info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Russia-gate Spreads to Europe
43 views
Skip to first unread message
thinbl...@gmail.com
Nov 16, 2017, 11:26:20 PM11/16/17
to
Russia-gate Spreads to Europe
November 16, 2017 By Robert Parry
https://consortiumnews.com/2017/11/16/russia-gate-spreads-to-europe/
Exclusive: The Russia-gate hysteria has jumped the Atlantic with Europeans blaming Russia for Brexit and Catalonian discontent. But what about Israeli influence operations or, for that matter, American ones, asks Robert Parry.
Ever since the U.S. government dangled $160 million last December to combat Russian propaganda and disinformation, obscure academics and eager think tanks have been lining up for a shot at the loot, an unseemly rush to profit that is spreading the Russia-gate hysteria beyond the United States to Europe.
Now, it seems that every development, which is unwelcomed by the Establishment – from Brexit to the Catalonia independence referendum – gets blamed on Russia! Russia! Russia!
The methodology of these “studies” is to find some Twitter accounts or Facebook pages somehow “linked” to Russia (although it’s never exactly clear how that is determined) and complain about the “Russian-linked” comments on political developments in the West. The assumption is that the gullible people of the United States, United Kingdom and Catalonia were either waiting for some secret Kremlin guidance to decide how to vote or were easily duped.
Oddly, however, most of this alleged “interference” seems to have come after the event in question. For instance, more than half (56 percent) of the famous $100,000 in Facebook ads in 2015-2017 supposedly to help elect Donald Trump came after last year’s U.S. election (and the total sum compares to Facebook’s annual revenue of $27 billion).
Similarly, a new British study at the University of Edinburgh blaming the Brexit vote on Russia discovered that more than 70 percent of the Brexit-related tweets from allegedly Russian-linked sites came after the referendum on whether the U.K. should leave the European Union. But, hey, don’t let facts and logic get in the way of a useful narrative to suggest that anyone who voted for Trump or favored Brexit or wants independence for Catalonia is Moscow’s “useful idiot”!
This week, British Prime Minister Theresa May accused Russia of seeking to “undermine free societies” and to “sow discord in the West.”
What About Israel?
Yet, another core problem with these “studies” is that they don’t come with any “controls,” i.e., what is used in science to test a hypothesis against some base line to determine if you are finding something unusual or just some normal occurrence.
In this case, for instance, it would be useful to find some other country that, like Russia, has a significant number of English speakers but where English is not the native language – and that has a significant interest in foreign affairs – and then see whether people from that country weigh in on social media with their opinions and perspectives about political events in the U.S., U.K., etc.
Perhaps, the U.S. government could devote some of that $160 million to, say, a study of the Twitter/Facebook behavior of Israelis and whether they jump in on U.S./U.K. controversies that might directly or indirectly affect Israel. We could see how many Twitter/Facebook accounts are “linked” to Israel; we could study whether any Israeli “trolls” harass journalists and news sites that oppose neoconservative policies and politicians in the West; we could check on whether Israel does anything to undermine candidates who are viewed as hostile to Israeli interests; if so, we could calculate how much money these “Israeli-linked” activists and bloggers invest in Facebook ads; and we could track any Twitter bots that might be reinforcing the Israeli-favored message.
No Chance
If we had this Israeli baseline, then perhaps we could judge how unusual it is for Russians to voice their opinions about controversies in the West. It’s true that Israel is a much smaller country with 8.5 million people compared to Russia’s 144 million, but you could adjust for those per capita numbers — and even if you didn’t, it wouldn’t be surprising to find that Israel’s interference in U.S. policymaking still exceeds Russian influence.
It’s also true that Israeli leaders have often advocated policies that have proved disastrous for the United States, such as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s encouragement of the Iraq War, which Russia opposed. Indeed, although Russia is now regularly called an American enemy, it’s hard to think of any policy that President Vladimir Putin has pushed on the U.S. that is even a fraction as harmful to U.S. interests as the Iraq War has been.
And, while we’re at it, maybe we could have an accounting of how much “U.S.-linked” entities have spent to influence politics and policies in Russia, Ukraine, Syria and other international hot spots.
But, of course, neither of those things will happen. If you even tried to gauge the role of “Israeli-linked” operations in influencing Western decision-making, you’d be accused of anti-Semitism. And if that didn’t stop you, there would be furious editorials in The New York Times, The Washington Post and the rest of the U.S. mainstream media denouncing you as a “conspiracy theorist.” Who could possibly think that Israel would do anything underhanded to shape Western attitudes?
And, if you sought the comparative figures for the West interfering in the affairs of other nations, you’d be faulted for engaging in “false moral equivalence.” After all, whatever the U.S. government and its allies do is good for the world; whereas Russia is the fount of evil.
So, let’s just get back to developing those algorithms to sniff out, isolate and eradicate “Russian propaganda” or other deviant points of view, all the better to make sure that Americans, Britons and Catalonians vote the right way.
