98 comments

1. Ella MillerJanuary 1, 2017 at 8:27 pm

   Yes, remembering the secret police raids on our home because my father was a political activist, remembering what my father told us about the so called ‘re-education’ programmes ……. I remember the pre dawn visits to our house by the secret police…..and much much more.
   So…yes I am terrified.
   I think the world and the US will pay dearly for their newly found friendship.

   I sense a commercial interest in all this BS….I only wish I could remember the name of the person chosen by Trump to be his representative in Russia….a business man who has done business in Russia. So once again it comes down to money.
   Yes I remember and wish I could forget….because it is frightening.

2. James MasonJanuary 1, 2017 at 8:37 pm

   Sounds like the 60’s crap all over again .. let’s demonise Russia .. why? .. what’s happening behind the scenes that this garbage is being served up to us yet again .. Don’t take your eyes off the big picture .. America is the global bully ..

   A short list of US “interventions”
   A careful examination of U.S. foreign policy history reveals over 400 overt military interventions and over 6000 covert interventions, each one a violation of international law and each an act of war against a sovereign nation.
   Here’s a partial list of interventions, with the purpose of effecting “regime change,” attempted or materially supported by the United States—whether primarily by means of overt force (OF), covert operation (CO), or subverted election (SE):
   1893 – Hawaii (Liliuokalani; monarchist): success (OF)
   1912 – China (Piyu; monarchist): success (OF)
   1918 – Panama (Arias; center-right): success (SE)
   1919 – Hungary (Kun; communist): success (CO)
   1920 – USSR (Lenin; communist): failure (OF)
   1924 – Honduras (Carias; nationalist): success (SE)
   1945 – Japan (Higashikuni; rightist): success (OF)
   1946 – Thailand (Pridi; conservative): success (CO)
   1946 – Argentina (Peron; military/centrist): failure (SE)
   1947 – France (communist): success (SE)
   1947 – Philippines (center-left): success (SE)
   1947 – Romania (Gheorghiu-Dej; stalinist): failure (CO)
   1948 – Italy (communist): success (SE)
   1948 – Colombia (Gaitan; populist/leftist): success (SE)
   1948 – Peru (Bustamante; left/centrist): success (CO)
   1949 – Syria (Kuwatli; neutralist/Pan-Arabist): success (CO)
   1949 – China (Mao; communist): failure (CO)
   1950 – Albania (Hoxha; communist): failure (CO)
   1951 – Bolivia (Paz; center/neutralist): success (CO)
   1951 – DPRK (Kim; stalinist): failure (OF)
   1951 – Poland (Cyrankiewicz; stalinist): failure (CO)
   1951 – Thailand (Phibun; conservative): success (CO)
   1952 – Egypt (Farouk; monarchist): success (CO)
   1952 – Cuba (Prio; reform/populist): success (CO)
   1952 – Lebanon (left/populist): success: (SE)
   1953 – British Guyana (left/populist): success (CO)
   1953 – Iran (Mossadegh; liberal nationalist): success (CO)
   1953 – Costa Rica (Figueres; reform liberal): failure (CO)
   1953 – Philippines (center-left): success (SE)
   1954 – Guatemala (Arbenz; liberal nationalist): success (OF)
   1955 – Costa Rica (Figueres; reform liberal): failure (CO)
   1955 – India (Nehru; neutralist/socialist): failure (CO)
   1955 – Argentina (Peron; military/centrist): success (CO)
   1955 – China (Zhou; communist): failure (CO)
   1955 – Vietnam (Ho; communist): success (SE)
   1956 – Hungary (Hegedus; communist): success (CO)
   1957 – Egypt (Nasser; military/nationalist): failure (CO)
   1957 – Haiti (Sylvain; left/populist): success (CO)
   1957 – Syria (Kuwatli; neutralist/Pan-Arabist): failure (CO)
   1958 – Japan (left-center): success (SE)
   1958 – Chile (leftists): success (SE)
   1958 – Iraq (Feisal; monarchist): success (CO)
   1958 – Laos (Phouma; nationalist): success (CO)
   1958 – Sudan (Sovereignty Council; nationalist): success (CO)
   1958 – Lebanon (leftist): success (SE)
   1958 – Syria (Kuwatli; neutralist/Pan-Arabist): failure (CO)
   1958 – Indonesia (Sukarno; militarist/neutralist): failure (SE)
   1959 – Laos (Phouma; nationalist): success (CO)
   1959 – Nepal (left-centrist): success (SE)
   1959 – Cambodia (Sihanouk; moderate/neutralist): failure (CO)
   1959 – Cuba (Castro; socialist/populist): failure (CO-OF)
   1960 – Ecuador (Ponce; left/populist): success (CO)
   1960 – Laos (Phouma; nationalist): success (CO)
   1960 – Iraq (Qassem; rightist /militarist): failure (CO)
   1960 – S. Korea (Syngman; rightist): success (CO)
   1960 – Turkey (Menderes; liberal): success (CO)
   1961 – Haiti (Duvalier; rightist/militarist): success (CO)
   1961 – Cuba (Castro; communist): failure (CO)
   1961 – Congo (Lumumba; leftist/pan-Africanist): success (CO)
   1961 – Dominican Republic (Trujillo; rightwing/military): success (CO)
   1962 – Brazil (Goulart; liberal/neutralist): failure (SE)
   1962 – Dominican Republic (left/populist): success (SE)
   1962 – Indonesia (Sukarno; militarist/neutralist): failure (CO)
   1963 – Dominican Republic (Bosch; social democrat): success (CO)
   1963 – Honduras (Montes; left/populist): success (CO)
   1963 – Iraq (Qassem; militarist/rightist): success (CO)
   1963 – S. Vietnam (Diem; rightist): success (CO)
   1963 – Cambodia (Sihanouk; moderate/neutralist): failure (CO)
   1963 – Guatemala (Ygidoras; rightist/reform): success (CO)
   1963 – Ecuador (Velasco; reform militarist): success (CO)
   1964 – Guyana (Jagan; populist/reformist): success (CO)
   1964 – Bolivia (Paz; centrist/neutralist): success (CO)
   1964 – Brazil (Goulart; liberal/neutralist): success (CO)
   1964 – Chile (Allende; social democrat/marxist): success (SE)
   1965 – Indonesia (Sukarno; militarist/neutralist): success (CO)
   1966 – Ghana (Nkrumah; leftist/pan-Africanist): success (CO)
   1966 – Bolivia (leftist): success (SE)
   1966 – France (de Gaulle; centrist): failure (CO)
   1967 – Greece (Papandreou; social democrat): success (CO)
   1968 – Iraq (Arif; rightist): success (CO)
   1969 – Panama (Torrijos; military/reform populist): failure (CO)
   1969 – Libya (Idris; monarchist): success (CO)
   1970 – Bolivia (Ovando; reform nationalist): success (CO)
   1970 – Cambodia (Sihanouk; moderate/neutralist): success (CO)
   1970 – Chile (Allende; social democrat/Marxist): failure (SE)
   1971 – Bolivia (Torres; nationalist/neutralist): success (CO)
   1971 – Costa Rica (Figueres; reform liberal): failure (CO)
   1971 – Liberia (Tubman; rightist): success (CO)
   1971 – Turkey (Demirel; center-right): success (CO)
   1971 – Uruguay (Frente Amplio; leftist): success (SE)
   1972 – El Salvador (leftist): success (SE)
   1972 – Australia (Whitlam; liberal/labor): failure (SE)
   1973 – Chile (Allende; social democrat/Marxist): success (CO)
   1975 – Australia (Whitlam; liberal/labor): success (CO)
   1975 – Congo (Mobutu; military/rightist): failure (CO)
   1975 – Bangladesh (Mujib; nationalist): success (CO)
   1976 – Jamaica (Manley; social democrat): failure (SE)
   1976 – Portugal (military/leftist): success (SE)
   1976 – Nigeria (Mohammed; military/nationalist): success (CO)
   1976 – Thailand (rightist): success (CO)
   1976 – Uruguay (Bordaberry; center-right): success (CO)
   1977 – Pakistan (Bhutto: center/nationalist): success (CO)
   1978 – Dominican Republic (Balaguer; center): success (SE)
   1979 – S. Korea (Park; rightist): success (CO)
   1979 – Nicaragua (Sandinistas; leftist): failure (CO)
   1980 – Bolivia (Siles; centrist/reform): success (CO)
   1980 – Iran (Khomeini; Islamic nationalist): failure (CO)
   1980 – Italy (leftist): success (SE)
   1980 – Liberia (Tolbert; rightist): success (CO)
   1980 – Jamaica (Manley; social democrat): success (SE)
   1980 – Dominica (Seraphin; leftist): success (SE)
   1980 – Turkey (Demirel; center-right): success (CO)
   1981 – Seychelles (René; socialist): failure (CO)
   1981 – Spain (Suarez; rightist/neutralist): failure (CO)
   1981 – Panama (Torrijos; military/reform populist); success (CO)
   1981 – Zambia (Kaunda; reform nationalist): failure (CO)
   1982 – Mauritius (center-left): failure (SE)
   1982 – Spain (Suarez; rightist/neutralist): success (SE)
   1982 – Iran (Khomeini; Islamic nationalist): failure (CO)
   1982 – Chad (Oueddei; Islamic nationalist): success (CO)
   1983 – Mozambique (Machel; socialist): failure (CO)
   1983 – Grenada (Bishop; socialist): success (OF)
   1984 – Panama (reform/centrist): success (SE)
   1984 – Nicaragua (Sandinistas; leftist): failure (SE)
   1984 – Surinam (Bouterse; left/reformist/neutralist): success (CO)
   1984 – India (Gandhi; nationalist): success (CO)
