War in the middle east and intervention debate

[misteraven]

Lot worse sins happening than decided to reign in our involvement with helping the Kurds. No doubt its a shitty situation, but do think us letting go of a fight that really isn't hours is the right move, even if in reality I don't expect that the administration is doing it for the right reasons.

[abrasivesaint]

I agree, we shouldn’t fight all their battles for them, and we clearly aren’t fighting their battles for them.
 

We were fighting ISIS along side them. I think we should at least still be there with them, even if we aren’t engaging in the Turkish-Kurd battle which i think would stop as soon as we landed back in town, because it didn’t pick up until we left town. Many military personnel agree, and want to be there as well. 
 

I totally get the taxation aspect but let’s get real, just like our deployment will always be somewhere, that tax money is going to go to something we probably won’t approve of. 
 

Trump is claiming victory over ISIS because he desperately needs something to cling to in an effort to claim he got something done for the upcoming election. Military reports are coming out against it and it’s starting to appear that it is not the case. As of August the Pentagon reported what i believe was about 18,000 members of ISIS still running about. Who knows how many have been and will be released or escape because the Kurds are being pushed back, the estimate is about 11,000 prisoners currently detained if i’m not mistaken.

 

edit: and 70,000 some odd member of ISIS families, supporters, and the like. There is still plenty of time to boost numbers again. 
 

Look at what happens to American mobs, gangs, biker gangs, and so on..

 

They make these big sweeps, round up 40 some odd guys, numbers go down and the clubs, gangs, whatever, go more underground. Then the groups sometimes split into various factions, some young family members that are now older join ranks, new recruits take up the cause, and so on. I don’t think this is going to prove any different. 

Maybe we do pull back, let them figure the shit out for themselves. It is also probable that in time they will grow again, they will spread, an attack will be made, and we’ll be back at it. 

 

Edited October 21, 2019 by abrasivesaint
Slightly reworded, and added the edit:

[abrasivesaint]

My comment about the taxation aspect was just to say that the money will be probably be somewhere we don't approve of regardless, as i said.

The discussion of our tax money being used in manners against our wishes is a horse of a whole different color which i’m sure we’d actually agree upon. 

Edited October 21, 2019 by abrasivesaint
Rewording

[misteraven]

11 minutes ago, abrasivesaint said:

Trump is claiming victory over ISIS because he desperately needs something to cling to in an effort to claim he got something done for the upcoming election.

Doubt this even factors in. One of the largest issues for his opponents in the political race is that they can't really implement criticisms of the economy like most election cycles due to the metrics that most are reporting showing that its exceeding projections and certainly far from where it was at during the last administration. That's why they're either trying to attribute that to Obama or trying to point to scenarios of doom and gloom that are in front of us. This is one of the couple of core talking points in all presidential elections and this time around its not lending itself to his opposition.

[misteraven]

2 minutes ago, abrasivesaint said:

My comment about the taxation aspect was just to say that the money will be probably be somewhere we don't approve of regardless, as i said.

The discussion of our tax money being used in manners against our wishes is a horse of a whole different color which i’m sure we’d actually agree upon. 

Kinda reminds me of people saying they need to vote for the lesser of two evils because one of them will end up as president anyways.

[abrasivesaint]

6 minutes ago, misteraven said:

Kinda reminds me of people saying they need to vote for the lesser of two evils because one of them will end up as president anyways.

That’s a fair statement.
 

I personally wouldn’t have an issue with troops being in Syria if the military agrees it should be. I would have issue with the money going to endless drone strikes from Iraq resulting in more unintended deaths than the intended targets like it sort of seems is going to be the course of action. I don’t know how else they would be continuing aid from Iraq. 

Edited October 21, 2019 by abrasivesaint

[abrasivesaint]

12 minutes ago, misteraven said:

Doubt this even factors in. One of the largest issues for his opponents in the political race is that they can't really implement criticisms of the economy like most election cycles due to the metrics that most are reporting showing that its exceeding projections and certainly far from where it was at during the last administration. That's why they're either trying to attribute that to Obama or trying to point to scenarios of doom and gloom that are in front of us. This is one of the couple of core talking points in all presidential elections and this time around its not lending itself to his opposition.

Agree about the economy aspect but i still think he’ll try to use the “defeat” of ISIS as a big win for him in making America great. The blame/praise on current economy is usually handed to the prior administration (edit: by whatever party isn’t in current control,) that seems par for the course. 

Edited October 21, 2019 by abrasivesaint

[misteraven]

18 minutes ago, abrasivesaint said:

I personally wouldn’t have an issue with troops being in Syria if the military agrees it should be.

Have to take what they "want' with a grain of salt. The military is an industry of professional war fighters. Their job security comes from fighting. Their budgets are qualified based off demonstrable need. That need comes from preparing for or engaging in war.

[misteraven]

18 minutes ago, abrasivesaint said:

Agree about the economy aspect but i still think he’ll try to use the “defeat” of ISIS as a big win for him in making America great.

Like Trump or not, one of Obama's weakest areas (intentional or not is another subject), was his foreign policy. He's a young, good looking, highly intelligent individual and an excellent orator. But his foreign policy was an unmitigated disaster, which is why America's 'enemies' were so emboldened. Russia doing flybys of our carriers and military assets and probing American air space out near Alaska, cutting deals with Iran that involved landing planes stuffed with cash, trading prisoners with them, etc, etc... Perhaps easy for Trump to not do a horrible job (arguably), do to how low the bar was set after Obama in that regard.

 

And Trump did put a hurting on ISIS unlike what happened under the Obama administration, but whatever label (ISIS being the most recent) for the fanatics out there, its like whak-a-mole. As soon as we kill them, new ones pop up. You can bomb the shit out of them, even kill them by the scores, but the ideology and circumstance driving it lives on. In fact, the point @Mercer is ultimately making is that our intervention over there is just giving them more cause to justify their ideology and recruit new members into their ranks.

 

What would be an interesting thing, though it would take a Constitutional Convention to ratify, would be an amendment that requires a president and anyone involved in foreign policy, war and national security to be qualified through actual war fighter and command experience. You can't be proficient and Kung-Fu reading a text book, same (IMHO) regarding waging war and engaging in foreign policy. Willing to bet that most legislators know dick about the nuance and cultural differences at play here since they can't even be bothered to do the least in learning about the guns they keep trying to ban; a far simpler topic.

[Hua Guofang]

That was a lot of fun, thanks!

 

Anyway, in the attempt to repair hurt feelings I'll put some markers down.

 

Should the US remain in Syria? I have no idea, but the first thing that has to be answered is "to achieve what". If it's to block Iran gaining ascendency in the region, there's a serious discussion to be had there. To say that it's not the US's fight is to ignore the fact that when a whole region is controlled by an organisation that is against you they have the capability to fuck you up, regardless of where you are in the world. Is that a risk you want to take? Again, its a serious discussion that needs to be had because there are credible positions either way, it's not black and white.