---------------------
Maintaining US support for Israel’s policies against the Palestinians is essential as far as the Lobby is concerned, but its ambitions do not stop there. It also wants America to help Israel remain the dominant regional power. The Israeli government and pro-Israel groups in the United States have worked together to shape the administration’s policy towards Iraq, Syria and Iran, as well as its grand scheme for reordering the Middle East.
Pressure from Israel and the Lobby was not the only factor behind the decision to attack Iraq in March 2003, but it was critical. Some Americans believe that this was a war for oil, but there is hardly any direct evidence to support this claim. Instead, the war was motivated in good part by a desire to make Israel more secure. According to Philip Zelikow, a former member of the president’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, the executive director of the 9/11 Commission, and now a counsellor to Condoleezza Rice, the ‘real threat’ from Iraq was not a threat to the United States. The ‘unstated threat’ was the ‘threat against Israel’, Zelikow told an audience at the University of Virginia in September 2002. ‘The American government,’ he added, ‘doesn’t want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell.’
On 16 August 2002, 11 days before Dick Cheney kicked off the campaign for war with a hardline speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Washington Post reported that ‘Israel is urging US officials not to delay a military strike against Iraq’s Saddam Hussein.’ By this point, according to Sharon, strategic co-ordination between Israel and the US had reached ‘unprecedented dimensions’, and Israeli intelligence officials had given Washington a variety of alarming reports about Iraq’s WMD programmes. As one retired Israeli general later put it, ‘Israeli intelligence was a full partner to the picture presented by American and British intelligence regarding Iraq’s non-conventional capabilities.’
The Israel Lobby
John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt
http://www.pages.pomona.edu/~vis04747/h124/readings/Mearsheimer-Walt_Israel%20Lobby_w_responses.htm
https://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/john-mearsheimer/the-israel-lobby
November 16, 2017 By Robert Parry
https://consortiumnews.com/2017/11/16/russia-gate-spreads-to-europe/
Exclusive: The Russia-gate hysteria has jumped the Atlantic with Europeans blaming Russia for Brexit and Catalonian discontent. But what about Israeli influence operations or, for that matter, American ones, asks Robert Parry.
Ever since the U.S. government dangled $160 million last December to combat Russian propaganda and disinformation, obscure academics and eager think tanks have been lining up for a shot at the loot, an unseemly rush to profit that is spreading the Russia-gate hysteria beyond the United States to Europe.
Now, it seems that every development, which is unwelcomed by the Establishment – from Brexit to the Catalonia independence referendum – gets blamed on Russia! Russia! Russia!
The methodology of these “studies” is to find some Twitter accounts or Facebook pages somehow “linked” to Russia (although it’s never exactly clear how that is determined) and complain about the “Russian-linked” comments on political developments in the West. The assumption is that the gullible people of the United States, United Kingdom and Catalonia were either waiting for some secret Kremlin guidance to decide how to vote or were easily duped.
Oddly, however, most of this alleged “interference” seems to have come after the event in question. For instance, more than half (56 percent) of the famous $100,000 in Facebook ads in 2015-2017 supposedly to help elect Donald Trump came after last year’s U.S. election (and the total sum compares to Facebook’s annual revenue of $27 billion).
Similarly, a new British study at the University of Edinburgh blaming the Brexit vote on Russia discovered that more than 70 percent of the Brexit-related tweets from allegedly Russian-linked sites came after the referendum on whether the U.K. should leave the European Union. But, hey, don’t let facts and logic get in the way of a useful narrative to suggest that anyone who voted for Trump or favored Brexit or wants independence for Catalonia is Moscow’s “useful idiot”!
This week, British Prime Minister Theresa May accused Russia of seeking to “undermine free societies” and to “sow discord in the West.”
What About Israel?
Yet, another core problem with these “studies” is that they don’t come with any “controls,” i.e., what is used in science to test a hypothesis against some base line to determine if you are finding something unusual or just some normal occurrence.
In this case, for instance, it would be useful to find some other country that, like Russia, has a significant number of English speakers but where English is not the native language – and that has a significant interest in foreign affairs – and then see whether people from that country weigh in on social media with their opinions and perspectives about political events in the U.S., U.K., etc.
Perhaps, the U.S. government could devote some of that $160 million to, say, a study of the Twitter/Facebook behavior of Israelis and whether they jump in on U.S./U.K. controversies that might directly or indirectly affect Israel. We could see how many Twitter/Facebook accounts are “linked” to Israel; we could study whether any Israeli “trolls” harass journalists and news sites that oppose neoconservative policies and politicians in the West; we could check on whether Israel does anything to undermine candidates who are viewed as hostile to Israeli interests; if so, we could calculate how much money these “Israeli-linked” activists and bloggers invest in Facebook ads; and we could track any Twitter bots that might be reinforcing the Israeli-favored message.
No Chance
If we had this Israeli baseline, then perhaps we could judge how unusual it is for Russians to voice their opinions about controversies in the West. It’s true that Israel is a much smaller country with 8.5 million people compared to Russia’s 144 million, but you could adjust for those per capita numbers — and even if you didn’t, it wouldn’t be surprising to find that Israel’s interference in U.S. policymaking still exceeds Russian influence.
