още бели расисти/фашисти, религиозни фундаменталисти, анти-американски
конспиративни култисти и подобни:

Furthermore, the more protracted the war in Ukraine, the greater the risk
of a nuclear accident or incident. And with the Biden administration’s
strategy to “weaken” Russia with the scale of weapons shipments, including
anti-ship missiles, and revelations of U.S. intelligence assistance to
Ukraine, it is clear that the United States and NATO are in a proxy war
with Russia.

Shouldn’t the ramifications, perils and multifaceted costs of this proxy
war be a central topic of media coverage — as well as informed analysis,
discussion and debate? Yet what we have in the media and political
establishment is, for the most part, a one-sided, even nonexistent, public
discussion and debate. It’s as if we live with what journalist Matt Taibbi
has dubbed an “intellectual no-fly zone.”

Тhose who have departed from the orthodox line on Ukraine are regularly
excluded from or marginalized — certainly rarely seen — on big corporate
media. The result is that alternative and countervailing views and voices
seem nonexistent. Wouldn’t it be healthy to have more diversity of views,
history and context rather than “confirmation bias”?

…

Those who speak of history and offer context about the West’s
precipitating role in the Ukraine tragedy are not excusing Russia’s
criminal attack. It is a measure of such thinking, and the rhetorical or
intellectual no-fly zone, that prominent figures such as Noam Chomsky,
University of Chicago professor John Mearsheimer and former U.S.
ambassador Chas Freeman, among others, have been demonized or slurred for
raising cogent arguments and providing much-needed context and history to
explain the background of this war.

In our fragile democracy, the cost of dissent is comparatively low. Why,
then, aren’t more individuals at think tanks or in academia, media or
politics challenging the orthodox U.S. political-media narrative? Is it
not worth asking whether sending ever-more weapons to the Ukrainians is
the wisest course? Is it too much to ask for more questioning and
discussion about how best to diminish the danger of nuclear conflict? Why
are nonconformists smeared for noting, even bolstered with reputable facts
and history, the role of nationalist, far-right and, yes, neo-Nazi forces
in Ukraine? Fascist or neo-Nazi revivalism is a toxic factor in many
countries today, from European nations to the United States. Why is
Ukraine’s history too often ignored, even denied?

…

останалото -- в източника на публикацията.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/05/24/ukraine-russia-war-
biden-strategy-debate/

как па верно все на такива попадам?

нямам идея какъв е източникът, нито пък дали авторката има страница в
уикипедия, а и честно казано -- не ме интересува.

обсебеният, ако се осмели да коментира, да коментира написаното в
статията. тогава мога да му обърна евентуално някакво внимание.

това е, аз отивам да приемам някаква доставка на компютърно оборудване 8-)

--
«地 球 誕 生 在 牛 市 的 小 時 — Earth is born in the Bull's hour»

On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 6:09:15 AM UTC-4, Nick wrote:
> още бели расисти/фашисти, религиозни фундаменталисти, анти-американски
> конспиративни култисти и подобни:
>
> Furthermore, the more protracted the war in Ukraine, the greater the risk
> of a nuclear accident or incident. And with the Biden administration’s
> strategy to “weaken” Russia with the scale of weapons shipments, including
> anti-ship missiles, and revelations of U.S. intelligence assistance to
> Ukraine, it is clear that the United States and NATO are in a proxy war
> with Russia.
>
> Shouldn’t the ramifications, perils and multifaceted costs of this proxy
> war be a central topic of media coverage — as well as informed analysis,
> discussion and debate? Yet what we have in the media and political
> establishment is, for the most part, a one-sided, even nonexistent, public
> discussion and debate. It’s as if we live with what journalist Matt Taibbi
> has dubbed an “intellectual no-fly zone.”
>
> Тhose who have departed from the orthodox line on Ukraine are regularly
> excluded from or marginalized — certainly rarely seen — on big corporate
> media. The result is that alternative and countervailing views and voices
> seem nonexistent. Wouldn’t it be healthy to have more diversity of views,
> history and context rather than “confirmation bias”?
>
> …
>
> Those who speak of history and offer context about the West’s
> precipitating role in the Ukraine tragedy are not excusing Russia’s
> criminal attack. It is a measure of such thinking, and the rhetorical or
> intellectual no-fly zone, that prominent figures such as Noam Chomsky,
> University of Chicago professor John Mearsheimer and former U.S.
> ambassador Chas Freeman, among others, have been demonized or slurred for
> raising cogent arguments and providing much-needed context and history to
> explain the background of this war.
>
> In our fragile democracy, the cost of dissent is comparatively low. Why,
> then, aren’t more individuals at think tanks or in academia, media or
> politics challenging the orthodox U.S. political-media narrative? Is it
> not worth asking whether sending ever-more weapons to the Ukrainians is
> the wisest course? Is it too much to ask for more questioning and
> discussion about how best to diminish the danger of nuclear conflict? Why
> are nonconformists smeared for noting, even bolstered with reputable facts
> and history, the role of nationalist, far-right and, yes, neo-Nazi forces
> in Ukraine? Fascist or neo-Nazi revivalism is a toxic factor in many
> countries today, from European nations to the United States. Why is
> Ukraine’s history too often ignored, even denied?
>
> …
>
> останалото -- в източника на публикацията.
>
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/05/24/ukraine-russia-war-
> biden-strategy-debate/
>
> как па верно все на такива попадам?
>
> нямам идея какъв е източникът, нито пък дали авторката има страница в
> уикипедия, а и честно казано -- не ме интересува.
>
> обсебеният, ако се осмели да коментира, да коментира написаното в
> статията. тогава мога да му обърна евентуално някакво внимание.
>
> това е, аз отивам да приемам някаква доставка на компютърно оборудване 8-)
>
> --
> «地 球 誕 生 在 牛 市 的 小 時 — Earth is born in the Bull's hour»
Тази е жената на покойния Стивън Коен* (и бивш главен редактор и собственик на
"The Nation"). В този контекст няма нужда да й чета есето за да зная какво е казала
по темата.
*Едва ли не знаеш кой беше той.

