Rolling Stone has come out with a name for a madness which seems to be sweeping the US – and even more widely – at the moment. The Putin Derangement Syndrome.
The latest clinical evidence for this illness must surely be this report from the BBC on the deaths of 14 or more Russians in a Metro bombing in St Petersburg. A report suggesting that somehow President Putin was responsible!
Such “reporting” is simply obscene. But in this world where the people with a Putin derangement syndrome seem to prevail such stupid allegation becomes evidence and then fact.
Will the St Petersburg bombing of 2017 be added to that already long list of Putin’s crimes? You know – the Moscow apartment bombings, the Moscow Metro bombings, the murders a Denis Voronenkov (murdered in Kiev by a member of the neo-Fascist Azov brigade but blamed on Putin), Boris Nemtsov, Alexander Litvinenko, Boris Berezovsky, Paul Klebnikov, Anna Politkovskaya, etc., etc. All attributed to Putin, no evidence – but the simple allegations have become facts in the minds of this suffering from the Putin Derangement Syndrome.
Hell, it has apparently become necessary candidates for cabinet office in the US to give the politically correct answer to the questions – Do your believe Putin is a murderer? or Do you believe Putin is a war criminal?
Bugger the evidence – we just want to you come on board and show that you also suffer from the Putin Derangement Syndrome before we let you do this job.
And what about those who have died? Do we not wish to honour them? How does the Washington Times honour those people and their families by publishing (at least for a time) a photo of a protest in their report? As if the gathering was somehow celebrating the atrocity.
And in Germany, the government decided they wouldn’t taint the Brandenburg Gate with the Russian colours because the atrocity was not “exceptional.” Yet after similar attacks in Paris, Brussels, London, Istanbul , Nice and Jerusalem, the Berlin landmark was shown in solidarity with the victims in the national colors of the respective countries. After the massacre of an Islamic assassin in a gay club in Orlando in Florida with about 50 deaths last summer, the Brandenburg Gate was immersed in the rainbow colors of the gay movement.
OK, give the malady a clinical name. Call it the Putin Derangement Syndrome. Or perhaps, just be a bit more honest and call it old-fashioned racism (see Western racism and the stereotyping of Russians).
I was both pleased and surprised to see the Trump Administration criticize the Russian backed Assad Regime for its use of chemical weapons in Syria today. (Of course it was a round-about way of criticizing the Obama presidency.)
Nevertheless, Trump actually showed more open-mindedness than you did, Ken, when you refused to accept the Dutch Safety Board’s Final Report regarding the downing of Malaysian aircraft MH17 which concluded that a Russian made BUK surface to air missile shot down the plane.
Of course your predictable pro-Russian bias never surprises me anymore. But it was nice to see the U.S. President whom, to my knowledge, had never previously criticized any actions of the Russian Federation, come out of the blue like that.
David, I have for a while diagnosed you as suffering from The Putin Derangement Syndrome.
As for this latest chemical attack on an Al Quaeda cave base in Idlib – has anyone been able to verify it yet?
Reports from activists – White Helmets? Always suspicious and unreliable. Look at all the lies told about the Aleppo battle.
Typical White Helmets video coverage (remember they have been awarded an Oscar for their acting). The White Helmets appear to be the main “activists” reporting this event – another indication of their close integration with Al Quaeda forces as was obvious in eastern Aleppo.
Obvious non-emergency action (why are the White Helmets people not even wearing gloves when holding people they claim to be affected by Sarin gas?
Why all the pick-up trucks in the location – were they used for transporting the civilians Al Quaeda captured a few days ago?
Why have the Syrian authorities formally requested the UN investigate?
Finally, are the Syrian (and Russians) really so silly. To provide a propaganda victory to Al Quaeda and anti-Syrian governments. A propaganda stunt which is being used by the French and Israelis to campaign for military attacks on Syrian airports, etc.
As for your claim that I “refused to accept the Dutch Safety Board’s Final Report regarding the downing of Malaysian aircraft MH17” -I bet you cannot back that up – please read my article specifically on that report – MH17: Final technical report – and show me where I refused to accept the findings.
That report was, of course, not conclusive and it did not apportion blame. But in fact, I do currently think MH17 was shot down by a BUK missile most probably from one of the several BUK systems the Ukrainian Army had in the area at the time. I think all the BUK systems, whoever owns them and mans them, were made by the USSR or Russians. Although it is likely Ukrainian arms manufacturers contribute to the manufacture of these weapons – strangely Ukraine still supplies the Russian Federation with much military equipment manufactured in Ukraine.
So, typical of those suffering from the Putin Derangement Syndrome you are lying about my position and you have been caught lying.
But will it stop you continuing to lie? From my observation of people with this clinical condition I suspect not.
Oh, and David, you have been strangely silent about what is happening in Mosul. A tragedy6 far bigger and far worse than what happened in Aleppo. Even your mates in Amnesty have condemned the US for targeting civilians.
