Cyprus-Forum.com

[Robin Hood]

LR

Nevertheless, you seem hell-bent on taking the usual road. Insults and slurs such as "you do waffle" ................

Sorry to hurt your feelings but you do waffle! Reading some of your posts one could be forgiven for thinking it had been written by Jacob Rees Mogg, with its impeccable grammar, punctuation and the use of ‘big’ words but when you read the whole ……… it actually conveys nothing other than your own personal opinion of another poster who has upset you.

.................,and your oft expressed opinion that ex-Forces people are nothing more than mentally robotic, unthinking automatons. You've known me off-forum and I'm genuinely not sure why you say things like that. Other perhaps than to provoke and attempt to impress - for the audience.

I say that because anyone with common sense would make a similar observation ...... but of course the way you express your perception is suitably distorted/embellished to make a suggestion like that as something personal. But it isn’t JUST the British Forces that suffer this problem as I have explained to you or at least tried to. The definition of ‘brainwashing’ gives any intelligent person with an ability to analyse, the basis for using the term with such collective authorities.

In a previous post of yours you once again expressed what is your opinion:

Haven't watched the video (yet) but have to say I am no more a fan of Clayton than many of the other "independent" (independent usually meaning fanatically anti-west) sites you've promoted over the years.

That is a blanket opinion of sites you have never been to and a slur on those who you don’t even know, that refer to articles on those sites.
Whereas if you actually go to those sites and read the articles .......... they are usually the same as you read in the Telegraph, Guardian, NYT, WaPo etc ...... with one difference. The authors often provide more detail and put back into the MSM story all the bits that are missed out or maybe edited out, as being antithetical to the MSM collective take on the incident.

An example: (Going on memory) A few months ago the Russians attacked an old people’s home and killed several pensioners. This ‘brutalty and total disregard for civilians safety’ was splashed all over the headlines, every one condemning the Russians and accusing them of trying to cover it up by not admitting they did it.

24-48 hours later ........ the Russians admitted they shelled it and killed the pensioners .......... along with a few hundred Ukraine Military personnel that had moved all the old people out and moved themselves in, knowing the Russians would not attack and old people’s home.
But the Russian’s were aware of what Kyiv had done as it has happened numerous times in the past months. Some old folks refused to go and some were too ill to go. But guess what ...... that bit of the story never made the MSM at all ..... let alone the headlines.

That is why Kyiv’s forces have been identified by Amnesty Intl. as being the main cause of death and destruction among civilians in the conflict because they found a lot of evidence to indicate this ‘hiding behind civilians’ is common Ukraine practice. That report from AI did make the MSM ..... but it was covered in respect to Zelenskey flatly denying the content of the report and the team being anti-Ukraine and under threat from Russia.

This week the Amnesty report was in the Daily Mail again, but not as an example of the reason for civilian casualties ...... but because Zelenskey is still bitching about it and has demanded it be withdrawn!

Around the same time the ‘Russians brutally attacked’ the old people’s home, a Kyiv forces missile landed in the centerof Donetsk, a shopping and commercial area, killing 27(?) and injuring over 50 civilians seriously. But guess what ...... that story never made the MSM at all ..... let alone the headlines. But there were dozens of videos and reports on these ‘fanatically anti-west’ independent news platform’s ..... like Redacted. Without such sites, where anyone can cross check the credibility and sources with the links to other sites ....... we would all be as badly informed as people like you and your mate Paphitis.

I could provide dozens of similar examples of Western hypocrisy when it comes to very selective reporting but it would be like casting pearls before swine.

[Lordo]

This is something I picked up when working for the military. It says it all.

Our's is not to reason why
it is to do and die

LR's need to constantly attack the poster instead of what is being posted is because he does not understand. I will never forget when he was waiting for Bafiti to log in to see what he says. As if Bafiti is some guru on anything. Calling Bafiti a village idiot is insulting all the village idiots.

[Londonrake]

RH.

Forgive my cherry picking but it's indicative that you talk about my "waffling" in what must be a 500 word response. Moreover, covering a number of diverse subjects.

Do you not see that:

"I say that because anyone with common sense would make a similar observation ...... but of course the way you express your perception is suitably distorted/embellished to make a suggestion like that as something personal. But it isn’t JUST the British Forces that suffer this problem as I have explained to you or at least tried to. The definition of ‘brainwashing’ gives any intelligent person with an ability to analyse, the basis for using the term with such collective authorities." ...............................could pretty much be regarded as "waffle"?