   1986 – Libya (Qaddafi; Islamic nationalist): failure (OF)
   1987 – Fiji (Bavrada; liberal): success (CO)
   1989 – Panama (Noriega; military/reform populist): success (OF)
   1990 – Haiti (Aristide; liberal reform): failure (SE)
   1990 – Nicaragua (Ortega; Christian socialist): success (SE)
   1991 – Albania (Alia; communist): success (SE)
   1991 – Haiti (Aristide; liberal reform): success (CO)
   1991 – Iraq (Hussein; military/rightist): failure (OF)
   1991 – Bulgaria (communist): success (SE)
   1992 – Afghanistan (Najibullah; communist): success (CO)
   1993 – Somalia (Aidid; right/militarist): failure (OF)
   1993 – Cambodia (Han Sen/CPP; leftist): failure (SE)
   1993 – Burundi (Ndadaye; conservative): success (CO)
   1993 – Azerbaijan (Elchibey; reformist): success (CO)
   1994 – El Salvador (leftist): success (SE)
   1994 – Rwanda (Habyarimana; conservative): success (CO)
   1994 – Ukraine (Kravchuk; center-left): success (SE)
   1995 – Iraq (Hussein; military/rightist): failure (CO)
   1996 – Bosnia (Karadzic; centrist): success (CO)
   1996 – Russia (Zyuganov; communist): success (SE)
   1996 – Congo (Mobutu; military/rightist): success (CO)
   1996 – Mongolia (center-left): success (SE)
   1998 – Congo (Kabila; rightist/military): success (CO)
   1998 – Indonesia (Suharto; military/rightist): success (CO)
   1999 – Yugoslavia (Milosevic; left/nationalist): success (SE)
   2000 – United States (Gore; conservative): success (SE)
   2000 – Ecuador (leftist): success: (CO)
   2001 – Afghanistan (Omar; rightist/Islamist): success (OF)
   2001 – Belarus (Lukashenko; leftist): failure (SE)
   2001 – Nicaragua (Ortega; Christian socialist): success (SE)
   2001 – Nepal (Birendra; nationalist/monarchist): success (CO)
   2002 – Venezuela (Chavez; reform-populist): failure (CO)
   2002 – Bolivia (Morales; leftist/MAS): success (SE)
   2002 – Brazil (Lula; center-left): failure (SE)
   The following is a partial list of atrocities, massacres, murders, and injuries in recent history for which the largest, most deadly, most deceptive terrorist network the world has ever seen is responsible:
   • 3,000,000 Vietnamese murdered over the course of about 30 years of US aggression.
   • Well over 300,000 Japanese were massacred when the US raided Tokyo and dropped nuclear bombs on the urban civilian areas of Nagasaki and Hiroshima.
   • 600,000 civilians were killed in Cambodia by US bombing between 1969 and 1975.
   • Over 500,000 people were killed in Laos when America subjected civilians to “secret bombing” from 1964 to 1973, dropping over two million tons of bombs on the country. Over one fourth of the population also became refugees.
   • 100,000 people were murdered in South Korea prior to the Korean War by a brutal repression supported by US forces in 1945. This includes between 30,000 and 40,000 killed during the suppression of a peasant revolt on Cheju Island.
   • Up to 4,500,000 Koreans were killed from 1951 to 1953 during America’s massive slaughter in the Korean War.
   • 200,000 were murdered when the Philippines were conquered by American forces. (This took place just over 100 years ago.)
   • 23,000 people were slaughtered in Taiwan by US-backed, trained, equipped, and funded forces (Chiang’s Nationalist army) during the late 1940s.
   • 700,000 Indonesians (mostly landless peasants) were murdered in 1965 when the US armed and supported General Suharto.
   • 200,000 were slaughtered in East Timor in 1975 by General Suharto with US support.
   • 750,000 civilians were driven from their homes in East Timor by Indonesian forces in 1999 and 10,000 were killed with U.S. support.
   • Over 1,700,000 Iraqis have been killed by US bombings and sanctions, mostly women and children.
   • Over 1,000,000 lives were lost during the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s in which the US used direct force and supported Hussein and Iraq.
   • 35,000 Kurds were killed, 3,500 villages were destroyed, and between 2,000,000 and 3,000,000 became homeless as a result of aggression by Turkey with US arming and training in the 1990s.
   • Over 1,000,000 people were killed in Afghanistan’s civil war from 1979 to 1992, in which the US strongly supported the Moujahedeen, the most violent and sadistic of the forces. (This also set the stage for the CIA-backed Taliban to attain power.)
   • 45,000 people were killed in South Lebanon since 1982 by Israel, always armed and supported by the US.
   • Hundreds of thousands have been killed in Palestine and millions (in both Palestine and Lebanon) were made refugees by US-backed Israel.
   • Over 150,000 were killed in Greece when America advised, equipped, and financed violent interventions in the late 1940s and late 1960s.
   • Over 75,000 civilians were killed and over one million refugees were created in El Salvador from 1980 to 1994 when the US intensely supported the efforts of a brutal regime and its death squads to eliminate a popular uprising.
   • 40,000 civilians were killed by the US-backed National Guard in Nicaragua over the course of almost 50 years.
   • 30,000 lives were killed by the US contras in Nicaragua from 1979 to 1989.
   • 200,000 Guatemalans were slaughtered from 1960-1990s by a military apparatus trained, armed, funded, and assisted by America.
   • Over 35,000 Colombian civilians have been killed during the US-supported Columbian war against left-wing rebels.
   • More than 4,000 innocent civilians were killed in Panama during the US invasion in 1989.
   • Hundreds of thousands were killed by US direct and indirect interventions in Brazil, Chile, Uruguay, Peru, and Argentina from the mid 60s through the 80s.
   • 50,000 Haitians were killed when the US military destroyed a peasant uprising in 1915.
   • Between 4,000 and 5,000 Haitians were killed in the early 1990s by US-established forces.
   • Thousands were killed in the Dominican Republic during the 1960s when US and Dominican troops crushed a pro-Bosch rebellion.
   • Over 3,000 were killed and countless others injured by US interventions in Cuba.
   • Hundreds were killed or injured when the US invaded Grenada in 1983.
   • Over 50,000 Somalians were killed between 1978 and 1990 by US-supported Siad Barre.
   • Up to 10,000 more Somalians were killed by US troops during America’s “humanitarian mission” in 1993.
   • In the US-supported Rwandan genocide, an estimated 800,000 people were killed in just 100 days in 1994.
   • Over 300,000 were killed and 80,000 were crippled in Angola from a US-supported civil war.
   • Tens of thousands were killed and up to 200,000 were tortured in Chad by Hissen Habre with US support during the 1980’s.
   • 1,500,000 were killed between 1980 and 1988 in southern Africa by the US-armed South Africa.
   The Defense Department Base Structure Report for fiscal 2009 reported 716 overseas military bases either owned or leased by the United States and 4,863 domestic and territorial military bases – that does not include the U.S. military bases in Iraq, Afghanistan, Qatar and all others that are secret. For the 2010 fiscal year, the final size of the Department of Defense’s budget was $693 billion, the Department of Homeland Security $53 billion and $80.1 billion was spent on intelligence gathering. The U.S. gives military aid to many countries in the world, the most goes to Israel, $2,775,000,000 in 2010, and next is Egypt, $1,300,000,000 in 2010.
   ***
   Deaths In Other Nations Since WW II Due To U.S. Interventions –
   http://www.countercurrents.org/lucas240407.htm
   Timeline of United States military operations – https://www.facebook.com/media/set/…
   500 Nations The Story of Indian Americans Part 1 – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Dr_Qqja4RY
   500 Nations The Story of Indian Americans Part 2 – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bn2YQCXrLsA
   “Between 1776 and 1887, the United States seized over 1.5 billion acres from America’s indigenous people by treaty and executive order. Explore how in this interactive map of every Native American land cession during that period.”To watch the United States expand across the continent, click the movie icon in the top right. Use the slider below to see how things changed year to year.Click on any area of the map to see who ceded the land and when. Popup boxes contain links to treaty text.Find your home or a different address by clicking the target icon at the top right.Use the “Highlight By Nation” box to find all cessions by the Cherokee, the Sioux, or any other people.Select source maps to see nineteenth-century maps of land cessions.

