Thursday, February 09, 2012

Daniel Davies, D-Squared, explains that liars' claims cannot be salvaged


I was recently, in thinking about Syria, reminded of a classic blog post by Daniel Davies, that seems to have been first written in 2004. Maybe the single best blog post of its era and people who were reading English language blogs about the Middle East at the time likely will remember it.

Davies, unlike most Americans, did not expect that any weapons of mass destruction would be found in Iraq. None, not a small amount, not something that could be arguably mistaken for weapons of mass destruction. Just no weapons, the government of the US was lying to the people of the country. Afterwards he explained how he knew that.

This is a bigger segment that I'd usually copy, but it is from what seems to be an archival website with no advertising and one that I had trouble re-finding years later. Here is the heart of the post. I could not recommend more strongly reading it in full.
Good ideas do not need lots of lies told about them in order to gain public acceptance. I was first made aware of this during an accounting class. We were discussing the subject of accounting for stock options at technology companies. There was a live debate on this subject at the time. One side (mainly technology companies and their lobbyists) held that stock option grants should not be treated as an expense on public policy grounds; treating them as an expense would discourage companies from granting them, and stock options were a vital compensation tool that incentivised performance, rewarded dynamism and innovation and created vast amounts of value for America and the world. The other side (mainly people like Warren Buffet) held that stock options looked awfully like a massive blag carried out my management at the expense of shareholders, and that the proper place to record such blags was the P&L account.

Our lecturer, in summing up the debate, made the not unreasonable point that if stock options really were a fantastic tool which unleashed the creative power in every employee, everyone would want to expense as many of them as possible, the better to boast about how innovative, empowered and fantastic they were. Since the tech companies’ point of view appeared to be that if they were ever forced to account honestly for their option grants, they would quickly stop making them, this offered decent prima facie evidence that they weren’t, really, all that fantastic.

Application to Iraq. The general principle that good ideas are not usually associated with lying like a rug* about their true nature seems to have been pretty well confirmed. In particular, however, this principle sheds light on the now quite popular claim that “WMDs were only part of the story; the real priority was to liberate the Iraqis, which is something that every decent person would support”.

Fibbers’ forecasts are worthless. Case after miserable case after bloody case we went through, I tell you, all of which had this moral. Not only that people who want a project will tend to make inaccurate projections about the possible outcomes of that project, but about the futility of attempts to “shade” downward a fundamentally dishonest set of predictions. If you have doubts about the integrity of a forecaster, you can’t use their forecasts at all. Not even as a “starting point”. By the way, I would just love to get hold of a few of the quantitative numbers from documents prepared to support the war and give them a quick run through Benford’s Law.

Application to Iraq This was how I decided that it was worth staking a bit of credibility on the strong claim that absolutely no material WMD capacity would be found, rather than “some” or “some but not enough to justify a war” or even “some derisory but not immaterial capacity, like a few mobile biological weapons labs”. My reasoning was that Powell, Bush, Straw, etc, were clearly making false claims and therefore ought to be discounted completely, and that there were actually very few people who knew a bit about Iraq but were not fatally compromised in this manner who were making the WMD claim. Meanwhile, there were people like Scott Ritter and Andrew Wilkie who, whatever other faults they might or might not have had, did not appear to have told any provable lies on this subject and were therefore not compromised.

----------
* We also learned in accounting class that the difference between “making a definite single false claim with provable intent to deceive” and “creating a very false impression and allowing it to remain without correcting it” is not one that you should rely upon to keep you out of jail. Even if your motives are noble.
First I'd just like to repeat: "the futility of attempts to “shade” downward a fundamentally dishonest set of predictions. If you have doubts about the integrity of a forecaster, you can’t use their forecasts at all. Not even as a “starting point”." I really like that language.

How does this apply to Syria?

For most of the summer we would get casualty reports every single day of ten or twelve people being killed in peaceful protests by the Syrian government. That is a lie. A straight up lie, it did not happen. People may well have been dying, but not in peaceful demonstrations every day for weeks. Especially not in demonstrations that weren't even generating images.

I've seen images of people wounded. I've seen images of damage done to structures. But none of people gathering peacefully at a square and shots ringing out. That certainly was not happening every day, and we were being told it was happening every day. We were being lied to.

Also, all of a sudden there were cities in Syria with no security force loyal to the government present. Non-violent demonstrations can't do that. Other things may have been true, but while we wait for evidence, we can be confident that many of the statements we've heard from US and Arab government and media sources have been lies. Because of that, we are safe assuming that every statement that we're reading, that we do not already have proof of, is a lie.

There is an important difference between the lies told about Iraq and the lies told about Syria though. Americans resent the lies told about Iraq because they led, most importantly, to 5,000 dead US soldiers, and also much less importantly to wasted money spent by the US government.

The lies about Syria are only leading to dead Syrians, who, like the hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis, matter very close to not at all for most Americans. Americans are quite racist and bigoted over religion. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, even George W. Bush are more sophisticated and understand the importance of disguising their disdain for Arabs and Muslims better than some of the commenters who have posted on this blog in the past several months.

The US colonies of Saudi Arabia and Qatar are funding the campaign in Syria, so the Americans are not even feeling the loss of government revenues.

So we don't have proof that some the of the statements that have been presented to us in this campaign against Syria are false, but as Davies would say, we are making an important, common but avoidable error if we commit the fallacy of “giving known liars the benefit of the doubt”.

82 comments:

Arnold Evans said...

As an aside, I arrived at the conclusion that no WMD would be found differently.  Eric Margolis did also.  How Saddam Hussein's situation was set up, his best move would have been to remove his weapons of mass destruction, wait for sanctions to end, then buy more weapons of mass destruction if he wanted.  Iraq faced no threat at the time other than the overwhelming US military that at the time controlled Iraqi airspace. Chemical weapons would not have been useful until after the US left.  Saddam Hussein had no reason to lie.

George Bush had a very good reason to lie.  If the truth was that Saddam Hussein had no weapons, then the pretext for sanctions would be lifted, then Saddam Hussein's Iraq would be free to rebuild itself into the exact threat the US was trying to avoid.  The openly stated US policy goal of preventing Iraq from US being able to threaten Israel or the colonies the United maintains for Israel's sake required the US to lie about the state of Saddam Hussein's weapons program.

The side with the reason to lie is the side that's lying.  At least that was my reasoning in 2002 and 2003.

Lidia said...