Where are all the French UN resolutions charging war crimes? Where is all the media coverage accusing Trump (and previously Obama) of being war criminals? Where are the statements from State department spokesperson who condemned the many Russian organised humanitarian corridors in Aleppo because the people “shouldn’t have to leave” while in Mosul the US lead coalition refuse to allow humanitarian corridors and civilians must face death from the hands of both the jihadist and the pro-coalition forces to escape?
Ken, all I said was that you have a pro-Russian bias, and you do. All you’ve done is proven that fact:
“As for this latest chemical attack on an Al Quaeda cave base in Idlib – has anyone been able to verify it yet? . . . they have been awarded an Oscar for their acting). ”
What outlandish sources are you looking at?
Yes, that was good acting, wasn’t it. I saw, on the Free Press, children gasping for air and dying . . bodies being hosed off . . an Oscar worthy performance – as seen on the Free Press.
Didn’t RT provide the same coverage? Didn’t RT show the piles of children? RT – you know, that Russian propaganda tool that has never had the courage to criticize its own government. Your biased sources are a far cry from what we, in the United States, call a Free Press which has the courage to criticize its government. I have asked you countless times to show me any example of RT criticizing its own government which runs a country famous for the murders of its own jounalists. Thus far, nothing from you.
So please, show me RT criticizing its own government. Nothing. Since you do use RT as a source, you are using a tainted source.
“As for your claim that I “refused to accept the Dutch Safety Board’s Final Report regarding the downing of Malaysian aircraft MH17” -I bet you cannot back that up . . ”
Sure. Tell me you agree with this: In October 2015, the Dutch Safety Board (DSB) concluded that the airliner was downed by a Buk surface-to-air missile launched from pro-Russian separatist-controlled territory in Ukraine. In September 2016, the Dutch-led Joint Investigation Team (JIT) confirmed the missile type which had downed the aircraft and said that the Buk missile system had been transported from Russia on the day of the crash, fired from a field in a rebel controlled area and returned to Russia after the Buk was used to shoot down MH17. The JIT had established the identities of approximately 100 people, witnesses or suspects, who were linked to the transporting of the Buk, but said that their evidence “must stand before a court”.
The DSB and JIT findings confirmed earlier claims by American and German intelligence sources and the Ukrainian government as to the missile type and launch area. In 2014, Ukraine and US intelligence had also said that Russia had supplied the Buk missile to pro-Russian insurgents, who had mistakenly shot down the aircraft.
Well . . . does your pro-Russian bias allow you to agree with that?
Ken, you say, “Oh, and David, you have been strangely silent about what is happening in Mosul.”
I have nothing to say about it. The United States has openly accepted full responsibility for this tragedy. In sharp contrast, show me one instance of the Russian Air Force accepting full responsibility for any collateral damage it caused in Syria.
Would your pro-Russian bias even allow you to admit that Russia was guilty of any collateral damage in Syria? I think not.
Let’s see, David. You claim I have a pro-Russian bias. So what points did I actually make regarding Russia in my post?
!: Called out the BBC fo implying that somehow the Russian government and president have something to gain from this atrocity – hint, hint – perhaps the did it like the apartment and Moscow Metro bombings we are told Putin was responsible for. I called this obscene and I stand by that comment – and it is obscene for you to call that principled stand a pro-Russian bias. it is simply me being an empathetic human.
2: I called out those Russophobes, racists, who attribute every death or terrorist attack in the Russian Federation (and Kiev) to Putin. That is just sick and shows no regard for truth or justice.
3: I critiqued the current US hysteria which is converting allegations, any old allegations, to “evidence” and “facts.” Bloody mad.
4: I called out the US political system which uses the question “do you believe Putin is a war criminal” as a test for office. Again, how mad can you get? This is purely Maoism or Stalinism (or McCarthyism) in its worst forms.
5: I criticised those who show no respect for the victims and families of those killed in St Petersburg – who seem to see them as somehow subhuman so that we should not accord them the sympathy we traditionally do to victims of terrorism purely because of their ethnicity. They are Russsian and therefore subhuman – and where have we heard that before?.
6: Finally I called this sickness, the Putin derangement Syndrome for what I think it is – outright racism.
Now, I have dealt here only with your claim of me having a pro-Russian bias -I have only dealt with the aspects of my post and your comment specifically related to RUssia.
Comment on other things will occur later.
My point here was simply to demonstrate that with that accusaiton you have shown yourself to be sufferign fomr the Putin Derangement Syndrome
Regarding the incident in Idlib – I do not know what coverage RT is giving as iI have not watched RT since the story broke. My sources have been mostly internet sources – and sources associated with Al Qaeda – the White Helmets (who produced all the video material – they do have an oscar for acting after all) and a women (whose name I cannot remember and would have to hunt down) I follow who posts material for Al Quaeda. (She was very active during the Aleppo battle, left under the surrender agreement with the Jihadists, and now posts from Idlib).
