of the public relations firm hired by the government of Kuwait to influence US opinion in favor of military intervention." "Among many other means of influencing US opinion, (...) the firm arranged for an appearance before a group of members of the US Congress in which a woman identifying herself as a nurse working in the Kuwait City hospital described Iraqi soldiers pulling babies out of incubators and letting them die on the floor.[98]
The story was an influence in tipping both the public and Congress towards a war with Iraq: six Congressmen said the testimony was enough for them to support military action against Iraq and seven Senators referenced the testimony in debate. The Senate supported the military actions in a 52–47 vote. However, a year after the war, this allegation was revealed to be a fabrication. The woman who had testified was found to be a member of Kuwait's Royal Family, in fact the daughter of Kuwait's ambassador to the US.[98] She hadn't lived in Kuwait during the Iraqi invasion.
The details of the Hill & Knowlton public relations campaign, including the incubator testimony, were published in John R. MacArthur's Second Front: Censorship and Propaganda in the Gulf War (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1992), and came to wide public attention when an Op-ed by MacArthur was published in The New York Times. This prompted a reexamination by Amnesty International, which had originally promoted an account alleging even greater numbers of babies torn from incubators than the original fake testimony. After finding no evidence to support it, the organization issued a retraction. President Bush then repeated the incubator allegations on television." [Wikipedia]
Obama's great uncle and Auschwitz
Remember when Obama lied about his uncle liberating Auschwitz?
Never heard of that? Not a surprise, because the same mainstream media that are so eager to audit Trump's lies, do't seem to care much about Obama's lies. But he did say that his uncle (in fact it was his great uncle, but ho cares about such "small" details...) liberated Auschwitz (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVRaA_Z7430), despite the fact that it was the Soviet Army that liberated it
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auschwitz_concentration_camp#Evacuation.2C_death_marches.2C_and_Soviet_liberation).
For instance, if you search "obama+auschwitz" from site nytimes.com, the only results you get back is from a blog entry (https://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/27/obamas-staff-corrects-wwii-story/). The official excuse given was the Obama's uncle helped liberated another, less known camp, Buchenwald, and he had "simply" confused the names.
Can you imagine what the press would have said if Trump had made such "mistake"? If you think it is not so important that the President of the USA doesn't know who liberated the most infamous concentration camp in WW2 history, maybe you think this is more important (despite not being either in any NYT fact-check:
"He pushed a tax plan to soak the rich, ripped NAFTA for hurting the middle class and tore into John McCain for supporting a bankruptcy bill that sided with wealthy bankers "at the expense of hardworking Americans." Obama may not have run to the left of Samuel Gompers or Cesar Chavez, but it's not like you saw him on the campaign trail flanked by bankers from Citigroup and Goldman Sachs. What inspired supporters who pushed him to his historic win was the sense that a genuine outsider was finally breaking into an exclusive club, that walls were being torn down, that things were, for lack of a better or more specific term, changing.
Then he got elected.
What's taken place in the year since Obama won the presidency has turned out to be one of the most dramatic political about-faces in our history. Elected in the midst of a crushing economic crisis brought on by a decade of orgiastic deregulation and unchecked greed, Obama had a clear mandate to rein in Wall Street and remake the entire structure of the American economy. What he did instead was ship even his most marginally progressive campaign advisers off to various bureaucratic Siberias, while packing the key economic positions in his White House with the very people who caused the crisis in the first place. This new team of bubble-fattened ex-bankers and laissez-faire intellectuals then proceeded to sell us all out, instituting a massive, trickle-up bailout and systematically gutting regulatory reform from the inside." [https://www.commondreams.org/news/2009/12/13/obamas-big-sellout-president-has-packed-his-economic-team-wall-street-insiders]
War in Bosnia
Western media explained us for years (and still do) how Milosevic planned and guided the ethnic cleansing in Bosnia.
Well, one thing is sure: they didn't have any evidence of that, as the International Court for the Former Yugoslavia has made clear:
"...there was no sufficient evidence presented in this case to find that Slobodan Milošević agreed [with Radovan Karadžić] with the common plan [of ethnic cleansing]"
[http://www.icty.org/x/cases/karadzic/tjug/en/160324_judgement.pdf]
So, if after more than 20 years the tribunal created to investigate the war crimes was not able to find any evidence linkin Milosevic with the ethnic cleansing, what was the news accusing him based on? It means they were lacking any fact.
War in Kosovo
They also told us how NATO was bombing Serbia to stop ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, although this was a lie, becasue the so called ethinc cleansing, started after the bombing, as proven in this documentary from the BBC
[http://genome.ch.bbc.co.uk/bf9e62b3abd846d398e2629c4fbf10d5]
Syrian Observatory for Human Rights
One example that I have already covered in previous posts is the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. As Wikipedia says, it "is frequently quoted by major Western news media, such as Voice of America, Reuters, BBC, CNN and National Public Radio."
