RT's view on the taliban prisoner exchange

Status
Not open for further replies.

OCGuy

Lifer
Jul 12, 2000
27,224
37
91
RT = Russian government. They are still a little sensitive when it comes to Afghanistan and the US, so they use any news as a chance to berate US policy.
 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
201
101
Why would anyone care about the russian government's propaganda (RT) view on anything?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
88,154
55,703
136
Sometimes it's more relevant then the white houses propaganda.

The fact that you're trying to argue about what propaganda you should be reading seems to say you missed the point. RT has no interest in honestly reporting the news, it is just interested in helping the Russian government.
 

brycejones

Lifer
Oct 18, 2005
30,127
31,123
136
Who gives a rat's rear end? RT is only slightly more accurate than listening to Alex Jones.
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
Obama's surge in Afghanistan was very costly and a complete failure. Facts are facts.

http://www.thewire.com/global/2012/09/why-afghan-surge-was-failure-one-chart/57351/

original.png


When the U.S. troop surge wound down in Afghanistan last week, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta slapped a positive gloss on the operation, saying it succeeded in "reversing the Taliban momentum." While some anti-war critics questioned that outlook, one of the most damning assessments of the surge's efficacy now comes in the form of a chart by NATO itself.
In the above chart, obtained by Wired's Spencer Ackerman, every incident in which the Taliban or affiliated insurgents attacked NATO forces is recorded. If you compare 2009, when the troubles in Afghanistan pushed President Obama to increase troop numbers, to today, progress has not been great. Per Ackerman:
In August 2009, the peak of the fighting season and the height of the internal Obama administration debate over a troop surge, insurgents attacked U.S. and allied troops — using small-arms fire, homemade bombs, mortars and more — approximately 2700 times. In August 2012, they attacked just shy of 3000 times.
In August 2009, insurgents used just under 600 homemade bombs on U.S.-aligned forces. They used just over 600 homemade bombs on U.S.-aligned forces in August 2012. The same trend holds for every other month in 2009 compared to every month in 2012 for which there is data: the insurgency launched more attacks this year.
Altogether, it's a pretty dispiriting assessment considering the significant number troops sent—30,000 from the U.S.—to suppress the insurgency. For the entire dour report, read Ackerman's article here.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/09/25/the_afghan_surge_is_over

http://www.emptywheel.net/2014/02/1...gain-in-afghanistan-confirming-surge-failure/

http://www.wired.com/2012/09/surge-report-card/

And lastly...

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/ali...ies-came-after-obama-ordered-troops-increased

74% of U.S. Afghan Casualties Came After Obama Ordered Troops Increased

MONTH-BY-MONTH%20CASUALTIES%20IN%20AFGHANISTAN.jpg
 

bradly1101

Diamond Member
May 5, 2013
4,689
294
126
www.bradlygsmith.org

It's the price of reaction and escalation. We haven't been very successful at war lately, leaving places worse than when we went in. To my mind the problem is all the weapon availability to the worst of the worst; of course they're going to make trouble. I know we don't need a reminder that the first, heavier weapons that came to the Mujahedin were American (to fight off the Soviet invasion).

I'm not sure what Afghanistan would be like if we had not intervened (would Russia have lost it in the breakup of the Soviet Union?). In their own minds the Taliban is accomplishing the goal; they're driving out the Americans.

By having a status of forces agreement we are able to ramp the forces back up if we don't like what's happening there. The Taliban and the Afghan government are at odds. We've taken a side. I don't think we'll let that side lose.

Our side in Iraq seems to be hanging on tenuously. What to do?
 
Last edited:

Northern Lawn

Platinum Member
May 15, 2008
2,231
2
0
The fact that you're trying to argue about what propaganda you should be reading seems to say you missed the point. RT has no interest in honestly reporting the news, it is just interested in helping the Russian government.

I for one didn't realize that obama tripled the troops in afghanistan, I knew he increased drone attacks killing 49:1 civs to taliban but hey, they're all terrorists.
 

Thebobo

Lifer
Jun 19, 2006
18,574
7,672
136
RT = Russian government. They are still a little sensitive when it comes to Afghanistan and the US, so they use any news as a chance to berate US policy.