 

Why is the battle in Syria largely about Iran? It's largely geopolitical - Iran is allied with Hezbollah in Lebanon and has a big hand of control in Iraq, thanks to the disaster of the US invasion. Should Iran gain control in Syria (by resting Assad's survival on the presence of Al-Quds Brigade and Hezbollah), Iran will then control territory from the Persian Gulf to the Mediteranian, cutting a "Shia arc" across the Middle East. If you're a Sunni, a Jew or any other that the Iranians threaten, this is an existential crisis. This is an excellent piece that explains the religious affiliations between the Alawi and Shia and goes into detail how that transfers onto a map and becomes geopolitical. This article here also talks about Iranian geographical interests but details how and where that support has occurred - although it's very dated and goes back to early in the current unrest.

 

There is another layer on this in that Assad has Russia as an ally and Russia and Iran are only friends of convenience. Russia has a base at Tartus, which is its only warm water port in the Mediterranean. But should Assad's survival only rest on Russian supprt, the Syrian government will support Russian interests over Iranian interests. Therefore, Iran also competes with Russia to be the #1 ally of Syria. This article details how Russia and IRan compete, where there have been many clashes on the ground between Russian backed forces and Iranian backed forces, competition to influence appointments in the military/militia and the competition to control strategic assets such as ports and airports.

 

So when you consider the US pullout, you have to place it into a full context, not just the immediate situation on the ground.

 

Has the US deployment to Syria been a success? Largely no, partly yes. It failed spectacularly to remove Assad and to curb Iranian influence. Indeed, it provided an opportunity for Russia to display to its allies that when Russia says it will support you, it will support you to the end. Where as the US has just shown that if you ally with the US in combat, you risk being fucked over. This is a major fail and countries like Korea, Japan, Philippines, India etc. are all taking note as they watch China expand in the Indo-Pacific. One of the biggest problems is that the US has to choose an ally and stick with it. This piece here that I posted in another thread goes into detail how the US can get trapped between allies and end up damaging its reputatioin with all involved, it's a good and short read, give it a go.

 

The US deployment in Syria/Iraq partly succeeded as it destroyed the ISIS caliphate. However, it has not destroyed ISIS and the fight does go on. I've listed up the page numerous people who operate in the region, who work in the region and who have worked on the M/E all their professional careers who say that ISIS is still a threat and if we take our eye off the ball they will reconstitute from a scattered organisation back into a serious and coherent force. The fight is not over, at all. ISIS is still a threat and I will reinforce that fact in this thread as time goes on by posting evidence.

 

 

Good times!

 

[Hua Guofang]

4 hours ago, misteraven said:

Like Trump or not, one of Obama's weakest areas (intentional or not is another subject), was his foreign policy. He's a young, good looking, highly intelligent individual and an excellent orator. But his foreign policy was an unmitigated disaster, which is why America's 'enemies' were so emboldened. Russia doing flybys of our carriers and military assets and probing American air space out near Alaska, cutting deals with Iran that involved landing planes stuffed with cash, trading prisoners with them, etc, etc... Perhaps easy for Trump to not do a horrible job (arguably), do to how low the bar was set after Obama in that regard.

 

And Trump did put a hurting on ISIS unlike what happened under the Obama administration, but whatever label (ISIS being the most recent) for the fanatics out there, its like whak-a-mole. As soon as we kill them, new ones pop up. You can bomb the shit out of them, even kill them by the scores, but the ideology and circumstance driving it lives on. In fact, the point @Mercer is ultimately making is that our intervention over there is just giving them more cause to justify their ideology and recruit new members into their ranks.

 

What would be an interesting thing, though it would take a Constitutional Convention to ratify, would be an amendment that requires a president and anyone involved in foreign policy, war and national security to be qualified through actual war fighter and command experience. You can't be proficient and Kung-Fu reading a text book, same (IMHO) regarding waging war and engaging in foreign policy. Willing to bet that most legislators know dick about the nuance and cultural differences at play here since they can't even be bothered to do the least in learning about the guns they keep trying to ban; a far simpler topic.

 

Obama's foreign policy record is not great at all, especially in East Asia. His admin allowed China to get the jump on them and they have the upper hand in the South China Sea and are really pressuring Korea, Indonesia, Vietnam, etc.

 

Russia has been probing everyone's airspace over the last few years, it's not solely that of the US. The US has not just been sitting on its hands when it comes to Russia either. Many would say that the greatest mistake was during the Bush/Clinton era in pushing NATO into the Baltics and everything after that is a foregone conclusion.

 

The Deal with Iran was based on a good strategy. Iran, is a far better potential ally than Saudi Arabia. It would take generations to make the change and the clergy over there are a bit of a problem but the US would be much better to drop KSA and move closer to Iran as it has been KSA that has been exporting jihadism and causing serious harm in South Asia, Southeast Asia and Europe. Iran is pretty fucked up as well, but far less fucked up than KSA. Iran is a modern country with a very educated population that if not threatened by Sunni states (like Iran and Saddam's Iraq) has little reason to export instability. The JCPOA was the first cut at moving in that directions, it was not an end in and of itself and when seen as a stepping stone, it's a pity that it was trashed and things are moving backwards.

 

I'm keen to see what your reason is for saying that Trump did what Obama wasn't able to do with ISIS. I haven't seen many people other than Trump saying things like that and keen to read some stuff if you have credible folk saying otherwise.

[Fist 666]

Jesus Titty Fucking Christ. 

 

 @Mercer Apparently posting a meme from the Princess Bride really got your panties in one hell of a bind and desperately felt the need to call me out, so I'll give you this response: I don't actually participate in these threads because I don't have the time or energy to do so. I only "chime in" because that's the energy I have to give towards conversations in here. I owe @misteraven @Joker and you, Mercer, and a half dozen other people real  responses in threads that I find worthwhile elsewhere on 12, I  actively choose not to spend hours typing on this forum  because I think my time is better spent away from a screen. I don't find value in arguing online like I did a decade ago (when all these arguments were already had with AOD and Frankie Fiver and Theo to some degree.) There is nothing new in your arguments, @Mercerthat those guys didn't say long before  Ron Paul was all the rage, and I don't expect to change your mind (or want or need to). I don't care if you value my opinion,  I'm not here for you or for Crossfire, but I will call  out bullshit when I feel  inclined (1A!), which your posts are rife with. If you think I am tactically only engaging when you're busy with others, you are simply delusional.  (It looks like christo and @abrasivesaintare already posting in this thread, so I guess that's what this is afterall?...) 

 

I had intentions of responding to you when I asked about environmental violence, but then you said something  about you being a performer and @Hua Guofangwas a heckler interrupting your show and decided that you weren't worth responding to (in the meme thread) . If @Hua Guofangasks you a barrage of questions and you provide unsat answers, that reflects on you and your weak stance, not on those asking questions.  "The more you know, the more you know you don't know shit." It seems like every adult in the moderate lane of politics can accept this, and say "there are no easy answers." I'm not sure why that is so difficult for you (or libertarians in general) to accept. When he posts a slew of articles do you read them? When he mentions a dozen historically relevant events to you even acknowledge them? It certainly doesn't seem to be the case. You already have your mind made up--that doesn't make you right.

