Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. moderateGOP

    moderateGOP Active Member

    Today, I have done extensive research into the outlet that is behind this video which is now spreading again on Youtube 2 years later. They basically take the opposite of whatever stance the US has. No matter how skewed that stance is. The startling findings about this group is featured here on my site. They have supported North Korea and Gaddafi in the past. They are also a big outlet for 9/11 CTs and Holocaust deniers.
  2. Badnews Bear

    Badnews Bear New Member

    As a Canadian who once referred to Global Research as "the asshole of Canada", I am not exactly a fan. But I do find the post on your blog off-target.

    Your post starts and finishes on the topic of the youtube vid, while the meat of the post does not touch the vid, but deals with GR's involvement with Racism and 'out-there' CTs. By constructing a 'nut sandwich' with the youtube vid as the bread, it strongly appears that the goal of the article is to debunk the vid.

    But your conclusion imo lacks punch:

    Some of the various other alleged proof of fake media manipulation, which has long since been debunked you mention are not well known to be debunked. For example Donald Rumsfeld gets messed up pretty bad in that vid, and how is the Gulf of Tonkin debunked? The Nayirah testimony is more questionable, but calling it debunked seems to be an overstatement.

    I admit there are some stupid and racist posts on GR, but you seem to use this history to discredit a post by association.

  3. cosmic

    cosmic Senior Member

    I notice a fair amount of text is just lifted or slightly modified from the RationalWiki and Wikipedia entries, without attribution. If you've taken the time to do extensive research, shouldn't you focus on writing original content?
    • Like Like x 1
  4. moderateGOP

    moderateGOP Active Member

    I clearly stated in my article what the purpose of it was. To figure out what agenda the people behind the video have. I said while I agreed in part with a small portion of their opinion about war propaganda. It is hardly the vast conspiracy that they think it is. To highlight this I pointed to various other instances where they have stretched things and created their own alternative realities about the way the world works. My article does not need to be original! In fact, it is original, because no one is out there exposing the alternative media. More and more people are just getting brainwashed by it. These are facts that back up my research! I did, use rationalwiki and I did link to the various magazines and such quoted in my article! It doesn't take a rocket scientist to find this information out. I am not an actual News Organization. So, since the organization behind is so shady and racist. I really don't have any reason to trust them AT ALL.

    You say, it's unfair to discredit the video by association. I say no it's not. If a small portion of the video or even as much as half of the video lies, stretches the truth, or uses CT talking points. It's an automatic red flag in my book. This video does it all, and its sickening to me.
  5. cosmic

    cosmic Senior Member

    This doesn't address the issue, though. You didn't just "use" RationalWiki and Wikipedia, you copied them without citing or linking to them. Without providing any reference to the source material, it looks like you're trying to pass that off as your own writing. There's a term for that, and it starts with a P.

    moderateGOP's article:
    There are obvious problems with Globalresearch, but your approach to tackling them makes anything else you write look suspect. Even if your intentions are good, your execution is poor and misleading.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  6. moderateGOP

    moderateGOP Active Member

    Your complaints are funny. The biggest problems I see in my article, is the stuff from the magazines. I quoted which magazines did which stories and what those stories were. The rest are easily discovered through various research processes using's own site. I'll add a link to my article for Wikipedia (Since the stuff on Rationalwiki is a bit kinder in words than mine) if you really care that much. But I don't think it truly matters. I always double check Wikipedia's own sources, and all this information can be discovered through regular researching methods. AKA Google.
    Last edited: Sep 1, 2013
  7. cosmic

    cosmic Senior Member

    Do you not understand that it looks rather dishonest for you to pass off content written by other people as your own work? You don't think that matters?
    • Like Like x 2
  8. moderateGOP

    moderateGOP Active Member

    I'm saying I don't think I did. I paraphrased a lot and quoted and told people where the articles were in cyberspace. Are you really mad that I copied some sentences from wikipedia to save time from my very busy schedule? As I said before I am not an official News Organization. I have no credibility anyway. This is a personal site, and I can do whatever I want on it. Besides have you ever compared two stories in the MSM? They always sound similar to each other and use the same paragraphs even if it's not direct quotes from somebody.
  9. cosmic

    cosmic Senior Member

    By not including any reference/quote/cite to original sources, that's precisely what it looks like.

    Except you made no mention of the RW or WP articles, or that you quoted entire sections in full, or made minor alterations to them.

    I'm not mad about anything, just surprised that you don't recognize why what you're doing is rather shady.
    • Like Like x 1
  10. moderateGOP

    moderateGOP Active Member

    What then do you think my agenda is? I think if someone were to come across my site whilst researching Global Research, they would thank me for the information that I put together. Because it's much more than what Wikipedia had about it. Instead of going off on a rant about how Wikipedia had some of this information first. Most people don't even trust Wikipedia these days. Which is why I put in another source, which is another blog... Actually taking a quick look at all my sources, they are hardly objective. Most are Jewish, one is a personal blog and the rest are conservative.

    The thing about it is, these sources are the only ones that even seemed to care about what Global Research was doing and the damage it was causing...
  11. MikeC

    MikeC Closed Account

    I have to agree with the others sorry - whatever paraphrasing you think you have done does not disguise where the info came from. And even if you are paraphrasing you should still acknowledge the sources.

    Also IMO you cannot "debunk" a whole organization - you can only debunk ideas, one at a time. You can certainly point out that an organization has a particular slant, and perhaps debunk specific ideas from their overall philosophy.
  12. moderateGOP

    moderateGOP Active Member

    You can't debunk organizations??? Are you kidding me??
  13. MikeC

    MikeC Closed Account


    think about it - debunking is removing the bunk - when you try to debunk a whole organization you have to go through every single idea they propose and debunk it separately. you can do this for their philosophy or "about" - but in every case you have to identify the particular idea, and then debunk that. Then identify the next idea and debunk that. And so on.

