|
|
On March 26 2014 02:01 Ghanburighan wrote:And by interesting you mean it's one of the less known `alternative news sites' set up by the Kremlin to spout the usual Russian line about US depravity and weakness, all the while happily spreading 911 conspiracies and other junk. Even if there's something truthful on that site, it's not worth going through all the nonsense to find it. An honest question to you, oo_W_oo, how did you even find that site?
what do you mean, youve never heard of jim sinclair world renowned gold expert?
|
Never heard of that page or that dude - but how do you know it's set up by the kremlin?
Just out of curiosity, didn't even read the article.
|
Besides the fact that the site is full of crap, the argument is really shitty. "Russia has the economic upper hand" yeah... Russia has the GDP of Brazil. The economic output of the EU and the US is about 15 times bigger than Russia's. Exports from the EU to Russia account for about 1% of Europe's GDP, Exports from Russia to the EU account for about 15% of Russia's GDP. Russia and the US basically don't have signifcant trade relations at all.
|
On March 26 2014 02:48 Nyxisto wrote:
Besides the fact that the site is full of crap, the argument is really shitty. "Russia has the economic upper hand" yeah... Russia has the GDP of Brazil. The economic output of the EU and the US is about 15 times bigger than Russia's. Exports from the EU to Russia account for about 1% of Europe's GDP, Exports from Russia to the EU account for about 15% of Russia's GDP.
What, how can you distrust someone as trustworthy as this guy ![[image loading]](http://usawatchdog.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/41.jpg) who is predicting gold to cost 50,000 dollars an ounce sometime 'soon'....
|
It would be very nice if everyone would just backup his arguments with reputable sources. You can't expect everyone here to go through stupid tinfoil hat gold dealer conspiracy blogs just to refute an argument.
|
The land of freedom23126 Posts
On March 26 2014 02:01 Ghanburighan wrote:And by interesting you mean it's one of the less known `alternative news sites' set up by the Kremlin to spout the usual Russian line about US depravity and weakness, all the while happily spreading 911 conspiracies and other junk. Even if there's something truthful on that site, it's not worth going through all the nonsense to find it. An honest question to you, oo_W_oo, how did you even find that site?
Was browsing twitter like everyone in this thread does. Considering that i have more than 1k following pages, there is a lot of stuff in newsfeed. :>
I guess, i have to throw something weird once as well.
But saying that it's "alternative news site set up by the Kremlin to spout the usual Russian line about US depravity and weakness" is just ridiculous.
|
On March 26 2014 02:57 oo_Wonderful_oo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2014 02:01 Ghanburighan wrote:And by interesting you mean it's one of the less known `alternative news sites' set up by the Kremlin to spout the usual Russian line about US depravity and weakness, all the while happily spreading 911 conspiracies and other junk. Even if there's something truthful on that site, it's not worth going through all the nonsense to find it. An honest question to you, oo_W_oo, how did you even find that site? Was browsing twitter like everyone in this thread does. Considering that i have more than 1k following pages, there is a lot of stuff in newsfeed. :> I guess, i have to throw something weird once as well. But saying that it's "alternative news site set up by the Kremlin to spout the usual Russian line about US depravity and weakness" is just ridiculous.
I agree, I dont think this was set up by Kremlin. This is part of a different parallel information universe, where gold is going to the moon, the Fed is a conspiracy and so forth.
|
Well, to farther intelligent discussion it is good to post intelligent articles  The article is clearly horse shit. If it were Russian propaganda it'd be on some news site that tries to look 'legitimate' like RT... and the article wouldn't suddenly switch to the subject of gold for no apparent reason. So next time post an "intelligent" Russian propaganda article so we can disprove it rather than just laugh at it
|
The core point in the article still holds true and has been reported in many other places. If Russia chooses to go into a great depression they can cause severe problems to the EU sphere and because of that to the US.
|
On March 26 2014 03:10 Yurie wrote:
The core point in the article still holds true and has been reported in many other places. If Russia chooses to go into a great depression they can cause severe problems to the EU sphere and because of that to the US.
The article had a core point or any point for that matter? Ok, whatever.. Either way the article mostly just quoted ONE person (who makes extravagant claims about the price of gold jumping by over 30 times over the next few years).