 

Your accusation of me as a brown killin' warmonger reinforces that you don't know the first thing about me, btw. Maybe that's my fault for not taking the time to define my ideology that values humanity and the environment at the cost of individual freedoms and capital gains, I don't find it necessary. I'm comfortable with agnosticism on any front, why does it bother you so?  Do you think your surety plays into the rightness of your arguments? Why do you insist on oversimplification of every political situation? Nothing is simple.

 

Do you think typing  WE SHOULD NOT HAVE MILITARY FORCES ON THE GROUND IN SYRIA does anything of value for an argument? We don't live in a vacuum, and history *exists,* so that brilliant hardline stance is wholly pointless to have.  What is the point of saying it aloud  and in caps?  Neato.

 

 

I think you're an intelligent person, but I think developing your global ideology primarily through an  economic lense is moronic and short sighted. Successful redistribution of wealth took you to Germany to see socialism failing on the other side of the wall. 

 

And I'm gonna cop out and make dinner instead of clarifying my stance on why we owe it to the Kurds to stay and support them, and that our "team America: World Police" role is the result of markets with too little regulation. 

 

In conclusion :

 

On 10/18/2019 at 9:50 AM, Mercer said:

I was gonna quote DAO's red HAHAHAHAHHAHA for a page, but there's no real value in it. 

 

[abrasivesaint]

I am unsure what you’re saying about me, haha.

[Mercer]

@Fist 666you wait until 2 or more people are actively arguing with me, THEN you chime in, that's what is annoying. As you know, it's not easy typing out a well thought out response to a debate. So when you've got 3 or more people coming at you it's near impossible to respond properly.

 

That wasn't the first time either. It's become a pattern with you, meanwhile you're quiet as a mouse the other 99% of the time. Nowhere in your response to me do you address this, so I'm saying it again. Next time someone is articulating a well thought out argument against my point just enjoy it, you don't need to chime into our conversation unless you've actually got something useful to add to it.

[Fist 666]

I'm gonna take it to dms so as to minimize the derail on this.

 

 

[Hua Guofang]

 

 

Some U.S. troops may stay in Syria: Pentagon chief

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-syria-security-turkey-pentagon/some-u-s-troops-may-stay-in-syria-pentagon-chief-idUSKBN1X010M

 

 

KABUL (Reuters) - The United States is considering keeping some troops in northeastern Syria to stop oil falling into the hands of Islamic State or others but no decision has yet been made, Defense Secretary Mark Esper said.

 

President Donald Trump decided earlier this month to withdraw all 1,000 U.S. troops from the region, a move widely criticized as a betrayal of Kurdish allies who had fought for years alongside them against Islamic State.

 

U.S. troops crossed into Iraq early on Monday as part of the withdrawal process. Trump began pulling U.S. troops back from northeastern Syria in early October, opening the way for Turkish troops to launch an offensive against the Kurdish fighters.

“We have troops in towns in northeast Syria that are located next to the oil fields, the troops in those towns are not in the present phase of withdrawal,” Esper told reporters during a visit to Afghanistan.

 

“The purpose is to deny access, specifically revenue to ISIS (Islamic State) and any other groups that may want to seek that revenue to enable their own malign activities,” he said.

Esper said there had been discussions about keeping some of the U.S. troops, who were with the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), in place. He said he had not presented that option yet, but the Pentagon’s job was to look at different options.

The SDF, spearheaded by the Kurdish YPG militia, has been the main partner for the U.S.-led coalition in Syria.

 

 

“There has been a discussion about possibly doing it (keeping some troops), there has been no decision with regard to numbers or anything like that,” Esper added.

A Reuters cameraman saw more than 100 vehicles carrying U.S. troops crossing from the northeast tip of Syria, where Turkey has agreed to pause its offensive for five days under a deal agreed between Washington and Ankara. The truce expires late on Tuesday.

 

Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan has warned that Ankara will resume its military assault in Syria when the deadline expires if the SDF have not pulled back from its proposed “safe zone” area spanning the border.

Ankara considers the YPG a terrorist group because of its links to Kurdish insurgents in southeast Turkey.

 

Edited October 22, 2019 by Hua Guofang

[Hua Guofang]

I try not to post MSM articles here because people tend to disbelieve anything they say as biased....., which is the epitome of irony, when you think about it!

 

But this article puts paid to the claim that 1) ISIS is dead. They are not dead, they are still carrying out insurgent operations. Yes, the caliphate has been toppled but that does not, by any means suggest that the fight is over. Just as when Saddam was toppled, the military reverted to insurgency tactics. 2) The fight is long over. No, the fight is still clearly going on with attacks and operations being carried out by either side. This is not a mopping up operation, this is a counter-insurgency operation. Mopping up operations mean arresting and capturing individuals on the run, not trying to disrupt operations and take down cells.

 

I'm not saying this means the US should remain there, that's a discussion that goes much wider than "what to do about ISIS". What I am saying is that ISIS is not dead, the fight is still under way and there will be (have already been) consequences to pulling the US out now as it changes the balance of all actors in the region. Now, that might be a risk worth taking, I'm not arguing that it isn't. I am saying that if you argue that ISIS has been defeated, that Trump finished ISIS or that the death of ISIS is reason to pull the troops out, you are demonstrably wrong.

 

 

 

ISIS Reaps Gains of U.S. Pullout From Syria

The troop withdrawal ends American operations against the terrorist group conducted jointly with a Kurdish-led militia.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/21/world/middleeast/isis-syria-us.html

 

 

American forces and their Kurdish-led partners in Syria had been conducting as many as a dozen counterterrorism missions a day against Islamic State militants, officials said. That has stopped.

Those same partners, the Syrian Democratic Forces, had also been quietly releasing some Islamic State prisoners and incorporating them into their ranks, in part as a way to keep them under watch. That, too, is now in jeopardy.

And across Syria’s porous border with Iraq, Islamic State fighters are conducting a campaign of assassination against local village headmen, in part to intimidate government informants.

When President Trump announced this month that he would pull American troops out of northern Syria and make way for a Turkish attack on the Kurds, Washington’s onetime allies, many warned that he was removing the spearhead of the campaign to defeat the Islamic State, also known as ISIS.

 

Now, analysts say that Mr. Trump’s pullout has handed the Islamic State its biggest win in more than four years and greatly improved its prospects. With American forces rushing for the exits, in fact, American officials said last week that they were already losing their ability to collect critical intelligence about the group’s operations on the ground.

“There is no question that ISIS is one of the big winners in what is happening in Syria,” said Lina Khatib, director of the Middle East and North Africa Program at Chatham House, a research center in London.

Cutting support for the Syrian Democratic Forces has crippled the ability of the United States and its former partners to hunt down the group’s remnants.

