Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 66

Thread: Russia prepares for Nuke War??

  1. #41
    Banned

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Under the Boardwalk AC USA
    Posts
    2,119
    Thanks
    1,471
    Thanked 3,031 Times in 777 Posts
    Rep Power
    0
    Reputation
    54367

    Default

    For those who think United States COWBOY PRESIDENT Trump made the decision to go into Syria with Tomahawk cruise missiles in his holster, French President Emmanuel Macron persuaded him!






  • #42
    Premium Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Central Tablelands of NSW
    Age
    81
    Posts
    13,824
    Thanks
    1,242
    Thanked 3,806 Times in 2,525 Posts
    Rep Power
    1797
    Reputation
    56986

    Default

    This is rather like that ill made remark made by BP (Oil Company) that an Oil spill in the Great Australian Bight could be advantageous to the local economy because of all the work it would create.
    Is there a 'switch' in the Brains of these people to suddenly spin like an empty bottle and stop on 'STUPID'?
    I stand unequivicably behind everything I say , I just dont ever remember saying it !!

  • #43
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,433
    Thanks
    934
    Thanked 1,661 Times in 724 Posts
    Rep Power
    836
    Reputation
    32307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cmangle View Post
    For those who think United States COWBOY PRESIDENT Trump made the decision to go into Syria with Tomahawk cruise missiles in his holster, French President Emmanuel Macron persuaded him!



    Wow!

    You really do have a comprehension problem, don’t you.

    “Ten days ago President Trump wanted the United States of America to withdraw from Syria. We convinced him to remain,” he said, speaking in the majestic room of Chaillot National Theater, with the Eiffel Tower shining in the background."
    Show us again the bit where Macron claims he convinced Trump to go in with Tomahawk missiles?

    Moot point anyhow,isn’t it?

    White House Denies France's Macron Persuaded Trump To Keep Boots On The Ground In Syria

    Macron, one of Trump's allies in the recent joint strikes on Syria, said he had convinced Trump to keep the troops in place for the unspecific "long term."

    "Ten days ago, President Trump was saying 'the United States should withdraw from Syria'. We convinced him it was necessary to stay," Macron said.

    This stunning claim was immediately denied by The White House, which proclaimed:

    "The US mission has not changed – the president has been clear that he wants US forces to come home as quickly as possible," White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders said in a statement cited by Reuters.



    Seems like you’re indulging in a little bit of fanciful interpretation there……...or maybe some creative trolling.

  • The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Thala Dan For This Useful Post:

    alpha0ne (17-04-18),enf (17-04-18)

  • #44
    Super Moderator
    enf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Canberra
    Age
    70
    Posts
    17,752
    Thanks
    16,817
    Thanked 34,961 Times in 9,058 Posts
    Rep Power
    13677
    Reputation
    644429

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thala Dan View Post
    Wow!

    You really do have a comprehension problem, don’t you.



    Show us again the bit where Macron claims he convinced Trump to go in with Tomahawk missiles?

    Moot point anyhow,isn’t it?

    White House Denies France's Macron Persuaded Trump To Keep Boots On The Ground In Syria

    Macron, one of Trump's allies in the recent joint strikes on Syria, said he had convinced Trump to keep the troops in place for the unspecific "long term."

    "Ten days ago, President Trump was saying 'the United States should withdraw from Syria'. We convinced him it was necessary to stay," Macron said.

    This stunning claim was immediately denied by The White House, which proclaimed:

    "The US mission has not changed – the president has been clear that he wants US forces to come home as quickly as possible," White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders said in a statement cited by Reuters.



    Seems like you’re indulging in a little bit of fanciful interpretation there……...or maybe some creative trolling.
    It's Snakes & Ladders Trump style, that's all. My guess would be that after much frustrating instruction, he's learned a simple game.
    The fact that there's a highway to hell and a stairway to heaven says a lot about the anticipated traffic flow.

