Of course, I read and listen to many more news media. I don’t (like an increasing number of people) trust mainstream media and their stories. I encourage bias against mainstream narratives. @tomvanb | Linktree
I think my comment fairly critiques the corpus of additional linked sources. Regarding skepticism toward mainstream media, the study I referenced correlates mainstream broadcasters with the most accurate beliefs compared with opinionated sources. While correlation doesn’t prove causation, it does tell you whether these outlets prioritize truth-seeking audiences.
3 Likes
Finding the truth today is tough, just like the 40-beheaded babies story mentioned by President Biden. He saw the photos and later backpedalled, but it was all over the news. The same goes for the alleged rapes, with no evidence found. When Nord Stream 2 was bombed, the media just spread that it was Putin without question.
Nieuwsuur (which I consider mainstream media, as part of Dutch public broadcasting) posted a reportage (unfortunately in Dutch, but sections are English spoken) on their investigation into the damaging of the Nord Stream pipelines:
Their conclusion is that most likely a group of Ukrainians did it, although they were unable to link the group to the Ukrainian government. And it may not be cleared up fully until various security services disclose more information.
I think one difference between trustworthy and less trustworthy sources is not that trustworthy sources never get it wrong, but trustworthy sources usually do mention caveats about uncertainty when reporting on unconfirmed press releases and they usually rectify when they discover that they made some mistake (as is in their own interest to maintain their reputation of being a trustworthy news source).
3 Likes
I wouldn’t put politicians and high ranking officials making false statements in the same category as media making false statements. But there also, some politicians and high ranking officials may retract their false statements, while others deny they even made those false statements, until confronted with a recording of them making those false statements and then denying that they denied making those false statements (although that was also on record):
He later apologised, but then he didn’t want to answer questions for which of those statements or denials he was apologising exactly.
I think he lost all of his trustworthiness with this whole affair, which is kind of a serious issue for the US ambassador to the Netherlands (being close allies).
Edit: Apparently he did retract his 2015 statements a little later. But I think at that point the damage was already done. [Pete Hoekstra - Wikipedia]
1 Like
That is highly unlikely since that matter is neither new, nor flashy like the “denazification”.
We had that discussion in those big threads at 2022. That was something that was always on the table, even when they were at their lowest points right after the collapse of the Soviet Union. It is not something that they started to care about out of the blue, but one of their oldest “red lines”.
If we (NATO) were scared of that prospect and were buying weapons and pilling them on the borders of the Baltic countries, why wouldn’t they have a similar fear? Did anyone have any assurances of a mutual pact of non-aggression?
Sure, I don’t think that anyone would really dare invade Russia (as if that has ever worked historically), but imagine trying to sell that internally to the people living on those borders (most of the country lives on the European side of it). Remember that most armament races are made so that people have the illusion of safety/strength and most of those weapons never get used. In order to have that kind of competition then, you need to have someone to compete with and some “perceived danger” to go along with that as well, else the people of those countries wouldn’t be convinced to spend all those billions in weapons.
That’s how the war industry has worked historically, even back when the weapons were made of bronze.
Yeah, you missed something. 
That’s why I mentioned the causus belli in our region. For sure, if you ask the citizens of Greece and Turkey, most of them will tell you that a few miles in an economic zone in the Aegean are not worth declaring war and dying over, however that’s the situation.
It doesn’t matter if we view it as “serious enough” or “good enough”. What matter is if it actually is considered “serious enough” by the governments.
If you think about it, historically, invasions rarely have much need for “pretty good reasons” other than violently resolving a current power-struggle.
That is a resolved issue imho. @Uberdude 's post was all that was needed:
That is the crux of that matter and OGS is not going to turn its logo into something like the google search logo that changes every day to accomodate the circumstances.
You all make very good points and the only thing I want to add is that, to be fair, that fellow did put the link to the original document in the description and it does seem legit in terms of sourcing (meaning that it does seem to come from the South African government - I have not read the contents yet, but the document contains extensive sourcing, as it should as a legal filing), so who really cares about his review?
As long as we can go to the primary source of the information, we can skip the 33 minute video as @trohde pointed out and spend those 33 minutes to go and read the document ourselves, without the need for an intermediary (if someone wants to skip the obligatory legal jargon and historical introduction at the beginning, then the part labeled “The Facts” begins at page 9).
This cuts down any chances of biases or misinformation or propaganda and I think that as long as such sources are provided, Youtube videos are useful even (or should I say, especially? 