But if you continue until the description of this organization you will have a surprise: "The organisation is run by one man, Rami Abdulrahman (sometimes referred to as Rami Abdul Rahman), from his home in Coventry. He is a Syrian Sunni Muslim who owns a clothes shop." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Observatory_for_Human_Rights)
Cologne New Years Eve
"Several media outlets at first did not cover the story and, according to Jörg Luyken, only started reporting on the incidents on 5 January, after a wave of anger on social media made covering them unavoidable.[49] This delay was criticised by several politicians, including Hans-Peter Friedrich.[192] The public television channel ZDF later acknowledged that they had failed to report on the incidents despite having sufficient knowledge to do so.[193][194]
ZDF later called the delay in reporting a "clear misjudgment", and said since then, it has been "over-whelmed with hate and anger".[176] This has reinforced discontent previously held by parts of the German public with news coverage relating to the European migrant crisis, as well as a readiness to support the idea of the "Lügenpresse" (literally lying press).[176][195]
The delay in reporting on the assaults in the media lead to accusations that the authorities and the media attempted to ignore or cover up the attacks to avoid criticism against the current asylum and migration policy of the government.[1][196][197] The BBC's Gavin Hewitt wrote, "What has fuelled the sense of crisis is the suspicion - now widely held - that the German establishment is not telling the truth."[176] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Year%27s_Eve_sexual_assaults_in_Germany#Criticism_of_late_media_reporting]
(*) About the origins of the post-truth concept:
It is funny that the concept post-truth is now used by the media to talk about Russia and other non-aligned countries, because in their origin it was almost dedicated to american politcs:
"According to Oxford Dictionaries, the term post-truth was first used in a 1992 essay by the late Serbian-American playwright Steve Tesich in The Nation. Tesich writes that following the shameful truth of Watergate, more assuaging coverage of the Iran–Contra scandal and Persian Gulf War demonstrate that "we, as a free people, have freely decided that we want to live in some post-truth world."[10][11] In 2004, Ralph Keyes used the term "post-truth era" in his book by that title.[12] The same year American journalist Eric Alterman spoke of a "post-truth political environment" and coined the term "the post-truth presidency" in his analysis of the misleading statements made by the Bush administration after 9/11.[13] In his 2004 book Post-democracy, Colin Crouch used the phrase "post-democracy" to mean a model of politics where "elections certainly exist and can change governments," but "public electoral debate is a tightly controlled spectacle, managed by rival teams of professionals expert in the techniques of persuasion, and considering a small range of issues selected by those teams." Crouch directly attributes the "advertising industry model" of political communication to the crisis of trust and accusations of dishonesty that a few years later others have associated with post-truth politics.[14]
The term "post-truth politics" was coined by the blogger David Roberts in a blog post for Grist on 1 April 2010, where it was defined as "a political culture in which politics (public opinion and media narratives) have become almost entirely disconnected from policy (the substance of legislation)".[15][16]" [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-truth_politics]
Wednesday, March 22, 2017
Sunday, November 20, 2016
The EU Ridiculous Propaganda
I read some time ago that Angela Merkel was worried about anti-EU Russian propaganda. She blamed this propaganda for the rise of AfD in Germany. (1)
I think this tells us a lot about Merkel's perception of reality.
(We talked some time ago about the stupidity of blaming Russian propaganda for the critical opinion of Western country citizens.)
The article said that Merkel wanted to counterbalance this propaganda.
"East StratCom Task Force" must be this answer. The official website defines it as "The task force has been set up following the European Council in March 2015, which tasked the High Representative to submit, in cooperation with EU institutions and Member States, an action plan on strategic communication in order to address Russia's ongoing disinformation campaigns".
But of course, for all these mediocre politicians and bureaucrats that fill the EU it is easier to blame Russian propaganda than to analyze what it is really going on in the EU.
So they thought that they would create a Twitter account and make their own propaganda to show us how Russian propaganda is the source of all negative news about the EU.
I will not spend time analyzing each tweet this account had published, but I will need just one to show the level of stupidity involved here:
Let me just drop some ideas about this tweet:
- First the geographical factor. The author of the tweet maybe is not aware that Russia has borders with the EU. China doesn't. And guess what? There's an ocean between the US and the EU!
- It would be really interesting to see how often the EU is in the US news. I bet it is much more often than the opposite (US in the EU). I bet the proportion is quite outstanding. So according to the author of this tweet, this would mean that in the EU there must be a propaganda campaign against the US.
- So Rusians have a negative point of view of the EU because of, again according to the tweet, propaganda. Then, what do we have in the EU about Russia? Has any of you head anything positive about Russia in the news in the, let's say, last 10 years? Again, according to the tweet's reasoning, we must be victims of fierce anti-Russian propaganda. Well, this is the only thing the tweet got right, in fact.
(1) About Merkel's obsessions on this subject, one tweet says: "Chancellor #Merkel recognises the presence of disinformation from Russia in Germany." Well, it would be funny if Merkel didn't "recognize the presence" of what she blames the source of her problems:
PS: Here, the Stratcom twitter account recommending an article from a pro-NATO organization...
I loved the comment by one user:
I think this tells us a lot about Merkel's perception of reality.
(We talked some time ago about the stupidity of blaming Russian propaganda for the critical opinion of Western country citizens.)
The article said that Merkel wanted to counterbalance this propaganda.
"East StratCom Task Force" must be this answer. The official website defines it as "The task force has been set up following the European Council in March 2015, which tasked the High Representative to submit, in cooperation with EU institutions and Member States, an action plan on strategic communication in order to address Russia's ongoing disinformation campaigns".
But of course, for all these mediocre politicians and bureaucrats that fill the EU it is easier to blame Russian propaganda than to analyze what it is really going on in the EU.
So they thought that they would create a Twitter account and make their own propaganda to show us how Russian propaganda is the source of all negative news about the EU.
I will not spend time analyzing each tweet this account had published, but I will need just one to show the level of stupidity involved here:
Figures leave no doubt that pro-Kremlin disinformation gives EU a bad name in Russia pic.twitter.com/ba0oTXnD6C— EU Mythbusters (@EUvsDisinfo) October 30, 2016
Let me just drop some ideas about this tweet:
- First the geographical factor. The author of the tweet maybe is not aware that Russia has borders with the EU. China doesn't. And guess what? There's an ocean between the US and the EU!
