• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Tucker Carlson, Colonel Douglas Macgregor, The Ukraine War

Estro Felino

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
Debater Slayer said:
The US also clearly requires Ukraine not to strike inside Russia using Western weapons. It appears to be a unanimous stance from the NATO members who are aiding Ukraine. Do you think any of them want to risk a nuclear war with Russia, which has the world's largest nuclear arsenal?
Click to expand...
Since it's the EU who will have to rebuild Ukraine...it is the EU who will dictate the terms on Zelenskyy. :)
 
InChrist

InChrist

Free4ever
Father Heathen said:
The "tsar" is the one who unleashed a war by invading. He is the one who threatened and disrupted peace, yet you try to place blame everywhere else but where it actually belongs. Because why? Some bizarre despot fetish?
Click to expand...
Why did Putin invade, though? Why was our country tampering around in the Ukraine? In their elections and political business? Why did we have bio labs there?
What if Russia was in Mexico or Canada doing the stuff we were doing in the Ukraine, do you think we would invade?


www.newsweek.com

The U.S. and NATO Helped Trigger the Ukraine War.

Vladimir Putin's decision to launch a full-scale invasion of Ukraine is a monstrous act of aggression. But that doesn't mean the West did nothing to provoke it.
www.newsweek.com www.newsweek.com
 
Last edited:
Colt

Colt

Well-Known Member
SkepticThinker said:
Why do you listen to this fool?
Click to expand...
Macgregor has experience in our military going all the way back to Vietnam. I'm willing to listen to ALL sides of an issue. If he says something in this interview that egregiously wrong, then point it out?
 
Last edited:
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
cOLTER said:
The interview is with Colonel Douglas Macgregor. Imagine if you were as skeptical of the claims of the United States government as you are of religion???

The Gulf of Tonkin incident (Vietnamese: Sự kiện Vịnh Bắc Bộ) was an international confrontation that led to the United States engaging more directly in the Vietnam War. It consisted of a confrontation on August 2, 1964, when United States forces were carrying out covert operations close to North Vietnamese territorial waters and North Vietnamese forces responded. The United States government falsely claimed that a second incident occurred on August 4, 1964, between North Vietnamese and United States ships in the waters of the Gulf of Tonkin. Originally, US military claims blamed North Vietnam for the confrontation and the ostensible, but in fact imaginary, incident on August 4. Later investigation revealed that the second attack never happened; the official American claim is that it was based mostly on erroneously interpreted communications intercepts.[5][6][7] The National Security Agency, a subsidiary of the US Defense Department, deliberately skewed intelligence to create the impression that an attack had been carried out.[8]

Gulf of Tonkin incident - Wikipedia

Operation Mockingbird is an alleged large-scale program of the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) that began in the early years of the Cold War and attempted to manipulate domestic American news media organizations for propaganda purposes. According to author Deborah Davis, Operation Mockingbird recruited leading American journalists into a propaganda network and influenced the operations of front groups. CIA support of front groups was exposed when an April 1967 Ramparts article reported that the National Student Association received funding from the CIA.[1] In 1975, Church Committee Congressional investigations revealed Agency connections with journalists and civic groups.

In 1973, a document referred to as the "Family Jewels"[2] was published by the CIA containing a reference to "Project Mockingbird", which was the name of an operation in 1963 which wiretapped two journalists who had published articles based on classified material.[3] The document does not contain references to "Operation Mockingbird".[4]

Background​

See also: CIA influence on public opinion
In the early years of the Cold War, efforts were made by the United States Government to use mass media to influence public opinion internationally. After the United States Senate Watergate Committee in 1973 uncovered domestic surveillance abuses directed by the Executive branch of the United States government and The New York Times in 1974 published an article by Seymour Hersh claiming the CIA had violated its charter by spying on anti-war activists, former CIA officials and some lawmakers called for a congressional inquiry that became known as the Church Committee.[5] Published in 1976, the committee's report confirmed some earlier stories that charged that the CIA had cultivated relationships with private institutions, including the press.[6] Without identifying individuals by name, the Church Committee stated that it found fifty journalists who had official, but secret, relationships with the CIA.[6] In a 1977 Rolling Stone magazine article, "The CIA and the Media,"[7] reporter Carl Bernstein expanded upon the Church Committee's report and wrote that more than 400 US press members had secretly carried out assignments for the CIA, including New York Times publisher Arthur Hays Sulzberger, columnist and political analyst Stewart Alsop and Time magazine.[6] Bernstein documented the way in which overseas branches of major US news agencies had for many years served as the "eyes and ears" of Operation Mockingbird, which functioned to disseminate CIA propaganda through domestic US media.[8]

