ISIL, ISIS, Daesh discussion thread.

RaohNS · 21 Sep 2016 at 12:08

b0redj0rd said:
I find myself agreeing with you for the most part RaohNS. However Russia and the Ukraine/MH17 ......

https://www.bellingcat.com/tag/ukraine/

For me the evidence is conclusive regarding Russian troops.

I don't doubt there is troops there, but thousands? Really?

Again, with the situation in the Ukraine it comes back to who started it all. There we know it was the US. Hence why we have Poroshenko in charge.

I'm still unpersuaded on the MH17 tragedy. In fact having looked for the link I cannot find sadly, but the Ukrainians released a tape allegedly showing rebels celebrating the downing of the jet. The problem being the meta data showed the file was created the day before the incident took place.

scorza · 21 Sep 2016 at 12:10

Mr Jack said:
No. Just no.

RT is a state media outlet that exists to put Putin's desired narrative out there. That's the entire reason it exists. The BBC is a publicly funded media outlet. These are not the same thing at all.

The BBC isn't the best news source in the world, and has got a lot worse over the last ten years or so, but it's still far, far less biased than RT.

Agreed - this is a classic inability to think hierarchically i.e. Person A has cancer, person B has a cold. Ergo person A and person B are ill.

RaohNS · 21 Sep 2016 at 12:17

Mr Jack said:
No. Just no.

RT is a state media outlet that exists to put Putin's desired narrative out there. That's the entire reason it exists. The BBC is a publicly funded media outlet. These are not the same thing at all.

The BBC isn't the best news source in the world, and has got a lot worse over the last ten years or so, but it's still far, far less biased than RT.

The BBC is state broadcaster too.

The BBC makes money from four sources:

•Roughly £3.7bn comes from a direct tax on UK residents called "The licence fee".
•Roughly £1.0bn comes from the BBC's commercial businesses
•Roughly £0.2bn comes from direct government grants, mostly from the FCO (the government department that protects British interests worldwide) for the running costs of the BBC World Service radio network

No, the BBC is one of the most biased new outlets anywhere in the world. We know this from both empirical study (LSE and impartial journalistic outlets investigations) and we know they had a clear bias to remain (because they also received money from the EU).

We also know there is a clear anti-Russian government stance and they have been repeatedly found lacking there. They also failed to adequately report Tory Election Fraud. They also gave about 10 seconds airtime after the GE of mass protests.

Lets not forget... They were also the mouthpiece for justification for the Iraq war. So lets leave bull**** at the door on this particular point.

ThestigGT999 · 21 Sep 2016 at 12:19

http://arbolioto.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/why-russia-today-is-beating-bbc-and.html

RT >>>>>>>>> BBC

RaohNS · 21 Sep 2016 at 12:38

ThestigGT999 said:
http://arbolioto.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/why-russia-today-is-beating-bbc-and.html

RT >>>>>>>>> BBC

+1

KillBoY_UK · 21 Sep 2016 at 12:40

RaohNS really does sound like a employee of 'Internet Research Co'

RaohNS · 21 Sep 2016 at 12:53

KillBoY_UK said:
RaohNS really does sound like a employee of 'Internet Research Co'

It goes:
Evan
Crazy
Me

RoboCod · 21 Sep 2016 at 13:06

RaohNS said:
Its been posted above by other posters as well as backup from RT, who more people are starting to trust btw.

Citation needed, because well, you're entitled to make up you own opinion but not your own facts.

You do understand that just because a few posters post the same thing (that they all sourced from RT) and then use RT further as confirmation that the RT report makes the RT report fact, it actually doesn't, right? That would be like saying the Bible must be fact.

I clearly know more than you Robo with: Russia bomb anything and everything"

Again, facts vs opinion.

Also yes, Russia bomb anything and everything - yes they do, they do not differentiate between militant groups such as ISIL and rebel factions. They bomb either, so long as it supports dictator Assads cause. So yes, anything and everything... Which leads to the suggestion that they struck the convoy (probably by accident) not so inconceivable.

But we don't know who did it conclusively to the aid workers do we? So far the best if the evidence seems to suggest ISIS.

Citation needed. Another clue: I'd try use something other than RT for citation for once.

Can I just ask: What group currently operating in Syria and Iraq has previously and repeatedly killed aid workers?

ISIL. The group we're fighting.

I rest my case

Pathetic.