Since then the main news source I have watched has been Al Jazeera – they ran the Al Quaeda videos (attributed to “activists” as always) and finished with the statement that they have been unable to confirm the story.
Apart from that I have picked up online that the UN does not confirm the story – or is not able to confirm the story. That the Syrian government has asked for the UN to investigate the claims. And that the Russian military is reporting that a Syrian attack in Idlib hit an Al Quaeda factory producing missiles and bombs partly for use in Iraq. The story seems to imply that chemical gasses (probably chlorine) used by Al Quaeda at this arms factory may have been released killing some locals. Jihadist forces in this part of Syria captured several factories producing chlorine several years ago and sometimes use chemical weapons locally.
In the past chemicals for making Sarin gas have been transported into Syria from Turkey by Jihadists – however, if the videos are at all genuine then clearly this was not sarin as the White Helmets claim. More likely chlorine. I do not think the Syrian armed forces have any sarin because all their chemical weapons were transported out of the country under an agreement with the US several years ago. But chlorine as an industrial chemical would be easily obtained by either side.
My current feeling about this event is that it was not a Russian attack (I think we can take their assurance here as factual), and was most probably either a result of the Syrian air attack on the Al Quaeda base (the Syrian apparently used missiles which cannot be loaded with chemicals – unlike bombs dropped from helicopters) or a False Flag event organised by Al Qaeda (they have done this in the past).
Give me a chance to watch RT tonight (if I can get – I am still having problems) and I will see what they say – they often interview commentators which are expert). They are an excellent news service. 🙂
My challenge to you regarding your smear on my writings on MH17 was:
“As for your claim that I “refused to accept the Dutch Safety Board’s Final Report regarding the downing of Malaysian aircraft MH17” -I bet you cannot back that up – please read my article specifically on that report – MH17: Final technical report – and show me where I refused to accept the findings.”
You charged that I “refused to accept the Dutch Safety Board’s Final Report.” (Not true – I accepted it as far5as it went – and pointed outs some problems that needed further work).
As I thought – you could not back up that claim. You cannot find anywhere something I have written to support your claim – I suggest an apology is in order.
Now you wish to divert by bringing in the JIT report – which is quite a different kettle of fish. No, I did not accept that report and as I said I am sure no court of law would either. You can read my analysis here – But will it stand up in court? I even suggested how this report could be improved:
“So, I am not convinced that the JIT has produced a case that will stand up in court. If they included further information – such as a survey of the BUK systems known to be in Ukraine at the time, and actual satellite data the US claims to have – then their circumstantial case may be more credible.
As for the Almaz-Antey information – I find it technically credible. But of course, that can only be tested by people with the same level of expertise. Until that is done it should not be rejected out of hand as the Dutch safety Board (and the JIT) appear to have done.”
It seems incredible to me that the JIT did not survey the BUK missiles systems manned by the Ukrainian Army which were present at the time of the tragedy. I think that fact alone indicates the JIT has been compromised by having one of the possible suspects on the team with a power of veto.
As for the Bellingcat scenario – hell what have we come to? Taking biased social media commentary as evidence while ignoring what was on the ground. I see that transporting a system in and out of the Donbass region for one day with the express intentions of shooting down a commercial plane as too far-fetched. Too ludicrous. As I said at the time that particular scenario is at the bottom of my list of possible scenarios.
And that is just common sense. Only someone suffering from the Putin derangement syndrome could possibly take such a story seriously.
Mind you, as you do suffer from that syndrome I suspect you see common sense as evidence of a pro-Russian bias. 🙂
So that’s a “No.” Either you can’t find one instance of the Russian Air Force claiming responsibility for collateral damage in Syria, or your pro-Russian bias won’t allow you to admit that they were responsible for such damage.
David – you say that you have nothing to say about Mosul. – Why. It’s a huge tragedy. Do you not pity the poor civilians fleeing from both the jihadists and indiscriminate bombing? Where is your humanity?
What you do say is “The United States has openly accepted full responsibility for this tragedy.” What tragedy is that? The Mosul disaster?
I think your comprehension of Mosul must be restricted to the news of a specific event – that the US and its allies had killed 200 people in a shelter from either targeted or indiscriminate bombing.
Two things about that incident:
1: The US has not admitted responsibility for it – they have hummed and haad but at the official level refuse to admit responsibility. (If I am wrong please provide an official statement to that effect the current media assumptions are not an official statement)
2: I was not mentioning that atrocity. I was mentioning the whole Mosul programme and comparing it to the Aleppo battle. In Aleppo, the Russians and Syrians frequently introduced unilateral ceasefires and humanitarian corridors. The also introduced corridors for the jihadis to leave, taking their personal weapons. In the end that strategy won the battles and saved thousands of lives.
