Comments by "This Channel" (@thischannel1071) on "Johnny Harris"
channel.
-
@ElenaKomleva The fact that you've made one erroneous judgment call after another means that you aren't an informed person who knows how to tell the difference between credible and non-credible sources. And if you buy into the majority of claims of Johnny's video, which is a video blog, with most of the information in it being inaccurate, then you aren't going to be a well-informed person on the topic he discusses.
Your claim that Hasib and I are the same person again confirms, at least to me, that you aren't a person with good skills of judgment. And using your own logic, US, UK, Ukrainian, Canadian, etc troll farms exist, and they denigrate Russia, and the people who post comments that aren't anti-Russia, and, therefore, you must be a troll, yourself. And it's known that the US and UK specifically try to harm Russia via their propaganda:
"British Government Runs Secret Anti-Russian Smear Campaigns"
https://www.moonofalabama.org/2018/11/british-government-behind-secret-anti-russian-disinformation-campaign.html
Your latest comment is just random drivel, not focused on any topic and not responding to the matters which people have raised. In it, you present a conspiracy-theory about different posters being the same person (spoiler: we're not), and another about how previously you weren't receiving comments and now you are (maybe that has to do with the fact that you started making wild accusations, where you hadn't yet done that previously), and then falsely claim that everyone is suddenly talking about Navalny not being poisoned... but not a single person in this thread has claimed that Navalny wasn't poisoned [edit: I think one person has claimed that] (so, you are either a liar and disinformationist, or otherwise are delusional and so non-credible), and then throw in some random comment about Putin being an autocrat (how did the topic change to that?).
So, obviously, you are or have become unhinged. You are not exercising objective, clear-headed, and critical thinking skills. You're acting petty, insulting, and extremely prejudiced and unintelligent. I think that you need to reflect on your behaviour and the kind of person that you are. Dogmatic assumption of guilt, based on extreme biases and false information, isn't what an intelligent person does. Your assessments here have been nothing remotely resembling a state of being informed.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@rugiletunaityte4037 Speaking of talking about things you don't understand, you shouldn't have said any of what you did in that post because you didn't get any of what you wrote correct. Russia's government hasn't admitted to poisoning Navlany - they've adamantly rejected the accusation. You've heard a video released by Navalny - one the Russian government says is BS and fake. Last I knew, denying something isn't the same as admitting to it. In fact, they're the complete opposite.
Navalny was arrested when he returned to Russia in line with the warning he was given while he was still in Germany that, if he didn't return to Russia by a certain date to check-in with the Russian prison authority, in accordance with the terms of his suspended prison sentence, he would be arrested and his suspended sentence could be changed to a prison sentence. Russia's prison authority only warned Navalny that he had to return to Russia to comply with the terms of his suspended prison sentence after he had been discharged from the German hospital, and after the doctors had published a report declaring him fully recovered. Navalny was warned but he decided to stay in Germany anyway until after the date he had to return by was passed.
Navalny had a suspended prison sentence due to a conviction for embezzlement in charged made against him and his brother by French cosmetics company Yves Rocher, which accused the brothers of taking $400,000 from the company. French company Yves Rocher has said they stand by the charges and the sentencing process in Russia. The European Court of Human Rights which ruled the trial of Navalny and his brother to be lacking fairness also dismissed Navalny's appeal that the charges were politically motivated. Do you know what happens in the US when you skip bail and violate the terms of a suspended sentence? You're arrested and your suspended sentence is changed into a prison sentence. And as Navalny is a high-profile person, any exception made for him (and I don't know why he'd get an exception in this case) would affect Russia's prison authority's ability to apply their rules to others. Hopefully you now have a reality-based idea of why Navalny was arrested when he returned to Russia.
So, in your post, you are smugly talking about things you don't understand, while telling others to not do that. That might be something to reflect on.
3
-
3
-
3
-
@TheHappyCatsTail Don't just mention the IRA, but all the state troll-farms out there: The US', Israel's, the UK's Canada's, Ukraine's, China's, Poland's, etc. Did you know that Russia was actually a late-comer to the scene? Troll farms were pioneered by Israel (2008), the US (2011), and Canada (2011). Out of all of them, the US, which has budgeted $200 million per year since 2011 on social media disinformation efforts, has by far the largest.
