Cyprus-Forum.com

[Robin Hood]

LondonRake:

Well, it's really a matter of your concept of objectivity and a balanced view.

Obviously very different from yours?

I merely point out that you seem to dismiss the Amnesty International report out of hand on the basis that........... well, I'm not really sure. On the basis that it doesn't fit in with your personal view of the situation?

You have a way of distorting everything. I didn’t dismiss ...... I questioned, as have many others. If I express a personal view I say so ........

On the other hand you accept and vociferously promote the mere opinion of one man, who was the Ambassador to Syria over a decade ago and has had a somewhat questionable record since, as being gospel. Have I got it wrong? His view appears to be similar to LBJ's "He's (Assad) a bastard but at least he's our bastard".

‘accept and vociferously promote ‘... as I say you have a unique way of distorting fact. ‘being gospel’ note preceding comment. 'mere opinion' same ....... merely adds impact to your opinion! Maybe you should get your eyes rechecked because you have a very one sided view of others posts.

Your regarding Amnesty International's report as "allegations" whilst accepting one man's opinion as "Informed" suggests something a bit less than objectivity. Don't you agree?

They are allegations because they are unverified. I realise verification is not something you pay much store by but he is ‘informed’ and it was stated simply as an opinion with points that were rational.

On what basis does Mr Ford form his opinion? Experience of 10 years ago? On what basis does he dismiss Amnesty International's report? It looks mostly in the vein of "It seems odd". Most of his opinions seem to emanate from the likes of Sputnik, which is a Russian State controlled broadcast outlet of course. IIRC, you earlier poured scorn on the number of people Amnesty International have interviewed; however, it seems to me that you unquestionably accept Mr Ford's sole, speculative view. Isn't that all a bit less than objective? Questions, questions.

He questions the report! Does your previous experience of military stop you using it because it was all some 20+ years since you had any involvement? NO! The report was platformed by Sputnik .... they did not write it! Did you see this mentioned in the MSM? NO! Would you not ‘pour scorn’ on a report where a conclusion was made from just 84 interviews with unnamed people about whom you know nothing, except what they tell you without verification and the author had never even visited the country, let alone the location ? NO! ‘Unquestionably accept' .... did I .... where? I posted it merely as a considered view of someone with credibility, another view, unfortunately opinions that agree with the AI report are as rare as hobby horse sh*t!

As an aside. You frequently talk about the righteousness of Russia's being invited into Syria by the government as the justification and legal foundation for their activities (which you clearly admire). However, in the past you have poured scorn on the USA's record in Vietnam and lauded the North Vietnamese war as being justified. Isn't that somewhat hypocritical with regard to your views of the situation in Syria? Just sayin'

I admire a country and a leadership that complies with International Law and Conventions. A country whose declares themselves ‘exceptional and indispensable’ i.e. set themselves above the rest, does not deserve the same consideration.

Vietnam? ..... "....it will all be over by Christmas" ...... wasn’t that the attitude? The US killed three million in Vietnam alone, without considering those they killed and are still killing, in Laos and Cambodia. They lost 75,000 of their own and then turned their backs on the vets when they returned. But of course you admire the US Administrations without question .... whatever they did!.

Are you not being hypocritical when you condemn Assad for defending his country against a foreign inspired insurgency to topple an elected government. It's OK for the US to have its coalition and allies, but the same does not apply to Syria and Russia? Basically .... whatever you do, no matter the consequences to other Nations, no matter how many people you kill, you are always the good guys no matter what the records show.

I'll leave you and Paphitis to sort it out!

[Paphitis]

peter Ford is actually one of the biggest critics because he actually supports UK ground troops in Syria.

He is criticizing the British Government for not doing enough to oust assad.

Mr Ford said that when the conflict started the UK should have either "put everything, including our own forces on to the battlefield, or if in our judgement – as it would have been my judgement – that was not realistic, refrain from encouraging the opposition to mount a doomed campaign."

He claimed the UK’s tough talk on one hand, followed by little action to back rebels in Syria on the other had preceded a rebellion that had "only led to hundreds of thousands of civilians being maimed and killed".

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 91976.html

What he doesn't understand is the fact that if the Coalition had sent troops on the ground, they would need allies such as some of the rebel groups otherwise it is simply too dangerous. also the Coalition would have to occupy and control the country for a long time until security is re-established and that isn't an easy thing to do when the Jihadists would be fighting every step of the way.