News of the American withdrawal set off jubilation among Islamic State supporters on social media and encrypted chat networks. It has lifted the morale of fighters in affiliates as far away as Libya and Nigeria.

And, by removing a critical counterforce, the pullout has eased the re-emergence of the Islamic State’s core as a terrorist network or a more conventional, and potentially long-lasting, insurgency based in Syria and Iraq.

Although Mr. Trump has repeatedly declared victory over the Islamic State — even boasting to congressional leaders last week that he had personally “captured ISIS” — it remains a threat. After the loss in March of the last patch of the territory it once held across Syria and Iraq, the Islamic State dispersed its supporters and fighters to blend in with the larger population or to hide out in remote deserts and mountains.

The group retains as many as 18,000 “members” in Iraq and Syria, including up to 3,000 foreigners, according to estimates cited in a recent Pentagon report. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the Islamic State’s self-proclaimed caliph, is still at large.

“Our battle today is one of attrition and stretching the enemy,” Mr. al-Baghdadi declared in a video message released in April. Looking comfortable and well fed, he sat on the floor of a bare room, surrounded by fighters, with an assault rifle by his side.

“Jihad is ongoing until the day of judgment,” he told his supporters, according to a transcript provided by SITE Intelligence Group.

Against the benchmark of the Islamic State’s former grip on a broad swath of geography, any possibility of a comeback to that extent remains highly remote.

Changes in the political context in Syria and Iraq have diminished the Islamic State’s ability to whip up sectarian animosity out of the frustrations of Sunni Muslims over the Shiite or Shiite-linked authorities in Syria and Iraq — the militants’ trademark.

The government in Baghdad has broadened its support among Sunni Iraqis. President Bashar al-Assad of Syria, by crushing the revolt against him, has left Sunni militants less space to mobilize. And many Syrians and Iraqis who lived under the harsh dominion of the Islamic State strongly oppose its return.

But as an underground insurgency, the Islamic State appears to be on the upswing.

Militants have been carrying out “assassinations, suicide attacks, abductions, and arson of crops in both Iraq and Syria,” according to a report this summer by the Pentagon inspector general for operations against the Islamic State. It is establishing “resurgent cells” in Syria, the report said, and “seeking to expand its command and control nodes in Iraq.”

The militants have been burning crops and emptying out whole villages. They have been raising money by carrying out kidnappings for ransom and extorting “taxes” from local officials, often skimming a cut of rebuilding contracts.

Their attacks on village headmen — at least 30 were killed in Iraq in 2018, according to the Pentagon report — are an apparent attempt to scare others out of cooperating with Baghdad.

“The high operational tempo with multiple attacks taking place over a wide area” may be intended to create the appearance that the Islamic State can strike anywhere with “impunity,” the report said.

Mr. Trump first said last December that he intended to withdraw the last 2,000 American troops from Syria; the Pentagon scaled that back, pulling out about half of those troops.

Military officials, though, say that helping the Syrian Democratic Forces hunt down underground cells and fugitive fighters required more training and intelligence support than an open battle for territory. Even the partial drawdown, the Pentagon inspector general’s report found, could be “detrimental” to the American mission in Iraq and Syria.

Last month, as if to prove its continued vitality, the Islamic State claimed responsibility for a minibus bombing that killed a dozen people near the entrance to a Shiite pilgrimage site in the Iraqi city of Karbala. It was its deadliest attack since the loss of its last territory.

And within hours of Mr. Trump’s announcement almost two weeks ago that American forces were moving away from the Syrian border with Turkey, two ISIS suicide bombers attacked a base of the Syrian Democratic Forces in the Syrian city of Raqqa.

“The crusaders have given up,” Islamic State supporters crowed, according to Laith Alkhouri of the business risk consulting company Flashpoint Global Partners, who monitors the group’s online messages.

Other messages “urged ISIS ‘soldiers’ everywhere to double their efforts,” Mr. Alkhouri said.

The missions against the Islamic State conducted by the Syrian Democratic Forces — sometimes as many as two dozen a day — had included both counterterrorism patrols and raids on militant cells. Some were carried out jointly with American soldiers, others alone, according to United States officials.

But the Kurds, an ethnic minority sometimes disparaged by Arab Syrians, faced resentment among the Arab residents of northeastern Syria.

In part to try to win support from those communities, the Kurdish-led forces pardoned and released hundreds of detained ISIS fighters or supporters in so-called reconciliation deals, relying on informal relationships with community leaders to handle their reintegration.

The Kurdish-led militia even incorporated some of the released Islamic State detainees into its own forces, said Dareen Khalifa, a researcher with the International Crisis Group who has traveled to the region extensively and documented the “reconciliation” pardons in a report last summer.

The Kurdish militia leaders said: “What do you want us to do, kill them all? Imprison them all? The best way forward is to keep a close eye on them by keeping them within the S.D.F.,” Ms. Khalifa said in an interview. She said that those enlisted had not been Islamic State leaders and that so far there had been no recidivism.

But now the American withdrawal and the Turkish incursion are threatening the informal supervision of those former prisoners, Ms. Khalifa said, creating a risk that some might gravitate back to fighting for the Islamic State.

 

Turkey, which has battled Kurdish separatist militants at home for decades, launched the invasion primarily to push back the Kurdish-led forces in Syria. Without American protection, the Kurdish leaders are now switching sides to ally with Mr. al-Assad.

In Iraq, too, some say opportunities may be emerging for the Islamic State to revive its appeals to Sunni resentments in the areas it once controlled. Promises of postwar reconstruction have gone unfilled. And Shiite militias that rose up to defeat the Islamic State remain in place, sometimes seeking to profit off the local populations.

“People in the liberated areas say: ‘Why are all these armed groups still around? Why do they still call us all ISIS, and why are they taxing us or extorting us and taking all of our money?’,” said Renad Mansour, the director of the Iraq Initiative at Chatham House.

The campaign against the Islamic State, he said, “was a military solution to what is a social and political problem.”

Mr. Trump, for his part, has insisted repeatedly that Turkey should take over the fight against the Islamic State in Syria. “It’s going to be your responsibility,” Mr. Trump said he told the country’s president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

But current and former United States officials say the Turkish military has a bleak track record at counterterrorism and little hope of filling the void left by the Americans and the Syrian Democratic Forces.

“That is wishful thinking as far as I can tell,” said Dana Stroul, co-chairwoman of the congressionally sponsored Syria Study Group and a former Pentagon official.

[abrasivesaint]

None of that surprises me. 
 

I also try to find alternative sources reporting things i’ve read from major media outlets because of certain folks around here refusing to accept anything from a “MSM” link as credible in any way.

[misteraven]

14 hours ago, Hua Guofang said:

I'm keen to see what your reason is for saying that Trump did what Obama wasn't able to do with ISIS. I haven't seen many people other than Trump saying things like that and keen to read some stuff if you have credible folk saying otherwise.

Quite hard to find references on Google unless you change the date range. All current searches are articles of his claims and criticisms of that claim, but if you change to a custom data range and redo the search so it predates this year, pretty much most of those same MSM sources have articles like this one...