Here's a document that leaked from the UK's troll farm program in 2014. It instructs its trolls on how to manipulate and deceive people in conversations online using the 10 so-called "principles" of Deception, Herd-mentality, Distraction, Dishonesty, Time, Consistency, Flattery, Need and Greed, Social Compliance, Reciprocity:
https://theintercept.com/document/2014/02/24/art-deception-training-new-generation-online-covert-operations/
So, if you can, tell me how you assess one topic to be a "landmine" for Russia concerning such activities when that topic is going to be even more of one for Russia detractors? The US has more internet trolls than any other country and could dwarf Russia's trolls on any topic by itself. But put the US, UK, Ukraine, and Canada's trolls together, and then what do you get? Keep that in mind when evaluating what you read in topics like this one.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/mar/17/us-spy-operation-social-networks
https://www.moonofalabama.org/2018/11/british-government-behind-secret-anti-russian-disinformation-campaign.html
https://www.newsweek.com/35000-volunteers-sign-ukraines-information-army-first-day-310121
https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/israeli-students-get-2000-spread-state-propaganda-facebook
To keep things in perspective, Russia probably couldn't afford to match just half of the US' own troll farm efforts if it wanted to.
3
-
3
-
@TheHappyCatsTail While other states' social media propaganda and disinformation programs do certainly work as single groups, the fact that they additionally work in coordination with each-other makes them all the more powerful, encompassing, and effective - and so all the more important to be on guard against, I would think. That they are more sophisticated than what someone's expectation of a troll farm might be doesn't change what they're doing, which is presenting themselves falsely and using misleading information to trick people into believing narratives that suit their own governments and the geopolitical objectives which their governments have in common with their military partners.
Atlantic Council, which is effectively the propaganda and disinformation branch of NATO (an anti-Russia military alliance), works with the UK's Institute for Statecraft and "Integrity Initiative" to spread anti-Russia messaging online and to sway elections in foreign countries. That doesn't mean that the UK doesn't also have the 77th Brigade and Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group, and other groups which focus more on the UK's specific interests. It also doesn't mean that the Institute for Statecraft and "Integrity Initiative" don't also manipulate social media on behalf of specifically the UK government's interests in addition to their other manipulation campaigns.
https://theintercept.com/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/
All that really means is that there are ominous layers to the disinformation scheme of states which are partnered together.
Same with the US: While the US will also be engaged through Atlantic Council and other social media propaganda partnerships with NATO countries, the US also furthers its own specific goals with its own troll farms. They're just extremely-sophisticated and well-equipped troll farms, but still troll farms nonetheless. From The Guardian's 2011 reporting on a leaked US contract for the US' social media propaganda program:
"the software could allow US service personnel, working around the clock in one location, to respond to emerging online conversations with any number of co-ordinated messages, blogposts, chatroom posts and other interventions. Details of the contract suggest this location would be MacDill air force base near Tampa, Florida, home of US Special Operations Command"
"Centcom's contract requires for each controller the provision of one "virtual private server" located in the United States and others appearing to be outside the US to give the impression the fake personas are real people located in different parts of the world."
"It also calls for "traffic mixing", blending the persona controllers' internet usage with the usage of people outside Centcom in a manner that must offer "excellent cover and powerful deniability". "
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@i-am-art Navalny simply played both sides of the Crimea debate - he believes Crimea, and even all of Ukraine are a rightful part of Russia. But since the decision isn't in his hands to change one way or the other, Navalny appeased his Western backers by criticizing the referendum and saying another should be held and then whatever the Crimean people decided should be accepted - and he said that knowing full-well that the overwhelming majority of the Crimean population had always wanted to leave Ukraine and rejoin Russia and would always vote to rejoin Russia.
I'll add, contrary to what Johnny Harris said in his video here, Crimea wasn't annexed but acceded to Russia. And there was no invasion of Crimea. Also, Crimea's referendum and accession to Russia were fully lawful by all international and domestic law, the UN's charter, and even Ukraine's law (via the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights treaty, which Ukraine is signatory to), although Ukraine was a non-factor at that time as its constitution had already been overruled and nullified as a result of the US-backed coup, which meant that Ukraine didn't exist as a legal entity and Crimea was stateless and free to do as it pleased.
Since 2016, the large majority of the world has refused to call Crimea occupied - there's been a UNGA vote on the matter each December since then, and not a single one reach anywhere close to majority support in favour of calling Crimea occupied. Only 63 governments, out of 195, and representing just 17% of the world's population, still claim that Crimea is occupied. That 17% claiming Crimea is occupied is basically NATO and the countries which are dependent upon it.