- It would be really interesting to see how often the EU is in the US news. I bet it is much more often than the opposite (US in the EU). I bet the proportion is quite outstanding. So according to the author of this tweet, this would mean that in the EU there must be a propaganda campaign against the US.
- So Rusians have a negative point of view of the EU because of, again according to the tweet, propaganda. Then, what do we have in the EU about Russia? Has any of you head anything positive about Russia in the news in the, let's say, last 10 years? Again, according to the tweet's reasoning, we must be victims of fierce anti-Russian propaganda. Well, this is the only thing the tweet got right, in fact.
(1) About Merkel's obsessions on this subject, one tweet says: "Chancellor #Merkel recognises the presence of disinformation from Russia in Germany." Well, it would be funny if Merkel didn't "recognize the presence" of what she blames the source of her problems:
PS: Here, the Stratcom twitter account recommending an article from a pro-NATO organization...
Recommended #longread by @AtlanticCouncil on Kremlin's influence in Europe (focus on France, Germany & the UK): https://t.co/FoChiDCmVi pic.twitter.com/z16zbDEnkZ— EU Mythbusters (@EUvsDisinfo) 20 de novembre de 2016
I loved the comment by one user:
@EUvsDisinfo @AtlanticCouncil basically... @LBaggiani @Hayektheripper @powisle16 #StabiloGruppe pic.twitter.com/4RO3KS911M— Evidenziatore Oscuro (@TheExtremista) 20 de novembre de 2016
Friday, July 15, 2016
Victims of "Russian propaganda"
One of the accusations made to me in Twitter that I find more surprising and ridiculous is that of being victim of "Russian propaganda" or "Putin's propaganda". This accusation is a big insult to anyone's intelligence.
I live in Spain. When I turn on the TV there is not even one channel that broadcasts anything similar to "Russian propaganda"; quite the opposite, the only version given is that of the the EU, the US and NATO. When I turn on the radio, there is no "Russian propaganda" to be found anywhere; as in the tv, everywhere there is only the Western version. Exactly the same can be said about printed newspapers and magazines. But not only that, whenever you enter the internet, the headlines that services like Twitter, Google, Microsoft, etc. suggest me are those from big Spanish and International news corporations. Everything a Spanish citizen receives is EU/US/NATO propaganda. And I am quite sure that exactly the same happens in every Western country.
To receive "Russian propaganda" you have to look for it. A Spanish citizen will never come in contact with RT (Russia Today - the most popular "Russian propaganda" news service), or any other pro-Russian site, if they do not actively look for it (or a contact in a social media actively looks for it). So you simply can not be a victim of "Russian propaganda" if you live in a Western country: you can only be a victim of Western propaganda or a "rebel".
PS1: One of the recurrent moments when I get the accusation of being victim of "Russian propaganda" is when I oppose the affirmations "Russia invaded Ukraine" or "Russia occupied Crimea". But there is no influence of the "Russian propaganda" in my opinion; in fact it is the influence of Western propaganda. The Western propaganda that recurringly showed maps of the Ukrainian election results to show "how unfair was for half of the Ukrainians that Yakunovych was president". And I thought, why is this unfair, and not the opposite situation? And when Yanukovych was removed from the Presidency, I thought how can this be fair for the half of the Ukrainians that voted for him? And I foud it logical that the regions of Ukraine that had majorily voted for him, wanted to leave a country where their democratic vote could be washed away by a revolution by the other half who have voted for the other option. More essentially, my option is based on the maps of the elections that the Western media published over the years, until Yanukovych was removed.
PS2: If you want to know my theory about why people look for it, for "Russian propaganda", as well as for any alternative source of information (zerohedge, infowars, etc.), is that people do not trust anymore Western media, because you feel they are not telling the truth, or not telling the entire truth, and they want to see another point of view.
I live in Spain. When I turn on the TV there is not even one channel that broadcasts anything similar to "Russian propaganda"; quite the opposite, the only version given is that of the the EU, the US and NATO. When I turn on the radio, there is no "Russian propaganda" to be found anywhere; as in the tv, everywhere there is only the Western version. Exactly the same can be said about printed newspapers and magazines. But not only that, whenever you enter the internet, the headlines that services like Twitter, Google, Microsoft, etc. suggest me are those from big Spanish and International news corporations. Everything a Spanish citizen receives is EU/US/NATO propaganda. And I am quite sure that exactly the same happens in every Western country.
To receive "Russian propaganda" you have to look for it. A Spanish citizen will never come in contact with RT (Russia Today - the most popular "Russian propaganda" news service), or any other pro-Russian site, if they do not actively look for it (or a contact in a social media actively looks for it). So you simply can not be a victim of "Russian propaganda" if you live in a Western country: you can only be a victim of Western propaganda or a "rebel".
PS1: One of the recurrent moments when I get the accusation of being victim of "Russian propaganda" is when I oppose the affirmations "Russia invaded Ukraine" or "Russia occupied Crimea". But there is no influence of the "Russian propaganda" in my opinion; in fact it is the influence of Western propaganda. The Western propaganda that recurringly showed maps of the Ukrainian election results to show "how unfair was for half of the Ukrainians that Yakunovych was president". And I thought, why is this unfair, and not the opposite situation? And when Yanukovych was removed from the Presidency, I thought how can this be fair for the half of the Ukrainians that voted for him? And I foud it logical that the regions of Ukraine that had majorily voted for him, wanted to leave a country where their democratic vote could be washed away by a revolution by the other half who have voted for the other option. More essentially, my option is based on the maps of the elections that the Western media published over the years, until Yanukovych was removed.