  • The Following User Says Thank You to enf For This Useful Post:

    Thala Dan (17-04-18)

  • #45
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Gold Coast
    Posts
    1,504
    Thanks
    1,879
    Thanked 1,590 Times in 726 Posts
    Rep Power
    767
    Reputation
    27988

    Default

    We all know that the media generally is far from trustworthy. Also, in most western countries it seems to be dominated by the left, much like their institutions. We are seeing the argument more and more that the so-called Centre has now moved to the left. Perhaps it has. The fact is that it is very easy for media to fabricate any photos and videos to support their point of view once they cross the line into conspiracy and outright fabrication. Even without outright fabrication they have such an enormous scope in editing and selection that it is simply not needed. Anyone remember the episode of Frontline where Mike Moore's hard hitting expose of the fashion industry was aired as a promotion of that industry?

    Whilst I have next to zero faith in the MSM there is little reason to suspect outright fabrication of chemical weapons attacks. And why would the left-wing media even want to assist Trump in his alleged nefarious aims. A conspiracy is certainly possible, but is right at the lower end of the probability spectrum. Occam's razor favours the view that these attacks did indeed occur, and that Assad was the perpetrator. I'm certainly open to evidence that this is not the case, though all I have seen so far is speculation. I also think cmangle has responded to the challenge posed by producing the material that was implied not to exist. Perhaps he made it up or the sources he links to made it up, but there seems to be nothing supporting that his happened except conspiracy theories and conjecture.

    Trump has many many faults. There may be many better potential presidents, but flawed as he is he is doing a far better job in this area than Obama did, and I suspect a far better job than Hillary would have done.

    As for the question of why the west needs to deal with Putin. The question is nonsense. Countries and their leaders must deal with each other, unless they are purely isolationist, in which case they are often forced to anyway. Putin represents a particular challenge simply because he wants to make Russia great again, just as Trump no doubt represents a particular challenge to other countries. Putin has been very good for Russia in many ways and continues to do so. But he is pushing the boundaries in many areas. Under his rule Russia has annexed Crimea, shot down unarmed passenger aircraft, attempted to assassinate people on foreign soil etc. Where he tests boundaries and finds weakness, he is inclined to push further. Where he is met with strength he is inclined to back off, whilst saving face, at least domestically. This is a dangerous game on both sides, but is how foreign policy works out. Obama has done the world and the US a real disservice in leaving Trump with a legacy of foreign policy weakness. Such weakness ultimately leads to war as surely as unreasonable aggression. If Assad did use chemical weapons, and even publicly available information suggests he did, then the response was at least in my opinion proportionate and appropriate. It is not fair, in the sense that if Russia itself used such weapons a prudent response would not exceed protests and sanctions, but that is reality.

    I don't hate Trump, nor do I think he is any more dangerous than Obama. But many here take a different view. Although I disagree with it, I can see why they hold that view and it is not without a reasonable basis. It depends on how you view the relevant facts. But it is easy to let your negative views of Trump blind you. The MSM seems to give him no credit for anything whatsoever. It could well be that this again backfires on them and he receives a second term.

  • The Following User Says Thank You to DB44 For This Useful Post:

    Thala Dan (17-04-18)

  • #46
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,433
    Thanks
    934
    Thanked 1,661 Times in 724 Posts
    Rep Power
    836
    Reputation
    32307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cmangle View Post
    Xуевина, . . . . Good luck with that Putin, you can say all the nuke rhetoric you want, but you know and the world knows you ain't going to initiate a nuclear war and put "Mother Russia" into radioactive jeopardy over Assad and some ISIS camel jockeys (if there's any left)!

    BTW, who is Putin kidding, he doesn't get along with the Muslims in "Mother Russia" never the less the Muslims in the Mideast?

    And it wouldn't JUST be a nuke war with US, it was a tri-lateral attack involving the US, Britain, and France!

    So it will be 3 against 1! Even Putin knows that a LOSING BET!

    But wouldn't the Muslims just LOVE that, all the white infidels gone and the whole world then belongs to Allah!



    Whilst you're busy salivating over the prospect of a nuclear war with Putin, try and remember this......you won't be going to war with Putin.....you'll be going to war with RUSSIA.

    You know....this Russia.......

    Don’t forget how the Soviet Union saved the world from Hitler

    The Red Army was "the main engine of Nazism’s destruction," writes British historian and journalist Max Hastings in "Inferno: The World at War, 1939-1945." The Soviet Union paid the harshest price: though the numbers are not exact, an estimated 26 million Soviet citizens died during World War II, including as many as 11 million soldiers. At the same time, the Germans suffered three-quarters of their wartime losses fighting the Red Army.

