We’re bombing Syria

  • Thread starter Thread starter mat
  • Start date Start date
Homar said:
You do realise that ISIS is not the only entity able to monitor the actions of the US military in Syria...

Did you honestly expect the US to hold their hands up and admit culpability?!?!
Click to expand...

I can’t find anything that suggests they used it for anything bar smoke shields / flares. But no where near people.

And for phosphorus to be considered a weapon it has to be targeted at people.
 
Homar said:
I could throw that same point back at you with regards to the alleged use of chemical weapons in Syria. At least the Syrians have admitted the OPCW to allow for an impartial investigation. The US just issues a denial and then no further questions or actions, despite video evidence which would be extremely difficult to fabricate.
Click to expand...
Syria admitted the OPCW 11 days after the event giving themselves plenty of time to remove the evidence and threaten anyone who might have considered speaking out.
 
Don't use the BBC as gospel. These cu@ts are taxing you for propaganda. Sky news is a fucking joke. Is that media c@nt who did the Mccann case still about?
 
kiam06 said:
Our diplomacy with the middle east is usually on the instruction of our American, Israeli or Saudi friends and it goes a bit like 'give us what we want or we will sanction you then attack you
Click to expand...

This is incorrect.

You don't seem to be a student of Middle Eastern history so I'll tell you something.

We invented the Middle East.
 
goater555 said:
Don't use the BBC as gospel. These cu@ts are taxing you for propaganda. Sky news is a fucking joke. Is that media c@nt who did the Mccann case still about?
Click to expand...

Take the BBC as close to gospel as they have the strictest journalistic standards of any organisation in the entire world.

If you don't trust the BBC, you don't trust journalism and should stick to getting news from Facebook and memes
 
Damocles said:
Take the BBC as close to gospel as they have the strictest journalistic standards of any organisation in the entire world.

If you don't trust the BBC, you don't trust journalism and should stick to getting news from Facebook and memes
Click to expand...
are you off your head the BBC are a disgrace , if you want a view of the Middle East use a media that does not have a vested interest. China would be a good start, but do you really want too see American oppression off the Middle East
 
salfordbluetrue said:
are you off your head the BBC are a disgrace , if you want a view of the Middle East use a media that does not have a vested interest. China would be a good start, but do you really want too see American oppression off the Middle East
Click to expand...
Yes China are renowned for their free press. Smh.
 
salfordbluetrue said:
are you off your head the BBC are a disgrace , if you want a view of the Middle East use a media that does not have a vested interest. China would be a good start, but do you really want too see American oppression off the Middle East
Click to expand...

You've never read the Chinese press have you?
 
salfordbluetrue said:
are you off your head the BBC are a disgrace , if you want a view of the Middle East use a media that does not have a vested interest. China would be a good start, but do you really want too see American oppression off the Middle East
Click to expand...

China?

Fuck me off topic is being taken over right now lol
 
grunge said:
Unfortunately this doesn’t seem to be taking off, had high hopes for it.

https://en.m.wikinews.org/wiki/Main_Page

I had a similar idea for an app but collating stories is the issue.
Click to expand...

Well no.

The issue isn't collating stories. It is recognising that writing any sort of report is not possible without bias. Therefore you need multiple layers of checks and oversight to ensure that the bias of the reporter and editor is phased out. Which is why those organisations with the high levels of oversight into bias such as the BBC are ultimately the most trustworthy whereas those with the least like jumped up blogging sites of Guido or Canary are pointless.
 
Damocles said:
Well no.

The issue isn't collating stories. It is recognising that writing any sort of report is not possible without bias. Therefore you need multiple layers of checks and oversight to ensure that the bias of the reporter and editor is phased out. Which is why those organisations with the high levels of oversight into bias such as the BBC are ultimately the most trustworthy whereas those with the least like jumped up blogging sites of Guido or Canary are pointless.
Click to expand...

Sorry I kinda went off on a tangent with out explaining.

My idea was to have the story with links to every version of that story found from around the world, with references to source matetials etc, bit of a news now but a few notches on.

That way if you are interested in the story you can have a single point you can go to and link to those varying views.

Wiki news if it took off should have in theory done similar with the reference section and what you read should be a reasonably unbiased view, but being “edit by anyone” it’s inherently iffy.

I fully agree that valid news sources are usually the best, my main issue with the bbc ( and I’m a big defender of the bbc ) is selective reporting.


We need the news like they have in the news room show.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top