|
Links On And Of Propaganda
(Some bug caught up with me. I am too incapacitated to compose a decent blog post. A few links around the issue of propaganda shall substitute for it.)
Remember the sensational front page news about "Russian doping" during the Sochi Olympics and beyond? Well, here is the outcome of that "scandal":
World Anti-Doping Agency Clears 95 Russian Athletes
The World Anti-Doping Agency, the regulator of drugs in sports that produced mountainous evidence of Russia’s doping scheme, has agreed to clear 95 of the first 96 athletes whose cases have been reviewed, according to an internal report circulated among the organization’s executives in recent days.
The "mountainous evidence" the NYT regurgitated was evidently of a molehill.
Here is another slip in the "dangerous Russia" matrix. NATO expansion, we are now told, was not about Russia at all:
Western arms makers lobbied hard for the expansion of NATO into former Soviet satellite countries after the collapse of Communism. They have since lobbied both new and old NATO member states not to stray outside the alliance for weapons purchases that would cut into their business.
But to sell new weapons to eastern Europe one first has to get rid of its old ones. If possible by Making a Killing:
Since the outbreak of war in Syria, weapons from Central and Eastern Europe have flooded the conflict zone through two distinct pipelines – one sponsored by Saudi Arabia and coordinated by the CIA, and the other funded and directed by the Pentagon.
Related: How Western Capital Colonized Eastern Europe
—
The current campaign of Saudi financed jihadis in Myanmar is only the appetizer for a larger attack on Chinese (and Indian) interests. More foot soldiers need to be produced for that by infecting more people with radical Wahhabi propaganda:
Bangladesh approved the construction on its territory of 560 mosques on Wednesday, April 26. The project is financed by the Saudi government to the tune of over a billion dollars.
…
[T]he Gulf monarchy has reportedly spent more than 70 billion dollars (about 65 billion euros) since 1979 to finance such projects abroad.
—
During the election some unidentified dude on Facebook called for an anti-immigrant rally in Twin Falls, Idaho. Four (4) people claimed they came to the event but no rally took place.
Three (3!) Daily Beast "journalists" were tasked to investigate the issue. They produced a sorry whiff of hot air: Exclusive: Russia Used Facebook Events to Organize Anti-Immigrant Rallies on U.S. Soil
—
The New Yorker also wants to put crap into your brain:
Pyongyang is a city of simulated perfection, without litter or graffiti—or, for that matter, anyone in a wheelchair. Its population, of 2.9 million, has been chosen for political reliability and physical health.
Surely, the yearly Disability Days in the DPRK, with performances and sport events, never take place. The new school year ceremony at Pyongyang's Rehabilitation Centre for Children with Disability (vid) is just a fantasy.
On wonders how much the North Korean defector who enlightened the New Yorker was paid for that insight. Propaganda is costly. South Korea recently upped the top rate for North Korean opportunists to $860,000 a piece. The more outrageous their claims are, the higher their income.
—
The Global Engagement Center …
.. is an interagency entity, housed at the State Department. … It was established pursuant to Executive Order 13721, signed on on March 14, 2016, which states that the Center “shall lead the coordination, integration, and synchronization of Government-wide communications activities directed at foreign audiences abroad in order to counter the messaging and diminish the influence of international terrorist organizations,” such as ISIL.
… of "international terrorist organizations" – hmmm –
… allowed the Global Engagement Center to ask the Pentagon for $40 million, bringing its total 2017 spending to about $80 million. About $60 million of that was to be used to counter Russian influence operations; about $19 million was aimed at ISIS.
—
Contrasting the above is some real journalism from the Cincinnati Enquirer: Seven Days of Heroin – This is what an epidemic looks like – recommended!
>>>> Don Bacon | Sep 14, 2017 11:38:08 AM | 81
1. The CIA has a record of drug trafficking.
Agreed but in the past.
2. The vast increase in Afghan heroin production took place after the US/UK took control of south Afghanistan.
Here you are being disingenuous. As I said previously the Americans did not arrive in any number in Helmad Province until 2009. The massive growth there happened in 2002 almost immediately after the Taliban were evicted and before ISAF/UK even entered Helmand.
3. CIA is been a big part of US presence in Afghanistan and Pakistan, with drone wars, assassinations, etc.
Agreed, but that doesn’t prove any CIA involvement.