Regardless, I actually think I agree with your statement, if you mean by "Russia going into great depression" that Russia would stop selling gas (or europe stop buying). Russia's economy would be totally destroyed, while European economy would be greatly impacted and the US economy would also would suffer. It's clear that Russia would lose more in this situation (there are energy alternatives for the EU/USA) and these countries have very diverse economies.
|
The land of freedom23126 Posts
On March 26 2014 03:49 Mc wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2014 03:10 Yurie wrote:
The core point in the article still holds true and has been reported in many other places. If Russia chooses to go into a great depression they can cause severe problems to the EU sphere and because of that to the US. The article had a core point or any point for that matter? Ok, whatever.. Either way the article mostly just quoted ONE person (who makes extravagant claims about the price of gold jumping by over 30 times over the next few years). Regardless, I actually think I agree with your statement, if you mean by "Russia going into great depression" that Russia would stop selling gas (or europe stop buying). Russia's economy would be totally destroyed, while European economy would be greatly impacted and the US economy would also would suffer. It's clear that Russia would lose more in this situation (there are energy alternatives for the EU/USA) and these countries have very diverse economies.
Energy alternatives to oil/gas in current world? I don't think you realise that a lot of countries rejected idea of going into nuclear energy and switch to wind/sun energy is ridiculous.
|
On March 26 2014 04:22 oo_Wonderful_oo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2014 03:49 Mc wrote:On March 26 2014 03:10 Yurie wrote:
The core point in the article still holds true and has been reported in many other places. If Russia chooses to go into a great depression they can cause severe problems to the EU sphere and because of that to the US. The article had a core point or any point for that matter? Ok, whatever.. Either way the article mostly just quoted ONE person (who makes extravagant claims about the price of gold jumping by over 30 times over the next few years). Regardless, I actually think I agree with your statement, if you mean by "Russia going into great depression" that Russia would stop selling gas (or europe stop buying). Russia's economy would be totally destroyed, while European economy would be greatly impacted and the US economy would also would suffer. It's clear that Russia would lose more in this situation (there are energy alternatives for the EU/USA) and these countries have very diverse economies. Energy alternatives to oil/gas in current world? I don't think you realise that a lot of countries rejected idea of going into nuclear energy and switch to wind/sun energy is ridiculous.
I think he is talking about Qatar/Norway/American supply.
|
The land of freedom23126 Posts
On March 26 2014 04:29 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2014 04:22 oo_Wonderful_oo wrote:On March 26 2014 03:49 Mc wrote:On March 26 2014 03:10 Yurie wrote:
The core point in the article still holds true and has been reported in many other places. If Russia chooses to go into a great depression they can cause severe problems to the EU sphere and because of that to the US. The article had a core point or any point for that matter? Ok, whatever.. Either way the article mostly just quoted ONE person (who makes extravagant claims about the price of gold jumping by over 30 times over the next few years). Regardless, I actually think I agree with your statement, if you mean by "Russia going into great depression" that Russia would stop selling gas (or europe stop buying). Russia's economy would be totally destroyed, while European economy would be greatly impacted and the US economy would also would suffer. It's clear that Russia would lose more in this situation (there are energy alternatives for the EU/USA) and these countries have very diverse economies. Energy alternatives to oil/gas in current world? I don't think you realise that a lot of countries rejected idea of going into nuclear energy and switch to wind/sun energy is ridiculous. I think he is talking about Qatar/Norway/American supply.
Still, it's not work for 1 day to be completely honest.
And i don't think that someone from mediocre European citizens want to be hurt even slightly.
|
On March 26 2014 02:27 m4ini wrote:
Never heard of that page or that dude - but how do you know it's set up by the kremlin?
Just out of curiosity, didn't even read the article.
Well, I have no information that it actually is funded and controlled by the Kremlin (it's too insignificant for it to be known). But here are the reason why I think it is:
a) the article quoted follows the current Kremlin speaking points very closely (mentioning the coup etc). If you take out the bit about gold, it reads like a Russian MFA press release.
b) It's name is US Watchdog, this is exactly the archetypal news source set up by the Kremlin, like RT, as it mainly writes articles on why the US is i) morally bankrupt, ii) internationally weak, iii) hypocritical. It also emphasizes that it's `alternative media', presenting a `true' or `real' version events - effectively allowing itself to spout random stuff without accountability or coherence.
c) If you look at its article history, it hits roughly the same topics that known Kremlin sources talk about: 9/11 conspiracies when other Kremlin sources posted those articles, occupy wall street coverage while that was the Kremlin fad at RT, etc. I'm guessing there's a single institution in Russia sending these talking points to their affiliated sources who then type up marginally different articles.
All in all, I only read a few lines before my gut said it's a Kremlin source. That's probably because I recognized some sentences or phrases from other sources. Then I started looking at the history and it all fits.
|
The land of freedom23126 Posts
On March 26 2014 04:44 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2014 02:27 m4ini wrote:
Never heard of that page or that dude - but how do you know it's set up by the kremlin?
Just out of curiosity, didn't even read the article. Well, I have no information that it actually is funded and controlled by the Kremlin (it's too insignificant for it to be known). But here are the reason why I think it is: a) the article quoted follows the current Kremlin speaking points very closely (mentioning the coup etc). If you take out the bit about gold, it reads like a Russian MFA press release. b) It's name is US Watchdog, this is exactly the archetypal news source set up by the Kremlin, like RT, as it mainly writes articles on why the US is i) morally bankrupt, ii) internationally weak, iii) hypocritical. It also emphasizes that it's `alternative media', presenting a `true' or `real' version events - effectively allowing itself to spout random stuff without accountability or coherence. c) If you look at its article history, it hits roughly the same topics that known Kremlin sources talk about: 9/11 conspiracies when other Kremlin sources posted those articles, occupy wall street coverage while that was the Kremlin fad at RT, etc. I'm guessing there's a single institution in Russia sending these talking points to their affiliated sources who then type up marginally different articles. All in all, I only read a few lines before my gut said it's a Kremlin source. That's probably because I recognized some sentences or phrases from other sources. Then I started looking at the history and it all fits.
It's some paranoid shit, tbh.
Just stop trying to find conspiracies everywhere and relax.
|
On March 26 2014 06:24 oo_Wonderful_oo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2014 04:44 Ghanburighan wrote:On March 26 2014 02:27 m4ini wrote:
Never heard of that page or that dude - but how do you know it's set up by the kremlin?
Just out of curiosity, didn't even read the article. Well, I have no information that it actually is funded and controlled by the Kremlin (it's too insignificant for it to be known). But here are the reason why I think it is: a) the article quoted follows the current Kremlin speaking points very closely (mentioning the coup etc). If you take out the bit about gold, it reads like a Russian MFA press release. b) It's name is US Watchdog, this is exactly the archetypal news source set up by the Kremlin, like RT, as it mainly writes articles on why the US is i) morally bankrupt, ii) internationally weak, iii) hypocritical. It also emphasizes that it's `alternative media', presenting a `true' or `real' version events - effectively allowing itself to spout random stuff without accountability or coherence. c) If you look at its article history, it hits roughly the same topics that known Kremlin sources talk about: 9/11 conspiracies when other Kremlin sources posted those articles, occupy wall street coverage while that was the Kremlin fad at RT, etc. I'm guessing there's a single institution in Russia sending these talking points to their affiliated sources who then type up marginally different articles. All in all, I only read a few lines before my gut said it's a Kremlin source. That's probably because I recognized some sentences or phrases from other sources. Then I started looking at the history and it all fits. It's some paranoid shit, tbh. Just stop trying to find conspiracies everywhere and relax.
I'd recommend the opposite. The amount of BS propaganda that is masquerading as legitimate sources to be used as talking points is growing exponentially with the level of tech savvy governments.
If anything can be taken away from the annexation of Crimea, it's that information control is among the most sought after things in any conflict. You would do yourself and those you converse with a disservice by not looking into the legitimacy of any article that is front page news or otherwise. Government propaganda is only going to increase, as media reaches a broader audience.
|
|
|
On March 26 2014 03:49 Mc wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2014 03:10 Yurie wrote:
The core point in the article still holds true and has been reported in many other places. If Russia chooses to go into a great depression they can cause severe problems to the EU sphere and because of that to the US. The article had a core point or any point for that matter? Ok, whatever.. Either way the article mostly just quoted ONE person (who makes extravagant claims about the price of gold jumping by over 30 times over the next few years). Regardless, I actually think I agree with your statement, if you mean by "Russia going into great depression" that Russia would stop selling gas (or europe stop buying). Russia's economy would be totally destroyed, while European economy would be greatly impacted and the US economy would also would suffer. It's clear that Russia would lose more in this situation (there are energy alternatives for the EU/USA) and these countries have very diverse economies.
There's two extremely important points you are missing:
1) Russia is opening up East Asian markets as we speak. The amount of development in eastern Siberia and Sakhalin over the past some odd years is absurd. Just several months ago the Russian government stated that development in the Far East is a 'national priority', and is really pushing developing oil and other industries there.
2) If nothing else, the recession several years back (and still continuing in EU, esp. the Eurozone crisis) gave a message to the Russian government that it would be a good idea to improve other industries, which as far as I'm aware, is still going well. If I'm not mistaken, Russian gas output is the same as it was a few years ago. In the impossible scenario that suddenly energy industry is no longer an option, Russia is one of the most able countries to adapt to other things. Though, they're already in that process anyways.
Most media tend to go full retard when it comes to reporting on national interests. I think this article is taking the statement almost entirely out of context though.
Pre-WW2, lots of organizations supported and many more appeased the Nazi administration. It empowered Hitler more than anything else. The statement, while still idiotic, is basically saying, if (assuming) there are Judeophobic right-wing radicals among the Maidan protesters (while I don't know much about Judeophobia in Ukraine, but at the very least, there is a good sized right-wing component in Maidan/Ukraine that seems to be growing), then this theorized (but highly unlikely) future persecution following the support of Jewish groups for Maidan would basically be like shooting yourself in the foot. That's all it is saying to my understanding.
The primary mistake of the statement is it implies that the far-right-wing basically dominates Ukrainian politics and society, which is not at all true. While the right-wing appears to be more empowered post-maidan, the statement foretells an extremely unlikely scenario based on a false assertion about the political and social situation in Ukraine.
To say that the statement is claiming that "Jews are responsible for the Holocaust" like this article seems to be doing is taking it entirely out of context in a predictable hysterical manner.
|
On March 26 2014 06:24 oo_Wonderful_oo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2014 04:44 Ghanburighan wrote:On March 26 2014 02:27 m4ini wrote:
Never heard of that page or that dude - but how do you know it's set up by the kremlin?
Just out of curiosity, didn't even read the article. Well, I have no information that it actually is funded and controlled by the Kremlin (it's too insignificant for it to be known). But here are the reason why I think it is: a) the article quoted follows the current Kremlin speaking points very closely (mentioning the coup etc). If you take out the bit about gold, it reads like a Russian MFA press release. b) It's name is US Watchdog, this is exactly the archetypal news source set up by the Kremlin, like RT, as it mainly writes articles on why the US is i) morally bankrupt, ii) internationally weak, iii) hypocritical. It also emphasizes that it's `alternative media', presenting a `true' or `real' version events - effectively allowing itself to spout random stuff without accountability or coherence. c) If you look at its article history, it hits roughly the same topics that known Kremlin sources talk about: 9/11 conspiracies when other Kremlin sources posted those articles, occupy wall street coverage while that was the Kremlin fad at RT, etc. I'm guessing there's a single institution in Russia sending these talking points to their affiliated sources who then type up marginally different articles. All in all, I only read a few lines before my gut said it's a Kremlin source. That's probably because I recognized some sentences or phrases from other sources. Then I started looking at the history and it all fits. It's some paranoid shit, tbh. Just stop trying to find conspiracies everywhere and relax.
How about I keep my critical approach to news sources instead. You didn't even try to refute that, glibly calling it paranoid won't cut it.
Also, you didn't answer my question.
|
Russia is one of the most able countries to adapt to other things. Though, they're already in that process anyways.
Citation needed, since alot of experts have a different opinion. Since i would not call you an expert, i'd like to know where you got that from.
To say that the statement is claiming that "Jews are responsible for the Holocaust" like this article seems to be doing is taking it entirely out of context in a predictable hysterical manner.
Sub40, since there's a video - could you translate?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