In Mosul there have not been anything at all substantial in the way of ceasefires or humanitarian corridors. Just relentless bombing and considering the Jihadis use the civilians human shields it appears that the US and its allies have a policy which accepts a high degree of collateral damage.
This is what the international community (and your mates in Amnesty) are criticising – and raising the issue of war crimes.
First, So that’s a “No.” Either you can’t find one instance of the Russian Air Force claiming responsibility for collateral damage in Syria, or your pro-Russian bias won’t allow you to admit that they were responsible for such damage.
Your quote: “you say that you have nothing to say about Mosul. – Why. It’s a huge tragedy.”
Response: Would you like me to comment on every “huge tragedy” from the time of Pompeii to the Titanic, the Challenger disaster, and 911? I would be happy to, but it would take me the rest of my life.
Your quote: “The US has not admitted responsibility for it – they have hummed and haad but at the official level refuse to admit responsibility. (If I am wrong please provide an official statement to that effect the current media assumptions are not an official statement)”
Despite your deflection, and more to the point of this discussion, you have shown me no admission of collateral damage by the Russian Air Force in Syria, so I repeat:
So that’s a “No.” Either you can’t find one instance of the Russian Air Force claiming responsibility for collateral damage in Syria, or your pro-Russian bias won’t allow you to admit that they were responsible for such damage.
Your comment: ” I was not mentioning that atrocity. I was mentioning the whole Mosul programme and comparing it to the Aleppo battle. In Aleppo, the Russians and Syrians frequently introduced unilateral ceasefires and humanitarian corridors. The also introduced corridors for the jihadis to leave, taking their personal weapons. In the end that strategy won the battles and saved thousands of lives.”
Really? ISIS in Aleppo, because that’s what you’re talking about here, ISIS, took part in unilateral ceasefires? Really?
So that’s a “No.” Either you can’t find one instance of the Russian Air Force claiming responsibility for collateral damage in Syria, or your pro-Russian bias won’t allow you to admit that they were responsible for such damage.
So don’t give me this crap about how dishonest, corrupt, horrible things are because of the United States. Russia is a toilet by comparison, but of course with your pro-Russian bias and all . . . .
Don’t be silly, David. I do not decide issues on the basis of who takes “my side” but on the basis of the facts as best I can judge them. Particularly, I do not succumb to political narratives promoted without any factual basis. To do so would mean I gave up my human ability to think critically.
But if that is the best you can do – just sit down and have a think about whose side you are taking? Of course, you are welcome to take the side of Al Qaeda or the anti-Russian racists – but, really, you should at least attempt to justify that position. Not to use the justification of going with the herd, as you appear to. There is a word for that. 🙂
Yes, not only is my emotion based on objection to such derogatory interpretations, it is based on getting such abuse from absolute idiots who cannot think for themselves and object to others thinking for themselves.
It seems to be rampant in the mainstream news media at the moment (after all, they are the ones who are supposed to control what we think). But I am heartened that ordinary people are more and more rejecting this force-feeding of stupid narratives. It is rather hopeful to read through some of the comments on these news sites.
David, I never said ISIS were in Aleppo (but now that you mention it there were some there – they were certainly flying there flag and this was reported – and they are still in Aleppo province (although slowing being forced out). This is what I wrote (and you know because this is copypasta from your quote):
“I was not mentioning that atrocity. I was mentioning the whole Mosul programme and comparing it to the Aleppo battle. In Aleppo, the Russians and Syrians frequently introduced unilateral ceasefires and humanitarian corridors. They also introduced corridors for the jihadis to leave, taking their personal weapons. In the end, that strategy won the battles and saved thousands of lives.”
Most of the militants in Aleppo were from Al Qaeda and Al Qaeda-affiliated groups (the same as in Idlib province). No, they did not participate in the ceasefire or guarantee of humanitarian corridors, or allowing humanitarian aid into east Aleppo – the fought against all these. They shot people attempting to use those corridors and prevented humanitarian aid from getting through.
That is why I wonder at your mental state if you cannot understand a simple statement – “the Russians and Syrians frequently introduced unilateral ceasefires and humanitarian corridors.”
Such repeated ceasefires and delineation of humanitarian corridors is not happening in Mosul because the US and its allies seem to have accepted a high level of collateral damage as a price they are willing to ply. However, it is clear from the people fleeing the battle that they don’t agree. They are seeing the jihadists (who use them as human shields) and the US coalition (who nevertheless bomb them) as equal problems.
Yes, the US coalition does drop warning leaflets and manages refugees fleeing (undertstandable as many militants will shave their beards and join the refugees) but they do not appear to be as careful as the Syrians/Russians were over Aleppo. That is why humanitarian and aid agencies are warning that the Mosul battle is creating a far bigger disaster than the Aleppo battle did.