In The Rising Clamor: The American Press, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the Cold War, David P. Hadley wrote that the "continued lack of specific details [provided by the Church Committee and Bernstein's exposé] proved a breeding ground for some outlandish claims regarding CIA and the press"; as an example, he offered unsourced claims by reporter Deborah Davis.[6] Davis wrote in Katharine the Great, her 1979 unauthorized biography of Katharine Graham, owner of The Washington Post, that the CIA ran an "Operation Mockingbird" during this time, writing that the Prague-based International Organization of Journalists (IOJ) "received money from Moscow and controlled reporters on every major newspaper in Europe, disseminating stories that promoted the Communist cause",[9] and that Frank Wisner, director of the Office of Policy Coordination (a covert operations unit created in 1948 by the United States National Security Council) had created Operation Mockingbird in response to the IOJ, recruiting Phil Graham from The Washington Post to run the project within the industry. According to Davis, "By the early 1950s, Wisner 'owned' respected members of The New York Times, Newsweek, CBS and other communications vehicles."[10] Davis wrote that after Cord Meyer joined the CIA in 1951, he became Operation Mockingbird's "principal operative."[11] Neither the Church Committee nor any of the investigations that followed it find there was such an operation as described by Davis.[6] Hadley summarized, "Mockingbird, as described by Davis, has remained a stubbornly persistent theory"; and added, "The Davis/Mockingbird theory, that the CIA operated a deliberate and systematic program of widespread manipulation of the U.S. media, does not appear to be grounded in reality, but that should not disguise the active role the CIA played in influencing the domestic press's output."[6]

Operation Mockingbird - Wikipedia
Click to expand...
Well that was a lot of red herrings. You need to demonstrate that this colonel is reliable before you can use such comparisons. Just because he was a colonel at one point in time does not make him credible.
 
Colt

Colt

Well-Known Member
Subduction Zone said:
Well that was a lot of red herrings. You need to demonstrate that this colonel is reliable before you can use such comparisons. Just because he was a colonel at one point in time does not make him credible.
Click to expand...
What does Macgregor say in the interview that isn't true?
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
cOLTER said:
What does Macgregor say in the interview that isn't true?
Click to expand...
You have the burden of proof backwards. When you use a known dishonest source that sinks your claim.

You didn't Google Search the "Tucker Carlson Defense". It is a real defense that FOX News used in a lawsuit


"
Just read U.S. District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil's opinion, leaning heavily on the arguments of Fox's lawyers: The "'general tenor' of the show should then inform a viewer that [Carlson] is not 'stating actual facts' about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in 'exaggeration' and 'non-literal commentary.' "

She wrote: "Fox persuasively argues, that given Mr. Carlson's reputation, any reasonable viewer 'arrive with an appropriate amount of skepticism' about the statement he makes.""

I can translate that for you: No serious person will believe the "facts" of Tucker Carson because he is a known liar. And that came from FOX in a defense in a lawsuit. Guess what? It worked.

Or you could find a way to pay me to watch an hour long video with Tucker Carlson in it. That alone is going to run you a hundred bucks because the whining is intolerable. Then I would have to fact check it, that is easily another $200.00. When the money arrives then I will do your analysis for you.
 
lukethethird

lukethethird

unknown member
Estro Felino said:
Exactly.
I haven't understood yet what he said wrong. :)
Click to expand...
Some republicans have denounced this Nato farce that has the US and Nato in a proxy war with Russia but for nefarious reasons, in that they are not calling for all out peace but that they would rather the Pentagon concentrate their efforts on going to war with China. China was not mentioned in the video but I have yet to hear a conversation on mainstream media about peace efforts, all conversation and debates appear to be on which front wars ought to be fought on.
 
Estro Felino

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
Subduction Zone said:
No, that is a shifting of the burden of proof. The OP poisoned his own well by using someone that was basically a conspiracy theorist as a source.
Click to expand...
If a student gives an incorrect answer, the burden of proof (to give the correct answer) is on the teacher or on the student? ;)
 
Colt

Colt

Well-Known Member
Subduction Zone said:
You have the burden of proof backwards. When you use a known dishonest source that sinks your claim.

You didn't Google Search the "Tucker Carlson Defense". It is a real defense that FOX News used in a lawsuit


"
Just read U.S. District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil's opinion, leaning heavily on the arguments of Fox's lawyers: The "'general tenor' of the show should then inform a viewer that [Carlson] is not 'stating actual facts' about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in 'exaggeration' and 'non-literal commentary.' "

She wrote: "Fox persuasively argues, that given Mr. Carlson's reputation, any reasonable viewer 'arrive with an appropriate amount of skepticism' about the statement he makes.""

I can translate that for you: No serious person will believe the "facts" of Tucker Carson because he is a known liar. And that came from FOX in a defense in a lawsuit. Guess what? It worked.

Or you could find a way to pay me to watch an hour long video with Tucker Carlson in it. That alone is going to run you a hundred bucks because the whining is intolerable. Then I would have to fact check it, that is easily another $200.00. When the money arrives then I will do your analysis for you.
Click to expand...
So you are just bluffing.
 
Colt

Colt

Well-Known Member
Subduction Zone said:
No, you won't meet your burden of proof. You will not pay others to watch what appears to be a bogus sources. You are only blaming others for your failures.
Click to expand...
Burden of proof??????? You didn’t even watch the interview! It’s an alternate view from the portrayal of how the war is going and a possible outcome; American troops on the ground at some point! More than the ones we have there now in plane clothes.
 
S

Sargonski

Well-Known Member
Mock Turtle said:
But a discredited one. :oops: Especially if he appears on RT or Fox News.
Click to expand...

That is false nonsense friend .. Ad Hom Fallacy on steroids .. "False Logic" Someone has duped you .. fed you some propaganda and you gulped it down hook .. line.. and sinker. MacGreggor has not been "Discredited" .. so that is false nonsense.. but , even if he had been .. it is ad hom fallacy to claim what he says is wrong on this basis.

Drinking the CNN progressive cancel culture Kool-aid will do that to a person. State Propaganda Central ..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top