Arnold, Daniel Davies was right, but I am not sure it was a result of his education -  a lot of people were taught the same and still willfully lapped the propaganda. I am sure that only those Americans who are not  afraid to admit that their rulers are serial lairs, as it naturally for imperialists, were able to see the very obvious lies through. Others just shut their eyes. Kudos to Daniel Davies and a few % of Americans. DM is just one of them, even though he at least could admit that SOME of USA imperialist wars were not as good as he would like :(

Of course, I knew in 2002 that there were NOT any WMD of Saddam, but I am not an American and I do not believe a word of USA rulers without 100% proof. Anyone with www could find why there were not WMD (logic, facts, precedents and so on), but not all were willing to see that the emperor worn no clothes.

Lidia said...

Correction 

 DM is just NOT one of them, even though he at least could admit that SOME of USA imperialist wars were not as good as he would like :(

Dermot Moloney said...

Again my stance is to look at the available evidence, and if it shows that the people are better off due to an intervention i support it, if it is not i am against it.

They are however people such as lidia and bill kristol who dont seem to really care about the welfare of others, they just make their decisions based around there bias and ideology.

Dermot Moloney said...

"For most of the summer we would get casualty reports every single day of ten or twelve people being killed in peaceful protests by the Syrian government. That is a lie. A straight up lie, it did not happen. People may well have been dying, but not in peaceful demonstrations every day for weeks. Especially not in demonstrations that weren't even generating images."

Out of curiosity who has claimed that 10 or 12 people have died very single day at peaceful protests, from what ive read people were dying in a wide range of circumstances?


"We were being lied to."
Human rights groups have compiled a significant amount of evidence to show that the assad government have been committing human rights abuses against it people, and that many innocent people have died.

This is the view of most people in the public who have been paying a bit of attention to the situation in syria and it is accurate.

"we can be confident that many of the statements we've heard from US and Arab government and media sources have been lies. Because of that, we are safe assuming that every statement that we're reading, that we do not already have proof of, is a lie."

Very odd sentence.

"The lies about Syria are only leading to dead Syrians "

The deaths of syrians is due to the violence between pro and anti-gaddafi forces.

"who, like the hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis, matter very close to not at all for most Americans. "

I believe that you are projecting your faults onto others.

"Americans are quite racist and bigoted over religion."

That itself is actually a bigoted comment.

"The US colonies of Saudi Arabia and Qatar "

They actually arent colonies.

" if we commit the fallacy of “giving known liars the benefit of the doubt”.

Again one just has to look at the available evidence to see that the government in syria is indeed violent.

Out of curiosity you do consider the syrian government to be oppressive to its people, right? And that assad should allow for free elections?

Arnold Evans said...

Me: Americans are quite racist and bigoted over religion.

Moloney: That itself is actually a bigoted comment.

Classic.

Dermot Moloney said...

Im sorry arnold but my statement is accurate.

Landon said...

Dermot, if the evidence of the threat to the people you claim to care about is fabricated in order to advance some other agenda that is just dressed up in "making people better off," how do you know your otherwise exemplary intentions are not being manipulated and will ultimately result in far more human suffering, and in more people being less better off?
People like you -- with good intentions and finely tuned moral code -- are targets for unscrupulous people.  They push your moral and emotional buttons.
That is the lesson in the Davies post: the truth value of the claims has got to be tested along side --or before-- rushing to apply the corporal works of mercy. 
Maybe the old lady doesn't want to cross the road.  Maybe she doesn't NEED your help to cross the road.
Maybe crossing the road will put her in grave danger.

Lidia said...

I would NOT count DM as one "with ... finely tuned moral code", because he is perfectly OK with mass-murder (of Pakistanis, for ex) by USA if only he could invent (or just repeat) some "legal" cover to it. DM is OK with torture too, as far as I remember, as far as dems do it, and almost any war crime  is good enough to DM provide he could explain it away. I am NOT really interested whether he is lying to his readers or to himself as well. But he is NOT a moral person, at least NOT by  my sort of morals.  

Lidia said...

Arnold, you are right, it is classic one :( Zionists usually are eager to call anti-Zionists "racists". 

By the way, I remember some poll about USA (like 20 years ago) about the marriage with people of another race and religion (including USA citizens, of course). The % of people willing to do it was not much bigger than the margin of error.  It could be easily explained by the history and modern-day reality of settler colonialist state and imperialism. In my native USSR it was much better, maybe because the religion itself was much less relevant. 

Arnold Evans said...

Another comment over at Juan Cole's. I don't expect it to be published.

---------

There is an armed rebellion in Homs which is given a base and organizational support by Turkey and material support by at least Saudi Arabia and Qatar. This support for the armed rebellion against Syria by a US formal treaty ally and by two effective US colonies is at least not discouraged by the Obama administration and is thought by some to be coordinated by the Obama administration.

Barack Obama's response to a widespread armed rebellion in Miami, even possibly supported by allies of Russia or China, would look a lot like Assad's response to Homs.

There may currently be no peaceful protests or civil disobedience occurring at all in Homs.  I have not seen any images of them from 2012 while I've seen many images of armed resistance.  I can't consider a statement or even an implication that peaceful protests and civil disobedience are the primary targets of Syria's military campaign to be honest.

It may ease your worries about the lack of UNSC authorization of force against Syria to know that Western covert forces can be and likely already are operating in Syria as they did in Libya.

Barack Obama's position, from the summer of 2011 that Assad had to leave power before negotiations could begin on a graceful transition to democracy was designed, and unfortunately is too likely to be successful at instigating a civil war in Syria that would destroy the country the way Iraq was destroyed beginning in the early 1990s by George Bush I, Clinton, and George Bush II.

At the expense of killing thousands of Syrian people, the destruction of Syria would reduce the strategic threat a strong Syria could pose to Israel which would fulfill Obama's constantly made promise to work to protect Israel's security interests.

Dermot Moloney said...

 "because he is perfectly OK with mass-murder"

I dont.

"some "legal" cover to it."

If an action is legal then it isnt murder for murder is an illegal killing.

"DM is OK with torture too"

When did i claim that i am ok with torture?

" But he is NOT a moral person, at least NOT by  my sort of morals."

But lidia you dont really have proper morals, you have certain ideological beliefs and bias's, it is these things that you support as opposed to the welfare of people. It is then you who tries to explain away this suffering ( very unsuccessfully)

I on the otherhand put ideology and bias to the side and try to look at the facts, after doing so i support the option which lessens or causes less distress.