For a start, of course, there were about 11O,000 people in Aleppo who managed to flee to the protection of the Syrian Arab Army and its allies (and several thousand fighters with their families, White Helmets, Aleppo Media Center, etc who the Syrian Army and its allies allowed to leave with their personal arms – even transported them to the Idlib area) whereas they are talking about more than 400,000 who will eventually flee the militants in Mosul.
The Russians were careful in Aleppo. That’s a laugh. I repeat:
So that’s a “No.” Either you can’t find one instance of the Russian Air Force claiming responsibility for collateral damage in Syria, or your pro-Russian bias won’t allow you to admit that they were responsible for such damage.
Open Parachute 
I was both pleased and surprised to see the Trump Administration criticize the Russian backed Assad Regime for its use of chemical weapons in Syria today. (Of course it was a round-about way of criticizing the Obama presidency.)
Nevertheless, Trump actually showed more open-mindedness than you did, Ken, when you refused to accept the Dutch Safety Board’s Final Report regarding the downing of Malaysian aircraft MH17 which concluded that a Russian made BUK surface to air missile shot down the plane.
Of course your predictable pro-Russian bias never surprises me anymore. But it was nice to see the U.S. President whom, to my knowledge, had never previously criticized any actions of the Russian Federation, come out of the blue like that.
LikeLike
David, I have for a while diagnosed you as suffering from The Putin Derangement Syndrome.
As for this latest chemical attack on an Al Quaeda cave base in Idlib – has anyone been able to verify it yet?
Reports from activists – White Helmets? Always suspicious and unreliable. Look at all the lies told about the Aleppo battle.
Typical White Helmets video coverage (remember they have been awarded an Oscar for their acting). The White Helmets appear to be the main “activists” reporting this event – another indication of their close integration with Al Quaeda forces as was obvious in eastern Aleppo.
Obvious non-emergency action (why are the White Helmets people not even wearing gloves when holding people they claim to be affected by Sarin gas?
Why all the pick-up trucks in the location – were they used for transporting the civilians Al Quaeda captured a few days ago?
Why have the Syrian authorities formally requested the UN investigate?
Finally, are the Syrian (and Russians) really so silly. To provide a propaganda victory to Al Quaeda and anti-Syrian governments. A propaganda stunt which is being used by the French and Israelis to campaign for military attacks on Syrian airports, etc.
As for your claim that I “refused to accept the Dutch Safety Board’s Final Report regarding the downing of Malaysian aircraft MH17” -I bet you cannot back that up – please read my article specifically on that report – MH17: Final technical report – and show me where I refused to accept the findings.
That report was, of course, not conclusive and it did not apportion blame. But in fact, I do currently think MH17 was shot down by a BUK missile most probably from one of the several BUK systems the Ukrainian Army had in the area at the time. I think all the BUK systems, whoever owns them and mans them, were made by the USSR or Russians. Although it is likely Ukrainian arms manufacturers contribute to the manufacture of these weapons – strangely Ukraine still supplies the Russian Federation with much military equipment manufactured in Ukraine.
So, typical of those suffering from the Putin Derangement Syndrome you are lying about my position and you have been caught lying.
But will it stop you continuing to lie? From my observation of people with this clinical condition I suspect not.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh, and David, you have been strangely silent about what is happening in Mosul. A tragedy6 far bigger and far worse than what happened in Aleppo. Even your mates in Amnesty have condemned the US for targeting civilians.
Where are all the French UN resolutions charging war crimes? Where is all the media coverage accusing Trump (and previously Obama) of being war criminals? Where are the statements from State department spokesperson who condemned the many Russian organised humanitarian corridors in Aleppo because the people “shouldn’t have to leave” while in Mosul the US lead coalition refuse to allow humanitarian corridors and civilians must face death from the hands of both the jihadist and the pro-coalition forces to escape?
LikeLike
Ken, all I said was that you have a pro-Russian bias, and you do. All you’ve done is proven that fact:
“As for this latest chemical attack on an Al Quaeda cave base in Idlib – has anyone been able to verify it yet? . . . they have been awarded an Oscar for their acting). ”
What outlandish sources are you looking at?
Yes, that was good acting, wasn’t it. I saw, on the Free Press, children gasping for air and dying . . bodies being hosed off . . an Oscar worthy performance – as seen on the Free Press.
Didn’t RT provide the same coverage? Didn’t RT show the piles of children? RT – you know, that Russian propaganda tool that has never had the courage to criticize its own government. Your biased sources are a far cry from what we, in the United States, call a Free Press which has the courage to criticize its government. I have asked you countless times to show me any example of RT criticizing its own government which runs a country famous for the murders of its own jounalists. Thus far, nothing from you.
So please, show me RT criticizing its own government. Nothing. Since you do use RT as a source, you are using a tainted source.
