|
Post by oufcyellows on Sept 30, 2015 19:12:59 GMT
But the U.S. had already agreed with Russia that they wouldn't join NATO - an agreement they reneged on. Bit like when Russia agreed that Ukraine could have Crimea and reneged on it !
Russian special forces are fighting in Ukraine under the disguise of armed Rebels, not that much different to USA and uk special forces operations in Syria ? Yet one is is defending its self and the others are trying to gain further interests? Next you will be telling us Russia are protecting their little neighbours . Evidence that perhaps might not have become available had they not gone looking for what they already knew was there? Bit like sir Jimmy, widely know or suspected what was happening over decades, but not until 1 person came forward and lifted the lid on it does the full scale of what had gone on come out. Was there a us conspiracy there as well ? So you expect the Russians alone to honour agreements AFTER they are betrayed? The U.S. has advanced a military and economic alliance to Russia's borders and you expect the Russians to do nothing? Now here's an interesting one, Russia now launching attacks on IS in Syria ! Thought that was just America bringing it might to Russia's border, now it seems the Russians agree . That is of course if they are actually targeting IS and not assads enemies. Dangerous having to super powers doing the same job but not from the same song sheet, won't be long before a blue on blue, with Russia bombing us or uk special forces, or aircraft fighting for space
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2015 19:47:39 GMT
So you expect the Russians alone to honour agreements AFTER they are betrayed? The U.S. has advanced a military and economic alliance to Russia's borders and you expect the Russians to do nothing? Now here's an interesting one, Russia now launching attacks on IS in Syria ! Thought that was just America bringing it might to Russia's border, now it seems the Russians agree . That is of course if they are actually targeting IS and not assads enemies. Dangerous having to super powers doing the same job but not from the same song sheet, won't be long before a blue on blue, with Russia bombing us or uk special forces, or aircraft fighting for space Evidence? Just to save time - a report in the corporate media quoting what anonymous U.S. officials said to Reuters is not evidence in my view. (this is the basis of the story which every media outlet from the WSJ to Al Jazeera has dutifully reported as news) AFAIK no major news agency has any staff in a position to verify the assertions made by the U.S. or the Russian about air strikes in Syria. The Russians say they targeted ISIS positions - but there is there no way of obtaining independent verification of who they attacked or why.
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on Sept 30, 2015 19:51:46 GMT
The French and uk as well as the us have said they did launch attacks, and according to their intelligence there were no IS operating in those areas. But they will examine evidence further. Your very quick to dismiss things with out evidence! Would it be childish if I can ask for some evidence that they didn't ? Also the quote from the Russians that nearly all the free Syrian army has joined IS , seems to imply they are considering them one and the same
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2015 19:52:47 GMT
Now here's an interesting one, Russia now launching attacks on IS in Syria ! Thought that was just America bringing it might to Russia's border, now it seems the Russians agree . That is of course if they are actually targeting IS and not assads enemies. Dangerous having to super powers doing the same job but not from the same song sheet, won't be long before a blue on blue, with Russia bombing us or uk special forces, or aircraft fighting for space Evidence? Just to save time - a report in the corporate media quoting what anonymous U.S. officials said to Reuters is not evidence in my view. (this is the basis of the story which every media outlet from the WSJ to Al Jazeera has dutifully reported as news) AFAIK no major news agency has any staff in a position to verify the assertions made by the U.S. or the Russian about air strikes in Syria. The Russians say they targeted ISIS positions - but there is there no way of obtaining independent verification of who they attacked or why. Evidence? I was watching sky news earlier and......
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on Sept 30, 2015 20:02:07 GMT
Shows video footage of air strikes on sky news app. Pretty evident evidence. If it's from Russia and not generic
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2015 20:27:14 GMT
MarkedOx
The facts speak for themselves but you refuse to address them. You can try to challenge data but FFS you can't just ignore it! You invoke emotional hyperbole (again) but offer no evidence in any form to support the notion of moral or factual equivalence.
I have offered many historical and fact based challenges to your views. You could have responded in kind with factual or historical data but you choose to simply repeat your view.
A repetition and derision aimed at me doesn't repair your failure to offer a reasoned argument with data to back it up.
I know you don't take me seriously and you never did - I suspect you are welded to a fiction and never once considered letting it go.
That's the key difference between us - if you had presented any data worth considering, I would have considered it. Thus far you simply heaped niche views of history one on top of the other - when this is challenged you go deaf.
I am forced to conclude that you don't offer data because you have none and feel threatened by mine.
Try harder! Go and get some actual data and prove me wrong, or at least provide a viable counter-balance to the prevailing anti-American sentiment of the times.
