[Rds_]

Probably because Syria was invented by Britain and France.

[HP15]

(Original post by Mick.w)
A load of horse ****

How does that tin foil hat feel?

Super?


How does the bile in your mouth taste? mmmm yummy!

[Mick.w]

(Original post by Ferdowsi)
Dude, none of those videos work :O

fixed

[Mick.w]

(Original post by Aj12)
Great a load of youtube videos. just the reply I was expecting

you asked for examples theres sum

[Mick.w]

(Original post by HP15)
How does that tin foil hat feel?

Super?


How does the bile in your mouth taste? mmmm yummy!

who needs to argue when you can try and start a school yard slanging match...

[Rgman27]

(Original post by Aj12)
Great a load of youtube videos. just the reply I was expecting

and all from RT TV and well known reliable sources. You can't go wrong.

Keeping on topic. I am guessing she is a British Citizen. Since, she hasn't apparently committed any war crimes then I don't think really see the problem.

[Indo-Chinese Food]

(Original post by Democracy)
When said person's family are part of the same nepotistic mafia gang that has killed 5000 people since 2011 (and rising), they're very much part of the problem.

Look at how Asma al-Assad's father is linked to the Assad regime and acts as its "gatekeeper" here in London:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011...-uk-gatekeeper

You can't marry a dictator and plead ignorance at the same time.

there is no consistency in such matters - we (UK ) are inviting the Prime Minister of Turkey here - head of a givernment that has killed tens of thousands of kurds in the last few years.

[Aj12]

(Original post by Mick.w)
you asked for examples theres sum

From RT a news channel regularly accused of giving time to conspiracy theories and pro Kremlin propaganda

[Mick.w]

(Original post by Aj12)
From RT a news channel regularly accused of giving time to conspiracy theories and pro Kremlin propaganda

source?

[The_Male_Melons]

(Original post by Aj12)
Less than 2% of our oil as a whole comes from the Middle East. This has nothing to do with oil

Oh please- don't tell me Britain has a moral duty to save Syrians.




I am so bloody sick of hearing such lies.

[Rgman27]

(Original post by Mick.w)
source?

lol. Start with the videos that you posted.

[Rgman27]

(Original post by The_Male_Melons)
Oh please- don't tell me Britain has a moral duty to save Syrians.




I am so bloody sick of hearing such lies.

He wasn't saying it had anything to do with morality. He said it had nothing to do with oil.

[Studentus-anonymous]

(Original post by Ferdowsi)
Why is the United Kingdom allowing Asma Assad and her three children to remain in the UK?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...in-London.html

http://mideastparalleluniverse.blogs...to-london.html

I know she was born and raised in London, but do you think that the UK is as anti-Assad as it claims?

I've highlighted the bit where you've answered your own question.

Even if she was guilty of some crime you still can't be deported. In and of itself being married to an international pariah isn't illegal.

[Aj12]

(Original post by Mick.w)
source?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/18/ar...on/18heym.html

[Mick.w]

(Original post by Rgman27)
lol. Start with the videos that you posted.

first of all i was talking to aj12


secondly he said RT are regularly accused of giving time to conspiracy theories and pro Kremlin propaganda. i asked him to give a source of this. even if he can find proof, proof of an accusation is meaningless.

but then again in the west accusations are as good as "guilty" anyway. just so long as its towards the right people.

so for example the guys who killed steven lawrence have been free for how long? not only that but despite them being able to sentence 2 of the guys the other 3 are still walking around free.

yet Mark Duggan who is dead and unable to defend him self has no criminal record. was found face down and shot in possession of a illegal firearm. witnesses of the shooting are. nowhere to be found... and the guardian declared him a gangster. because they found on his face book that he was "stood in gangster poses" ...

whereas raoul moat and derrick bird were just blokes with guns.

remember black people... if you have a gun... your a gangster. make sure they dont catch you pulling them gangsta poses...

so yea theres an example of prejudice from the media which is just widely lapped up by your kind. accusations are as good as guilty... unless ur british...

[Rgman27]

(Original post by Mick.w)
first of all i was talking to aj12


secondly he said RT are regularly accused of giving time to conspiracy theories and pro Kremlin propaganda. i asked him to give a source of this. even if he can find proof, proof of an accusation is meaningless. .

Look. You can either reply concisely or not at all.

I don't care whether you were talking to him. If you don't want anyone else to reply, then don't post on a public forum and send a private message instead.

As, I said before, if you want the source of RT giving time to conspiracy theories and pro Kremlin propaganda, then you only have to look at your own RT videos that you posted with nut jobs like Webster Tarpley.