It’s also true that Israeli leaders have often advocated policies that have proved disastrous for the United States, such as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s encouragement of the Iraq War, which Russia opposed. Indeed, although Russia is now regularly called an American enemy, it’s hard to think of any policy that President Vladimir Putin has pushed on the U.S. that is even a fraction as harmful to U.S. interests as the Iraq War has been.
And, while we’re at it, maybe we could have an accounting of how much “U.S.-linked” entities have spent to influence politics and policies in Russia, Ukraine, Syria and other international hot spots.
But, of course, neither of those things will happen. If you even tried to gauge the role of “Israeli-linked” operations in influencing Western decision-making, you’d be accused of anti-Semitism. And if that didn’t stop you, there would be furious editorials in The New York Times, The Washington Post and the rest of the U.S. mainstream media denouncing you as a “conspiracy theorist.” Who could possibly think that Israel would do anything underhanded to shape Western attitudes?
And, if you sought the comparative figures for the West interfering in the affairs of other nations, you’d be faulted for engaging in “false moral equivalence.” After all, whatever the U.S. government and its allies do is good for the world; whereas Russia is the fount of evil.
So, let’s just get back to developing those algorithms to sniff out, isolate and eradicate “Russian propaganda” or other deviant points of view, all the better to make sure that Americans, Britons and Catalonians vote the right way.
---------------------
Maintaining US support for Israel’s policies against the Palestinians is essential as far as the Lobby is concerned, but its ambitions do not stop there. It also wants America to help Israel remain the dominant regional power. The Israeli government and pro-Israel groups in the United States have worked together to shape the administration’s policy towards Iraq, Syria and Iran, as well as its grand scheme for reordering the Middle East.
Pressure from Israel and the Lobby was not the only factor behind the decision to attack Iraq in March 2003, but it was critical. Some Americans believe that this was a war for oil, but there is hardly any direct evidence to support this claim. Instead, the war was motivated in good part by a desire to make Israel more secure. According to Philip Zelikow, a former member of the president’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, the executive director of the 9/11 Commission, and now a counsellor to Condoleezza Rice, the ‘real threat’ from Iraq was not a threat to the United States. The ‘unstated threat’ was the ‘threat against Israel’, Zelikow told an audience at the University of Virginia in September 2002. ‘The American government,’ he added, ‘doesn’t want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell.’
On 16 August 2002, 11 days before Dick Cheney kicked off the campaign for war with a hardline speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Washington Post reported that ‘Israel is urging US officials not to delay a military strike against Iraq’s Saddam Hussein.’ By this point, according to Sharon, strategic co-ordination between Israel and the US had reached ‘unprecedented dimensions’, and Israeli intelligence officials had given Washington a variety of alarming reports about Iraq’s WMD programmes. As one retired Israeli general later put it, ‘Israeli intelligence was a full partner to the picture presented by American and British intelligence regarding Iraq’s non-conventional capabilities.’
The Israel Lobby
John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt
http://www.pages.pomona.edu/~vis04747/h124/readings/Mearsheimer-Walt_Israel%20Lobby_w_responses.htm
https://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/john-mearsheimer/the-israel-lobby
Ed Stasiak
Nov 17, 2017, 1:01:23 PM11/17/17
to
> thinbl...@gmail.com
>
> Russia-gate Spreads to Europe
> November 16, 2017 By Robert Parry
> https://consortiumnews.com/2017/11/16/russia-gate-spreads-to-europe/
>
> Russia-gate Spreads to Europe
> November 16, 2017 By Robert Parry
> https://consortiumnews.com/2017/11/16/russia-gate-spreads-to-europe/
>
> This week, British Prime Minister Theresa May accused Russia of seeking to “undermine free societies”
Says the prime minister of a country with draconian free speech and gun control laws…
David Johnston
Nov 17, 2017, 2:00:02 PM11/17/17
to
thinbl...@gmail.com
Nov 17, 2017, 2:16:03 PM11/17/17
to
That's partly because the U.K. has some of the most sweeping anti-terrorism and anti-disclosure statutes around.
AUG 21, 2013
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/08/why-the-british-government-forced-em-the-guardian-em-to-destroy-its-hard-drives/278919/
Ed Stasiak
Nov 17, 2017, 3:58:13 PM11/17/17
to
> David Johnston
> > Ed Stasiak
>
> Draconian. Right.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DORJKh0X0AUJhX5.jpg
> > Ed Stasiak
> >
> > Says the prime minister of a country with draconian free speech
> > and gun control laws…
> > Says the prime minister of a country with draconian free speech
>
> Draconian. Right.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DORJKh0X0AUJhX5.jpg
FPP
Nov 17, 2017, 7:50:11 PM11/17/17
to
--
"We have to accept that the winner of this election was a Washington
outsider who no one thought had a shot at running this country: Vladimir
Putin - Stephen Colbert
FPP
Nov 17, 2017, 7:50:12 PM11/17/17
to
Ed Stasiak
Nov 17, 2017, 8:50:43 PM11/17/17
to
> FPP
> > Ed Stasiak
> > > David Johnston
adjective
1. (of laws or their application) excessively harsh and severe.
