Reply With QuoteBarry, you need to go away and sit down with a cup of tea and have a good long hard think about what issues you want to discuss and debate about, in a political forum devoted to debate and discussion.Originally Posted by Barry Dragon
| + Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
You think they can admit it before they found out, before they even funded them? No its not going to be 4 years ago, I have seen it on TV in the last year.
Barry, you need to go away and sit down with a cup of tea and have a good long hard think about what issues you want to discuss and debate about, in a political forum devoted to debate and discussion.
Well I won't go anywhere near the Daily Mail for a kick off.
Truth is, I have yet to find a source of media devoid of bias, and to be quite honest, I have neither the time or sufficient interest to conduct my own research.
What I will argue though, is that while I have some sympathy with your suspicion of mainstream news I would also question the integrity and impartiality of the links you refer to. Let's look at the ones you referenced above.
"Uprootedpalestinians" Yep, I'm sure there's no anti-Israel bias there at all
"whatsupic" - Can't find anything about them, but their homepage is dominated by Anti-Israel rhetoric
"aanirfan" - Another blog, seemingly dedicated to conspiracies (I'm beginning to see a pattern here)
"rt.com" - A Russian website, founded by Vladimir Putin's press secretary. Again, perfectly neutral and impartial
"mintpressnews" another former blogger turned news site, produced by bloggers, with it's funding undisclosed and previously criticised for it's pro-assad agenda.
You appear an intelligent(ish) man SD, but you also appear to be blinded by prejudice, fueled by others' prejudices, you abhor mainstream media, yet take the word of unaccountable, unverified bloggers, with not very hidden agendas, as gospel. Just because their views fit with your own. You rely on these links like a man with a broken leg relies on a crutch.
Most of post nonsense occasionally, but you do it all the time, you are a single-issue poster, nothing football related and it's getting boring. Like spam in my inbox, needs to be ignored.
The issue is about Western involvement in Syria, pure and simple. Either you have countervailing evidence which casts doubt on the veracity of the links which have been provided, in which case I'll read them, or you don't.
It's not complicated.
John Pilger gives an interview on the subject and Vladmir Putin has also addressed it to a roomful of international journalists. Both links are there for you to read and watch.
Is what you post political? I would say barely and thats being generous.
You just have to look at the replies you get to say that you dont exactly put forward a debate, and I never see you debate with people who debate with you. You either throw away what they say, or change the topic completely.
I think sir you need to heed your own advice.
John pilger seems to suggest that the suppressive government in iraq libya and syria are a good thing? Would you agree. I agree what we have is a very undesirable situation, but is leaving a government to kill people at will for any reason a good thing. John seems to suggest the countries were fine before we got there. I dont think thousands being killed for little misdemeanors or having a different opinion is a great country!
And with regard to your OP, Do you want to post comment about the possibility that there is an agreement between syria and the UK for grounds troops?
John pilger seems to suggest that the suppressive government in iraq libya and syria are a good thing? Would you agree.
I've been to all three of those countries and they had functioning governments excellent social and education systems, along with relative security for their inhabitants.
Were they perfect models of democracy? No but then so what. They're complete basket cases now as a result of Western intervention, invasion and one-sided wars.
I agree what we have is a very undesirable situation, but is leaving a government to kill people at will for any reason a good thing. John seems to suggest the countries were fine before we got there. I dont think thousands being killed for little misdemeanors or having a different opinion is a great country!
This is pure nonsense. It's very simplistic and sounds good as part of Western propaganda but the reality is they were stable countries. The only people who left any of them, left for political reasons. The same as happens in the Gulf Region.
And with regard to your OP, Do you want to post comment about the possibility that there is an agreement between syria and the UK for grounds troops?
We have had a PM demanding that Assad must go! Britain is no friend of the Assad government, if it was you wouldn't have had Cameron bleating on about the mythical '70,000 moderates' that deserve our support.
The UK ground troops in Syria comes from a BBC article. As Splotty doesn't believe a word the BBC says, how come this is different?
twas in the daily mail too
Multiple sources have quoted it TB. The point being is that we have no right to be there. It's an incursion into a sovereign territory. It's not like it was some kind of hot pursuit from Jordan across poorly defined border regions in the desert.
We are aiding Jihadists against the legitimate government of Syria. What if the Syrian government started to aid terrorists who wanted to carry out attacks in Britain by way of retaliation?
Like gaddafi?
It might well be listed in numerous places, but the photos are obtained by the BBC. So why do you believe the BBC this time?
Here Sputnik News reference it
http://sputniknews.com/military/2016...ops-syria.html
They clearly say "Photographs obtained by the BBC"
I'm only interested in why you believe these photos are genuine?
"Photographs obtained by the BBC" is an attribution only. They could have been purchased by the BBC. Have a word with City photographer Carl and he'll explain all about how his photos of City games don't always get attributed to him by msm.
The BBC operates at the behest of the state pure and simple. We saw it at the time of the attack on Libya also on Iraq. The BBC did not dissent from the government line at the time. True journalism is about questioning government not cosying up to them, or worse still, just regurgitating press statements left right and center.
Who knows why they've chosen to show photographs that are almost two months old now. We can only speculate at this stage. there was an interview as well which accompanied the photographs. It could be used to prepare the public for the idea of larger forces being sent into Syria. At this stage we don't know.
Whatever the reason their very being there is illegal and could be construed as an act of war by the UK against the state of Syria. One thing's for sure they're not there assisting the Syrian government. They're not there by invitation as the Russians were.
What was not to like?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJURNC0e6Ek
He's likeable now.
The thing is you seem to be just accepting that these photos are real and so is the story. The BBC are the ones saying they "purchased" them. How do we know that is the truth, and it's not just released by the BBC? Has anyone admitted to selling them to the BBC?
If we are to agree that the BBC are a government mouthpiece or at least cosy up to the government. What is to suggest that these haven't been deliberately released by the government, but they aren't really the truth? Who knows what the agenda could be?
You seem to have just accepted they are real, with no evidence other than the BBCs word that they "purchased" them.
As you've said, the BBC aren't trustworthy so why are we trusting them on this issue.
Too many questions about an unknown "purchase" to believe this story, for a person such as yourself who always checks the sources of the stories.
The thing is you seem to be just accepting that these photos are real and so is the story. The BBC are the ones saying they "purchased" them. How do we know that is the truth, and it's not just released by the BBC? Has anyone admitted to selling them to the BBC?
If we are to agree that the BBC are a government mouthpiece or at least cosy up to the government. What is to suggest that these haven't been deliberately released by the government, but they aren't really the truth? Who knows what the agenda could be?
You seem to have just accepted they are real, with no evidence other than the BBCs word that they "purchased" them.
The BBC purchase lots of things TB including independently produced programmes and photo-journalist's shots which are of interest to them. You'll recall that Richard Gutjahr explained that he gave 80 live broadcasts and then copyrighted his pictures. Don't take my word for it, speak to Carl down the City.
We live in an internet age TB so if they were not real the news of it would be all over the alternative news websites by now.
As you've said, the BBC aren't trustworthy so why are we trusting them on this issue.
I said no such thing. You're doing it again.
Too many questions about an unknown "purchase" to believe this story, for a person such as yourself who always checks the sources of the stories.
There is an absence of any credible countervailing claims with regard to these photos.
Have we finished with this now TB?
https://www.rt.com/uk/355369-sas-marines-syria-isis/
Now you are talking nonsense. If these photos aren't real they'd not be rubbished by RT, Radioislam, PressTC, Sputnik etc as it suits their agenda.
How does anyone counterclaim anything if it's just been made up.
Come on, you often say to research your own sources. You've no idea if these photos are genuine or if the BBC really bought them. You believe they are as it suits your viewpoint.
That's fine, but at least admit you are happy to trust the BBC as a source and not be so quick to dismiss them next time someone uses them.
Now you are talking nonsense. If these photos aren't real they'd not be rubbished by RT, Radioislam, PressTC, Sputnik etc as it suits their agenda.
You're doing it again.
How does anyone counterclaim anything if it's just been made up.
Really? Look at the counterclaims for the SITE beheadings.
Come on, you often say to research your own sources. You've no idea if these photos are genuine or if the BBC really bought them. You believe they are as it suits your viewpoint.
RT have moved the story on now TB
That's fine, but at least admit you are happy to trust the BBC as a source and not be so quick to dismiss them next time someone uses them.
I will continue to look at msm on a case by case basis as I have always done, thankyou.
Maybe Russia bombing the same base that has been used by UK special forces and the news today that hundreds more marines will be sent, may make some ask why we and parliament have not been asked about this?
http://www.anonews.co/russia-us-base/
https://www.rt.com/uk/355369-sas-marines-syria-isis/
As I said, it's believable when you like the story and worthy of contempt when you don't.
So you agree that they're there.They shouldn't be as they're uninvited and now it looks as if we're sending Royal Marines to train Jihadist head chopping mercenaries, who change their name by the month.
What could possibly go wrong..?
Where did I say I agree they are there?
It's hard to know what sites to trust, I think it's easier to find out which ones you don't trust first, if you have ever wondered why I'm not a fan of the BBC here is one of the many reasons, Panorama's 'Saving Syria’s Children' I have followed this story from the night it was on tv as I felt there were things not right about it, the whole programme felt fake, I must have rewound the part where they enter the room full of bomb "victims" a hundred times because I could not believe what I was watching.
Robert Stuart is a former newspaper reporter, he believes it was fabricated, in his blog you will find all correspondence between him and the BBC, independent reports and commentary, details of FOI requests ect, was it fabricated? take a look and decide for yourself, personally I think it was.
"Fabrication in BBC Panorama 'Saving Syria’s Children'
Analysis of the 30 September 2013 BBC Panorama documentary 'Saving Syria's Children' and related BBC News reports, contending that sequences filmed by BBC personnel and others at Atareb Hospital, Aleppo on 26 August 2013 purporting to show the aftermath of an incendiary bomb attack on a school in Urm Al-Kubra are largely, if not entirely, staged." https://bbcpanoramasavingsyriaschildren.wordpress.com/
Posting Permissions