    "It was the Western Allies’ extreme good fortune that the Russians, and not themselves, paid almost the entire ‘butcher’s bill’ for [defeating Nazi Germany], accepting 95 per cent of the military casualties of the three major powers of the Grand Alliance," writes Hastings.

    The epic battles that eventually rolled back the Nazi advance -- the brutal winter siege of Stalingrad, the clash of thousands of armored vehicles at Kursk (the biggest tank battle in history) -- had no parallel on the Western Front, where the Nazis committed fewer military assets. The savagery on display was also of a different degree than that experienced farther west.


    Gonna be a pushover, huh?

    And you think that the Brits and Frogs will have your back?

    Theresa May will be lucky if she still has a seat on the back-bench, and Emmanuel Macron will be back flogging life insurance for Rothschilds before that happens.

  • #47
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,433
    Thanks
    934
    Thanked 1,661 Times in 724 Posts
    Rep Power
    836
    Reputation
    32307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DB44 View Post
    We all know that the media generally is far from trustworthy. Also, in most western countries it seems to be dominated by the left, much like their institutions. We are seeing the argument more and more that the so-called Centre has now moved to the left. Perhaps it has. The fact is that it is very easy for media to fabricate any photos and videos to support their point of view once they cross the line into conspiracy and outright fabrication. Even without outright fabrication they have such an enormous scope in editing and selection that it is simply not needed. Anyone remember the episode of Frontline where Mike Moore's hard hitting expose of the fashion industry was aired as a promotion of that industry?

    Whilst I have next to zero faith in the MSM there is little reason to suspect outright fabrication of chemical weapons attacks. And why would the left-wing media even want to assist Trump in his alleged nefarious aims. A conspiracy is certainly possible, but is right at the lower end of the probability spectrum. Occam's razor favours the view that these attacks did indeed occur, and that Assad was the perpetrator. I'm certainly open to evidence that this is not the case, though all I have seen so far is speculation. I also think cmangle has responded to the challenge posed by producing the material that was implied not to exist. Perhaps he made it up or the sources he links to made it up, but there seems to be nothing supporting that his happened except conspiracy theories and conjecture.

    Trump has many many faults. There may be many better potential presidents, but flawed as he is he is doing a far better job in this area than Obama did, and I suspect a far better job than Hillary would have done.

    As for the question of why the west needs to deal with Putin. The question is nonsense. Countries and their leaders must deal with each other, unless they are purely isolationist, in which case they are often forced to anyway. Putin represents a particular challenge simply because he wants to make Russia great again, just as Trump no doubt represents a particular challenge to other countries. Putin has been very good for Russia in many ways and continues to do so. But he is pushing the boundaries in many areas. Under his rule Russia has annexed Crimea, shot down unarmed passenger aircraft, attempted to assassinate people on foreign soil etc. Where he tests boundaries and finds weakness, he is inclined to push further. Where he is met with strength he is inclined to back off, whilst saving face, at least domestically. This is a dangerous game on both sides, but is how foreign policy works out. Obama has done the world and the US a real disservice in leaving Trump with a legacy of foreign policy weakness. Such weakness ultimately leads to war as surely as unreasonable aggression. If Assad did use chemical weapons, and even publicly available information suggests he did, then the response was at least in my opinion proportionate and appropriate. It is not fair, in the sense that if Russia itself used such weapons a prudent response would not exceed protests and sanctions, but that is reality.

    I don't hate Trump, nor do I think he is any more dangerous than Obama. But many here take a different view. Although I disagree with it, I can see why they hold that view and it is not without a reasonable basis. It depends on how you view the relevant facts. But it is easy to let your negative views of Trump blind you. The MSM seems to give him no credit for anything whatsoever. It could well be that this again backfires on them and he receives a second term.
    i agree with much of what you say, but.....you accuse others of speculation, and then present charges against Putin which themselves are predominantly speculative.

