On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 6:09:15 AM UTC-4, Nick wrote:
още бели расисти/фашисти, религиозни фундаменталисти, анти-американски
конспиративни култисти и подобни:
Furthermore, the more protracted the war in Ukraine, the greater the
risk of a nuclear accident or incident. And with the Biden
administration’s strategy to “weaken” Russia with the scale of weapons >> shipments, including anti-ship missiles, and revelations of U.S.
intelligence assistance to Ukraine, it is clear that the United States
and NATO are in a proxy war with Russia.
Shouldn’t the ramifications, perils and multifaceted costs of this
proxy war be a central topic of media coverage — as well as informed
analysis,
discussion and debate? Yet what we have in the media and political
establishment is, for the most part, a one-sided, even nonexistent,
public discussion and debate. It’s as if we live with what journalist
Matt Taibbi has dubbed an “intellectual no-fly zone.”
Тhose who have departed from the orthodox line on Ukraine are regularly
excluded from or marginalized — certainly rarely seen — on big
corporate media. The result is that alternative and countervailing
views and voices seem nonexistent. Wouldn’t it be healthy to have more
diversity of views,
history and context rather than “confirmation bias”?
…
Those who speak of history and offer context about the West’s
precipitating role in the Ukraine tragedy are not excusing Russia’s
criminal attack. It is a measure of such thinking, and the rhetorical
or intellectual no-fly zone, that prominent figures such as Noam
Chomsky,
University of Chicago professor John Mearsheimer and former U.S.
ambassador Chas Freeman, among others, have been demonized or slurred
for raising cogent arguments and providing much-needed context and
history to explain the background of this war.
In our fragile democracy, the cost of dissent is comparatively low.
Why,
then, aren’t more individuals at think tanks or in academia, media or
politics challenging the orthodox U.S. political-media narrative? Is it
not worth asking whether sending ever-more weapons to the Ukrainians is
the wisest course? Is it too much to ask for more questioning and
discussion about how best to diminish the danger of nuclear conflict?
Why are nonconformists smeared for noting, even bolstered with
reputable facts and history, the role of nationalist, far-right and,
yes, neo-Nazi forces in Ukraine? Fascist or neo-Nazi revivalism is a
toxic factor in many countries today, from European nations to the
United States. Why is Ukraine’s history too often ignored, even denied?
…
останалото -- в източника на публикацията.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/05/24/ukraine-russia-war-
biden-strategy-debate/
как па верно все на такива попадам?
нямам идея какъв е източникът, нито пък дали авторката има страница в
уикипедия, а и честно казано -- не ме интересува.
обсебеният, ако се осмели да коментира, да коментира написаното в
статията. тогава мога да му обърна евентуално някакво внимание.
това е, аз отивам да приемам някаква доставка на компютърно оборудване
8-)
Тази е жената на покойния Стивън Коен* (и бивш главен редактор и
собственик на "The Nation"). В този контекст няма нужда да й чета есето
за да зная какво е казала по темата.
*Едва ли не знаеш кой беше той.
On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 7:29:39 AM UTC-4, Nick wrote:
On Fri, 27 May 2022 04:09:16 -0700 (PDT), Ivaylo Ivanov wrote:
On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 6:09:15 AM UTC-4, Nick wrote:
още бели расисти/фашисти, религиозни фундаменталисти,
анти-американски конспиративни култисти и подобни:
Furthermore, the more protracted the war in Ukraine, the greater the
risk of a nuclear accident or incident. And with the Biden
administration’s strategy to “weaken” Russia with the scale of
weapons shipments, including anti-ship missiles, and revelations of
U.S. intelligence assistance to Ukraine, it is clear that the United
States and NATO are in a proxy war with Russia.
Shouldn’t the ramifications, perils and multifaceted costs of this
proxy war be a central topic of media coverage — as well as informed
analysis, discussion and debate? Yet what we have in the media and
political establishment is, for the most part, a one-sided, even
nonexistent, public discussion and debate. It’s as if we live with
what journalist Matt Taibbi has dubbed an “intellectual no-fly
zone.”
Тhose who have departed from the orthodox line on Ukraine are
regularly excluded from or marginalized — certainly rarely seen — on >> >> big corporate media. The result is that alternative and
countervailing views and voices seem nonexistent. Wouldn’t it be
healthy to have more diversity of views,
history and context rather than “confirmation bias”?
…
Those who speak of history and offer context about the West’s
precipitating role in the Ukraine tragedy are not excusing Russia’s
criminal attack. It is a measure of such thinking, and the
rhetorical or intellectual no-fly zone, that prominent figures such
as Noam Chomsky, University of Chicago professor John Mearsheimer
and former U.S. ambassador Chas Freeman, among others, have been
demonized or slurred for raising cogent arguments and providing
much-needed context and history to explain the background of this
war.
In our fragile democracy, the cost of dissent is comparatively low.
Why, then, aren’t more individuals at think tanks or in academia,
media or politics challenging the orthodox U.S. political-media
narrative?
Is it not worth asking whether sending ever-more weapons to the
Ukrainians is the wisest course? Is it too much to ask for more
questioning and discussion about how best to diminish the danger of
nuclear conflict?
Why are nonconformists smeared for noting, even bolstered with
reputable facts and history, the role of nationalist, far-right and,
yes, neo-Nazi forces in Ukraine? Fascist or neo-Nazi revivalism is a
toxic factor in many countries today, from European nations to the
United States. Why is Ukraine’s history too often ignored, even
denied?
…
останалото -- в източника на публикацията.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/05/24/ukraine-russia- war-biden-strategy-debate/
как па верно все на такива попадам?
нямам идея какъв е източникът, нито пък дали авторката има страница
в уикипедия, а и честно казано -- не ме интересува.
обсебеният, ако се осмели да коментира, да коментира написаното в
статията. тогава мога да му обърна евентуално някакво внимание.
това е, аз отивам да приемам някаква доставка на компютърно
оборудване 8-)
Тази е жената на покойния Стивън Коен* (и бивш главен редактор и
собственик на "The Nation"). В този контекст няма нужда да й чета
есето за да зная какво е казала по темата.
е, аз бях казал да коментираш написаното от нея, а не самата нея,
защото не си по-различен от онзи дето беше заявил миналия век „я
солженицин не читал, но оссуждаю“.
Защо трябва да коментирам мненията на хора добре известни от години като
апологети на Путинския империализъм??
после не се учудвай на отношението ми към теб.
*Едва ли не знаеш кой беше той.
сещам се за стив банън, но за този нямам спомен, колкото и да не ти се
вярва. аз по-скоро помня стореното от някого, отколкото кой точно го е
сторил.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_F._Cohen#Putin_era
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 07:52:49 |
| Calls: | 10,386 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 14,058 |
| Messages: | 6,416,648 |