    So the debunking is actually 1 idea at a time.
  14. moderateGOP

    moderateGOP Active Member

    Hm I think we need a spot where we draw a line in the sand and say. This much false info means that this organization is not what they claim to be. Or something like that. I mean if you take Global Research for instance it is clear that they are not really who they claim to be. They are a bunch of hate filled racists who dream of totalitarian empire, because they are "better than the USA."
  15. MikeC

    MikeC Closed Account

    Yeah you can certainly make some conclusions from the amount of bunk you remove, and classify them according to their content - but that's not quite the same thing as "debunking the organization".....if you see what I mean?
  16. moderateGOP

    moderateGOP Active Member

    I think that's just your opinion for instance the definition of debunk is: expose the falseness or hollowness of (a myth, idea, or belief). I think we can safely add an organization into there. One which does the things that we seek debunking. Most of these claims are in fact supported by some group of people no matter how small. They could be as local as the Ghost Hunters of the Jersey Shore or as well known as Global Research.

    If they are spouting out about a new/old/rehashed conspiracy theory. Don't they and not just their ideas deserve ridicule?
  17. MikeC

    MikeC Closed Account

    Ridicule is not debunking tho - debunking is identifying the bunk.
  18. moderateGOP

    moderateGOP Active Member

    Can you actually do one without the other? I mean even if you just question their opinion the group twists facts, pushes their agenda, and if all else fails attacks you personally. As discussed on various other threads, CTs are like a religion. I know many Christians and Jews who would be insulted if you question their religious beliefs. Al Qaeda would chop you up into tiny little pieces if you question their beliefs. Various world leaders would put you on trial to be killed for "questioning the government," or treason.

    On a lighter note, Global Research does not allow any other opinions but their own on their site. They are not an objective global research think tank like they claim to be!
  19. MikeC

    MikeC Closed Account

    You can certainly debunk without ridicule - the "simple" act of pointing out something that is wrong and backing it up with evidence does not require any ridicule at all.

    Ridicule I suspect requires some basis which means it is better with at least a smidgen of debunking attached - but youCAN call someone a %@^^ idiot for believing in something without actually quoting anything factual at all.

    And yes CT's often have some aspects that closely resemble religious belief - ie the axiom must not be questioned, anything that contradicts it must be wrong by definition, etc.
  20. moderateGOP

    moderateGOP Active Member

    As I said, with CTs, I don't think you can simply "point out something that is wrong and back it up with evidence." CTers don't believe anything "official" if there is a some big corporation, government backing, or something from the medical industry they will automatically distrust it as being in line with the globalists/illuminati/reptilians/bankers/politicians etc....

    Each belief mainstream or otherwise is backed by a group. You cannot simply kill an idea. You have to kill the group behind said idea. If people agree with you that the idea CTers are spreading this week is fake, then that's great. But the idea is still out there being promoted by the group! As a group, they will never listen to your reasons pointing out that their idea is wrong. You need to first discredit either the people in said group, or the group's actions themselves before anyone starts to care.
  21. cosmic

    cosmic Senior Member

    I'm not entirely sure, to be honest. You appear more interested in casting aspersion on groups or individuals for primarily political reasons though. That's not what debunking is.

    Or, like me, they might instead notice you'd simply copy/pasted blocks of text from wikis as filler, and similarly observe that your article lacks substance.

    Even if you're right to be suspicious about Global Research or the people behind it, you're not making a good case. Your language and title are inflammatory, then there are the copy/paste/reference issues, and then a concession on your part that the sources you did cite lack objectivity. It would have been a better idea to address claims made in the video instead and using your own words, since that was your intended focus. Sorry, I think it's in really bad form as presented.
    • Like Like x 1
  22. moderateGOP

    moderateGOP Active Member

    You are technically right. Though, I don't have any political reasons except for the fact that my site happens to be explicitly political in nature. I just like following the topic. Though I try to be as unbias as possible. Only injecting my beliefs when announced and appropriate. My title is simply a spin on the title of the YouTube video which was the main reason I created the article. As I said before, I did say that I was going to expose the group behind the video in my article and that that was it's purpose. The only reason I heard of this group in the first place was because of the video and since the logo appeared throughout the video, I decided to do some research. Since I did a pretty good job picking out all the bad ideas this group has spread, there is no reason in my mind to believe anything that the video is saying! I do not apologize for exposing them.

    As far as YouTube videos are concerned most CT groups put their facebook pages or personal pages directly inside the description or they implement them inside the video itself! Making it easy picking. Most Americans or others watching are simply too lazy to even put together the information I did... They just like the video, believe the nonsense, and move on without even caring about the group or people behind it.

    I think it's sad that many on here take the definition of debunking too literal. In my research the groups that I have looked into provided me with a wealth of information and has given me an edge up whenever I choose to debate CTers
    Last edited: Sep 1, 2013
  23. Badnews Bear

    Badnews Bear New Member

    I didn't use any specific term such as 'unfair' when I mentioned discrediting by association, but it was likely my vagueness that encouraged you into jumping to that conclusion. So to be more specific, I am fine with using 'guilt by association' to add weight or drama to a critique, but to rely on it for the meat of your debunking lacks punch.

    As for the copypasta issue pointed out by cosmic, that is a more serious concern than lacking punch. Just use quotation marks/links for copypasta, and some of your own words to give coherence to the stack of quotes, and voila! the 'P'roblem is solved. When I first started writing on forums and stuff I used to stack quotes in this way. Some people gave me a hard time for lacking originality, but there is actually room for creativity in the quote stacking business, so let them hate. I'm still no Plato, but the more I practice the more I can cut back on the copypasta and rely on my own words.
    • Like Like x 1
  24. moderateGOP

    moderateGOP Active Member

    Thanks for the advice about the quotes. Though I do not agree with the "guilt by association."

    There is not anything in the CT world that even makes sense to me at this point. I just enjoy exposing them for what they are. Which is why I became a skeptic in the first place. The little research I began to do into these conspiracy theories really opened more doors about the philosophy of their world. I used to be a Conspiracy Theorist. So I like to research the groups and the people promoting the topics in that world. What you find will astound you, if you dig a little deeper.