All statements made prior to September 2016, and he has made little comment over the latest revelations from the caesar Report and the Death Prison north of Damascus.

In response to Ford, this is the official statement from the Foreign Office:

A Foreign Office spokesman said: "The UK continues to believe in a Syrian-led political settlement. A political solution and transition away from Assad is the only way to end the suffering of the Syrian people. The Assad regime has the blood of hundreds of thousands on its hands. There is no way it can unite and bring stability to Syria.

Which is spot on.

[Robin Hood]

Paphitis:

(Sir) Peter Ford is actually one of the biggest critics because he actually supports UK ground troops in Syria. He is criticizing the British Government for not doing enough to oust Assad.

So, now you have realised he is not a former Assad henchman he has credibility when he agrees with your opinion but does ‘not understand’ the situation when he doesn’t ..... but you do?

He (Sir Peter Ford) has made little comment over the latest revelations from the Caesar Report and the Death Prison north of Damascus.

Caesar’s claims have been rubbished and exposed as a load of lies, disinformation and just another sensationalist ‘Fake News’ Syrian story; the AI report is going the same way!

[Paphitis]

As I told you, I don't read Sputnik because they are non credible links belonging to the criminal Pootin Government.

It's a propaganda mouthpiece from a country which has no free press like the West does.

Our biggest strength and Achilles Heal.

Anyone who gives Sputnik any credence has rocks in their head!

It's not exactly The Washington Post or New York Times now is it? Papers which have attacked even the US Government with the Greatest investigative journalism on the face of this earth and the best print Journalists in the industry.

If you post links to Washington Post or New York Times, I would read it. I will take it with the seriousness it deserves. Link to Sputnik is a serious FAIL and a big waste of time.

Reading Sputnik is like watching North Korean State TV. At least North Korea State TV is actually quite funny though and entertaining.

[Robin Hood]

As I told you, I don't read Sputnik because they are non credible links belonging to the criminal Pootin Government.

It's a propaganda mouthpiece from a country which has no free press like the West does.

Our biggest strength and Achilles Heal.

Anyone who gives Sputnik any credence has rocks in their head!

It's not exactly The Washington Post or New York Times now is it? Papers which have attacked even the US Government with the Greatest investigative journalism on the face of this earth and the best print Journalists in the industry.

If you post links to Washington Post or New York Times, I would read it. I will take it with the seriousness it deserves. Link to Sputnik is a serious FAIL and a big waste of time.

Reading Sputnik is like watching North Korean State TV. At least North Korea State TV is actually quite funny though and entertaining.

Boy oh boy ..... you really are in a different world ..... they have reeled you right in! I thought you said you were an expert analyst? You carry on reading the WP and NYT and I expect you also watch CNN and FOX news for The Truth?

[Londonrake]

I'm not going to point-by-point. Life's too short.

Twist, turn, wriggle and obfuscate as much as you wish, however:

You dismissed what most people regard as an internationally respected organisation's report on its investigation into alleged barbarous acts in a Syrian Government prison - out of hand. Scornfully in fact. Conversely, you accept the word of somebody who was something in the country over a decade ago - implicitly. Calling him "Informed" and presenting his opinion as a dismissive counterweight to AI's investigation. Common sense dictates that, given events in that country during the past decade, the man can't possibly be any more informed than you and I, for instance.

You make the case that Russian involvement is legal because the recognised government in Syria invited them in. Then, in almost the next breath, you reject what happened in Vietnam, when an internationally recognised country legally invited the US in. "Are you not being hypocritical when you condemn President Thieu for defending his country against a foreign inspired insurgency (Vietcong) to topple an elected government".

That's not a defence of the Vietnam war and I've no wish to get into an in depth "debate" on that conflict. I merely highlight how to yourself in one case it can be entirely right but in almost the exact same situation, but one which currys no favour with you, entirely wrong. Then a claim of objectivity is made.

The rest of your anti-US stuff has no bearing on what's being highlighted in these posts. My attitude to the US is misrepresented but in any case that's not the issue here. As much as you apparently might wish to make it so.

You talk of "International Law and Conventions" however, they don't apparently apply in the Ukraine or Georgia where you have previously defended President Putin's actions. That, despite the fact the aforesaid laws and conventions have been blatantly broken. There is absolutely no doubt about that. Parts of those sovereign countries have actually been absorbed into Russia. Which is exactly what Hitler did in the Czech Sudentanland and Austria. Another land-grabbing dictator who's excuse was the same - to "protect" his countrymen in minorities there. I appreciate that has no bearing on events in Syrian prisons but it does, once again, demonstrate how something can be entirely right in support of your view, whilst virtually the same thing is entirely wrong - when it suits.