) if you do not watch them.
If anything, I think NATO countries in (Eastern) Europe are much more justified to feel threatened by Russia than the other way around.
Since the start of the invasion of Ukraine, Russian officials and state media are constantly making threats (including nuclear) to attack NATO countries, while I don’t hear similar threats by NATO countries to attack Russia. So I think it’s no wonder that many European NATO countries are hastily bolstering their militaries, even more so now that European NATO countries need to account for the possibility that the US leaves NATO in 2025. Although it is somewhat reassuring that 3 weeks ago the US congress approved legislation that makes it harder for a US president to unilaterally withdraw from NATO [Congress approves bill barring any president from unilaterally withdrawing from NATO | The Hill].
1 Like
That is correct, but it does create a cycle. “Do they arm themselves only for defense or there something else?” and so they buy more weapons. The other (smaller) side/sides sees this and think something similar and the cycle of worrying and buying weapons continues.
Since that, yes, they have been very vociferous with the open threats. Before that though the situation was not so blatant, however the cycle of arming and worrying was taking place for a long long time.
Haste rarely works in such matters. I will try to locate again a couple of links from those old discussions, but we talked last year extensively about it. Army power is one of the few problems were “just pouring money into it” doesn’t really work. A lot of time is also needed (among other things).
I don’t think that the USA would ever leave NATO, but depending on which party is in charge they can have a totally different way of interacting with it.
1 Like
I hope you’re right, but Trump has said in 2016 that he would not automatically come to the aid of NATO allies in the Baltics if they came under Russian attack. And if there’s anything we learned about Trump since then, it is that such unsettling statements coming from him should not be dismissed as just political rhetoric to please his supporters. [https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/21/us/politics/donald-trump-issues.html]
1 Like
It is true that our military expenditures have been on the rise since 2017, but the slow rise before the invasion of Ukraine was mostly in response to the US urging us for many years already to return to the NATO norm of spending 2% of GDP on defence, while our expenditures had dropped to about 1% since the end of the Cold War. I don’t think the rise before 2022 had much to do with a perceived increased threat from Russia.
blue = European NATO countries average % of GDP spent on defence
red = Dutch % of GDP spent on defence
Our military expenditures as % of GDP from Napoleon until 2019:
1 Like
When it comes to the question who deserves our solidarity, it matters very much to me. And the current logo is all about solidarity.
2 Likes
I’m perpetually several weeks behind in reading the news, so I hadn’t heard about Congress barring presidents from taking the U.S. out of NATO. However, my first reaction is that that is a terrible law of questionable legality. If it ever comes into play, I expect it will be litigated up to the Supreme Court, because it involves a conflict between fundamental presidential authority versus legislative authority.
As commander in chief of the armed forces, the president has authority over the deployment and actions of the military, excepting war powers as defined in the Constitution and subsequent legislation (a whole ’nother can of worms not directly relevant here, so I am setting it aside). I would expect that this also gives him purview over military alliances. However, formal treaties ratified by the Senate have the force of the Constitution, and they theoretically can’t be unilaterally undone. This obviously sets up the conflict of defined athorities as mentioned above. Because this is an important and, so far as I know, unresolved conflict, I feel sure it would be litigated if it ever comes into play.
If this issue ever arose, and the litigation went against the president, the president could still achieve his ends by exercising his executive authority. For example, without formally withdrawing from NATO, he could, as commander in chief, redeploy all the forces out of Europe, or take other actions of disengagement.
Disclaimer: I’m neither a legal scholar nor an expert in diplomatic history. These are just my casual thoughts about this particular conflict between congressional and presidential authority.
5 Likes
I don’t know how well this new legislation would hold in practice, but this sort of circumvention did cross my mind. That’s why I don’t consider it a strong reassurance that, if Trump will be elected, the US would strongly assist (for example) the Baltics, if Putin were to (for example) stage some sort of “insurrection” among ethnic Russians in the Baltics (perhaps using little green men as he did in Crimea and the Donbas in 2014) and then “come to the rescue of oppressed ethnic Russians” by “denazifying” the Baltics.
I think Trump’s previous hinting that he may not do much in such a scenario, lessens deterrence for Putin to go ahead with such operations if Trump will be elected president this year. So it worries me.
1 Like
Oh, I wasn’t talking about that, though if I remember correctly for many years only the USA and places like Greece or Turkey managed to make that 2% margin. I was refering specifically about buying or sending/moving weapons on the eastern borders of NATO.
