The Big Fat Compendium Of Russiagate Debunkery

[GMan]

Okay Bust. I get it. Discredit the messenger if it dosen't fit a narrative.
But the events never the less have happened. Europe is in crisis.
The E.U. experiment is a failure. The Open Borders experiment is a failure.
More than G.B. want out of the E.U. to protect their national identities but to globalists they are the problem. I have family overseas too and the reality is they don't want to deal with the mess mass immigration has caused because of a failed political experiment.

https://www.cnn.com/2017/02/21/europ...ots/index.html

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world...-eric-coquerel
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-39047455

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world...-eric-coquerel

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world...-eric-coquerel

https://www.thetrumpet.com/16828-ita...isia-and-niger

[GMan]

Maybe the Economist offers a more balanced view of the situation in Sweden:

Sweden is trying to turn people Swedish
The world’s greatest welcomers of refugees must work out how to assimilate them
https://www.economist.com/news/europ...-sweden-trying

I haven't been to Sweden, but I have cousins who are happy there. Seems like a great place. Still.

What if they don't want to assimilate? What then? Give them more money??? I see the article talks about an refugee that arrived 27yrs ago that wanted to flee the old county's ways. Problem is not all are like her.

[Zacha341]

US as a fairly pluralist society allows for a hybridization of cultures and customs so to speak. One could say you can have your cake and eat it.

I've work in Dearborn many years and often see a women in 'partial' hajib driving a car/ SUV [[alone), going to college, work, etc. Advancing themselves in varied directions, socially and educationally speaking.

Whereas in Saudi Arabia for example, that would not be favored or allowed. Muslim women here in the US seeking their own empowerment are benefiting from America's pluralism. The issue is the extremists who want a mirror image of the society/ systems they came from.

I also remember hearing/ reading great reticence and disdained re. 'their kind' coming to Dearborn/ US from over 'there'. The middle-eastern populations grew and from their perspective adapted, building their own businesses, communities, bringing varied aspects of their culture.

So there we have it. It is a indeed a multi-faceted issue.

[bust]

Wasn't there a move to remove crosses from some churches [[in Sweden) to help the incoming Muslim population feel more accepted?

IMO that's bending over backwards accommodation; beyond even the 'coexist', interfaith concept.

Who respects a people so bent on removing their own religious/ cultural symbols? How is this read?

The lukewarm church indeed, having little to offer anyway is the message -- so best remove their crosses. That's the way of it, accordingly, in order. I'm actually not surprised.

https://www.christiantoday.com/artic...nded/66831.htm

https://www.svt.se/nyheter/lokalt/st...-sjomanskyrkan

Zacha, That's not quite true.

We've gotten off topic. Or perhaps not.

This shows how propaganda and misinformation mislead and divide good Americans. And some fraction of the media outlets that participate in its dissemination.

One individual bishop, Eva Brunne, suggested that one particular church, the Seamen's church in Stockholm Harbor, could temporarily cover or move some Christian symbols in the event seafarers of a different faith wanted to use its chapel to pray. And to indicate the location of Mecca on its floor.

As stated on its website, the mission of the Seamen's Church is to assist "the rootless and socially vulnerable" seafarers arriving in the Harbor.

The context: Seafarers in Stockholm follow many faiths besides Christianity. Many are Muslim.

As your article points out, that suggestion was rejected. Not a cross has been removed [[or temporarily covered or moved) in Sweden.

Here are the bishop's own words:
http://www.varldenidag.se/nyheter/br...8a95DPp0ME78Q/

For those like me who don't read Swedish, here's a translation by Google:
https://translate.google.com/transla...8a95DPp0ME78Q/

Following criticism of the proposal to mark the direction of Mecka on the floor of the Seaman church, now comes bishop Eva Brunne with an explanation.

The world today pointed out that Stockholm's bishop Eva Brunne earlier this year suggested that the Seaman church should be made available to other faiths.

This would be done by indicating on the floor the direction of Mecka and by temporarily covering - alternatively carrying out the cross in the chapel, Pastor Patrik Pettersson has told the Church-related blog.