Here are a couple of resources on the topic, though there's more to be said about the legal aspects of Crimea's referendum and accession to Russia that isn't contained in these links:
https://www.quora.com/Did-the-great-majority-of-people-in-Crimea-wish-their-land-to-return-to-the-Russian-Federation/answers/158756133
https://www.quora.com/Did-Russia-invade-Ukraine/answers/161900115
2
-
@i-am-art If you research the information I have provided and the links I have given, you will discover that things are as I've said I can help you out a bit here:
1. Navalny has used language is associated with the view that Ukraine is a part of Russia. However, as it isn't a confirmed thing, I have said "and even" rather than a definitive statement: "he believes Crimea, and even all of Ukraine are a rightful part of Russia"
2. I said: "Since 2016, the large majority of the world has refused to call Crimea occupied - there's been a UNGA vote on the matter each December since then, and not a single one reach anywhere close to majority support in favour of calling Crimea occupied". All of that is perfectly true. The UNGA votes calling Crimea "occupied" are calls for support from UNGA members to put their voice behind that position. Support is an affirmative action, and where it isn't given, there isn't support. It is the truth that the large majority of the world doesn't support the view that Crimea is occupied.
3. No. The overwhelming majority of Crimeans wanted to leave Ukraine and join Russia. This fact had been verified by pollsters around the world and the UN continuously from 1991 until 2014, and support for the decision for Crimea to rejoin Russia has been polled by pollsters from around the world from 2014 until today.
See this link for a summary of the polling done in Crimea over the decades. Everything is fully sourced with links to the original poll reporting, and screenshots of the relevant data:
https://www.quora.com/Did-the-great-majority-of-people-in-Crimea-wish-their-land-to-return-to-the-Russian-Federation/answers/158756133
4. Everything you have referenced under this point is as stated in the Quora link, which is meticulously sourced to the first-hand, authoritative sources. If you choose to ignore the information and the sources for it, then you are blocking out truth, facts, and reality out of prejudice and bias. And so, you would have fooled yourself.
There is nothing flawed in what I've said and the sources I've given. Therefore, your claim of "there's so much disinformation in your comment", which was prejudiced knee-jerk reactivity, was unwarranted.
2
-
2
-
2
-
Do you know that 80%+ of your video is extremely-false information? I think I have to write a longer response to you about this at a later time. But what I've seen in this video makes it look like you just started 'researching' 2 weeks ago and simply read some NYT articles and some internet allegations and conspiracy theories from partial sources, and then assumed you had the facts and put them together in your video with a hefty dose of imagination thrown in. This isn't a matter of opinion and point-of-view, your video is primarily based in false ideas and narratives, of the sort that's inventive hearsay spread among sneering detractors. Your video is largely not factual and opposite to the facts. It is very sensationalist through sacrificing important facts.
For now, here's just a couple of examples of its false claims looked at in detail:
You claim that Navalny was arrested upon his return to Russia from recovering in Germany on "some old fake set of charges brought against him years ago that were thrown out later, they were totally fake". None of that is at-all true. The charges of embezzlement, brought by French cosmetics company Yves Rocher, were not fake and they weren't thrown-out - hence he had a suspended sentence. Navalny brought a complaint about the charges to the European Court of Human Rights, and the ECHR decided that Navalny's trial had been unfair and arbitrary, but the ECHR didn't throw out the charges nor did they have the authority to. Additionally, the ECHR heard Navalny's appeal to have the charges construed as politically-motivated, but the ECHR dismissed Navalny's appeal of that. So, when you later call Navalny's sentencing "politically-motivated", you're asserting something that wasn't deemed to be the case.
You also say that the pretext for Navalny's arrest was that he violated his parole terms, and you add, "Turns-out he couldn't report to parole, officers, because he was in a coma from being poisoned by the Russian government". That's a lie which I believe is absolutely impossible for you to not have known was a lie when you made your video, because Navalny only had to return and check-in with the Russian Federal Penitentiary Service by the end of his probation period, on December 29th. But Navalny was discharged from the German hospital on September 23rd. That's over 3 months of difference, where Navalny wasn't in a coma and wasn't hospitalized. Further, the German hospital made a report mid-December stating that Navalny had recovered - and that report was cited during his sentencing hearing to show that he was able to return and check-in despite him not doing so.
Not that Navalny needed to be reminded of his parole terms for it to be legally binding, he's an adult who is responsible for himself and not a child, but Russia's Penitentiary Service did give him a last-minute warning that he had to return to make the final check-in otherwise he would be arrested upon his return to Russia. For the 4 months he'd been away in Germany, including all the time he was in a coma and for a very long time after that, Navalny's not-checking-in twice a month as his parole conditions required wasn't held against him and was never even mentioned as leverage against him in any way.
Russia's Federal Penitentiary Service could have required Navalny to return to Russia sooner, but the only check-in Navalny was absolutely required to do was the final one, by December 29th. Navalny knew that, but he chose to stay in Germany for 2.5 weeks beyond that date.
