War, what is it good for?

[taylor4]

Getting back to the original subject: 'War: a massacre of people who don't know each other for the profit of people who know each other but don't massacre each other.' - Paul Valery

[orathaic]

Source?

"israel toilet sticker razor" returns no results on Google.

Internal railway safety brief.

Thinking about it, it is very curious that something that is very newsworthy and rather important from a safety of the public point of view hasn't actually been taken up by any news services. It's like that infamous railway bridge in London that has almost weekly suicide attempts from it made by young Muslim women escaping the hell their families are putting them through. How the hell that doesn't make the news I have no idea.

Indeed.

If the railway knows, but only tells staff internally, why are they not putting up public notices for the safety of, you know, the public?

I presume the internal safety brief is important for staff who wpuld otherwise remove these sticker by default.

[Octavious]

That sort of thing, yes

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

To switch gears a little bit: anyone have thoughts on the upcoming Tucker Carlson interview with Putin?

No doubt it's problematic. Carlson is certainly a controversial news anchor. He once claimed in court that his show should be viewed as entertainment, not journalism. I anticipate he'll play act "impartiality" in the interview, but he's already an outspoken critic of US support for Ukraine and I can't imagine Putin will really feel he's had his feet held to the fire.

That said, I think some of the preemptive left-leaning meltdowns I've seen about this interview online are overblown. Carlson is not the first journalists (or, well, entertainer) to interview a US enemy during war. And I agree that, to be better informed about the war, we really should aim to better understand Russia's position, even if just through their propoganda. Moreover, I really do feel like most mainstream media outlets have been intentionally evasive about many relevant facts in this war that are unflattering to the Ukrainian position (e.g., corruption within Ukraine, Ukraine's real long term fighting capacity, Russia's surprising resilience to economic sanctions, etc.). I won't trust Carlson + Putin to set the record straight, and yet I'm genuinely interested in what Putin will have to say.

[orathaic]

Carlson being a paid mouth piece for Russian propoganda and not in the US national interest, because he holds some serious political sway with, one hopes a minority.

However that minority appears to hold far too much power at the moment - which is an actual problem for the US (and anyone else who opposed Russian Imperialism...)

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

Carlson being a paid mouth piece for Russian propoganda and not in the US national interest, because he holds some serious political sway with, one hopes a minority.

However that minority appears to hold far too much power at the moment - which is an actual problem for the US (and anyone else who opposed Russian Imperialism...)

I'm very sympathetic to this view, but not totally convinced by it.

I'm curious what evidence there is of Carlson being a paid Russian propogandist and not, say, just a controversialist grifter? The latter seems more likely to me, but I'm open minded.

And even though I find myself at odds with the sorts of people who love Tucker, it feels anti-democratic to say that those folks have "too much power". No doubt they feel the same way about the MSNBC watching crowd.

I'm also concerned with the underlying idea that alternative, or even false/propogandist opinions, on significant and controversial issues shouldn't be aired in public because we're afraid it will have too much sway on political opponents (who, by this logic, we assume are morons). I trust most people, including my political opponents, to be able to view a speech by Putin without simply being duped by it.

[CaptainFritz28]

I don't trust any journalist, even those whom I often agree with, so I view the interview as a good thing.

To hear what Putin has to say (which obviously is going to be a lot of propaganda) will give insight to his motives, his view of the war, and his intentions. He may lie, sure, but the fact of the matter remains that every lie has some truth to it, and even his lies are beneficial to understand his thoughts on the matter.

I don't see any evidence other than conjecture that Carlson is paid by the Russians, but regardless, as I already said, I don't trust journalists. That said, it's still useful to see what they report on.

Freedom of the press exists for this very sort of reason. As Thomas Jefferson stated, "If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it."

No matter how erroneous one's opinion may be, it is a triumph of the free press that they are allowed to express it, and that even stands for Putin.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

I don't trust any journalist, even those whom I often agree with, so I view the interview as a good thing.

To hear what Putin has to say (which obviously is going to be a lot of propaganda) will give insight to his motives, his view of the war, and his intentions. He may lie, sure, but the fact of the matter remains that every lie has some truth to it, and even his lies are beneficial to understand his thoughts on the matter.

I don't see any evidence other than conjecture that Carlson is paid by the Russians, but regardless, as I already said, I don't trust journalists. That said, it's still useful to see what they report on.

Freedom of the press exists for this very sort of reason. As Thomas Jefferson stated, "If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it."

No matter how erroneous one's opinion may be, it is a triumph of the free press that they are allowed to express it, and that even stands for Putin.

I think there might be good, objective reasons to trust Tucker Carlson less than other journalists who haven't proven themselves to be total grifters lol.

I truly wish that some other, less divisive journalist would have taken on this interview.

That said, it seems like Carlson was the only one willing to do this interview and I'd rather have a Tucker-Putin interview than no Putin interview at all.

[CaptainFritz28]

I don't trust any journalist, even those whom I often agree with, so I view the interview as a good thing.

