Excerpt:
Prosecutors highlighted “about $10,000 — $8,000 in U.S. dollars and then $2,000 in foreign currency that was found on his person,” CNN correspondent Danny Freeman said following the court hearing.
“Also they said that he had a Faraday bag,” which blocks cell signals, a move that prosecutors alleged marked “an indication of criminal sophistication and reason they should hold him on bail,” Freeman continued.
After prosecutors made the claims, Mangione said he would like to “correct two things.”
“I don’t know where any of that money came from — I’m not sure if it was planted. And also, that bag was waterproof, so I don’t know about criminal sophistication,” the suspect said in a statement that suggested police framed him.
He took Russia’s side in their invasion of Ukraine, which I don’t agree with, but truth is truth and he accurately describes how the media sways public opinion without outright lying.
Can you back up that claim with a link?
I only read Chomsky saying:
I mean, by your own comment, those aren’t great things. 2 is a whataboutism and 3 is the same as giving concessions to the Nazis and lead to WWII. Concessions have already been given to Russia in regards to their previous invasions of Georgia and Crimea. Give an inch and they’ll take a mile.
Regardless of Chomsky’s stance on Russia and NATO though, he still describes media manipulation acutely. He just has a huge blind spot for when Russia is doing it
NATO has expanded significantly towards Russia since the SU fell. No nation would be fine with this. Imagine if China started a “defense agreement” with latin American countries. What do you think the US reaction would be to Mexico joining in? Or for a more real and historic example have a look at the Cuban missile crisis.
This does not justify Putins invasion, but comparing this to the appeasement politics towards Hitler doesn’t work, as Hitler wasn’t threatened by British and American troops stationed in Czechoslovakia or Austria.
For a bettet explanation i highly recommend watching some talks of John Mearsheimer, who forsaw a war in Eastern Europe as the result of the security architecture built by the US in the 90s and 2000s.
I don’t think it’s fair to say 2 is strictly whataboutism, because Chomsky has a founded fear that strengthening NATO as a military power through conflict escalation will lead to worse outcomes in the long run. That’s why it’s relevant to point out NATO war crimes.
As for 3, that’s a fair point, and I would press Chomsky to provide an option for de-escalation that doesn’t involve allowing Russia to keep any Ukrainian soil.
Sure, but I think you’d understand that I can’t just take pure speculation though. Could you please source your claim so I can consider what you’re saying when you say he “took Russia’s side”.
Would also be curious of the state he was in while saying that if true, as he’s nearly 100 years old at this point if I recall? Even our heroes get frail and wither, not necessarily representative of their true core positions.