2. synonyms: harsh, severe, strict, extreme, drastic, stringent, tough;
I’d say getting thrown in prison for shitposting is pretty draconian.
> > Ed Stasiak
> > > David Johnston
> > >
> > > Draconian. Right.
> >
> > https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DORJKh0X0AUJhX5.jpg
>
> Draconian would be NO trial, and NO free speech rights.
dra·co·ni·an
> > > Draconian. Right.
> >
> > https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DORJKh0X0AUJhX5.jpg
>
> Draconian would be NO trial, and NO free speech rights.
adjective
1. (of laws or their application) excessively harsh and severe.
2. synonyms: harsh, severe, strict, extreme, drastic, stringent, tough;
I’d say getting thrown in prison for shitposting is pretty draconian.
FPP
Nov 17, 2017, 10:52:08 PM11/17/17
to
- and then if you're judged guilty, THEN you're incarcerated.
Judge. Lawyer. Not draconian.
It ain't the US, so you can't judge them by US standards.
trotsky
Nov 18, 2017, 6:59:28 AM11/18/17
to
On 11/17/17 6:19 PM, FPP wrote:
> On 11/17/17 1:01 PM, Ed Stasiak wrote:
>>> thinbl...@gmail.com
>>>
>>> Russia-gate Spreads to Europe
>>> November 16, 2017 By Robert Parry
>>> https://consortiumnews.com/2017/11/16/russia-gate-spreads-to-europe/
>>>
>>> This week, British Prime Minister Theresa May accused Russia of
>>> seeking to “undermine free societies”
>>
>> Says the prime minister of a country with draconian free speech and
>> gun control laws…
>
> Draconian? Really?
The draconian free speech laws are the worst!
> On 11/17/17 1:01 PM, Ed Stasiak wrote:
>>> thinbl...@gmail.com
>>>
>>> Russia-gate Spreads to Europe
>>> November 16, 2017 By Robert Parry
>>> https://consortiumnews.com/2017/11/16/russia-gate-spreads-to-europe/
>>>
>>> This week, British Prime Minister Theresa May accused Russia of
>>> seeking to “undermine free societies”
>>
>> Says the prime minister of a country with draconian free speech and
>> gun control laws…
>
> Draconian? Really?
trotsky
Nov 18, 2017, 8:11:39 AM11/18/17
to
On 11/17/17 9:52 PM, FPP wrote:
> On 11/17/17 8:50 PM, Ed Stasiak wrote:
>>> FPP
>>>> Ed Stasiak
>>>>> David Johnston
>>>>>
>>>>> Draconian. Right.
>>>>
>>>> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DORJKh0X0AUJhX5.jpg
>>>
>>> Draconian would be NO trial, and NO free speech rights.
>>
>> dra·co·ni·an
>> adjective
>>
>> 1. (of laws or their application) excessively harsh and severe.
>> 2. synonyms: harsh, severe, strict, extreme, drastic, stringent, tough;
>>
>> I’d say getting thrown in prison for shitposting is pretty draconian.
>
> They don't "throw you in prison". They give you a trial, with a lawyer
> - and then if you're judged guilty, THEN you're incarcerated.
>
> Judge. Lawyer. Not draconian.
>
> It ain't the US, so you can't judge them by US standards.
You bring up an interesting point. The U.S., with the Constitution, set
> On 11/17/17 8:50 PM, Ed Stasiak wrote:
>>> FPP
>>>> Ed Stasiak
>>>>> David Johnston
>>>>>
>>>>> Draconian. Right.
>>>>
>>>> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DORJKh0X0AUJhX5.jpg
>>>
>>> Draconian would be NO trial, and NO free speech rights.
>>
>> dra·co·ni·an
>> adjective
>>
>> 1. (of laws or their application) excessively harsh and severe.
>> 2. synonyms: harsh, severe, strict, extreme, drastic, stringent, tough;
>>
>> I’d say getting thrown in prison for shitposting is pretty draconian.
>
> They don't "throw you in prison". They give you a trial, with a lawyer
> - and then if you're judged guilty, THEN you're incarcerated.
>
> Judge. Lawyer. Not draconian.
>
> It ain't the US, so you can't judge them by US standards.
the standard against which all other governments have been judged.
Ditto for our judicial system. However, I believe you are correct in
the usage of "draconian" saying that just because a country has a
penalty more harsh than the U.S. doesn't make it "draconian" Political
prisoners being executed is draconian. If people are being thrown in
prison in large quantities for "shitposting" (whatever that means)
perhaps, but we have no statistics nor definitions to support the
sockpuppet's claim, so it is moot.