    In my research I have found, Ironically, that most CTers end up forming their own little cults or Conspiracies to "Take down the man" or "expose the truth." Luckily the more dangerous threats to society usually end up being stopped, but that's not always the case.
  25. MikeC

    MikeC Closed Account

    IMO you can always do so - you are confusing putting het facts forward with someone believing hem!! :)

    Yep - I don't disagree at all.

    however IMO a better way to attack a group's credibility is by pointing out everything that is wrong and letting them get hysterical - not by starting with hostility yourself.

    It can be quite hard to do - the natural reaction is to strike back!! Until you remember that this is only the internet and so all the carp you face for pointing out their errors is pretty meaningless!
  26. moderateGOP

    moderateGOP Active Member

    Exactly and I don't really care what they think. But I guess you have to think of it this way. What sounds better? Snowden Exposes NSA Secrets? or NSA says Spying Isn't As Bad as the other guy says it is? In this case, the NSA played right into Snowden's hands.

    Now, snowden could be lying his mouth off and the NSA spying program could be nothing than a whole bunch of meaningless data. But now the perception has changed. I'm just trying to use their own tactics against them. Hence the playful title.
  27. cosmic

    cosmic Senior Member

    Well, if you don't actually debunk the video, there's not much reason to refer to your article as a debunking. Merely asserting "these guys believe in conspiracies, are racists and hate the West" doesn't do anything to identify or refute bunk in the video, or explain to others what that is and why it's wrong.
  28. Solastalgia

    Solastalgia Guest

    Damn, I didn't know that American imperialism & the corporate owned media milieu's well documented[*] war propaganda[*] was a "claim" of the "CTers from Global Research TV." Honestly, these are widely covered issues by many media outlets; across the political spectrum. So then, why is it that when it comes from Global Research (in particular), it causes a questioning of their journalistic integrity? Already you've turned me off to whatever your argument is, because I already know it's an ill-minded hit (& after reading the replies; plagiarized) piece. Also, the idea you have that Global Research are CTers is ridiculous, they actually published a two-part series that was critical of conspiracy theory culture in 2012. [*][*] They publish many well known political analysts and investigative journalists that aren't considered part of the conspiracy crowd in the least bit.

    PS: Here's a little history of the term "conspiracy theory" for those who like to throw it out pejoratively to bolster baseless arguments. Not that you did that ;)


    Now, moving on.

    I don't know man, (to me) it seems more like you just read a blogpost or rationalwiki entry (or whatever), and blindly believed it enough to the point that you plagiarized it for your own blog post...But, just saying that you've done "extensive research" makes it sound like this group has a nefarious past we should look forward to learning of.

    Listen man, Global Research was started on Sept 9th 2001 (yes, two days before 9/11). They jumped into the indy media milieu (literally) right before a straight decade of failed foreign and domestic US policy that (so obviously) needed reporting on. They're no different than any of the other media outlets (both big and small) out there that tackled these issues. If you really research US foreign and domestic policy in just even the first decade of this century, I think you'd be more sympathetic to US policy critics and not brush them off as mere contrarians that snipe at anything the US plans to shit out next into this wobbling world. This may sound like anti-US drivel to you, but you need to realize the reality that the USA (my home) was founded on imperialism and genocide, committed more of it throughout it's history, and continues stronger than ever today (as seen in the middle east).

    When you say it's a skewed stance, could you mean that it's off course of what the corporate controlled media monopoly push? Or by skewed, do you mean that it's a distorted view? If that's the case, than I'd recommend looking at your own choice of media before judging others. Looking at your about me page, I read twice that you watch Fox News. Are you aware of their skewed and flat out false reporting in Iraq and Afghanistan?[*] They've been caught multiple times manipulating photo and video for reporting. They consistently run climate change denial propaganda paid for by Koch industries. Many well regarded and award winning political analysts/journalists view Fox News as the biggest source of misinformation in the media.

    No, they have not. The article that you cite from GR that is supposedly in support of North Korea, is really just an expose of the western media's portrayal of N. Korea. It's important to report on these things as we've learned our lesson from Iraq into today with Syria. This also includes Libya, which was an utter disaster and another failure (or deadly success?) of US foreign policy. It's ironic that you say GR supported Gaddafi in the past, as if he wasn't one of many US backed dictators [*] throughout the arabic world (not to mention latin america) who waited in line to have their country destabilized and thrust into civil war. If anyone should be blamed for supporting the Gaddafi regime it should be the US, before blaming any media outlet...GR's coverage of Libya was more or less the same as the rest of the indy media milieu. For example, the US establishment and mainstream media hammered in this idea that Gaddafi was ordering rapes against people (which both Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch found no evidence for), while there was clear evidence of western backed Saudi foreign rebels raping Libyan citizens. You see the same issue now in Syria, where there is video evidence of rebels with chemical weapons and documented accounts of the CIA training Syrian rebels with chemical weapons, and finally an AP report of Al-Nusra rebels admitting they committed the chemical attack in question. Yet, the American establishment and media are hammering in the idea that it was the Syrian govt's fault from their Israeli intelligence (a country that very much benefits from the destruction of Syria and has been funding rebels from the jump with the US). I mean the mere logic of the issue should be telling. Why would the Syrian government welcome the UN inspectors into the country, and on the day they arrive commit a chemical attack a couple blocks away from the hotel where the UN inspectors were staying...

    Oh yeah, BadNews Bears, could you elaborate on this:
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 3, 2013
    • Like Like x 1
  29. Badnews Bear

    Badnews Bear New Member

    (some bad tags in this post that I cant fix, I guess if you get it wrong the first time you are screwed!)