To hear what Putin has to say (which obviously is going to be a lot of propaganda) will give insight to his motives, his view of the war, and his intentions. He may lie, sure, but the fact of the matter remains that every lie has some truth to it, and even his lies are beneficial to understand his thoughts on the matter.

I don't see any evidence other than conjecture that Carlson is paid by the Russians, but regardless, as I already said, I don't trust journalists. That said, it's still useful to see what they report on.

Freedom of the press exists for this very sort of reason. As Thomas Jefferson stated, "If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it."

No matter how erroneous one's opinion may be, it is a triumph of the free press that they are allowed to express it, and that even stands for Putin.

I think there might be good, objective reasons to trust Tucker Carlson less than other journalists who haven't proven themselves to be total grifters lol.

I truly wish that some other, less divisive journalist would have taken on this interview.

That said, it seems like Carlson was the only one willing to do this interview and I'd rather have a Tucker-Putin interview than no Putin interview at all.

I entirely agree. I agree with him on some things, but even then, his approach is... not the most credible. I think he's a better speaker than journalist.

[Octavious]

The way the citizens of the West have been infantilized by their governments by banning every bit of Russian news they can find, presumably to prevent it corrupting the plebs, has been truly shocking. You expect strict media control and constant propaganda from the likes of Russia, but you kinda hope that your side has progressed beyond such things. Sadly not, it turns out.

The most worrying thing is that our leadership clearly has minimal faith in the judgement of the people, and yet we're expected to believe they respect democracy? It doesn't make any sense. If I thought the people were as thick as our leaders do I wouldn't let them do anything as important as choosing the next leaders

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

The way the citizens of the West have been infantilized by their governments by banning every bit of Russian news they can find, presumably to prevent it corrupting the plebs, has been truly shocking. You expect strict media control and constant propaganda from the likes of Russia, but you kinda hope that your side has progressed beyond such things. Sadly not, it turns out.

The most worrying thing is that our leadership clearly has minimal faith in the judgement of the people, and yet we're expected to believe they respect democracy? It doesn't make any sense. If I thought the people were as thick as our leaders do I wouldn't let them do anything as important as choosing the next leaders

I couldn't agree more. It's become entire verboten to discuss several important aspects of this conflict (e.g., Russia's genuine security concerns, the huge risks of escalation). Meanwhile, I feel we're told a lot of tall tales by most media outlets and our politicians (e.g., that Ukraine can re-take it's pre-2014 borders, or that Russia would invade a NATO member if Ukraine fell).

I think everyone who follows this issue is already aware of these details, and yet you won't ever find them aired on the pages of the NYT or The Economist, let alone in an honest discussion from the Western political class (except a certain strain of US Republicans, whose position is simplistic and blinkered in the other direction).

[CaptainFritz28]

The way the citizens of the West have been infantilized by their governments by banning every bit of Russian news they can find, presumably to prevent it corrupting the plebs, has been truly shocking. You expect strict media control and constant propaganda from the likes of Russia, but you kinda hope that your side has progressed beyond such things. Sadly not, it turns out.

The most worrying thing is that our leadership clearly has minimal faith in the judgement of the people, and yet we're expected to believe they respect democracy? It doesn't make any sense. If I thought the people were as thick as our leaders do I wouldn't let them do anything as important as choosing the next leaders

I couldn't agree more. It's become entire verboten to discuss several important aspects of this conflict (e.g., Russia's genuine security concerns, the huge risks of escalation). Meanwhile, I feel we're told a lot of tall tales by most media outlets and our politicians (e.g., that Ukraine can re-take it's pre-2014 borders, or that Russia would invade a NATO member if Ukraine fell).

I think everyone who follows this issue is already aware of these details, and yet you won't ever find them aired on the pages of the NYT or The Economist, let alone in an honest discussion from the Western political class (except a certain strain of US Republicans, whose position is simplistic and blinkered in the other direction).

The ability to be nuanced in one's views has been lost by our politicians. It's either one extreme or another, because that's what gets people elected. Being nuanced and reasonable is boring, it seems.

[Jamiet99uk]

The way the citizens of the West have been infantilized by their governments by banning every bit of Russian news they can find, presumably to prevent it corrupting the plebs, has been truly shocking. You expect strict media control and constant propaganda from the likes of Russia, but you kinda hope that your side has progressed beyond such things. Sadly not, it turns out.

The most worrying thing is that our leadership clearly has minimal faith in the judgement of the people, and yet we're expected to believe they respect democracy? It doesn't make any sense. If I thought the people were as thick as our leaders do I wouldn't let them do anything as important as choosing the next leaders

The current Tory administration is not interested in democracy, and it's fairly clear that Keith Starmer is no better.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

The way the citizens of the West have been infantilized by their governments by banning every bit of Russian news they can find, presumably to prevent it corrupting the plebs, has been truly shocking. You expect strict media control and constant propaganda from the likes of Russia, but you kinda hope that your side has progressed beyond such things. Sadly not, it turns out.

