@Parisian Guy #287
You said in post #101: “you’re a genuine person who cannot imagine how much cunningly some humans could behave.”
This is a direct commentary on me as a person as opposed to an examination of my arguments – which is the definition of ad hominem.
Secondly, I didn’t address directly your post #101 statement because it seemed self evident in its contradiction to your statement:

For myself I don’t care what Bannon says. I watch his acts. Here in Europe he tried, and failed, to build “The Movement” which was nothing more than a kind of federation of these conservative groups who are at the same time nationalistic and Zionist… Can you see the snake oil trader?

Where in the above is Bannon being an evil, cunning genius? Is it evil or cunning or just understandable that Bannon reaches out to other conservative groups to attempt to build solidarity?
Wow, it is like Obama appealing to liberals in Europe – does that mean Obama was cunning and evil as well?
Equally, since Bannon is doing the reachout very openly and publicly – this is radically different than QAnon.
Clearly your analysis is not objective.
You then double down on your statements by saying:

your many first-hand experiences of cunning individuals is the consequence of your difficulties to speedily identify them during the first period.

My first hand experiences involve assisting law enforcement to catch and convict cyber criminals. Thus, very likely unlike your experiences, I have real world validation of my method.
You then said next:

you’re not enough wanting to understand the disagreeing opinions.
Look at what you did basically. You just tried to disqualify my POV by unsubstantiated claims that I was parroting the Dems or Maher. You just didn’t take care it doesn’t match some facts which you already know:

What you said is exactly what Maher and the DNCC says. You furthermore have yet to present any objective evidence other than your own opinion. How then should I take your views?
Ok, let’s say you derived these views objectively. Did you put forward the evidence? The chain of reasoning? The self criticism to see if the evidence, chain of reasoning and conclusion is potentially weak?
I didn’t see any of that. What I responded with was a very clear thesis, plus my reasoning, plus pointers to where you could see Bannon speak for himself. Not only did you refuse to watch them – which is a tell that you are the actual one who is uninterested in objective evidence or understanding the other side – you then come back with a thesis that I am somehow the one who is naive.
Fail.
You then weaken your own case further:

I told in the comment which you answered first, that my Qanon = Bannon idea came from the Great Awakening video, when it was released one or two years ago. I was the only one to make this diagnosis at the time. I could claim that Maher is parroting myself today. It would be dumb, for sure, but at least the timeline would be consistent.

So in other words, your views came from a propaganda video made by other people. Nice.
Then we come to the crux of your belief:

the link between Bannon and the European nationalist-zionist is a documented fact, perfectly understood by real nationalists here in Europe. Again, this has nothing related to the Dems babbling. And I guess that most of them ignore that, since they often peddle the fantasy that Bannon is an antisemitic populist. You can check the zionism of Bannon by searching in Breitbart about Hezbollah.
– the Bannon/Cambridge Analytica story was reported in the best right-leaning French daily newspaper, which is Le Figaro. Lot of factual information, and the story does hold water.

This is interesting for several reasons:
1) You equate Bannon’s US-centricity with zionism. Uh – major contradiction.
2) You equate US-centricity/nationalism with anti-semitism and also European nationalism-zionism. Even disregarding the fundamental oxymoron of a US-nationalist who is zionist, only the most naive of children would believe that a pragmatic true believer would not reach out to make allies with those who share some beliefs. And would simultaneously believe that a person is nothing more than a mirror image of their allies. Under your formula – Zbigniew Brzeziski is a pro-China fan because he hates Russia, while Kissinger is a Russia-lover for being pro-US working with China.
3) It is clear you are liberal and dislike the rise of the far right all across Europe. Nothing wrong with that. However, there is plenty wrong with:
a) failing to understand the reasons why the far right is winning
b) believing that the far right in Europe is the same as Bannon; that Bannon is the same as Trump; and the Trump and Bannon are far right in the US.
4) Lastly, Le Figaro. I’ve already spoken to the fact that you clearly don’t do your own research or independently validate what you are informed of by what you read/watch. Since you are apparently a believer in objective analysis – if not necessarily a practitioner – do you at least agree that left leaning publications like Le Figaro have an intrinsic bias against the conservative? And that they are not a reliable objective source of data regarding people, beliefs and movements which they are fundamentally opposed to?
From my perspective – Bannon is very much over-focused on China. He ascribes all that has gone wrong in the US to the impact China has had on the economy – without recognizing that the political and economic effort that allowed China to do this, is a function of Americans – specifically the American elite of both liberal and conservative bent.
Yet he isn’t wrong in the sense that there has been too much “coddling” of China. As a former Goldman Sachs bankster, he naturally is blind to the destruction of the American economy due to the financial sector; blind to the negative impact of pharma, health insurance and private equity owned hospitals/health care providers on Aemrican society and likely blind to the US over-reach abroad.
That’s what I really believe. Simply because I understand what and why Bannon pushes for doesn’t mean I agree (or disagree) with everything he does.
Which comes full circle to the last bit of ass-u-mption which I find offensive: that simply because I understand Bannon (much as I understand Bernie, Biden, Harris, Warren, and now Gabbard), that I must necessarily fully endorse him.
My recommendation to you is to spend more time in areas that are actively uncomfortable to you. I regularly read both Naked Capitalism and Burning Platform – because these represent the liberal and the hard right, respectively. TBP in particularly is infested with all manner of outright and barely disguised racists – but it is nonetheless a genuine window into the fears and desires of the hard right conservative. And while I hate a significant part of what they say, at the same time I understand (from engaging with them) what has driven them to that state: the identitarian politics and policies which are increasingly dominating American law and practices.

