Forum menu
Also Julian Assange is a journalist, how are we treating him?
Why Yes they were big and daft, they certainly were. But you acknowledge so were we. And we the bastions of Truth, Justice and Democracy.
We aint like those murderous Ruskies eh ?
But isnt it strange that the war in Syria went on and on and on until Russia stepped in and ended it.
thols2
Free Member
The U.S. is basically trolling Russia. Normally they are very reluctant to release any classified info but in this case they are.
Do you honestly believe this? Did you believe the Iraq WMD bullshit aswell?
We aint like those murderous Ruskies eh ?
But isnt it strange that the war in Syria went on and on and on until Russia stepped in and ended it.
I think you'll find those two points are linked. Fighting whilst one arm is tied behind your back to at least attempt to minimise civilian casualties is slow at best and never ending at worst.
Putin has a lower bar. They are also allied to a guy that thinks nothing of dropping barrel bombs on his own population which is handy.
I suppose if you wish to go all "total war" anything is achievable.
But isnt it strange that the war in Syria went on and on and on until Russia stepped in and ended it.
It's still going
Also Julian Assange is a journalist, how are we treating him?
A lot better than plenty of countries would.
Three meals a day, medical care, legal representation, no torture
Fighting whilst one arm is tied behind your back to at least attempt to minimise civilian casualties is slow at best and never ending at worst.
I hope you're not suggesting we somehow managed to accidentally kill thousands of civilians by mistake. Indiscriminate bombing is the key to a successful US led operation. The Yanks are shoot first ask questions later(if at all)
A lot better than plenty of countries would.
Three meals a day, medical care, legal representation, no torture
Oh well thqt makes it all ok then.
A bit of hounding, the threat of a whole life sentence hanging over you. If thats not physiological torture, then i dont know what is.
And all because he ran a site where data pertaining to US war crimes was collected and published.
But yet again, we're not talking about 'other' countries, we're talking about the land of the free, home of the brave, and the UK, latched onto their coat tails.
It’s still going
What i should have said is that Russia managed to retake much of the country that the terrorists were slowly taking over I feel had Russia not stepped in those elements would have taken over completely. The US remember funded the likes of ISIL they were nhelping to destroy Syria.
Ever seen Syria in before and after pictures. The change is horrific.
Look for yourself.
https://petapixel.com/2016/08/02/26-photos-show-war-changed-syria/
Three meals a day, medical care, legal representation, no torture
Guantanamo Bay?
But isnt it strange that the war in Syria went on and on and on until Russia stepped in and ended it
You best let Syria know that the conflict is all over and they’re now living in a utopia delivered by Putin.
They mustn’t have got the memo
I've expanded on that Binners. Russia won the war against the gradual destruction of Syria are the behest of US funded terrorist groups. Without Russian intervention Syria would be the wasteland the US wanted.
in a few short years Russia took back what was lost.
It may be continuing, but nothing like before and Syria has a chance to recover and finally win.
Posted a link up containing the before and after pics of Syria . Once a cultural heritage site of significant importance to humanity. Now a bombed out wasteland, the vast majority of that ordnance coming directly from US and UK facilities.
This thread has just gone the same way as the Starmer thread now, hasn’t it? As have so many others
Same tedious, pious, sanctimonious, self-righteous gobshites posters. Same result.
Solidarity brothers
Never mind Binners. Here's something to cheer you up.
I hope you’re not suggesting we somehow managed to accidentally kill thousands of civilians by mistake. Indiscriminate bombing is the key to a successful US led operation. The Yanks are shoot first ask questions later(if at all)
Ok I'm curious here and no telling porkies dyna-ti, we'll know!
Hypothetical for sure but indulge me. Suppose you were a belligerent in a war in the near future, it's been bitterly fought by all sides but the tide is going against you and your compatriots and your country. Heck, you could even be a civilian, it doesn't really matter in this scenario.
It happens that your country is fighting against an alliance comprised of the Americans and Russians. That is most definitely not as hypothetical as it sounds for obvious reasons.
You and your loved ones have to choose which of the two nations above to surrender to. The current war you are embroiled in has seen atrocities on all sides as is almost always the case in war. You also know the histories of both countries during past, real conflicts and the peacetime that follows.
This is in the near future remember, current domestic and foreign policies, even leaders if you wish, are the same.
Genuinely, which countries armed forces and government would you rather find yourself and your country at the mercy of?
Honestly, probably the Americans.
But in this scenario, i would have to have the same language, as I couldn't picture it from any other point of view.
I suppose this even has already been played out to some degree in the 2nd world war, many Germans would be happier surrendering to the allies(US/UK) than to the Russians, but in that instance the Germans had been butchering Russian civilians, and with that in mind you would honestly want to surrender to anyone but the Russians. So it would have to be such a scenario where i hadn't spent time murdering US civilians.
