Email from a concerned American in Moscow

[icarus]

You can cite sources from various authors (many of whom are less than intellectually honest wing-nuts ) but you seem to be drawing your own conclusion and are more focused on the (mis)deeds of the US. This is natural I suppose as you spent most of your life in the US, but I think you need to spend an equal amount of time and energy studying Russia's historical hegemonic tendencies and then get back to us.

[Winston]

You can cite sources from various authors (many of whom are less than intellectually honest wing-nuts ) but you seem to be drawing your own conclusion and are more focused on the (mis)deeds of the US. This is natural I suppose as you spent most of your life in the US, but I think you need to spend an equal amount of time and energy studying Russia's historical hegemonic tendencies and then get back to us.

W: Calling them "less than intellectually honest and nuts" is a pure ad homineum attack to try to discredit them. It doesn't address what they say. They are not nuts. If you listen to them talk, you would see that they are scholarly and know their stuff.

Even Noam Chomsky, who is very well respected for his rationality and intellect even by those who don't agree with him, talks about CIA assassinations and covert operations, and economic enslavements, as being well documented. One girl told me, "If Chomsky is wrong, then he's wrong in a rationally well thought out way, not in a clumsy way."

If you go overseas and talk to intellectuals, they'll explain the same things to you.

No one is claiming that Russia isn't corrupt.

[icarus]

You can cite sources from various authors (many of whom are less than intellectually honest wing-nuts ) but you seem to be drawing your own conclusion and are more focused on the (mis)deeds of the US. This is natural I suppose as you spent most of your life in the US, but I think you need to spend an equal amount of time and energy studying Russia's historical hegemonic tendencies and then get back to us.

W: Calling them "less than intellectually honest and nuts" is a pure ad homineum attack to try to discredit them. It doesn't address what they say. They are not nuts. If you listen to them talk, you would see that they are scholarly and know their stuff.

Even Noam Chomsky, who is very well respected for his rationality and intellect even by those who don't agree with him, talks about CIA assassinations and covert operations, and economic enslavements, as being well documented. One girl told me, "If Chomsky is wrong, then he's wrong in a rationally well thought out way, not in a clumsy way."

If you go overseas and talk to intellectuals, they'll explain the same things to you.

No one is claiming that Russia isn't corrupt.

You seem overly impressed by how people come off either in speaking or writing. The problem with these guys is that it's very easy to mislead the audience by taking things out of context and leaving out certain operative facts. Not telling the WHOLE truth is often times just as misleading as flat-out lying. Guys like Zinn and Chomsky are notorious for this. Zinn even admits that his writings are slanted, claiming that it's impossible to write history objectively. I suppose there is some truth to this but if anything it would be only a further admonition against swallowing and repeating their assertions uncritically and without hearing other opposing viewpoints. Hell, many fuckwit young-Earth creationists can put on a good show and dazzle impressionable people who don't have much background in science.

As for Russia- I never said that you said Russia was not corrupt, only that you need to back up your assertion that the US has committed more international misdeeds than Russia. Merely saying "talk to other people", "read this book", "watch this movie" isn't a valid way to back up your argument. Many religious proselytizers use similar tactics: You don't believe? Well read the bible, read this other book and haven't you hear of so-and-so and his amazing story of coming to God? Oh- you have done all of this and you still don't believe? Well that just means you need to do more "research" until you come to the same conclusion as I have.

[Winston]

You can cite sources from various authors (many of whom are less than intellectually honest wing-nuts ) but you seem to be drawing your own conclusion and are more focused on the (mis)deeds of the US. This is natural I suppose as you spent most of your life in the US, but I think you need to spend an equal amount of time and energy studying Russia's historical hegemonic tendencies and then get back to us.

W: Calling them "less than intellectually honest and nuts" is a pure ad homineum attack to try to discredit them. It doesn't address what they say. They are not nuts. If you listen to them talk, you would see that they are scholarly and know their stuff.

Even Noam Chomsky, who is very well respected for his rationality and intellect even by those who don't agree with him, talks about CIA assassinations and covert operations, and economic enslavements, as being well documented. One girl told me, "If Chomsky is wrong, then he's wrong in a rationally well thought out way, not in a clumsy way."

If you go overseas and talk to intellectuals, they'll explain the same things to you.

No one is claiming that Russia isn't corrupt.

You seem overly impressed by how people come off either in speaking or writing. The problem with these guys is that it's very easy to mislead the audience by taking things out of context and leaving out certain operative facts. Not telling the WHOLE truth is often times just as misleading as flat-out lying. Guys like Zinn and Chomsky are notorious for this. Zinn even admits that his writings are slanted, claiming that it's impossible to write history objectively. I suppose there is some truth to this but if anything it would be only a further admonition against swallowing and repeating their assertions uncritically and without hearing other opposing viewpoints. Hell, many fuckwit young-Earth creationists can put on a good show and dazzle impressionable people who don't have much background in science.

As for Russia- I never said that you said Russia was not corrupt, only that you need to back up your assertion that the US has committed more international misdeeds than Russia. Merely saying "talk to other people", "read this book", "watch this movie" isn't a valid way to back up your argument. Many religious proselytizers use similar tactics: You don't believe? Well read the bible, read this other book and haven't you hear of so-and-so and his amazing story of coming to God? Oh- you have done all of this and you still don't believe? Well that just means you need to do more "research" until you come to the same conclusion as I have.

W: Well if that's the case, then it applies to those who write official history too. How then are we going to know which version of history is true? Do you take everything official at its word?

All we can do is speculate.

However, Zinn and Chomsky do have well documented solid sources to back up their claims. Did you ever read their books?

BTW, on the CIA's website, they claim that it is against their policy to assassinate people unless the President of the United States orders it. Do you believe that and consider it to be the final word on the matter?

How do you know who to trust?