3. Kaye LeeJanuary 1, 2017 at 8:59 pm

   James,

   So am I to take from your very long demonisation of America that that automatically means Putin is a good guy whose only motivation is to make the world a better place?

4. Ella MillerJanuary 1, 2017 at 9:07 pm

   James Mason,
   perhaps if you researched the atrocities committed by the USSR as well as you researched the above,
   and if you have lived under the control of the USSR your views might be different.
   I am not defending the US because they meddled in my birth country during the time of the destabilisation of satellite countries of the USSR,
   BUT I would still rather be living in a country where you are not taken away and imprisoned for the above piece you have written

5. Keitha GranvilleJanuary 1, 2017 at 9:10 pm

   Shouldn’t the headline be TINTED LOVE ? they are both very fond of looking tanned. Sorry.

   It seems to me that it’s somewhere in the middle maybe of who is the worse tyrant. Shouldn’t the plan be that two large countries get along ? Of course both want to assert their dominance, they always have, but for the benefit of the planet common ground needs to be found. I have no great faith nor affection for Putin, probably even less for Trump, but they need to stop playing silly games and behaving like children.

   As for your list James, I reckon there is one just as long for Russia – but it’s of no help to anyone bringing up the past in an effort to put either side down.

6. silkwormJanuary 1, 2017 at 9:14 pm

   2016 – Russia beats US-backed rebels in Syria and liberates Aleppo. Yay!

7. RoswellJanuary 1, 2017 at 9:21 pm

   James Mason, that may indeed be factual but I don’t see the relevance to the article. It has about as much relevance as Germany invading Poland, the Maori Wars, or me stealing Mark Tomlinson’s toy train in Grade 1.

8. Kaye LeeJanuary 1, 2017 at 9:21 pm

   203,097 civilians killed in Syria from March 2011 to November 2016, the vast majority of them at the hands of Syrian regime forces. Yay?

9. Ella MillerJanuary 1, 2017 at 9:32 pm

   Keith…I agree …they are both peas in the same pod with ulterior motives.
   I guess from all of the above ..the take away message should be ,
   stay informed
   stay alert and active.

10. Niall McLarenJanuary 1, 2017 at 9:33 pm

    Kaye Lee:
    1. How can a list of facts amount to “demonisation”?
    2. If you conclude that listing 125 yrs of American aggression somehow implies Putin is without fault, you need to go back to Logic 101 and study the meaning of non sequitur. There is absolutely nothing in James Mason’s post that would justify you drawing that conclusion.

11. Kaye LeeJanuary 1, 2017 at 9:41 pm

    Putin and Trump both like the tough guy image. Both have said they want to increase and upgrade their nuclear arsenals. In the mean time, China are quietly implementing their plans. I don’t think we are anywhere near getting along.

12. Ella MillerJanuary 1, 2017 at 9:48 pm

    Kaye Lee,
    as usual you make a lot of sense.
    If we don’t learn to get along …. the cockroaches …not the meek ….shall inherit this Earth, because they will be the only thing to survive.

13. mark delmegeJanuary 1, 2017 at 10:05 pm

    more lies than truth in this article – its rubbish …actually its shameful.

14. Ella MillerJanuary 1, 2017 at 10:10 pm

    mark delmege,

    and ignorance is bliss ?

15. Matters NotJanuary 1, 2017 at 11:25 pm

    mark delmege

    more lies than truth in this article

    Perhaps. But is it because there’s not enough ‘facts’ – too many ‘facts’ – or not enough of the ‘right’ facts? Or what?

    Then there’s James Mason’s response. Again is there not enough ‘facts’ – too many ‘facts’ – not enough of the right ‘facts’? Or what?

    Seems to me there is (as always) an overabundance of facts (after all – facts are a dime a dozen – just ask any serious historian) and too little ‘analysis’ which is so much more difficult than just listing ‘facts’. Perhaps the citation of ‘facts’ is over rated?

    Perhaps we should be discussing why we select of some ‘facts’ and why we ignore others?

16. Michael TaylorJanuary 1, 2017 at 11:30 pm

    Mark, would you be so kind as to tell us which parts of the article are the truth and which parts are the lies?

17. JexpatJanuary 1, 2017 at 11:31 pm

    Well, that was a pathertic pile of garbage, worthy of the Murdoch press or the Washington Post.

    No womder the author chose not to sign it.

18. mark delmegeJanuary 1, 2017 at 11:36 pm

    No Michael I would be wasting my time. You didn’t even have the decency to put a disclaimer on it – like you did on mine. DYO(f)R.

19. JexpatJanuary 1, 2017 at 11:48 pm

    Michael:

    When a shotgun approach like this is taken, it’s impossible for any poster (without ar least several pages of effort) to refute.

    Indeed, the past two “points” alone could easily fill an entire page of refutation, referenced with credible sources.

20. Michael TaylorJanuary 1, 2017 at 11:50 pm

    What makes you think I posted this article? There are six people who publish under The AIM Network. This article wasn’t sent to me.

21. Michael TaylorJanuary 1, 2017 at 11:51 pm

    Sorry, seven.

22. Michael TaylorJanuary 1, 2017 at 11:54 pm

    All articles submitted through the ‘Contact Us’ eventually get to me, but if they are sent directly to other admin then I don’t see them until they are published.

