Ukraine Situation - Should We Be Worried?
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
 Stirlingsays Online  11 May 22 2.16pm |
   |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Mapletree
Exactly, thank you for your support For your interest, Al Jazeera is hardly supportive of the West! Note that today it has gone on the attack again with Israel. You hate Israel you aren't going to be a good friend to the US. Al Jazeera is now at the centre of a feud pitting Saudi Arabia against Qatar, its super-rich neighbour. Several Arab countries, including Egypt and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), have joined the Saudis in isolating the tiny monarchy over its alleged support for terrorism and its ties to Iran. But what really irks them is how Qatar has used Al Jazeera to wield outsize influence in the region. Because Al Jazeera is well funded and doesn’t need to make a profit, it can provide extensive coverage where others have failed. In the 2008–2009 Gaza war, for example, no station anywhere in the world could match Al Jazeera’s coverage, with multiple reporters in Gaza itself, in Israel, in the West Bank, and in Egypt. In fact, no other television station had live coverage from Gaza or Israel during the war—an advantage that many stations, including American, tried to overcome in the November 2012 Gaza fighting by sending reporters to Gaza. And even though Al Jazeera is often accused of bias or of an ideological bent, it has been bold in ensuring presentation of multiple views, including presenting Israeli views dating back to the 1990s, when few other Arab stations dared do so, as well as airing Bin Laden tapes, Iranian views, and hosting or covering speeches and news conferences of American officials—including then-secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld, American military commanders and spokesmen, and White House and State Department officials—during the Iraq war. So while Al Jazeera officials understood and catered to their audience, they also made sure they always aired views that challenged, sometimes even offended their audience. There was also a price to be paid for Al Jazeera’s extensive coverage. Almost every government in the region was offended by Al Jazeera at some point, which resulted in significant pressures on the Qatar government. The United States accused Al Jazeera of incitement, and even China in 2012 was angered by Al Jazeera coverage, taking action against Al Jazeera English. For the avoidance of doubt, I read a vast array of media and - ideally - academic articles. This is one provider that I sometimes find offers an interesting angle.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
 Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 11 May 22 2.35pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
A significant majority of the country were for capital punishment.....made no difference....even when they voted for parties that told them they agreed. A significant majority of the country were for significantly less immigration.....made no difference....even when they voted for parties that told them they agreed. A significant majority of the country wanted more affordable housing.....made no difference....even when they voted for parties that told them they agreed. A majority of the country were for Brexit.....made no difference....even when they voted for parties that told them they agreed the version they got essentially amounted to the status quo. A significant majority of the country were against the Iraq war.....made no difference. As for the cost of living and all the rest of it I won't even bother to repeat myself. As for your Russia-gate fantasies, reality doesn't affect your opinions so I let you carry on embarrassing yourself over 'jam tomorrow'. Edited by Stirlingsays (11 May 2022 9.00am) As I am unaware of any major party that has had the restoration of capital punishment in its manifesto, perhaps you can provide evidence for assertion No1. All parties want immigration controlled to provide that which we need. They all also understand we have obligations to meet regarding refugees. On top of that, handling illegal immigration of the kind we have now is much harder when you have to do it for real, than when sitting at a keyboard pontificating. All parties want more affordable housing. That not enough is being built isn't due to any lack of desire. It's due to competing demands and practical limitations. We all would vote for many things, and parties would agree, but getting them isn't as simple as picking up windfalls in an orchard. 4% is not a significant majority for Brexit, especially when many, if not most, were misled about its consequences and now regret it. Very few would have voted for the kind of Brexit you wanted. I am unaware of any party who included being in favour of the Iraq war in their manifesto. Deciding on such things is left to those we choose to represent us. I remind you. Our MPs are not our delegates. They are our representatives, charged with using their collective wisdom to make decisions on issues, at the time they must be made and with the information they have access to. They don't just do what the voters decided years ago. If that were the case, we could make them all redundant and run the country with machines. "Russiagate" doesn't exist. Interference by a foreign state in the 2016 Presidential election does. That's a fact, known to all the 5 eyes security services. Assembling evidence that can withstand the rigours of trial by jury is what takes the time. Be patient.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 11 May 22 2.47pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by W12
Yeah I agree, the progressives are basically useful idiots for Globalism. The traditional left and "libertarians" (free market capitalists) are effectively very close to the alt right now though. This is what needs to happen as people wake up to the clear ideology of globalism. Another thing I find amazing is that people genuinely think the likes of George Soros and Larry Fink give a s*** about "social justice" and CRT. Sorry to disrupt your love in with Stirling. Or is it a competition to see who can make the most outrageous claim? What do you think the "ideology of globalism" is? The definition I found, which seems both accurate and sensible, is: "The importance of global cooperation to address existential threats to the globe. It acts in opposition to nationalism, where nations act exclusively in their own best interests." Why on earth should anyone not wish for that, given all the challenges we face? Edited by Wisbech Eagle (11 May 2022 2.48pm)
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Nicholas91  The Democratic Republic of Kent 11 May 22 2.52pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
Sorry to disrupt your love in with Stirling. Or is it a competition to see who can make the most outrageous claim? What do you think the "ideology of globalism" is? The definition I found, which seems both accurate and sensible, is: "The importance of global cooperation to address existential threats to the globe. It acts in opposition to nationalism, where nations act exclusively in their own best interests." Why on earth should anyone not wish for that, given all the challenges we face? Edited by Wisbech Eagle (11 May 2022 2.48pm) The evidential, historical, well documented pitfalls of a centralisation of power and control on the human race in any capacity? Just a suggestion.