Before you take any reassurance from yellows posting another of his silly pictures seeking to frame me as a conspiracy theorist do remember two things:
(a) that my view is the global mainstream right now - not yours.
(b) I can draw on the work on some of the finest intellectual minds of my generation and a wide body of literature / data. Can you?
Are you sure you're not the deluded crank here?
I await with interest and an open mind.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2015 20:28:40 GMT
Shows video footage of air strikes on sky news app. Pretty evident evidence. If it's from Russia and not generic and you can tell from this footage what the target was? (I haven't seen any)
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on Sept 30, 2015 20:31:58 GMT
That's your job, I put in the initial post "that is of course if they are targeting IS and not just assads enemies !" I have never claimed they are ! They are launching military strikes on foreign soil, something u slate USA for
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2015 20:38:49 GMT
The French and uk as well as the us have said they did launch attacks, and according to their intelligence there were no IS operating in those areas. But they will examine evidence further. Your very quick to dismiss things with out evidence! Would it be childish if I can ask for some evidence that they didn't ? Also the quote from the Russians that nearly all the free Syrian army has joined IS , seems to imply they are considering them one and the same I just asked a question. That's why I do when I watch the news. Don't you? Oddly I don't trust "official sources" feeding stories to Reuters - I suspect the U.S. has a vested interest. (and have been caught lying to the press so often that its almost beyond a joke) and I certainly have zero faith that the corporate media has either the ability or the will to check the facts asserted by either side. As ever I'll seek out a range of views from actual journalists who are actually in there on the ground. In Syria such reportage is hard to find and harder to judge but the effort must be made. Do you know a guy called Ed Vulliamy? Let me jog your memory... The Observer refused to print it, despite Ed submitting it seven times in the run up to the Iraq War. Never trust the corporate media...
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2015 20:39:56 GMT
That's your job, I put in the initial post "that is of course if they are targeting IS and not just assads enemies !" I have never claimed they are ! They are launching military strikes on foreign soil, something u slate USA for What's my job? I just thought you might have had something more than reports from Sky News etc Silly me!
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on Sept 30, 2015 20:46:12 GMT
That's your job, I put in the initial post "that is of course if they are targeting IS and not just assads enemies !" I have never claimed they are ! They are launching military strikes on foreign soil, something u slate USA for What's my job? I just thought you might have had something more than reports from Sky News etc Silly me! Your job to disprove it You just said, there are next to no other sources on the ground in Syria ? So where would u expect little old me to get this inside info from if not the news ? Think your confusing me with a Andy mcnab/ Jason Bourne type
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2015 20:54:13 GMT
What's my job? I just thought you might have had something more than reports from Sky News etc Silly me! Your job to disprove it You just said, there are next to no other sources on the ground in Syria ? So where would u expect little old me to get this inside info from if not the news ? Think your confusing me with a Andy mcnab/ Jason Bourne type So the moral of the story is - only start a discussion with what we can accept with reasonable certainty. Which ain't much in Syria right now. I strongly recommend the message board over at Media Lens. A great source of alternative news coverage and informed media criticism.
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on Sept 30, 2015 20:58:39 GMT
I think I started with prefect certainty, Russia have launched air strikes in Syria , all side agree this is fact! I also mention it may not be IS but fsr they are targeting, this doesn't need fact as its covering both options. And I finish with pointing out the dangers of two super powers operations independently in the same theatre! So your only real issue is either u didn't post it, or I heard about it on the news . So the moral of the story, ur weird
|
|
|
Post by Gary Baldi on Sept 30, 2015 21:11:02 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2015 21:11:33 GMT
I think I started with prefect certainty, Russia have launched air strikes in Syria , all side agree this is fact! I also mention it may not be IS but fsr they are targeting, this doesn't need fact as its covering both options. And I finish with pointing out the dangers of two super powers operations independently in the same theatre! So your only real issue is either u didn't post it, or I heard about it on the news . So the moral of the story, ur weird fair enough. good points - I misread your opening post a bit. I do agree with you about the risks involved.. We risk an all out proxy war which could spiral out of control. We need a peace solution in Syria - not a dangerous escalation. I don't see what the end game is for the western powers yet - I hope it works out better than Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan anyway. and don't forget U.S. weapons are being used for war crimes in Yemen by Saudi Arabia. Halycon days for weapon manufacturers.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2015 21:13:29 GMT
change the title? thanks for the graph - those people do an excellent analysis of the territorial progression on the ground. WHAT a mess it reveals.
|
|
|
Post by Eaststandboy on Sept 30, 2015 21:21:14 GMT
Can we get back to the topic please, by all means create a new thread about Russia
|
|
|
Post by Gary Baldi on Sept 30, 2015 21:22:20 GMT
Any talk of FIFA is done and if anyone tries to talk about it, you derail murph. There is no point in keeping it open is there in that circumstance?
|
|
|
Post by Marked Ox on Sept 30, 2015 22:16:40 GMT
MarkedOx
The facts speak for themselves but you refuse to address them. You can try to challenge data but FFS you can't just ignore it! You invoke emotional hyperbole (again) but offer no evidence in any form to support the notion of moral or factual equivalence.