RoboCod · 21 Sep 2016 at 13:08

KillBoY_UK said:
RaohNS really does sound like a employee of 'Internet Research Co'

The amusing thing is, he believes his opinion actually matters and has some bearing and implication on world affairs.

RaohNS · 21 Sep 2016 at 13:22

RoboCod said:
Citation needed, because well, you're entitled to make up you own opinion but not your own facts. You do understand that just because a few posters post the same thing (that they all sourced from RT) and then use RT further as confirmation that the RT report makes the RT report fact, it actually doesn't, right? That would be like saying the Bible must be fact.

See post http://arbolioto.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/why-russia-today-is-beating-bbc-and.html

One down.

Robo said:
Again, facts vs opinion.

Also yes, Russia bomb anything and everything - yes they do, they do not differentiate between militant groups such as ISIL and rebel factions. They bomb either, so long as it supports dictator Assads cause. So yes, anything and everything... Which leads to the suggestion that they struck the convoy (probably by accident) not so inconceivable.

Lets test your assertion.

When did Russia (who twice now according to you bomb anything and everything) bomb Machu Picchu? When did they domb the Eiffel Tower? When did they bomb Pluto?

You do know Russia is there by request and not by the post of world police yes?

Two down.

Robo said:
Citation needed. Another clue: I'd try use something other than RT for citation for once.

No problem:
www.mtv.com/news/2075206/american-aid-worker-isis
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29195872 <--- had to get a BBC one just for you

Plenty more of them.

Robo said:
ISIL. The group we're fighting

And the group we are aiding too by "accidentally dropping weapons" to :rolleyes:

. And happen to be bombing their forces and who knows with the next Wikileaks we may just see the US knew they were sending weapons bound for ISIS.

Robo said:
Pathetic

Just watch out as Russia may be bombing the pixels in screen next :rolleyes:

RaohNS · 21 Sep 2016 at 13:24

RoboCod said:
The amusing thing is, he believes his opinion actually matters and has some bearing and implication on world affairs.

Lol sure I believe that :rolleyes:

KillBoY_UK · 21 Sep 2016 at 13:25

RoboCod said:
The amusing thing is, he believes his opinion actually matters and has some bearing and implication on world affairs.

Maybe, it was just a opinion I don't really care if you, me or anyone else think it matters. If I said anything more it would have been pointless anyway lol.

Rroff · 21 Sep 2016 at 13:30

RaohNS said:
Lol sure I believe that

It is funny some people's perception of comments that are just an opinion or merely shooting the breeze. I seem to wind certain people up who seem to be challenged by my posts despite generally I'm just "shooting the breeze" rather than trying to be a know it all or whatever that they perceive.

Mr Jack · 21 Sep 2016 at 13:46

RaohNS said:
The BBC is state broadcaster too.

No, it's not. It's a publicly funded broadcaster. These are not the same thing. The absolute critical difference is that a publicly funded broadcaster has independent editorial control.

No, the BBC is one of the most biased new outlets anywhere in the world.

Do you see that dot on the horizon? The one so small you have to squint at it? That's reality waving at you from afar.

RaohNS · 21 Sep 2016 at 15:19

Mr Jack said:
No, it's not. It's a publicly funded broadcaster. These are not the same thing. The absolute critical difference is that a publicly funded broadcaster has independent editorial control.

Do you see that dot on the horizon? The one so small you have to squint at it? That's reality waving at you from afar.

Schooling Lesson 1:
The BBC is not 100% publicly funded:
The UK government give £200m to the BBC as evidenced. So its not publicly financed in entirety (again as per evidence). The BBC has an agenda as is plain to see. RT interesting allows editorial independence, George Galloway for example and then Max Keiser. There's another bloke on there who is very right wing.

Don't take my word for it: BBC Owner: Government of the United Kingdom Number of Employees 20,951

Have to laugh at earlier comments about me schooling anyone anytime and you've had it done twice by me in the last week

I can give you another example of the BBC. The HSBC scandal where billions were being defrauded from the UK coffers, me and very likely scorza were reading about that 3days before it broke the news. I remember very clearly going on there after reading it to find nothing. Then the same the next day and the day after... Then it broke.

The reason it took so long? The chairwoman of the BBC also sat on the board of HSBC... Conflict of interest... 100%.