In this regards i am vastly a more moral person than you and arnold, although this isnt something to brag about because most people try to support the welfare of others and wish to decrease human distress as opposed to caving into a certain bias.

Dermot Moloney said...

This has nothing to do with zionism and i have never claimed being anti-zionist means you are racist ( i believe that this is the second time you have implied that i have done so, yet you have not provided evidence for this)

The fact is arnold made a bigoted comment, a bigoted comment which you seem to think is "classic".

"By the way, I remember some poll about USA"

Could you please provide evidence of this poll,otherwise it would be pretty easy to claim that you are just making it up, could you also provide polling evidence that shows such a thing wasnt an issue in the ussr and that it was actually better their.

Also it should be noted that the state you were born into was an imperialist power.

Dermot Moloney said...

Your posts about the situation about syria are extremely odd.

You claim to be concerned about those oppressed in the middle east yet in syria we have a government whose freedom rating from monitoring groups is among the worst in the region.

According to other human rights groups the syrian government
is committing mass human rights abuses against its people, in Homs the government is attacking residential areas and committing crimes against humanity.

Yet from your posts and comments else-where take a very lax attitude to all this, instead of outrage we get, i dont mean to be overly blunt, fantastically bizarre claims along the lines of 

"I haven't seen any verified fact that is inconsistent with Syria dealing with peaceful protests mostly reasonably. "

???

Such a claim really does show that when it comes to the middle east you simply are not zoned into reality and that you are not a reliable source on the matter.



"
Barack Obama's response to a widespread armed rebellion in Miami, even possibly supported by allies of Russia or China, would look a lot like Assad's response to Homs."

Another presumption from arnold, as i said before this site should really be renamed "Presumptions not grounded in reality"

Even if such a thing did happen it would not excuse the war crimes of the syrian government. I mean, ive heard of people using the whataboutery argument before, but using it in regards to a fictitious scenario is a new one. 

Lidia said...

The imperialist false notion of USSR as "imperialist" was refuted by me before (with quotations not from such expert as DM but from a Pakistani). But one more time - the imperialist does NOT like to be shown a mirror, so DM tries to call the mirror names :(

Lidia said...

You see, landon, I could rest my case, because DM is very busy giving examples of his whitewashing of imperialist war crimes :(

Arnold Evans said...

If that's your criticism, I can live with it. You weren't going to agree, but that almost disappointingly mild.

But what do you claim is happening to civilians in Hom? You can't be claiming Assad is trying to kill as many civilians as possible. So what do you claim he's trying to do?

If Obama would do the same thing in the same situation then the problem is they're both monsters or the problem is a monstrous situation has been imposed on them.

The alternative is to let a foreign supported faction take over the  country by force. You expect that of Assad? Would you expect that from Obama?

Lidia said...

Just one example - during the vote in UNSC there were "reports" by London-based Qatari-founded group about 2 hundreds of civilians murdered by shelling by Syrian army in Homs. Not only very fast the number was changed down to 50, the very images of victims, provided by the same source were naked bodies with hands bound - the very odd result for "shelling", but quite plausible for sectarian murders (quite common in Homs now). 

Was it enough to at least made media to question the NATO/GCC propaganda? of course, NOT. But the same media which were SO in  love with Libyan "rebels" ("NATO rebels", as Angry Arab calls them), NOW, after the lot of murder by NATO bombs and "rebels" started to admit SOME of monstrous conditions in "liberated" Libya. NOW it is NOT going to change what is done to Libya by NATO, and NOT going to change the same lies told by the same media about Syria. 

Dermot Moloney said...

 "But one more time - the imperialist does NOT like to be shown a mirror"
Apparently not for you do not seem to like being reminded that the ussr was an imperialist power, while the russian people themselves do have a history of imperialist expansion and behavior.

Also please provided the polls lidia or we can come to the conclusion that you were lying.

Dermot Moloney said...

???

Lidia you are seeing things, no where in my post did i attempt to whitewash imperialist war crimes.

Dermot Moloney said...

"If that's your criticism, I can live with it. You weren't going to agree, but that almost disappointingly mild. "

What exactly? The criticism or the fact that we dont agree?

"But what do you claim is happening to civilians in Hom? "

That the syrian government is taking measures to remove opposition to its rule. 

"The alternative is to let a foreign supported faction take over the  country by force. You expect that of Assad? Would you expect that from Obama?"

Obama actually supports a system of government which allows him to be removed from power and limits the time he can serve in office, assad does not, his government has responded with mass violence against civilians to prevent this from happening.

Dermot Moloney said...

"
Was it enough to at least made media to question the NATO/GCC propaganda?"

No doubt in a situation like syria misinformation can spread but the fact is evidence has been compiled which shows that the syrian government has engaged in mass abuses against its own people.

" But the same media which were SO in  love with Libyan "rebels""

This is a silly claim, media groups clearly reported abuses which were committed by rebels however human rights groups found that gaddafis forces were responsible for most of the distress and damage caused.

Lidia you do support assad stepping down, right, and allowing for free elections?

Arnold Evans said...

This is what it looks like when someone who doesn't disagree with you wants to argue.

We agree there is armed opposition in Homs, agree that it is supported by hostile foreign governments, agree that Obama would not be more tolerant of armed opposition under similar circumstances, agree that Assad's government is not democratic.

The claim that Assad is fighting civilians is not even coherent, after you've admitted there is armed opposition present. The Syrian army is supposedly ignoring the armed opposition you admit is there and fighting peaceful demonstrations that you cannot produce any indication are even happening.

Assad is repressing an armed rebellion with a lot less force and a lot, probably at least ten times, less violence and deaths than would be necessary for the US-supported opposition to defeat the government. He is also, you haven't denied, doing what you would expect Obama to do if there was foreign-supported armed opposition trying to gain or hold control of Miami.

Arnold Evans said...

Type your comment here.This is what it looks like when someone who doesn't disagree with you wants to argue.

We agree there is armed opposition in Homs, agree that it is supported by hostile foreign governments, agree that Obama would not be more tolerant of armed opposition under similar circumstances, agree that Assad's government is not democratic.

The claim that Assad is fighting civilians is not even coherent, after you've admitted there is armed opposition present. The Syrian army is supposedly ignoring the armed opposition you admit is there and fighting peaceful demonstrations that you cannot produce any indication are even happening.

Assad is repressing an armed rebellion with a lot less force and a lot, probably at least ten times, less violence and deaths than would be necessary for the US-supported opposition to defeat the government. He is also, you haven't denied, doing what you would expect Obama to do if there was foreign-supported armed opposition trying to gain or hold control of Miami.