    Yes, a few months ago I decided to check out what the Pussy Riot case was all about. Right away it became quite obvious to me that the biggest crime they could be reasonably accused of is freaking out uptight old people, but instead they were charged and convicted of "hooliganism motivated by religious hatred". The girls wrote closing statements* that I found quite impressive. Of the 3 girls charged, the one that is a computer engineer is possibly not the smartest one, I found journalism student Maria Alekhina to be quite inspirational.


    When doing this research I found most western media to be sympathetic to the girls, but thought the media failed to convey just how far the girls were from being anti-religious bigots. But I did notice in the comments to the media articles a lot of hostile stuff directed at the girls.

    But at Globalresearch I found 2 articles that were ludicrous. One by Timothy Alexander Guzman Starts its attack with the common method of linking Pussy Riot to Anarchist performance art group Voina. He blurs the line between the 2 groups and then says: "The actions committed by the former group Voina and now Pussy Riot would have been arrested and jailed in most countries throughout the world". Here in Canada I suspect overturning a police car is the only act by either group which could lead to jail time, and no pussy riot members took part in that.
    Next he attacks the girl's talent. Obviously they are not good musicians, but what they do is protest art. Many miss this point, but Juan seems notably hostile and prudish:

    Juan is merely annoying, but really got under my skin. But the article by Tony Cartalucci has a more sinister issue, plus Tony is even more annoying.
    Tony makes much of the fact that Pussy Riot is backed by the US State department, even including a link to back up his claim. The link leads to an article by, ahem, Tony himself*, and to establish the state department link Tony points out that:


    Ok so unless I am missing something, the state department thing might not be totally proven. Back to Tony's Global Research article:

    Ok in case you missed it, the hate crime consisted of marching into an open church with pastel skirts, ski masks and one un-amplied guitar, then singing and dancing for about 30 seconds before security stopped it. They performed on the altar where women are not allowed, and here is a sample of their lyrics with a link to full lyrics:
    Yes in Canada we jail people all the time for this sort of thing....

    Next Tony goes into lala land. I am for free speech, but that Tony considers these "Similar or Lesser" offences, and the offences mentioned by Tony have a similar theme, I dont know what to say:

    Last edited: Sep 3, 2013
    • Like Like x 3
  30. Solastalgia

    Solastalgia Guest

    Thanks for the reply Bad News Bears. You know, I've read plenty of articles from the New York Times, The Guardian, The Atlantic, etc, that I didn't agree with in the least bit, but I don't consider these publications as assholes now... Aside from Fox News or any other corporate controlled mainstream media garbage, you just can't throw the baby out with the bath water. I understand though, that you're very much pro-Pussy Riot by your Voina avatar image, so (knowing that we all experience confirmation bias) I sympathize with your qualms over any "annoying" critiques there may be.

    Now, let's see what we can cover here.

    Look man, you've got to understand the context of the incident. They were performing protest art (a song which calls Putin a dictator and that the church supports him, etc) in front of the altar of an Orthodox Russian Church. However different we in the west are, in Russian culture the church is focal to society and very much connected to national identity. Which is maybe why, initially, the Russian public overwhelmingly supported (2:1) the charges against Pussy Riot. So while it may seem surprising that they got charged with hooliganism (which is the equivalent of american disorderly conduct, yet the western media got a kick out of the word "hooliganism" and ran with it) and hate crimes (the real/serious charge of the two).

    Of course, I don't agree with their sentencing (just like Medvedev and Putin, who were targets of this protest), but it's not in the least bit surprising that it happened in a judicially broken civilization we have throughout the world (not just Russia). Do you think Pussy Riot was surprised that they were arrested either? No, they were asking to get arrested. That's the only way you would have even heard about them, Bad News Bears. I'm sure you know a thing or two about civil disobedience, which sometimes entails knowingly committing an act that will get you police charges or even jail time because in turn it can give you press. That's just how it works...

    Of course the west was outraged, and a lot of misplaced hatred was sent towards Putin or Medvedev, even though they basically agreed with the west that it was unfair treatment. While some simply pointed their finger at the Russian judicial system (as Obama did), but they forget about the three fingers pointing back at them. The west, in particularly the US, has far worse of a judicial system than anywhere else in the world. So all the western criticism of the Russian judicial system is rather hypocritical. The crackdown on protesters and dissidents of any kind is just as harsh as anywhere else in the world.

    So, no, this wasn't just about freaking out old people; as you say. It was a little bit more complex than that...

    Yes, I can understand why the western world gravitates towards the girls sentiments of Putin as dictator. Western mainstream media frequently portrays and even outright calls Putin a dictator, just take a look at Fox News who runs pieces like this [*] and pools Putin in with the late Hugo Chavez, who was also portrayed as a dictator in the western media...Mitt Romney and others of the right-wing frequently take verbal shots at Putin as being a dictator and threat to america as well. There's a strong view in the western public that Putin is a no-smiling down right dictator. There's also still a strong current of cold war conspiracy thinking in the west as well...

    Of course, just like the mainstream media's portrayal of Hugo Chavez has been out right false (which Oliver Stone covered so well in his documentary South of the Border), I believe Putin has been (and still is) given the same treatment (so evident after the Pussy Riot incident). The western people that believe in this image of Putin, likely have no understanding of the proxy wars that have been going on in the middle east between Russia and the US for decades. Just read a little bit about the current conflict in Syria and you'll find that it's basically a proxy war between the powerful western and eastern blocs of the world. So is it a stretch to believe that the western media will take any chance it gets to put down Putin or portray in any negative light possible? I think not...

    Putin has done a lot of great things for the people of Russia. Starting with the fact that he fought back against western economic policy that was put in place by foreign advisers under the Yeltsin regime which basically destabilized the entire region for years and finally erupted with the 1998 financial crisis, which Putin pulled them out of when he came to office in '99. Sure his presidency might seem to be a bit authoritarian from the outside, but maybe that was the only way to wrangle in the laissez faire neoliberal capitalistic corruption and mafia of Russia that came to his country in full force after the fall of the soviet union. We in the west like to pretend that we live in a democracy although it's been utterly corrupt for decades. Many well regarded political analysts refer to it as inverted-totalitarianism of corporate controlled dollarocracy instead of true democracy. So the idea that we of the west are better off or on some kind of moral high ground looking to be making judgements against Russia or Putin, is extremely hypocritical to say the least...