Now Zaha's got a bit of green grass ahead of him here... and finds Ambrose... not a bad effort!!!! |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 11 May 22 3.25pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Nicholas91
The evidential, historical, well documented pitfalls of a centralisation of power and control on the human race in any capacity? Just a suggestion. Your own, or from some biased corner of right wing opinion? I cannot believe it came from a serious commentator, as it's so obviously flawed. "Co-operation" and "centralisation of power and control" being the diametrically opposite concepts they are.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Rudi Hedman Caterham 11 May 22 3.47pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
As I am unaware of any major party that has had the restoration of capital punishment in its manifesto, perhaps you can provide evidence for assertion No1. All parties want immigration controlled to provide that which we need. They all also understand we have obligations to meet regarding refugees. On top of that, handling illegal immigration of the kind we have now is much harder when you have to do it for real, than when sitting at a keyboard pontificating. All parties want more affordable housing. That not enough is being built isn't due to any lack of desire. It's due to competing demands and practical limitations. We all would vote for many things, and parties would agree, but getting them isn't as simple as picking up windfalls in an orchard. 4% is not a significant majority for Brexit, especially when many, if not most, were misled about its consequences and now regret it. Very few would have voted for the kind of Brexit you wanted. I am unaware of any party who included being in favour of the Iraq war in their manifesto. Deciding on such things is left to those we choose to represent us. I remind you. Our MPs are not our delegates. They are our representatives, charged with using their collective wisdom to make decisions on issues, at the time they must be made and with the information they have access to. They don't just do what the voters decided years ago. If that were the case, we could make them all redundant and run the country with machines. I knew you were going to go onto repeat the ‘representatives’ stuff. I was going to say so but, you know, life. We left the Iraq war decision to ‘representatives’ who knew more than us, Jacques Chiraq and the unfortunate Doctor who carried it on his conscience after the faked dossier told them and the rest of parliament we were 45 minutes from being blown to dust. Trust these new political types? Hmm. They don’t know what principles are. Never have we seen a more self serving bunch of hypocrites and expenses grabbers. But yeah, try and lecture us we should trust the system, and let them block democracy as well. Your New Labour began the mess we import. They were all for it. They encouraged it. The genie is out of the bottle and all we can do is move, like you have. Somewhere you claim anyone can. Yeah sure. Edited by Rudi Hedman (11 May 2022 4.00pm)
COYP |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| W12 11 May 22 4.56pm | |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
Sorry to disrupt your love in with Stirling. Or is it a competition to see who can make the most outrageous claim? What do you think the "ideology of globalism" is? The definition I found, which seems both accurate and sensible, is: "The importance of global cooperation to address existential threats to the globe. It acts in opposition to nationalism, where nations act exclusively in their own best interests." Why on earth should anyone not wish for that, given all the challenges we face? Edited by Wisbech Eagle (11 May 2022 2.48pm) Centralised Global "Governance" (read Government) They are f***ing nuts in my opinion. Outrageous in what way?