“As for your claim that I “refused to accept the Dutch Safety Board’s Final Report regarding the downing of Malaysian aircraft MH17” -I bet you cannot back that up . . ”
Sure. Tell me you agree with this: In October 2015, the Dutch Safety Board (DSB) concluded that the airliner was downed by a Buk surface-to-air missile launched from pro-Russian separatist-controlled territory in Ukraine. In September 2016, the Dutch-led Joint Investigation Team (JIT) confirmed the missile type which had downed the aircraft and said that the Buk missile system had been transported from Russia on the day of the crash, fired from a field in a rebel controlled area and returned to Russia after the Buk was used to shoot down MH17. The JIT had established the identities of approximately 100 people, witnesses or suspects, who were linked to the transporting of the Buk, but said that their evidence “must stand before a court”.
The DSB and JIT findings confirmed earlier claims by American and German intelligence sources and the Ukrainian government as to the missile type and launch area. In 2014, Ukraine and US intelligence had also said that Russia had supplied the Buk missile to pro-Russian insurgents, who had mistakenly shot down the aircraft.
Well . . . does your pro-Russian bias allow you to agree with that?
LikeLike
Ken, you say, “Oh, and David, you have been strangely silent about what is happening in Mosul.”
I have nothing to say about it. The United States has openly accepted full responsibility for this tragedy. In sharp contrast, show me one instance of the Russian Air Force accepting full responsibility for any collateral damage it caused in Syria.
Would your pro-Russian bias even allow you to admit that Russia was guilty of any collateral damage in Syria? I think not.
LikeLike
Let’s see, David. You claim I have a pro-Russian bias. So what points did I actually make regarding Russia in my post?
!: Called out the BBC fo implying that somehow the Russian government and president have something to gain from this atrocity – hint, hint – perhaps the did it like the apartment and Moscow Metro bombings we are told Putin was responsible for. I called this obscene and I stand by that comment – and it is obscene for you to call that principled stand a pro-Russian bias. it is simply me being an empathetic human.
2: I called out those Russophobes, racists, who attribute every death or terrorist attack in the Russian Federation (and Kiev) to Putin. That is just sick and shows no regard for truth or justice.
3: I critiqued the current US hysteria which is converting allegations, any old allegations, to “evidence” and “facts.” Bloody mad.
4: I called out the US political system which uses the question “do you believe Putin is a war criminal” as a test for office. Again, how mad can you get? This is purely Maoism or Stalinism (or McCarthyism) in its worst forms.
5: I criticised those who show no respect for the victims and families of those killed in St Petersburg – who seem to see them as somehow subhuman so that we should not accord them the sympathy we traditionally do to victims of terrorism purely because of their ethnicity. They are Russsian and therefore subhuman – and where have we heard that before?.
6: Finally I called this sickness, the Putin derangement Syndrome for what I think it is – outright racism.
Now, I have dealt here only with your claim of me having a pro-Russian bias -I have only dealt with the aspects of my post and your comment specifically related to RUssia.
Comment on other things will occur later.
My point here was simply to demonstrate that with that accusaiton you have shown yourself to be sufferign fomr the Putin Derangement Syndrome
LikeLiked by 1 person
Regarding the incident in Idlib – I do not know what coverage RT is giving as iI have not watched RT since the story broke. My sources have been mostly internet sources – and sources associated with Al Qaeda – the White Helmets (who produced all the video material – they do have an oscar for acting after all) and a women (whose name I cannot remember and would have to hunt down) I follow who posts material for Al Quaeda. (She was very active during the Aleppo battle, left under the surrender agreement with the Jihadists, and now posts from Idlib).
Since then the main news source I have watched has been Al Jazeera – they ran the Al Quaeda videos (attributed to “activists” as always) and finished with the statement that they have been unable to confirm the story.
Apart from that I have picked up online that the UN does not confirm the story – or is not able to confirm the story. That the Syrian government has asked for the UN to investigate the claims. And that the Russian military is reporting that a Syrian attack in Idlib hit an Al Quaeda factory producing missiles and bombs partly for use in Iraq. The story seems to imply that chemical gasses (probably chlorine) used by Al Quaeda at this arms factory may have been released killing some locals. Jihadist forces in this part of Syria captured several factories producing chlorine several years ago and sometimes use chemical weapons locally.
In the past chemicals for making Sarin gas have been transported into Syria from Turkey by Jihadists – however, if the videos are at all genuine then clearly this was not sarin as the White Helmets claim. More likely chlorine. I do not think the Syrian armed forces have any sarin because all their chemical weapons were transported out of the country under an agreement with the US several years ago. But chlorine as an industrial chemical would be easily obtained by either side.
My current feeling about this event is that it was not a Russian attack (I think we can take their assurance here as factual), and was most probably either a result of the Syrian air attack on the Al Quaeda base (the Syrian apparently used missiles which cannot be loaded with chemicals – unlike bombs dropped from helicopters) or a False Flag event organised by Al Qaeda (they have done this in the past).