I can recall out of memory hearing about news like that for many years - though as you can imagine I never gave those much thought and they are hard to locate after almost two years of “war in the region - weapon X is moved to that town” kind of news. But I managed to find two of them (one from each side)
This also came up and it has “deployment dates”:
Also this came up as well:
The abstract:
The purpose of this paper is to discuss the dilemma NATO has faced since February 2014 in its defence policy regarding the Baltic States. If NATO pursues a policy of deterrence, it might trigger war because Russia, the would-be deteree, may perceive actions taken by NATO as not intended to strengthen deterrence but rather to intimidate or coerce it. If it pursues an alternate policy of leaving the Baltic States visibly undefended, it might trigger war because Russia may see this as a sign of weakness and a gap to be exploited. This article investigates the logic of the dilemma, before considering whether NATO’s choice, made at the Warsaw Summit of July 2016, is working as intended. Ultimately, we cannot predict the answer and, therefore, we should consider all possible outcomes, including those which lead to a defensive war in the Baltic States.
Which practically echoes what I said earlier, that you really cannot know the answers to such questions beforehand.
Armed forces and their deployment are one thing. Deciding on treaties and allies seems to be another.
It seems like the old connundrum about the “administration of policy” and the “policy of administration” 
Yes, I know that it is not a “real source”, but it remains however one of the most succint explanations of a very tricky issue.
1 Like
Let’s set aside reviews - book, movie, all of them. You can access primary sources directly. It sounds odd, but reviews are helpful. They offer different opinions and perspectives.
Going straight to the source doesn’t ensure there is no bias. The document might be mostly propaganda and biased.
1 Like
If it is a book/movie or a steam game and minor purchases like that, sure. I’d like to read a review to know what I am buying.
But if it is about the facts, I do not need a review first. In such cases you are outsourcing your mind to the person who does the review. If you read it yourself you might have better results or insights and notice things that the reviewer might miss.
Then, after you have been informed, you can read/watch the reviews of others to see a different perspective or if you missed anything. Also, that way you can spot if the reviewer is trying to “sell you” anything or is not being honest/impartial.
See, for example, what happened in the case of that famous chess case we had recently Magnus vs Niemann. Plenty online reviews for the lawsuit, but I went ahead and read it myself. THEN I watched the reviews and joined the discussions.
That’s why I like participating in a forum. I prefer to get different opinions and perspectives via discussion. It is more useful, memorable and thoughtful that way.
The part I replied to specifically mentioned media/YT bias/misinformation etc. Of course the source could have those as well, however, the less layers of intermediaries you add, the less chances there are for such things to slip into the information you are getting.
“In this episode of Centre Stage, Dr Omar Suleiman talks about the oppression of pro-Palestinian voices in the West, and the growing Islamophobia and how it lends itself to racism.”
I’m curious about what everyone thinks of this.
To be honest, they lost me at the very start.
Anti-Semitism has no political boundary. Discrimination and prejudice against Jewish communities has occurred globally. History reflects an interplay of cultural, religious, and geopolitical factors influencing attitudes toward Jews.
Moving along…
I empathize deeply with these sentiments. The struggle faced by Palestinians—having no recognition, freedom, or access to their ancestral homes or rights—is a profound injustice that deserves attention and resolution. The denial of identity and the lack of acknowledgment are deeply painful experiences that no one should endure. My heart goes out to those affected by these circumstances, and I stand with Palestinians in their efforts to achieve justice, recognition, and rights.
Of course, the situation is complicated by the involvement of Hamas, a designated terrorist organization in several nations, including the European Union, New Zealand (at leats as to the Qassam Brigades), and Canada. Equally challenging is the lack of a unified and legitimate diplomatic front among Palestinians, which impedes effective peace talks, as does the apparent lack of willingness or capacity to engage constructively with Israel, hindering the prospect for a regional solution.
Speaking of which…
There it is—a one-state solution that dismantles Israel’s social and cultural institutions, ignores its right to self-determination, creates an uncertain and worrisome future for its nuclear weapons, and almost certainly leads to some form of degradation or genocide for the Jewish minority by a vengeful political majority. National suicide isn’t the answer if you ask me. In fact it seems like the worst possible outcome.
5 Likes
I believe the broader Muslim Christian community won’t accept Israel erasing Palestine and its people, as that’s their aim. Sadly, a big war may break out soon, It will ignite everything.
I am curious to hear your opinion on it first. It is your proposal after all and you told as that reviews are useful. So, go ahead.