PS2: If you want to know my theory about why people look for it, for "Russian propaganda", as well as for any alternative source of information (zerohedge, infowars, etc.), is that people do not trust anymore Western media, because you feel they are not telling the truth, or not telling the entire truth, and they want to see another point of view.
Sunday, July 3, 2016
The President of Estonia has mentioned more times "Russia" than "Estonia" in Twitter...
I am fascinated with Taavi Rõivas and Toomas Hendrik Ilves. They are supossed to be the Prime Minister and the President of Estonia. Why I say "supposed"? Because they do not seem to have any interest in the real problems of estonian citizens. Or at least, that is what you understand from following their Twitter accounts.
I live in Catalonia, the separatist region from Spain, so I think I know quite well how Spanish politics work. And it is impossible to imagine that a Spanish leader, at least one that wants to become somebody important, could show such indifference with national matters.
You could think that this is a subjective impression, but it's not. You just need to count the tweets that they have dedicated to different subjects.
I lived in Estonia some years ago, and I fell in love with it, both the country and it's people. So, after coming back to Catalonia/Spain, I kept interested in Estonian affairs, and followed both the President, Toomas Hendrik Ilves, and the Primed Minister, Taavi Rõivas, of Estonia. But soon I got bored, because they seem only interested in Russia, NATO and similar issues.
So I decided to check scientifically if it was just my subjective impression or reality. For that I counted the tweets they had written about different subjects that, in my opinion, should be really important, if not the most important, for the President and the Prime Minister of a nation.
Toomas Hendrik Ilves has more than 13,800 tweets. 13,800 times when he found something interest enough to write about it, or to retweet someone else's tweet. Taavi Rõivas has almost 7,500 tweets. So I think nobody can deny that in both cases we have a very good sample of what they are intested in.
And when you analyze their tweets you find really surprising things...
But if you think this is really not so surprising what do you say if I tell you that the PRESIDENT OF ESTONIA has mentioned more times RUSSIA THAN ESTONIA since he joined Twitter?
I live in Catalonia, the separatist region from Spain, so I think I know quite well how Spanish politics work. And it is impossible to imagine that a Spanish leader, at least one that wants to become somebody important, could show such indifference with national matters.
You could think that this is a subjective impression, but it's not. You just need to count the tweets that they have dedicated to different subjects.
I lived in Estonia some years ago, and I fell in love with it, both the country and it's people. So, after coming back to Catalonia/Spain, I kept interested in Estonian affairs, and followed both the President, Toomas Hendrik Ilves, and the Primed Minister, Taavi Rõivas, of Estonia. But soon I got bored, because they seem only interested in Russia, NATO and similar issues.
So I decided to check scientifically if it was just my subjective impression or reality. For that I counted the tweets they had written about different subjects that, in my opinion, should be really important, if not the most important, for the President and the Prime Minister of a nation.
Toomas Hendrik Ilves has more than 13,800 tweets. 13,800 times when he found something interest enough to write about it, or to retweet someone else's tweet. Taavi Rõivas has almost 7,500 tweets. So I think nobody can deny that in both cases we have a very good sample of what they are intested in.
And when you analyze their tweets you find really surprising things...
But if you think this is really not so surprising what do you say if I tell you that the PRESIDENT OF ESTONIA has mentioned more times RUSSIA THAN ESTONIA since he joined Twitter?
Maybe Estonian citizens don't care about it, probably some find it even justified. For me, it's just impossible to understand that the President of one country has mentioned more times another country than his own. That idea would be an aberration in Spain.
Thursday, May 26, 2016
"Russia invaded Ukraine"
I'm sure you have heard such statements as "Russia invaded Ukraine", "Russia invaded Crimea"...
It is completely understantandable that Ukrainians say such thing. Well, they are not going to admit that Crimean or Donbass people prefer to be Russian than Ukrainian. It is easy to understand that.
It was predictable that NATO officials, think tanks, and payrolled analysts, journalists, etc. would also say that, as they are completely involved in their neo cold war campaign. If you want to check NATO's doble standards regarding self-determination right, you can find it here.
But the truth is, as I always say about this, it doesn't take a Nobel prize winner to understand this map of the elections in Ukraine in 2010: there are two different countries inside the present Ukraine borders.
It is fascinating how some Westerners (read NATO and Bilderbergians) give and take legitimity of elections depending of what people choose: it is "legitimate", "democratic", "free" to vote pro-EU, pro-NATO, but it is "illegitimate", "undemocratic", to vote pro-Russian. Pro-Russian votes are, for these people, illegitimate. And that's the scary thing: when you decide that something is illegitimate, you can ignore it, supress it, abolish it. Citizens of east Ukraine voted pro-Russian, so it means they voted "illegitimate" and their vote can be dismissed.
It is quite disgusting but simptomatic to read how the Donbass region is depicted in the Wikipedia entry: "Surveys of regional identities in Ukraine have shown that around 40% of Donbass residents claim to have a "Soviet identity". Roman Horbyk of Södertörn University wrote that in the 20th century, "[a]s peasants from all surrounding regions were flooding its then busy mines and plants on the border of ethnically Ukrainian and Russian territories", "incomplete and archaic institutions" prevented Donbass residents from "acquiring a notably strong modern urban – and also national – new identity"." (Is there any similiar entry about any other country or region in Wikipedia? If instead of pro-Russian, we were talking about muslims, this entry would be surely qualified as racist, xenophobe...).