Eva Brunne made a statement published on Stockholm's website on Saturday. Brunne writes:

"During a meeting in February with the Board of the Seamen's Church, a conversation was made about what is possible to do if a ship with crew of another faith comes and wants to pray.

We reasoned about the issue and there came ideas and suggestions. My suggestion was to temporarily make the room accessible by, for example, marking direction of Mecka and moving Christian symbols. Just as is already done in joint prayer rooms at airports and in some hospital chapels.

It is important that there are places for accustomed sisters and brothers and we show hospitality and tolerance regardless of faith. Good and praying people of different faith must be able to meet and help each other.

Temporarily raising a room for people of other faith does not mean that we are backing from our own faith. Priests are called to proclaim Christ. We do this every day and every meeting with people. But it does not mean that we are angry with people of other faith."

It's understandable if you thought a lot more went down in Sweden besides one errant suggestion that never went into effect. There was a concerted effort to grossly exaggerate the situation.

Some jump all over opportunities like this to inspire fear and anger -- and clicks and shares -- and mislead to believe Christianity is under attack. Just look at the search results.

You referenced a Christian Today article that quotes Pamela Geller. Islamophobia is her bread and butter.

We've got to be careful who and what we believe these days. Our own president seems a pathological liar. [[There's opinion from a variety of sources.) At least the internet can help us fact check and research.

However unfortunately, this is illustrative: Practically the only ones discussing Swedish cross removal are those promoting misinformation.

We need fact checkers to keep us honest.

[aj3647]

GMan, someone should do a case study of your susceptibility to Russian propaganda.

You included a link to GlobalResearch too.

They also have quite the penchant for peddling conspiracy theories [[the U.S. government did 9/11, vaccines cause autism, fluoride in water is poison, the Holocaust was a myth, ISIS is run by the CIA, etc.)

[Richard]

I guess everybody's favorite The Guardian also peddles conspiracy theories Hugh.

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...sis-syria-iraq

That doesn’t mean the US created Isis, of course, though some of its Gulf allies certainly played a role in it – as the US vice-president, Joe Biden, acknowledged last year. But there was no al-Qaida in Iraq until the US and Britain invaded. And the US has certainly exploited the existence of Isis against other forces in the region as part of a wider drive to maintain western control.

[aj3647]

I guess everybody's favorite The Guardian also peddles conspiracy theories Hugh.

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...sis-syria-iraq

That doesn’t mean the US created Isis, of course, though some of its Gulf allies certainly played a role in it – as the US vice-president, Joe Biden, acknowledged last year. But there was no al-Qaida in Iraq until the US and Britain invaded. And the US has certainly exploited the existence of Isis against other forces in the region as part of a wider drive to maintain western control.

So you don't understand the nuance between indirectly creating ISIS [[via destabilization of Iraq) and ISIS literally being created and run directly by the CIA, which is what GlobalResearch peddles.

[bust]

Richard,

Here's an analogy:

There's cancer.
Toxins cause cancer.
Our society created the toxins.

What's the conclusion?
That we shouldn't fight cancer because it's our society too?

[Richard]

It's semantics,if you are a rag tag outfit and the CIA comes to you with training,funding and weapons,who is calling the shots?

The problem with that ends to a means is they always end up going off on to there own agenda,as both Hilliary and the CIA finds out.

Same thing in Afghanistan,rebels attacking the pipeline disrupting the flow So they pick another rebel group to fund and set up that turns into al quadda so then they need to find another group to fund to stop them.

We just need to stop meddling and let them wipe each other out.

But when it comes to the CIA Nobody can confirm or deny so anything they do,can be conspiracy fodder and no way to prove otherwise under the protection of national security.

They picked an adverage African American in California to push coke in order to fund the Sandinistas,everybody called that a conspiracy until courts called it a high probability.

It is their job to do things that keep people guessing.

[aj3647]

So just to clarify Richard, you believe that the CIA created, trained, fund, and control ISIS?

[oladub]

In John Kerry's words , "we were watching, we saw that DAESH [the IS] was growing in strength, and we thought Assad was threatened,” Kerry said during the meeting.“[[We) thought, however,” he continued to say, “We could probably manage that Assad might then negotiate, but instead of negotiating he got Putin to support him."