23. John HermannJanuary 2, 2017 at 12:02 am

    Why is the name of the author of this article hidden? I would suggest that the words in the last paragraph “of what I just wrote” requires that the author’s name should be revealed.

24. Michael TaylorJanuary 2, 2017 at 12:05 am

    I found who wrote the article by reading the first paragraph. His name is in bold.

25. Michael TaylorJanuary 2, 2017 at 12:14 am

    I just worked out what DYO(f)R means. My, you’re an angry little fellow, aren’t you?

    If you want to make statements and are not prepared to back them up, then fine, I have the right not to believe you.

26. LOVOJanuary 2, 2017 at 12:19 am

    JH, it would seem that sanity has prevailed re: “His name is in bold”.
    Such a ‘standard ploy’ you have utilized there JH…..yawn. ?

27. Michael TaylorJanuary 2, 2017 at 12:21 am

    I’ll have to leave you with ’em, LOVO. Time I hit the sack. ‘Nite old buddy.

28. nurses1968January 2, 2017 at 12:27 am

    No author listen guess this article could qualify for “post-truth”

29. LOVOJanuary 2, 2017 at 12:29 am

    Night cobba, sleep well…and deep (and any noise ya may hear emanating from the cellar…is probably Bacchus ruminating on whether to open another bottle of blackberry nip…and not me..ok..no really), tru dat 😛
    *clink*

30. ZathrasJanuary 2, 2017 at 12:36 am

    Putin does what he thinks is in Russia’s best interests and Trump will do what he thinks is in America’s best interests – unless of course they have their own personal agendas.

    If so, it’s up the to governments of each nation to yank on their respective leashes. Neither has the power to act independently.
    They may have access to the dreaded “launch codes” but can’t just use them on a personal whim.

    So far Trump has been all talk and bluster and has already been rapidly back-peddling on many of the things he said he would do.
    I expect we will see much more of the same after his inauguration when he will start to deflect and blame others for what he doesn’t deliver.

    What’s more likely is that the scandal-magnet Trump will be impeached before the next election and Pence will become the next President (an even bigger loony extremist).

    The Republicans simply won’t allow Trump to “trash their brand” – much like Abbott has done for the Liberals here. I think they are very nervous for their own political future and will keep him under tight control.

    I fail to see any reason why Putin would prefer to have Trump as President except for the global instability that may result and open up new opportunities for Russia.

    Otherwise it’s all just noise and blame-shifting.

    Putin is probably personally delighted at all the unwarranted attention.

    There are also many incorrect and misleading statements in the article.

31. HarquebusJanuary 2, 2017 at 12:43 am

    On that first point.

    “SEAN HANNITY: So let me be clear: Russia did not give you the Podesta documents or anything from the DNC.
    ASSANGE: Correct.”
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/12/15/wikileaks_julian_assange_russian_government_was_not_source_for_podesta_dnc_emails.html

    “Ex-British ambassador who is now a WikiLeaks operative claims Russia did NOT provide Clinton emails – they were handed over to him at a D.C. park by an intermediary for ‘disgusted’ Democratic whistleblowers”
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4034038/Ex-British-ambassador-WikiLeaks-operative-claims-Russia-did-NOT-provide-Clinton-emails-handed-D-C-park-intermediary-disgusted-Democratic-insiders.html

    http://www.realprogressivesusa.com/news/community/2016-12-14-russian-attacks-on-john-podesta-dnc-leaks-are-fake-1

    One for the home side.

    “It is well known that the Russian government operates troll farms where hundreds are employed by the Saint Petersburg-based “Internet Research Agency” to leave pro-Putin comments on foreign websites using multiple user names — with a quota of 135 comments per 12 hour shift, according to a former employee.”
    https://warisboring.com/how-putins-fake-news-machine-spread-from-ukraine-across-the-globe-99076753919

    Cheers.

32. wamJanuary 2, 2017 at 12:53 am

    well I loved it for showing truth is as truth says and it may be a lie now and true later or vice versa, But whatever, the scribe is just a pro-trump republican hack,

33. John LordJanuary 2, 2017 at 6:34 am

    WAM. I have known the author for a number of years. He is about as pro Republican as the Clintons.

    And the authors name is at the top of the piece for all those who seem to have the capacity to read with their eyes closed.

34. jamesoneill44January 2, 2017 at 8:05 am

    There are a large numbers of errors of fact in the article which of itself would be enough to put it to one side. Then there are dubious assertions based on those factual errors which again renders them worse than useless. It is one thing to reach different conclusions about the same set of facts. It is quite another thing to do what the author has done here. I am afraid that many of the comments fall into the same trap. Kaye Lee at 9.20pm is an example. Not a good start to the New Year, AIM.

35. corvus boreusJanuary 2, 2017 at 8:45 am

    Some shits and giggles for a rainy Monday morn;
    A complete history of the Soviet Union through the eyes of a humble worker (arranged to the melody of Tetris).
    

36. Michael TaylorJanuary 2, 2017 at 8:56 am

    Got me beat, John, how so many people couldn’t see who wrote the article.

    I’m with wam. I too found it entertaining.

37. Kaye LeeJanuary 2, 2017 at 9:08 am

    “1. How can a list of facts amount to “demonisation”?”

    “Don’t take your eyes off the big picture .. America is the global bully ”

    demonisation – “characterisation of individuals, groups, or political bodies as evil”

    Seems appropriate to me.

    “2. If you conclude that listing 125 yrs of American aggression somehow implies Putin is without fault, you need to go back to Logic 101 and study the meaning of non sequitur. There is absolutely nothing in James Mason’s post that would justify you drawing that conclusion.”

    Exactly my point. James’ long list of American intervention has nothing to do with the article which is about the changing attitudes of Republicans towards Putin. His whole comment was a non-sequiter There are many people who respond to any criticism of Putin with a list of American intervention. Why?

    “I am afraid that many of the comments fall into the same trap. Kaye Lee at 9.20pm is an example.”

    I would be extremely happy to be wrong about the huge number of civilian deaths in Syria. Perhaps you could point me towards a credible source that shows me that this isn’t the case.

38. Michael TaylorJanuary 2, 2017 at 9:40 am

    I find it amusing, Kaye, that people scream that there’s some untruths in the article (which they are entitled to do), but they then turn around and start throwing assumptions at us.

    How much did they read though if they couldn’t even see the author’s name?

39. Kaye LeeJanuary 2, 2017 at 10:10 am

    It seems any mention of Putin at all will immediately get the same response – America is evil. Putin seems to get a free ride for some reason. Questions about freedom of the press are ignored. Our press is free to criticise the government. That is not the case elsewhere but, for some reason, we are supposed to believe the official versions from the Russian state-owned media or from the highly controlled Syrian media.

40. mark delmegeJanuary 2, 2017 at 10:15 am

    thats the sort of comment we have come to expect from you KL. Dishonest and ignorant.

41. Kaye LeeJanuary 2, 2017 at 10:26 am

    And that is the sort of comment I expect from you mark. Totally devoid of anything except disparagement. Who is “we” btw? Are you speaking for a group I should know about?

42. nurses1968January 2, 2017 at 10:48 am

    seems a cheap shot
    “we” is often used to describe the general public

43. Kaye LeeJanuary 2, 2017 at 10:53 am

    And mark speaks for “the general public” who find me “dishonest and ignorant”? Thanks nurses. So sorry for my “cheap shot”. Please carry on with your honest informed appraisal.

44. RoswellJanuary 2, 2017 at 11:13 am

    I’m not a part of Mark’s or Nurse’s ‘general public’. I much prefer Kaye Lee’s world. It’s much more logical.

45. Jennifer Meyer-SmithJanuary 2, 2017 at 11:20 am

    Mark Delmege,

    until recently, I thought you were what some people would impolitely call a RWNJ because you often seem to take an opposing view to anyone who is attempting to voice a liberal, balanced view. Your attacks on such attempts actually backfire on you because you end up appearing to be the authoritarian whom I presume you would accuse the intelligence agencies, such as CIA, AFP and KGB of being.