    Nobody has proved that Russia shot down MH17

    Nobody has proved the Russia condoned or carried out international assassinations

    Crimea is a curly one, shrouded in decades of history, and very much open to interpretation

    Nobody has proved that Assad attacked his own people with chemical weapons

    I'm not saying that Putin or Assad are the good guys, and I agree that Trump has some attributes that may benefit America......I just don't accept the idea that some people perpetually wear black hats, and others wear white hats.

    As for your comments about the media..........if you haven't already, I suggest you watch the 4 Corners program aired last night about Cambridge Analytica.

    I don't recall anyone implying that the material provided by cmangle didn't exist.....simply that such material should be treated with a grain of salt.

  • #48
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Gold Coast
    Posts
    1,504
    Thanks
    1,879
    Thanked 1,590 Times in 726 Posts
    Rep Power
    767
    Reputation
    27988

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thala Dan View Post
    i agree with much of what you say, but.....you accuse others of speculation, and then present charges against Putin which themselves are predominantly speculative. but the evidence available

    Nobody has proved that Russia shot down MH17

    Nobody has proved the Russia condoned or carried out international assassinations

    Crimea is a curly one, shrouded in decades of history, and very much open to interpretation

    Nobody has proved that Assad attacked his own people with chemical weapons

    I'm not saying that Putin or Assad are the good guys, and I agree that Trump has some attributes that may benefit America......I just don't accept the idea that some people perpetually wear black hats, and others wear white hats.

    As for your comments about the media..........if you haven't already, I suggest you watch the 4 Corners program aired last night about Cambridge Analytica.

    I don't recall anyone implying that the material provided by cmangle didn't exist.....simply that such material should be treated with a grain of salt.
    International relations do not function on a criminal standard of proof. There is no court of law to decide these things. Countries form their own views on the basis of the information they have. Since the process is far from transparent, there is always room for abuse, and political considerations do play a big role. I am satisfied that it is more probable than not that Russia did all of these things, and they certainly were in Russia's interest provided they didn't draw a strong reaction from the West. Personally I have little doubt who was behind the attempted assassination and the facts publicly available make this highly probable. The statement that the charges against Putin are predominantly speculative is simply not true. I suspect that the evidence, whilst largely circumstantial, would come close to satisfying even a criminal standard of proof let alone a civil one. But as I said, there is not court with jurisdiction in this area. Nor can there be. On the other hand, this conspiracy theory seems to have very little to support it all and would be laughed out of even a civil court. The MSM is untrustworthy? You bet it is. Therefore it must have fabricated evidence in this case? Not impossible? But is there even a single fact pointing towards this being even a tinge more probable than not?

    The fact that the situation in Crimea is "shrouded in decades of history" does not make it "a curly one". It does not justify invading an independent nation. Only Russian self-interest does that. And they got away with it unscathed. But even a strong US may well have let them get away with it, though likely in return for a quid pro quo. This sort of thing is not pretty, but it is how International relations work.

    I too believe in shades of gray. Russia and its citizens lost a lot in the collapse of the Soviet Union. Putin largely has been very good for them. I don't blame him for trying some of these things. Certainly the annexation of Crimea is not going to do Russia any harm, strategically, economically or otherwise. To paraphrase the SAS motto, on this he dared and he won. But he needs to learn that there are limits. Trump has certainly learned domestically that the President is not all powerful, and if he is stupid enough to act on some of his more aggressive rhetoric he may need to learn the same lesson internationally.

    My view of the media seems to be little different if at all from your own. Google, despite its motto, is evil, as is the MSM generally. This description, by the way, also applies to the ABC and Four Corners. The fact that the MSM is so appalling and that Facebook acted so appallingly does not add evidence to a conspiracy theory devoid of it.

    As for an implication of non-existence, Admin posted:

    Given that almost anyone and everyone has a camera these days, why haven't seen at least a picture of these mounds of dead bodies from the alleged chemical attack ?

    I am not saying it didn't happen, but lets see some sort of proof before firing off missiles at people.

    Given that its alleged Syria has done this multiple times, I would expect to see at least one photo of a large group of people foaming from the mouth and nose.
    Admin's question was reasonable, and it has been answered, though whether to his satisfaction I don't know.