Who would have guessed that tolerating ISIS to overthrow Assad wasn't a good idea? I don't like that Trump is carrying on with some of Obama's idiotic foreign policies but at least Trump is crushing ISIS instead of tolerating ISIS as an ally against Assad. Why are we fighting Assad anyway?

[GMan]

So just to clarify Richard, you believe that the CIA created, trained, fund, and control ISIS?

I know you like specific words AJ, but I can't speak for Richard. So here's my take on the rise of ISIS/ISIL.... the failure of US policy was responsible for arming and allowing the ISIS / ISIL debacle to wreak havoc on the region expanding their presence under the old US Admin till the [[wait for it....) Russians and the NEW US administration made it a policy to actually fight the fight and reduce ISIS's footprint in the region.

[Zacha341]

That answer seem succinct enough to me. Sometimes the details add to the abstraction and confusion.

[Pam]

More Jimmy Dore.

Reporter Debunks Russia Twitter Panic

https://youtu.be/GN-tf3HM9ao

[aj3647]

I know you like specific words AJ, but I can't speak for Richard. So here's my take on the rise of ISIS/ISIL.... the failure of US policy was responsible for arming and allowing the ISIS / ISIL debacle to wreak havoc on the region expanding their presence under the old US Admin till the [[wait for it....) Russians and the NEW US administration made it a policy to actually fight the fight and reduce ISIS's footprint in the region.

That's not the stance that Global Research [[the source you previously cited) takes, they literally peddle that ISIS is directly run by the CIA, that it's a deliberate creation of the CIA and under the direct control of the CIA. Richard seems to be under the impression that such a belief does not qualify as a "conspiracy theory." This particular conspiracy theory is popular with those in Russia and the Middle East, to believe that ISIS is an astroturfed American organization run by the CIA.

I'm just curious to hear his thoughts on the subject.

[Honky Tonk]

More Jimmy Dore.
https://youtu.be/GN-tf3HM9ao

Interesting video, Pam. I'm not sure who or what to believe anymore.

[bust]

That answer seem succinct enough to me. Sometimes the details add to the abstraction and confusion.

My sincere, unsolicited advice:

Without details all we're getting is unsubstantiated opinion. Or worse.
Propagandists expertly craft easily digestible misinformation, encapsulated in simple answers.
Most effectively, ones that excite emotions.
People are fooled, and they spread the misinformation.
Watch out for simple answers, especially when they appeal to emotions.
Trust your intellect.
Reality is not so simple.

It takes extra effort, but I do my best to follow this advice myself.

[GMan]

My sincere, unsolicited advice:

Without details all we're getting is unsubstantiated opinion. Or worse.
Propagandists expertly craft easily digestible misinformation, encapsulated in simple answers.
Most effectively, ones that excite emotions.
People are fooled, and they spread the misinformation.
Watch out for simple answers, especially when they appeal to emotions.
Trust your intellect.
Reality is not so simple.

It takes extra effort, but I do my best to follow this advice myself.

The best thing out of what you said is; trust your intellect.
Trust your intellect, not an intellectual. Cause after all a polished turd is still a turd.

[bust]

The best thing out of what you said is; trust your intellect.
Trust your intellect, not an intellectual. Cause after all a polished turd is still a turd.

And a turd is a turd is a turd.

[GMan]

Exactly. And most people can see though the ruse of piling on adjectives to appear sympathetic and understanding of a cause which is just adding to the pile of excrement.

[bust]

Exactly. And most people can see though the ruse of piling on adjectives to appear sympathetic and understanding of a cause which is just adding to the pile of excrement.

Facts, not adjectives.
Do we agree?

[GMan]

Facts, not adjectives.
Do we agree?

When Facts become subjective to the narrative being pushed than they are adjectives to the story.

Trump and Russia colluded = Narrative.
Facts do not support that claim.
Anything not fitting that narrative = propaganda.

[aj3647]

GMan, just out of curiosity, are you at least now conceding that the Russians DID interfere in our election? Not asking you to say they changed the outcome, not asking you to say there was collusion with Trump, just that they "interfered." Can you concede that point at least? Even Trump was forced to finally concede that point after a year of denying it, when all the Russian indictments came out last week.