Not all of RT is propaganda and when it is its very easy to notice. This clip seemed to be a honest clip. I dont see anything wrong with what they reported.
 

fleshconsumed

Diamond Member
Feb 21, 2002
6,486
2,363
136
Looks like RT was speaking facts in that segment, but most here decided to la-la-la instead of listening. Not surprised.
 

OCGuy

Lifer
Jul 12, 2000
27,224
37
91
"Seemed to be an honest clip"

"Looks like they were speaking facts"


Oh man....the ignorance of sheltered suburbanite kids is painful.


The creation of Russia Today was a part of a larger PR effort by the Russian government intended to improve the image of Russia abroad.[16] RT was conceived by former media minister Mikhail Lesin,[17] and Vladimir Putin's press spokesperson Aleksei Gromov.[18] At the time of RT's founding, RIA Novosti director Svetlana Mironyuk stated: "Unfortunately, at the level of mass consciousness in the West, Russia is associated with three words: communism, snow and poverty," and added "We would like to present a more complete picture of life in our country."[17] It is registered as an autonomous nonprofit organization[19][20] funded by the federal budget of Russia through the Federal Agency on Press and Mass Communications of the Russian Federation.
 

fleshconsumed

Diamond Member
Feb 21, 2002
6,486
2,363
136
"Seemed to be an honest clip"

"Looks like they were speaking facts in that segment"


Oh man....the ignorance of sheltered suburbanite kids is painful.

Since you conveniently omitted relevant part of the quote.

Now, how about you refute this particular clip or any data presented in it instead of sticking your head in the sand?
 

Thebobo

Lifer
Jun 19, 2006
18,574
7,672
136
"Seemed to be an honest clip"

"Looks like they were speaking facts"

Oh man....the ignorance of sheltered suburbanite kids is painful.

Ok rather than blabbing on about ignorance, prove you are not and tell us what is wrong with that clip?
 

OCGuy

Lifer
Jul 12, 2000
27,224
37
91
Ok rather than blabbing on about ignorance, prove you are not and tell us what is wrong with that clip?

The clip? The entire thread is another AT P&N gem.

The thread title suggests we will be discussing "RT's view" on the exchange, not the actual exchange with the RT clip as background. Certainly the fact that RT is a PR arm of the Kremlin is relevant to anyone who listens to their version of events. I would hope that nobody is naïve enough to believe that RT gets is funding because Pooty-Poot thought we needed more news here in the US.

Against my better judgment I click the thread, since the prisoner exchange is interesting on multiple levels. I was immediately punished for doing so, as I was met with the usual P&N in-depth analysis and critical thinking in the OP:

obama tripled the troops in Afghanistan and 80% of the losses happened since then.

Any context here, or are we just getting random bullet-point information that over-simplifies an extremely complex situation? Are we pretending that the "surge" didn't exponentially increase the likelihood of US casualties by design?

More troops on the ground, combined with pro-active patrols and offensive operations, a resurgent Taliban, and restrictive rules of engagement enacted to appease Karzai and other village elders is a mean combination. It is far from comparable to CIA/Delta using the Northern Alliance to take Kabul in '01/'02 while the Taliban scatters and hides in Pakistan to regroup for years.

So we still haven't mentioned the prisoner exchange yet, but maybe that is coming? Nope.

They say that the US is expecting the taliban to be allies with them again, lol. I actually think RT is right on here and the US gov. is fucking retarded.

I've never seen a single sentence that can be so factually inaccurate in so few of words (to say nothing of the tween text message lingo). The first part of the sentence, "expecting to be allies" has never been said by anyone...anywhere...until now. The second part "with them again" suggests that we were allied at one point. The Taliban wasn't even around when we were covertly arming the Mujahedeen against the Soviets, which even then isn't an alliance.

It isn't necessary to find factual errors in RT's "reporting". Information is never as powerful as when and how it is presented to the average citizen. Every college-aged pollster working for an election campaign understands the importance of framing information in order to increase the odds of the desired outcome.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.