So to the US it is, but knowing how things go in war, its still a case of pot luck as to whether you'd get shot before actually being placed into custody.
.
The problem with the scenario as i see it, is the language is the same, so there is an affinity there. Education levels are similar, so there is an affinity there too. It would be easier for either group to bump off those who they see as radically different to themselves. Cant speak Russian, the Russians might afford you less civilities than the Americans, because you share similarities with them and can speak the same language. It might even come down to shared religious beliefs.
This is something we saw even amongst the allies in WW2. The British soldier had less trust of the French soldier, even though they fought side by side in many instances. Probably down to language differences. Like for like would be the rational that would probably go a long way towards keeping you and your loved ones alive post conflict.
.
That said. You treatment would be determined by other factors not already mentioned, but probably just as important, possibly even more so. Have they the numbers spare to watch you, have they the medical facilities you might possibly need, have they the food available to feed you. Any off those aspects are missing would determine whether they keep or kill.
Along with what has been the experience of the unit you've initially come into contact with. It they've had a hard time, they might well give you a hard time in what is best described as revenge. If you are in contact with a unit, fresh off the boat with little combat experience, your treatment would likely be better.
But all that aside. I would probably look to surrender to the US, but for the reasons I've given, the shared culture.
.
However. Were you to ask the same question to a member that is of Eastern European background and culture, you might find they would look towards surrendering to the Russians in the hope that their shared heritage keeps them safe. So in this scenario my opinion is biased.
That a fair assessment ?. If you feel its not fully please say so.
I will say that thus far this is the best and most honest question any of the belligerents on this thread has asked me.
Too many here appear to have clouded judgement. Too emotional a thread subject.
Russia won the war against the gradual destruction of Syria are the behest of US funded terrorist groups. Without Russian intervention Syria would be the wasteland the US wanted.
Syria has been ruled by murderous tyrants for decades. Their government was supported by Russia. Opposition parties attempted to overthrow the government, leading to a civil war. The Syrian government deliberately bombed civilians, including using chemical weapons, in order to subdue the opposition. Russia provided support for this.
Arguing that Bashar al-Assad is to be admired is a very difficult position to defend. It's perfectly possible to disagree with many aspects of U.S. foreign policy and still see the U.S. as far preferable to a dictator who uses chemical weapons to eliminate any political opposition to his murderous regime. Are you seriously endorsing chemical weapon attacks on civilians as something to be admired?
in a few short years Russia took back what was lost.
It may be continuing, but nothing like before and Syria has a chance to recover and finally win
So you fully support the brutal tyranny of the Assad regime? You make it sound like Russia stepped in and saved the day allowing a peaceful democracy to flourish. How much Russian propaganda do you swallow in your FB feed?...
Granted there's an argument a tyrannical dictator is no worse (or perhaps even better) than a lawless state without a functioning government - but that largely depends if you're one of the oppressed, someone within the regime or someone thousands of miles away sitting at a computer.
Some of the groups fighting in Syria that the US funded were certainly questionable and some did indeed end up aligning with ISIS but many others were fighting Assad and/or ISIS. Let's face it the West intervening in anyway in Syria was going to go badly but doing nothing would also have virtually guaranteed Assad's regime would continue (with them given a free pass to wipe-out any internal resistance). It just so happens Russia has done that now anyway (and not in a nice clean 'good guy' way you seem to be implying).
Three meals a day, medical care, legal representation, no torture
Guantanamo Bay?
Are you ignoring the "no torture" bit to make that connection? The two really don't compare. But we digress.
Just because "the West" has done appalling things that I'm outraged and ashamed by doesn't make it OK for the Russians to do the same.
Even hypocrites can do the right thing occasionally.
Russian propaganda outlets reporting fighting in eastern Ukraine. This is a classic false-flag operation to serve as a pretext for a Russian invasion.
https://twitter.com/ScottMStedman/status/1494218277056253952
Also Julian Assange is a journalist, how are we treating him?
Well, for a kick-off even he doesn't call himself a journalist. Given that he's blamed all the ills of the world at various times on feminists and Jewish writers who's eviction from the Ecuadorian Embassy was (by agreement) filmed by a wholly owned subsidiary of RT, that there's evidence that wiki-leaks has links with two Russia hackers, and that his ties with Russian intelligence services are beyond dispute, I think that by any comparison with what would've happened to him if he'd have got on the wrong side of Putin can be easily seen by looking at what happened in Salisbury.
