Jump to content
The Education Forum

Jeff Carter

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Jeff Carter

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Jeff Morley on Soleiman’s career: https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/01/07/the-three-victories-that-sealed-soleimanis-fate/
  2. Soleiman was Iran’s top military man, and a revered figure - not just famous, or accomplished, but revered - in what is known as the Arc of Resistance (the mid-east’s largely Shia resistance bloc allied against Zionist / US neo-conservative hegemonic ambitions). To put the possible consequence of this assassination in perspective - the Israelis had long wished his demise but considered an overt move far too dangerous. Apparently this was the brainchild of SecState Pompeo and SecDef Esper, and sold to Trump as a quick fix. The leader of Hezbollah declared today all US military personnel legitimate targets until all US forces are expelled from the region. But US/NATO policy in the region starts from an assumption of effectively permanent force positioning. Interestingly, Soleimani directed forces in alliance with America twice - in Afghanistan against the Taliban and in Iraq against ISIS. It’s not 2003 - the Arc of Resistance have extensive missile capability and now a revered martyr whose death will provide years of focussed motivation. Plus the Russians and Chinese are well-positioned to assume the mantle of rational alternative major players for the region.
  3. Michael Hudson wrote a sobering big-picture view of these events, in respect of long-term strategic interests: https://w ww.counterpunch.org/2020/01/06/america-escalates-its-democratic-oil-war-in-the-near-east/ These long-term policies are the antithesis of the foreign policy views harshly repudiated by unelected power blocs in the 1960s.
  4. Very interesting post re: Foucault. See also Life Magazine’s February 1964 issue (backyard photo cover) with Oswald biography anticipating the later WC conclusions. The asserted narrative obliterates any necessity of factual grounding.
  5. FYI - completely denounce this utterly bat———- crazy move. I’m not a “ trumpenlink” and neither are the others you mentioned, as has been repeatedly stated. your inability to process that is widely shared I have noticed.
  6. That’s completely ridiculous. There was no “violation of the Logan Act” - it was a pretext to set Flynn up in a perjury trap, as the late great Robert Parry explained two years ago: https://consortiumnews.com/2017/12/01/the-scalp-taking-of-gen-flynn/
  7. Horowitz’s mandate was to investigate the FISA issues, and did no independent review of alleged Russian election interference. The extent he expressed “agreement” was limited to referral to conclusions made by other bodies - conclusions which are not supported by the evidence in the record and which therefore consist of opinion or belief. To the extent such opinions have appeared in legal proceedings, they have withered, as well described by Craig Murray: https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/08/in-the-world-of-truth-and-fact-russiagate-is-dead-in-the-world-of-the-political-establishment-it-is-still-the-new-42/
  8. The Horowitz IG Report frequently refers to the Steele dossier in terms of its unverified and false attributes, and makes note that the FBI was specifically warned its status as a DNC/Clinton funded opp research exercise would create exactly the compromised disaster it created.
  9. Bob, the relevant insignificance of the campaign can be determined by the dollar figures available for the IRA’s program, and the numbers of tweets and Facebook posts it generated as compared to total election related activity during the time period in question. These numbers can be found in Mueller Report, testimony by Twitter and Facebook representatives to Congressional committees, and the Symantec analysis - all of which is available online. There is no evidence that any kind of targeted effort directed at identified undecided voters took place. Everything about the IRA program is consistent with a commercial clickbait marketing scheme, which is exactly what the IRA does and did previously as conceded by all the available information, and there is no evidence that such a program was piggybacked with a malign voter influence campaign by Russian state agents. The idea that it was does not rise above a simple unproved and uncorroborated assertion - which nonetheless has achieved the mantle of “settled fact” with serious consequence (international tensions, arms buildups, censorship programs, generalized paranoia).
  10. You misunderstand the study and the IRA campaign which it describes. There was no significant qualitative difference between the content presented in 2016 and 2017, and the content which referred specifically to election ’16 politics was just a small fraction of the overall effort (see Symantec analysis for detail). That is why the intelligence and congressional reports focussed on efforts to “sow discord” through the disparate push-button messaging. The academic analysis found that the IRA accounts “mostly interacted with those who were already highly polarized” with “strong ideological homophily within their Twitter network”. There was very little interaction with “independent” or swing voters because the messaging was tuned to the polarized already-decided blocs. If you believe there was a significant qualitative difference between the polarized public in 2016 and the polarized public in 2017, you are advancing such theory with no evidence. The IRA’s methods are entirely onsistent with methods used by cyber marketing firms, as the Mueller Report concedes. There is no “Putin Gerasimov cyber warfare strategy” - that’s something you read in a Politico article. The IRA campaign was comparatively minuscule to overall Twitter and Facebook activity, to the point of statistical irrelevance. It did not “fracture American society.” These ridiculous notions are fact-free assertions which do not withstand objective analysis.
  11. The authors are careful to address all possible variables, which adds credibility to their report. The sentence which you highlight is not representative of the accumulated analysis. And, again, notably, neither the intelligence community or the congressional committees refer to or commissioned any analysis whatsoever before asserting their maximalist interpretations, which in turn rely on describing statistically insignificant activity as somehow “massive” and “extensive”.
  12. But Russian trolls did not effect the 2016 election in any meaningful way, except in the fevered imaginations of partisan true believers. Here is a recently published American/Danish academic study: https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/early/2019/11/20/1906420116.full.pdf “Using Bayesian regression tree models, we find no evidence that interaction with IRA accounts substantially impacted distinctive measures of political attitudes...” In other words, the messaging was distributed largely through clusters of already decided voters. If you know of a differing analysis please share as nothing of the sort was ever referred by the intelligence agencies and congressional committees which were the main generators of the election interference theories. Otherwise, your logic holds only to the extent of its self-directed limitations, meaning it doesn’t hold at all.
  13. For someone who is often materially factually incorrect on items ranging from the “Gerasimov Doctrine” to the Steele Dossier, your sarcasm seems misplaced, as is your attribution of speculation I’ve never engaged in. If you have an issue with the information I shared, it is best addressed to William Binney and his VIPS colleagues. Otherwise you are just engaging in generalized hypothetical half-informed dismissals.
  14. In an interview published last week, William Binney says that a metadata comparison of emails released separately by Guccifer 2.0 and Wikileaks show the so-called Russian fingerprints by which the US Intelligence community assessed the emails were obtained by a GRU hack appear only in the Guccifer 2.0 versions - “which directly implies that Guccifer 2.0 was inserting these files to make it look like the Russians did this hack…In other words, it looked like the CIA did this, and that it was a matter of the CIA making it look like the Russians were doing the hack...we have a really extensive shadow government here at work, trying to keep the understanding and knowledge of what’s really happening away from the public of the United States…And the mainstream media is a participant in this.” https://off-guardian.org/2019/12/18/nsa-whistleblower-mueller-report-based-on-fabricated-evidence/
  15. So it’s Greenwald’s pompous authorial tendencies and not the FBI’s abusing “it’s power in severe ways to subvert and undermine U.S. democracy” that’s the takeaway here... Along with the dismal performance of most of the American mainstream media, the past three years have seen concerted efforts to impose censorship on internet platforms and social media. Google and Twitter are aggressively removing or marginalizing information from both left and right margins as well as antiwar and anti-imperialist groups. Facebook came under concerted attack just a few weeks ago for its reluctance to do the same. This censorship regime is justified by reference to false narratives of Russian interference, conspiracy theory and fake news, against which the public must be “protected.” Soon enough it will be the democratic system itself that citizens need be protected from. Its been a psychic meltdown promoted by lies. (realize that sounds pompous too, but its still the case)
  • Create New...