Do you know what happens in the US when you skip probation and violate the terms of a suspended sentence? You're arrested and your suspended sentence is changed into a prison sentence. And as Navalny is a high-profile person, any exception made for him (and I don't know why he'd get an exception in this case beyond the unofficial exemption from having to check-in while he was recovering in Germany) would affect Russia's prison authority's ability to apply their rules to others.
Just some select other issues I have with your video are these, though there are also some others that I'm not listing here:
Your video also doesn't mention the corruption scandals Navalny has been embroiled in, his racism and fierce xenophobia, the fact that 5,000 or a few times that number of protesters, and around 1,000 protesters arrested in the Moscow metropolitan area, the population of which is over 20 million, is statistically insignificant, or that Navalny's top aide was recorded seeking $20 million in funding from UK spies offering billions of 'you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours' payback when Navalny becomes Russia's president - which has been a serious goal of Navalny's even though you downplayed it in your video.
What you said about Novichok, who's developed it, the idea that it's a signature, is also 100% false and more of that child's kind of a cartoonish narrative. Many countries, including the US, UK, Czech, Iran, and others, have made Novichok, and the US took over the USSR's supplies of Novichok in 1991 when the US was responsible for the dismantling of the USSR's Uzbekistan chemical facilities where Novichok was made and stored. The US showed interest in patenting weaponized Novichok in 2015, and held discussions with Russian on the matter. The method to create Novichok was put into a book by its creator that is publicly available and can be purchased through Amazon. Novichok is not prohibitively difficult to make and the former head of the OPCW and many chemical experts have refuted the claim otherwise. I could expand a huge amount on this topic alone in a standalone post (whether I'm going to I'm yet undecided).
Bluntly, your video is either horrendously under-researched, or it's lying and deliberate propaganda. I'm shocked by the number of false claims and deferrals to conspiracy theories and cartoon visions that are contained in it. This isn't something anyone who considers themselves to be a journalist should be doing.
2
-
2
-
2
-
Novichok was created by the USSR. But since 1991, many countries have made it, and the US patented weaponized Novichok in 2015. Czech, Iran, UK, US, and many other countries are known to have made Novichok. And when the USSR's research facilities in Uzebekistan, where their Novichok was made, were dismantled when the USSR dissolved in 1991, the US was responsible for the dismantling of the facilities and the destruction of its chemical stockpiles, and the US took charge of the USSR's Novichok at that time.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@whitewall1948 I have chosen to disengage with you over your apparent au.tism challenges. It seems telling yourself things that aren't reality is a part of the self-assurance you crave and need to feel OK. That is unfortunate, but it would be wrong for me to agitate what you have no control over.
Just a heads-up for people: The accounts "White Wall", "William Sam", "Fi Bryar", "Fatty Hendo", and probably others, are all operated by the same person who pretends to be different people with them. They are extremely aggressive, impulsive, can be stalking, and difficult to explain things to. And they have no restraint or compunction against making lies of any size, big or small, even when you'd think it's impossible for them to not know that you know that they're lying. They don't accept correction and are unyielding in their initial insistence. I believe this is because they are on the spectrum (autism).
This person has been extremely sensitive to any talk about Ukraine's large troll farm program and can spend an entire day, more than 10 hours straight, non-stop, saying the same inane or whitewashing comment about it. In general, they mentally block-out all information that doesn't tell them what they want to hear, no matter how inarguably and demonstrably factual it is. They will also pretend they didn't get answers they received to their questions just so that they can continue to badger someone with the already-answered question and pretend with themselves that they're "owning" someone for not getting an answer. It is as detached from reality and normal sanity as it sounds.
With each of their accounts, they show the same very poor English grammar and phrasing, and are sometimes completely unintelligible - especially when they become upset. Yet, even when they're at their very most incoherent, as in, posting fully unintelligible gibberish, they maintain an insistence that they're speaking perfect English. When they spend more time working out a post they can make it appear a bit more normal, though there's typically always some oddities in their writing style. Again, I believe they are on the spectrum and that their behaviour is a result of that.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@alhakimov5480 BTW, I just did read a bit more of your post and now I'm going to call you out even further: You're not a Canadian, so stop lying. We're not brainwashed by US propaganda like you are and we haven't swallowed the debunked nonsense that you're peddling. Bluntly, based on your effort here, you couldn't pass as a Canadian if your life dependent on it. And in attempting such non-passable BS, you've proven that you're a troll. You picked the wrong fake identity to go with. I would say that if you were a Canadian, then you must work at one of Canada's troll farms (and Canada has had them as long as the US has, sadly, which is years longer than Russia has had them). But, you're not a Canadian - and if you were, you'd be a complete traitor and embarrassment to my country.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2