- Tue Apr 17, 2018 8:42 am
#540224
Two aspects of their demographic I guess; people pivot one way on Russia, or another, but Corbyn will always be loathed, I suspect.
This stuff is fascinating, looked at in the context of the current political discourse about truth.The Red Arrow wrote: ↑Tue Apr 17, 2018 8:41 amIf the first casualty of war is truth, perhaps the time has come to ask who's bullshitting who?
Make your own minds up...
which includes an interesting and seemingly impartial report from OAN (no, me neither).
Eh, in the event it turns out this occasion wasn't a chemical attack, surely May can just turn around and say "well, they'd done it before, so..." and everyone carries on as normal.Daley Mayle wrote: ↑Tue Apr 17, 2018 11:17 amI saw bits of May's performance in the HoC and thought she made a pretty good fist of it and wondered whether this might be her Maggie's Falklands Moment. However, if can't be proven to be a chemical attack then a Blair's Balls-up beckons.
I must be a bad person because I really hope it's the latter.
visage wrote: ↑Thu Apr 12, 2018 9:54 amIt wouldnt surprise me if the same thing happens here. Tell Putin that we're going to attack, and he cant stop us, but it would great if you made sure your troops werent in area X so we dont accidentally start WW3.Safe_Timber_Man wrote: ↑Thu Apr 12, 2018 9:29 amI don't think it would be out of the realm of possibility that a fairly non-lethal show of force was agreed between Trump/Putin to please the masses, on that occasion.
Putin then tells Assad, so we end up not really acheiving anything at all.
I cannot begin to express my hatred and loathing for these people, how dare they live here enjoy the benefits of living in a free society and seek to deny to others those same benefits they take for granted.Academics at some of the UK’s top universities pushing pro-Assad propaganda have been accused by parts of the Syrian community of “peddling conspiracy theories” and “whitewashing” war crimes.
The Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media (WG) has been set up by a number of left-wing professors to examine the “role of both media and propaganda” and provide “reliable, informed and timely analysis for journalists, publics and policymakers”.
Although in its infancy, the group’s published material as well as public posts by its members have already drawn accusations of circulating Islamophobic tropes and “wilfully ignoring the depravity of the regime”.
Two of the academics in particular, Professor Tim Hayward of Edinburgh University and Professor Piers Robinson of the University of Sheffield, promote the work of a fringe group of bloggers and activists who have been accused of spreading false information about the Syrian civil war, which is now in its eighth year.
No what a ridiculous questionAre you motivated entirely by hatred?
Really and no one else does that on hereJust asking, because your entire raison d'etre seems to be establishing your moral superiority over people out of punching range.
Andy my problem is they're are denying Syrians the benefits of a free society by their support of Assad.For me, one of the benefits of a free society is plurality of opinions. Not just what's socially acceptable. After all, one can always disagree.
Do you honestly see them having such a thing, in the event Assad is binned off? Some kind of "third times the charm!" thinking after Iraq and Libya?Littlejohn's brain wrote: ↑Sun Apr 22, 2018 11:24 amAndy my problem is they're are denying Syrians the benefits of a free society by their support of Assad.
Raqqa is one example of the prolonged siege warfare that has dominated the wars in Syria and Iraq. The opposing forces have varied from city to city but they include the Syrian and Iraqi armies, the Kurdish SDF, IS, the Syrian non-IS opposition, Iraqi Shia paramilitaries and Hizbullah. In every case, ground troops have only been able to win with the backing of airpower, artillery and advisers most usually supplied by the US-led coalition or Russia. Whether the fighting was in Ramadi and Mosul in Iraq or Aleppo and Damascus in Syria, the way the sieges were conducted was similar. Few combat troops were used: no side could afford heavy losses in street battles with a well-trained enemy. The attackers relied heavily on shelling and bombing to clear the way or to batter the defenders into submission. It was a strategy that always succeeded in the end, but it had the inevitable cost – a cost that governments on all sides invariably lied about – of causing great destruction and civilian loss of life. Air forces were in denial or deliberately misleading, pretending that modern high-precision targeting had transformed the nature of bombing. But the ruins of East Aleppo, Raqqa, Mosul and Eastern Ghouta look very much like pictures of Hue in 1968 or Hamburg in 1945