More seriously, He's successfully used legal means to prevent extradition to the US thus far, and even a US circuit court judge has indicated that they think any extradition would be "oppressive" given concerns over Mr Assange's mental health and risk of suicide" I think overall, he's getting the treatment that he could've easily predicted he would've given that he leaked Russain Intelligence provided to him for that very purpose as part of Putin's attempt to disrupt the 2016 US elections.
Edit: the formatting glitches are a feature, right?
This is a classic false-flag operation to serve as a pretext for a Russian invasion.
And very excited you seem to be about it. Honestly do you ever question what you read in newspapers and social media? Why are you even interested?
If I may, a quick comment on tone:
And very excited you seem to be about it.
...contributes what? And actually:
Russian propaganda outlets reporting fighting in eastern Ukraine. This is a classic false-flag operation to serve as a pretext for a Russian invasion.
...doesn't show evidence of excitement.
Honestly do you ever question what you read in newspapers and social media?
Looks rhetorical but I'm not sure. It could be dazh does think most of us take media stories entirely at face value.
Why are you even interested?
Because a possible war in Europe between Russia and NATO is a potentially attention grabbing thing? Would be one answer. Less polite ones are also available but what's the point in being rude? Is my actual question.
Russia can report it as much as they want, but this is basically the same as the Crimean conflict, they're trying to get a way in, but i'm not seeing the Ukrainians divided about where the lines are drawn this time around.
For all the posturing, and Putin using this to his advantage, even he knows it would be a nightmare to even attempt an invasion of Ukraine, i'm struggling to see the positives of this type of conflict for Russia.
i’m struggling to see the positives of this type of conflict for Russia.
Vanity project for an aging dictator?
Russian propaganda outlets reporting fighting in eastern Ukraine. This is a classic false-flag operation to serve as a pretext for a Russian invasion.
Yep, he will say that he's protecting the "ethnically Russian" people living in the Ukraine whether they want it or not.
This wa his reasoning behind annexing Crimea - but the population there was about 60% ethnically Russian..... it's much less in most of the Ukraine.
The way in appears to be in the process of being laid out: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraine-rebels-accuse-govt-forces-mortar-shelling-report-2022-02-17/
The pattern, as I see it right now, is that:
1) Russia has likely initiated a large-scale cyber attack against key military and civilian infrastructure (which will be very hard to attribute to them, hence my use of the word "likely").
2) Russia has claimed to be reducing troop numbers at the borders, but has either not done this, or increased numbers, depending on who you believe.
3) Russia and/or Russian-backed separatists has claimed that Ukrainian troops fired on them, with the same claims being made (with possible evidence) by Ukraine of shelling from the Russian-backed separatists of a kindergarten ( https://www.osce.org/special-monitoring-mission-to-ukraine/512326)
The last on that short list could give Russia all the excuse needed to move across the border, ostensibly to protect the pro-Russian separatists.
And, before anyone comes in and accuses me of being excited for this, you could not be more wrong. I have seen first hand the results of war and this prospect fills me with terrible dread.
he will say that he’s protecting the “ethnically Russian” people
A reason the Baltic states worry with, I dunno, 25% ethnically Russian people largely post russification before the 80s. It's a strategy.
If this happens it will be terrible for those poor Ukrainians. TBH Putin needs removing.
Honestly do you ever question what you read in newspapers and social media?
I certainly question anything "reported" in a Kremlin approved Russian media outlet. Russian claims that Ukraine is attacking them is utterly transparently propaganda.
With U.S. news reports on intelligence findings, those are very obviously reporting on what the U.S. government wants to be public and you'll find that the Washington Post has published articles explaining why the U.S. government is doing that (to troll Putin, basically).
With any media report, you need to look at what evidence is presented. For example, reports that Russian forces were being withdrawn were not supported by anything in the way of independent reports from within Russia showing the tanks and other heavy equipment being shipped the hundreds of kilometers back to where it came from. Without that independent verification, you'd have to be very naive to believe anything the Russian government says. Yet, people seem to take it at face value. Useful idiots, as the Russians call them.
The U.S. and NATO are less likely to tell outright lies like the Russian government does as a routine thing, they are more likely to not report things on the grounds of "security". They have said publicly that they are supplying Ukraine with anti-tank and anti-helicopter missiles. That is obviously intended as a message to Russia. it was made public because the U.S. wants Russia to know. So, yes, anytime a government makes a statement, it is done for a reason. That doesn't mean that what they are saying is not correct, it just means that they have decided that it is in their interest to say it.
<blockquoteA reason the Baltic states worry with, I dunno, 25% ethnically Russian people largely post russification before the 80s.
.... and his definition of ethnically Russian has become looser allowing him, in his head, to go in where he really shouldn't.
i’m struggling to see the positives of this type of conflict for Russia.
The earlier stages did make sense eg Sevastopol and hence the rest of Crimea (to protect it) are important strategically for the navy.