The Ukranian conflict is not so difficult to understand. The current borders of Ukraine include territories that have or had a majority of other nationalities. For example, the West of Ukraine was previously Poland. Crimea, in fact, was a part of the Russian SSR until it was transferred to the Ukrainian SSR in 1954. Their views of the Eastern and the Western part of Ukraine about international politics are completely opposed. There are two different countries inside the current borders of Ukraine. You could arguee it was unfair that Yanukovich was "imposed" to the West of Ukraine, but as unfair as Tymoshenko being "imposed" to the East of Ukraine. In such cases, only partition is a real solution. Definitely not imposing one sides's wish over the other's. Who opposes the only real solution? Who is then the imperialist?
Sunday, May 15, 2016
[Eurovision 2016] Russia and Ukraine: Televote vs Jury
So, yesterday's night Eurovision show brought us a new voting system. Ironically, for the first time, we could see the didfference between Jury and Televoting results.
The differences were especially interesting in four cases: Australia, Poland, and of course, Russia and Ukraine.
#Propaganda night at #Eurovision?— Jنrdi Ortiz (@sisquere) May 14, 2016
I have the feeling that #Ukraine is going to win tonight. https://t.co/ZThI2c4L3w
We already had a hunch that yesterday's night was Ukraine's night... And not because of the quality of its song (that has been qualified by some of the people I follow in Twitter -Spaniards with no interest in the Ukrainian conflict- from "ordinary" to "worst winner ever").
The ironic thing is that yesterday we could see where public opinion had been more manipulated and which jury was farther from their fellow citizens liking.
Televote
Russia 361
Ukraine 323
Jury
Ukraine 211
Russia 130
As, it was obvious, more juries benefited Ukraine than Russia, and in considerably higher numbers (not even one Jury benefited Russia with more than 9 points in relation to Ukraine, while 9 Juries benefited Ukraine with 10 or more points).
It is not difficult to understand that Juries are meant to "direct" the song contest's results in the direction desired by the organization, but in some cases the Juries voting was simply offending (specially the case of Serbia).
About the table:
Jury vs Televote Pro-Ukraine Difference: A number between +24 and -24.
+24 would appear if Televoters gave 12 points to Russia and 0 to Ukraine, and the Jury gave the complete opposite. -24 would appear if Televoters gave 12 points to Ukraine and 0 to Russia, and the Jury gave the complete opposite.
Monday, February 29, 2016
The origin of the current's anti-Russian propaganda in Kalergi's Paneuropa Manifesto...
...Or how to use the fear of a Russian invasion to subdue Europe:
"Under the leadership of a red or white dictator Russia could, by good harvests, and American and German capital organization, rise faster than Europe suspects. Then the fragmented and disunited small states of Europe would face a Russian world power whose area is five times as large as the whole of Europe. Neither the small states of Eastern Europe, Scandinavia and the Balkans nor disarmed Germany would then be able to repel the Russian rush. Rhine, Alps, Adriatic would be Europe’s borders and Europe would be Western Province of Russia.
Against this danger there is only one salvation: the European Union. There is no Russian threat for a united Europe because it has twice as many people as Russia and has a much more developed industry. So the decision on the Russian danger is not in Russia – but in Europe.
The next two decades will be the history of the spectacle of a race between the offer of unification of Europe and Russian re-construction: Russia recovering from its economic disaster before Europe agrees to unite to rescue Europe from the Russian danger."
The Pan European Manifesto.
Count Richard Nikolaus von Coudenhove-Kalergi, 1923.
"Under the leadership of a red or white dictator Russia could, by good harvests, and American and German capital organization, rise faster than Europe suspects. Then the fragmented and disunited small states of Europe would face a Russian world power whose area is five times as large as the whole of Europe. Neither the small states of Eastern Europe, Scandinavia and the Balkans nor disarmed Germany would then be able to repel the Russian rush. Rhine, Alps, Adriatic would be Europe’s borders and Europe would be Western Province of Russia.
Against this danger there is only one salvation: the European Union. There is no Russian threat for a united Europe because it has twice as many people as Russia and has a much more developed industry. So the decision on the Russian danger is not in Russia – but in Europe.
The next two decades will be the history of the spectacle of a race between the offer of unification of Europe and Russian re-construction: Russia recovering from its economic disaster before Europe agrees to unite to rescue Europe from the Russian danger."
The Pan European Manifesto.
Count Richard Nikolaus von Coudenhove-Kalergi, 1923.
Friday, May 8, 2015
Who Won WW2?
Who Won WW2? Not an easy question, I know. But let's try to forget the uncountable movies we have all seen and stick to the facts to try to give it a reasoned answer.
Let's start with casualties.
Casualties
We can arguee that the weight of war carried is directly related with the number of casualties suffered. Obviously the Soviet Union carried the biggest weight. But not only that, the Soviet Union was the one that caused the highest casualties in the German army (as you can see in the "Main Battles" table).
Country
|
Military deaths
| Total deaths |
|---|---|---|
| Soviet Union (within 1946–91 borders) |
11.275.000
|
24.900.000
|
| Germany |
4.900.000
|
8.000.000
|
| China |
3.500.000
|
17.500.000
|
| Japan |
2.120.000
|
2.870.000
|
| United States |
407.000
|
420.000
|
| United Kingdom |
383.800
|
450.900
|
| Yugoslavia |
373.000
|
1.363.500
|
| Italy |
301.400
|
454.600
|
| Hungary |
300.000
|
580.000
|
| Romania (within 1939 borders) |
300.000
|
800.000
|
| Poland (within 1939 borders) |
240.000
|
5.720.000
|
| France |
200.000
|
550.000
|
| India (British) |
87.000
|
2.087.000
|
| Philippines (U.S. Territory) |
57.000
|
807.000
|
| Greece |
27.550
|
563.500
|
Timeline
The timeline also shows that the soviets were the first to stop the advance of the German army.