    Once again, perhaps the attack didn't happen. It is simply that what facts are available tend to point to the probability that it did. I am sceptical but remain open to any evidence to the contrary, as opposed to sheer speculation. It's great to be able to discuss this issue where there are strong emotional responses involved rationally and without rancour, at least so far!
    Last edited by DB44; 17-04-18 at 02:08 PM.

  • #49
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,433
    Thanks
    934
    Thanked 1,661 Times in 724 Posts
    Rep Power
    836
    Reputation
    32307

    Default

    DB44,

    Way to much to address there in your post.........we'll just have to agree to disagree on some of the key issues.

    However, can't resist a comment regarding the MSM.

    I have never accused the MSM of fabricating evidence.......entities with far more resources and motivation do that for them.

    The MSMs crime is to consistently accept that "evidence" unquestioningly, and use their communication resources, and reputation, to distribute this "evidence" to the community at large, without the slightest hint of questioning the official narrative.

    Remember when the media used to investigate, question, and impartially report on things....and report both sides of a story where doubt existed?

    See Exhibit A:







    Geez, they couldn't even give the poor kid a change of clothes.


    Wonder how all that would go in a court of law.

  • #50
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Gold Coast
    Posts
    1,504
    Thanks
    1,879
    Thanked 1,590 Times in 726 Posts
    Rep Power
    767
    Reputation
    27988

    Default

    @Thala Dan. Happy to agree to disagree, if for no other reason than to avoid boring our fellow Austech members to death as we go back and forth ad infinitum. I think we've stated our respective opinions clearly enough that people will make up their own minds, mostly in accordance with their pre-conceptions and politics.

    Reporters have in fact been known to completely fabricate stories. I wasn't clear on whether you actually thought they had done so here or were simply parroting propaganda uncritically. At the end of the day it's not particularly relevant to this issue. Despite our differing opinions I think we agree that the MSM is beneath contempt and not worthy of our trust. Although I'm not sure there has ever been properly impartial reporting, I think things have been better in the past. Now even any pretence at impartiality has been abandoned in most cases.

  • #51
    Senior Member
    trash's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Tamworth
    Posts
    4,088
    Thanks
    148
    Thanked 3,229 Times in 1,451 Posts
    Rep Power
    1287
    Reputation
    47674

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gordon_s1942 View Post
    There is enough information regarding the use of an Atomic Weapon on cities after Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed during WW2 to know while the Bomb destroys in the usual manner by the force of explosion, but unlike 'conventional' explosives it leaves behind radiation that has a devastating effect on the population and takes years to disperse.

    Chernobyl is still a 'No Go Zone' and the Radiation is damaging the materials that were used in trying to contain it which is making it a potential disaster if they dont succeed.
    No, not really. The first is nuclear fallout from an atomic weapon. We are dealing with proportionally larger weapons. The immediate fallout is a concern, but the effects of such fallout quickly dissipate and disperse.
    It is nothing like Chernobyl. I find it hard to give some kind of analogue comparison.

    The point of a nuclear weapon is to fission as much material as possible in the shortest period of time and do this with the smallest amount of material. The fissile material in a warhead is typically less than 50kg.
    The weapon destroys itself completely and disperses it's tiny amount of material over a large area. It dilutes into the environment far and fast.

    By comparison a nuclear reactor is a very large amount of fissile and non-fissile material and fission products. When it physically explodes like Chernobyl did, it spreads this huge amount of material over only a relatively small area and most of it falls to the ground. It's not easily dispersed or carried away to be diluted into the environment.

    When we look at Hiroshima, this was about 20kg of Uranium, most of which was converted to fission produces, vaporised into individual atoms like a gas and then spread over ~100km^2.
    Chernobyl has 100 tonnes of fuel and over 3.5 tonnes of U235 in that fuel. So it is likely there was over 1000kg of fission products in the reactor at the time of the explosion.
    These were then spewing out of the reactor like a fountain over several weeks.

    30 years after WW2, you've never know Hiroshima was bombed with a nuclear weapon.
    30 years after Chernobyl, it's still ticking over nicely on my geiger counter.
    Yes I am an agent of Satan, but my duties are largely ceremonial.