Currently I think it is mostly pride and wanting to undermine the nearby democracies to make them seem less appealing as a way of governing. Or possibly to try and push Ukraine into renouncing rights to the Crimea.
The U.S. and NATO are less likely to tell outright lies like the Russian government does
Yes, of course they are. They have such a great track record of being honest and trustworthy! 🙄
The point I'm trying to get across here is that this good vs evil interpretation of something that's extremely complicated is very silly. I get that it allows people to play at being armchair generals and thols in particular is very good at it, but the reality is that all of us know f-all about what's really going on so making proclamations about who is right or wrong, and choosing sides like it's some sort of playground fight after school is pretty stupid.
@Thols
Thats your opinion of it ass you see it, Im sure others will disagree.
As to bombing of civilians, are you saying the western powers you support were justified by THEIR bombing of civilians in the middle eastern conflicts. Certainly sounds like it.
I know you likely dont think so, but just by stating it im undermining your position. See how easy it is. So quit accusing people mate eh 😕
Furthermore 'Classic false flag operations'
I thought those were reports in the newspaper of weapons of mass destruction, and claims 'they' were going to attack us any minute, through to protecting our ex pat citizens. Yes we've all used those term to justify our actions, and i would even go so far as to say we can parallel our use of the term back to some of the worst dictators or 'regimes' in modern history.
When it comes to false flag operations, we wrote the book
" Well, for a kick-off even he doesn’t call himself a journalist. Given that he’s blamed all the ills of the world at various times on ...."
OK, so he's a bit deluded. I suppose someone in that position reading hat many background reports might well be but none of that is justification for arresting, detaining, imprisoning and threatening him with deportation to a country with a terrible record of human rights within their prison system. From what I've read about prison systems, America is considerably worse than most of the third world prisons.
His crime ?, his actual crime - Reporting war crimes carried out by the United States. That alone should have alarm bells ringing. But it seems that minor point is being overlooked
I didnt say that did I?, thats your rhetoric and opinion of it.One thing that you are guilty of is following the western propaganda, in your use of the term 'Regime' this is an easy descriptive that the US uses to describe any government they are hostile to.
Of course Human rights in Syria arent great, Syria could never ever by classed as a lawless state.
but compared against how many in prison in the US,its hatred, its endemic racism, its history, homeless kids in the UK, starving people in rich western countries, then the use of the term 'regime' could be placed at the door of many of them.. How many dead children can we attribute to our own actions in the last 30 years. Have we the right to criticize anyone else 😕
Interesting to note, though im not accusing you of anything, but FuzzyWuzzy is a derogatory term
When we look at the UK cabinet. How many are wearing military uniforms. Now look at the US. How many tv press conferences do we see attended by US generals
We could rightly call the US a military regime. Which likens it to tinpot dictatorships.
Thols is a big boy, he can speak for himself. 😉 Unless of course you think hes a bit... fruity loopo and needs protecting from his own words 😆
" It could be Dahz does think most of us take media stories entirely at face value. "
Yup, you hit the nail on the head there. Clearly you and others here do follow and fully support this premise because we can judge that from the way they jump on anyone with a differing opinion.
" Youre an idiot, youre a fool, youre naive, you this, you that, you must support whatever horrible dictatorship etc etc etc" all personal attacks on the individual for their opinion. At least this far in we're seeing a bit of agreement that the western alliance isnt as white and cuddly as was being stricken from the earlier conversation which was obvious purely by the lack of it. That one sided view of the world.
------------------------
" The U.S. and NATO are less likely to tell outright lies like the Russian government does as a routine thing, they are more likely to not report things on the grounds of “security”. They have said publicly that they are supplying Ukraine with anti-tank and anti-helicopter missiles."
Utterly utterly deluded. You clearly ignore everything else and stick to such with superglue you must be some sort of US bot, planted to confuse us all. That is 100% the rhetoric of a fee paying tory voting daily mail commentator.
What a crazy thread. And if im the nut, then there's a Christmas hamper's worth of them in here with me 😯
And if im the nut, then there’s a Christmas hamper’s worth of them in here with me
Come on, you think that Syria using chemical weapons on civilians is a good thing. You do gotta admit that you sound a bit crazy when you endorse war crimes like that.
No Thols i dont. And neither do i condone the use of cluster bombs used by us. And that was after we promised to never ever use those things again. But as the foreign secretary said at the time, they were deemed necessary.
So who knows what we'll target someone elses civilians with in the future.
Oh yes right Syria. A nasty dictatorship.
He wasnt installed by us was he ? 😕 Theres so many nasty evil regimes around the world we had a hand in creating, installing, training and supplying, its hard to keep track of.
