Salon: We are the propagandists: The real story about how The New York Times and the White House

[jeff47]

19. Because you have to personally meet them before noticing the anti-Russia bombings.

I am not here to argue what I don't know.

One of the main points of coming here is to find out what you don't know, and then learning about it.

Also, your unwillingness to challenge what you do not know means we can safely ignore any of your analysis. Because it is woefully uninformed, and you are not willing to learn about "ancient history" less than a decade old.

But I *do* know Ukraine and that the bullshit that people have been fed is just that.

No, you don't know that. You started with the conclusion that it was bullshit, and stopped when the evidence no longer supported that.

Your claim is, fundamentally, that Russia is not expansionist and Crimeans have the right to leave Ukraine. Why does Chechnya not have the same right? If Russia is not expansionist, why did they invade Georgia?

I know that the party that took power were minority parties, who disenfranchised the country, persecuted the other party members, hunting and even killing some of them

And when Russia did that to Chechnya?

So are you basically saying that the Salon writer does no know what they are talking about or are lovers of Putin?

I'm saying the Salon writer started with a story he wanted to tell - Russia is not expansionist and NATO is bad. He then wrote a story about it without bothering to do more than the most shallow analysis. He doesn't even bother to provide any evidence that NATO's claims are wrong. He just asserts NATO must be lying. He couldn't even bother to claim satellite photos showing Russian artillery bombarding Ukraine from Russia are fake based on a moronic pretext like "they aren't sharp enough".