 

National Security

Under Trump, gains against ISIS have ‘dramatically accelerated’

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/under-trump-gains-against-isis-have-dramatically-accelerated/2017/08/04/8ad29d40-7958-11e7-8f39-eeb7d3a2d304_story.html

 

Trump has been hard charging from day one of his announcement to run for President. Again, I'm not a fan of the guy or much of what he's done, but reality is that he's been an outsider all along, if not a pariah and in comparison to most President's since Reagan and most especially Obama, dude has mostly done what he said he was going to do for better or worse. Sure we can point to dismantling the ACA and building the wall along the southern border as counters to those statement, but all things considered he's kept to what he said he would do far more than what we're used to seeing from candidates that ultimately make it into office.

 

Hiring Mathis to the Secretary of Defense was going to all but guarantee the largest offensive to that end short of an all out invasion, which for most intents and purposes it was.

[misteraven]

10 hours ago, Hua Guofang said:

I try not to post MSM articles here because people tend to disbelieve anything they say as biased....., which is the epitome of irony, when you think about it!

Unfortunately we're largely stuck having to cite MSM, but I'd  please name any USA based MSM that isn't hugely biased.

 

It was already bad tp begin with but with H.R. 4310 (National Defense Authorization Act) and changes made to the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012 , for all intents and purposes was the government reestablishing itself as a news outlet. For all intents and purposes this was the US Government reestablishing a propaganda arm that had been previously banned through legislation and putting out 'news'. Considering how news media works, this means that suddenly news outlets had a steady stream of content to report, which in itself is already biased as you've now lined everybody up to report on the topics you've deemed to be important at that moment. Seeing as how it works on the media side I have experience with, coupled with what I've read and seen, you either play ball or you find yourself on the outside.

 

Couple that with the fact that most major MSM is ultimately owned by the same handful of people, and for most of them news being an ancillary business and often run at a loss, you have to question what purposes they serve for these companies if profit is clearly not it.

 

I get people that are critical of what I'm saying and acknowledge I don't have a secret smoking gun, at least beyond the reams of documents about this an so much more that Snowden through his life away for, but I find it exceptionally difficult to accept that the intent of MSM is unbiased reporting on its face and once you start to look at the context and mountains of circumstantial evidence (the best we have access to), it becomes more an issue of how can anyone trust a single thing they have to say, including the off topic innocuous shit.

 

For reference, look at this entry from politifact analyzing this very topic...

 

https://www.politifact.com/facebook-fact-checks/statements/2019/aug/23/facebook-posts/no-obama-didnt-make-it-legal-media-outlets-purpose/

 

Quote

No, Obama didn’t make it legal for media outlets to ‘purposely lie’ to the American public

By Samantha Putterman on Friday, August 23rd, 2019 at 9:30 a.m.

Did President Barack Obama make it "legal" for media outlets to purposely lie to the American public? 

 

That’s what one Facebook post claims.

 

The full post reads:

 

"Thanks to Obama, it is perfectly legal for the media to purposely lie to the American people. He quietly signed into law HR 4310 in 2012, allowing propaganda to be used on the citizens of the USA by its own government, essentially repealing the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948, banning the use of domestic propaganda."

The post was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.)

No, Obama didn’t make it legal for propaganda to run amok in U.S. newsrooms and be presented as fact in broadcasts and reports to the American public. But a bill passed as part of H.R. 4310 — the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012 — instead reversed restrictions on news programs funded by the U.S. government.

 

Let’s break this down.

 

First, Obama didn’t "quietly" sign H.R. 4310, also known as the National Defense Authorization Act, into law as the meme suggests. He issued a statement about its passing and about some provisions he didn’t agree with, though he didn’t list the Smith-Mundt modernization bill as part of his objections. 

So what did the legislation actually do?

 

H.R. 4310 and the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012

H.R. 4310, otherwise known as the National Defense Authorization Act, authorized Pentagon funding through fiscal year 2013. 

As part of H.R. 4310, the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012 also passed and removed restrictions on programming produced by the U.S. Agency for Global Media, formerly known as the Broadcasting Board of Governors, the U.S. government’s broadcasting arm. 

 

Some of these programs include Voice of America, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Radio Free Asia and Middle East Broadcasting Networks. 

Many have criticized the programs and dubbed the content propaganda, while the organizations say they adhere to strict journalistic standards and aim to educate populations that come from parts of the world where freedom of speech is suppressed. 

 

For example, Voice of America says it broadcasts "accurate, balanced and comprehensive reporting, programming, online and social media content for a global audience, particularly to those who are denied access to open and free media," and it defines the legally mandated standards in the VOA journalistic code.

"An essential guarantee of the journalistic credibility of Voice of America content is the ‘firewall’ enshrined in the 1994 U.S. International Broadcasting Act," the website says. "The firewall prohibits interference by any U.S. government official in the objective, independent reporting of news, thereby safeguarding the ability of our journalists to develop content that reflects the highest professional standards of journalism, free of political interference."

 

Before the act was passed, the programs could only be viewed or listened to at broadcast quality in foreign countries. The bill removed restrictions on domestic distribution. 

A contemporaneous report by Foreign Policy, a news organization that covers global affairs, detailed what the bill did, along with why government officials say it was passed: 

"A former U.S. government source with knowledge of the BBG (Broadcasting Board of Governors) says the organization is no Pravda, but it does advance U.S. interests in more subtle ways. In Somalia, for instance, VOA serves as counterprogramming to outlets peddling anti-American or jihadist sentiment. ‘Somalis have three options for news,’ the source said, ‘word of mouth, al-Shabab, or VOA Somalia.’

This partially explains the push to allow BBG broadcasts on local radio stations in the United States. The agency wants to reach diaspora communities, such as St. Paul, Minnesota’s significant Somali expat community. ‘Those people can get al-Shabab, they can get Russia Today, but they couldn’t get access to their taxpayer-funded news sources like VOA Somalia,’ the source said. ‘It was silly.’

Lynne added that the reform has a transparency benefit as well. ‘Now Americans will be able to know more about what they are paying for with their tax dollars — greater transparency is a win-win for all involved,’ she said.."

 

That doesn’t change the fact that the programs can be considered propaganda, but contrary to the Facebook post’s claim, the legislation did not repeal any law that prohibited independent and traditional media outlets in the private sector from publishing false information. It removed limitations on U.S.-funded and generated content from being aired in the country. 

For context, it’s important to note that post might sound like Obama changed libel laws in the country. But that’s not true, either. Libel laws vary state by state, and there isn't a federal libel law.

 

Our ruling

A Facebook post claims Obama made it legal for the media to "purposely lie to the American people" when he signed H.R. 4310 into law in 2012, "allowing propaganda to be used on the citizens of the USA by its own government, essentially repealing the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948, banning the use of domestic propaganda."