His crime ?, his actual crime – Reporting war crimes carried out by the United States. That alone should have alarm bells ringing. But it seems that minor point is being overlooked
No, that's not his crime. The reason he's in jail right now is that he jumped bail in 2010 to stop being sent to Sweden to face charges of rape (which would've made his extradition to the US more difficult not less and it'd need both the UK and Swedish legal systems to agree to, but that's another story) and that's the exact situation he finds himself in now.
Chelsea Manning stopped sending him info because he wanted her to adopt another user name, something she was reluctant to do as it challenged her ability to claim public interest, and reveals that Assange wanted her to hack the Pentagon system, which is illegal and something that any real journalist wouldn't dream of doing (or would understand that by breaking some laws, the US might be interested in going after him) Proper journalist won't work with him after he reportedly told the Guardian when challenged about the ethics of revealing names of Afghan nationals working with US forces "Well, they're informants, So, if they killed, they've got it coming to them"
At his first hearing in 2010 the judge called him a "narcissist who cannot get beyond his own selfish interests"
So here we are in 2021 and he's not in the dock for any of this, If he's innocent of hacking the Pentagon or he's got a good public interest claim, then let him have his day in court, but right now, he's in Belmarsh because he doesn't want to do any of that.
Hes in Belmarsh because they're fighting extradition to the US, Sweden dropped their case due to Sweden's statute of limitations. Theres no extradition to Sweden which leaves us with the extradition to the US. That is the entire sum of why he is where he is.
Sure, he's a disreputable character, nobody has denied that, but thats not the issue, the issue is the US wants him and lets face facts, they get him over there its a show trial, a judicial system that at best is flawed, culminating with a whole life sentence, which as far as everyone is aware is a forgone conclusion. So theres no 'Day in Court'
The office of the United Nations high commissioner for human rights found that Assange is effectively being held in arbitrary detention.
Plus the charges against him are not of him hacking the pentagon, but of publishing the details of someone else hacking the pentagon. He's a publisher remember. That is wiki leaks primary reason for being.
To anyone that is testimony to whatever freedoms we shold hold highest. Not a reason for trying to destroy the organization.
We champion whistle blowing, but then denounce anyone caught doing it.
Julian Assanges personal circumstances are a distraction in this case.
Hes in Belmarsh because they’re fighting extradition to the US
No he is in Belmarsh because the authorities declined to grant him bail this time round for some odd reason. Anyone else facing the same charges would get to stay at home or some other suitable location, say a friends mansion, whilst the extradition case is fought.
The office of the United Nations high commissioner for human rights found that Assange is effectively being held in arbitrary detention.
You mean when he was hiding in the embassy refusing to come out? He was detaining himself.
We champion whistle blowing, but then denounce anyone caught doing it.
Plenty of whistle blowers are praised eg Manning and Snowden but Assange burnt through a lot of goodwill.
I’d rather be Julian Assange than Alexei Navalny.
Fair point. But both are as we say - fked.
The difference is that Assange gets three meals a day, medical treatment, access to lawyers, etc. Navalny got poisoned by a nerve agent, then imprisoned where he is denied access to lawyers, subjected to torture and sleep deprivation and denied medical treatment.
At the same time, his supporters are oppressed, jailed and sometimes meet tragic ends.
Assange could get out soon. Navalny's not coming out unless it is in a box or Putin goes.
https://twitter.com/Billbrowder/status/1494264636258009088
https://twitter.com/scotlandishson/status/1494324457019621380
Russian embassy burning documents. Embassy staff do this when they know they are going to need to evacuate.
https://twitter.com/mattia_n/status/1494255268619816961
You really need to let this go Thols, its like an obsession with you and this level is the level that affects mental health.
It's ok to speculate, to debate what is happening in the halls of power, or the game between countries, but when you keep posting and keep posting its a sign that maybe its time to look for something less stressful and damaging to occupy your time.
the game between countries
This is not a game for Ukrainians. Similarly, it wasn't a game for the thousands of Syrian civilians who were killed by chemical weapons launched by a murderous dictator who you express admiration for. Thousands of Ukrainians have already been killed in the ongoing Russian invasion. Russia is behaving exactly the way you would expect them to just prior to launching an invasion, but you think it's all a game for your amusement.
Looks like it's all still on for the 22nd then. Horrible.
Horrible.
Nah, apparently it's just a game. Slaughtering thousands of civilians with chemical weapons is all just a jolly jape, it seems.
but you think it’s all a game for your amusement.
