They're all already budgeted for and bought though aren't they? It's not like we're going to forego building a hospital to buy some bombs.
ISIL, ISIS, Daesh discussion thread.
- Thread starter RoboCod
- Start date
They're all already budgeted for and bought though aren't they? It's not like we're going to forego building a hospital to buy some bombs.
Dubious? Cameron has form for lying to the British public. Tax credits, immigration, 'renegotiating' with Europe and now Syrian rebels.
he basically can't help himself, lying sweaty fat pig ******
I assume you have to replace them though after dropping them. They are by no means free.
The backtracking on the 70,000 number days after the vote would be hilarious if the consequences weren't so high.
I just wish people would be most honest. If you have a hard-on for war then just say so, it's better than trying to paint it as some sort of act of generosity.
Last edited:
Meh, more propaganda.
You don't hear about the numerous hospitals the US has bombed in the last year, it's not important enough to publish in western media.
Yeah propaganda
Coming from the multi-award winning paper which is arguably one of the best if not the best investigative journalism newspapers in the U.K!
Sadly there will be many more like this in the coming months! The death toll of innocents in Syria from western bombings/military action is already about 2,000 and heartless people here seem to think that's except-able
Last edited:
Except you do, the hospital bombing by USA has been all over every news site, in 6 o'clock BBC news etc. Moreover uk isn't the USA.
Yeah propaganda
Coming from the multi-award winning paper which is arguably one of the best if not the best investigative journalism newspapers in the U.K!
That wasn't a link to the Daily Star though?
We learnt after the Falklands that just about every weapon system we had simply failed when we tried to use them in action.
Whatever the outcome of this campaign, the experience will be invaluable for developing new systems - this is the UK, one of our primary exports is weaponry, think of this as a sales pitch and R&D project
Yeah propaganda
Coming from the multi-award winning paper which is arguably one of the best if not the best investigative journalism newspapers in the U.K!
The Daily Mail is quite clearly a biased news source, the spin they put onto every story is obvious, everyone to the Right of Corbyn can see this.
The Guardian is held up by everyone to the Left of Corbyn as some kind of undeniable voice of reason, a fountain of truth, a gift to humanity of compassion and justice.
Whilst anyone with half a brain can quite clearly recognise in it the endless Marxist bias, the frothing social justice warrior censorship and the determined hateful Doublethink that passes for liberalism these days.
The fact that you can't recognise their obvious bias says everything.
Surely they've been there more than 17 seconds? /sarcasm
I did find a Reuters report confirming this, but they did not carry much of the official Iraqi response to it, and mostly glossed over it whilst going to great lengths to explain Turkey's reasons for doing this.
Very provocative act from Turkey, coming hot on the heels of the shoot down of the Russian SU-24. Are they acting purely in their own interests, or does this perhaps now show a pattern of them playing a role set out for them by NATO, to provoke Russia/Assad/Iraq into some kind of retaliation that would be interpreted as an "attack on NATO"? Judging by the justifications for this act set out by Reuters (which most other western media will follow), it's the latter. If it isn't, then Turkey is due very heavy criticism and some form of punishment by fellow NATO countries.
Say what you will about the spin they may or may not put on stories or an agenda they try to pursue, but The Guardian don't generally print crap they can't verify. If they are writing a story that says "this thing happened" then at the base level it will be a truthful story. They aren't the sort of news source that will send anything to the presses just to be the first on something, which is unfortunately far too common in the current era of driving website traffic and getting people linking to your site.
If the Guardian had a Marxist bias then they wouldn't have tried to skewer Corbyn at every opportunity in the leadership campaign. Truth is they don't really believe in anything strongly enough to actually encourage change, the worst kind of fence-sitting status-quo liberalism.
Are you suggesting the daily mail is a left wing paper there?
^No?
Oh I can see the wording may be confusing... I was just pointing out that the right are not as blind to obvious bias as has been suggested, yet the Left seem unaware of the extremes their media promotes.
Last week some leftie group banned a women's Yoga class because it was "appropriating another culture" and this was deemed insensitive. It had to be renamed "mindful stretching" instead.
No one appears to question this idiocy?
There is one difference between the two, the comments section of the DM generally just echoes the journalistic line, but the comments section of the Guardian often rips into the writer.
So online at least, the Guardian does have more critical readers.
Oh I can see the wording may be confusing... I was just pointing out that the right are not as blind to obvious bias as has been suggested, yet the Left seem unaware of the extremes their media promotes.
Last week some leftie group banned a women's Yoga class because it was "appropriating another culture" and this was deemed insensitive. It had to be renamed "mindful stretching" instead.
No one appears to question this idiocy?
There is one difference between the two, the comments section of the DM generally just echoes the journalistic line, but the comments section of the Guardian often rips into the writer.
So online at least, the Guardian does have more critical readers.
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 37,798
- Location
- block 16, cell 12
The free Syrian army has been decimated and not much remains.
They did use tactics of firing missiles at Damascus from schools and hospitals.
They blow up mosques and say it was assad's forces behind the attacks
http://www.********.com/view?i=c63_1353633490
If you are moderate you probably fled the country or kept your head down and didn't join the gas to begin with.
We are being lied to people.
They did use tactics of firing missiles at Damascus from schools and hospitals.
They blow up mosques and say it was assad's forces behind the attacks
http://www.********.com/view?i=c63_1353633490
If you are moderate you probably fled the country or kept your head down and didn't join the gas to begin with.
We are being lied to people.
No most of the population has not fled, it is still in Syria. And most are against Assad. Whether they support jihadist or fsa is irrelevant.
The Assad regime are actually worse than the Islamic State - they just don't film their sadistic torture-executions and upload them to ********, but those affected know what's going on. That's why most Syrians want to get rid of Assad before they tackle IS. I'm not convinced that Assad is no threat to the West either - all these Arab strong-men leaders seem to embrace the jihadi cause when it suits them e.g. lots of jihadis were allowed to travel through Syria to Iraq to fight coalition soldiers there - I bet Assad could have stopped that if he'd have wanted to.