    See above. Sure, the western media loved this story, because it's always easier to point out other peoples flaws instead of your own. While they welcome a field day on the Russian judicial system, they wont touch the western judicial system with a ten foot poll. That's exactly why they hammered in the idea that these girls wouldn't get the same treatment in the west, yada yada. Well no, let's look at protestor repression in the west, which has been outrageous. The video of the pussy riot protest in the church looked rather peaceful to me, with the security simply escorting them out and them not getting formally charged/arrested until days later. Yet, in America if you simply ask the wrong question at an open forum Q&A for a politician you have the possibility of being basically beaten, tazed, and arrested on the spot.

    I don't believe Guzman was blurring the lines between Voina and Pussy Riot, anymore than any other journalist did. The former leaders of Voina became the leaders of Pussy Riot, and the ideology of their activism really didn't change a whole lot. Linking the two is not some obscure claim from just a Global Research writer, as it's a well known fact and actually reported on first by Reuters [*]. Despite the downplay by some reporters of the connection - saying it was superfluous - the defense attorney for the girls brought it up to protect them from a non-objective judge that had previously seen them for the Voina arrests...

    Actually, if you look at Canadian law it's not much different...Section 319 of the Criminal Code of Canada clearly "prescribes penalties from a fine to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years for anyone who incites hatred against any identifiable group." [*] So technically, if Canadians decided to go into any religious building and sing/claim they were corrupt and supporting a canadian dictatorship (resulting in a considerable amount of negative international press for the religious organization, etc), they could potentially be given the same amount of jail time as the Pussy Riot girls...Now, of course, that's all hypothetical, but it does show that the judiciary high ground you claim for Canada is untrue...That's really the central problem with this Pussy Riot issue... Everyone in the west uses it as a means to compare their own country with Russia...

    Honestly, I didn't pick up any hostile tones or attack mode in his writing as you do...He simply stated his opinion that Pussy Riot is not a real musical talent in his eyes. I don't think calling it protest art is going to changed anyone's opinions on whether it appeals to them artistically. That's all subjective there. Courtney Love said the same thing about the Riot Grrrls (who partly inspired the Pussy Riot), and they at least put some albums together.

    The ad hominem attacks on these writers isn't really helping your case here. Calling people annoying because you disagree with something they've written is anything but argumentative.

    What's wrong with linking to your own previous work on an issue? This happens all the time with op-eds especially within the climate of blogging & the internet...You're trying to discredit the content of his work simply because he linked to his previous writing on the issue....Come on now...

    In regard to his previous work that he linked to, I don't think Tony was wrong in questioning the reasoning behind Pussy Riot's defense team calling up Alexey Navalny as a witness (if you know anything about the guy's history and his work with western backed NGOs). Especially knowing the fact that the west has manipulated many revolutions in different countries through NGOs in the past and present (including the color revolutions right next door to Russia). So yes, I think it's a valid argument to bring up. But I guess any pro-Pussy Riot person with confirmation bias may find this critique "annoying."
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 4, 2013
    • Like Like x 1
  31. Cairenn

    Cairenn Senior Member

    Folks are all over the internet damning the US and Pres Obama and they aren't being arrested. Putin is a dictator, just like Chavez was and others that we supported at time. Pussy Riot got hard time, not a fine.

    It isn't annoying, it is downright incorrect.
  32. Solastalgia

    Solastalgia Guest

    First off, the US never supported Chavez and actually attempted multiple coup d'etat's on him (the most well known being in 2002), and if you know anything about the situation in the middle east over the last decade you wouldn't be saying that the US supported Putin either... Second off, before just blindly believing that they're dictators (like the western mainstream media tells you), I recommend you actually look into the policy of these democratically elected presidents who have(Putin)/had(Chavez) far higher public support percentages in their respective countries than Obomba (let a lone Bush) could even dream of. Both Putin and Chavez helped their people get out of years of abusive regimes tailor made by US backed neoliberal socio-economic destruction... You really have no idea...

    Completely agree, as did Putin (before they were even sentenced)...and I quote, "I don't think that they should be judged so harshly for this." [*]

    A long with countless of other cases throughout the judicial world. I'm sure Bad News Bears wouldn't agree with his country, Canada, legally bypassing first nation treaties and rights for corporate control of lands, uses, and in turn pollution... There's plenty of judicial mishaps throughout the world, and occurring on a daily basis. If you're a US citizen, go down to your local court house, where now (on account of austerity) there are plenty of people that can't even get a public defender; that supposedly is their right to...

    It's quite amazing that us westerners won't give a fuss about judicial processes unless it involves girls in pink balaclavas rocking out in a church, half way across the world. Yet you use this as a way to compare your own country to Russia, etc, whoever, with statements like, 'Well in my country this doesn't happen.' Yada yada... and the music of our own unjust society plays on...
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 4, 2013
    • Like Like x 3
  33. Cairenn

    Cairenn Senior Member

    I never said we supported Chavez, but I was not clear. Of course dictators are popular, you support them or else.

    I notice that all you knocking the west, enjoy the benefits it gives you, including telling every one how bad the government is.
  34. Solastalgia

    Solastalgia Guest

    The reason why Putin and Chavez got so much popular support in their countries is b/c both of them significantly improved their extremely damaged (by the west) economies (especially for the poor) by actively fighting back against the socio-economic turmoil that was instituted by western imported neo-liberalism for years before them. You should actually take a look into recent Russian and Venezuelan history before you call Putin and Chavez dictators. If that's too much to do, then I ask you to please find the time to watch Oliver Stone's documentary South of the Border. The only people calling these presidents dictators, is the western govts (that got burned by the revolt against neoliberalism they imposed to these countries to loot them of natural resources), the western mainstream media, and in turn the propagandized peoples...Sure, if you're a president of another country and fight back against western imperialism you're called a dictator. Never mind all of the actual dictators that the west has put into place throughout the world over the years (that you mentioned before, Cairenn).