Dermot Moloney said...

Argue?


Was i not meant to respond?

You did after all ask me a question.

" agree that Obama would not be more tolerant of armed opposition under similar circumstances"

When did i agree to this, please do not make things up arnold.

"The claim that Assad is fighting civilians is not even coherent"

Human rights groups are quite clear that assad's forces have been abusive to civilians and is currently committing war crimes in Homs.

Also i should add that your opinion of what assad is and isnt doing is not exactly the best, you are example came out with this howler.

"I haven't seen any verified fact that is inconsistent with Syria dealing with peaceful protests mostly reasonably. "

Reasonably indeed. 

"He is also, you haven't denied, doing what you would expect Obama to do if there was foreign-supported armed opposition trying to gain or hold control of Miami."

If obama faced the same type of opposition in Miami that assad has faced his behavior would not have been the same as assads. A man whose actions are based around preventing his party from being removed from power.

Again your claim is a presumption disconnected from reality. Quite a pattern.

Arnold Evans said...

You ducked the question I asked actually you, because you're not stupid enough to disagree. But guess now you're enraged that we agree and are trying to invent some disagreement. It's not that serious. We can agree sometimes.

We agree that Barack Obama would not allow armed, foreign-supported opposition to establish in Miami territory outside of the control of the formal US government. Barack Obama would prevent that with whatever force is necessary as would any ruler of any soveriegn state.

Bend and flex to try to disagree with a really basic statement but that just makes you look silly. If you were Juan Cole and this was your comments section, you'd just delete my comment. At least you wouldn't be making statements that can't possibly be serious.

Dermot Moloney said...

"
You ducked the question "
If you mean the claim that obama would behave like assad im pretty clear that i disagree with it. If obama with his beliefs was in assads shoes he would not be doing what assad is doing.

Dermot Moloney said...

Lidua polling evidence shows that in russia a greater percentage of people actually have negative views of muslims and jews in comparison to the us.

http://www.pewglobal.org/2008/09/17/unfavorable-views-of-jews-and-muslims-on-the-increase-in-europe/ 

So much for it being better :/

Have you found that poll you were on about yet?

Arnold Evans said...

Now I'm just toying with you. I feel like a bully. I'll stop soon.

The following is a yes or no question. After you say the one word: 'yes' or 'no', you can give any qualifications you want. But changing the question and answering something else is ducking the question.

Yes or no, Barack Obama would allow a foreign-supported armed opposition to establish an area in Miami outside of the reach of US government forces?

You might be interested to know Cole did delete the comment above so above he'll never face the question before you now. You're a braver man than he.

Dermot Moloney said...

"Now I'm just toying with you. I feel like a bully."
If you say so arnold.

"The following is a yes or no question. After you say the one word: 'yes' or 'no' "

If you believe that then you are sorely mistaken, the context of the situation and events need to be taken into account, as well as various other factors.

Then a decision can be made.

However you have implied that if the situation was the same as the one assad is facing obama would behave in the same way however the facts do not hold out on this.

We saw what both men are like to their citizens in domestic peace time, in the us peoples rights are overall at a high level, in syria they were among the worst in the region.

We also see that they handle political opposition very differently.

So again the idea that obama would behave in the same way as assad in similar circumstances doesnt hold out.

I also understand why you are trying to label me as someone who dodges questions even though such an accusation is unfair, it stems from the fact that you have engaged in such a practice and is attempting to lessen ones guilt about it by accusing other unjustly of the same thing. 

Lidia said...

I was citing by memory so I cannot find the poll, but if DM does not believe me, I have found something even better - 2010


Married couples in the United States in 2010 





White Americans were statistically the least likely to wed interracially, though in absolute terms they were involved in interracial marriages more than any other racial group due to their demographic majority. 2.1% of married White women and 2.3% of married White men had a non-White spouse. 1.0% of all married White men were married to an Asian American woman, and 1.0% of married White women were married to a man classified as "other".




DM is also could be advised to read what I write :) - USSR is NOT the same as capitalist Russia, where internationalist ideology of the USSR was abandoned 

Lidia said...

the link 



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interracial_marriage_in_the_United_States#Census_Bureau_statistics

Lidia said...

DM repeats non-sense about USSR "imperialism" as if it made it real. I do not like to read non-sense, it is right, but, on the other hand, one could not demand too much sense from DM, because he usually try to defend indefensible :(

George Carty said...

I think what Lidia is trying to say is that the Soviet empire was not a colonial empire which impoverished its periphery to enrich the centre.  If anything it was the other way round for the most part (and to a lesser extent, so was Imperial Russia).

One area of the old Soviet empire which was ruled in a colonial-style manner though was Central Asia.  (Similarly, the Ottoman Empire was for the most part non-colonial, but Yemen was a possible exception...)

Dermot Moloney said...

Lidia the source does not show what you claimed so i fail to see how it is even better?

"USSR is NOT the same as capitalist Russia"

The ussr would have actually engaged in more actions that would have been of an imperialistic nature.

Arnold Evans said...

So that was it.  Now I'm blocked.  My comments do not go into the moderation queue any more but are immediately deleted, at least for this post.  I think from this thread the reason why is clear.

Lidia said...

USSR was NOT an empire at all. All parts of it were by law at the same level and all citizens had the same rights (just look into USA with all laws against miscegenation till the end of 60th, or at Israel now) . Not the case in Russian Empire, by the way. 

Central Asia was NOT ruled different than Ukraine (from the politics of support for national language and culture to natives in the ruling positions to subsidies for less prosperous parts). 

But DM means (if I got it right), not the USSR itself, but its relations to other states, esp. former colonies. 

Dermot Moloney said...

"DM repeats non-sense about USSR "imperialism" as if it made it real."
The ussr did engage in such actions, its aggressive actions against places like finland for example.

Just because you were born  there doesnt change this lidia, so for all your talk is shown to be hypocrisy in regards to imperialism for you criticise other nations for doing it but not your own.

"one could not demand too much sense from DM, because he usually try to defend indefensible "

Again youre projecting your faults onto me.

Dermot Moloney said...

Lidia the ussr was indeed an imperialistic power that gain territory through aggression and kept lands under the threat of force.

Whats more is that you are liberal to say the least when it comes to labeling things as imperialistic, now when you have actually encountered something which did commit such actions you deny it just for the fickle reason that you were born there.

Thats something else.