Obama did sign H.R. 4310 into law, also passing the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012. But the bill did not make it legal for independent, private-sector media outlets to present outright false information to the public. Instead, it allowed government-sponsored news like Voice of American to be broadcast in the United States. It removed restrictions on U.S.-generated news from being presented to American audiences.  

 

The claim is not accurate. We rate it False. 

They literally start by claiming it false (for the facebook generation that's incapable of reading anything longer than a meme) and then go through and briefly summarize it, which really does the legislation or anyone attempt to understand it very little justice.

 

But the kicker comes in the conclusion...

Quote

 

Our ruling

A Facebook post claims Obama made it legal for the media to "purposely lie to the American people" when he signed H.R. 4310 into law in 2012, "allowing propaganda to be used on the citizens of the USA by its own government, essentially repealing the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948, banning the use of domestic propaganda."

 

Obama did sign H.R. 4310 into law, also passing the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012. But the bill did not make it legal for independent, private-sector media outlets to present outright false information to the public. Instead, it allowed government-sponsored news like Voice of American to be broadcast in the United States. It removed restrictions on U.S.-generated news from being presented to American audiences.  

 

They have acknowledged Obama signed the bill into law and then qualify their ruling that he did not set up a propaganda arm or make it legal for "private-sector media outlets to present outright false information" and then moves on to describe how they did exactly that by saying, "Instead, it allowed government-sponsored news like Voice of American to be broadcast in the United States. It removed restrictions on U.S.-generated news from being presented to American audiences."

 

Like seriously?!

 

Are people that fucking stupid? Name one government that has established government based news arm that is not used for propaganda. Russia, China, Venezuela... What possible business does the government have in establishing a news arm of government? 

 

Personally I find it insulting reading shit like that, but if most the masses aren't going to ever bother getting riled up and just continue to jump on the bandwagon and fight with each other over whatever their team is saying and all the fake news put out by the other team while the whole thing chugs along, they fuck it... If it works, it works, as shameful as the whole thing is.

 

And to clarify a bit on my statements above regarding government and propaganda... Obviously we do not have a unified government. Clearly there's a cold war going on at the highest levels with both sides under mining each other at every step. In fact, it's the only thing that differentiates our propaganda from those of nations like Russia and China is that over there they have a consolidation of power that is essentially absolute so the communications are simple and consistent. Here we have two sides in power struggle, likely driven by outside forces and trying to undermine each other at every step with increasing disregard for obvious the attempts are.

 

These 15 Billionaires Own America's News Media Companies

https://www.forbes.com/sites/katevinton/2016/06/01/these-15-billionaires-own-americas-news-media-companies/#49c33fae660a

 

Who Owns the Media? (interactive file attached below)

Massive corporations dominate the U.S. media landscape. Through a history of mergers and acquisitions, these companies have concentrated their control over what we see, hear and read.

https://www.freepress.net/issues/media-control/media-consolidation/who-owns-media

 

The 6 Companies That Own (Almost) All Media [INFOGRAPHIC]

https://www.webfx.com/blog/internet/the-6-companies-that-own-almost-all-media-infographic/

 

 

Who Owns the Media_2018 Data.xlsx

[abrasivesaint]

Television news is blatant propaganda to me. It is clear as day, to me, when you don’t watch it for a very long time, and then catch glimpses in a break room, or waiting room or wherever. It’s a comedy show. It seems like it’s out of a movie such as Idiocracy. 
 

Print media I tend to have a little more faith in, depending on who it is, because quite frankly, it’s more of pain in the ass to type a story in a dying industry then to just sit in front of a camera and blab, haha. That may seem stupid but it is what it is. If you took the time to type and cite sources, i’ll at least try to give you a chance. Even if it is from some ridiculously named website like “therealpatriottruth.com” or whatever. 
 

I almost always double, triple check stories to see how similar they are from various sources, and I try to check with news reports on the same issues from other countries, to get their perspective vs the home teams. 
 

My (very liberal) English teacher from my sophomore year of high school told me to “read all sides, all the sources, and form your own opinion.” I’ve tried to stick to that advice. Plus growing up in punk music scenes mainstream media distrust is one of the major talking points and alternative medias are usually preferred. In the end i don’t trust any of it fully, but i mean, you have to have a little faith somewhere. If it’s ONLY from MSM or ONLY from alternative sources is where i start to have issues though. 
 

I don’t trust anyone who only parrots CNN any more than i trust someone who only parrots say, Alex Jones. 

Edited October 22, 2019 by abrasivesaint
Spelling n shit

[Hua Guofang]

7 hours ago, misteraven said:

Quite hard to find references on Google unless you change the date range. All current searches are articles of his claims and criticisms of that claim, but if you change to a custom data range and redo the search so it predates this year, pretty much most of those same MSM sources have articles like this one...

 

National Security

Under Trump, gains against ISIS have ‘dramatically accelerated’

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/under-trump-gains-against-isis-have-dramatically-accelerated/2017/08/04/8ad29d40-7958-11e7-8f39-eeb7d3a2d304_story.html

 

Trump has been hard charging from day one of his announcement to run for President. Again, I'm not a fan of the guy or much of what he's done, but reality is that he's been an outsider all along, if not a pariah and in comparison to most President's since Reagan and most especially Obama, dude has mostly done what he said he was going to do for better or worse. Sure we can point to dismantling the ACA and building the wall along the southern border as counters to those statement, but all things considered he's kept to what he said he would do far more than what we're used to seeing from candidates that ultimately make it into office.

 

Hiring Mathis to the Secretary of Defense was going to all but guarantee the largest offensive to that end short of an all out invasion, which for most intents and purposes it was.

There you go, McGurk is definitely credible so you gotta take his word for it.

 

Also good that Trump allowed his military leaders to determine strategy. I wish Obama had have done similar in East Asia during his terms.

[Guest]

Just read everything in here. Y’all take way more time to type your arguments out than I will. Y’all are more articulate behind a keyboard too lol. 

 

Humans are humans. Life has value. The strong should protect the weak. Best offense is a good defense. But eventually big bro moves out and you gotta fight the bully yourself. at some point you gotta cut bait and let people fight their own fight. 
 

USA is so fucking far in debt our future is sealed. We are gonna be done when the taxman comes. This country won’t be around another hundred years unless there is a major correction. Is it worth it to even try and right the course? Or just power through and do what you can for the weak? Maintain status quo? I say start correcting that fucking collision course. 

get the fuck out of everywhere we don’t absolutely need to be. cut enlisted numbers. reduce overseas bases. Those bases have hundreds of people other than enlisted suckling the govt tit. 

 

if we wanted to take any kind of action on reducing this debt the military is where to cut. Cut that fucking GI bill. Cut that fucking VA insurance. Cut that fucking tricare. Cut that fucking base housing allowance. how do you start that? Force a huge chunk of the enlisted out. Retire the ones close enough to qualify. Reduce those numbers. reduce Re-enlistment bonuses. cut that cost. Privatize large chunks of the civil service. Not easy. But a huge change that will need to happen eventually if we are going to address this ever increasing debt. 