    Kaye Lee is asking a perfectly sound set of questions about Putin and his modus operandi when we consider their state-owned MSM is at least as bad as our Murdoch dominated private media.

46. nurses1968January 2, 2017 at 11:22 am

    Are you speaking for a group I should know about?
    I guess that goes for the learnenglish britishcouncil too as they seen do use “we” without disclosing “a group I should know about?”
    The grammatical form you are using is not correct as we would not mix ‘will’ and ‘would’ in this way, but I don’t …

    Pronouns are words we use in the place of a full noun

    We don’t use ‘Shall’ very frequently in modern English, particularly in American English.

    https://learnenglish.britishcouncil.org/

    Roswell
    Of course you would 😀

47. James O'NeillJanuary 2, 2017 at 11:35 am

    Kaye Lee: “203,097 civilians killed in Syria from March 2011 to November 2016, the vast majority of them at the hands of Syrian regime forces. ” Your demand for a source to dispute your figure is ironic given your claim that the “vast majority” of the deaths were at the hands of the Syrian “regime”. It is in fact the legitimate sovereign government of Syria. It is a ‘regime’ in the same way that there is a Turnbull regime in Australia.
    The fact of the matter is that there are no reliable sources for the civilian death toll, much less a reliable source to whom those deaths can be attributed. You overlook the fact that since 2011 US, Saudi, Israeli, Qatar and Turkish backed terrorists have waged a war on Syria. They have taken over cities, towns and parts of cities and held them, in some cases, for years (as with Eastern Aleppo). The civilians there have been the victims of both sides, but there would have been no deaths were it not for the terrorist invasion and occupation.
    So when you are attributing deaths, don’t just tell part of the story.

48. Michael TaylorJanuary 2, 2017 at 11:49 am

    When Kaye or Jennifer say ‘we’ in regards to this article I’m happy to accept that they’re speaking for most of the people who comment on this site.

49. Douglas PyeJanuary 2, 2017 at 11:52 am

    The ‘comments’ section appears to occupy more space than the original article – and, is as interesting to me.

    At my (venerable) age and stage the following comes to mind :

    All the world’s a stage,
    And all the men and women merely players: They have their exits and their entrances;
    And one man in his time plays many parts …..

    One tends to ponder upon a variety of matters, and, without rambling on, suffice to remark about the emergence of ….. ‘ Virtual reality ‘ ….. ‘ post-truth ‘ ….. and … ‘ integrity ‘ ….. were these factors in play at current levels when I was growing up as a child of the 1930’s Great Depression , and as a youth in the 1940’s ??

50. nurses1968January 2, 2017 at 11:59 am

    so if mark delmege says “we” we are to put a different interpretation on it are we?
    So your ruling is “we” is now to be interpreted as “most of the people who comment on this site.”If it comes from Kaye Lee or Jennifer, but you never specified what “we” means if written by Mark Delmege
    Just asking so I can follow the rules as we would never want to get it wrong
    I did it again “we would never” should read some people not in agreement with Kaye Lee,Jennifer or Michaels interpretation of
    “we”

51. RoswellJanuary 2, 2017 at 12:00 pm

    Kaye Lee, you also overlooked the fact that shootings happen in Brazil every year.

    If James O’Neill can add anything he wants to your statement (which you said you were happy to be proven wrong – something James clearly overlooked), then so can I.

52. RoswellJanuary 2, 2017 at 12:01 pm

    Nurse, you forgot to add me in we.

53. Michael TaylorJanuary 2, 2017 at 12:06 pm

    Nurses1968, if you want to be real technical about it, the ‘we’ here could only be used by the site owners. But like I said, I’m happy to be included in the ‘we’ by most people here. Most people here know my political leaning.

54. Kaye LeeJanuary 2, 2017 at 12:10 pm

    James, the word regime does not necessarily imply illegitimacy. To me it implies a degree of authoritarianism, a point you could dispute re Assad I suppose.

    I agree it would be difficult to accurately count and attribute civilian casualties but there are so many sources that we know the number is horrendous. SOHR provide pretty detailed breakdowns.

    “About 450 thousand were killed and more than two millions were injured in 69 months of the start of the Syrian revolution”
    http://www.syriahr.com/en/?p=56923

    “More than 3100 killed in December 2016”

    http://www.syriahr.com/en/?p=58187

    I don’t demand anything at all James. You can share where you get your information or not.

    PS I am sorry I brought up the “we” thing but it is somewhat offputting to be told that “we” regard you as ignorant and dishonest with no further explanation. Please forget my overreaction. I should have ignored the comment.

55. Michael TaylorJanuary 2, 2017 at 12:11 pm

    Douglas, there’s been a problem with your comments getting through. I think I’ve fixed it, so hopefully it won’t happen again.

56. ozibodyJanuary 2, 2017 at 12:26 pm

    Thank you Michael … I appreciate your courtesy … have been scratching my head for a couple of days … 😉 ….

57. Michael TaylorJanuary 2, 2017 at 12:29 pm

    Douglas, it’s still happening so I’ve done a few more tweaks. Try again now.

58. Michael TaylorJanuary 2, 2017 at 12:38 pm

    It definitely WILL work now, Douglas. Give it another try now, if you wouldn’t mind.

59. guestJanuary 2, 2017 at 12:50 pm

    I love the bit here enacted around midnight, Jan 1.

    Michael Taylor asks Mark Delmege to say which parts of the article are the truth and which parts are the lies.

    Jexpat chips in and describes the article as ‘a pile of garbage’. No wonder, Jexpat says, the author did not sign his name.

    Mark Delmege replies that indicating truth and lies would be waste of time. He goes on to reveal he is piqued because the article did not carry an editorial disclaimer, whereas his own article did at some other time.

    What all this reveals to me is that critics often make disparaging comments but are unwilling to give valid evidence ( not even one) and are often driven by some personal grudge when they criticise.

    Furthermore, some critics reveal the poverty of their reading by not even seeing the name of the author printed in bold.

    It reveals a great deal about the level of debate in this country.

60. Florence nee FedupJanuary 2, 2017 at 1:23 pm

    We seemed to have moved from what has to be concern to all, no matter their view of history. That is Trump’s attempted love affair with Putin. A love I suspect is not supported by many Republicans.

    Trump has gone further, saying Putin is entitled to the Ukraine and Crimea.

    Bizarre to say the least.

61. JexpatJanuary 2, 2017 at 1:44 pm

    That’s right guest, it’s a pile a garbage- wherein (as other have also noted) there are so many false statements, distortions, bare unreferenced assertions and phony implications that it would require pages to properly debunk. The latter in itself is a form of dishonest behaviour. As to the author, passing along a spew from “some dude in Alabama” doesn’t tell us who at the AIM network thought this was ‘newsworthy” or that republishing it was a good idea.

    This is similar to the re-tweeting of false stories (as just happened yesterday with the Washington Post piece that “falsely cliamed that Russians hackers penetrated the US electric grid.”. The re-tweeter and affirmer is every bit as repsonsible for the dissemination of false information or phony polemic as the originator(s).

    See, e.g. The Guardian’s Summary of Julian Assange’s Interview Went Viral and Was Completely False”

    Since there’s been some digression into the topic of Syria, some may recall the momentary outrage ginned up by mainstream media in the 2011 run up to the disastrous Syrian war by Amina Abdallah Arraf al Omari, “A Gay Girl in Damascus.” This one was shortly discovered to be a hoax, but the media was replete with dubious stories and commentary egging on anger and war.