Dermot Moloney said...

In fairness arnold,you do post some pretty odd things, maybe he thought you were trolling.

Lidia said...

Does DM misspells by chance writing about USA (not USSR) "gain territory through aggression and kept lands under the threat of force."? 

USSR was created by treaties, if DM is not aware :) If he means West Ukraine and West Belorussia, they were returned after Poland grabbed them after WWI, against treaties. The same is about Moldova (returned from Romania). 

But USA was a colonial settler empire from the beginning, all lands were grabbed from natives, who were often ethnic cleansed or just murdered. NOT a square foot of the USA is not awash in Natives' blood. Even Zionists bought (albeit mostly bogus) some of Palestinian land. USA land is not even bought (maybe Alaska, but still NOT from the Natives)

Arnold Evans said...

You see how I tolerate you.  It's really that you've never written anything where I vehemently disagree with what I admit are the implications, but I can't write that I disagree with the words themselves.

I guess Cole, like you, cannot say the same for me. And Cole, unlike you, has the luxury of just blocking statements such as that.

Dermot Moloney said...

"Does DM misspells by chance writing about USA (not USSR)"
No lidia, i meant the ussr, although the us also engaged in such acts.

This piece highlights the point i made above.

Also under stalin the ussr engaged in aggressive territorial actions.

"  NOT a square foot of the USA is not awash in Natives' blood."

How would one test such a thing, and as bad as the treatment of the natives was the numbers  of them killed by the us government was lower than the numbers killed by stalin.

Lidia said...

1) Arnold states the fact -USA population is racist (in a post which is full of well-established facts)
2) I added that this racism  is explained by USA imperialist past and present and compared USA racism with non-racism in the USSR
3) DM, as he wonts, decided to ignore facts and accuse Arnold in bigotry for stating the fact 
4) Than DM accused USSR of being imperialist :)

5) The "method" of DM in Russian called "you are fool yourself" - as an universal answer for ANY unpleasant fact.
6) Arnold is right - his tolerance to DM "logic" is itself remarkable, esp. when DM uses his "logic" for defense of Cole's abhorrence to Arnold posts (very polite and well-founded). Cole does not  question  Arnold posts for "trolling", he simple bans them and thus saves himself trouble to deal with reality as opposed to imperialist propaganda he is trading in. 
6) DM, on the other hand, has a tough luck - he has to actually answer to Arnold posts (and mine). So, sometimes I even feel pity for him - to defend imperialism crimes and lies is not a job I would like myself :)

Unfortunately, efforts of Cole, DM and their sources are nothing but very frightening - they are preparing the world to one more imperialist colonial war - against Syria, and then against Iran, and then possible against also Russia and China. Lebanon is quite caught a fire from the arson of Syria. I worry VERY much, and if DM is sure he would not be affected he could be for some very unpleasant surprises. I am not going to call for his common humanity regarding the victims of USA imperialism, because he shows every day he has nothing to spare. But I suppose even DM could be concerned  with his own well-being. Unfortunately, the habit of believing imperialist propaganda could prevent DM and a majority of Americans to see the consequence for themselves.  

Dermot Moloney said...

"
1) Arnold states the fact -USA population is racist (in a post which is full of well-established facts"

Arnold simply made a bigoted claim lidia, a bigoted claim that you are defending, therefore logically both arnold and yourself are bigots, thats the way it goes.

"I added that this racism  is explained by USA imperialist past and present and compared USA racism with non-racism in the USSR "

Lidia that is delusional, both states have racism, has the pol showed russians actually have a more negative view of muslims and jews than the us does.

"DM, as he wonts, decided to ignore facts and accuse Arnold in bigotry for stating the fact  "

No fact was given lidia, just a bigoted statement, it seems arnold is further more showing his true colours :/

"Than DM accused USSR of being imperialist :) "

Because it was lidia :) 

"The "method" of DM in Russian called "you are fool yourself" - as an universal answer for ANY unpleasant fact."

Sorry your grammar is a little bit off, what are you trying to say.

"and thus saves himself trouble to deal with reality as opposed to imperialist propaganda he is trading in.  "

Arnold im afraid is living in "la la" land in regards to the middle east, while actually it is you who has shown one self to be an apologist for soviet imperialism, strange how it goes, arnold who professes to show reality is detached from it while the anti imperialist lidia defends imperialistic actions due to being born in the nation that committed such actions.

" he has to actually answer to Arnold posts (and mine)."

Someone has to lidia, both you and arnold actually do duck and dodge questions that are asked of you.

I have a string of questions asked that have received no answers. :(

" they are preparing the world to one more imperialist colonial war - against Syria, and then against Iran, and then possible against also Russia and China."

Quite the claim, it isnt true however.


 "I am not going to call for his common humanity regarding the victims of USA imperialism, because he shows every day he has nothing to spare. "

If an action benefits people i will support it, if it does not i am against it. If you have evidence to guide such a decision please provide it as opposed to making things up off the top of your head.


"Unfortunately, the habit of believing imperialist propaganda"

Like the soviet propaganda that you grew up with :(

My nations media is actually significantly better than yours, hopefully yours will someday come close to its standard and you may become better informed about world affairs.

Arnold Evans said...

Ok, Dermot.  Gather up all of your questions, also the ones you have for Lidia, put them here so I can answer them.

Lidia said...

Arnold, I am astonished by your patience! Are you seriously going to spend time answering to question of someone who is sure that "My nations media is actually significantly better than yours, hopefully yours will someday come close to its standard and you may become better informed about world affairs."

"My  nations" being USA, and what is "yours" I am not sure :) Given the role of "his" media in preparation to colonial war against Iraq and during the war (DM is NOT happy with this particular colonial crime , I dunno why) it is a bold claim, esp. given that I was sure about USA media lies regarding Iraq back in 2002, and NOT thanks to DM's media. I suppose me being better informed than DM the eater of USA propaganda is NOT so hard a task, maybe I AM already :)

So, I wish you all the luck you'll need (a lot), but I am NOT envy you :) On the other hand, your posts are always worth reading, so I'll benefit from your sacrifice :)

Lidia said...

Arnold, wear it is a budge of honor. Cole turned his blog more or less into a club of "bombem already" humanitarians a la DM. You are sure out of place there. 

On the other hand, Cole's shameless propaganda could turn some of his less brainwashed readers off - to better sources. One could always hope :(

Dermot Moloney said...

"My  nations" being USA"
This is factually wrong lidia, im irish and yes the press freedom in my nation is indeed significantly better than the media in russia.

"(DM is NOT happy with this particular colonial crime , I dunno why)"

How could you not know why?

I explained to you before, the available evidence such as opinion polls shows that most iraqis feel that the war was wrong and that their lives are worse now than they were.

The opposite has occurred in places such as afghanistan.

" I suppose me being better informed than DM the eater of USA propaganda is NOT so hard a task, maybe I AM already :)"

:) Better informed indeed, you cant even get my nation right, pretty sloppy lidia.

"On the other hand, your posts are always worth reading "

When one is in need of a laugh.

Dermot Moloney said...

You can answer them where i asked them, why should i have to repeat myself just because you and lidia wished to , in you words, dodge questions.

Dermot Moloney said...

"bombem already" humanitarians a la DM. 

Thats a crude way of putting it and not entirely accurate, juan if im not mistaken has not stated that sryia should be bombed.

"You are sure out of place there. "

They are others who like arnold make dubious claims in the comments section.

" Cole's shameless propaganda"

Lidia just because one has a different opinion doesnt necessarily make it propaganda, it is simply a different viewpoint. Also you are not exactly in the best place to criticise cole for you often are unsure of his actual positions as i pointed out in an earlier post.

"to better sources"

Juan actually would be quite a good source, particularly in comparison to arnold who has difficulty interpreting sources and whose knowledge on the syrian situation is lacking.

Arnold Evans said...

 See the edited response.

Arnold Evans said...

:-)

George Carty said...

What would happen if the US government didn't lie, and openly said it believed all non-Israeli Middle Easterners were Nazi Jew-killers who deserved to be utterly crushed, just like the Third Reich was utterly crushed?

Lidia said...

Did NOT lie? I am sorry, but "all non-Israeli Middle Easterners were Nazi Jew-killers who deserved to be utterly crushed",  IS a lie. Even the most stupid and racist USA government knows better :(

 On the other hand, some people here sure believe in this lie - n7, for ex. But even DM prefers another lie - that  Arabs could  be happy with Zionism and if USA/UK mass-murder  natives of the ME, it is mostly for their own good. 

By the way, USA/UK fought against Nazis NOT because they were  Jew-killers, but because Nazi were imperialist/colonialist rivals to USA/UK. Even use of "pro-democracy" propaganda during the WWII was a bit awkward, because Hitler's race laws were more or less copied from USA ones. 

Arnold Evans said...

That's just too implausible, to easy to disprove, for people to cooperate with it.

It also too strongly contradicts US professed liberal values.

US Middle East policy works better the fewer people who aren't  pro-Israel partisans are able to become informed and to discuss it.  That's why the internet is pretty bad for Israel, and when the post-internet generation takes position of power in the US government we can be certain that will be to Israel's detriment.

George Carty said...

Arnold rightly points out that "a country willing to subjugate hundreds of millions of people to
prevent Jewish Israelis from suffering the fate of White South Africans
is repugnant, according to the professed values of the United States".  So why does it do it?

My opinion is that many US decision-makers really do believe that they must support Israel in order to prevent the extermination of the Israeli Jews.  If someone says something which is factually false because they believe it to be true, that is NOT a "lie" but rather a "delusion".

The idea which you suggest that DM believes that "if USA/UK mass-murder natives of the ME, it is mostly for their own good" is nuts (if it's true).  But it isn't too far off how the Soviet war in Afghanistan was portrayed by the Soviet Union's own propaganda!

The war in Kosovo was a genuine humanitarian exercise (although I can understand why you opposed it if you're Russian -- Russia and Serbia are old allies).  It was a war for the protection of Kosovar Albanians, waged against their Serbian persecutors.

The wars in Afghanistan and Libya were revenge wars against terrorist-sponsoring regimes.  Libya had funded and armed the IRA and blown up UTA Flight 772, and the Taliban had provided a safe haven for the al-Qaeda terrorists behind 9/11 and other anti-American terrorist attacks.

Unfortunately, the West has found itself in a similar predicament to that which the Soviets found themselves in Afghanistan, due to the Taliban finding renewed support from the Pakistanis (smells like the Western powers bungled their diplomacy somewhere...)

I wouldn't support Western military intervention in Syria though -- as there is no similar "anti-terrorist vengeance" motivation to Afghanistan or Libya (the Hindawi affair doesn't really count, because the intended targets were Israelis, not Westerners), and because it would be more damaging to the West's standing to attack yet another Muslim state, than to attack a non-Muslim state persecuting a Muslim population.

Why would "pro-democracy" propaganda be awkward during World War II?  Blacks under Jim Crow were still better off than they would have been under Nazi rule.  Surely it was the West's pro-Soviet propaganda of the era which was far more awkward.

George Carty said...

In what way does destroying Nazis "strongly contract US professed liberal values"?

Dermot Moloney said...

"I'm not pressed. Your questions can stand unanswered where they are. If I didn't answer them, I didn't see them as worth answering. 

I'm pretty much happy with every thread you've been involved in so far. I'm satisfied that a reasonable reader would be convinced that your objections either have obvious or previously given answers or are irrelevant. If I didn't feel a need to answer them then, I don't feel a need to answer them now"
Or you could just admit and you, in your words, dodged them at the time.

Dermot Moloney said...

Arnold are you implying that i have not asked questions?

Its pretty clear that i did.

Dermot Moloney said...

"that  Arabs could  be happy with Zionism "
Lidia it is you that is lying, i never claimed that they are happy with zionism, what i claimed accurately is that arabs in return for peace would accept the two state solution, i provided a link to show this, whats more you yourself saw it previously last year.

" and if USA/UK mass-murder  natives of the ME, it is mostly for their own good."

Lidia if you honestly believe this it simply shows that the complexity of the situation and my arguments have simply gone over your head.

"but because Nazi were imperialist/colonialist rivals to USA/UK"

Actually nazi germany was not an imperialist rival to the uk, hitler was actually overall content with the british empire, the us also got involved for germany declared war on it.

I explained this to you before, no doubt ill have to explain it again.

Arnold Evans said...

 See the edited response.

Arnold Evans said...

 See the edited response.

Dermot Moloney said...

I did.

Lidia said...

I just want to remind you that USA was fighting Nazis while having the same race laws as Nazis (and USA had them till the end of  1960th). USA was fighting Nazis while oppressing Puerto-Rico people, and so on. Not mentioning UK fighting Nazis while keeping colonial empire which treated colonial people about as nice as Nazis treated their victims (and I am not talking about Nazis treatment of the French or Dutch, for ex, who, by the way, were also colonial masters and mass-murdered and tortured and robbed their colonial nations). UK treated Indians just as Nazis did Poles and Russians. 

In short, "liberal values" of USA had NOTHING to do with waging WWII (even though USA propaganda tried to tell otherwise) 

Lidia said...

GC, 1) if imperialist do something against their own PROFESSED values, it does not mean that they BELIEVE in those values, at least not the same values you think they are.

The most famous Churchill words about 

“It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.”
Now, he said while ruling by empire, 9/10 of which was NOT ruled by anything like "democracy". Was he a liar? Of course, he was. 
2) GC, what do you KNOW about "how the Soviet war in Afghanistan was portrayed by the Soviet Union's own propaganda"? Have you read it? If not, how could you compare it? of course, you could read WESTERN propaganda about USSR propaganda :(
3) One more time, there is NOT such thing as " revenge wars against terrorist-sponsoring regimes". There are imperialist wars under a lot of different pretexts. Saudis, for ex, had MUCH MORE to do with 9/11 than Taliban. Not mentioning USA role in fostering future 9/11 forces (during the period BEFORE USSR went into Afghanistan, if you are not aware of it). Libya's role in  UTA Flight 772 was NEVER proved, and IRA got much more support from USA then from Libya.

In short, as I have said, your knowledge about reality of imperialism is still lacking, if you REALLY want to understand something you should stop repeat imperialist propaganda and find better sources. It is not too hard - www is full of good sources. 

"Blacks under Jim Crow were still better off than they would have been under Nazi rule"
1) What do you KNOW about Blacks under Jim Crow?
2) There were NOT a question of Blacks under Nazis, because no ONE was thinking Nazis could conquer USA. 
3) It was a question of Nazi racial laws being copied from USA ones. In the USSR there were NOT such laws. 
4) Of course, the very notion of USA being imperialist
colonialist force just like Nazis was NOT viewed by USA propaganda as relevant, but it still was a truth. 

Now, I would prefer you not to want USA/UK to bomb the Syria out of common humanity, if not out of anti-imperialism. because your "reasons" could very easy be changed - by the same propaganda you seems to believe. Say, Obama claims that Syrians were plotting to blow up Qatari ambassador in USA, would you not believe it is good enough reason to "revenge" war? 

George Carty said...

1) Churchill really did believe that democracy was the best system of government for the people living under it, so he wasn't lying there.  However, he was also of course an imperialist, ruling colonies for Britain's benefit not the benefit of the natives!   And as I understand he wasn't even hypocritical here (as he was a fairly open racist IIRC).
2) I was basing my view on "Soldiers of God", the Afghanistan-related episode of the Turner/BBC TV series "Cold War", which showed some subtitled snippets of Soviet TV coverage of the war.  If my view that the Soviets portrayed their war in Afghanistan as a war in defence of modernity against the medieval barbarism of the Islamists is wrong, please enlighten me.
3) I understand that Russia has had problems with Chechen terrorism in the past couple of decades.  How do you think Russia should respond to this?

Or do you (given your Third-Worldist views) believe that Westerners (but not Russians) killed in terrorist attacks deserved to die for the crimes of their imperialist governments?  Would your opinion (paraphrasing the Anti-Germans) be "Westlicher T├Ąter sind keine Opfer!"

As for the IRA, while it may have been funded by American private citizens (via NORAID), the US Government never funded the IRA.

George Carty said...

That doesn't mean that the USSR wasn't an empire, it means the USSR wasn't a racist state.  Those aren't the same thing...

George Carty said...

The UK had no plans to exterminate Indians and replace them with British colonists.  The Nazis on the other hand did have plans to exterminate Slavs and replace them with German colonists.

Dermot Moloney said...

 "Saudis, for ex, had MUCH MORE to do with 9/11 than Taliban."
The Afghanistan war clearly occurred due to the 911 terrorist attacks, the attacks were committed by al qaeda who were based in that nation, that is why the us took action there and not in saudi arabia.

" Not mentioning USA role in fostering future 9/11 forces"

Your knowledge about this period of history isnt the best, for example i recall that you claimed that al qaeda was made in the 70's, which is completely inaccurate.

Lidia said...

Non-racist empire (or, to be more precise a non-racist imperialism)? A new word in politology, I am sure :)

Lidia said...

Maybe UK colonialism and Nazis had a bit difference in their colonial goals (maybe). But it was NOT a point. Both Nazis and UK treated colonized peoples like dirt and even worse. It is a point.

Lidia said...

1) Yes , Churchill was an open racist, but even he could NOT in his propaganda (mostly against USSR) openly say that ONLY whites (and Irish were sure non-too-white to him) were deserved to be a colonial subjects. It just would NOT sound as a good propaganda. So, he lied, because he did NOT add something to his stupid glib "wisdom". But even this is not so important. Churchill spoke for "democracy", while NOT practicing it. USA rulers do the same regarding the ME, but not only. So, they do NOT believe (unlike n7), that without Zionism ALL Jews will be murdered. They just prefer their fellow colonialists to the natives. Just as Churchill preferred Zionists to "Arabs" and democracy could be damned if it stands on the way of imperialism.

2) The USSR propaganda about Afghanistan intervention was such: the progressive (socialist) government was fighting against imperialism-founded armed bands, and those bands were religious backward misogynist  fanatics as well. As a matter of fact, it was VERY close to reality, as we know it now. USSR was NOT calling for bombing another state just because it did not like the rulers (like USA is doing, i.e. bombing, not just calling, all time). 

Lidia said...

3) "Chechen terrorism" was founded and supported by  Western imperialism and Saudis -  the same forces that now want to bomb Syria . Of course, some Russian politicians are supporting them too (usually they are on the same payroll). Of course, the problems of Chechen are real, esp. after the end of the USSR. But they still are citizens of RF, and NOT an occupied or colonized people - less then Irish are in UK.

And I said SEVERAL times that I have NOTHING to do with anti-Germans" - a very stupid persons. 

Lidia said...

Taliban was NOT also the mastermind of the 9/11. They were accused in "harboring" the criminals. But USA rulers sure "harbor" IRA founders. So, it was NOT about some "harboring", but about colonialism. USA wanted to have control of Afghanistan LONG before Taliban was born (as a result of USA messing in Afghanistan, by the way). 

Dermot Moloney said...

The imperialism of the uk was indeed often terrible, but it wouldnt really be as bad as the nazis, the party in the era who would have been in the league as the nazis in terms of causing human suffering would have been the soviet union and perhaps also japan.

Dermot Moloney said...

"
Taliban was NOT also the mastermind of the 9/11."

Who claimed that they were?

"They were accused in "harboring" the criminals."

They were.

"USA rulers sure "harbor" IRA founders."

The us has never allowed the ira to set up camps in their nation to train terrorists and they never refused to hand over wanted ira members responsible for the deaths of 1000's of civilians. The fbi actually conducted operations to stop the ira from getting weapons.

"So, it was NOT about some "harboring", but about colonialism. "

Lol! It was about harboring lidia, clearly. I know you want to see colonialism and imperialism here, there and everywhere ( unless your former nation was behind it :/ )  but the us did not have any plans or wish to establish colonies in Afghanistan.

"Taliban was born (as a result of USA messing in Afghanistan, by the way)."

Actually it was the result of the ussr invading Afghanistan, if they kept away the country would have been spared a lot of grief.

Dermot Moloney said...

 ""Chechen terrorism" was founded and supported by  Western imperialism and Saudis"
Actually it was the result of the past imperialism of your people lidia.

" Of course, the problems of Chechen are real, esp. after the end of the USSR."

Actually it was during the soviet union that they experienced what many would consider genocide, at a minimum very serious crimes against humanity.

"But they still are citizens of RF, and NOT an occupied or colonized people - less then Irish are in UK."

Actually they are in the same boat. But because you are from the nation which committed the imperialist actions you are taking a more lax view about it.

Dermot Moloney said...

"
USSR was NOT calling for bombing another state just because it did not like the rulers "

The soviet union actually did intervene due to the dislike of a ruler. You have grown up in an area with poor press freedom and not only that your nation was involved in the war so its likely both you and the information you got is highly biased.

Many of the mujahadeen were not very nice people but the afghan soviet backed government was also very brutal, its aggressive polices and mass human rights abuses turned many afghans off it and the clumsy soviet intervention made a bad situation worse. 

Dermot Moloney said...

Lidia many of the peoples of the soviet union did race persecution for the groups that they belonged to, the Chechens, the Ukrainians and others faced ethnic deportations, they also came under pressure from russification policies.

As stalin himself once said "I would like to raise a toast to the health of our Soviet people and, before all, the Russian people"

Before all.

So yes the ussr behhaved as an imperilist power and it is childish to claim otherwise just because you lidia, come from there. Show a bit of integrity.

Lidia said...

It seems that DM is being busy with answering to my posts which are NOT written as an answer to him :)

What could I say? I am not terrible interested of posts by a person who compared MRZine to some right-wing publication. You see, for DM only "center" is good. Year, just like NYT serial lies and propaganda leading to USA colonial war against Iraq. More openly rightists rags were all for the aggression, of course, the same as NYT, while leftists like MRZ was AGAINST it and provided proof of colonial nature of the war, based on the lies (supplied by the government and parroted by NYT). Of course, DM is not a person to be swayed by facts :( 

By the way, the example with NYT and Iraq is just ONE in a magnitude of lies and propaganda from so-called mainstream (capitalist) media. They differ from the far-right one  mostly by style and some fringe matters, like right to gay people openly serve as cannon fodder in colonial wars. On the other hand, leftist like MRZ are providing me and others unlike DM with not only facts, but also with the clear explanation of imperialist politics and why imperialists need lies in the first place.

On the reading skills of DM it is worth mentioning that I had recced (not to him, of course) NOT the MRZ itself, but the twitter account, because it has some very good info and analysis of reality in and around Syria. 

Dermot Moloney said...

"It seems that DM is being busy with answering to my posts which are NOT written as an answer to him :)"
I believe that you have also replied to posts when they were not originally directed at you. 

"I am not terrible interested of posts by a person who compared MRZine to some right-wing publication. "

Thats an issue for you, the fact is it is a valid comparison, both mags operate more on ideological lines than on balanced assessment. One would already know where they stand on certain issues before you read them for they are both highly biased.

"More openly rightists rags were all for the aggression, of course, the same as NYT, while leftists like MRZ was AGAINST it and provided proof of colonial nature of the war, based on the lies (supplied by the government and parroted by NYT). Of course, DM is not a person to be swayed by facts :( "

:( indeed, lidia could you please provide evidence that i read the nyt and supported the iraq war because of the nyt.?

Its not surprising that mrz was against the iraq war but it is not impressive that they were right on the issue, it is a group who always state the same position so eventually they will sometimes get it right in the same way a broken clock is right twice a day or that the person always saying heads will eventually get a coin toss right.

Unfortunately this biased attitude will also make them get just interventions wrong, just as far right orgs will get things wrong for constantly following bias and not evidence.  

"the example with NYT and Iraq is just ONE in a magnitude of lies and propaganda from so-called mainstream (capitalist) media."

Lidia in the run up to the iraq war their was no one media narrative, the belief that their was is formed by biased orgs feeding you misinformation and you willingly and unquestionably buying it.

They were those who were for the war and they were those who were against it. Believing that their was only one side is simple ignorance on the matter. Again just like you the people who love frontpagemag also see the media as being biased, but they see it as being biased towards their beliefs while you see it being biased towards yours.

Hostile media effect is what i believe it is called.

"like right to gay people openly serve as cannon fodder in colonial wars."

No colonial wars are taking place at the moment from nations like the am i to take it you are against gays having equal rights?

"On the other hand, leftist like MRZ are providing me and others unlike DM with not only facts, but also with the clear explanation of imperialist politics and why imperialists need lies in the first place."

Lidia, it is telling you what you want to hear, if certain facts are what you want to hear it will present them, if they are facts you do not want to hear it will ignore them. Again in this way it is similar to frontpage magazine whose readers are just the same as you, they are just on the opposite side of the coin.

Lidia i know its tempting to hear what you want to hear and read what you want to read because it has been proven that doing so gives humans a sort of buzz while coming across information which challenges our beliefs can bring about negative feelings.

But eventually one has to go up and do the best to look at information in an objective way and accept information we dont like when it is likely to be right and disregard information we want to believe when it is not the best.

Basically you have to get rid of your confirmation bias.

"NOT the MRZ itself, but the twitter account, because it has some very good info and analysis of reality in and around Syria."

Im aware that it was the twitter account, but why would i give out about twitter, it is mrz which is behind that particular account therefore it is my source of criticism.