Noam Chomsky’s excellent example

When do you hear any discussion of 9/11 or false flags on DN? Instead we get totally fictional war propaganda (“Gaddafi’s viagra fueled rape camps”) come to mind. No, remaining silent is one thing.
Let nobody accuse Amy Goodman of remaining silent. What a disgusting imperialist shill she is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNcLUxsubqo

Not to mention the 9/11 and the “Zionists did it!” conspiracy theories.
People who speak disparagingly about “9/11 conspiracy theories”, without bothering to notice that the Official Story, of four airplanes being simultaneously hijacked by order of an evil mastermind living in a cave in Afghanistan, is itself a “conspiracy theory”, are necessarily either dupes or shills, either the victims or the instruments of a CIA psychological warfare campaign.

In what follows, I shall attempt to reorient analysis of the phenomenon that has been assigned the derisive label of “conspiracy theory.” In a 2006 peer-reviewed journal article, I introduced the concept of State Crime against Democracy (SCAD) to displace the term “conspiracy theory.” I say displace rather than replace because SCAD is not another name for conspiracy theory; it is a name for the type of wrongdoing about which the conspiracy-theory label discourages us from speaking. Basically, the term “conspiracy theory” is applied pejoratively to allegations of official wrongdoing that have not been substantiated by public officials themselves.
Deployed as a pejorative putdown, the label is a verbal defense mechanism used by political elites to suppress mass suspicions that inevitably arise when shocking political crimes benefit top leaders or play into their agendas, especially when those same officials are in control of agencies responsible for preventing the events in question or for investigating them after they have occurred. It is only natural to wonder about possible chicanery when a president and vice president bent on war in the Middle East are warned of impending terrorist attacks and yet fail to alert the American public or increase the readiness of the nation’s armed forces. Why would Americans not expect answers when Arabs with poor piloting skills manage to hijack four planes, fly them across the eastern United States, somehow evade America’s multilayered system of air defense, and then crash two of the planes into the Twin Towers in New York City and one into the Pentagon in Washington, DC? By the same token, it is only natural to question the motives of the president and vice president when they drag their feet on investigating this seemingly inexplicable defense failure and then, when the investigation is finally conducted, they insist on testifying together, in secret, and not under oath. Certainly, citizen distrust can be unwarranted and overwrought, but often citizen doubts make sense. Americans are not crazy to want answers when a president is assassinated by a lone gunman with mediocre shooting skills who manages to get off several lucky shots with an old bolt-action carbine that has a misaligned scope. Why would there not be doubts when an alleged assassin is apprehended, publicly claims he is just a patsy, is interrogated for two days but no one makes a recording or even takes notes, and he is then shot to death at point-blank range while in police custody at police headquarters?
— Lance DeHaven-Smith, Conspiracy Theory in America

No they didn’t. They began occupying government buildings, on orders from Russia, mere weeks after the Crimean annexation. Kiev sent in armed police to prevent a Russian takeover of E. Ukraine with “little green men.” Should they have repeated the same mistake as with Crimea?

This is factually incorrect even according to western news sources.The peaceful petitions sent from Donbass to Kiev that were ignored, the peaceful protests in Donbass, the mass defections in the military after being told to fire on unarmed civilians and the subsequent use by Kiev of right wing militia in the ATO is all well documented by the BBC and even the Guardian, starting long before the first claims of Russian troops in the area. If Kiev had guaranteed the Donbass the protections they were asking for in Feb/March 2014 the civil war would likely never have happened

Hi MLS,
Russia didn’t like that Ukraine broke free of its grip. It needed Ukraine to be under control so it could maintain a buffer and use Crimea. Hence, it annexed Crimea with the BS excuse that it was under attack by hordes of Nazis. The same excuse was made about the new Ukrainian government. The Russian state media, including useful idiot “anti-imperialist” blogs repeated the claim that Ukraine is a “fake country”, etc. That’s irredentism – classic imperialism.
Regarding Julia Davis, she is the only person in the English-language internet who regularly watches Russian media and quotes them, always meticulously giving a direct timestamped link to the original source. She’s far more reliable than the fake news websites many rely on, including Sputnik, FR, RI, etc.

Eastern Ukraine attempted peaceful solutions for many months. They sent deputations to Kiev to ask for guarantees of language rights etc. The Kiev govt refused to hear them.
They peacefully protested in the streets and the Kiev govt sent in armed police.

No they didn’t. They began occupying government buildings, on orders from Russia, mere weeks after the Crimean annexation. Kiev sent in armed police to prevent a Russian takeover of E. Ukraine with “little green men.” Should they have repeated the same mistake as with Crimea?

In response the Kiev govt drafted recruits and created militias, often of right wing or neo-nazi persuasion, such as Aidar and Azov. These people had no problem attacking eastern Ukrainians whom they regarded as inferior beings. These neo-nazi were at the heart of the Odessa massacre which saw the first intense violence.

This is entirely false. Kiev didn’t create these militias – the militias were created by volunteers and joined the war effort. Further, the Odessa massacre is one of the most propagandized events yet. The situation could easily have been reversed – i.e. the pro-Russian group cornering the pro-Western group in the building. No one was burned alive, as the Russian media disgustingly lied about, taking advantage of innocent people’s deaths for propaganda purposes. They all died from smoke inhalation after someone threw a Molotov cocktail into the building and started a fire. I’d like to remind you that both sides were throwing these at each other. I doubt very much anyone knew the Molotov’s would start a fire and suffocate everyone to death.

After that the Kiev govt sent in tanks against a civilian population that was still barely armed and posed NO threat.
What should the Russians have done at this point?

I fully agree that Kiev overreacted in the beginning, but only because they were provoked by Russia’s takeover of Crimea.

It is always Kiev, on orders from Washington who prevents peace. Because the US sees benefit in an unstable situation on Russia’s border – not least in hopes it distracts Russia from getting too involved in Syria.

That makes no sense. You can’t “distract” a foreign policy team from an event.

By the way did you know right now Kiev is shelling Donbass? Civilians are dying, but the west won’t report it until Donbass hits back, when we’ll read about it as if it was an unprovoked attack.

Civilians are dying in Syria too, by Assad’s heavy-handed attacks. Why is the so-called “alternative media” so ready to dismiss this, but fall hook, line, and sinker for Russia’s use of civilian deaths for propaganda purposes?

And this holds true for many modern day countries. That doesn’t mean that Russia should interfere

Why not?
Eastern Ukraine attempted peaceful solutions for many months. They sent deputations to Kiev to ask for guarantees of language rights etc. The Kiev govt refused to hear them.
They peacefully protested in the streets and the Kiev govt sent in armed police.
They occupied govt buildings in protest and the Kiev govt declared a War on Terror against them. This was so unconstitutional most of the regular army (those who hadn’t already quit after the coup) laid down their arms an refused to attack their fellow citizens (see especially the Slavyansk incident in early April 2014).
In response the Kiev govt drafted recruits and created militias, often of right wing or neo-nazi persuasion, such as Aidar and Azov. These people had no problem attacking eastern Ukrainians whom they regarded as inferior beings. These neo-nazi were at the heart of the Odessa massacre which saw the first intense violence.
After that the Kiev govt sent in tanks against a civilian population that was still barely armed and posed NO threat.
What should the Russians have done at this point?
The Russian have never “invaded” despite the frequent claims. They have supported the resistance in Donbass, sent in aid. Meanwhile continuing to assist Ukraine’s dying economy. Russia, unlike the EU and US try to bring peace to the region. It’s in their interests to have peace in the region. They initiated the MInsk talks and have consistently supported the agreements.
Who break the agreements? Kiev.
It is always Kiev, on orders from Washington who prevents peace. Because the US sees benefit in an unstable situation on Russia’s border – not least in hopes it distracts Russia from getting too involved in Syria.
By the way did you know right now Kiev is shelling Donbass? Civilians are dying, but the west won’t report it until Donbass hits back, when we’ll read about it as if it was an unprovoked attack.
Don’t believe me? Go and find some of the numerous citizen journalists reporting on the ground out there. They are reporting almost daily shelling. Or are they all part of the matrix of fake news?

Damn, just when I thought it was safe to come out of the cupboard……