Russian advisor suggests supporting an Iranian attack against Saudi Arabia

a reply to: BornAgainAlien

And NYT is a propaganda tool.

And you have proof they are?

I forgot if it isn't a media source that backs Russia they are nothing but propaganda tools.

And if it's propaganda it tells, more of the truth than any Russian propaganda tool.

a reply to: ketsuko

lol. well you are right there. there is no doubt they could and would use a proxy.

originally posted by: AVoiceOfReason
a reply to: DJW001

keeping their presence in the black sea is stupid to you?

No, annexing it was. Now NATO has to get involved. They should have left it a "breakaway republic," like Abkhazia. Oh well.

a reply to: DJW001

NATO would have been involved either way. think big kid.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

And you have proof they are?

Sure...

NYT Is Lost in Its Ukraine Propaganda

Exclusive: One danger of lying is that you must then incorporate the falsehood into the longer narrative, somehow making the lies fit. The same is true of propaganda as the New York Times is learning as it continues to falsify the narrative of the Ukraine crisis, writes Robert Parry.

Source

originally posted by: BornAgainAlien
a reply to: tsurfer2000h

And you have proof they are?

Sure...

NYT Is Lost in Its Ukraine Propaganda

Exclusive: One danger of lying is that you must then incorporate the falsehood into the longer narrative, somehow making the lies fit. The same is true of propaganda as the New York Times is learning as it continues to falsify the narrative of the Ukraine crisis, writes Robert Parry.

Source

Changed my mind wow just not worth the comment

a reply to: dragonridr

Or he`s just Robert Parry

Robert Parry (born June 24, 1949) is an American investigative journalist best known for his role in covering the Iran-Contra affair for the Associated Press (AP) and Newsweek, including breaking the Psychological Operations in Guerrilla Warfare (CIA manual provided to the Nicaraguan contras) and the CIA and Contras coc aine trafficking in the US scandal in 1985. He was awarded the George Polk Award for National Reporting in 1984. He has been the editor of Consortium News since 1995.

originally posted by: BornAgainAlien
a reply to: dragonridr

Or he`s just Robert Parry

Robert Parry (born June 24, 1949) is an American investigative journalist best known for his role in covering the Iran-Contra affair for the Associated Press (AP) and Newsweek, including breaking the Psychological Operations in Guerrilla Warfare (CIA manual provided to the Nicaraguan contras) and the CIA and Contras coc aine trafficking in the US scandal in 1985. He was awarded the George Polk Award for National Reporting in 1984. He has been the editor of Consortium News since 1995.

A conspiracy magazine called consortium. He makes his living on conspiracies and unfortunately the times cant. PS theres a reason his articles are about the times look in to it .

a reply to: dragonridr

He was kicked out of MSM because he wasn`t complying with what "should be written."

His articles actual look like serious investigative journalism, just like it should be.

a reply to: BornAgainAlien

On that we can agree. He doesn't write what he should instead he writes conspiracies as gospal.see part of investigative journalism is provide facts .

Let's move this back to the topic shall we so let's get back to the fake story from some Russian advisor who's giving Putin bad advice to go after saudi arabia.

a reply to: BornAgainAlien

His articles actual look like serious investigative journalism, just like it should be.

Just because his articles look like they are investigative journalism doesn't mean he is one.

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: BornAgainAlien

His articles actual look like serious investigative journalism, just like it should be.

Just because his articles look like they are investigative journalism doesn't mean he is one.

Remember this line when you try to pass off blogs as news in future

originally posted by: AVoiceOfReason
a reply to: DJW001

NATO would have been involved either way. think big kid.

If Crimea became an independent state, Russia could keep its naval bases and NATO could pretend the referendum was legitimate. Now they will have to sink Russian ships to stop Russian aggression. Foolish move, Volnya.

originally posted by: sosobad

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: BornAgainAlien

His articles actual look like serious investigative journalism, just like it should be.

Just because his articles look like they are investigative journalism doesn't mean he is one.

Remember this line when you try to pass off blogs as news in future

Perfect

a reply to: DJW001

highly doubtful. plus they chose to become part of russia....

originally posted by: AVoiceOfReason
a reply to: DJW001

highly doubtful. plus they chose to become part of russia....

No, they were given a choice between remaining part of Ukraine or becoming part of Russia. Russia saw to it that Crimea could not opt for independence.

a reply to: DJW001

Choice 1: Do you support the reunification of Crimea with Russia with all the rights of the federal subject of the Russian Federation?
Choice 2: Do you support the restoration of the Constitution of the Republic of Crimea in 1992 and the status of the Crimea as part of Ukraine?[65]

The original 1992 constitution was adopted together with a declaration of independence, but parliament then amended the constitution one day later to affirm that Crimea "was a part of Ukraine".

en.m.wikipedia.org...
They would have been part of Ukraine but with more autonomy.

If the people didn't want it they would have revolted, yes or no? The Crimeans seem happy with their choice, does that bother you?

a reply to: sosobad

They would have been part of Ukraine but with more autonomy.

So you agree, independence was not a choice.

If the people didn't want it the would have revolted, yes or no?

Yes, that's why Russia put heavily armed troops in the street. Are you beginning to get it now?

Edit to add:

The Crimeans seem happy with their choice, does that bother you?

Seem happy. The French seemed happy under Nazi occupation. Occupied people learn how to seem.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: sosobad

They would have been part of Ukraine but with more autonomy.

So you agree, independence was not a choice.

If the people didn't want it the would have revolted, yes or no?

Yes, that's why Russia put heavily armed troops in the street. Are you beginning to get it now?

They had a declaration of independence in the 1992 consistution, show me the Crimean people revolting against this, the rest of the country is tearing itself apart so why would the Crimeans just sit there if they are "oppressed"? Must really kill you inside that the people are happy. French seeming happy with the Nazis. LMAO Where is the Crimean resistance?

a reply to: sosobad

Must really kill you inside that the people are happy.

Are you Crimean? How do you know they are happy? Does it make you happy that the Crimean people are being ground under foot by a fascist empire?

Edit to add:

LMAO Where is the Crimean resistance?

One of the first things the Russian occupation force did was start arresting and kidnapping Tatar leaders, who were likely to form the nucleus of any future resistance movement. If there is to be a resistance movement, it will need weapons and materiel which cannot be spared due to the open combat in the neighboring territories. Time will tell.