FPP
Nov 18, 2017, 8:29:07 AM11/18/17
to
> Burns, of Coldham’s Lane, Cambridge, was charged with the two offences on January 22 last year and found guilty in December.
>
> A judge at Peterborough Crown Court today ruled that he should serve a total of four years in prison for his offences.
>
> Jurors were shown screenshots of hundreds of Facebook posts that Burns had written under a different name.
>
> Adrian Davis, who defended Burns during the course of the trial, said Burns had mistakenly thought his Facebook account was set up to keep his posts private.
http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/cambridge-news/cambridge-extremist-jailed-four-years-12725791
Let's see... we have a judge. We have an advocate defending him. We
have jurors.
Nothing about that says it's "draconian".
It's their legal system, and it's different from ours.
The second part of Ed's image involves a woman who a judge freed after
was charged with supporting terrorism.
> A mother of five from north-west London has been spared jail for encouraging terror attacks on a pro-ISIS Facebook group after her eldest son wrote a letter to the judge.
>
> The judge in the case decided to give her a suspended sentence after he was "moved by the suffering of her children."
>
> Judge Christopher Moss sentenced her to a suspended term of two years on Tuesday after she pleaded guilty to encouraging terrorism and three counts of disseminating documents.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/mother-who-encouraged-terror-attacks-spared-jail-after-eldest-son-wrote-letter-to-judge-a3684371.html
This is the OPPOSITE of draconian. The judge showed mercy and freed her.
How is THAT draconian?
--
Hours after Trump says something dumb during a nuclear standoff, his
last living staffer will send a clarification to the last living
reporter. - Daniel Powell
trotsky
Nov 18, 2017, 8:52:07 AM11/18/17
to
BTR1701
Nov 18, 2017, 1:59:01 PM11/18/17
to
FPP <fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DORJKh0X0AUJhX5.jpg
>>>>>
> Draconian would be NO trial, and NO free speech rights.
>>>>>> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DORJKh0X0AUJhX5.jpg
>>>>>
> Draconian would be NO trial, and NO free speech rights.
> Here is the story behind Ed's snappy image:
>
>> Burns, of Coldham’s Lane, Cambridge, was charged with the two offences
>> on January 22 last year and found guilty in December.
>
>> Burns, of Coldham’s Lane, Cambridge, was charged with the two offences
>> on January 22 last year and found guilty in December.
> Let's see... we have a judge. We have an advocate defending him. We
> have jurors.
> Nothing about that says it's "draconian".
The word "draconian" doesn't mean "lacking due process". It means "harsh
> have jurors.
> Nothing about that says it's "draconian".
and severe". A country's laws can be harsh and severe while still having
courts and lawyers and jurors. They are not mutually exclusive.
> It's their legal system, and it's different from ours.
>> A mother of five from north-west London has been spared jail for
>> encouraging terror attacks on a pro-ISIS Facebook group after her eldest
>> son wrote a letter to the judge.
>>
>> The judge in the case decided to give her a suspended sentence after he
>> was "moved by the suffering of her children."
>
> This is the OPPOSITE of draconian. The judge showed mercy and freed her.
> How is THAT draconian?
The draconian part comes by contrasting the two cases, where it becomes
> How is THAT draconian?
apparent that in the U.K. you only get thrown in prison for spreading
certain kinds of 'hate speech'. If it's of the conservative variety, you're
thrown in the hole. If it's of the pro-Muslim terror variety, you get to
walk free because apparently only Muslim kids need their parents.
FPP
Nov 18, 2017, 2:54:42 PM11/18/17
to
election...
FPP
Nov 18, 2017, 2:55:43 PM11/18/17
to
woman off is the OPPOSITE of "draconian".
FPP
Nov 18, 2017, 2:59:19 PM11/18/17
to
On 11/18/17 1:58 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> The draconian part comes by contrasting the two cases, where it becomes
> apparent that in the U.K. you only get thrown in prison for spreading
> certain kinds of 'hate speech'. If it's of the conservative variety, you're
> thrown in the hole. If it's of the pro-Muslim terror variety, you get to
> walk free because apparently only Muslim kids need their parents.
That is pure bullshit.
> apparent that in the U.K. you only get thrown in prison for spreading
> certain kinds of 'hate speech'. If it's of the conservative variety, you're
> thrown in the hole. If it's of the pro-Muslim terror variety, you get to
> walk free because apparently only Muslim kids need their parents.
FPP
Nov 18, 2017, 3:02:51 PM11/18/17
to
On 11/18/17 1:58 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> The draconian part comes by contrasting the two cases, where it becomes
> apparent that in the U.K. you only get thrown in prison for spreading
> certain kinds of 'hate speech'. If it's of the conservative variety, you're
> thrown in the hole. If it's of the pro-Muslim terror variety, you get to
> walk free because apparently only Muslim kids need their parents.
Nope. Not in any way, shape, or form.
> apparent that in the U.K. you only get thrown in prison for spreading
> certain kinds of 'hate speech'. If it's of the conservative variety, you're
> thrown in the hole. If it's of the pro-Muslim terror variety, you get to
> walk free because apparently only Muslim kids need their parents.
