Great Thread on 5GW in Ukraine

[Thomas Eckhardt]

Your manner of debating is deeply dishonest. Instead of addressing my 
points you pounce on minor details of a flippant aside.

But I don't mind. Let us recapitulate:

Nobody has argued against my well supported claim that the massacre on 
February 20, 2014, on the Maidan in Kiev which sabotaged the agreement 
between the opposition and Yanukovich's government and forced Yanukovich 
to flee to Russia was a false flag. There have been scientific studies, 
there have been confessions.

Nobody addressed any of the points I made with regard to the alleged 
Novichok poisonings of the Skripals and the right-wing opposition 
politician Navalny.

As for other aspects of the New Cold War, I recommend the great Aaron 
Maté, who recently spoke before the UN Security Council, in The Nation 
and at The Grayzone on Douma and the whistleblowers from the OPCW, Ben 
Norton at the Grayzone on the propaganda apparatus for Jihadis which the 
FCO installed in Syria, and everything you can find on the Integrity 
Initiative, Pablo Miller and Christopher Steele.

As Thomas Pynchon had one of his characters say: Look it up, check it out.

And make up your own mind.







Am 12.10.2020 um 13:10 schrieb Mark Kohut:
> You, of course, have no response to 1) the fact that you raised a 
> conjecture to the level of fact 2) that Morales
> is not giving us reality with his offhand remark (evidently to one 
> witness only)....
> 
> Think again, Mr Eckhardt. Think Better. As Orwell once wrote, 
> Sometimes the hardest thing to see is what is in
> front of one's eyes.
> 
> I can get you in my class free if you would like. 9 AM EST USA. Mondays. 
> We will be talking some Jill Lepore as well as Pierce and
> Dewey and Hersh's reporting....
> 
> Relax,
> 
> Mark
> 
> On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 6:52 AM Thomas Eckhardt 
> <thomas.eckhardt at uni-bonn.de <mailto:thomas.eckhardt at uni-bonn.de>> wrote:
> 
>     Am 12.10.2020 um 11:57 schrieb Mark Kohut:
> 
>      > I can also remember when you used to diss the Guardian's
>     reporting (or
>      > was that the other guy?).
> 
>     Yes. I am very critical of the Guardian's reporting. But these are
>     statements on the legal record. That does not necessarily make them
>     true, but gives them some weight.
> 
>      > The CIA is never mentioned in this story. When I last took my
>     socks off
>      > to count, the US had seventeen intelligence agencies. That's first.
> 
>     Yes. The CIA's involvement is at this point mere conjecture on my part.
>     On the other hand, I find it rather unlikely that the intelligence
>     service of the United States Coast Guard or the NSA considered
>     poisoning
>     Mr. Assange in London.
> 
>