dagblog - Comments for "Amnesty condemns Syria for mass executions"

Can I handle the truth? I

A Guy Called LULU — Tue, 07 Feb 2017 20:07:53 +0000

Can I handle the truth? I think so despite the innuendo of your question. And, I hope so because I am continually looking for it. I'm pretty sure it aint all in one place. I thought maybe you had changed or learned something over the past few years so I was giving you a chance for a while. Gosh, double thanks. But now I see you're still pushing some of those ridiculous Russia-related "news" sites. Linking to one article which I explicitly identify as propaganda on one side in the mode of MSNBC propaganda on the other side is "pushing " that site?

Not only that, I think my opinion should be private in most cases! I don't understand people who want to broadcast their opinion! Much [less?] enforce support for it with slanted "news." This MoA article is a case where your pride in deconstructing rhetoric could be tested by actually reading what you so confidently reject. But then that's just my opinion.

The last link downloaded a 2

PeraclesPlease — Tue, 07 Feb 2017 19:47:45 +0000

In reply to Ah yes, Moon of Alabama -

The last link downloaded a 2 Meg PDF of the full AI report on your hard drive.

Please - it was not clear

PeraclesPlease — Tue, 07 Feb 2017 19:40:00 +0000

In reply to And this from the same

Please - it was not clear what you expected us to draw from Bacevich and Mearsheimer, especially since they don't agree with each other, and when anyone said something, your response was "well that's not what I believe". In the case of the Amnesty article, the position is pretty obvious and if it weren't, my one-liner made it so. Did anything about this current thread surprise about what stance either you or I would take?

And this from the same

A Guy Called LULU — Tue, 07 Feb 2017 19:32:41 +0000

In reply to Here is the comment I was

And this from the same comment thread and then I will quit kicking this dog and let it lie down and go back to sleep if it wants to.

"Regarding your second paragraph: I post articles “In the News” for the purpose of presenting information or views which I think are relevant and important to consider. I do not open by asking anyone to respond and I do not ask anyone to do any work for me. If someone does respond it is often to take exception to something in the article and if I disagree with them I usually say so and I say why and I use my own thoughts and/or do my own work to support my own position." [LULU]

At the very least you could write the first comment on the article expressing your views on it in some substantial way. [Oceankat]

Can you handle the truth,

artappraiser — Tue, 07 Feb 2017 19:32:16 +0000

In reply to Yes, The Guardian objectively

Can you handle the truth, LULU about what I think of your suggestions about what to read?

Life is too short to spend it reading too much agitprop. I learned years ago that you have a world view that is a passionate anti-war advocacy, and I don't trust sources that are unabashed advocacy. (And yes, that means that I do look at things like Amnesty International reports skeptically, precisely because they are advocates.I watch what non-advocates like The Guardian have to say about them, I watch for the qualifiers that true journalists add, that's what I trust as not a waste of my time.)

I thought maybe you had changed or learned something over the past few years so I was giving you a chance for a while. But now I see you're still pushing some of those ridiculous Russia-related "news" sites. Which I only visit when I want to see what agitprop is being pushed, just like I do with IRNA, the Iranian state news agency.

And then I see this: good god, Moon of Alabama still exists!? I am continually being amazed to see which bubble communities still survive. Moon of Alabama was basically created when Billmon, the bitter alcoholic ex-journalist with many axes to grind, cut off the commenting on his Whiskey Bar blog. He couldn't stand the noise, too much input bad for creating a protective bubble of depressive Brechtian thought. But the fans of his world view just wouldn't let go and started commenting on his posts over at Moon of Alabama. Meanwhile I see Billmon deactivated even his Twitter account at the end of last year. After a couple years hiatus from following all of this stuff, it is so strange running across old Bush era sites still thriving while others died. Found that Democratic Underground is still there. Noise, noise, noise until the signal available has dropped to below whisper.

I've have a lot of awful experience with lawyers over the last few years. That has finally once and for all convinced me in my advanced years that my natural aversion to the advocacy system of finding truth is the right way to go. Advocates don't end up with the truth, they end up, best case scenario: spinning wheels and wasting time; worst case scenario: in a deluded bubble. I want to go with the cynical jurors from the getgo: both sides are lying. The less deconstruction necessary, the better. Not only that, I think my opinion should be private in most cases! I don't understand people who want to broadcast their opinion! Much enforce support for it with slanted "news."

