MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
|
|
|
From the Readers
- barefooted 7 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 9 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 10 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 10 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
Creative corner
- PeraclesPlease 10 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
From the Dagbloggers
- Michael Wolraich 10 months 2 weeks ago
- Danny Cardwell 3 years 1 month ago
- Doctor Cleveland 3 years 10 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 years 6 days ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 years 1 week ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 1 week ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 1 week ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 1 month ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 1 month ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 1 month ago
Hits of the Day
New ‘Group Think’ for War with Syria/Russia
By A Guy Called LULU on Wed, 10/05/2016 - 3:33pm |Official Washington has a new “group think” that is even more dangerous than the one that led to the Iraq War. This one calls for U.S. escalation of conflicts against Syria and nuclear-armed Russia.
URL:
https://consortiumnews.com/2016/10/05/new-group-think-for-war-with-syriarussia/
- Add new comment
- 4444 reads
Comments
Robert Parry is a kind of thinking mans Alex Jones. He takes bits of information, mixes, rehashes them and then concludes there are enormous conspiracies about.
For instance, the article you link touches on his MH-17 crash reports. I looked into Parry on that. His links to his links etc.
He here uses the 10-13-2015 first post-crash Review Report Arising from the Crash of MH-17 to debunk the recent Dutch final report that a Russian Buk in rebel hands was responsible for the crash.
If you bother to work through the links in Parry's articles which he links to other Parry articles, to finally find a link to something not at Consortium News, you find the post-crash Dutch Report of 10-13-2015 was specifically a cover their ass analysis to exonerate themselves from not closing the flight route, from the front page of that report:
Parry then goes on to cite the same report in one of these string of his articles absolving Russia of accountability for the shoot-down by saying the final report on the shoot-down (which blamed the rebels using a BUK unit from Russia) was to be doubted because that new report Parry 'Troubling Doubts":
What he doesn't mention from that same first after crash report is that the Ukrainian Buk missile battery was at a Ukrainian base, and that had been taken over by the rebels.
And "that reliable sources indicated that the systems that were at the military base were not operational."
Therefore, they could not be used by the CIA or Ukraine, or the rebels. Therefore in the recent final report that Buk is not mentioned.
Again from the 2015 Dutch report:
So Parry uses a post-crash preliminary report meant to cover the ass of Dutch Defense officials over not closing the flight path over the Ukraine, that a Ukrainian Base which the rebels had captured (which Parry didn't mention) had a non-functional (which Parry also didn't mention) Buk, which Buk was not further discussed in the year later final report - to spread doubt over the whole Dutch investigation which recently concluded that it was a Russian Buk that shot the plane down, being used by the rebels. Facts which fit with the previous report if you bother to read it. Which I assume Parry did, pulling out stuff out of context to spread disinformation.
As I have said before on the MH-17 shoot down when you posted on this, the plane wreckage and bodies came down on the rebels in their territory, the cell phones, which they picked up, used. Gravity tells me Parry is full of shit on this. The Russian backed rebels were the ones who shot it down with a Russian missile, I don;t need phone call intercepts which Parry also throws doubts on to believe that.
And your primary Parry link could be summarized as "people in the news who still have jobs in the news didn't stop the Iraq War, ergo, there will be war with Russia over Syria'.
Unlikely, but possible.
Far more likely with a Republican there than a Democrat. Parry doesn't take sides, he is a both sides conspiracy seller. Like far too many in the media business. Making a living at liquidating our democracy by spreading fears, innuendoes, dismissing facts. His implication is invariably we cannot trust anyone in ours or any western government. Yet he seems to trust Vladimir Putin.
If any more wars are started it will most likely be by the GOP.
Both siderists come in many forms. Parry promotes the democracy dissolving mantra that our entire government, and even the Dutch in this case, produce nothing but lies and cannot be trusted with telling the truth.
by NCD on Thu, 10/06/2016 - 3:30pm
Ncd, I appreciate that you took the time and effort to read the article and the included links and to give some thought to what they present. We came to different conclusions.
I read at Consortium News, as is obvious, and I have come to trust Parry as an honest reporter who does good work. His archives are available and I think his past reporting stands up quite well. Calling him any version of Alex Jones is unsupportable.
Parry is sceptical of the story that is being told to us. That is the correct attitude for a reporter. To my reading he connects dots of information in logical, sensible ways and shows a pattern extending from the historical through what may well be expected in the future.