Give me a chance to watch RT tonight (if I can get – I am still having problems) and I will see what they say – they often interview commentators which are expert). They are an excellent news service. 🙂
My challenge to you regarding your smear on my writings on MH17 was:
You charged that I “refused to accept the Dutch Safety Board’s Final Report.” (Not true – I accepted it as far5as it went – and pointed outs some problems that needed further work).
As I thought – you could not back up that claim. You cannot find anywhere something I have written to support your claim – I suggest an apology is in order.
Now you wish to divert by bringing in the JIT report – which is quite a different kettle of fish. No, I did not accept that report and as I said I am sure no court of law would either. You can read my analysis here – But will it stand up in court? I even suggested how this report could be improved:
It seems incredible to me that the JIT did not survey the BUK missiles systems manned by the Ukrainian Army which were present at the time of the tragedy. I think that fact alone indicates the JIT has been compromised by having one of the possible suspects on the team with a power of veto.
As for the Bellingcat scenario – hell what have we come to? Taking biased social media commentary as evidence while ignoring what was on the ground. I see that transporting a system in and out of the Donbass region for one day with the express intentions of shooting down a commercial plane as too far-fetched. Too ludicrous. As I said at the time that particular scenario is at the bottom of my list of possible scenarios.
And that is just common sense. Only someone suffering from the Putin derangement syndrome could possibly take such a story seriously.
Mind you, as you do suffer from that syndrome I suspect you see common sense as evidence of a pro-Russian bias. 🙂
LikeLike
David, here is an RT report I have since seen – a bit early to provide and choice between the different scenarios.
https://www.rt.com/news/383444-syria-gas-attack-idlib/
LikeLike
A Syrian comment on the chemical gas event.
LikeLike
So that’s a “No.” Either you can’t find one instance of the Russian Air Force claiming responsibility for collateral damage in Syria, or your pro-Russian bias won’t allow you to admit that they were responsible for such damage.
LikeLike
David – you say that you have nothing to say about Mosul. – Why. It’s a huge tragedy. Do you not pity the poor civilians fleeing from both the jihadists and indiscriminate bombing? Where is your humanity?
What you do say is “The United States has openly accepted full responsibility for this tragedy.” What tragedy is that? The Mosul disaster?
I think your comprehension of Mosul must be restricted to the news of a specific event – that the US and its allies had killed 200 people in a shelter from either targeted or indiscriminate bombing.
Two things about that incident:
1: The US has not admitted responsibility for it – they have hummed and haad but at the official level refuse to admit responsibility. (If I am wrong please provide an official statement to that effect the current media assumptions are not an official statement)
2: I was not mentioning that atrocity. I was mentioning the whole Mosul programme and comparing it to the Aleppo battle. In Aleppo, the Russians and Syrians frequently introduced unilateral ceasefires and humanitarian corridors. The also introduced corridors for the jihadis to leave, taking their personal weapons. In the end that strategy won the battles and saved thousands of lives.
In Mosul there have not been anything at all substantial in the way of ceasefires or humanitarian corridors. Just relentless bombing and considering the Jihadis use the civilians human shields it appears that the US and its allies have a policy which accepts a high degree of collateral damage.
This is what the international community (and your mates in Amnesty) are criticising – and raising the issue of war crimes.
LikeLike
LikeLike
In response to your comment:
First, So that’s a “No.” Either you can’t find one instance of the Russian Air Force claiming responsibility for collateral damage in Syria, or your pro-Russian bias won’t allow you to admit that they were responsible for such damage.
Your quote: “you say that you have nothing to say about Mosul. – Why. It’s a huge tragedy.”
Response: Would you like me to comment on every “huge tragedy” from the time of Pompeii to the Titanic, the Challenger disaster, and 911? I would be happy to, but it would take me the rest of my life.
Your quote: “The US has not admitted responsibility for it – they have hummed and haad but at the official level refuse to admit responsibility. (If I am wrong please provide an official statement to that effect the current media assumptions are not an official statement)”
Response: The Pentagon said that it had targeted Isis fighters and equipment “at the location corresponding to allegations of civilian casualties”. http://www.centcom.mil/MEDIA/PRESS-RELEASES/Press-Release-View/Article/1130282/allegation-of-civilian-casualties-in-west-mosul/
Prior to that for the previous year, this from U.S. Central Command, 9 November 2016: “After months of reviewing reports and databases to resolve cases where Coalition air strikes may have resulted in civilian casualties, U.S. Central Command has determined that over the past year 24 U.S. airstrikes in Iraq and Syria regrettably may have killed 64 civilians and injured 8 other civilians.” http://www.centcom.mil/MEDIA/PRESS-RELEASES/Press-Release-View/Article/1000893/november-9-iraq-and-syria-civilian-casualty-assessments/
Despite your deflection, and more to the point of this discussion, you have shown me no admission of collateral damage by the Russian Air Force in Syria, so I repeat:
So that’s a “No.” Either you can’t find one instance of the Russian Air Force claiming responsibility for collateral damage in Syria, or your pro-Russian bias won’t allow you to admit that they were responsible for such damage.