To sum up: since life is short and there is only so much time, and since I see you still take a strong advocacy position and go hunting for articles and sites that support your position, I usually skip what you are pushing.

Yes, The Guardian objectively

A Guy Called LULU — Tue, 07 Feb 2017 18:52:24 +0000

In reply to Furthermore, I don't see The

Yes, The Guardian objectively reported on AI's report and I have paid attention to them for years. MoA dug into the report and objectively, IMO, criticized its weaknesses. You may disagree with MoA but I hope you read its analysis first.

Here is the comment I was

A Guy Called LULU — Tue, 07 Feb 2017 18:45:34 +0000

In reply to Your comment makes complete

Here is the comment I was referring to above.

No, the article you linked to didn't say that - NCD pulled it from Mearsheimer's Wikipedia writeup - "His two main findings are that leaders actually do not lie very much to other countries, and that democratic leaders are actually more likely than autocrats to lie to their own people.". But you seem to agree with it. Who knows. Next time, as OceanKat suggests, please write a bit about *what* you like or dislike about a link or hint at what you expect people to take away from it. Especially since Bacevich and Mearsheimer are significantly disagreeing with each other throughout.

http://dagblog.com/link/bacevich-and-mearsheimer-obama-s-legacy-21731#co...

Furthermore, I don't see The

artappraiser — Tue, 07 Feb 2017 18:33:06 +0000

In reply to Re: you merely posted it like

Furthermore, I don't see The Guardian article as opinion! Rather, it is very proper objective news reporting. It is reporting the contents of a well-known organization's new report, summarizing the report for the reader. It has qualifiers like according to Amnesty International.and details allegations and It suggests and 84 people interviewed and The witnesses claimed.

Would you rather not know when an Amnesty International report comes out and what it says? When it is an organization that is taken seriously by world leadership?

Myself, if I have only so much time to read on topic, to be honest, I'd rather read about what Amnesty has on it rather than pseudonym Peracles' opinion or pseudonym Lulu's opinion. Even though I do come to a blog like this to get other people's input on news stories, I've got to say it: big picture, I weight The Guardian and Amnesty International more heavily than Peracles or Lulu.

Your comment makes complete

A Guy Called LULU — Tue, 07 Feb 2017 18:25:22 +0000

In reply to Re: you merely posted it like

Your comment makes complete sense and I agree. Mine would, I think, not seem out of line if you had seen PP's response recently after I posted an article recently in the news section without adding my own opinion about it but then came back to disagree with criticisms of it.

Ah yes, Moon of Alabama -

A Guy Called LULU — Tue, 07 Feb 2017 18:18:18 +0000

In reply to Ah yes, Moon of Alabama -

Ah yes, Moon of Alabama - lots of contempt for the Caesar photos as well when they came out, but after 8 months or so of verification, appear to be valid.

Ah yes, an unsupported allegation against MoA. Maybe contempt was shown, I can't say and you don't offer evidence such as a link which anyone could then read and judge for them self. I have seen many strong statements there but they always have support. Would you agree that honest analysis requires some speculation but where speculation is employed should be acknowledged as such? In your first link here did you read beyond the headline: Syria elections 2014: Voters turn out for ballot denounced as a 'sham' by West, or did you just post it to avoid addressing any of the analysis in MoA. When has "The West" in propagandist mode ever said that an enemy did anything either fair or correctly?

What other parts of the execution report did you find so unbelievable?

That is a [deliberately?] incorrect description of what I wrote. What I said and still maintain is, "To the extent that the AI report is considered important, I think this critique of it is worth reading."

No, I don't watch Rachel Maddow nor would take anything she says seriously - certainly not Russia Insider.

That, even though your style is so much like hers but of course you don't listen to her and so don't really have a basis to know but make an unqualified judgment of her anyway. And I did point out that RI slanted its coverage in one direction as much as Maddow does in the other. And just one other thing for now: I wonder if you accept this report from AI at face value? I cannot tell since you merely posted it like a drive-by with no comment of your own. You do not even supply an introductory quote from the article itself, just a sarcastic comment that does not in any way relate to the subject. I thought you considered that bad form.

You final link is dead, maybe it had something of actual relevance.