You can make the case that it's a double-standard... but it is most
assuredly NOT draconian.
Climb down off that cross, Jesus.
David Johnston
Nov 18, 2017, 3:12:23 PM11/18/17
to
On 2017-11-18 11:58 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
> FPP <fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>>> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DORJKh0X0AUJhX5.jpg
>>>>>>
>> Draconian would be NO trial, and NO free speech rights.
>
>> Here is the story behind Ed's snappy image:
>>
>>> Burns, of Coldham’s Lane, Cambridge, was charged with the two offences
>>> on January 22 last year and found guilty in December.
>
>> Let's see... we have a judge. We have an advocate defending him. We
>> have jurors.
>> Nothing about that says it's "draconian".
>
> The word "draconian" doesn't mean "lacking due process". It means "harsh
> and severe". A country's laws can be harsh and severe while still having
> courts and lawyers and jurors. They are not mutually exclusive.
>
>> It's their legal system, and it's different from ours.
>
> So? A legal system can be both different and draconian.
>
>>> A mother of five from north-west London has been spared jail for
>>> encouraging terror attacks on a pro-ISIS Facebook group after her eldest
>>> son wrote a letter to the judge.
>>>
>>> The judge in the case decided to give her a suspended sentence after he
>>> was "moved by the suffering of her children."
>>
>> This is the OPPOSITE of draconian. The judge showed mercy and freed her.
>> How is THAT draconian?
>
> The draconian part comes by contrasting the two cases,
Actually draconian justice is consistent but insanely harsh. A
> FPP <fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>>> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DORJKh0X0AUJhX5.jpg
>>>>>>
>> Draconian would be NO trial, and NO free speech rights.
>
>> Here is the story behind Ed's snappy image:
>>
>>> Burns, of Coldham’s Lane, Cambridge, was charged with the two offences
>>> on January 22 last year and found guilty in December.
>
>> Let's see... we have a judge. We have an advocate defending him. We
>> have jurors.
>> Nothing about that says it's "draconian".
>
> The word "draconian" doesn't mean "lacking due process". It means "harsh
> and severe". A country's laws can be harsh and severe while still having
> courts and lawyers and jurors. They are not mutually exclusive.
>
>> It's their legal system, and it's different from ours.
>
> So? A legal system can be both different and draconian.
>
>>> A mother of five from north-west London has been spared jail for
>>> encouraging terror attacks on a pro-ISIS Facebook group after her eldest
>>> son wrote a letter to the judge.
>>>
>>> The judge in the case decided to give her a suspended sentence after he
>>> was "moved by the suffering of her children."
>>
>> This is the OPPOSITE of draconian. The judge showed mercy and freed her.
>> How is THAT draconian?
>
> The draconian part comes by contrasting the two cases,
draconian justice system would react to stealing by cutting off your
hands, and to advocating the mass murder of millions by cutting your
tongue out.
trotsky
Nov 18, 2017, 3:21:18 PM11/18/17
to
On 11/18/17 12:58 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> FPP <fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>>> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DORJKh0X0AUJhX5.jpg
>>>>>>
>> Draconian would be NO trial, and NO free speech rights.
>
>> Here is the story behind Ed's snappy image:
>>
>>> Burns, of Coldham’s Lane, Cambridge, was charged with the two offences
>>> on January 22 last year and found guilty in December.
>
>> Let's see... we have a judge. We have an advocate defending him. We
>> have jurors.
>> Nothing about that says it's "draconian".
>
> The word "draconian" doesn't mean "lacking due process". It means "harsh
> and severe". A country's laws can be harsh and severe while still having
> courts and lawyers and jurors. They are not mutually exclusive.
>
>> It's their legal system, and it's different from ours.
>
> So? A legal system can be both different and draconian.
Backing up your own sockpuppet? What are the odds?
> FPP <fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>>> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DORJKh0X0AUJhX5.jpg
>>>>>>
>> Draconian would be NO trial, and NO free speech rights.
>
>> Here is the story behind Ed's snappy image:
>>
>>> Burns, of Coldham’s Lane, Cambridge, was charged with the two offences
>>> on January 22 last year and found guilty in December.
>
>> Let's see... we have a judge. We have an advocate defending him. We
>> have jurors.
>> Nothing about that says it's "draconian".
>
> The word "draconian" doesn't mean "lacking due process". It means "harsh
> and severe". A country's laws can be harsh and severe while still having
> courts and lawyers and jurors. They are not mutually exclusive.
>
>> It's their legal system, and it's different from ours.
>
> So? A legal system can be both different and draconian.
trotsky
Nov 18, 2017, 3:26:40 PM11/18/17
to
On 11/18/17 1:59 PM, FPP wrote:
> On 11/18/17 1:58 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> The draconian part comes by contrasting the two cases, where it becomes
>> apparent that in the U.K. you only get thrown in prison for spreading
>> certain kinds of 'hate speech'. If it's of the conservative variety,
>> you're
>> thrown in the hole. If it's of the pro-Muslim terror variety, you get to
>> walk free because apparently only Muslim kids need their parents.