When the allies disembarked in Normandy, it had passed almost a year and a half since the Germans had surrrended in Stalingrad.
Date
|
Event
|
|---|---|
| 01/09/1939 | WW2 starts, Germany invades Poland, takes Danzig |
| 06/09/1939 | 1st German air attack on Great Britain in WW2 |
| 17/09/1939 | Soviet Union invades Poland during WW2 |
| 28/09/1939 | Soviet-German treaty agree on 4th partition of Poland (WW2) & gives Lithuania to USSR, last Polish troops surrender |
| 06/10/1939 | Last Polish army is defeated in World War II. 32nd US President Franklin D. Roosevel |
| 12/01/1940 | World War II: Soviets bombs cities in Finland. |
| 12/03/1940 | Finland surrenders to Russia during WW2, gives Karelische Isthmus |
| 09/04/1940 | Germany invades Norway & Denmark during WW2 (Denmark surrenders) |
| 10/05/1940 | World War II: The first German bombs of the war fall on England at Chilham and Petham, in Kent. |
| 05/06/1940 | Battle of France begins in WW2 |
| 09/06/1940 | Norway surrenders to Germany during WW2 |
| 10/06/1940 | Italy declares war on France & Britain during WW2 |
| 10/06/1940 | Canada declares war on Italy. |
| 14/06/1940 | German forces occupied Paris during WW2 |
| 24/06/1940 | France signs an armistice with Italy during WW2 |
| 20/11/1940 | World War II: Hungary, Romania and Slovakia join the Axis Powers. |
| 29/12/1940 | Germany begins dropping incendiary bombs on London (WW2) |
| 02/03/1941 | World War II: First German military units enter Bulgaria after it joined the Axis Pact. |
| 17/04/1941 | World War II: The Kingdom of Yugoslavia surrenders to Germany. |
| 22/06/1941 | Germany invades Russia. Operation Barbarossa |
| 26/06/1941 | Finland enters WW2 against Russia |
| 30/06/1941 | World War II: Operation Barbarossa - Germany captures Lviv, Ukraine. |
| 07/07/1941 | World War II: Beirut is occupied by Free France and British troops. |
| 13/07/1941 | World War II: Montenegrins start popular uprising against the Axis Powers (Trinaestojulski ustanak). |
| 30/08/1941 | Siege of Leningrad by Nazi troops began during WW2 |
| 11/09/1941 | World War II: The U.S. Navy is ordered to attack German U-boats. |
| 08/12/1941 | US & Britain declare war on Japan, US enters WW2 |
| 07/12/1941 | The Japanese attack the USA Naval Base at Pearl Harbour, Hawaii |
| 07/01/1942 | WW2 siege of Bataan starts |
| 15/01/1942 | FDR asks commissioner to continue baseball during WW2 |
| 22/02/1942 | World War II: President Franklin Roosevelt orders General Douglas MacArthur out of the Philippines as American defenses collapse |
| 04/06/1942 | Battle of Midway begins; Japan's 1st major defeat in WW2 |
| 07/06/1942 | Battle of Midway ends: Adm Nimitz wins 1st WW2 naval defeat of Japan |
| 11/06/1942 | US & USSR sign Lend-Lease agreement during WW2 |
| 23/07/1942 | World War II: Operation Edelweiss (a German plan to gain control over the Caucasus) begins. |
| 21/08/1942 | Battle of Stalingrad begins. |
| 12/10/1942 | US navy defeats Japanese in WW2 Battle of Cape Esperance |
| 23/10/1942 | During WW2, Britain launches major offensive at El Alamein, Egypt |
| 08/11/1942 | 1st WW2 American expeditionary force lands in Africa (Gold Coast) |
| 11/11/1942 | During WW2 Germany completes the occupation of France |
| 19/11/1942 | Stalingrad: Uranus offensive begins |
| 04/12/1942 | US bombers struck Italian mainland for first time in WW2 |
| 16/12/1942 | Stalingrad: Operation Little Saturn |
| 02/02/1943 | German 6th Army surrenders after Battle of Stalingrad, turning point in Europe during WW2 |
| 14/02/1943 | World War II: Rostov-on-Don, Russia is liberated. |
| 16/02/1943 | World War II: The USSR reconquers Kharkov. |
| 14/03/1943 | World War II - The Kraków Ghetto is 'liquidated'. |
| 06/04/1943 | British & US armies link up in Africa during WW2 |
| 10/07/1943 | US, British and Canadian forces invade Sicily in WW2 (Operation Husky) |
| 28/07/1943 | World War II: Operation Gomorrah: The British bomb Hamburg causing a firestorm that kills 42,000 German civilians. |
| 01/10/1943 | Allied forces captured Naples during WW2 |
| 22/01/1944 | Allied forces begin landing at Anzio on the Italian mainland |
| 06/06/1944 | D-Day: The first of nearly 3 million Allied soldiers arrive in Normandy, on the northern shores of France. |
| 18/10/1944 | Soviet troops invade Czechoslovakia during WW2 |
| 12/01/1945 | The Soviets liberate Warsaw and Krakow in Poland. |
| 13/02/1945 | Bombing of Dresden bu the US and the UK begins. Around 23000 people are killed. |
| 13/02/1945 | The Soviets capture Budapest, capital city of Hungary. |
| 14/02/1945 | World War II: Mostar is liberated by Yugoslav partisans. |