Posted by: c1ue | Feb 15 2020 15:53 utc | 303

A second Syrian gov’t chopper brought down by s2a missile, likely a manpad, marks 2nd chopper down in only a few days by Turkish-backed militants, according to zerohedge.
My question is, do manpads mark a serious escalation from the Turkish side and what will be the coordinated Syrian-Russian response?
Those fucking Turks and their neo-ottoman bullshit.

Posted by: Nemesiscalling | Feb 15 2020 16:19 utc | 305

Posted by: c1ue | Feb 15 2020 15:53 utc | 304
I deliberately stopped reading you when you started “1) you equate …… 2) you equate”
I was already at this stage counting too many misunderstandings, then this “equate” paragtaph demonstrated your will/need to misunderstand.
If you calmly check what I actually said, and what I never said, you’ll discover that you were hallucinating.
Our exchange cannot continue, unless you correct yourself.

Posted by: Parisian Guy | Feb 15 2020 16:48 utc | 307

@Walter #293, @S #299: By the way, if you plan to follow Karl on VK, you might also want to subscribe to Pepe Escobar’s VK and Petri Krohn’s VK.

Posted by: S | Feb 15 2020 17:10 utc | 309

– There are rumours “floating around” that:
1) the US and other forces didn’t fully destroy ISIS. And even helped to let members of ISIS escape from the battlefield in eastern Syria & north western Iraq.
2) ISIS is getting stronger.
3) ISIS is involved in (more and more) attacks on the shiite government and the shiite militias with bombs, mortars & rockets.
– This all suggests to me that ISIS is being used again by Saudi Arabia, the US and even Israel to foment more unrest in Iraq. There is also a story that the US is (trying to) carve/carving out a separate state in (north-)westeren Iraq.
– Perhaps B has more info on this/these development(s) in Iraq ?

Posted by: Willy2 | Feb 15 2020 17:41 utc | 311

@Parisian Guy #308
I’m fine with “the exchange” stopping, since you clearly have a double standard regarding what you assume of me vs. the same being done in return.
You’ve demonstrated nothing thus far except that you take your data from biased sources and are unwilling to seek original information at the source.
Good day.

Posted by: c1ue | Feb 15 2020 18:33 utc | 313

c1ue @ 315
No. You posted Mass. vs Maine. Those stats are misleading.
When I called you on that, you give a vague pointer to other stats (which charts exactly? What is the link to them?). You don’t post those stats. You once again, leave the data lookup to the reader. That is called “tasking”, and it is a well-known internet debating tactic.
If this other data you allude to were conclusive, you would have posted it directly – as it is your responsiblity, as the one who made the original assertion, to do when that assertion is challenged.
So far, 1) you posted misleading data; and 2) you response is that I should do your research for you.
These are not the tactics of someone with a solid case.

Posted by: john brewster | Feb 15 2020 21:18 utc | 315

Below is a recent, very short, posting at Xinhuanet
”
BAGHDAD, Feb. 16 (Xinhua) — Rockets struck near the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad early on Sunday, local media reported, adding that the extent of the damage remains unclear.
”
As I just wrote on the Bloomberg posting/thread, I think a whole lot of world history outside the US (s)election is going to happen in the next 8-9 months.

Posted by: psychohistorian | Feb 16 2020 4:11 utc | 317

Latest Jimmy Dore show. A good one.
https://jimmydorecomedy.com/

Posted by: ben | Feb 16 2020 5:06 utc | 319

Posted by: c1ue | Feb 15 2020 18:33 utc | 314
I told you to calmly check what I said, before answering. You were not courageous enough to do that. Therefore I’ll have to help you:
For instance I said that:
– the Bannon/Cambridge Analytica story was reported in the best right-leaning French daily newspaper, which is Le Figaro. Lot of factual information, and the story does hold water.
To which you answered:
4) Lastly, Le Figaro. I’ve already spoken to the fact that you clearly don’t do your own research or independently validate what you are informed of by what you read/watch. Since you are apparently a believer in objective analysis – if not necessarily a practitioner – do you at least agree that left leaning publications like Le Figaro have an intrinsic bias against the conservative? And that they are not a reliable objective source of data regarding people, beliefs and movements which they are fundamentally opposed to?
Look at the reality: when I wrote Right, you understood Left,
What is demonstrated here? Like in your parallel exchange with John Brewster, you behave like all these small narcissists who cannot imagine their smartness has some limitations. In order to keep their self-delusion, they have to distort reality.
Hence, your wrong data for Brewster.
Hence, when I wrote “right leaning newspaper Le Figaro”, you hallucinated “biased left leaning newspaper such as Le Figaro ”
You don’t need an ophtamologist. All your many other misreadings were done for the same purpose: to reject any bit of reality which could destroy your self-delusion.
You already have been charged of such behavior previously, therefore you preemptively reverted the charge, and you ridiculously claimed that I was the one who entertained his self-delusion by means of reality distortion from the leftist Figaro.
Your ridicule did not stop here.
You also lectured me about personal search. Again you were preemptively reverting the charge, since you didn’t even do the most easy, asking wikipedia:
“Le Figaro is the oldest national daily in France and is one of the three French newspapers of record, […]
With its conservative, right editorial line,[…]”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Figaro

Posted by: Parisian Guy | Feb 16 2020 18:43 utc | 321