Your comment: ” I was not mentioning that atrocity. I was mentioning the whole Mosul programme and comparing it to the Aleppo battle. In Aleppo, the Russians and Syrians frequently introduced unilateral ceasefires and humanitarian corridors. The also introduced corridors for the jihadis to leave, taking their personal weapons. In the end that strategy won the battles and saved thousands of lives.”
Really? ISIS in Aleppo, because that’s what you’re talking about here, ISIS, took part in unilateral ceasefires? Really?
In Mosul, although not all, but many refugees were allowed to leave the area before fighting began. http://www.iraqinews.com/features/refugees-173-000-since-start-mosul-battle/
Was there anything else? Oh yeah:
So that’s a “No.” Either you can’t find one instance of the Russian Air Force claiming responsibility for collateral damage in Syria, or your pro-Russian bias won’t allow you to admit that they were responsible for such damage.
So don’t give me this crap about how dishonest, corrupt, horrible things are because of the United States. Russia is a toilet by comparison, but of course with your pro-Russian bias and all . . . .
LikeLike
Will I be receiving an acknowledgment of your mistakes here also?
LikeLike
http://theduran.com/3-reasons-why-reports-of-a-syrian-chemical-weapons-attack-on-idlib-are-fake-news/
LikeLike
Ken Perrott, Soundhill1 is taking your side in politics. That fact alone should Force you to rethink your weltanschauung.
LikeLike
Don’t be silly, David. I do not decide issues on the basis of who takes “my side” but on the basis of the facts as best I can judge them. Particularly, I do not succumb to political narratives promoted without any factual basis. To do so would mean I gave up my human ability to think critically.
But if that is the best you can do – just sit down and have a think about whose side you are taking? Of course, you are welcome to take the side of Al Qaeda or the anti-Russian racists – but, really, you should at least attempt to justify that position. Not to use the justification of going with the herd, as you appear to. There is a word for that. 🙂
LikeLike
I am thoroughly sick of people who cannot think for themselves and wish to condemn me for doing so. What sort of society are they promoting?
LikeLike
Sorry Ken, I didn’t think I would draw such an emotive response. I was merely pointing out that a complete nut-job shares your world view.
LikeLike
Yes, not only is my emotion based on objection to such derogatory interpretations, it is based on getting such abuse from absolute idiots who cannot think for themselves and object to others thinking for themselves.
It seems to be rampant in the mainstream news media at the moment (after all, they are the ones who are supposed to control what we think). But I am heartened that ordinary people are more and more rejecting this force-feeding of stupid narratives. It is rather hopeful to read through some of the comments on these news sites.
LikeLike
A self-righteous atheist. I think they call that an oxymoron.
A defender of free thought who claims that Russian propaganda tool, RT, is “an excellent news service.” No need to include the “oxy” here.
LikeLike
David, I never said ISIS were in Aleppo (but now that you mention it there were some there – they were certainly flying there flag and this was reported – and they are still in Aleppo province (although slowing being forced out). This is what I wrote (and you know because this is copypasta from your quote):
Most of the militants in Aleppo were from Al Qaeda and Al Qaeda-affiliated groups (the same as in Idlib province). No, they did not participate in the ceasefire or guarantee of humanitarian corridors, or allowing humanitarian aid into east Aleppo – the fought against all these. They shot people attempting to use those corridors and prevented humanitarian aid from getting through.
That is why I wonder at your mental state if you cannot understand a simple statement – “the Russians and Syrians frequently introduced unilateral ceasefires and humanitarian corridors.”
Such repeated ceasefires and delineation of humanitarian corridors is not happening in Mosul because the US and its allies seem to have accepted a high level of collateral damage as a price they are willing to ply. However, it is clear from the people fleeing the battle that they don’t agree. They are seeing the jihadists (who use them as human shields) and the US coalition (who nevertheless bomb them) as equal problems.
Yes, the US coalition does drop warning leaflets and manages refugees fleeing (undertstandable as many militants will shave their beards and join the refugees) but they do not appear to be as careful as the Syrians/Russians were over Aleppo. That is why humanitarian and aid agencies are warning that the Mosul battle is creating a far bigger disaster than the Aleppo battle did.
For a start, of course, there were about 11O,000 people in Aleppo who managed to flee to the protection of the Syrian Arab Army and its allies (and several thousand fighters with their families, White Helmets, Aleppo Media Center, etc who the Syrian Army and its allies allowed to leave with their personal arms – even transported them to the Idlib area) whereas they are talking about more than 400,000 who will eventually flee the militants in Mosul.
LikeLike
The Russians were careful in Aleppo. That’s a laugh. I repeat:
So that’s a “No.” Either you can’t find one instance of the Russian Air Force claiming responsibility for collateral damage in Syria, or your pro-Russian bias won’t allow you to admit that they were responsible for such damage.
LikeLike