We're not the ones posting a running commentary like it's a football match. Come on man, give up on the faux-outrage and just admit it gets your juices going. There's no shame in it, you wouldn't be the first red blooded male to get excited about a fight you're not involved in. 😄
I'm not excited, I'm extremely worried. If you have an ounce of sense, you'd be very worried about Russia massing troops on the border of a neighboring country that it has already partially invaded. It's not a game, thousands of Ukrainians have already died fighting the ongoing Russian invasion, it's the most serious situation in Europe in many decades.
This is not a game for Ukrainians.
It certainly isn't. they're stuck with endemic corruption, poor economy, social services at breaking point or non existent, and with a bunch of shiny new and hugely damaging weapons being shipped into the country daily.
Here, something for you to watch, and please do try to watch it, and not just stick your fingers in your ears and go la la la la la la.
Try to look at the aspects of this from more than a single side. Being patriotic is ok, but blindly following the narrative is an extremely dangerous position to put yourself into.
The shows guests aren't Ruskie agents(They're all Americans themselves), but have a better perspective and a better understanding of the situation and the history of this entire state of affairs than we do. Especially the historians.
https://www.rt.com/shows/crosstalk/549709-russia-plans-ukraine-invasion/
Not an apologist for Putin... here, check this out on RT...
Not an apologist for Putin… here, check this out on RT…
Not an apologist for UK/US. Here's a report from CNN/Sky News/BBC.. 🙂
I’m not excited, I’m extremely worried.
Then maybe step away from the news and social media? You have zero control or influence over it, so worrying about it is pointless and unhealthy. You have no more idea about what's really happening than anyone else no matter how many news reports or twitter feeds you read. Human brains are very good at focusing on worst case scenarios, so try to fight the instinct and you'll be less worried. 🙂
worrying about it is pointless and unhealthy.
Then why do you keep coming back here and posting nonsense?
CNN/Sky News/BBC
Please don’t try and imply that these outlets are in any way equivalent to RT. Just because occasional stories are badly researched or maybe even biased doesn’t mean that decent, independent news isn’t available from them.
RT on the other had has a single objective, and that does not involve independent news or balanced reporting in any way.
Any of CNN, Sky or BBC is not set up to promote a single government message. RT is.
Try and find a single story critical of the Russian government on RT. Seriously.
Once you’ve wasted a few hours doing that look at the headline stories on any of the above and you’ll find negative stories on Biden, Johnson et al within seconds.
Denouncing genuine media is dangerous. I’d rather have free but imperfect media than what they have in Russia and China i.e. a single, government controlled and censored source of news. And an internet locked down so independent reporting is impossible.
The peace loving and very wise Vlad has decided that Saturday is a good great day to test out his strategic nuclear toys.
If you're near any USAF air bases and you see a lot of frantic activity over the weekend, lots of aircraft taking off, not squawking, then shit your pants.
Mebe have a read up on the hilarious misunderstands caused by exercise Able Archer 83.
Any of CNN, Sky or BBC is not set up to promote a single government message.
You are joking aren't you? The BBC in particular is the media mouthpiece of the British establishment. FFS Nicholas Witchell the other day was trying to convince everyone that Prince Andrew could be a campaigner against sex traffickers! Sky news is the best of all of them, but it's bias is more subtle. CNN is a basekt-case of corporate american propaganda. None of these are truly independent, impartial or critical of the western political establishment.
Then why do you keep coming back here and posting nonsense?
I feel really sorry for you Thols, you've another shut mind. (Which has been clear to us for quite some time now), but petty snipes and insults aside, what you are doing thols is ignoring all bar one side. You arent taking anything into account, you arent accepting and saying to yourself 'Hey, I dont really know or understand all the details and history' 'Know what' think ill see what unbiased academics think of the situation.
I'll read the news. I'l read US papers, the mainstream and the local, I'll read Russian papers, and Ukrainian papers.English papers, European papers. I'll listen to all sides. I'll try to get an overall picture, accepting neither to one side or the other, and with that information, coupled with historical detail, I'll be in a better position to understand the situation.
Because that is the route that people take to become informed.
But no. You stick your fingers in your ears, shut your eyes and go la la la la la la. Then go off and attack anyone you see as not following or agreeing to the small view you've thus taken.
I personally think that is a very sad position to be in. But at least you aren't alone, you've Kelvin and a few others to keep you company.
The BBC in particular is the media mouthpiece of the British establishment.
Maitlis interview with Prince Andrew?
Send me a link to the story about Putin's palace from RT.
I’d like to congratulate dyna-ti for achieving chewkw levels in this thread.
Try and find a single story critical of the Russian government on RT. Seriously.
First show us a US paper or news channel(mainstream) saying that American influence in the Ukraine and eastern Europe is utterly wrong.
I reckon you're going to struggle here.
And i'd like to thank you for ignoring everything thats been said on all sides and trying to play for laughs. Dear lord you are an intellectual giant.
