ChatterBank3 mins ago
'news' What The Hell Are We Watching?
All channels have been working all day on horror scenarios of total East/ West Armageddon and despite the facts that Trump is now wobbling, and the Syrian forces have now control of Ghouta, they continue, all based on completely uncorroborated mobile phone pics of children being splashed with water. Pathetic attempts by Sky News to conflate this imaginary to the chemical weapon attack with the Salisbury caper.
Sky anchor, Dermot Murnaghan dons an overcoat, scarf and gloves and pretends, against a filmed background, that he is in Red square, with nothing to say in relation to him being there, instead talks about events in London, in fact he goes "over to" the real Moscow corespondent who I think really is in Moscow but he doesn't seem to know where she is.
Sky anchor, Dermot Murnaghan dons an overcoat, scarf and gloves and pretends, against a filmed background, that he is in Red square, with nothing to say in relation to him being there, instead talks about events in London, in fact he goes "over to" the real Moscow corespondent who I think really is in Moscow but he doesn't seem to know where she is.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Khandro. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
MSM = mainstream media
The Americans are possibly/probably going to retaliate/attack (depending on POV), we are almost certainly going to support them if they do, and efforts are taking place to ensure that this does not result in escalation. But those efforts may fail, and that is what is concerning people.
The Americans are possibly/probably going to retaliate/attack (depending on POV), we are almost certainly going to support them if they do, and efforts are taking place to ensure that this does not result in escalation. But those efforts may fail, and that is what is concerning people.
Here's a turn up for the books, I find I'm agreeing with The Morning Star, Jeremy's favourite journal;
“Today, the pretext for escalating Britain’s military involvement in Syria is that the Assad regime — the internationally recognised, legitimate and elected government in Damascus — is guilty of a poison gas attack on the citizens of Douma. Film of the aftermath, broadcast across the world in recent days, shows a troupe of very camera-conscious young men washing down the victims, all of whom are children, most of them looking more bewildered than wounded or incapacitated, and without a distressed parent or relative in sight.”
“Today, the pretext for escalating Britain’s military involvement in Syria is that the Assad regime — the internationally recognised, legitimate and elected government in Damascus — is guilty of a poison gas attack on the citizens of Douma. Film of the aftermath, broadcast across the world in recent days, shows a troupe of very camera-conscious young men washing down the victims, all of whom are children, most of them looking more bewildered than wounded or incapacitated, and without a distressed parent or relative in sight.”
There are a lot of moving parts here, involving Syria, Russia, USA, Iran, Palestine, Hezbollah, Israel, Saudi Arabia, UK, France, etc. ...
Keeping it simple, if we say there are two sides, "our side" and "the other side", then from our side's POV the other side has used chemical weapons against its own people and that needs to be punished/prevented from happening again; from the other side's POV we are looking for excuses to bomb them and weaken the axis of power that (among other things) makes Israel feel threatened. So Corbyn, in getting involved, is drawn back towards the Jewish debate, and what side does he find himself on again?
Keeping it simple, if we say there are two sides, "our side" and "the other side", then from our side's POV the other side has used chemical weapons against its own people and that needs to be punished/prevented from happening again; from the other side's POV we are looking for excuses to bomb them and weaken the axis of power that (among other things) makes Israel feel threatened. So Corbyn, in getting involved, is drawn back towards the Jewish debate, and what side does he find himself on again?
You might say, "They would say that wouldn't they", but it seems highly plausible to me at least, and certainly insufficient evidence on which to base WW3;
https:/
https:/
You don't know what you're talking about khandro, with the greatest of respect.
A newspaper that purports to speak for the oppressed and the poor, casually dismissing a war crime as a set-up, when it cannot possibly have any reason to do so other than hated of "western imperialism" is not worth using as bog roll.
I was a useful idiot once (maybe not all that useful)
No longer
A newspaper that purports to speak for the oppressed and the poor, casually dismissing a war crime as a set-up, when it cannot possibly have any reason to do so other than hated of "western imperialism" is not worth using as bog roll.
I was a useful idiot once (maybe not all that useful)
No longer
I can tell you what we're not watching,
https:/
Some poor intern will lose their job in the morning. ;)
https:/
Some poor intern will lose their job in the morning. ;)
Avatar Image scooping
'Khandro. If you really think there wasn't a chemical weapons attack in Syria you must be barking bonkers, as must the others on this thread.'
No need to be rude, scooping. Whatever you think you know, trust me, you know nothing.
You're entitled to an opinion, as is khandro.
How about sharing the reason you 'know' this gas attack was real.
Then one of you might be proved right in time.
'Khandro. If you really think there wasn't a chemical weapons attack in Syria you must be barking bonkers, as must the others on this thread.'
No need to be rude, scooping. Whatever you think you know, trust me, you know nothing.
You're entitled to an opinion, as is khandro.
How about sharing the reason you 'know' this gas attack was real.
Then one of you might be proved right in time.
"The latest nonsense from the Kremlin is that there WAS a chemical attack (so presumably the Morning Star is wrong) staged by Britain"
just as in your other attempt to pervert the facts today i.e. " A few weeks ago the head of the Russian armed forces himself actually stated that Stria was planning a chemical weapons attack. Why he did that is not clear. "
https:/
the Russians are claiming that there was no REAL chemical attack, only a claimed {staged} one.
just as in your other attempt to pervert the facts today i.e. " A few weeks ago the head of the Russian armed forces himself actually stated that Stria was planning a chemical weapons attack. Why he did that is not clear. "
https:/
the Russians are claiming that there was no REAL chemical attack, only a claimed {staged} one.
I’m afraid he did do just that seven. But it was the rebels he was accusing. So actually it’s almost not worth reporting.
One minute the Kremlin says there was no gas attack, then they say there was but it was:(insert as appropriate)
I doubt if they much care that they contradict themselves. The aim seems to be cause confusion and delay (in the words of the Fat Controller)
The facts are clear tho in the midst of all the crap
One minute the Kremlin says there was no gas attack, then they say there was but it was:(insert as appropriate)
I doubt if they much care that they contradict themselves. The aim seems to be cause confusion and delay (in the words of the Fat Controller)
The facts are clear tho in the midst of all the crap
Latest Posts
ChatterBank9 mins ago
Reeves Is Now After Your Pension Funds
News11 mins ago
News12 mins ago
He's Already Talking About A 3Rd Term.
News18 mins ago
ChatterBank25 mins ago