On Fri, 27 May 2022 04:09:16 -0700 (PDT), Ivaylo Ivanov wrote:

> On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 6:09:15 AM UTC-4, Nick wrote:
>> още бели расисти/фашисти, религиозни фундаменталисти, анти-американски
>> конспиративни култисти и подобни:
>>
>> Furthermore, the more protracted the war in Ukraine, the greater the
>> risk of a nuclear accident or incident. And with the Biden
>> administration’s strategy to “weaken” Russia with the scale of weapons
>> shipments, including anti-ship missiles, and revelations of U.S.
>> intelligence assistance to Ukraine, it is clear that the United States
>> and NATO are in a proxy war with Russia.
>>
>> Shouldn’t the ramifications, perils and multifaceted costs of this
>> proxy war be a central topic of media coverage — as well as informed
>> analysis,
>> discussion and debate? Yet what we have in the media and political
>> establishment is, for the most part, a one-sided, even nonexistent,
>> public discussion and debate. It’s as if we live with what journalist
>> Matt Taibbi has dubbed an “intellectual no-fly zone.”
>>
>> Тhose who have departed from the orthodox line on Ukraine are regularly
>> excluded from or marginalized — certainly rarely seen — on big
>> corporate media. The result is that alternative and countervailing
>> views and voices seem nonexistent. Wouldn’t it be healthy to have more
>> diversity of views,
>> history and context rather than “confirmation bias”?
>>
>> …
>>
>> Those who speak of history and offer context about the West’s
>> precipitating role in the Ukraine tragedy are not excusing Russia’s
>> criminal attack. It is a measure of such thinking, and the rhetorical
>> or intellectual no-fly zone, that prominent figures such as Noam
>> Chomsky,
>> University of Chicago professor John Mearsheimer and former U.S.
>> ambassador Chas Freeman, among others, have been demonized or slurred
>> for raising cogent arguments and providing much-needed context and
>> history to explain the background of this war.
>>
>> In our fragile democracy, the cost of dissent is comparatively low.
>> Why,
>> then, aren’t more individuals at think tanks or in academia, media or
>> politics challenging the orthodox U.S. political-media narrative? Is it
>> not worth asking whether sending ever-more weapons to the Ukrainians is
>> the wisest course? Is it too much to ask for more questioning and
>> discussion about how best to diminish the danger of nuclear conflict?
>> Why are nonconformists smeared for noting, even bolstered with
>> reputable facts and history, the role of nationalist, far-right and,
>> yes, neo-Nazi forces in Ukraine? Fascist or neo-Nazi revivalism is a
>> toxic factor in many countries today, from European nations to the
>> United States. Why is Ukraine’s history too often ignored, even denied?

>> …

>> останалото -- в източника на публикацията.

>> https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/05/24/ukraine-russia-war-
>> biden-strategy-debate/

>> как па верно все на такива попадам?

>> нямам идея какъв е източникът, нито пък дали авторката има страница в
>> уикипедия, а и честно казано -- не ме интересува.

>> обсебеният, ако се осмели да коментира, да коментира написаното в
>> статията. тогава мога да му обърна евентуално някакво внимание.

>> това е, аз отивам да приемам някаква доставка на компютърно оборудване
>> 8-)

> Тази е жената на покойния Стивън Коен* (и бивш главен редактор и
> собственик на "The Nation"). В този контекст няма нужда да й чета есето
> за да зная какво е казала по темата.

е, аз бях казал да коментираш написаното от нея, а не самата нея, защото
не си по-различен от онзи дето беше заявил миналия век „я солженицин не
читал, но оссуждаю“.

после не се учудвай на отношението ми към теб.

> *Едва ли не знаеш кой беше той.

сещам се за стив банън, но за този нямам спомен, колкото и да не ти се
вярва. аз по-скоро помня стореното от някого, отколкото кой точно го е
сторил.

--
«地 球 誕 生 在 牛 市 的 小 時 — Earth is born in the Bull's hour»

On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 7:29:39 AM UTC-4, Nick wrote:
> On Fri, 27 May 2022 04:09:16 -0700 (PDT), Ivaylo Ivanov wrote:
>
> > On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 6:09:15 AM UTC-4, Nick wrote:
> >> още бели расисти/фашисти, религиозни фундаменталисти, анти-американски
> >> конспиративни култисти и подобни:
> >>
> >> Furthermore, the more protracted the war in Ukraine, the greater the
> >> risk of a nuclear accident or incident. And with the Biden
> >> administration’s strategy to “weaken” Russia with the scale of weapons
> >> shipments, including anti-ship missiles, and revelations of U.S.
> >> intelligence assistance to Ukraine, it is clear that the United States
> >> and NATO are in a proxy war with Russia.
> >>
> >> Shouldn’t the ramifications, perils and multifaceted costs of this
> >> proxy war be a central topic of media coverage — as well as informed
> >> analysis,
> >> discussion and debate? Yet what we have in the media and political
> >> establishment is, for the most part, a one-sided, even nonexistent,
> >> public discussion and debate. It’s as if we live with what journalist
> >> Matt Taibbi has dubbed an “intellectual no-fly zone.”
> >>
> >> Тhose who have departed from the orthodox line on Ukraine are regularly
> >> excluded from or marginalized — certainly rarely seen — on big
> >> corporate media. The result is that alternative and countervailing
> >> views and voices seem nonexistent. Wouldn’t it be healthy to have more
> >> diversity of views,
> >> history and context rather than “confirmation bias”?
> >>
> >> …
> >>
> >> Those who speak of history and offer context about the West’s
> >> precipitating role in the Ukraine tragedy are not excusing Russia’s
> >> criminal attack. It is a measure of such thinking, and the rhetorical
> >> or intellectual no-fly zone, that prominent figures such as Noam
> >> Chomsky,
> >> University of Chicago professor John Mearsheimer and former U.S.
> >> ambassador Chas Freeman, among others, have been demonized or slurred
> >> for raising cogent arguments and providing much-needed context and
> >> history to explain the background of this war.
> >>
> >> In our fragile democracy, the cost of dissent is comparatively low.
> >> Why,
> >> then, aren’t more individuals at think tanks or in academia, media or
> >> politics challenging the orthodox U.S. political-media narrative? Is it
> >> not worth asking whether sending ever-more weapons to the Ukrainians is
> >> the wisest course? Is it too much to ask for more questioning and
> >> discussion about how best to diminish the danger of nuclear conflict?
> >> Why are nonconformists smeared for noting, even bolstered with
> >> reputable facts and history, the role of nationalist, far-right and,
> >> yes, neo-Nazi forces in Ukraine? Fascist or neo-Nazi revivalism is a
> >> toxic factor in many countries today, from European nations to the
> >> United States. Why is Ukraine’s history too often ignored, even denied?
>
> >> …
>
> >> останалото -- в източника на публикацията.
>
> >> https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/05/24/ukraine-russia-war-
> >> biden-strategy-debate/
>
> >> как па верно все на такива попадам?
>
> >> нямам идея какъв е източникът, нито пък дали авторката има страница в
> >> уикипедия, а и честно казано -- не ме интересува.
>
> >> обсебеният, ако се осмели да коментира, да коментира написаното в
> >> статията. тогава мога да му обърна евентуално някакво внимание.
>
> >> това е, аз отивам да приемам някаква доставка на компютърно оборудване
> >> 8-)
> > Тази е жената на покойния Стивън Коен* (и бивш главен редактор и
> > собственик на "The Nation"). В този контекст няма нужда да й чета есето
> > за да зная какво е казала по темата.
> е, аз бях казал да коментираш написаното от нея, а не самата нея, защото
> не си по-различен от онзи дето беше заявил миналия век „я солженицин не
> читал, но оссуждаю“.
Защо трябва да коментирам мненията на хора добре известни от години като апологети
на Путинския империализъм??

>
> после не се учудвай на отношението ми към теб.
> > *Едва ли не знаеш кой беше той.
> сещам се за стив банън, но за този нямам спомен, колкото и да не ти се
> вярва. аз по-скоро помня стореното от някого, отколкото кой точно го е
> сторил.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_F._Cohen#Putin_era

On Fri, 27 May 2022 04:48:35 -0700 (PDT), Ivaylo Ivanov wrote:

> On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 7:29:39 AM UTC-4, Nick wrote:

>> On Fri, 27 May 2022 04:09:16 -0700 (PDT), Ivaylo Ivanov wrote:

>> > On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 6:09:15 AM UTC-4, Nick wrote:

>> >> още бели расисти/фашисти, религиозни фундаменталисти,
>> >> анти-американски конспиративни култисти и подобни:

>> >> Furthermore, the more protracted the war in Ukraine, the greater the
>> >> risk of a nuclear accident or incident. And with the Biden
>> >> administration’s strategy to “weaken” Russia with the scale of
>> >> weapons shipments, including anti-ship missiles, and revelations of
>> >> U.S. intelligence assistance to Ukraine, it is clear that the United
>> >> States and NATO are in a proxy war with Russia.

>> >> Shouldn’t the ramifications, perils and multifaceted costs of this
>> >> proxy war be a central topic of media coverage — as well as informed
>> >> analysis, discussion and debate? Yet what we have in the media and
>> >> political establishment is, for the most part, a one-sided, even
>> >> nonexistent, public discussion and debate. It’s as if we live with
>> >> what journalist Matt Taibbi has dubbed an “intellectual no-fly
>> >> zone.”

>> >> Тhose who have departed from the orthodox line on Ukraine are
>> >> regularly excluded from or marginalized — certainly rarely seen — on
>> >> big corporate media. The result is that alternative and
>> >> countervailing views and voices seem nonexistent. Wouldn’t it be
>> >> healthy to have more diversity of views,
>> >> history and context rather than “confirmation bias”?

>> >> …

>> >> Those who speak of history and offer context about the West’s
>> >> precipitating role in the Ukraine tragedy are not excusing Russia’s
>> >> criminal attack. It is a measure of such thinking, and the
>> >> rhetorical or intellectual no-fly zone, that prominent figures such
>> >> as Noam Chomsky, University of Chicago professor John Mearsheimer
>> >> and former U.S. ambassador Chas Freeman, among others, have been
>> >> demonized or slurred for raising cogent arguments and providing
>> >> much-needed context and history to explain the background of this
>> >> war.

>> >> In our fragile democracy, the cost of dissent is comparatively low.
>> >> Why, then, aren’t more individuals at think tanks or in academia,
>> >> media or politics challenging the orthodox U.S. political-media
>> >> narrative?

>> >> Is it not worth asking whether sending ever-more weapons to the
>> >> Ukrainians is the wisest course? Is it too much to ask for more
>> >> questioning and discussion about how best to diminish the danger of
>> >> nuclear conflict?

>> >> Why are nonconformists smeared for noting, even bolstered with
>> >> reputable facts and history, the role of nationalist, far-right and,
>> >> yes, neo-Nazi forces in Ukraine? Fascist or neo-Nazi revivalism is a
>> >> toxic factor in many countries today, from European nations to the
>> >> United States. Why is Ukraine’s history too often ignored, even
>> >> denied?

>> >> …

>> >> останалото -- в източника на публикацията.

>> >> https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/05/24/ukraine-russia-
war-biden-strategy-debate/

>> >> как па верно все на такива попадам?

>> >> нямам идея какъв е източникът, нито пък дали авторката има страница
>> >> в уикипедия, а и честно казано -- не ме интересува.

>> >> обсебеният, ако се осмели да коментира, да коментира написаното в
>> >> статията. тогава мога да му обърна евентуално някакво внимание.

>> >> това е, аз отивам да приемам някаква доставка на компютърно
>> >> оборудване 8-)

>> > Тази е жената на покойния Стивън Коен* (и бивш главен редактор и
>> > собственик на "The Nation"). В този контекст няма нужда да й чета
>> > есето за да зная какво е казала по темата.

>> е, аз бях казал да коментираш написаното от нея, а не самата нея,
>> защото не си по-различен от онзи дето беше заявил миналия век „я
>> солженицин не читал, но оссуждаю“.

> Защо трябва да коментирам мненията на хора добре известни от години като
> апологети на Путинския империализъм??

защото си в ситуацията, която споменавам малко по-горе. нито в първото
интервю, нито във второто се говори колко е велик путин.

и доказваш съмнението ми, че изобщо не четеш това, което ти се показва.

между другото, слагането на етикети не беше ли характерно за тези, които
мразиш?

>> после не се учудвай на отношението ми към теб.

>> > *Едва ли не знаеш кой беше той.

>> сещам се за стив банън, но за този нямам спомен, колкото и да не ти се
>> вярва. аз по-скоро помня стореното от някого, отколкото кой точно го е
>> сторил.

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_F._Cohen#Putin_era

мда, работата е ясна, да влизат санитарите.

ти солженицин не си чел, но го осъждаш. аргументи -- йок.

--
«地 球 誕 生 在 牛 市 的 小 時 — Earth is born in the Bull's hour»