No, you don't "hurt my feelings". Nice try with the JRM slur.

Nevertheless, I find your regular derogatory posts about ex-Forces people (not to mention their wives) - well - as anyone would expect me to I think. You're a man who certainly knows how to hold a grudge.

You make an issue regarding the expression of opinion. As though it were some sort of transgression. Isn't that though the core of any discussion forum? Are we to stick to exchanging links and discussing their content? Preferably among people of like-minded - well.................... opinion? Despite having no experience you recently talked in sneering terms about Cranwell (it's the RAF's Initial Officer Training outfit) , expressing some. Agreed?

A repeated mantra of yours has always been that people's views should be contemptuously dismissed if they don't meet your own particular set of rules. You attempt to move any discussion into an area bounded by your own criteria. Where those particular rules must be observed. That's absurd. It's a trap! Welcome to the real world.

No - mine isn't "blanket" opinion (pervasive word) of sites I have never been to. I watch quite a few of the videos, (I even used to watch GR's! ) which I suspect is more than some. I still actually look in at the ole favourites you introduced me to. "Blacklisted news" "Moon of Alabama" etc. There's no shortage of such sites - recently Redacted - and the thing absolutely all of them have in common is they're stuffed to the gunwales' with anti-western articles and nothing else. Mostly written by people who have no more contact with real-world events than you or I nowadays. People with nothing more than keyboards and PCs. Or, the likes of Ritter and Macgregor, who trade upon long-past military experience to promote particular (quite remunerative) "opinions". In essence preaching to the converted.

All the claims the like of who bombed a baby-bottle factory, or children's' hospice is part of the daily propaganda grist of modern warfare. As far as I'm concerned though it all boils down to the undeniable fact that half a million Russian troops have invaded and set about destroying a neighbouring country in an effort to absorb it (well, nowadays parts of it). That isn't just opinion. Ultimately, it boils down to whether a person thinks that's in some way justified or abhorrent.

You can see the drift of these exchanges. Yes? Remember. You wanted it that way.

[Londonrake]

This is something I picked up when working for the military. It says it all.

Our's is not to reason why
it is to do and die

I'm surprised at the idea you could ever manage to "pick up" anything TBH.

It's a line from the Lord Alfred Tennyson poem written in 1854 about the Charge of the Light Brigade and has as much bearing on us,160+ years later as your earlier idiotic effort with Rudyard Kipling's poem.

Anyway, it actually goes:

“Theirs not to make reply. Theirs not to reason why. Theirs but to do and die.”

I wouldn't have expected you to get it right because - as always - you won't have actually looked into it and understood. To you it probably just seemed like a great soundbite that would go down well with "the boys". Bahhhhhhh!

You're an idiot. One who suffers from an irresistible compulsion to prove it.

[Londonrake]

Do you realize that the vast majority of your posts is all about manners, behavior, and persona analysis?

Welcome to the club.

LR is like a Pitbull with it's teeth pulled out. He can't do no harm.

LR is so persistent in his ways, he is likely to gum you to death, even without teeth or dentures!

It makes you a "hypocrite", did you forget?

What the fuck does this mean you idiot?

Sorry to hurt your feelings but you do waffle!

Trust me (that'll be the day! ) There's a lot more

[Pyrpolizer]

These are minuscule reactions to what you constantly and exclusively do.

[Lordo]

There are assholes in the world that just have to keep trying to look smarter but in fact they have a potato on the shoulder

A friend of mine had a T-shirt with this on it.

Ame mavro yirevge
Gatse dje mayirevge
Goutcha dje gologouthgia
Nafan da gobellouthgia

A smart arse TC friend of mine decided to tell us that it was not complete and that it had two more lines in it. All my Greek Cypriot friends commented that those four lines is what they knew too. Never heard the rest before.
So here we are asshole is trying to prove that he knows better. I merely repeated what I heard and many times not once.

Go figure. Get a fuckin life man. Whether you are right or wrong who gives a fuck?

[Robin Hood]

LR .......

Forgive my cherry picking but it's indicative that you talk about my "waffling" in what must be a 500 word response. Moreover, covering a number of diverse subjects.......................waffle, waffle, waffle...................... You're a man who certainly knows how to hold a grudge.