[Mick.w]

(Original post by Aj12)
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/18/ar...on/18heym.html

interesting article
the fact that its from the NY times. an american publication could be considered riddled with bias as america is the traditional rival of russia.

personally i dont think american or british media sources are in anyway fit to unhypocritically judge any "supposedly" corrupt media source given their own shady lineage and indeed largely embarrassing recent exposés. rupert Murdoch anyone?

but back to americas bias on russia... lets just take a look at some of the best selling video games recently.
despite the cold war being over they still insist on making russians the baddies in games like the Call of Duty Modern warfare series or Battlefield Bad Company.

nice conditioning there. "its ok to kill them little timmy... they're russian"

as for the article its pretty weak. the fact that the new york times quote them selves as a source is a little desperate.

their only academic actually says russia today is a good thing.

anyway
the random russian token at the end of the article is paraphrased and not directly quoted in saying that he believed it to be propaganda. as im sure you know, when you get into paraphrasing you can quite easily misinterpret and put a spin on things that have been said.

and the few things they did directly quote him saying is that western media only portrays the negative things about russia and that its "not all mafia red square and prostitutes"

other things they talk about in it are irrelevant. patronisingly claiming that because a state financed russian media channel has merely attempted to present its self in a serious way with professional media standard backgrounds and cuts and general appearance that this is somehow some sinister attempt at dressing up their lies. then rather immaturely poking at a few technical mistakes they made. like all the other tv channels have had no bloopers or embarrassing moments.

which is very unfair considering at the time of this article being written the channel was only 3 years old. lets compare that to say bbc which has been in operation for almost a century.

they then talk about 2 journalists one who argues with the editor and one who feels unchallenged. welcome to media. like there has never been a reporter in the bbc or guardian that ever was held back by their editor.

i wonder who's great unbias decision it was for the bbc to ONLY cover the rebels side of the story in libya?

i find it funny how the bbc is government financed yet nobody questions its legitimacy.

and as for one of the editors receiving flowers from putin. id be very surprised if none of the members of british government tried sweetening up their most widely projected media sources.

having said all of this. even if you believe its giving off bias presentation of russia, would it really be fair to say that they then give bias cover of absolutely everything?

even then this entire article is just full of speculation and ZERO fact.

however thats all just for arguments sake.
in my own personal opinion i think all media is bias. i dont find it hard to imagine that RT would give bias info on themselves to counter the massive tsunami of demonisation and negativity from america. only problem for america is russia is a little too close to europe and people can tell its bull****. when a picture is painted of russia being some scum hole and then people go to moscow and see how amazing it is all of a sudden all that propaganda is exposed as what it is... propaganda. more distant countries like iran, china and korea where no real european or white audiences travel to in large numbers are fair game and MUCH easier targets for being demonised and labelled as evil.

however i would much rather believe coverage of military aggression and bullying on a global scale at the hands of European or North American countries from RT than merely believing the standardised propaganda from the same nations that are currently bombing people and will therefore naturally spread propaganda that leads people to think it is justifiable violence.

since iraq i think the british public has pretty much given up on believing that they can tell their government not to go around bombing the **** out of people they want commodities from.

[Mick.w]

(Original post by Rgman27)
Look. You can either reply concisely or not at all.

I don't care whether you were talking to him. If you don't want anyone else to reply, then don't post on a public forum and send a private message instead.

As, I said before, if you want the source of RT giving time to conspiracy theories and pro Kremlin propaganda, then you only have to look at your own RT videos that you posted with nut jobs like Webster Tarpley.

yea he's a conspiracy theorist.

he also has a weekly show on world crisis radio. i dont think they'd let him have his own show if everything he said was bull****.

some of the stuff he says is theory but many of his references are facts.

just because something is a conspiracy doesn't mean it isn't true.
a conspiracy is still real and a fact.
a conspiracy theory is up for speculation.
just as say Darwin's "theory" of evolution is up for speculation.

[Ferdowsi]

(Original post by Aj12)
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/18/ar...on/18heym.html

Groupies who reside in the West. You have to love it: you see it with iran and RT all the time; they support the propaganda outlet of a state that has invaded Iran on numerous occasions, annexed Iranian territory, had designs on other portions of Iran after WW2, gotten major concessions from the IRI as far as rights to the Caspian Sea, etc -- and yet, they cannot possibly be bothered to live either under the rule of the wonderful IRI or the lovely Russian mafia regime. Where do these folks choose to live? Why, in the Great Satan, of course, or elsewhere in the "decadent, evil, imperialist West". Gotta love it....

[Ferdowsi]

(Original post by Mick.w)
yea he's a conspiracy theorist.

he also has a weekly show on world crisis radio. i dont think they'd let him have his own show if everything he said was bull****.

some of the stuff he says is theory but many of his references are facts.

just because something is a conspiracy doesn't mean it isn't true.
a conspiracy is still real and a fact.
a conspiracy theory is up for speculation.
just as say Darwin's "theory" of evolution is up for speculation.

RT is a load of ****. Please post something constructive and stop spamming with Kremlin bull****.