| 05/03/1945 | World War II: The Battle of the Ruhr begins. |
| 09/04/1945 | World War II: The Battle of Königsberg, East Prussia, ends. |
| 16/04/1945 | The Soviets launch their final offensive, encircling Berlin. |
| 16/04/1945 | US troops enter Nuremberg, Germany |
| 26/04/1945 | World War II: Battle of Bautzen - last successful German tank-offensive of the war and last noteworthy victory of the Wehrmacht. |
| 09/05/1945 | World War II: The Soviet Union marks Victory Day. |
| 05/07/1945 | World War II: Liberation of the Philippines declared. |
| 06/08/1945 | Bombing of Hiroshima by the US |
| 08/08/1945 | USSR declares war against Japan in WW2 |
| 09/06/1945 | Bombing of Nagasaki by the US |
| 14/08/1945 | V-J Day; Japan surrenders unconditionally to end WW2 (also August 15 depending on time zone) |
| 02/09/1945 | V-J Day; formal surrender of Japan aboard USS Missouri (WW2 ends) |
Stalingrad
"Stalingrad has been described as the biggest defeat in the history of the German Army. It is often identified as the turning point on the Eastern Front, and in the war against Germany overall, and even the greatest turning point in the Second World War. Before Stalingrad, Germany had gone from victory to victory, with a limited setback in the winter of 1941-42. After Stalingrad, they won no significant battles, even in summer. The Red Army had the initiative, and the Wehrmacht was in retreat. A year of German gains during Case Blue had been wiped out. Germany's Sixth Army had ceased to exist, and the forces of Germany's European allies, except Finland, had been shattered. In a speech on 9 November 1944, Hitler himself blamed Stalingrad for Germany's impending doom."
Source: Wikipedia.
Post scriptum
Usually when this issue is discussed, several cliches are brought into the discussion:
- The Lend-lease program.
- The "way" the URSS won the war.
- The crimes commited by the Red Army.
Although this topics may be related to the discussion effects and developement of the war, they are not related to the fact of this entry: who won the war.
The Lend-Lease program.
"The Lend-Lease policy, formally titled "An Act to Promote the Defense of the United States", (Pub.L. 77–11, H.R. 1776, 55 Stat. 31, enacted March 11, 1941)[1] was a program under which the United States supplied Free France, Great Britain, the Republic of China, and later the USSR and other Allied nations with food, oil, and materiel between 1941 and August 1945." [Wikipedia]
Nobody can deny that the Lend-Lease program helped, but that's the word, it "helped", it didn't decide anything. To see from an economic point of view, according to Wikipedia, the amount of help from the US to the URSS was 11B$, from a total cost of the war for the URSS of 192B$. This means the economical importance of the Lend-Lease program for the URSS was about 5,73%.
The "way" the URSS won the war.
It's often argueed too, that the Soviet Union won the war, because it's leaders didn't care about humans lives, and the Western Nations did. Well, we could discuss long about it, but the thing is, the "way" they won the war doesn't change the fact that they did it, does it?
The crimes commited by the Red Army
Again, we can arguee about this point, but it doesn't change the fact that they did won the war.
Besides, all contenders commited what we would nowadays qualify as war crimes. The nazis, obviously, the Japanese Empire, the italians, the Red Army, but also the US and the UK, or what were the bombings of Dresden, Hamburg, Hiroshima or Nagasaki?
Post scriptum II: Soviet–Japanese War (1945)
Despite having been told recurrently that the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki ended the war with Japan, the truth is not as simple:
"Tsuyoshi Hasegawa's research has led him to conclude that the atomic bombings were not the principal reason for Japan's capitulation. He argues that Japan's leaders were impacted more by the swift and devastating Soviet victories on the mainland in the week following Joseph Stalin's August 8 declaration of war because the Japanese strategy to protect the home islands was designed to fend off a US invasion from the South, and left virtually no spare troops to counter a Soviet threat from the North. This, according to Hasegawa, amounted to a "strategic bankruptcy" for the Japanese and forced their message of surrender on August 15, 1945. Others with similar views include The "Battlefield" series documentary, Drea, Hayashi, and numerous others, though all, including Hasegawa, state that the surrender was not due to any single factor or single event." [Wikipedia]
ANNEXES
Table of casualties
Country
|