I'm just asking to see just how committed to the "facts" you really are. I'll open up the question to Pam, oladub, Richard, and the rest too, many of whom were steadfastly denying that Russia did anything *at all* and that even the accusation of meddling itself was "Fake news", a "witch hunt", etc.

And please, no red herrings about Hillary Clinton and no Whataboutism.

[Richard]

^ Why is it soooo difficult to understand ?

When did the whole collusion aspect kick in?
The President won the election and he was accused by some that he personally colluded with the Russians in order to win the election.

Meaning Trump and Putin sat at a table and worked together in order to put Trump in as a president.

Our President Trump has stated many many times he did not collude with the Russians in order to win the presidency.

All the intelligence agencies all have said they have found no proof that the president colluded with the Russians.

Nobody had a clue that Trump was going to win,not until it was declared that he did in fact win.

Something that a lot of people still refuse to believe.

Case closed on the collusion left wing conspiracy theroy.

Next up is the Russian intravention aspect,anybody that has been alive for more then 40 years is well aware of the fact that governments interfere in other governments politics,so why the shock?

It is the duty of socialist governments to push their agendas as it is no different then democratic governments to push their agendas onto socialist governments.

It has been going on for decades,so nobody but those with either a agenda or those that are still clinging to desperate hopes of impeachment and finding the smoking gun that does not exist.

It was discovered that the Russians were operating a political propaganda campaign in 2014,then president Obama took steps to stop or understand how they were doing it and informed the appropriate agencies to be on the lookout.

Once again why the shock? We need to find out the methods and put things in place in order to counteract.

As soon as we find a way to conterreact they will find another way to push their agenda ,just as we are doing over there.

So there is really no need to be going on and on wasting resources against proving something that we already know exists,has existed for the last 100 years and will continue to exist for the next 200 years because,it is a game of tennis back and forth.

Stateing the obvious and then telling somebody else to state the obvious,something that most should already know,proves what point exactly?

All that is being done is takeing the hopes of a collusion that was proven non existant and trying to flip it into a Russian intervention smoking gun against the currant presidency,or grasping at straws.

[oladub]

GMan, just out of curiosity, are you at least now conceding that the Russians DID interfere in our election? Not asking you to say they changed the outcome, not asking you to say there was collusion with Trump, just that they "interfered." Can you concede that point at least? Even Trump was forced to finally concede that point after a year of denying it, when all the Russian indictments came out last week.

I'm just asking to see just how committed to the "facts" you really are. I'll open up the question to Pam, oladub, Richard, and the rest too, many of whom were steadfastly denying that Russia did anything *at all* and that even the accusation of meddling itself was "Fake news", a "witch hunt", etc.

And please, no red herrings about Hillary Clinton and no Whataboutism.

Yes, I think that Russia, Israel, China, Britain, and other countries probably tried to influence our election just like the US tries to influence and interfere with other countries' elections. Why wouldn't they? Former Obama campaign aides sided with and advised Canada's NDP and Liberal partiy campaigns. I find it incredibly hypocritical for any faction in the U.S. to pretend otherwise. Instead of mounting a coup, Democrats and establishment Republicans should be shoring up internet security for starters although taking responsibility for anything is difficult for losers. That's one reason they are losers.

"The U.S. has a long history of attempting to influence presidential elections in other countries – it's done so as many as 81 times between 1946 and 2000, according to a database amassed by political scientist Dov Levin of Carnegie Mellon University." -LA Times 12/21/16

So far, known liar Robert Swan Mueller III has produced pitiful little results unless his point is that our intelligence agencies with their $75B annual budget got boxed around by 13 Russians with a pitifully small budget. His case is based in large part on a British [[foreign) source financed by Hillary's campaign. There is an elephant in the room and Mueller let it in. We have more than 13 illegal dreamers protesting to influence US immigration policy. Democrats are fine with that having even brought that foreign elephant in as guests at the State of the Union speech. Democrats are fine with 11, or is it 35 million, illegal aliens violating laws, taking jobs, and stretching our social services but act horrified about 13 Russians doing what our own government does.

A list of countries the US has overthrown or tried to overthrow since WWII [[not just influenced).