If I held grudges .... I would not be ‘talking‘ to you! If you want examples of holding a grudge, I suggest you read your own posts!

You make an issue regarding the expression of opinion. As though it were some sort of transgression. Isn't that though the core of any discussion forum? Are we to stick to exchanging links and discussing their content? Preferably among people of like-minded - well.................... opinion?

An expressed opinion is fine when it has some credibility, which is usually attained by referring to facts to support it. Among just the ‘like minded’ .......... any dialogue would soon die ..... as there would be no dissent among ‘like minds’ only enhancement to what they knew to be fact!

A repeated mantra of yours has always been that people's views should be contemptuously dismissed if they don't meet your own particular set of rules. You attempt to move any discussion into an area bounded by your own criteria. Where those particular rules must be observed. That's absurd. It's a trap! Welcome to the real world.

You mean ‘dismissed’ as you do? In my ‘real world’ the rules I followed were the fundamental rules of physics. Questioning those is something you don’t do. Laws like ....... Newton’s Laws of Motion, Ohm's Law, Bernoulli's Principle, Archimedes Principle, Coulomb’s Law, Pascal’s Law, , Boyles's Law etc. There is something else you cannot change and they are the facts! You can eliminate the effects of the facts by leaving them out of the equation ........ but the facts are still there no matter what you say or do. I still follow those priciple'sand use facts as the basis for my views.

This is where this sort of rhetoric goes so badly wrong ..........

There's no shortage of such sites - recently Redacted - and the thing absolutely all of them have in common is they're stuffed to the gunwales' with anti-western articles and nothing else.

That is your opinion because you are ‘stuffedt to the gunwales’ with anti Russian propaganda articles that print only half the story by eliminating inconvenient facts!

As I previously advised you ....... these independent platforms you dislike so much, most often just put back into the story ...... all those FACTs your sources like to leave out or play down as being Russian propaganda! Put the facts back in and you get a different picture. But you don’t like that picture, so you attack the sources and those members that reference them because all you can do to uphold your opinion is to ignore the facts, also referred to as being in denial.

This is a thread on Ukraine. I could explain by listing all the FACTS about this conflict starting from 1991 to the present, that are all fully verifiable but that you are in denial of ....... but I won’t waste my time explaining to someone who will not read it anyway.

[Paphitis]

Pyro.

Perhaps you don't realise, but you tend to deal in what comes across as attempted, intimidating bully boy stuff. Do you think it works?

Here we go again, another persona analysis. Give me an example to substantiate your claim.-->

It's dead simple. You can try but ultimately can't have your cake and eat it. Either Ritter and Macgregor are "brainwashed", as it seems all ex-military are, or they're not. Ipso facto, perhaps it might be so that neither are the others. To argue otherwise is simple hypocrisy.

Oh here's your example, ending with your favorite characterization "hypocrisy". Hey dude, show me where did I ever claim that ex/or currently serving military people are all brainwashed. So sorry but once again you seem.... confused .

Despite your obfuscation there remains - after 3 weeks - on what I regard as the ridiculous suggestion by Clayton Morriss, on Redacted, that the Russian Defence Ministry claim hundreds of top Ukranian and NATO military were wiped out in a bunker near Kyiv - not a shred of supporting evidence from a credible source. I was earlier open to any such but it seems the claim is total bollocks and - NATO it isn't quite finished yet. Despite the fact it really has yet to arrive in the Ukrainian conflict.

Like I said the Russian MoD is an absolutely credible source. Just take my advice and stop looking for "credible" sources in Western media concerning such sensitive issues. Remember when a long time ago, I told you the Russian MoD said they were in the process of modifying Belarus'es war planes to carry nukes, and you wouldn't beleive it because there was nothing in any "credible source"? Well, eventually, after so many months, the "credible sources" had no other choice but to let it out, when this "old news" was all over the place, after Putin's and Lukashenko's joined statement.

Earlier, the so-called Pentagon papers were being contemptuously denounced in here as an amature attempt at disinformation. It seems, much like the Western MSM, some parts of it are acceptable, some not.

They have NOT been contemptuously denounced in here. Confused.... again???

Paphitis is no more my "poodle" than Kicks/RH is yours (or vice-versa).