Edited by W12 (11 May 2022 5.20pm)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Nicholas91 The Democratic Republic of Kent 11 May 22 6.13pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
Your own, or from some biased corner of right wing opinion? I cannot believe it came from a serious commentator, as it's so obviously flawed. "Co-operation" and "centralisation of power and control" being the diametrically opposite concepts they are. Firstly, as mentioned in my post, it is not an opinion, it is a fact. Secondly, do you have me confused with somebody else? I am not even too sure where to look if I wanted to find "A biased corner of right-wing opinion". I know very little of the suggested 'globalism' actually, it does just worry me slightly as I was alluding to, that's all. Shows how sad a little person you must be if when I presented you with a statement pretty much rooted in fact, that was just meant intended as a discussion point, you resort to flinging out an imagined insult which isn't relevant or within any context at all. Not even a rebuttal of my statement, a deconstruction or alternative opinion which I would have accepted given my own stated ignorance, just a made-up assessment of somebody who challenges your stance or offers something different. And you have the nerve to accuse me of being a attendant of 'corner[s] of right-wing opinion! You'd have to be pretty ignorant, petty or perhaps both with a comment like that. I'd explain to you in further detail however I fear I'd more likely find success in attempting to illicit a response from my cat. I a going to state this now in case you do try to come back with something else ridiculous but there is a point you could possibly make and I would suggest is wrong, but that again would only be my opinion and I would not claim it as truth nor argue to the hills with anybody over it!
Now Zaha's got a bit of green grass ahead of him here... and finds Ambrose... not a bad effort!!!! |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| SW19 CPFC Addiscombe West 11 May 22 6.33pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by W12
Centralised Global "Governance" (read Government) They are f***ing nuts in my opinion. Outrageous in what way?
Edited by W12 (11 May 2022 5.20pm) Ship has sailed on most of those. • For centralised global governance - corporations are already unofficially in that role, and will only become more dominant. Won’t be one big ‘government’ it will be corporates running the show • Population control won’t necessarily be needed on the current trajectory, not in the west anyway. All the chat about population bombs is proving to be nonsense • Automation will simply increase the wealth imbalance, sure • Cyborgs - already there with phones, devices etc. unavoidable next step is removing the input lag As for single digital currency, dissolving of borders and nation states - IMO that’s a looong way off. If ever. Much longer than any of the above anyway. Bitcoin was supposed to be that anyway, it can shrivel and die along with the pyramid gateway which is NFTs. Complete dross Unless you find a way to ban technology, so long as the corporations handle automation, bio integration and so on without causing riots then most of this is already well underway and will come to pass. Possibly the first interesting thing I’ve seen you post
Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| W12 11 May 22 6.40pm | |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by SW19 CPFC
Ship has sailed on most of those. • For centralised global governance - corporations are already unofficially in that role, and will only become more dominant. Won’t be one big ‘government’ it will be corporates running the show • Population control won’t necessarily be needed on the current trajectory, not in the west anyway. All the chat about population bombs is proving to be nonsense • Automation will simply increase the wealth imbalance, sure • Cyborgs - already there with phones, devices etc. unavoidable next step is removing the input lag As for single digital currency, dissolving of borders and nation states - IMO that’s a looong way off. If ever. Much longer than any of the above anyway. Bitcoin was supposed to be that anyway, it can shrivel and die along with the pyramid gateway which is NFTs. Complete dross Unless you find a way to ban technology, so long as the corporations handle automation, bio integration and so on without causing riots then most of this is already well underway and will come to pass. Possibly the first interesting thing I’ve seen you post I don’t think the nationalist worldview is luddite. It’s having technology under human I don’t think it’s any accident that 50+ years ago we had a supersonic passenger jet but all we have today is a phone that spies on us.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 11 May 22 6.50pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Rudi Hedman
I knew you were going to go onto repeat the ‘representatives’ stuff. I was going to say so but, you know, life. We left the Iraq war decision to ‘representatives’ who knew more than us, Jacques Chiraq and the unfortunate Doctor who carried it on his conscience after the faked dossier told them and the rest of parliament we were 45 minutes from being blown to dust. Trust these new political types? Hmm. They don’t know what principles are. Never have we seen a more self serving bunch of hypocrites and expenses grabbers. But yeah, try and lecture us we should trust the system, and let them block democracy as well. Your New Labour began the mess we import. They were all for it. They encouraged it. The genie is out of the bottle and all we can do is move, like you have. