Alex 30414 Posted April 17, 2018 Share Posted April 17, 2018 3 minutes ago, Dr Gloom said: i'm exempt, a bit like how black people are free to use the N word Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaddockLad 14593 Posted April 17, 2018 Share Posted April 17, 2018 1 hour ago, Dr Gloom said: @Ant - please can we introduce a three strikes and you're banned policy for anyone who uses the MSM acronym? ta BBC: reporting this morning as fact that it was chlorine gas delivered by a missile into the roof of a building. Robert Fisk in the independant: doctor in the hospital said the foaming mouths filmed was due to oxygen deprivation caused by conventional shelling. Who's right Gloom? Seriously, I have no idea. Am not suggesting conspiracy or false flag or any of that nonsense by the folk on the ground, I just don't know who to trust because reputable journalists and agencies are filing copy that contradicts each other. That'll be the MSM. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 26361 Posted April 17, 2018 Share Posted April 17, 2018 1 hour ago, Rayvin said: What is the point in having a "UN", or the Convention against chemical weapons, if we're simply not going to pay any attention to them? I assume you support the wholesale disbanding of both institutions then? Or do their rules not apply to us, making them instead an tool by which powerful nations keep smaller ones in check? I can't get my head around why so many people think it's acceptable to just fly off the handle like this in response to such things. We are being led by the least competent leaders any of us have ever seen, and we'll criticise them left and right about everything, right up until the opportunity to go and blow up other countries is on the table, and then they have our full, unquestioning, compliant backing. The Russians have used their UN veto to block sanctions on Syria for past chemical attacks. They blocked a proper investigation into the Douma attack. They're pretty much toothless on this issue while Russia are protecting Assad. The UK wouldn't have launched airstrikes without the USA doing the same, it doesn't mean that we did it because the US told us to do so. So what exactly do you think should have happened? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 26361 Posted April 17, 2018 Share Posted April 17, 2018 13 minutes ago, PaddockLad said: BBC: reporting this morning as fact that it was chlorine gas delivered by a missile into the roof of a building. Robert Fisk in the independant: doctor in the hospital said the foaming mouths filmed was due to oxygen deprivation caused by conventional shelling. Who's right Gloom? Seriously, I have no idea. Am not suggesting conspiracy or false flag or any of that nonsense by the folk on the ground, I just don't know who to trust because reputable journalists and agencies are filing copy that contradicts each other. That'll be the MSM. Hmmmm, do we believe the BBC or the guy who backed Bin Laden. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvin 4964 Posted April 17, 2018 Share Posted April 17, 2018 5 minutes ago, ewerk said: The Russians have used their UN veto to block sanctions on Syria for past chemical attacks. They blocked a proper investigation into the Douma attack. They're pretty much toothless on this issue while Russia are protecting Assad. The UK wouldn't have launched airstrikes without the USA doing the same, it doesn't mean that we did it because the US told us to do so. So what exactly do you think should have happened? I think we should have gone through the proper channels and, if the Russians obstructed the process the whole way, allowed that to speak for itself as far as the international community is concerned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 26361 Posted April 17, 2018 Share Posted April 17, 2018 They did fucking obstruct the proper channels! That's my point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meenzer 14055 Posted April 17, 2018 Share Posted April 17, 2018 The MSM agree with each other - bad. The MSM contradict each other - bad. Tough crowd. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex 30414 Posted April 17, 2018 Share Posted April 17, 2018 7 minutes ago, Meenzer said: The MSM agree with each other - bad. The MSM contradict each other - bad. Tough crowd. Like the post-match Trent posse discussing NUFC tbh 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gloom 19826 Posted April 17, 2018 Share Posted April 17, 2018 55 minutes ago, PaddockLad said: BBC: reporting this morning as fact that it was chlorine gas delivered by a missile into the roof of a building. Robert Fisk in the independant: doctor in the hospital said the foaming mouths filmed was due to oxygen deprivation caused by conventional shelling. Who's right Gloom? Seriously, I have no idea. Am not suggesting conspiracy or false flag or any of that nonsense by the folk on the ground, I just don't know who to trust because reputable journalists and agencies are filing copy that contradicts each other. That'll be the MSM. Doesn’t that contradict the whole corporate MSM conspiracy bullshit? Different, ahem, mainstream media outlets quoting a range of different sources? It’s the sources who are providing the conflicting lines. I’d be inclined to believe the beeb. They only report something as fact if it is verified by multiple sources. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 26361 Posted April 17, 2018 Share Posted April 17, 2018 Fisk spoke to one doctor who wasn't there that night on a trip organised by the Syrian authorities. Chances are the doctor is lying/wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaddockLad 14593 Posted April 17, 2018 Share Posted April 17, 2018 28 minutes ago, ewerk said: Fisk spoke to one doctor who wasn't there that night on a trip organised by the Syrian authorities. Chances are the doctor is lying/wrong. Agreed. That's how it comes across the article too. But that's precisely why it should never have seen the light of day in an allegedly reputable publication. That's verging on fake news iyam. Twitter was alive with every fuck nut on the planet quoting Fisk' s piece this morning. The BBC footage was filmed by some Ron Burgandy fucker from CBS. Would you have taken the word of these locals?.. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-middle-east-43796356/syria-war-inside-douma-eastern-ghouta-bombed-city-of-the-chemical-attack Between the two stories there's little to go on and the yank doesn't really question the veracity of what he's being shown. They're just broadcasting "stuff" because they've got airtime to fill. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaddockLad 14593 Posted April 17, 2018 Share Posted April 17, 2018 (edited) 56 minutes ago, Dr Gloom said: Doesn’t that contradict the whole corporate MSM conspiracy bullshit? Different, ahem, mainstream media outlets quoting a range of different sources? It’s the sources who are providing the conflicting lines. I’d be inclined to believe the beeb. They only report something as fact if it is verified by multiple sources. I did state that am not accusing anyone of conspiracy. Am accusing them of filling airtime and column inches with un verifiable guff and just confusing the fuck out of people. Edited April 17, 2018 by PaddockLad 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex 30414 Posted April 17, 2018 Share Posted April 17, 2018 Not that I particularly want to see the victim of a chemical weapons attack but what's the point in showing footage of a bloke looking at blanked out footage? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gloom 19826 Posted April 17, 2018 Share Posted April 17, 2018 14 minutes ago, PaddockLad said: I did state that am not accusing anyone of conspiracy. Am accusing them of filling airtime and column inches with un verifiable guff and just confusing the fuck out of people. that was aimed more at rayvin tbh. in my experience, outlets like the beeb report facts and are trustworthy sources. that goes for most dreaded "MSM' outlets - for them, it's not about being first, it's about accuracy. there's nothing newspapers editors hate more, or reporters fear more, than issuing corrections. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvin 4964 Posted April 17, 2018 Share Posted April 17, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, Dr Gloom said: that was aimed more at rayvin tbh. in my experience, outlets like the beeb report facts and are trustworthy sources. that goes for most dreaded "MSM' outlets - for them, it's not about being first, it's about accuracy. there's nothing newspapers editors hate more, or reporters fear more, than issuing corrections. Re: the BBC, I don't think they lie or are inaccurate. I just don't think they report on everything that they should. Edited April 17, 2018 by Rayvin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 26361 Posted April 18, 2018 Share Posted April 18, 2018 What are they ignoring? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvin 4964 Posted April 18, 2018 Share Posted April 18, 2018 I developed this impression of them when they buried a story about a graphics design company modifying footage of UK forces carrying out some manner of unacceptable action in the Iraq war. I'll try and find a reference to it (I think it was discussed on here at the time). Difficult when the main papers don't carry it though... It's not exactly evidence of widespread bias, but a friend of mine sent me this the other day: https://theintercept.com/2015/10/26/bbc-protects-uks-close-ally-saudi-arabia-with-incredibly-dishonest-and-biased-editing/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvin 4964 Posted April 18, 2018 Share Posted April 18, 2018 I quite like this guy's stuff Broadly my position on it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christmas Tree 3997 Posted April 18, 2018 Share Posted April 18, 2018 Apparently UN coming under fire while trying to get into Douma. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex 30414 Posted April 18, 2018 Share Posted April 18, 2018 8 minutes ago, Rayvin said: I quite like this guy's stuff Broadly my position on it. Aye, that's pretty much spot on tbh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gloom 19826 Posted April 18, 2018 Share Posted April 18, 2018 i like Jonathan Pie. he loses credibility for starting out on Russian propaganda tool RT though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anorthernsoul 1221 Posted April 19, 2018 Author Share Posted April 19, 2018 Oh really.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpaceCadet 5 Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 Cronyism Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex 30414 Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 If it’s true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 26361 Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 I think it is true but I very much doubt whether it was a factor in deciding to take part in airstrikes. It does seem strange though that he's allowed to continue in his role while his wife is PM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now