>
> That is pure bullshit.
Thanny is really puzzling. He claims to have studied law, but he makes
>> The draconian part comes by contrasting the two cases, where it becomes
>> apparent that in the U.K. you only get thrown in prison for spreading
>> certain kinds of 'hate speech'. If it's of the conservative variety,
>> you're
>> thrown in the hole. If it's of the pro-Muslim terror variety, you get to
>> walk free because apparently only Muslim kids need their parents.
>
> That is pure bullshit.
mental mistakes that a sixth grader pretending to be a lawyer wouldn't
make. He uses false equivalencies constantly, and here he does his
other favorite idiotic move: he uses a statistically insignificant
representative sampling of one. He says it with great bluster and
fanfare, though, so some people seem to think he has something to say,
like Trump. But "pure bullshit" is pretty much the best description.
trotsky
Nov 18, 2017, 3:27:23 PM11/18/17
to
On 11/18/17 2:02 PM, FPP wrote:
> On 11/18/17 1:58 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> The draconian part comes by contrasting the two cases, where it becomes
>> apparent that in the U.K. you only get thrown in prison for spreading
>> certain kinds of 'hate speech'. If it's of the conservative variety,
>> you're
>> thrown in the hole. If it's of the pro-Muslim terror variety, you get to
>> walk free because apparently only Muslim kids need their parents.
>
> Nope. Not in any way, shape, or form.
> You can make the case that it's a double-standard... but it is most
> assuredly NOT draconian.
>
> Climb down off that cross, Jesus.
THANNY'S BRAIN DIED FOR OUR SINS.
> On 11/18/17 1:58 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> The draconian part comes by contrasting the two cases, where it becomes
>> apparent that in the U.K. you only get thrown in prison for spreading
>> certain kinds of 'hate speech'. If it's of the conservative variety,
>> you're
>> thrown in the hole. If it's of the pro-Muslim terror variety, you get to
>> walk free because apparently only Muslim kids need their parents.
>
> Nope. Not in any way, shape, or form.
> You can make the case that it's a double-standard... but it is most
> assuredly NOT draconian.
>
> Climb down off that cross, Jesus.
BTR1701
Nov 18, 2017, 3:35:11 PM11/18/17
to
BTR1701
Nov 18, 2017, 3:35:12 PM11/18/17
to
who is not a member of a favored minority group. It's extremely lax when
applying those same laws to those favored minorities.
BTR1701
Nov 18, 2017, 3:35:12 PM11/18/17
to
FPP <fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/18/17 1:58 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> The draconian part comes by contrasting the two cases, where it becomes
>> apparent that in the U.K. you only get thrown in prison for spreading
>> certain kinds of 'hate speech'. If it's of the conservative variety, you're
>> thrown in the hole. If it's of the pro-Muslim terror variety, you get to
>> walk free because apparently only Muslim kids need their parents.
>
> That is pure bullshit.
Indeed, but that's exactly what happened in the U.K., nevertheless.
> On 11/18/17 1:58 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> The draconian part comes by contrasting the two cases, where it becomes
>> apparent that in the U.K. you only get thrown in prison for spreading
>> certain kinds of 'hate speech'. If it's of the conservative variety, you're
>> thrown in the hole. If it's of the pro-Muslim terror variety, you get to
>> walk free because apparently only Muslim kids need their parents.
>
> That is pure bullshit.
David Johnston
Nov 18, 2017, 5:07:06 PM11/18/17
to
moviePig
Nov 18, 2017, 5:15:59 PM11/18/17
to
suitable "in contrast to".
--
- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com
BTR1701
Nov 18, 2017, 5:27:27 PM11/18/17
to
David Johnston
Nov 18, 2017, 5:47:43 PM11/18/17
to
On 2017-11-18 1:35 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
David Johnston
Nov 18, 2017, 7:37:55 PM11/18/17
to
FPP
Nov 18, 2017, 8:04:20 PM11/18/17
to
Not paying your debt resulted in slavery under Draco.
Plutarch states: 'It is said that Drakon himself, when asked why he had
fixed the punishment of death for most offences, answered that he
considered these lesser crimes to deserve it, and he had no greater
punishment for more important ones'.
BTR's examples aren't even close to being draconian.
moviePig
Nov 18, 2017, 9:55:58 PM11/18/17
to
BTR1701
Nov 18, 2017, 10:54:31 PM11/18/17
to
its non-stop misuse in popular culture is supposedly a pedantic idiot who
doesn't realize language has evolved, but you dipshits are going to pretend
that any law whose violation doesn't require a death sentence can't be
draconian because that's not the way Draco would have handled it?
Wow.
BTR1701
Nov 18, 2017, 10:54:31 PM11/18/17
to
Ed Stasiak
Nov 19, 2017, 1:14:46 AM11/19/17
to
> David Johnston
> > BTR1701
posting on the Internet, it’s not like they’re executing them.