The most worrying thing is that our leadership clearly has minimal faith in the judgement of the people, and yet we're expected to believe they respect democracy? It doesn't make any sense. If I thought the people were as thick as our leaders do I wouldn't let them do anything as important as choosing the next leaders

The current Tory administration is not interested in democracy, and it's fairly clear that Keith Starmer is no better.

This seems to be a quirk of the UK parliamentary system, which my country (Canada) inherited as well.

Incumbent parties can get such a huge lead for so long that they become totally detached from public opinion, start indulging the most ideologically-extreme parts of their base, and suffer endless scandals due to increasing incompetence.

Only once they have totally eviscerated their reputation can another party reasonable expect to challenge them. And, by that point, the alternative party doesn't need to be particularly good - they're basically in a position to win by default (in upcoming elections, that'll be Labour in the UK and the Conservative Party in Canada).

[Jamiet99uk]

BBC finds evidence of Israeli soldiers breaking international law:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-68277124

They act like they feel they have a licence to do anything they want.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

BBC finds evidence of Israeli soldiers breaking international law:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-68277124

They act like they feel they have a licence to do anything they want.

How many years has it been since Guantanamo was uncovered? No one has faced any punishment for those similar crimes.

I absolutely agree this is despicable, but I would not expect *any* government or military to rush to persecute their own soldiers for war crimes absent huge international pressure, especially if the soldiers' actions are part of what is probably unofficial policy ("enhanced interrogation").

[Jamiet99uk]

BBC finds evidence of Israeli soldiers breaking international law:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-68277124

They act like they feel they have a licence to do anything they want.

How many years has it been since Guantanamo was uncovered? No one has faced any punishment for those similar crimes.

I absolutely agree this is despicable, but I would not expect *any* government or military to rush to persecute their own soldiers for war crimes absent huge international pressure, especially if the soldiers' actions are part of what is probably unofficial policy ("enhanced interrogation").

Nonetheless it is important that Israel's offences and atrocities are noticed, that attention is called to them, and that they are not forgotten.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

BBC finds evidence of Israeli soldiers breaking international law:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-68277124

They act like they feel they have a licence to do anything they want.

How many years has it been since Guantanamo was uncovered? No one has faced any punishment for those similar crimes.

I absolutely agree this is despicable, but I would not expect *any* government or military to rush to persecute their own soldiers for war crimes absent huge international pressure, especially if the soldiers' actions are part of what is probably unofficial policy ("enhanced interrogation").

Nonetheless it is important that Israel's offences and atrocities are noticed, that attention is called to them, and that they are not forgotten.

100% agree. It's a real shame that there is no reliable system to punish war criminals on both sides of this conflict.

[Octavious]

Nonetheless it is important that Israel's offences and atrocities are noticed, that attention is called to them, and that they are not forgotten.

Whilst I agree, it seems an odd thing to worry about. The one certainty in this conflict is that every offence carried out by an Israeli, both real and imagined, will be highlighted by every means under the sun and talked about incessantly. Even more so than those (again real and imagined) carried out by Russia.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

Nonetheless it is important that Israel's offences and atrocities are noticed, that attention is called to them, and that they are not forgotten.

Whilst I agree, it seems an odd thing to worry about. The one certainty in this conflict is that every offence carried out by an Israeli, both real and imagined, will be highlighted by every means under the sun and talked about incessantly. Even more so than those (again real and imagined) carried out by Russia.

This is something I've struggled with throughout this conflict.

Israel is definitely committing war crimes and absolutely deserves to be held to account. And yet, Israel does face disproportionate scrutiny that makes me feel uneasy at times. It's hard to speak about the second issue without seeming like you're excusing the first.

There are some good reasons to hold Israel to a higher standard than other war-crime committing nations, not least because Israel claims to hold itself to a higher standard than its neighbours (e.g., Syria). In a perfect world, we would put this level of scrutiny (or more) on all other nations who commit war crimes too - of course, that's not likely to happen.

But Israel also faces disproportionate scrutiny just because of circumstance. That Israel is more swayable by Western public opinion than, for example, Syria, gives activists have a real reason to focus their efforts disproportionately on Israel. Likewise, the conflict's relevance to global geopolitics draws more attention than might otherwise be warranted by the scale of the war and the horrendousness of the war crimes.

Then, of course, there are the bad reasons why Israel gets undue scrutiny. Nearby Arab states with terrible human rights records of their own amplify anti-Israel content and influence international bodies against Israel in a way that doesn't seem to happen to other countries committing war crimes. Anti-semites (hard right, hard left, and Muslim fundamentalist) are more than happy to give additional traction to anti-Israel stories. And in this current conflict, some prominent self-flagellating "anti-colonialists" in the West have become fixated on using anti-Zionism (up to and including cheering on Hamas) as a signal of their own virtuous condemnation of the colonial past of their own countries, even though they would no doubt oppose the violent otherthrow of their own governments if push came to shove.