Sputnik and RT are not impartial. They are State media giants in a country controlled by a ruthless dictator. Moreover, one who spent his time in the KGB intimately involved in propaganda and who furthermore tolerates absolutely no internal opposition or dissent. People have been "gotten rid of" quite routinely - in not insignificant numbers. Kim Jong-un is a rank beginner.To accept verbatim what the likes of RT churn out and then try to sweepingly dismiss absolutely anything that emanates from any corner of the MSM seems a little...................... fill in the blank. But the word objective doesn't fit. I don't think you will find many members who post from the sort of places you frequent and approve of. When RT broadcasts stuff that get's Putin impeached and thrown out, or puts some of the Duma in prison for fiddling their expenses I will take another look. Clearly, the very idea is risible. Meanwhile, they are just State mouthpieces - albeit quite clever ones.

Sorry but we are all human and .............................. you can only watch so many open goals missed.

[Robin Hood]

I'm not going to point-by-point. Life's too short.

Twist, turn, wriggle and obfuscate as much as you wish, however:

You dismissed what most people regard as an internationally respected organisation's report on its investigation into alleged barbarous acts in a Syrian Government prison - out of hand. Scornfully in fact. Conversely, you accept the word of somebody who was something in the country over a decade ago - implicitly. Calling him "Informed" and presenting his opinion as a dismissive counterweight to AI's investigation. Common sense dictates that, given events in that country during the past decade, the man can't possibly be any more informed than you and I, for instance.

AI carry baggage. They have been exposed several times for fake reports and grossly distorted and selective reporting!

You make the case that Russian involvement is legal because the recognised government in Syria invited them in. Then, in almost the next breath, you reject what happened in Vietnam, when an internationally recognised country legally invited the US in. "Are you not being hypocritical when you condemn President Thieu for defending his country against a foreign inspired insurgency (Vietcong) to topple an elected government".

You justify the US supporting Thieu but condemn Putin for supporting Assad ..... is that not hypocritical?

The US also bombed Laos and Cambodia ..... I don't see Russia bombing Jordan, Israel or Turkey! Why not go back to the war of the roses or the Roman Invasion of ancient Britain, I am sure you could justify that and find some aspect that fits your point of view.

That's not a defence of the Vietnam war and I've no wish to get into an in depth "debate" on that conflict. I merely highlight how to yourself in one case it can be entirely right but in almost the exact same situation, but one which currys no favour with you, entirely wrong. Then a claim of objectivity is made.

I don't think I have previously expressed an opinion on the Vietnam War as such ..... because I don't know that much about it!

The rest of your anti-US stuff (but your anti-Russian stuff is OK?) has no bearing on what's being highlighted in these posts. My attitude to the US is misrepresented but in any case that's not the issue here. As much as you apparently might wish to make it so.

Check out who decided to divert the thread from the AI report to a condemnation of Assad and Russi ...... rather that just discussing the validity of the report. But there again the offender always changes the subject .... and I fall for it every time!

You talk of "International Law and Conventions" however, they don't apparently apply in the Ukraine or Georgia where you have previously defended President Putin's actions. That, despite the fact the aforesaid laws and conventions have been blatantly broken. (Really .... try checking it out!)

What rubbish! Georgia was blamed for the war by both the UN and the EU. The Russians did what I hope the British would do for us here under the same circumstances but hopefully before almost a thousand of us are killed!

The same with Crimea! The Russians had a legal agreement with the elected government to have 25,000 military in Crimea, they had 18,000. Crimea was an Autonomous region of Ukraine with their own government, the US installed Ukraine coup government were a threat to both the Russian base and the ethnic Russians in the Crimea. Russia reacted accordingly ..... now tell me the US would not do likewise if its base in Bahrain was threatened in the same way?

What they did wrong was to use their military to suppress the slaughter of the population by an extreme right wing fascist military under the direction of an unelected government installed through a US inspired coup. The rest was the choice of the people through a referendum that got the support of over 90% of the people that voted and the turn out was high .... very high. What happened was at the choice of the people of Crimea, it was not imposed it was their wish. It just happened also to suit Russia but like with the Georgian war, they were not the instigators !

There is absolutely no doubt about that. Parts of those sovereign countries have actually been absorbed into Russia.

Nobody asked those Russians in Crimea who had been there for generations, if they wanted to be Ukraine, it happened over night when Kruschev decided to give them away. Very democratic!

To take a leaf out of your book ..... you don't mention how Israel annexed the Golan Heights in '67 , that was seized by an act of war and has also been declared illegal ......... oh, but that's OK because you support the invader!

Which is exactly what Hitler did in the Czech Sudentanland and Austria. Another land-grabbing dictator who's excuse was the same - to "protect" his countrymen in minorities there. I appreciate that has no bearing on events in Syrian prisons but it does, once again, demonstrate how something can be entirely right in support of your view, whilst virtually the same thing is entirely wrong - when it suits.

Oh NO! Not Hitler again? Pot . kettle . black? Why not chuck in Alexander the Great? I am surprised you didn't manage to fit in The Peace Loving Islamic Republic of Iran and the wicked Palestinians terrorists attacking the poor, continually threatened Israeli's?

Sputnik and RT are not impartial. They are State media giants in a country controlled by a ruthless dictator (he was voted into the Job) . Moreover, one who spent his time in the KGB intimately involved in propaganda and who furthermore tolerates absolutely no internal opposition or dissent. People have been "gotten rid of" quite routinely - in not insignificant numbers. Kim Jong-un is a rank beginner.To accept verbatim what the likes of RT churn out and then try to sweepingly dismiss absolutely anything that emanates from any corner of the MSM seems a little...................... fill in the blank. But the word objective doesn't fit. I don't think you will find many members who post from the sort of places you frequent and approve of. When RT broadcasts stuff that get's Putin impeached and thrown out, or puts some of the Duma in prison for fiddling their expenses I will take another look. Clearly, the very idea is risible. Meanwhile, they are just State mouthpieces - albeit quite clever ones.

You don't like Russia or Putin then? and of course the sort of places you get your news from are absolutely impartial, completely independent, accurate and honest with no hidden agenda? Do you honestly believe that? You should get on well with Paphitis because you both use the same sources for your information.

Sorry but we are all human and .............................. you can only watch so many open goals missed.

I have no idea what you are taking about.

[Londonrake]

Sorry - it's probably very trendy but don't do point-to-point red.

In a nutshell. You're a bloody hypocrite! Now, there's a revelation.

Print that one out.

Go on - you missed me.

[Londonrake]

The ole problem remains unchanged of course. It doesn't matter what's presented to you as evidential. You will just reject it and spout on about "the MSM" or, whatever suits. Telling people how gullible they are. Then you will link to articles in bonkers, anti-western fringe sites like informationclearinghouse or blacklistednews, presenting them as some sort of holy grail of truth. Or (things move on) the latest fad, everything that comes out of Russian State media is clearly gospel.

https://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroo ... ellum.aspx

You can find reams of articles like this. Even your precious UN has condemned it. Although, as with most other things, you will cite resolutions which suit but when it comes to those condemning the likes of Iran or Russia's annexation of its neighbouring countries territory, well, that's different of course. Those resolutions are "unfair"

At least you're learning. You don't seem nowadays to condemn other's references to news articles in the Western press whilst doing it yourself. "I thought you would believe it. Coming from this source."

[Paphitis]

As I told you, I don't read Sputnik because they are non credible links belonging to the criminal Pootin Government.

It's a propaganda mouthpiece from a country which has no free press like the West does.

Our biggest strength and Achilles Heal.

Anyone who gives Sputnik any credence has rocks in their head!

It's not exactly The Washington Post or New York Times now is it? Papers which have attacked even the US Government with the Greatest investigative journalism on the face of this earth and the best print Journalists in the industry.

If you post links to Washington Post or New York Times, I would read it. I will take it with the seriousness it deserves. Link to Sputnik is a serious FAIL and a big waste of time.

Reading Sputnik is like watching North Korean State TV. At least North Korea State TV is actually quite funny though and entertaining.

Boy oh boy ..... you really are in a different world ..... they have reeled you right in! I thought you said you were an expert analyst? You carry on reading the WP and NYT and I expect you also watch CNN and FOX news for The Truth?

Yeh I grew up analyzing Geopolitics but not to question.

Washington Post or NYT don't reel people in. They are the 2 best broadsheets on the planet and famous for their no nonsense reporting. They have also bought down entire US Governments. These papers are written by the people for the people.