 

I don’t know man, we need to get our house in order. 

 

keep in mind this is coming from someone who directly benefits from the huge defense budget that increases every. Fucking.  year. We gotta stop the fucking bleeding and keeping up these endless wars for the sake of resources ain’t it chief. 

idk man. 
 

Gotta stop the bleeding. Carte blanche is never gonna do that. 
 

imma dummy. Be gentle 

[Hua Guofang]

7 hours ago, misteraven said:

Unfortunately we're largely stuck having to cite MSM, but I'd  please name any USA based MSM that isn't hugely biased.

 

Couple that with the fact that most major MSM is ultimately owned by the same handful of people,...............

 

 

Are people that fucking stupid? Name one government that has established government based news arm that is not used for propaganda.......

 

Personally I find it insulting reading shit like that, but if most the masses aren't going to ever bother getting riled up and just continue to jump on the bandwagon and fight with each other over whatever their team is saying and all the fake news put out by the other team while the whole thing chugs along, they fuck it... If it works, it works, as shameful as the whole thing is.

 

And to clarify a bit on my statements above regarding government and propaganda... Obviously we do not have a unified government. Clearly there's a cold war going on at the highest levels with both sides under mining each other at every step. In fact, it's the only thing that differentiates our propaganda from those of nations like Russia and China is that over there they have a consolidation of power that is essentially absolute so the communications are simple and consistent. Here we have two sides in power struggle, likely driven by outside forces and trying to undermine each other at every step with increasing disregard for obvious the attempts are.

 

These 15 Billionaires Own America's News Media Companies

https://www.forbes.com/sites/katevinton/2016/06/01/these-15-billionaires-own-americas-news-media-companies/#49c33fae660a

 

Who Owns the Media? (interactive file attached below)

Massive corporations dominate the U.S. media landscape. Through a history of mergers and acquisitions, these companies have concentrated their control over what we see, hear and read.

https://www.freepress.net/issues/media-control/media-consolidation/who-owns-media

 

The 6 Companies That Own (Almost) All Media [INFOGRAPHIC]

https://www.webfx.com/blog/internet/the-6-companies-that-own-almost-all-media-infographic/

 

 

Who Owns the Media_2018 Data.xlsx 1.24 MB · 0 downloads

 

 

All media is biased though, mate. Because it's made and run by humans. I do not argue for one second that many large media corps run on an agenda, Murdoch and Turner are irrefutable evidence for this. But even in the MSM there are varying degrees - FOX, MSNBC, etc. are almost pointless these days where as NYT, WaPo, WSJ, FT, etc. are not. Sure, they make mistakes and often have an ideological foundation, but it's up to you as the reader to understand what it is you're reading and use your own critical thought. That's the way it is for all media.

 

I would suggest, that on some topics, you are just as biased as the MSM.

 

Take, for example, the discussion you and I were having on mass shootings of late. You pasted a list of historical masacres by govts that you claimed were preceeded by govt gun control. Much of that historical account you posted was made up - utter fantasy, or as some may argue, propaganda. I searched the origin of that info (as it was clearly copy-pasted) and found that it had been cobbled together from stuff posted by a religious anti-gay zealot and a wierd blog by a woman who doesn't have a digital footprint other than that blog (which suggests it's a front), which also had a lot of other extreme, ideologically and religiously based material. Some one had cobbled together some stuff that these people had posted, made a piece out of it and posted it to a newspaper (the newspaper has since disowned the piece). Yet you posted it as if it was fact and even seemed incredulous that I'd asked you about it. Based on this example, it would seem that you're ready to believe things that suit your agenda without the required skepticism and critical thinking - much the same way as you accuse others and the way they approach the MSM.

 

Secondly, You've posted the above information about a "handful of people" owning the media. Two of the links even contradict each other - one says 6 and Forbes lays out that it's actually double that at 12. I even listed out, in another thread some of what's in that Forbes article and more, yet you're still posting that info graphic of 6 owners as if it's credible. And added to that, something which I find really quite amazing, all of what you've listed only cites American media companies. There's no international media listed there at all. That ignores, firstly that there is news, indeed mainstream news, that gets generated outside of the United States that people can and do access all the time. Secondly, it also seems to ignore that a huge amount of people (might be a majority now, I'll have to dig up the stats) get their news online trhough news aggregators. You run an internet website with people from all over the world, and we even have discussions about how people form a lot of their positions from what they read online, yet you continue to post that stuff above as if the American mainstream media is the only media that people pay attention to. You also miss the fact that you're talking to an Australian who doesn't read the Ohio times and Chicago bugle. You talk about the American media landscape and the American audience as if it's the only one in the world. I don't know why, but I can only assume its because you have a position that you prefer and you don't want to challenge it.

 

 

As for which countries have got government media that isn't a mouthpiece for the govt? Easy:

 

Australia - the Australian Broadcasting commission - the govt are always trying to pull funding, both sides of the house accuse it of anti-govt bias.

Great Britain - the British Broadcasting Commission

The USA - National Public Radio - you go on NPR and tell me that they are a mouthpiece for Trump

 

That's just off the top of my head. The reason govts create these news services is to provide for a news service that is not reliant on commercial interests, which means they can show educational programming, public interest, televise parliament, etc. etc.

 

Regards to your claim of the "propaganda law" that allowed for the broadcasting of the old Cold War channels like VOA, etc. If you're going to say they are used to mainline America's news services to the govt preferred narrative, I'd find that pretty amusing. I used to have to read VOA and other progs every day when I was in China, it was part of my job doing open source analysis. Just reading that and paying attention to the MSM for a couple of days will show that it simply doesn't happen. If you've got evidence to substantiate your claim, I'd love to see it.

[abrasivesaint]

1 hour ago, KILZ FILLZ said:

Just read everything in here. Y’all take way more time to type your arguments out than I will. Y’all are more articulate behind a keyboard too lol. 

 

Humans are humans. Life has value. The strong should protect the weak. Best offense is a good defense. But eventually big bro moves out and you gotta fight the bully yourself. at some point you gotta cut bait and let people fight their own fight. 
 

USA is so fucking far in debt our future is sealed. We are gonna be done when the taxman comes. This country won’t be around another hundred years unless there is a major correction. Is it worth it to even try and right the course? Or just power through and do what you can for the weak? Maintain status quo? I say start correcting that fucking collision course. 

get the fuck out of everywhere we don’t absolutely need to be. cut enlisted numbers. reduce overseas bases. Those bases have hundreds of people other than enlisted suckling the govt tit. 

 

if we wanted to take any kind of action on reducing this debt the military is where to cut. Cut that fucking GI bill. Cut that fucking VA insurance. Cut that fucking tricare. Cut that fucking base housing allowance. how do you start that? Force a huge chunk of the enlisted out. Retire the ones close enough to qualify. Reduce those numbers. reduce Re-enlistment bonuses. cut that cost. Privatize large chunks of the civil service. Not easy. But a huge change that will need to happen eventually if we are going to address this ever increasing debt. 

