“Please, do not even go down the road that was used against those that were opposed to the war in Iraq. I supported the war in Iraq, and yet I was opposed to the same sort of language that YOU are using - the same language used against the left who were opposed to Bush.”
You fail to understand the difference between honest disagreements versus deliberate and negligent deceptions and lies used as false propaganda and disinformation. Yes, there will always be some measure of honest disagreements about policies and about the quality and reliability of information. Such free speech is to be defended, even when it is in disagreement over issues of war and humanitarianism. What makes a person an accomplice to a crime or a regime committing war crimes is when the speaker deliberately disseminates the war criminals false propaganda or the speaker’s own false propaganda in defense of the party committing the war crimes, and then proceeds to omit and/or falsely dismiss the vixtim’s complaints about the war crimes of the aggressor. It is at the point where the speaker adopts the false propaganda that the speaker in effect becomes an accomplice to the war criminal and the war crimes.
Your citing the misdeeds of the Obama Administration and then in effect assert the Ukraine has thereby forfeited the right to have its territorial integrity respected by Russia is a non-sequitur, a falsehood, and the adoption of the Russian false propaganda against the rightful defense of the Ukraine. You have every right to disagree about the Obama Administration’s policies with respect to Libya, Syria, Egypt, and elsewhere without necessarily becoming an accomplice to the crimes of either side of the conflict. Saddam Hussein’s Iraqi regime, Serbia, and Russia are different, because in each case there is an indisputable case of those regimes being in criminal breach of a variety of international laws on a scale justifying the types of criminal prosecutions we witnessed in the International Military Tribunal (IMT-Nuremberg). There is aleady a body of precedent international law that prohibits the dissemination of false war propaganda in the commission of the types of the crimes prosecuted with regard to the IMT of the Second World War, the Serbian war crimes, and the Rwandan war crimes. The tribunals and courts recognize that false propaganda defending those prosecuted crimes was sufficient to bring indictments against the authors of the false propaganda as accomplices to those crimes.
I am NOT suggesitng anything you have written constitutes the level of culpability countenanced by those tribunals and courts, so don’t react as if I did so. Nonetheless, take note it is reasonable and not unreasonable for the readers to look at what any speaker has to say and judge whether or not the author is in effect associating such speech with the false propaganda of war criminals and thereby becoming an accomplice to those war crimes to some extent.
Note, I do not exempt American officials from such definitions, regardless of what political persuasion they may assert.
Huh?
Secondly, before what you said in the second paragraph can be taken seriously or legitimately, FIRST show where and how the BBC is disseminating (either deliberately or not) false propaganda? What have they disseminated that is false or false propaganda? If you can't prove that, then everything said in the second paragraph (either tome or anyone else) falls apart.
If you can prove this, I would be the first to like to see this. Instead, you go right around proving that the BBC is disseminating false propaganda right straight to me, because that is the easier strategy for you to squelch talk.
Your third paragraph is a straw man and conclusionary leap (a false one at that to boot) of the highest order. Nowhere do I assert that the misdeeds of the Obama administration thereby forfeits Ukraine's right to have its territorial integrity respected by Russia.
We need to stay out of this, IMHO, Period.