    Obomba's current war on whistleblowers should tell you something about the state of free speech in the west...

    Edit: BTW, please save the responses that say I'm just a western knocker or Obomba damner. It's not bringing anything new to the argument, and is nothing but an ad hominem. There's a reality that the citizens of N. America need to wake up to in terms of imperialism and what problems that has created for both the world and our self. Starting with the first genocide of native peoples that's ongoing (as we can see from the uranium Black Hills of the Lakota people, to the tar sands rivers of the Dene people up in North Athabasca, AB), to our other current genocidal wars over the past decade in the middle east (where the uranium mined, poisoning, & killing Lakota children [*] travels 7,000 miles across the planet to reach Iraqi children, giving them neonatal abnormalities or death[*]) which have left the former in current civil war and chaos, and is about to leave the latter with virtually the same landscape.

    The United States and it's NATO allies have been doing this in many countries throughout the world from South America to Africa, to the South Pacific and Eastern Europe, etc, for decades. They don't call it dirty wars for nothing. Do some research on Col. James Steele, and learn about how he trained death squads in Honduras during the '80s (still funded by US to this day) and then gets sent to Iraq to do the same thing to the new "police" force that terrorizes neighborhoods and runs torture houses (only took him a two year stay in Iraq to make sure it was setup for civil war). The same sad mess is happening in Afghanistan where the chief of NATO and US operations there, General Joseph Dunford, told the press two days ago that the Afghani National Police they've been creating over the last decade+ (aka Northern Alliance opium warlords (historical enemies of southern pashtun farmers/Taliban) who's commanders consist of pedophiles and opium addicts) were loosing too many men (he forgot to mention American tax dollars which now adds up to 2-4 trillion dollars today), to the point that we need NATO and the US to keep supporting them for another five years. [*] You may be confused (since the "official" pull out is supposed to happen in 2014), but after going through one of the many US road blockades that are still operated in Iraq to this day, you would realize that "pulling out" really means finishing up a monstrous shit on the entire country, and then leaving our underwear behind to be washed and reused until worn through. The only difference now, is that in Afghanistan, we may have to keep our ass on the shitter for five more years...

    I'm sorry but we must face up to the geopolitical reality that is before us, no matter how much of a mockery we can make of it. Western media or citizens bashing Putin or Chavez by name-calling them as dictators is ridiculous. Did Putin or Chavez cause even a fraction of the amount of damage that the US/NATO has over the last decade? No, they were too busy bringing their own people out from under the trenches - that were the disastrous western imported neoliberal economic policies aka soft imperialism aka resource robbery (which devastated these countries socio-economically for years). As far as dictators, let's look at the fact that US presidents can (and have) gone to (overt and cover) war without congressional or public approval or can legally and indefinitely detain it's own citizens...I mean who really has the most dictatorial, and in turn militaristic power on the planet right now? Now, Russia and Venezuela certainly are not perfect or anywhere near that(ie. I'm very critical of the new left environmental political grand standing in South America), but they certainly haven't been as imperialistic or militaristic as the western world and it's dictated "democracy" building...

    Edit 2: I apologize for mentioning mainstream western media so many times (I know it's cliche). It's just something we must be very wary of today, when looking at the process of war. Just take a glimpse at how they're treating the conflict in Syria...
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 4, 2013
    • Like Like x 2
  35. Badnews Bear

    Badnews Bear New Member

    Hi Kevin, I think some of your points are quite valid, others less so.

    In my previous posts in this thread I was telling the OP something very similar to what you just told me:

    I never said the west is superiour, only that PR would not have been jailed for what they did. However in some ways I suspect Russian courts are more openly corrupt than even the US. Upon reading the transcripts of the Pussy Riot (henceforth "PR") case, some very questionable events occurred during the trial which I doubt would fly in the US. For example, security guard Sergei Beloglazov did not return to work in the Church for for 2 months because of 'trauma' from the incident. But the problem goes beyond one individual exaggerating trauma:

    But my main reason for bringing this up is that I have no interest in demonizing Putin, but rather the Church for [likely] encouraging false witness, the court for being one-sided and draconian, and apologists for the Church and Court like Juan and Tony.

    I am aware of western corruption toward peaceful protest (false-flag black bloc vandalism, bill of rights as ass-wipe), but I don't know much about beatings/arrests for asking wrong questions. Not that I don't believe it happens, just that I haven't seen it. do you have examples? Not to excuse the west by any means, but I would rather get tazed and locked up for a few days than be led away peacefully to spend 2 years in Russian Prison. Though I do know one person who has been tazed and his description of it does give me a bit of pause! He was not impressed....

    Here I disagree strongly. Obviously I am not anti-Voina and don't care if the girls were involved, but Voina's 'art' ranges from the technically illegal but mostly absurd (crazy Ivan, drawbridge boner) to the somewhat disturbing (throwing cats, chicken vagina) and obviously illegal. (Shoplifting, Vandalizing Police Car) Only one of the 3 girls convicted was a leader in Voina, and Maria is not known to have been involved with Voina at all. Juan totally blurs the lines to support his personal smear campaign, and I don't understand how anybody can deny this. The way you use leaders in the plural when only one member fits this description shows you are not fully informed.

    I only bring Canada into it to criticize the Globalreserch articles. I am very convinced Canadian girls could do the same thing* with Harper as a substitute ,and not receive 'religious hatred' charges or jail time, Yet the articles go on as if it is unquestionable that the girls would be jailed in the west.

    *since we have no 'state' church the situation cannot be duplicated cleanly, but Juan and Tony instigated the comparison, not me

    I respect plenty of people I don't agree with (for example I respect you so far), my ad honinem is IMO reactionary to already existing ad honinem. I have a history of that and sometimes get carried away...

