Robin Hood wrote:I don't see the point in your post! Other than criticism, it conveys nothing of significance. It is not the source that is significant but the news and information they convey and with all the sources you list, most often a lot of '
inconvenient' information is not reported.
Why no critique of the OSCE report I have posted on several occasions on here? It is because it is entirely fact based and from an official source with International accreditation. '
THEY" cannot counter the facts because they know they would lose the discussion ......... so it gets ignored instead. So the masses go on believing the convenient part of the story.
I am currently watching SKY News with some US Generals plying what can only be described as almost pure propaganda! An example "
Russia launched an unprovoked attack, on Ukraine ....... A PEACEFUL NATION" ....... he just forgot they had been at war with their own people, and with help from the US, ...... for over eight years before Russia stepped in and that was after trying to get a negotiated settlement through the MINSK Accords for
ALL of thos eight years! That never gets a mention does it?
I recently posted a fully factual explanation of just that ....... based on what the UN Charter and International law says ....... all the things your media does not explain to you ..... I assume it was a case of TLDR as you made no comments on it?
Good evening. Hope you and yours are well.
As far as Mr Lordo is concerned there's a long history. I would ask you indulge and ignore my responses to the man. Trust me - he has it coming.
I have to disagree with your view that it's not the source of news that matters. Moreover, I think somebody that posts scathingly about the Western MSM, particularly the BBC, then uses them as his main source of supporting articles is nothing more than a rank hypocrite.
I've lost count on this thread of people's comments that the western MSM, in its enormous diversity, is.............. fill in the blanks with a huge variety of contempt. Basically, anything they have to say is totally unacceptable. To say this article is OK but that one not is little more than a licence to distort to an agenda and basically a having your cake and eating it situation. Reminiscent of when I asked GR, who was invariably scathing about the BBC, whether he thought an expose they were publishing about alleged SAS atrocities in Syria was not proof of an element of impartiality. His response was of course that it was correct and acceptable but generally the organisation was "criminal" (a favourite word of his).
Some time ago it became apparent to me that the war in Ukraine is likely to be protracted and bloody. I suspect it could go on for years. Not least because Mr Putin is in essence "all in". His personal survival dependent on some sort of redemptive outcome. The West allowing him to overrun Ukraine seems equally unthinkable. I have always thought that Russia would win. Having said that I ask what "Win" means? What would occupying a country of 40 million who've had the sort of pyrrhic devastation of the past year inflicted upon them result in? It would be enormously expensive an occupation and an endless counter-insurgency situation. Surely?
There's also been a tendency to get rid of anybody who disagrees with the pro-Russian agenda. I said some time ago that the objective seemed to be to reduce the thread to a small number of people exchanging supportive views/links. The only real opposition has been Paphitis, with his occasional visits and blitz postings. Even he is a "NATO cheerleader" that some would like to see the back of. Surely from "Russian cheerleaders"? Personally, I find he livens the discussion up quite a bit. RW tends to post Ukraine supportive stuff but he never seems to defend them. His views come across as ambivalent. So, the situation I envisaged seems to be coming about.
Despite all that Blah, Blah and put simply - what would be the point of posting on this thread?