That dot is actually planet earth to you Jack :cool:

winwin · 21 Sep 2016 at 15:23

i think all news agents are somewhat biased but bbc is one of the few that dont obscure the facts and do have some extent of fact checking and that is good enough

RoboCod · 21 Sep 2016 at 15:54

Rroff said:
It is funny some people's perception of comments that are just an opinion or merely shooting the breeze. I seem to wind certain people up who seem to be challenged by my posts despite generally I'm just "shooting the breeze" rather than trying to be a know it all or whatever that they perceive.

Lol, there's people's perception and then there is RaohNS and his posts. Delusions of grandeur certainly come to my mind. On the contrary though, less am I 'wound up' but more bemused and bewildered by the estranged viewpoint and outright blind fanboyism of Russia, Putin and anything team Ruski. The smug demeanour of an 'I-told-you-so' poster when they cite a news agency with a strong political agenda as if it is gospel along with a persistent knee jerk scramble to defame the west at any opportunity is all pretty bizarre behaviour. He makes a consistent and relentless effort to achieve the latter daily on these forums! :confused:

So no, I wouldn't say RaohNS winds me up but in fact it intrigues me just how unintriguing and weird that behaviour is... It's like discussing matters with someone who is completely of blind faith and able to consider any other stance. It's actually quite dull!

As for yourself I agree, as you suggest, you come across as wanting to shoot the breeze about certain topics i.e. you don't seem like a lunatic.

RaohNS · 21 Sep 2016 at 16:02

RoboCod said:
Lol, there's people's perception and then there is RaohNS and his posts. Delusions of grandeur certainly come to my mind. On the contrary though, less am I 'wound up' but more bemused and bewildered by the estranged viewpoint and outright blind fanboyism of Russia, Putin and anything team Ruski. The smug demeanour of an 'I-told-you-so poster', when they cite a news agency with a strong political agenda as if it is gospel along with a persistent knee jerk scramble to defame the west at any opportunity is all pretty bizarre behaviour. He makes a consistent and relentless effort to achieve the latter daily on these forums! So no, I wouldn't say RaohNS winds me up but in fact it intrigues me just how unintriguing and weird that behaviour is... It's like discussing matters with someone who is completely of blind faith and able to consider any other stance.

As for yourself I agree, as you suggest, you come across as wanting to shoot the breeze about certain topics i.e. you don't seem like a lunatic.

Awww that's nice. :cool:

The difference is I don't take this place half as serious as many of the posters on here.

Mr Jack · 21 Sep 2016 at 16:14

RaohNS said:
Schooling Lesson 1:
The BBC is not 100% publicly funded:

You really are hard of reading aren't you? Can you point to anywhere I said it's 100% publicly funded? No, because I didn't.

The UK government give £200m to the BBC as evidenced. So its not publicly financed in entirety (again as per evidence).

That would be.... public funding :rolleyes:

When you can't even understand really basic things like the difference between a state broadcaster and a publicly funded broadcaster it's no wonder you spout such an unending stream of drivel.

KillBoY_UK · 21 Sep 2016 at 16:15

RaohNS said:
Schooling Lesson 1:
The BBC is not 100% publicly funded:
The UK government give £200m to the BBC as evidenced. So its not publicly financed in entirety (again as per evidence). The BBC has an agenda as is plain to see. RT interesting allows editorial independence, George Galloway for example and then Max Keiser. There's another bloke on there who is very right wing.

Don't take my word for it: BBC Owner: Government of the United Kingdom Number of Employees 20,951

Have to laugh at earlier comments about me schooling anyone anytime and you've had it done twice by me in the last week

I can give you another example of the BBC. The HSBC scandal where billions were being defrauded from the UK coffers, me and very likely scorza were reading about that 3days before it broke the news. I remember very clearly going on there after reading it to find nothing. Then the same the next day and the day after... Then it broke.

The reason it took so long? The chairwoman of the BBC also sat on the board of HSBC... Conflict of interest... 100%.

That dot is actually planet earth to you Jack

When RT was created over HALF its budget came from the russian state directly with the rest publicly at 30million this year the russian state has given it 300 million with next to nothing commeing directly from the public. Is rarely critical of it self or Putin and his government

To you this is not state funded to you.

The BBC is 74% funded by the public via the licence fee, with just under 5% is from government grants (but is being phased out) with most of the rest commeing from the sale of programs and advertising out ouside of the UK. BBC is critical of it self and the governments of the time ,heck the current government and conservatives hate that fact its mostly public funded.

To you its a state broadcaster.

You must be off your nut.

You have nothing critical to say about RT or the Russian government (funny that) but yet love to be critical of the west, the UK, the bbc and the US.