Really? When did I ever looked forward for anyone's "special way of dealing with things", instead of doing it myself, like you do with Paphitis? Count the number of times you did that. Probably once every 2 posts, especially in the last few weeks.


My view - sorry to bore - is that what Putin has done in Ukraine is abhorrent. Despite all the propaganda BS, there's absolutely no justification for it and to "cheerleader" (your expression) such- particularly from a comfortable, remote location in the West - is morally reprehensible. Whilst I support Ukraine's struggle I am not as "Gung-Ho" as Paphitis. I do think you overdo the "bitch" thing. That's all they're locking on to. It tends to detract from the many hard-hitting points you make about the conflict................... Just sayin'

You are always entitled to your opinion, just like myself when opining 100% in favor of Mother Russia.

The debate about Nuclear Power was ongoing in Australia for years, even before Australia signed the AUKUS Deal.

Prime Minister Abbott wanted to do it when he was PM and was against the deal with France, and after Turnbull lost the election, AUKUS was instigated by Australia and not the US or UK. It was Australia who approached the UK first, as BREXIT was occuring, and the British were already in favour of it and not just that but there were negotiations between Australia, Canada, New Zealand, USA and UK to inaugurate CANZUS. This is still ongoing. The idea is that these countries would almost politically amalgamate with 1 foreign policy, common trade, free movement and permanent residency for all as well as working rights. A bit like EU but to go 1 step further to include a near amalgamation of these 5 countries militarily and economically.

Then, for an entire year, Australia and UK were negotiating or had approached USA. The deal between them was completed in secret until it was made public and on that day, Australia announced that the French Deal was cancelled.

The reason why it was cancelled is because it was decided a long time ago that conventional submarines no longer achieve Australia's strategic aims as its submarines need to cover vast distances and blockade maritime choke points and also have the capabiulity to attack foreign cities at long range - by using long rage sub launched Tomohawk Missiles and also be capable of launching hyper-sonic missiles as well (still under development).

8 of these Submarines will be built in Australia as well, by an Australian Onwed company and which has been building submarines and ships for 40 years.

The agreement will consist of stop gap US made California Class Submarines. Then, they will build the next generation which will replace the California Class. Australian Submariners are already manning US Nuclear Submarines as we speak.

I knew the French Deal was going to be cancelled at least a year before it was official. The writing was on the wall. The French were not meeting Australia's demands and for a very long time, Australia appeared outwardly very disinterested in the deal and the project so much so, the entire program was stifled to obliteration.

Then for a very long time, defence experts and even retired officers of the Royal Australian Navy would be interviewed on TV and call the project a "waste of time" and a "waste of money" and that Australia could have California Class Submarines off the shelf at half the cost - which is true. A better sub and for less money.

I knew Australia was getting the California Class right there. And it mnakes perfect sense.

Submarines are of prime importance to Australia. In fact they are the spearhead of our capability should all hell break loose. It's the most important weapon as far our military planners are concerned. And the future generation submarine will have a Vertical Launch Capability as well.

Nothing was forced on Australia. We wanted Nuclear Powered submarines 10 years ago. Maybe even more. Everyone in the Defence Department wanted them and the capability is considered to be super critical to the Australian Defence Force. The reason, Australia wants a deterrance and the ability to conduct a devastating Naval Blockade in South East Asia where commercial shipping will be targetted at various choke points towards Australia's sea lanes and trade routes, and also have the capability to launch missile strikes into enemy cities at least 3000 kms away, if necessary.

[Paphitis]

The other reason why AUKUS was announced is because the US new Pootin was on the warpath and they already new at the time that Russia was building up its military presence on the Ukrainian border and they also knew that Russia was going to invade Ukraine.

And the other concern was Chy-na moving on Taiwan.

Australia also knows it is in the cauldron in the Asia Pacific. We actually welcome the Ameriikans and the British with open arms, and we want the Americans and we would love to have the British in Australia as well. And not only this but we also welcome the French to Australia as well, and Australia would like a bigger French presence in the region and both Australia and France do have very strong military ties as Australia is extremely well equiped to be able to quickly deploy a rapid response task force to French Controlled Territories and Colonies should the need arise.

Logistically, Australia is able to deploy thousands of troops very quickly on territories anywhere in the South Pacific and Indian Ocean.

This is not a mistake and very much part of Australia's and Fance's joint bilateral ties.