  • #52
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,433
    Thanks
    934
    Thanked 1,661 Times in 724 Posts
    Rep Power
    836
    Reputation
    32307

    Default

    Famed War Reporter Robert Fisk Reaches Syrian 'Chemical Attack' Site, Concludes "They Were Not Gassed"

    Robert Fisk's bombshell first-hand account for the UK Independent runs contrary to nearly every claim circulating in major international press concerning what happened just over week ago on April 7th in an embattled suburb outside Damascus: not only has the veteran British journalist found no evidence of a mass chemical attack, but he's encountered multiple local eyewitnesses who experienced the chaos of that night, but who say the gas attack never happened.......

    Controversy ensued immediately after Fisk's report, especially as he is among the most recognizable names in the past four decades of Middle East war reporting, having twice won the British Press Awards' Journalist of the Year prize and as seven time winner of the British Press Awards' Foreign Correspondent of the Year (the NY Times has referred to him as "probably the most famous foreign correspondent in Britain" while The Guardian has called him "one of the most famous journalists in the world"). An Arabic speaker, Fisk became famous for being among the few reporters in history to conduct face-to-face interviews with Osama bin Laden, which he did on three occasions between 1993 and 1997


    Wonder if we'll ever hear the truth about what the OPCW inspectors find.

  • #53
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,433
    Thanks
    934
    Thanked 1,661 Times in 724 Posts
    Rep Power
    836
    Reputation
    32307

    Default

    US: Russia Hacked The Evidence Of Chemical Attack In Syria

    I guess the idea is that this international top-level investigative team on which tremendous credibility has been placed by the western world can be thwarted by Russians showing up with a Hoover and spraying some Febreze in the air like a teenage stoner when mom comes home? I’m not sure, but given the immense dearth of evidence we’ve been seeing in support of the establishment Douma narrative and the mounting pile of evidence contradicting it, it sure does sound fishy.


    Hard to know whether to laugh or cry.

  • #54
    Premium Member
    alpha0ne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Mandurah WA
    Age
    68
    Posts
    1,443
    Thanks
    3,455
    Thanked 2,988 Times in 813 Posts
    Rep Power
    1427
    Reputation
    59477

    Default

    I will not be surprised when Robert Fisk is vilified in the western media for historic sex crimes/lies/fraud/stealing/anything else they can pin on him

  • #55
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,433
    Thanks
    934
    Thanked 1,661 Times in 724 Posts
    Rep Power
    836
    Reputation
    32307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alpha0ne View Post
    I will not be surprised when Robert Fisk is vilified in the western media for historic sex crimes/lies/fraud/stealing/anything else they can pin on him
    Department of Dirty Tricks would be working on it right now.

    It seems that it simply doesn't pay to stray too far from the official narrative these days.

    If this sort of thing happened in another country, the west would scream "dictatorship" and "attempting to silence dissent".

    Apologists for Assad working in British universities


    Senior British academics are spreading pro-Assad disinformation and conspiracy theories promoted by Russia, The Times can reveal.

    They are founders of a self-styled Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media (SPM) and hold posts at universities including Edinburgh, Sheffield and Leicester.

    Members of the group, which includes four professors, have been spreading the slur, repeated by the Russian ambassador to Britain yesterday, that the White Helmets civilian volunteer force has fabricated video evidence of attacks by President Assad, who is backed by the Kremlin.


    The Empire strikes back!!

    Further:

    High-ranking UK academics are accused of ‘spreading pro-Assad and Russian conspiracy theories around British universities’

    The academics believe that video evidence of Syrian attacks is fabricated
    One of them, Paul McKeigue, said there was almost 'zero likelihood' that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad Assad carried out chemical attacks
    Another academic, Tim Hayward, has used the hashtag #Syriahoax when discussing chemical attacks in the country
    The academics are members of a group called Syria, Propaganda and Media
    SPM has queried whether Russia's secret nerve agent programme ever existed



    Ain't Democracy great?!

  • #56
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Gold Coast
    Posts
    1,504
    Thanks
    1,879
    Thanked 1,590 Times in 726 Posts
    Rep Power
    767
    Reputation
    27988

    Default

    In the Medium post linked to above the author, one Caitlin Johnstone, describes herself as:

    Rogue journalist. Bogan socialist. Anarcho-psychonaut. Guerilla poet. Utopia prepper.
    A very brief search on Duck Duck Go does not exactly add to her credibility. Amongst her many other talents she is the author of "The Complete Book of Astrology". Unfortunately this venerable work does not seem to be published in Australia, though on Amazon US you can find this and other works, including that other essential title, "Woke: A Field Guide For Utopia Preppers". Also still available but perhaps a little out of date are "Hinkler Horoscopes" for Virgo (Aug-Sept 2005), Scorpio (2006) and Sagittarius (Nov-Dec 2005).