Total population 01/01/1939
|
Military deaths (average)
|
Total deaths (average)
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Soviet Union (within 1946–91 borders) |
168.524.000
|
11.275.000
|
24.900.000
|
| Germany |
69.850.000
|
4.900.000
|
8.000.000
|
| China |
517.568.000
|
3.500.000
|
17.500.000
|
| Japan |
71.380.000
|
2.120.000
|
2.870.000
|
| United States |
131.028.000
|
407.000
|
420.000
|
| United Kingdom |
47.760.000
|
383.800
|
450.900
|
| Yugoslavia |
15.400.000
|
373.000
|
1.363.500
|
| Italy |
44.394.000
|
301.400
|
454.600
|
| Hungary |
9.129.000
|
300.000
|
580.000
|
| Romania (within 1939 borders) |
19.934.000
|
300.000
|
800.000
|
| Poland (within 1939 borders) |
34.849.000
|
240.000
|
5.720.000
|
| France |
41.700.000
|
200.000
|
550.000
|
| Finland |
3.700.000
|
95.000
|
97.000
|
| India (British) |
378.000.000
|
87.000
|
2.087.000
|
| Philippines (U.S. Territory) |
16.000.000
|
57.000
|
807.000
|
| Canada |
11.267.000
|
45.400
|
45.400
|
| Australia |
6.998.000
|
39.700
|
40.400
|
| Albania |
1.073.000
|
30.000
|
30.000
|
| Greece |
7.222.000
|
27.550
|
563.500
|
| Czechoslovakia (in Nov. 1938 borders) |
10.400.000
|
25.000
|
325.000
|
| Bulgaria |
6.458.000
|
22.000
|
25.000
|
| Burma (British) |
16.119.000
|
22.000
|
272.000
|
| Netherlands |
8.729.000
|
17.000
|
301.000
|
| Belgium |
8.387.000
|
12.100
|
88.000
|
| New Zealand |
1.629.000
|
11.900
|
11.900
|
| South Africa South Africa |
10.160.000
|
11.900
|
11.900
|
| Thailand |
15.023.000
|
5.600
|
7.600
|
| Ethiopia |
17.700.000
|
5.000
|
100.000
|
| Norway |
2.945.000
|
3.000
|
9.500
|
| Denmark |
3.795.000
|
2.100
|
3.200
|
| Guam |
20.000
|
1.500
|
1.500
|
| Brazil |
40.289.000
|
1.000
|
2.000
|
| Iraq |
3.698.000
|
500
|
500
|
| Mongolia |
819.000
|
300
|
300
|
| Iran |
14.340.000
|
200
|
200
|
| Turkey |
17.370.000
|
200
|
200
|
| Australia Papua and New Guinea (Australian) |
1.292.000
|
0
|
15.000
|
| Portuguese Timor |
500.000
|
0
|
55.000
|
| Austria (German-controlled) |
6.650.000
|
0
|
120.000
|
| Cuba |
4.235.000
|
0
|
100
|
| Dutch East Indies |
69.435.000
|
0
|
3.500.000
|
| Estonia (within 1939 borders) |
1.122.000
|
0
|
50.000
|
| French Indochina |
24.600.000
|
0
|
1.500.000
|
| Iceland |
119.000
|
0
|
200
|
| Ireland |
2.960.000
|
0
|
200
|
| Korea (Japanese Colony) |
23.400.000
|
0
|
430.500
|
| Latvia (within 1939 borders) |
1.951.000
|
0
|
230.000
|
| Lithuania (within 1939 borders) |
2.442.000
|
0
|
350.000
|
| Luxembourg |
295.000
|
0
|
2.000
|
| Malaya (British) |
4.391.000
|
0
|
100.000
|
| Malta (British) |
269.000
|
0
|
1.500
|
| Mexico |
19.320.000
|
0
|
100
|
| Australia Nauru (Australian) |
3.400
|
0
|
500
|
| Nepal |
6.000.000
|
0
|
0
|
| Newfoundland (British) |
300.000
|
0
|
100
|
| Belgium Ruanda-Urundi (Belgian) |
4.200.000
|
0
|
150.000
|
| Singapore (British) |
728.000
|
0
|
50.000
|
| Empire of Japan South Pacific Mandate (Japanese) |
1.900.000
|
0
|
57.000
|
| Spain |
25.637.000
|
0
|
0
|
| Sweden |
6.341.000
|
0
|
600
|
| Switzerland |
4.210.000
|
0
|
100
|
| Approx. Totals |
2.000.000.000
|
26.000.000
|
72.500.000
|
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties#Total_deaths
Main Battles (More than 100.000 casualties)
Operation
|
Year
|
Casualties (average)
|
|---|---|---|
| Operation Barbarossa | 1941 |
3.200.000
|
| Dnieper Campaign | 1943 |
2.031.000
|
| Battle of Moscow | 1941 |
1.000.000
|
| Operation Bagration | 1944 |
979.000
|
| Battle of Narva | 1944 |
550.000
|
| Second Jassy–Kishinev Offensive | 1944 |
485.424
|
| Battle of France | 1940 |
469.000
|
| Battle of Luzon | 1945 |
338.830
|
| Battle of Kursk | 1943 |
322.563
|
| Invasion of Poland | 1939 |
310.000
|
| Second Battle of Kharkov | 1942 |
300.000
|
| First Jassy–Kishinev Offensive | 1944 |
195.000
|
| Winter War | 1939–40 |
188.500
|
| Battle of the Bulge | 1944–45 |
186.369
|
| Battle of Monte Cassino | 1944 |
185.000
|
| Battle of the Kerch Peninsula | 1942 |
176.000
|
| Battle of Gazala | 1942 |
148.000
|
| Battle of Malaya/Battle of Singapore | 1941–42 |
143.800
|
| Falaise Pocket | 1944 |
140.000
|
| Battle of Okinawa | 1945 |
136.160
|
| Operation Iskra | 1943 |
129.332
|
| Greco-Italian War | 1940–41 |
100.000
|
Sieges and urban combat
|
Year
|
Casualties (average)
|
|---|---|---|
| Siege of Leningrad |
1941–44
|
2.808.500
|
| Battle of Stalingrad | 1942–43 |
1.524.310
|
| Battle of Berlin |
1945
|
1.298.745
|
| Battle of Kiev |
1941
|
700.544
|
| Siege of Budapest | 1944–45 |
422.000
|
| Warsaw Uprising |
1944
|
200.000
|
| Nanking Massacre | 1937–38 |
175.000
|
| Siege of Odessa |
1941
|
133.813
|
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)