    No, I didn't try to discredit his work 'simply' because he linked to his own article, I just used that as a lead-in to my argument that his claim was not 'totally proven', as he seems to indicate. I do not deny it is invalid to bring up, but I found it comical that he presents it as an established fact, then links to his own article, which IMO does not establish it as a fact at all. If I wanted to back up something I was saying with a link, I myself would be my own last choice; that just seems like basic psychology. If I link to myself it appears that I may be the only person who holds that view... So I led in my argument by pointing that out of Tony.

    Admittedly it is not always easy to spot ones own bias, but it appears to me that your bias on this issue is stronger than mine.
  36. Badnews Bear

    Badnews Bear New Member

    I had based my idea that GR had racist posts based on Tony's article. But after looking into Tony a bit more I found no pattern of antisemitism, but strangely some pro-Israel stuff, and even some critics accusing him of Zionism. So while Tony's post on Pussy Riot does sound anti-Semitic, I am no longer comfortable with my claim that GR has "racist" posts. For now I still think these posts on Pussy Riot at GR are plenty stupid though.
  37. Solastalgia

    Solastalgia Guest

    I apologize for such a delayed response, BadNews Bear, I wasn't aware there were more posts (until the email notification today). Now, let's see what I can cover here...

    So then, why did you go on to make the same mistake yourself? You tell OP not to generalize GR through post association, then go on and do exactly that...

    Telling me that you warned OP about this, doesn't alleviate your own mistakes made later on...
    You're right, you never flat-out said that the west is superior. You implied it, by making an argument based on your assumption that they wouldn't be jailed if they were in the west. By mentioning multiple times that this wouldn't happen in the west, you are implying that the west is judicially superior in some moral sense. If you took the time to actually compare legality before assuming, you'd find that, under Section 319 of the Canadian criminal code & Section 249 of the US criminal code, they could have gotten the exact same sentencing of 2 yrs in prison. I'm not saying that they would have, but they could have. Unlike your argument, I'm not trying to make any assumptions here. But this does negate your unflinching position, that they absolutely wouldn't have gotten jailed for what they did in western courts. That's a wrong assumption to make, and I think you should reconsider it.

    Yet another assumption that you don't even attempt to back up...

    I think former civil rights/constitutional lawyer, Glenn Greenwald, covered this topic pretty well in his piece, U.S. Justice v. the world. Here's a good quote from it, "...the U.S. Government has invented — and federal courts have dutifully accepted — a whole slew of legal doctrines which have only one purpose: to insulate the country’s most powerful political officials from legal accountability even when they commit the most egregious crimes, such as imprisoning incommunicado and torturing an American citizen arrested and detained on U.S. soil."

    You see, by law, some US citizens aren't even allowed due process and can be indefinitely detained. Last I checked, Russia isn't allowed to do even a fraction of what US legal can do to citizens since 9/11 and the Patriot Act.

    Now, if you want to talk about specific "openly corrupt" court cases, then just look at the recent Trayvon Martin-Georg Zimmerman ordeal. This case made public US corporate-court collusion/corruption with groups like ALEC allowing corporate interests to literally write their own laws...Last I checked, there hasn't been any news breaking of Russian corporate corruption with their courts...

    So, tell me again about your suspicions that Russian courts are more openly corrupt than the US.

    Is this really what you consider to be proof of Russian courts being more corrupt than the US? Come on man... You honestly believe that exaggerated and even out-right false testimony doesn't "fly" in the US (or the rest of the west)? We could probably list hundreds of thousands of cases where this kind of corruption happens in western courts on a daily basis. A false testimony from someone in the Pussy Riot case doesn't prove that the US/west is judicially superior. This is a petty claim that doesn't hold any weight.

    Wow man, really? So the whole point of this is to demonize the church through your own unproven accusations.

    Some sound argument you have here...

    Police State USA: Student assaulted and tasered by police for asking John Kerry wrong question.

    You're comparing apples and oranges. Different incidents, different repercussions. Don't conflate the two, that's a misleading argument to make..

    Obviously you're not anti-Voina, but rather pro-Voina, considering that your avatar on here is of Voina...

    Listen man, nobody is blurring the lines between Pussy Riot and Voina as a smear campaign. The Associated Press were the first to report about the obvious connection between the two groups (see: AP - Women Behind the Mask of Russia's Pussy Riot Band). When Voina broke up, Nadezhda Tolokonnikova and Pyotr Verzilov (husband and wife/former prominent Voina members) started a new group under the same name Voina. They then re-named to Pussy Riot, which is why they were widely considered to be the "Moscow faction of Voina" as reported by Reuters [*]. The politics of Voina are virtually the same as Pussy Riot (ie. anti-Putin/pro-opposition).

    Now, as far as your attempts to disassociate the arrested Pussy Riot girls from Voina, I'll just give you one quote from the AP article to answer that. "Voina's chief ideologist Alexei Plutser-Sarno told The Associated Press that the three "performed courageously" with the art group."

    So, please, tell me more about how, "Maria is not known to have been involved with Voina at all."

    From what I've read of Juan from Global Research, he's basically extrapolating on what outlets like AP and Reuters had already published. So your accusation of him "blurring the lines to support his personal smear campaign," is basically accusing the Associated Press and Reuters of the same. The connection between Voina and Pussy Riot is well known and widely reported on, and I don't understand how anybody can deny this (to use your words).

    Wait a second, I thought you said earlier that the problem wasn't President Putin. Now you're telling me that, with Canadian PM Harper as substitute, they wouldn't have been charged or gone to jail. You do realize that this stuff (crime charging, sentencing) is the job of the judiciary and not the executive branch, right? If what you believe were true, we'd be worrying about a whole lot worse corruption (totalitarianism) here.

    Wait a second, second, I think we've stumbled on the endgame for our debate over Russian vs Western judicial systems. See, here in the United States, our president can, in fact, override the judiciary and act as the ultimate judge on US citizens when it comes to the "war on terror" - denying them due process & proceeding to drone them (which he's done to a 16 yr old US citizen).