Geez, get a grip, people….
> > BTR1701
> >
> > The U.K. approach to 'hate speech' is draconian
>
> How many people do they execute for it?
I know, right?! They’re only throwing people in prison for
> > The U.K. approach to 'hate speech' is draconian
>
> How many people do they execute for it?
posting on the Internet, it’s not like they’re executing them.
Geez, get a grip, people….
FPP
Nov 19, 2017, 2:47:46 AM11/19/17
to
FPP
Nov 19, 2017, 2:51:15 AM11/19/17
to
On 11/18/17 10:54 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
due process and a judicial system with rules and legal authority.
Drakon had only one solution to almost every problem. Death. He was
the Eric Cartman of the ancient world.
FPP
Nov 19, 2017, 2:52:01 AM11/19/17
to
If it's yes, you have no leg to stand on.
David Johnston
Nov 19, 2017, 3:01:47 AM11/19/17
to
trotsky
Nov 19, 2017, 5:27:55 AM11/19/17
to
bruce2...@gmail.com
Nov 19, 2017, 9:12:07 AM11/19/17
to
moviePig
Nov 19, 2017, 10:49:53 AM11/19/17
to
Ed Stasiak
Nov 19, 2017, 11:44:17 AM11/19/17
to
> FPP
> > Ed Stasiak
https://moonmetropolis.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/al4biwc.jpg
Literally anything and everything can get you thrown in prison
(even objectively truthful facts) if somebody somewhere complains
about what you said.
> > Ed Stasiak
> >
> > I know, right?! They’re only throwing people in prison for
> > posting on the Internet, it’s not like they’re executing them.
>
> > I know, right?! They’re only throwing people in prison for
> > posting on the Internet, it’s not like they’re executing them.
>
> Are they following the law?
How are Canadians, for example, supposed to follow this law?;
https://moonmetropolis.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/al4biwc.jpg
Literally anything and everything can get you thrown in prison
(even objectively truthful facts) if somebody somewhere complains
about what you said.
David Johnston
Nov 19, 2017, 12:25:02 PM11/19/17
to
On 2017-11-19 9:44 AM, Ed Stasiak wrote:
>> FPP
>>> Ed Stasiak
>>>
>>> I know, right?! They’re only throwing people in prison for
>>> posting on the Internet, it’s not like they’re executing them.
>>
>> Are they following the law?
>
> How are Canadians, for example, supposed to follow this law?;
>
> https://moonmetropolis.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/al4biwc.jpg
>
> Literally anything and everything can get you thrown in prison
Whatcott was fined.
>> FPP
>>> Ed Stasiak
>>>
>>> I know, right?! They’re only throwing people in prison for
>>> posting on the Internet, it’s not like they’re executing them.
>>
>> Are they following the law?
>
> How are Canadians, for example, supposed to follow this law?;
>
> https://moonmetropolis.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/al4biwc.jpg
>
> Literally anything and everything can get you thrown in prison
mog...@hotmail.com
Nov 19, 2017, 12:47:21 PM11/19/17
to
On Sunday, November 19, 2017 at 11:44:17 AM UTC-5, Ed Stasiak wrote:
> > FPP
> > > Ed Stasiak
> > >
> > > I know, right?! They’re only throwing people in prison for
> > > posting on the Internet, it’s not like they’re executing them.
> >
> > Are they following the law?
>
> How are Canadians, for example, supposed to follow this law?;
>
> https://moonmetropolis.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/al4biwc.jpg
>
> Literally anything and everything can get you thrown in prison
You can also literally get away with anything, if justified.
> > FPP
> > > Ed Stasiak
> > >
> > > I know, right?! They’re only throwing people in prison for
> > > posting on the Internet, it’s not like they’re executing them.
> >
> > Are they following the law?
>
> How are Canadians, for example, supposed to follow this law?;
>
> https://moonmetropolis.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/al4biwc.jpg
>
> Literally anything and everything can get you thrown in prison
FPP
Nov 19, 2017, 4:47:44 PM11/19/17
to
judgements alone?
Ed Stasiak
Nov 19, 2017, 6:42:18 PM11/19/17
to
> FPP
> > Ed Stasiak
> > Ed Stasiak
> >
> > Literally anything and everything can get you thrown in prison
> > (even objectively truthful facts) if somebody somewhere complains
> > about what you said.
>
> Does Canada NOT have a jury at their trials?
Yeah, and the Soviets also had jury trials…
> > Literally anything and everything can get you thrown in prison
> > (even objectively truthful facts) if somebody somewhere complains
> > about what you said.
>
> Does Canada NOT have a jury at their trials?
FPP
Nov 19, 2017, 6:50:13 PM11/19/17
to
We have jury trials too... are we like the old Soviets too?
--
GOP Senator: election rigged. GOP Sheriff: armed insurrection.
GOP Nominee: jail my opponent. GOP "leaders": silence. -Laurence Lewis
0 new messages