I have offered many historical and fact based challenges to your views. You could have responded in kind with factual or historical data but you choose to simply repeat your view.
A repetition and derision aimed at me doesn't repair your failure to offer a reasoned argument with data to back it up.
I know you don't take me seriously and you never did - I suspect you are welded to a fiction and never once considered letting it go.
That's the key difference between us - if you had presented any data worth considering, I would have considered it. Thus far you simply heaped niche views of history one on top of the other - when this is challenged you go deaf.
I am forced to conclude that you don't offer data because you have none and feel threatened by mine.
Try harder! Go and get some actual data and prove me wrong, or at least provide a viable counter-balance to the prevailing anti-American sentiment of the times.
Before you take any reassurance from yellows posting another of his silly pictures seeking to frame me as a conspiracy theorist do remember two things:
(a) that my view is the global mainstream right now - not yours.
(b) I can draw on the work on some of the finest intellectual minds of my generation and a wide body of literature / data. Can you?
Are you sure you're not the deluded crank here?
I await with interest and an open mind.
Fantastic. Hahahahaha!!!! Yes, the facts and evidence do speak for themselves but YOU keep ignoring them because they don't come from your crackpot conspiracy theorist sources, or support your viewpoint that it is always the evil US at fault or them playing geopolitical games such as with FIFA. Your 'reasoned' argument involves ignoring anything bad by Russia, China etc or that other sovereign countries can decide their own future regardless of what Russia wants. You rant on and on about the US to the point they are even to blame for Ukraine yet it is the Russian military directly invading killing and persecuting Ukrainians and you blithely ignore this. You either, through delusion or deliberation, ignore that all these countries are at it, not just the US. It is obvious, just look at the Chinese military actions in the South China Sea. All countries are involved in geopolitical games but not in your world, the wonderful world of the conspiracy nut where it is only the US. Can these 'finest intellectual minds' tell the difference between the US, the UN and the EU? Why then haven't you been using this wide body of information/data and these 'finest intellectual minds' if you can draw on them? As an aside, for evidence of Russian airstrikes on non ISIL targets in Syria today, we can thank your favourite Syrian dictator Assad for the info in his Govt's statement. This is in addition to the TV coverage and it being discussed in the UN today.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2015 22:57:05 GMT
Any talk of FIFA is done and if anyone tries to talk about it, you derail murph. There is no point in keeping it open is there in that circumstance? What a misery. cheer up old chap. Think of it as less of derailment - more of an... awning (albeit a spacious one) on the original topic. Do as you please - I care not.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2015 22:59:51 GMT
Oh dear. You lack the intellectual equipment for a reasoned debate - I should have trusted my instinct about that from the start.
Goodbye.
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on Oct 1, 2015 5:44:44 GMT
It's not derailed , I was just taking a long route to sum up my theory that it's not the USA pulling the strings in a massive global conspiracy . anyway back on topic, first game of the new Fifa at the weekend
|
|
|
Post by Marked Ox on Oct 1, 2015 8:12:09 GMT
Oh dear. You lack the intellectual equipment for a reasoned debate - I should have trusted my instinct about that from the start.
Goodbye.
Not at all Mr Myopic. You ignore simple questions and when proven wrong, you just make new baseless claims leaving the debate going in pointless circles. Enjoy being the cheerleader for Putin and the Russians as they kill Ukrainians to maintain their sphere of influence. Goodbye.
|
|
|
Post by Gary Baldi on Oct 1, 2015 8:22:10 GMT
Any talk of FIFA is done and if anyone tries to talk about it, you derail murph. There is no point in keeping it open is there in that circumstance? What a misery. cheer up old chap. Think of it as less of derailment - more of an... awning (albeit a spacious one) on the original topic. Do as you please - I care not. Not at all, just bored by your predictable derailments. This is a FIFA thread and like anything you get involved in, it invariably gets subjugated to certain subject areas. I actually want to talk about FIFA (and its internal machinations), not conspiracy theories of US world domination/soft power. I know it maybe hard to understand, but there is a misc section for misc talk...