    Harper is hardly any better when it comes to overriding the courts with his systematic discrimination against first nations peoples. Then going on to play international judge by blocking off UN indigenous human rights reviews on his country because he know what will be revealed.

    So, tell me more about how PM Harper would've protected Pussy Riot.

    I'm not so sure that you really respect people that you don't agree with, when you describe them as "annoying" and "assholes." All that shows is that your confirmation bias was challenged...If you can't handle critical points of view maturely, then how am I supposed to take your arguments seriously?

    You start this paragraph by saying that you're not trying to discredit him for linking to his previous work, and at the end of the graph you try to discredit people who link to their own work. Good one.

    Now, as far as the validity of his article goes, I think he brought up some pretty legitimate points with evidence to back it. He shows some clear connections between Pussy Riot and anti-Putin opposition leaders in Russia (that have US funding) as well as US backed NGOs (ie NED) that have a pretty nefarious past when it comes to US covert destabilization missions against many different countries over the past fifty years.

    So, tell me more about how he doesn't establish any facts at all...

    Please explain to me why my bias is stronger than yours. Especially in light of your Voina avatar, and emotional response to Pussy Riot critiques by calling authors annoying assholes. To me, it's seems that you are the one that's emotionally vested with strong bias in this situation.

    That's a pretty serious accusation, please show me where in Tony's article you read racist remarks because I can't find any.

    How could someone even incorporate racist view points into an article on Pussy Riot? The Pussy Riot debacle wasn't a racial issue whatsoever. You're going a little bit overboard here with the smear, BadNews Bear.

    You do know that there's a difference between racism and antisemitism, right? Antisemitism is specifically directed against Jewish peoples. While racism can be against any ethnic group of peoples.


    So first he was antisemitic, and now he's zionist...That makes a whole lot of sense, BadNews Bear.

    I took a quick look through his articles archive at Global Research and found this:

    The World Must Unite Against the US-Saudi-Israeli Proxy War in Syria

    So, BadNews Bear, please tell me more about how he's pro-Israel or even Zionist...

    You know, it's funny because you accuse him of smearing your sacred cow, Pussy Riot. Yet it is you who is looking like the smear artist now.

    I've re-read the article in question multiple times now, I haven't seen any mentions of Jewish people (not that I expected to). Why would someone bring up jewish people in an article on Pussy Riot? Is there a connection that I'm missing here?

    Good, because it's entirely unfair to accuse any publication of supporting racism without any evidence whatsoever...

    Plenty stupid? :rolleyes: Do you understand how an argument works? You present your reasons as to why you agree or disagree with something. Calling something plenty stupid gets nobody nowhere... Your entire argument throughout this debate has been empty assumption after assumption, after baseless statement after statement, without any legitimate reasoning or rational, whatsoever. Your final analysis here, in calling their article "plenty stupid" really says it all for you.

    On the contrary, I find this past paragraph of yours, about the author being anti-Semitic and racist when writing about Pussy Riot plenty, plenty, plenty stupid.
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 27, 2013
    • Like Like x 1
  38. Jay Reynolds

    Jay Reynolds Senior Member gets popular by telling a small segment of people what they want to hear, regardless if it is true or not. Certainly not always accurate or objective, it has articles footnoted as if the sources had true validity, while many of them are chock-full of bunk. The end result is the appearance of scholarly work on a fairly large scale, while deeper in they are simply an outlet for people who can't get published elsewhere because they are plenty stupid.

    Their effect is minimal, especially on the less stupid.
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  39. Badnews Bear

    Badnews Bear New Member

    You keep me on my toes Kevin. For now I will just deal with the Jewish problem.

    On Tony's list of crimes equal to or greater than PR's, there is a distinct pattern of antisemitic crimes. One in particular strikes me as rather harsh, the second on the list. Tony says "Unlike Pussy Riot, however, these 2 men only crammed their leaflets into the door of a synagogue – instead of bursting in. Still they received 3-4 years in prison." The leaflets in question were Holocaust denial comics. It struck me a bizarre that Tony sees this as an equal or lesser crime, and because the whole list dealt with antisemitism I rashly assumed he was an antisemite, and that GR must have antisemitic leanings to print it.

    While I have retracted my accusation of antisemitism, I don't consider myself stupid for thinking Tony was antisemite. Am I the only one who finds that list of Tony's a bit odd?
  40. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    You say "Folks are all over the internet damning the US... aren't being arrested" well some are but more importantly, whilst you are careful to omit that protesters all over the west are arrested, beaten and peppersprayed and worse. So that's nonsense and propaganda. Of course people are being arrested and spied on and carted away by the U.S and Obama. 'Folks' are also being droned and starved to death all over the world because of the U.S policies. Some people just pretend it doesn't happen or come out with outright lies to justify it... "We are bringing democracy", "We are standing up for the people", "We are fighting terrorists which threaten our very existence"... and the band played "Believe it if you will".

    When did the U.S support Putin and Chavez?

    I don't speak Russian but if I did, I am sure I could go on the internet and find plenty of Russians who do not like Putin and for good reason. The internet is more than what is written in English. But in the 'worldview', Putin is not running around the world warmongering like Bush and Obama and using the CIA to overthrow governments and starve whole populations.

    Both Putin and Chavez were democratically elected so I don't see your problem. If you believe the elections were fraudulent, prove it.

    Pussy Riot sentence was excessive and political but it is strange how you constantly ignore the wrongdoings of the west. It would be great to be able to sit back and say, 'Look at the injustice in Russia, Syria, Iran etc, that sort of thing doesn't happen in the west', but we cannot because it does. Our Govts are just as bad and as power hungry.

    I say 'sort out our own mess before interfering in others'. 'Take our own leaders to task for their wrongdoings and get our own system sorted out and let the Russians, Syrians, Argentinians or whoever, sort out their own governments.

    You sound annoyed that people dare to voice their opposition to U.S policy and you fail to show how or even what is incorrect.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.