    I recall looking at the factional and ethnographic landscape at the time and thinking: “this is going to be the mother of all dog’s breakfasts,” a thought echoed by Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov who noted at the time that destabilizing Syria would have repercussions far beyond its borders…

    Obviously, Lavrov had his own interests in mind- but his geopolitical asessment was prescient. Yet the Western press largely ignored these warnings and carried on with the drumbeats- which is why some are here right now, in 2017 quibbling over who’s responsible for how much of the body count.

    Frankly, I would have thought that by now most folks have grown weary of the Déjà vu

62. Ella MillerJanuary 2, 2017 at 2:10 pm

    This conversation has turned on its’ head.

    James Mason;
    I am very confused “A short list of US “interventions’, 1956 Hungary(Hegedus;communist): success.(CO)

    From my memory and reading “The Hungarian Revolution 1956” by E.A.Schmidl & Laszlo Ritter
    If there was US intervention, and, I think there was it was, via the “Free Europe” radio…which constantly encouraged the nation to shake off its Russian yoke promising Western help..which of course never came. It was illegal to listen to this broadcast coming out of West Germany
    and you could be imprisoned for doing so.

    From my reading Hegedus was an academic and a member of the Communist Party.

    He served as PM 18/4/55 to 24/10/1956
    On the 24th of October 1956 He signed documents requesting that the Soviet troops help to put down the revolution.As a result he became the most hated man in Hungary. On the advice of the Soviet ambassador he was advised to leave, and he fled to the Soviet Union, in October 1956.
    For the life of me I can’t see what the US had to do with his flight to the Soviet Union .
    Perhaps you could enlighten me.

63. John LordJanuary 2, 2017 at 2:31 pm

    NURSES 1968

    ‘Good grammar is vitality important but is secondary to the expression of a valid well-constructed point of view’

64. Robert G. ShawJanuary 2, 2017 at 2:31 pm

    James, that is indeed an immense list of unfathomable suffering.
    Why you think that list should absolve Putin, or anyone else for that matter, of their own crimes, is beyond me.
    Perhaps it’s beyond you also, unless your obituary has some other intent.
    Yes, I have read Niall’s non sequitur post, but remain unconvinced by its rationale – it doesn’t remove Kaye Lee’s (or my) question does it?
    To suggest that your post isn’t an attempt to scorecard quantities of brutality defies credulity.
    Unless your obituary has some other intent?

    Also, your refusal to acknowledge, let alone given a few sentences to the oceans of blood poured by the Soviets and the Chinese last century, tells me that your post is a simple partisan game of selective bookkeeping and is of little worth to this conversation.

    By the way, could you please explain to me how and why the US election of 2000 made the list?

65. jamesoneill44January 2, 2017 at 2:55 pm

    Kaye, it is most unwise to rely on the SOHR. This is a one man operation run out of a living room in Coventry. It is a major outlet for MI6 disinformation.

66. JexpatJanuary 2, 2017 at 3:05 pm

    Ella Miller wrote: “BUT I would still rather be living in a country where you are not taken away and imprisoned for the above piece you have written.”

    Then you surely wouldn’t have wanted to be living in any of the US’s “client states” in Central America over the past 60+ years… as you may well have simply disappeared: after having been tortured and raped.

    The point of this line of discussion, at least from my perspective, is not to excuse or defend similar behavior and policies on the part of the former Soviet Union or even present day Russia- but merely to draw attention to the effervescent hypocrisy that pervades the vast majority of the western media -both at present, and historically.

67. Kaye LeeJanuary 2, 2017 at 3:06 pm

    james, I can accept that. I don’t see how anyone can be that accurate. But there are countless sources – I gave it as one example. I don’t think anyone can deny that hundreds of thousands have been killed, many of them by Syrian government forces. No doubt the US have backed some groups as have Russia. Both countries are also indiscriminate in their arms export sales.

    I still think that Assad’s reaction to early protests was extreme and contributed to the escalation. Torturing children for anti-government graffiti is gonna piss people off.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2315888/Revealed-The-boy-prankster-triggered-Syrias-bloody-genocide-slogans-sprayed-schoolyard.html

68. Kaye LeeJanuary 2, 2017 at 3:18 pm

    Jexpat,

    I have not read one single person who has disagreed with the damage caused by US intervention. Some recognition of fault by the other side seems completely lacking. There is also no acknowledgement of the lack of press freedom in Russia, Syria and Iran. As I have said before, when only one side allows dissent, the other side can take full advantage. No-one is arguing about the US (though I find many things in James’ list questionable without further explanation), but to paint the US as the only evil wrongdoer and Putin and Assad as victims is just not believable.

69. Robert G. ShawJanuary 2, 2017 at 3:29 pm

    @Jexpat,
    I think you may have forgotten a few lines in your otherwise excellent post.
    Here, let me see if I can fix it,

    “Then you surely wouldn’t have wanted to be living in any of the US’s “client states” – OR any of the Soviet client states…..

    “effervescent hypocrisy that pervades the vast majority of the western media AND the Russian media -both at present, and historically.

    How’s that?
    🙂

    @Kaye Lee,
    and nor is it accurate.

70. JexpatJanuary 2, 2017 at 3:38 pm

    Kaye Lee:

    Conisdering the state of nearly all of the Australian media, as well as its governments’ efforts to hide and hinder the disclosure of information, the use of blanket prior restraints via gag orders punishable by gaol under criminal law, along with remarkably broad and puntive defamation laws that don’t even require an allegation of falsehood in the case in chief…. crowing about ‘press freedom’ -or the lack thereof, seems a bit rich from this vantage, don’t you think?

    And let’s not even get started on prevailing situation in the US over the past two decades.

71. James MasonJanuary 2, 2017 at 3:39 pm

    Alas .. re; many articles that have ‘taken their eyes off the bigger picture’ .. (seems to me a lot of people just want to vent their spleen about anything they like nowadays .. that’s a good thing in a democracy isn’t it) .. all these discussions about “what Russia did” “absolving Putin” “semantics” of what you thought I was referring to” are irrelevant .. My POINT IS and I say again, you have ‘Taken your eyes off the bigger picture’ which is what they want you to do .. Forget all about the slander slanging games they play and concentrate on the REAL issues that affect you and me .. Don’t play THEIR game ..
    We have the best tool in the world right now to use to make the world a better place for all of us .. let’s use it wisely .. please..

72. Ella MillerJanuary 2, 2017 at 3:41 pm

    Jexpat,
    With respect,
    I was born in such a country, and lived in such a country.

    The priest for our village was walked off by 2 secret police and disappeared , no one dared to ask what happened to him…for fear they would be next.
    My father was taken away by the secret service several times because he was a political activist…we did not know if or when he would come home.

    The point I have been trying to make (probably not very well) is;

    that we should not take at face value politically expedient act like…not retaliating for the expulsion of Russian diplomats from the US

    that man’s inhumanity to man knows no bounds…hence I did not attempt in any way to defend Trump or the US

    I think I said that Trump and Putin were peas from the same pod..each with their own ulterior motives.

73. Kaye LeeJanuary 2, 2017 at 4:02 pm

    “crowing about ‘press freedom’ -or the lack thereof, seems a bit rich from this vantage, don’t you think?”

    Can you name a journalist that has been jailed in Australia? Oh hang on….there was Senator Hinch for contempt of court but he could hardly be called a journalist. Any been killed or exiled?

    I agree the government is doing their best to stop freedom of information and to gag advocacy but to compare it to the countries I mentioned is disingenuous.

    “My POINT IS and I say again, you have ‘Taken your eyes off the bigger picture’ which is what they want you to do .. Forget all about the slander slanging games they play and concentrate on the REAL issues that affect you and me .. Don’t play THEIR game ..”

    I play no-one’s game, including yours. There isn’t one “bigger picture”. There are multitudinous pictures.

