I am familiar with Glen Greenwald’s career and writings over the years.
Get on to your IT guys fella, it's a reputable site
Yea, it look "Fair and Balanced".
Try this alternate link here instead.
I did - and I stated what it was - i.e. that Greenwald puts across a completely different point of view - which I'd suggest that this thread is most definitely lacking. You asked the question - I gave you an answer. I don't want to single out any one part of it - because Greenwald's take in its entirety is relevant as far as I'm concerned and anyone that is approaching this from a polar opposite point of view should give themselves the opportunity to tune into a completely different take. It's healthy in terms of coming to a more balanced and better formed view.
Relevance? Glen Greenwald is a highly regarded journalist. Zerohedge has re-published his substack article. Your views on Zerohedge are entirely beside the point.
Right - you can say that without having read a word of the article? That's an amazing ability! lol.
I believe that these things are far more complex than a determination of good guys and bad guys - because this sort of thing is filthy - and you can be sure that there are no good guys in this (albeit that's not what the mass media is churning out). In this context, I'd roll in right behind this from Greenwald:
Thanks for that, but it's not the question I asked. The question is "Do you think the Russian actions in Ukraine are in anyway justified?" I would expect something along the lines of "Yes, because.." or "No, because.."
Again, I've given you my answer. You might 'expect' a yes or no answer but the answer is mine to give - not yours. There's greater complexity in all of this than the mass media is portraying.
Yes, stick to the simple narratives and talking points that you're being drip fed Duke if that makes it easier for you to digest. I mean, I would expect that some would welcome a consideration of a more nuanced view - although most definitely the majority don't want to step out of simple narratives - that's an inconvenience.
You must have read a different article to the one I did. Where does he say that he agrees with Belarus, etc?
You mean your theories and theories contrary to your views where participants won't acknowledge the possiblity that they might be wrong - however unlikely they find that? Those ninconpoops? I agree entirely - albeit I don't 'despise' them - I just think its very unfortunate that they don't afford the opportunity to open their minds to other possibilities and outcomes. Wouldn't make sense to despise someone disadvantaging themself. I don't despise them although I am curious about the mindset that belies such an approach.
And so could you.
There's no need. I don't need to pick out single points from his article - it, in its entirety - makes a lot of sense to me. Therefore, if you'd like to comment on any of what he had to say, have at it. That was the whole point of posting the article - because I thought his perspective is interesting - and adds something completely different to the discussion.
Says it all
Indeed it does. It clearly demonstrates that all the views that Greenwald has expressed in that thoughtful piece - and which I have said to my mind/in my opinion make sense to me - you are not inclined to comment on - because I won't pick out single points from his article.
Did I read wrongly, but was it not this enlightened view that the US or in particular the Democrats stirred this all up out of revenge for losing the 2016 election and now want it to drag on.
The other alternative view is that he spouts so much nonsense and twists and distorts language and words trying to argue against his points is like trying to pin jellyfish to a wall.
foreignpolicy.com
His representation of the Ukraine war concentrates exclusively on his particular view of US politics and its media.