4. Afghan leaders at the highest level, supported by the US, have reportedly benefited from drug trafficking.
Agreed, but that doesn’t prove any CIA involvement. There might be some American-backed warlords who are involved who are kicking back to Afghan leaders but that does not mean that any American agency is necessarily involved.
5. US military forces have no record of promoting drug trafficking, and in fact they have advertised efforts to reduce drug production.
Agreed, but that doesn’t prove any CIA involvement.
6. Drug production in Afghanistan could not have happened without the support of some US agency, one that could do it secretly and without any interference from the departments of defense and state.
So you are saying that only white men are capable of organising the drug trade in Afghanistan? Isn’t that racist? Given the CIA’s crap record, i’d actually suggest that if the CIA was involved in any such enterprise, it would have folded years ago. Would the Taliban trust the CIA with 60% of their income? No, just like they don’t trust the Pakistanis and Gulfies won’t cut off their funding when it suits.
7. Nobody with any authority is ever going to point to the CIA for doing anything of this magnitude. The CIA is untouchable. Example: Benghazi was a CIA operation, not a consulate as is reported, and H.Clinton has taken the fall for Benghazi. She would never dare say “it was CIA.”
Here you are being disingenuous again – nobody might take any action against the CIA, but that doesn’t mean that people won’t speak out about what the CIA is up to. For example, Benghazi – anybody who wants to can find details of what the CIA was up to with a simple Google search and it’s not as if the CIA is “cleaning up” afterwards – this article has been around for four years and as far as I can tell both Michael B Kelley and Geoffrey Ingersoll are still alive so their brakes haven’t been “fixed”.
8. Therefore we can logically conclude, without direct evidence, that CIA is involved in the vast increase in Afghan drug production.
No we can’t. You might want to believe, but where is your evidence? There really is none.
8. Conversely, arbitrarily concluding that the CIA has not been involved in Afghan drug trafficking makes no sense.
Logical fallacy. But why would it make any sense for the CIA to be involved – they don’t need the money anymore. What exactly would they be getting out of it. What projects can’t they get funding for? Iran? Crimea? Russia? Syria? Libya? Yemen? North Korea? The Taliban in Afghanistan? The only one I can think of is funding Al Qaeda in Syria but that’s hardly secret and funding might only have been stopped in the last few months.
Posted by: Ghostship | Sep 14 2017 16:51 utc | 87
>>>> Don Bacon | Sep 14, 2017 3:36:20 PM | 95
re: “The PKK is the US military’s proxy.”
Evidence? The PKK is listed as a terrorist organization by Turkey and the US.
I was in a rush – the YPG is the military wing of the PYD which is politically aligned with the PKK and many of the commanders and fighters in the YPG are from the PKK. So, although the United States would deny it, the YPG is linked to the PKK, just as Turkey would deny the Turkish-backed FSA is linked to Al Qaeda and ISIS. The United States and Turkey have enough info to shit on each other, so they don’t.
>Regarding evidence in general, circumstantial evidence (which point to CIA in Afghanistan) is often better than direct evidence, which can be fabricated.
WTF! You’d better hope that you’re never accused of murder if you believe circumstantial evidence is better than real evidence. BTW, if given the choice between fabricating circumstantial evidence and fabricating real evidence, I’d go for fabricating circumstantial evidence every time
>Where is the evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, that the CIA is incompetent,
See my comment @ 71. Perhaps you’d care to name some successes the CIA have had since 2000?
…doesn’t need money…
You’re asking me to prove the negative which is impossible, so I’ll ask you to mention any occasions since 11 September, 2001 when the CIA has gone to Congress with a begging bowl.
and isn’t in Afghanistan?
I’m not denying that the CIA is in Afghanistan because it’s pretty obvious that it is, I’m just saying that the CIA is not running the drug trade in Afghanistan. There might be some CIA agents in Afghanistan that are involved in the drug trade personally and the CIA may turn a blind eye to the drug trade but at the corporate level, I very much doubt that they are.
I don’t buy any of it because you just make up stuff. That’s obvious.
No, what is obvious is that you’ve made your mind up regardless of the lack of any actual evidence.
Posted by: Ghostship | Sep 14 2017 22:00 utc | 98
|