74. JexpatJanuary 2, 2017 at 4:28 pm

    Ella Miller:

    I an fortunate in that I have not lived in such a country, and let me assure you that I have no illusions whatsoever about Putin or about Trump, who I’ve been familar with for decades before he was ever on most Australians’ radar screens.

    However, in my years in California and Oregon, I knew more than a few people who have, including a woman who have fled from US sanctioned violence in El Salvador when she was a girl of 13. Her entire family had been murdered, except for an aunt who escaped with her. My father quite illegally assisted both of them, and down the track, ensured that when a legal amnesty became available, they received it.

    Lest anyone think that is merely a dark stain on American history, realise it’s still going on:

    Mothers Incarcerated With Their Children in Obama’s Disgraceful Family Prisons Want Freedom for the Holidays.

    Hillary must answer for Honduras: Another assassination raises more questions about her involvement in coup

75. Robert G. ShawJanuary 2, 2017 at 4:38 pm

    Is there, or has there ever been, a more condescending accusation than “you’ve taken your eyes off the bigger picture”, or that you’re, in emphatic capitals no less, “play[ing] THEIR game”?
    Seriously? Name one if you know it.

    OK James, I’ll play along – tell me, as clear and succinctly as possible, what that “big picture” is.
    What is it that I’m, that we’re, missing? What is it that you have privileged knowledge of that the rest of us simpletons cowering under this large rock are oblivious to?
    Share it James, share it loud and share it proud!

    Alas?
    You had better believe it!

    @Ella, thank you for your all too brief account. Sometimes I get the feeling that many commenting here have no history outside these safe shores, or that many here have not travelled and seen things that they’ve never repeated to any living soul.

    Yes, we live in the single best country on this planet. That’s my challenge to one and all.

    Again, thanks.

76. JexpatJanuary 2, 2017 at 4:45 pm

    Kaye Lee wrote: “Can you name a journalist that has been jailed in Australia?”

    Give it time.

    Journalists will face jail over spy leaks under new security laws
    George Brandis’s new spying laws will include measure to criminalise media reporting of Snowden-style leaks

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/16/journalists-face-jail-leaks-security-laws

    Then of course there are, as you alluded to, the contempt cases, like this one: http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2007/s1961451.htm

    These could be remedied by broad state level shield legislation but at present, you can be prosecuted for refusing to reveal sources- who the government also wants to punish.

77. Kaye LeeJanuary 2, 2017 at 4:52 pm

    The personal experiences of both Ella and Jexpat show how there are many sides to all this. What is apparent is that there is state-sanctioned violence all over the world by basically every government, some domestic, some interventionist.

    If I was looking for a simplistic “bigger picture”, I would look at the profits made by arms manufacturers and governments exporting their death machines around the world.

78. Kaye LeeJanuary 2, 2017 at 4:55 pm

    Gina Rinehart just lost a case suing a journalist for refusing to reveal their sources.

    And I think George Brandis is a spent force. He used to talk big but I can guarantee he wouldn’t bring that sort of controversy to the government right now.

79. JexpatJanuary 2, 2017 at 6:11 pm

    Robert wrote: “How’s that?
    ?”

    Ah, you picked up on the juxtapositional language use. While seemingly oblique, it was central to the point. The hypocrisy of late is effevescent. Writers will carry on bubblingly about things they decry in others that they themselves, or their parties or their nations do. Or ironically, are in very process of doing, almost reflexively while they’re penning their pieces. Sadly, as I’ve noted before, 2016 has seen this contagion spread.

    Matt Taibbi considers (treading carefully) some of that angle here: Something About This Russia Story Stinks

    Kaye Lee: If you’re talking about the Hancock Prospecting case, you’re missing the chilling effect that having to pony up for the costs of defending a suit agaisnt an loigarch (whether via insurance or out of pocket) AND the chance pf losing PLUS costs has on ‘press freedom.’

    Conversely, we have the “meet the NEETS” case, whereby ordinary young girls defamed cannot afford the price of basic civil justice against the state sanctioned Murdoch conglomerate who has smeared their names.

80. ZathrasJanuary 2, 2017 at 8:25 pm

    Ironic that the Americans – who created and used the worlds worst cyber-terrorism weapon (Stuxnet) for the purpose of destroying Iran’s uranium centrifuges and unwittingly released it to the world for all to use, are now bleating about everybody signing up to a cyber-warfare non-proliferation treaty.

    Here’s some trivia about technology and politics –
    Hillary Clinton used a Blackberry for her emails because she can’t work a desktop computer.
    Neither could Bill Clinton.
    Neither can Donald Trump – who uses twitter exclusively but never sends emails.

    The US Strategic Defence system runs on very old technology – such as floppy discs. They are too scared to update it because they know the current system works but an updated one might not.

    So much for faith in technology.
    So much for tech-savvy politicians.

    If the Russians have a dedicated team of cyber-warriors and hackers, you can be sure that the Americans do too and that they would be better funded and better equipped. The NSA did a fine job hacking Anglea Merkel’s emails a while ago.

81. Jennifer Meyer-SmithJanuary 2, 2017 at 8:52 pm

    So that means, Zathras,

    strange, peculiar, ironical circles within tainted circles.

    Probably always the case where the power crazy win power and then don’t know what to do with it! :(((

82. Robert G. ShawJanuary 3, 2017 at 6:10 am

    @James O’Neill,

    http://sn4hr.org/wp-content/pdf/english/six_main_Actors_that_kill_civilians_in_Syria_2016_en.pdf

    If you want to argue these numbers, and I would certainly encourage you to do so, then please provide sources and/or references.
    Any response from you containing the terms ‘MSN’, ‘US imperial lapdog’, neoliberal mouthpiece’, CIA, ‘covert agency’, or ’You’re not seeing the big picture’ will be as roundly lampooned, by me, as was Putin’s letter to the NYT from a few years ago. And let me tell you, I’m still laughing at that one.

    @Jexpat,
    thanks for the link. You know, I never found the Russian hack story convincing. When I first saw it unfurled, and the manner of its presentation for the tin foil brigade at Clinton’s loss, my initial trepidation seemed justified. It seemed to me that in their frantic, misguided, and comic attempts to look for reasons for the loss, they joyously stumbled upon an kernel of conspiracy that they quickly propagated into an entire Iowan cornfield.
    Obama’s expulsion response the other day, again, and among other things, only served to confirm that belief.
    But who can tell? The world is a strange place. Why just the other day I found a pair of favoured argyle socks I had presumed lost. So yes, anything’s possible.

83. Kaye LeeJanuary 3, 2017 at 6:26 am

    It also occurred to me….

    James was able to produce a very long and detailed list of US intervention, even to the degree of labelling them overt force (OF), covert operation (CO), or subverted election (SE). It would be interesting to know the source of the information.

    Do you think similar information would be available about Russian intervention? Does the lack of information mean that they don’t interfere or just that they do not allow anyone to report on what they actually do?

84. jamesoneill44January 3, 2017 at 8:21 am

    Kaye, your two options are not exhaustive, and the way it is posed exposes your bias. Of course Russia seeks to influence elections, but since the demise of the USSR that has been greatly reduced. Even in the days of the USSR there was never interference on the scale detailed in James’ list. I suggest you also read William Blum’s books on the topic.
    It may come as a shock to you, but Russian media is freer and more diverse than either the US or Australia where ownership is heavily concentrated and in the case of the US also owned by the major arms manufacturers. You should read The Saker’s website, listen to Stephen Cohen’s weekly broadcasts and also read Gilbert Doctorow for a more balanced view of modern Russia.

85. Kaye LeeJanuary 3, 2017 at 8:57 am

    “It may come as a shock to you, but Russian media is freer and more diverse than either the US or Australia”

    Yes that would come as a shock to me.