    There is more, but really, why bother. Of course it doesn't mean that she can't be right, though she lacks any credibility.
    Last edited by DB44; 18-04-18 at 04:53 PM.

  • The Following User Says Thank You to DB44 For This Useful Post:

    admin (18-04-18)

  • #57
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,433
    Thanks
    934
    Thanked 1,661 Times in 724 Posts
    Rep Power
    836
    Reputation
    32307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DB44 View Post
    In the Medium post linked to above the author, one Caitlin Johnstone, describes herself as:



    A very brief search on Duck Duck Go does not exactly add to her credibility. Amongst her many other talents she is the author of "The Complete Book of Astrology". Unfortunately this venerable work does not seem to be published in Australia, though on Amazon US you can find this and other works, including that other essential title, "Woke: A Field Guide For Utopia Preppers". Also still available but perhaps a little out of date are "Hinkler Horoscopes" for Virgo (Aug-Sept 2005), Scorpio (2006) and Sagittarius (Nov-Dec 2005).

    There is more, but really, why bother. Of course it doesn't mean that she can't be right, though she lacks any credibility.
    Or maybe, like the Establishment, she's woken up to the fact that there's a lot of gullible dickheads out there who will buy anything.

    This sort of person is quite common.........the yanks recently voted one in as their President.

    Still, I always prefer to consider the message, rather than seek ways to shoot the messenger.

    The fact is, the U.S. has accused the Russians of deliberately delaying the OPCW inspectors and interfering with the attack site in Douma......so the credibility of the messenger is somewhat irrelevant.

    If you don't like hearing it from her, there are plenty of other sites on the 'net reporting the same message.....and the same message is appearing on services ranging from SBS to Euronews, France 24, TRT, NHK......take your pick in the credibility stakes.
    Last edited by Thala Dan; 18-04-18 at 06:09 PM.

  • #58
    Administrator
    admin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Victoria
    Age
    56
    Posts
    31,150
    Thanks
    2,238
    Thanked 13,731 Times in 5,823 Posts
    Rep Power
    4552
    Reputation
    165805

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DB44 View Post
    In the Medium post linked to above the author, one Caitlin Johnstone, describes herself as:



    A very brief search on Duck Duck Go does not exactly add to her credibility. Amongst her many other talents she is the author of "The Complete Book of Astrology". Unfortunately this venerable work does not seem to be published in Australia, though on Amazon US you can find this and other works, including that other essential title, "Woke: A Field Guide For Utopia Preppers". Also still available but perhaps a little out of date are "Hinkler Horoscopes" for Virgo (Aug-Sept 2005), Scorpio (2006) and Sagittarius (Nov-Dec 2005).

    There is more, but really, why bother. Of course it doesn't mean that she can't be right, though she lacks any credibility.
    And this is the problem with half the media stories. Google the author and you will find they have a whack job biased agenda that immediately removes all credibility from anything they say.

  • The Following User Says Thank You to admin For This Useful Post:

    DB44 (18-04-18)

  • #59
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,433
    Thanks
    934
    Thanked 1,661 Times in 724 Posts
    Rep Power
    836
    Reputation
    32307

    Default

    This is what happens when you dare to question the official narrative:







    What did the bard say........."The lady doth protest too much, methinks"
    Last edited by Thala Dan; 18-04-18 at 05:40 PM.

  • #60
    Premium Member
    alpha0ne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Mandurah WA
    Age
    68
    Posts
    1,443
    Thanks
    3,455
    Thanked 2,988 Times in 813 Posts
    Rep Power
    1427
    Reputation
    59477

    Default

    High-ranking UK academics are accused of ‘spreading pro-Assad and Russian conspiracy theories around British universities’
    I cant find who is accusing said academics ??

  • Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

    Bookmarks

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •