In The West Respect for Truth No Longer Exists

You bet, either that or the media consists of a group of ignorant and incompetent fools according to Paul Craig Roberts. For instance the media fell right in step with Washington and blamed the downed Malaysian airliner on Russia yet there was no evidence. So while Washington provided no evidence and withheld the truth, the media obediently complied by demonizing Russia with its constant repetition.

Now the latest demonizing goes from the absurd to the ridiculous and involves Ukraine's incompetent army destroying a Russian column entering Ukraine. The pathetic thing is that they might have destroyed their own column, but that's not what's being blasted and repeated continuously by our whorehouse of a media. Anyway the lies make me sick to my stomach, so I refuse to watch or read any of them.

As Craig Roberts says: "The city upon the hill, the light unto the world, the home of the exceptional, indispensable people is the home of Satan’s lies where truth is prohibited and war is the end game." Here are a few excerpts from his article:


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


... British reporters fabricated this story or were handed it by a CIA operative working to build a war narrative. The disreputable BBC hyped the story without investigating. The German media, including Die Welt, blared the story throughout Germany without concern at the absence of any evidence. Reuters news agency, also with no investigation, spread the story.

Readers tell me that CNN has been broadcasting the fake story 24/7. Although I cannot stand to watch it, I suspect Fox “news” has also been riding this lame horse hard. Readers tell me that my former newspaper, The Wall Street Journal, which has fallen so low as to be unreadable, also spread the false story. I hope they are wrong. One hates to see the complete despoliation of one’s former habitat...

... the Russian government, unlike Washington or EU governments, stresses legality and the rule of law. Russian military forces would not be sent into Ukraine prior to the Duma renewing Putin’s authority so to do...

...if the Russian government decides to invade Ukraine, Russia would not send in one small armored group unprotected by air cover or other forces. If Russia invades Ukraine, it will be with a force capable of rolling up the rag-tag Ukrainian forces, most of which are semi-private militias organized by nazis. The “war” would last a few hours, after which Ukraine would be in Russia’s hands where it resided for hundreds of years prior to the dissolution of the Soviet Union and Washington’s successful efforts in 1991 to take advantage of Russian weakness to break apart the constituent provinces of Russia herself...

...What we witness in this fabricated story is the total lack of integrity in the entirety of
the Western media. A story totally devoid of any evidence to support it has been broadcast world wide. The White House has issued a statement saying that it cannot confirm the story, but nevertheless the White House continues to issue accusations against Russia for which the White House can supply no evidence. Consequently, Western repetition of bald-faced lies has become truth for huge numbers of peoples. As I have emphasized in my columns, these Western lies are dangerous, because they provoke war...

...The same group in Washington and the same Western “media” are telling the same kind of lies that were used to justify Washington’s wars in Iraq (weapons of mass destruction), Afghanistan (Taliban = al Qaeda), Syria (use of chemical weapons), Libya (an assortment of ridiculous charges), and the ongoing US military murders in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia...

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2014/08/17/west-respect-truth-longer-exists-paul-craig-roberts/

 

I do not know if Zvezda TV Channel could help.

 

I don't know Zvesda TV Channel, but at least RT gives us some news and doesn't follow the line of the Washington war mongers. Anyway we do have other American news sources on the internet, but the masses watch the main stream medias and just follow along like a bunch of brain washed zombies...yet they have been caught in lies a million and one times. You figure!

Lord, what fools these mortals be. (William Shakespeare)

 

If with "our medias" you intend American medias, I'm safe. In Italy I follow Italian medias + British BBC ...

For accuracy, it happens I take a look at CNN site, but just a look.

 

Hey, the BBC is the worse, it follows the Washington line to a 't'. Someone said they should call it the British Brainwashing Corporation. They're the ones who had the reporters make up that story about a Russian invasion...mind you now, an invasion with a few trucks which if they existed at all, were probably Ukrainian ones. If the Russians wanted to invade, they would come in full force and take over Ukraine in three hours.

What is upsetting is that it's not only the English language newspapers, but the German ones as well...almost as if they're all getting their orders from Washington. Otherwise why would they be printing stories when there is no evidence to back them? Also now that they have spread the lies about the airliner being shot down by the Russians, and they have everyone believing the lies and propaganda, why are they shutting up and not writing anything about it anymore?

There has to be a reason for it, and the only reason I can see is that they're preparing the world for war. But if there is a war, Europe will get the brunt of it, so why are they going along? Are they crazy!

 

As for I have understood the news came from British journalists in the area [about the Russian column entering Ukraine] of Izvariné. For the rest, ANSA [Italian press agency] and Italian medias report what British medias say ...

About war, note that European are quite used to pass through war times [we fought no more than two World Wars!], so our perspective is a bit odd regarding conflicts [less or more large].

 

Do you think anyone is buying into your pro-Russian and pro-Putin garbage?

 

Lol you don't even bother reading the reports? How ignorant. Your obvious propaganda and mad man ramblings make me sick but in still do the decent thing and read all of them. Why? Because I'm interested in the truth. I want to hear both sides. And if one side has more truth then they other then I go with that side. The reason I am on the Ukrainians side is because it's obvious to even the most retarded monkey that the crap coming from Russia is, well, crap. And please (*)(*)(*)(*) off with the "Washington blaming Russia without any evidence for MA flight." Cause Russia was going the EXACT SAME (*)(*)(*)(*)ING THING blaming the Ukrainians without ANY EVIDENCE the NEXT (*)(*)(*)(*)ING DAY. In fact. I seem to recall you posting a thread a day or two later claiming you had "undeniable proof" that it was the Ukrainians what done it. So (*)(*)(*)(*) off you hypocritical (*)(*)(*)(*)(*).

 

I figure you're just like them.

 

Go fight in Ukraine then if it is such an important thing for you. America won't be supporting you, and is not going to send troops to die and risk thermonuclear war for the sake of some fat stubborn candy salesman.

 

The U.S. military is worn out after a decade fighting two useless wars in the Middle East. If their is going to be conflict between the U.S. and Russia, nuclear war is the only choice. Air strikes are all we can do in Iraq, and it's doubtful such strategy would be effective if the U.S. intervened in the Ukraine.

 

Why should I go fight in Ukraine? They are wining. They don't need my help to kick those Russian (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)s out. And if Russia invades you bet your ass we will respond.

 

How can you be so sure? American people are very tired of war, the smart ones see through all of the patriotic BS about Neville Chamberlain and such, etc. And even if Russia is the mortal threat to the West that you say it is (more of a threat, for example, than ISIS, who beheaded 700 people today), Americans have been lied to so many times to go to war that they are too jaded and cynical to care anymore. That responsibility for that situation lies squarely, 100% on the part of the LEADERS who created it.

 

Yeah. You see, here's the thing. The American people have no say in wether or not we go to war nor with who we go to war with. That's the president and congresses decisions. We elect them, they lead. And if you think the US is unable to go to war right now for and reason, guess a(*)(*)(*)(*)inggain. There's no reason for ground forces to go to Iraq. We can bomb ISIS from the sky and proved support to the Kurds and Iraqi forces and they can do the ground work. That's kinda the plan. ISIS is a group of a few thousand fanatics who of course, are a great danger to the entire region. But Russia is a thousand times more dangerous then they are. Or are you saying ISIS is stronger then mother Russia? "Lied to so many times to go to war". Haha. Nice conspiracy bull(*)(*)(*)(*). You know they have a section for that in the forum? I suggest you and the rest of your Russian propagandist buddies take your crap there. And from my personal opinion, I could give a rats ass about the opinion of a bunch of clueless civilians. Half of the American population is retarded anyway.

 

Yes, lied to go into war in 2003, unless you are one of the WMD conspiracy theorists. In the run up to the first Iraq war, stories were told of soldiers killing incubated babies. In the second the British press ran stories of how Saddam had people thrown into meatgrinders (borrowed from a James Bond set presumably). Every bit as crazy as RT propaganda. I think you need to chill out and relax a little, not everyone who disagrees with you is conspiring against you lol take it easy

 

There's no conspiracy about it. Being told that there are WMDs in Iraq and being presented with evidence that there are WMDs in Iraq and invading but failing to find said WMDs in Iraq does not magically equal "well bush must of lied, made it all up, pulled off 9/11, and invade for oil." Show me the logic that equates that, please. And WMDs were just at the top if a very long list of reasons for the invasion. The invasion is honestly something that should have happened under Clinton and a guarantee if it had you'd all worship the man as a hero. As for the "no WMDs" crap. No. We didn't find an actual nuclear warhead. That's true. We did however find the equipment, facilities, and personal to build said devices. The facilities to house and maintain said devices. The plans to build and stockpile said devices. Chemical weapons that were supposed to be destroyed and if you look up the definition of WMD guess what you'll see? Scud missiles that were supposed to be destroyed. And evidence to suggest that saddam may have moved unknown items into Syria just before the invasion. It is a well known fact that saddam was actively pursuing nuclear weapons. The question is did he have them already or not. Either way there is no "lie" so deal with it.

 

There are a lot of Americans today who think we would have been better off letting Saddam remain in power, continuing to slaughter his political enemies and such on the basis that it would have been a lesser price to pay than what we actually ended up paying. Which is damn close to $1 trillion. Are the people that stupid, or was that not enough in your opinion? How much more should we have spent?

 

Yes the people are still stupid. No Iraq was not better off with saddam. We should have spent a little more yes. By the time we pulled out things were pretty much done. Unfortunately we got Obama as president and pulled out a few years before we should have and it is because of that reason that ISIS even exist today.

 

Truth is very fluid.

It does prove though how everything is a matter of perspective. You see what you think is daylight, and you assume it's morning. Take it away, you think it's night. Offer you a sandwich, if it's convenient, you'll think it's mid-day. The truth is fluid, the truth is subjective.

 

The problem was always with the exit strategy. Bush didn't have one at all. That's why he invaded - ignorance and arrogance and bravado. Under Bush senior, Cheney was even against invasion because he could not see what post was Iraq would look like, who would lead what party in power. Obama tried to leave a Shia majority government, which hasn't worked. Iraq is going the way it always would without a muscle man at the top. A breakup into religious factions.

 

Tell that to the Iraqis not us.

 

I don't really see how not having an exit strategy is a reason to invade but you are right. We didn't have an exit strategy. Cheney's main problem was more leaned towards what Iran would do if we toppled saddam. He feared them swooping in a becoming the dominate power in the Mid East. That's why saddam was left alive the first time. To act as that balancer. It's all about balance in the Mid East. And the people of Iraq elected a Shia leader. To bad he screwed the pooch.

 

The story about the Russian column is a great example of lies in the media and how they are amplified through the echo chamber like so many mindless parrots squawking.

The source of the story was a British reporter traveling with the Russian humanitarian convoy which was, at the time, parked 20km from the border. Yet this reporter CLEARLY saw a Russian armored convoy enter Ukraine ... saw it so clearly that he saw the license plates! Only, somehow he got no pictures.

That apparently didn't matter as all the Western media dutifully went with the story as if it were fact. NATO's Rasmussen chimed in, too.

Okay, other than being a little sketchy, what's wrong with the story?

First, Russia would not enter with such a small force it it did decide to.

Secondly, we are supposed to believe that, even after the Ukrainians destroyed this armored column, both sides act like it never happened and continued to discuss and negotiate the delivery of the humanitarian supplies parked just over the border.

Anyone that believes that is beyond hope. Yet the media has no problem mentioning both the aid convoy and the destruction of the armored convoy in the same breath.

Frankly, I think it's a test to see just HOW STUPID the general public is.

I'll just say this. It's no way to run a democracy, though there are other systems that this type of 'reporting' would be well at home in.

 

1. Who says that columh was all there was? 2. Why wouldn't they cheerfully enter into the ground that was already held by there cronies on a quick in and out.

 

Test results in for garyd.

Okay, here's another.

Yesterday Kiev said that the rebels destroyed a convoy of refugees trying to evacuate to Russia. They went so far as to say that they went to the site to recover the bodies of the women and children. Western media again carried the story as if factual.

Does anyone believe that the Ukrainian soldiers would carry out a recovery mission within hours at a site the rebels had allegedly shelled? Why would they? Also, why no shelling when the military arrived? Are we to think that the rebels would mercilessly slaughter civilians, yet allow the Ukrainians to go to that same site within hours and not shell them, too?
C'mon, boys and girls; put your thinking caps on.