    Reporters without borders ranks Russia 148 out of 180

    What with draconian laws and website blocking, the pressure on independent media has grown steadily since Vladimir Putin’s return to the Kremlin in 2012. Leading independent news outlets have either been brought under control or throttled out of existence. While TV channels continue to inundate viewers with propaganda, the climate has become very oppressive for those who question the new patriotic and neo-conservative discourse or just try to maintain quality journalism. The leading human rights NGOs have been declared “foreign agents.”

    https://rsf.org/en/russia

    Freedom House gives them a score of 83/100 (0 being best, 100 being worst)

    The nationalistic tone of the dominant Russian media continued to drown out independent and critical journalism in 2015, stressing patriotic themes associated with Russia’s 2014 military incursions into Ukraine and the launch of air strikes in Syria in September 2015. Russian leaders and progovernment media outlets also sought to mobilize public support and suppress any dissent in the face of an economic downturn linked to falling oil prices and Ukraine-related sanctions. Deterrents to independent reporting and commentary included draconian laws and extralegal intimidation. Although no journalists were killed in connection with their work in 2015, the persistent threat of deadly repercussions for expressions of dissent was reinforced in February, when opposition leader Boris Nemtsov was assassinated in central Moscow.

    https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-press/2016/russia

    Amnesty International

    Media freedom remained severely restricted, through direct state control and self-censorship. The editorial policy of most media outlets faithfully reproduced official views on key domestic and international events.

    The authorities extended their control over the internet. Thousands of websites and pages were blocked by internet providers on orders from the media regulator Roskomnadzor. Those targeted in violation of the right to freedom of expression included political satire, information shared by lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) activists, information on public protests and religious texts. A growing, but still small, number of individuals faced criminal prosecution for online postings, usually on charges under anti-extremism legislation

    https://www.amnesty.org/en/countries/europe-and-central-asia/russian-federation/report-russian-federation/%5D

    I wonder if you could provide me with a link to a Russian news outlet that is critical of Putin’s actions in the Ukraine and Syria or a Russian news outlet that is actively campaigning for equal rights for the LGBTI community.

86. Michael TaylorJanuary 3, 2017 at 9:55 am

    in the case of the US also owned by the major arms manufacturers

    This comes as a surprise to me.

    I don’t have the time to Google for an answer. Perhaps you could provide some details, James.

87. Kaye LeeJanuary 3, 2017 at 10:06 am

    According to Forbes….

    These 15 Billionaires Own America’s News Media Companies

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/katevinton/2016/06/01/these-15-billionaires-own-americas-news-media-companies/#82ca5a530b4b

    No arms manufacturers at first glance

    An article from 2012 (so not as up to date) lists 6 corporations as owning 90% of the media in America

    Newscorp, Disney, Viacom, Time Warner, CBS and Comcast (taking over from GE)

    http://www.businessinsider.com.au/these-6-corporations-control-90-of-the-media-in-america-2012-6

88. Robert G. ShawJanuary 3, 2017 at 10:46 am

    @jamesoneill44,

    It’s ludicrous to suggest that those sources you mentioned are “more balanced”.

    And I’m not even going to touch your “but Russian media is freer and more diverse than either the US or Australia”.

    I’d also like to ask for sources for your claim “[US media] ownership is heavily concentrated and in the case of the US also owned by the major arms manufacturers” but see that Kaye and Michael have beat me to it.

    I look forward to your links.

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/10/10/putin-s-new-american-fan-club.html

89. Kaye LeeJanuary 3, 2017 at 11:05 am

    Would that be this Stephen Cohen that I am supposed to trust for an independent objective view?

    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/foreigners/2014/07/stephen_cohen_vladimir_putin_s_apologist_the_nation_just_published_the_most.html

    During the last couple of days we’ve been learning a few things about one Gilbert Doctorow, who, together with fellow Putin apologist Stephen F. Cohen, and with the backing of Cohen’s wife, Katrina vanden Heuvel, and her deep-pockets family, has founded something called the American Committee for East-West Accord (ACEWA). Perusing a few of Doctorow’s recent commentaries, we’ve recognized the truth of Cathy Young’s statement, in an illuminating Daily Beast piece about the ACEWA, that Doctorow is even “more pro-Kremlin” than Cohen.”

    https://usefulstooges.com/tag/gilbert-doctorow/

    Could I suggest your recommended reading/listening “exposes your bias”. 😉

90. Michael TaylorJanuary 3, 2017 at 11:08 am

    For your info, James, a little bit of info about the Russian media:

    There is an old Soviet joke. “Pravda” is the Russian word for “truth” and there is was also a newspaper in Soviet times called Izvestiya which is the Russian word for “information.” The joke was: “There is no truth in Izvestiya and there is no information in Pravda.” These publications were instruments of the Soviet state, reporting lies and propaganda to the people of the country so they could be better controlled and managed, like sheep.

    There is No Truth in Pravda

91. ZathrasJanuary 3, 2017 at 11:30 am

    Michael Taylor,

    Here’s another (very) old Soviet joke – they have a bittersweet but perceptive sense of humour.

    Lenin, Stalin and Khrushchev were on a train together, travelling to some big event.

    After an hour or so the train wasn’t moving so Lenin said “I’m the father of Modern Russia, I’ll go and give the railway workers a four hour speech about why the train must be moving.”

    A couple of hours after Lenin returned, the train still hadn’t moved, so Stalin quietly got up and left the carriage.

    He came back a while later and said “I had the Railways purged and replaced the workers with ones who will know how to make the train move”.

    Hours passed, so Khrushchev got up, pulled down the blind and said “The train is now moving”.

    It says a lot about our economy too and how politics works generally.

    Next time Scott Morrison starts talking, remember this joke.

92. michael laceyJanuary 3, 2017 at 2:29 pm

    Totally correct James Mason 60’s crap all over again let’s demonise Russia!
    They have lost the media war especially over Syria with repetitive lies and fake news reports and was is actually going on on the ground is never reported adequately by western media! Russian hacking has been a joke especially the most recent one of the power company by the Washington Post which had to be changed because it was wrong! They lied about the war on Iraq and the Western media thought that was OK!! They never talk about the massacre in Yemen but are quite happy to talk about moderate terrorists!!
    A great post!

93. Kaye LeeJanuary 3, 2017 at 5:23 pm

    Why does Yemen always get brought up? Are you angry with the US for selling the Saudis arms? Because you are going to have to get angry with Russia too. And China. And Canada. And every other arms exporting country ALL of whom sell arms to the Saudis.

    You guys are completely missing the point here. It isn’t others demonising Russia – it is your absolute refusal to admit that they too are guilty of exactly what you rail against by the US. You say the Western press demonises Russia but will not in any way concede that the Russian press indulges in propaganda. You say the US interferes in the politics of other countries but won’t concede that Russia does.

    Poor little victimised Russia? Give me a break! Show some honesty. Unless you are willing to look at both sides of the story then I will regard what you write as one-sided propaganda

94. Ben WilliamsonJanuary 5, 2017 at 9:43 am

    Author here. I’m seeing a lot of typical right-wing BS where you folks say what I wrote is false, yet give no examples of what is false. Maybe it’s just me, but when I contradict someone, I actually tell them what I’m contradicting. I’m curious about something. Why do you even type? I mean, just do what Trump does when he makes a baseless denial that has absolutely nothing to back it up, and just say “WRONG!” You’ll look just as pitiful either way, so why waste words?

95. RoswellJanuary 5, 2017 at 10:01 am

    Ben, we’ve been trying to tell them that. They’re a lost cause.

96. mark delmegeJanuary 5, 2017 at 1:00 pm

    Its not right wing BS Ben. Its just bullshit. … so why waste words.

97. Michael TaylorJanuary 5, 2017 at 1:15 pm

    Again, Mark, prove it.

98. mark delmegeJanuary 5, 2017 at 1:36 pm

    Ben you start with a slur and end with a lie.