While his analysis of particular conflicts and/or potential ones is open to its own analysis as it should be, anyone doing so should give some attention to his track record. His take on the geopolitical tensions between Russia and the U.S. often goes into specifics of certain situations to support what I see as a theme going through all of his work; he recognizes that our government, like probably every government that has existed, spins the truth, distorts the truth, conceals embarrassing truths or truths about the real intentions, and, sometimes if not often, blatantly lies. He believes this is often done with a calculated intention of supporting otherwise unsupportable policies. I agree. I see where it has been done in the recent past [ Iraq, Libya, Iran, etc, etc]] and I see many indications that it is ongoing. My reading of your contributions here at Dag is that you believe every charge against shrub Bush and despise him for the wars he started but completely exonerate Obama and all Democrats for any and all military adventures since his time as CiC. You cast your blame too narrowly. The profiteers and mongers are still at work and they work through both parties. Obama, with Hillary's support and encouragement to do more, has bombed seven countries that we know of while Hillary indicated that she has wanted more all along and will expand the target list if she can, when she can. She has a plan. It seems to be a ramp up of plan 'A' which has ben failing steadily for some time now.
[I see that you have edited out, without acknowledgment, this comment from your original. I mention it to give context to my response.] You cast the blame too narrowly. It isn't just the Republicans. The profiteers and mongers work through both parties. Obama has bombed seven countries that we know of and Hillary has indicated that she has wanted more all along and will expand the target list when she can. She has a plan.
The major mistake of you comment is that you take beliefs or conclusions which are not proven and for which there is much contradictory evidence and treat them as unassailable truth. In most cases where you state unequivocally that Parry is wrong it is about something which he has only cast doubt upon but has done so with supporting evidence. Again, that is exactly the charge that Parry makes against the MSM. They pass on bs or what is very possibly bs, very likely bs, as established fact. I do not see how you can conflate a correct journalistic approach to critically examining the actions of our government with any sort of deliberate dissolution of our democracy. Exactly the opposite is apparent to me.
Am quite interested in this subject and apparently you at at least somewhat interested too. So, I wonder, where do you get what you think is reliable information and analysis? Do you do first person investigations? I doubt that so I figure you watch tv, listen to the radio, and read various sources? Maybe you will do us all a favor and recommend someone or some organization, maybe a think tank, that you believe is reliable since you decry the value of this source, and if memory serves, every source I have linked to in the past. Tell me where to find the good stuff.
Meanwhile, here is some more food for thought. And some more: The issues at stake are hardly abstract. The United States is currently engaged in active wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen and Somalia. It has deployed troops on the Russian border, played push-and-shove with China in Asia, and greatly extended its military footprint on the African continent. It would not be an exaggeration to say — as former U.S. Secretary of Defense William Perry has recently done — that the world is a more dangerous place today than it was during darkest times of the Cold War.
P.S.
by A Guy Called LULU on Fri, 10/07/2016 - 1:12pm
If you think there is no difference between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party, or how and by whom that plane was shot down, as Parry apparently does with his out of context fear mongering, I have nothing more to add to the discussion.
by NCD on Fri, 10/07/2016 - 6:26pm
I think that on some issues there is a great difference between the parties and on other areas of concern there is little or no difference. In the latter category is foreign policy. I absolutely do not hold the position that it is of little difference who or how or why the MH-17 was shot down. You say that Parry apparently thinks it makes no difference either. I read what he has written in very plain English as saying that the proper understanding of that incident is very, and I would ad very very, important. And what the hell do you see as his fear mongering? Is it the idea he advances that politicians and ideologues might lie to push their agenda, that the MI Complex might see profits in conflicts and so encourage them? That those actions might have a bad ending?
Fixed that for ya. De nada.
by A Guy Called LULU on Fri, 10/07/2016 - 10:16pm
He fear mongers that a commercial aircraft with 300 or so aboard can be shot down and 2 years later not only the US but EU governments are covering up 'the truth'.
He didn't once mention that the recently concluded Dutch final investigation MIGHT just happen to be accurate.
I won't bother with his take on war with Russia. Parry was good on the 80s Contras and cocaine scandals, and some good analysis and reporting during the GWB years.
by NCD on Fri, 10/07/2016 - 11:13pm
UNDERSTANDING PUTIN'S INTENTIONS AND THE RIGHT COURSE OF ACTION IN DEALING WITH RUSSIA
THE U.S.AND RUSSIA AND THE OVERHANGING THREAT OF NUCLEAR WAR
Not as much fun as catching Trump being a foul mouthed jerk but both are worth a read, IMO.
by A Guy Called LULU on Sat, 10/08/2016 - 1:56pm