try reading back through the thread you fool.Now we get anti-semitic larouchite scum.
Like Mummy and Daddy's position on Santa Claus and teenage virginity British news media always had flaws. There was not some golden age of utter reliability decades ago.I am struggling to get the gist of your argument here.
You are saying that the foreign office was full of liars, always has been, but that our government narratives are basically trustworthy?
And that the BBC has become less trustworthy now because of the internet?
But that Hitchens is wrong to think that our media is now less trustworthy than in the past?
I honestly do not understand where you are coming from.
Well he's only saying what a majority of Iraqis believe on Uncle Sam and IS according to polling. Not that that makes it plausible.
Soooo...your assertions of what is/isn't "widely accepted" were rather vague and instead of giving specifics you respond with name calling and ask me to wade through a 250 page thread. Okaaaaay...name calling eh? That hardly adds to your supposed credibility, but anyway...
I'm banning you from this thread and if you continue being a board-wide pain n the arse, a total ban will follow.
Go forth and multiply you clown .
all the info you might want is already posted in this thread by myself and others. If you can't be arsed to use the search function I am not running around on your behalf. 
Thank god.
Well, yes, there will be an awful lot of backs waiting to be stabbed, and carpets waiting to be pulled out from underneath, regardless of "accidents"......
Well the Turks have been unsuccessfully trying to eliminate the PKK for decades while the latter has been failing to do much of use to a very durable Turkish state. Erdogan will use such a conflict as a rallying point to consolidate power. It's worked well for him so far.
His faciebie is full of mainly reposts of stuff from Vanessa Beeley, who writes for 21 Century wire; "The best of sharp, intelligent commentary on the things which regularly confuse Wallmart shoppers and CNN watchers..."
From his own blog, he supports the regime on the basis that they are protecting the Christian leaders and that the west support brutal Islamic dictators so why not a secular one. He admits they've committed atrocities but he's being terribly reasonable about it. He also claims to present a wide range of voices, just not wide enough to include anyone that opposes the regime. Other signs that he's entirely Pro-Assad aren't hard to pick out in the blog.Can you be a little more... specific?
I was reading his blog the other day. He seems pretty reasonable.
Can you be a little more... specific?
I was reading his blog the other day. He seems pretty reasonable.
His faciebie is full of mainly reposts of stuff from Vanessa Beeley, who writes for 21 Century wire; "The best of sharp, intelligent commentary on the things which regularly confuse Wallmart shoppers and CNN watchers..."
Turns out the things that regularly confuse Walmart shoppers is mostly the situation in Aleppo, with the odd Pro Putin link thrown in just for variety. I also regrettably looked at that page for too long and discovered "Barrel Bombs!" Is a meme
Aye they went to Aleppo together as well as far I can tell.
Talked to monster - ate his cakes. The idea of them being independent is disgusting.
Indeed. Are you under the impression I was arguing otherwise? Hard to tell
Oh god no, you're a good one.Indeed. Are you under the impression I was arguing otherwise? Hard to tell
His faciebie is full of mainly reposts of stuff from Vanessa Beeley, who writes for 21 Century wire; "The best of sharp, intelligent commentary on the things which regularly confuse Wallmart shoppers and CNN watchers..."
Turns out the things that regularly confuse Walmart shoppers is mostly the situation in Aleppo, with the odd Pro Putin link thrown in just for variety. I also regrettably looked at that page for too long and discovered "Barrel Bombs!" Is a meme
Look who turns up on their feed after a wee scroll down:
View attachment 97923
From his own blog, he supports the regime on the basis that they are protecting the Christian leaders and that the west support brutal Islamic dictators so why not a secular one. He admits they've committed atrocities but he's being terribly reasonable about it. He also claims to present a wide range of voices, just not wide enough to include anyone that opposes the regime. Other signs that he's entirely Pro-Assad aren't hard to pick out in the blog.
So it's nice sectarianism and palatable hypocrisy, not the bad kind.