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2015 10:39:35 GMT
What a misery. cheer up old chap. Think of it as less of derailment - more of an... awning (albeit a spacious one) on the original topic. Do as you please - I care not. Not at all, just bored by your predictable derailments. This is a FIFA thread and like anything you get involved in, it invariably gets subjugated to certain subject areas. I actually want to talk about FIFA (and its internal machinations), not conspiracy theories of US world domination/soft power. I know it maybe hard to understand, but there is a misc section for misc talk... I doubt you're bored. Provoked and using a put down that gives you a sense of superiority more like. U.S. ulterior motives are at the very heart of the matter. Most of what has flowed from that I have responded to rather than created. Anyway here we have U.S. corporate power at the heart of it all. The only person who could call this a "derailment" is a tedious wonk. www.theguardian.com/football/2015/oct/02/coca-cola-mcdonalds-fifa-president-sepp-blatter-stand-downSo if the cap fits - wear it.
|
|
|
Post by grumpygit on Oct 3, 2015 11:28:48 GMT
What's all this to do with FIFA arrests?
Nice. To hear Sepp has refused to re sign, even though McDonalds, Nike, Coke etc. has sa I'd it would be better if if did.
Sack the the demented t*at.
|
|
|
Post by Gary Baldi on Oct 3, 2015 12:49:10 GMT
He likes the power he gets at FIFA, so won't give it up until he's got every last cent bad person out of it. He can't see the damage he's doing to the game and organisation he claims to love.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2015 21:15:03 GMT
Well, well, well... A coordinated PR stunt by some of FIFA's sponsors - all U.S. companies - gets the rubber ear from Russian and German companies. The French want Platini for obvious reasons - the American's don't. The U.S. have set the hounds on Platini but the French won't buy into it. www.theguardian.com/football/2015/oct/03/sepp-blatter-respite-fifa-sponsorsThe corruption fable loses credibility with each passing hour - this is a power struggle with nations and sponsors taking sides against eachother, pretty much as they do outside of football. How entirely expected. Nobody involved believes this is about corruption for a millisecond - anymore than I do - that line is strictly for the consumers of Sky News etc. The litigation is simply a way to selectively apply pressure. FIFA will end up just as corrupt as what is was before - all that will change are the beneficiaries. A fascinating insight into how the real world works.
|
|
|
Post by Long John Silver on Oct 3, 2015 21:35:36 GMT
Well, well, well... A coordinated PR stunt by some of FIFA's sponsors - all U.S. companies - gets the rubber ear from Russian and German companies. The French want Platini for obvious reasons - the American's don't. The U.S. have set the hounds on Platini but the French won't buy into it. www.theguardian.com/football/2015/oct/03/sepp-blatter-respite-fifa-sponsorsThe corruption fable loses credibility with each passing hour - this is a power struggle with nations and sponsors taking sides against eachother, pretty much as they do outside of football. How entirely expected. Nobody involved believes this is about corruption for a millisecond - anymore than I do - that line is strictly for the consumers of Sky News etc. The litigation is simply a way to selectively apply pressure. FIFA will end up just as corrupt as what is was before - all that will change are the beneficiaries. A fascinating insight into how the real world works.Whom do the US want to benefit from the future corruption?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2015 23:32:56 GMT
Well, well, well... A coordinated PR stunt by some of FIFA's sponsors - all U.S. companies - gets the rubber ear from Russian and German companies. The French want Platini for obvious reasons - the American's don't. The U.S. have set the hounds on Platini but the French won't buy into it. www.theguardian.com/football/2015/oct/03/sepp-blatter-respite-fifa-sponsorsThe corruption fable loses credibility with each passing hour - this is a power struggle with nations and sponsors taking sides against eachother, pretty much as they do outside of football. How entirely expected. Nobody involved believes this is about corruption for a millisecond - anymore than I do - that line is strictly for the consumers of Sky News etc. The litigation is simply a way to selectively apply pressure. FIFA will end up just as corrupt as what is was before - all that will change are the beneficiaries. A fascinating insight into how the real world works.Whom do the US want to benefit from the future corruption? Well if one takes the view that things like the World Cup should be awarded on the basis of things like: The merit of the facilities The benefits to the global development of football The fair sharing of this prestige event amongst FIFA's regions and nations then it would be best if FIFA were free of corruption and/ or undue influence from powerful corporations and individual nation states. The current arrangement is that if one feeds big bribes etc into the right hands at FIFA then maybe... you get a World Cup. Or you get taken. But this led to Russia getting it - so a growling USA has suddenly got very interested in corruption. People friendly to US corporate power at FIFA people will be smiled at and people like Michel Platini attacked. This is a common pattern called 'flak' in Chomsky's 'propaganda model' and its purpose is to create a climate of anticipatory compliance. Corruption will continue of course - but everyone will understand the limits of the new game, who can be ignored and who can't. FIFA will be aligned towards U.S. interests in the future - which is not what it is there for.
|
|