 

I don’t know man, we need to get our house in order. 

 

keep in mind this is coming from someone who directly benefits from the huge defense budget that increases every. Fucking.  year. We gotta stop the fucking bleeding and keeping up these endless wars for the sake of resources ain’t it chief. 

idk man. 
 

Gotta stop the bleeding. Carte blanche is never gonna do that. 
 

imma dummy. Be gentle 

Knowing what you do from following you and remembering, at least i think i remember, what you do for work, i was surprised to read how much you suggested to cut. Not that i disagree with what you said, i actually agree with damn near all of it.

 

I think my opinion that we shouldn’t have left the Kurds the way we had may ha e been mistaken at some point for saying we shouldn’t leave ever. I also said at some point we should have never got into the mess to begin with, and have always been of the opinion to get us the fuck out of there. I just think we should have or should try to do it in some degree of an honorable manner. I also understand this is the real world and fancy ideas like honor  and what have you don’t mean all that much in the end. 
 

Since 9/11 i’ve been of the opinion we should be majorly focused on defensive tactics from here at home, and respond with a cast iron fist when attacked, but properly. Not carpet bombing villages with drones killing more civilians than targets. Wishful thinking. 
 

Interesting to see you say you don’t think the country will last another 100 years,  i can’t say i disagree. I’d like to hear how you think it’s going to play out. What’ll be left, what new lines will be drawn, and so forth. I have my own theories but it would be nice to hear others from people around here.
 

Do we collapse and divide? Do certain regions get claimed by other nations? Do some get outright destroyed? Do states claim territory from other states? Who backs us? Who attacks us? Do we go down in a blaze of glory and hit the red button?  
 

There’s a book i have that i started reading and put down that i should finish, especially since this topic was brought up. It apparently discusses the collapses of empires past and how those civilizations always had new regions to run to (edit: and every time a new civilization collapsed the fallout was worse than before.) However when the US collapses, there’ll be nowhere left to go, and the fallout will be global and disastrous. Sounds like a good read from how i heard it described. (I didn’t get very far reading.) 
 

lol at imma dummy and be gentle though, haha. I feel the same usually. 

Edited October 22, 2019 by abrasivesaint

[Hua Guofang]

52 minutes ago, Hua Guofang said:

 

 

All media is biased though, mate. Because it's made and run by humans. I do not argue for one second that many large media corps run on an agenda, Murdoch and Turner are irrefutable evidence for this. But even in the MSM there are varying degrees - FOX, MSNBC, etc. are almost pointless these days where as NYT, WaPo, WSJ, FT, etc. are not. Sure, they make mistakes and often have an ideological foundation, but it's up to you as the reader to understand what it is you're reading and use your own critical thought. That's the way it is for all media.

 

I would suggest, that on some topics, you are just as biased as the MSM.

 

Take, for example, the discussion you and I were having on mass shootings of late. You pasted a list of historical masacres by govts that you claimed were preceeded by govt gun control. Much of that historical account you posted was made up - utter fantasy, or as some may argue, propaganda. I searched the origin of that info (as it was clearly copy-pasted) and found that it had been cobbled together from stuff posted by a religious anti-gay zealot and a wierd blog by a woman who doesn't have a digital footprint other than that blog (which suggests it's a front), which also had a lot of other extreme, ideologically and religiously based material. Some one had cobbled together some stuff that these people had posted, made a piece out of it and posted it to a newspaper (the newspaper has since disowned the piece). Yet you posted it as if it was fact and even seemed incredulous that I'd asked you about it. Based on this example, it would seem that you're ready to believe things that suit your agenda without the required skepticism and critical thinking - much the same way as you accuse others and the way they approach the MSM.

 

Secondly, You've posted the above information about a "handful of people" owning the media. Two of the links even contradict each other - one says 6 and Forbes lays out that it's actually double that at 12. I even listed out, in another thread some of what's in that Forbes article and more, yet you're still posting that info graphic of 6 owners as if it's credible. And added to that, something which I find really quite amazing, all of what you've listed only cites American media companies. There's no international media listed there at all. That ignores, firstly that there is news, indeed mainstream news, that gets generated outside of the United States that people can and do access all the time. Secondly, it also seems to ignore that a huge amount of people (might be a majority now, I'll have to dig up the stats) get their news online trhough news aggregators. You run an internet website with people from all over the world, and we even have discussions about how people form a lot of their positions from what they read online, yet you continue to post that stuff above as if the American mainstream media is the only media that people pay attention to. You also miss the fact that you're talking to an Australian who doesn't read the Ohio times and Chicago bugle. You talk about the American media landscape and the American audience as if it's the only one in the world. I don't know why, but I can only assume its because you have a position that you prefer and you don't want to challenge it.

 

 

 

I want to modify what I've said above as I wasn't articulate enough and it comes across as an attack on @misteravenand that's not what I was intending.

 

What I'm trying to point out is that we all have our biases - you could go through a number of my posts on this website and find the exact same thing I've laid at the feet of @misteraven. The point I am trying to make is that we all have biases, it is a fundamental element of the human condition, it helps us get through life without second guessing everything we do. My sentiment here is to not throw the baby out with the bathwater and that you can rise above it. I get concerned that the term MSM is used on this website as a way to undermine the credibility of whole positions or trains of thought on matters, and that is, to me, not the way to navigate the mine field of modern media.

 

Just as we need to recognise the biases in ourselves, we need to recognise the biases in the information we are given and if we are going to commit to a position, we should do the due dilligence of being skeptical and using critical throught to first challenge it and check our sources. To straight away assume that everything in the mainstream media is a manufactured position for a strategic end (other than speaking facts and searching for truth) is a bias in and of itself that serves no purpose but to push yourself into an intellectual corner.

 

@misteravenyou and I both have experience in this area and I certainly respect your knowledge in the communication of messages and, what is essentially corporate propaganda (as in marketing). I believe that gives you insight into how things work that many of us do not possess. However, I feel that your anger, as justified as it is, at the world of politics and corporatism feeds a bias in you that pushes you into extreme positions on some issues. I feel that the way you approach the media, immediately expecting the absolute worst, is not accurate and doesn't help you when seeking for truth. Expecting the worst is too far past skepticism and critical thought, for me.

 

That's what I was trying to say.

[abrasivesaint]

Shocking.. 

[Hua Guofang]

Relates back to what I was saying above, US deployments are more than just the action on the ground. sometimes they are geopolitical in nature as well.

 

It's a real question, how much do we risk having authoritarian states like that of Russia and Turkey increasing in power?

[abrasivesaint]

Understanding the difference between bias and credibility is huge, and a big problem throughout discussions at large. Many people i talk to or hear talking have this issue.

[abrasivesaint]

I just remembered you need a subscription to view the NY Times huh? Well, this was a good read i thought, and very similar to the point i was trying to make. 
 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/22/opinion/trump-syria-turkey.html

 

 

Edited October 23, 2019 by abrasivesaint