Then why do you keep coming back here and posting nonsense?
Work avoidance mostly. Isn't that why everyone is here?
Work avoidance mostly. Isn’t that why everyone is here?
And to humblebrag about Wordle feats.
I feel really sorry for you Thols, you’ve another shut mind
@dyna-ti - can you possibly wind back the passive aggressiveness a bit please?
Also, I'm not sure that sharing vids from Russian state controlled media is being objective, given that RT routinely puts out disinformation. Objectivity isn't about getting two opposing points of view and choosing between them.
First show us a US paper or news channel(mainstream) saying that American influence in the Ukraine and eastern Europe is utterly wrong.
Seriously?
Do you even read quality papers? There's a counterpoint in The Times on NATO and European strategy most days at the moment.
It's behind a paywall, but here's an excerpt which I hope passes the rules:
If Ukraine, desperate to know Moscow’s intentions and the price of de-escalation, could be persuaded to put its Nato application on ice, as some local politicians suggest, Mr Putin would then have won the bulk of what he wanted without incurring catastrophic sanctions or having to sacrifice Russian lives. He could present this at home as a victory for a master strategist.
And anyway, there might be strong and rational arguments that US influence in Eastern Europe has secured peace for the last 70 years, no?
The problem with that is that RT is funded by the Russian state ( https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/06/13/in-case-you-werent-clear-on-russia-todays-relationship-to-moscow-putin-clears-it-up/) and has been censured for being propaganda already ( https://www.google.com/search?q=Russia+Today+Germany+ban&oq=Russia+Today+Germany+ban&aqs=chrome..69i57j33i22i29i30.5387j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8).
RT, along with Sputnik, is a primary source of Russin mis-information and a key part of their information warfare capability ( https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/kremlin%E2%80%99s-expanding-media-conglomerate). Yes, I expect CNN and Sky to have a pro-western BIAS, but both those sources can and do criticise their parent countries, sometimes frequently. They are also not funded by the state (which gets you a different set of bias.
This is nothign to do with having a closed mind either, it's about looking at the available data, assessing it for truthfulness and accuracy and then giving it a level of relevance. In this case, RT is not a trustworthy source.
I'm just watching the news now(whilst the wind outside is going mad...) hoping for deescalation.
That said I did watch RT last night for an hour or two. That was an eye opener.
Thank goodness for the BBC, ITV and channel 4 news is all I can say. I'll never take them for granted again.
Thank goodness for the BBC, ITV and channel 4 is all I can say.
Too right.
I’d like to congratulate dyna-ti for achieving chewkw levels in this thread.
Dear lord you are an intellectual giant.
Many a true word is said in jest...?
Just saying.
First show us a US paper or news channel(mainstream) saying that American influence in the Ukraine and eastern Europe is utterly wrong.
Here's the thing. Ukraine kicked out a corrupt Russian-leaning leader and chose to pursue closer ties with the EU. That's what Ukrainians wanted. Putin rejected this and invaded Crimea and eastern Ukraine. It seems likely that he misjudged and believed that his invasion would be welcomed by Ukrainians. It wasn't and Ukraine has been fighting the Russian invasion ever since. This has turned into a huge embarrassment for Putin so he has now massed an enormous army on the borders of Ukraine and made a bunch of demands to the U.S. and NATO that he knows they will not accept. What is strange about this is that Putin isn't negotiating with Ukraine, he's insisting on negotiating with the U.S. over the future of Ukraine. Ukrainians apparently have no right to determine the direction of their own country. Ukraine has been begging for military and economic assistance from the U.S. and E.U., but the economic assistance has been conditional on fighting corruption and the military assistance was very limited until the current Russian build-up started.
So, the only influence America has is at the request of Ukraine, which is afraid that the ongoing Russian invasion is about to escalate. Your question then is, why don't American media outlets just parrot the Russian propaganda that you read in the Russian outlets?
can you possibly wind back the passive aggressiveness a bit please?
WOW, just WOW 😯
TBH thats not aggressive, and certainly not as bad as calling someone an idiot. That has been leveled at me a number of times and you've yet to step in.
Also, I’m not sure that sharing vids from Russian state controlled media is being objective
So Peter John Lavelle is a paid agent of the Russian government ? Peter Lavelle, the American journalist (Ba,Ma,Phd) well versed and qualified in European Economic history
Why is it when ever someone on one of RT's programs questions the lunacy of US foreign policy, the spouted comments say that the Russian government is responsible for their rhetoric.. Why not think or agree that the individuals on these programs with great concerns of their own are best placed to be able to level such accusations against their own government.
Cold it possibly be that were they to ask CNN, or Fox or any other the other channels for airtime or a show it would be anything other than refused.
THAT is censorship mate, Clear and simple.
So where else should they go to put these points out into the public domain.
Maitlis interview with Prince Andrew?
So you can interpret that two ways. Either it was a brilliant piece of investigative independent journalism holding power to account. Or it was orchestrated by the Royal establishment as a way of finally disowning a rogue member who was causing them all manner of reputational damage. A case of 'give him enough rope and he'll surely hang himself'. Do you really think Maitlis would have been allowed to do that interview, and newsnight allowed to broadcast it unless it had been approved from the very top?
I’d like to congratulate dyna-ti for achieving chewkw levels in this thread.
Did chewkw actually come out and say he admired Bashar al-Assad, the Syrian leader who slaughtered civilians with chemical weapons? I'm still trying to comprehend the mental gymnastics dyna-ti must have gone through to convince himself that the Syrian President is a guy who is in any way admirable.
"Cold it possibly be that were they to ask CNN, or Fox or any other the other channels for airtime or a show it would be anything other than refused."
I think you'll find that with regards Ukraine, Fox news are trotting out the same line as RT.
Or it was orchestrated by the Royal establishment as a way of finally disowning a rogue member who was causing them all manner of reputational damage
Oh, I'd not thought of that. I'll just grab my tin foil hat. 🙂 🙂
If that was the case, they why not remove his royal privileges at the point of the interview? They didn't. But they did when a law suit was issued. Doing so at this point was probably more embarrassing than doing it earlier. So the rationale for some self-destructive scheme falls down.
If you look for conspiracy in everything, you'll find it. But funnily enough, you'll never prove it...
WOW, just WOW
TBH thats not aggressive, and certainly not as bad as calling someone an idiot. That has been leveled at me a number of times and you’ve yet to step in.
I'm not interested in having an online argument with you, but your responses thus far have been more patronising and passive-aggressive than informative. Seriously, this doesn't help you get your point across.
So Peter John Lavelle is a paid agent of the Russian government ? Peter Lavelle, the American journalist (Ba,Ma,Phd) well versed and qualified in European Economic history
That's quite a leap - my point is that Russia's state-owned media outlets aren't trustworthy.
Let's all chill the heck out a bit please.
Here’s the thing.
😆 😆 😆
then launches another rant against everything Russia has to say
Why is it that now, even American political analysts and journalists are questioning nato's motives, why is it that European partners of nato are disagreeing with US policy and not wanting to go the route the US is wanting them to. Why is it nato's expansion eastwards is now being viewed as an aggressive move FROM WITHIN THE NATO ALLIANCE.
Even the Ukrainian government and the Ukrainian people are reporting that they are getting sick to death of American and western media hysteria. THE UKRAINIANS FFS. 😯
But Thols and his others comrades are happy to ignore these voices, and label them... disruptive influence, or paid agents of the clear enemy.
Perhaps you would like to see them imprisoned Thols. Or worse. Taken off to some cia torture center for people who disagree with the regime.
Why is that 😕
but your responses thus far have been more patronising and passive-aggressive than informative.
Informative 😕
But didnt i just do that ?
Gave a link to a popular show covering politics and what was the result. Hmm interesting points of view. OR I agree with some of those points, but disagree with others.
NOT A BIT OF IT. Straight off im accused of posting Russian propaganda. That the program filled with American political commentators, journalists and analysts are playing the Russian tune. How unbiased is that ?
To be informed, you must first agree to be informed.
One can’t say “perhaps you’d…” then ask “why is that?” Unless, one is, perhaps just firing non-sequiturs and straw men around while dancing on the head of a pin.
First show us a US paper or news channel(mainstream) saying that American influence in the Ukraine and eastern Europe is utterly wrong.
The Ukraine the US and Russia are all signatories of the 1994 Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurance which was largely about getting rid of bunch of ex-soviet weaponry but also asserts and protects Ukrainian independence and which Russia failed to adhere to when it invaded in 2014.
Trying to now assert that US influence in the area is "utterly wrong" when it was instrumental in getting rid of hundreds of nuclear weapons post the fall of soviet Union seems a wee bit un-historic?
Perhaps you would like to see them imprisoned Thols. Or worse. Taken off to some cia torture center for people who disagree with the regime.
Why is that
What the hell is that supposed to be? I'm adamantly against journalists being imprisoned, same goes for people who criticize their leaders. That's why I'm glad I live in a liberal democracy where it's safe to do those things, unlike Russia or Syria where they get you imprisoned or poisoned. Keep in mind, you've expressed admiration for the leaders of those two countries so the only person who has expressed any support for totalitarian policies is you.
So, how about explaining how you do the mental gymnastics to overlook the Syrian government's use of chemical weapons on civilians and come out expressing admiration for their success in the Syrian civil war?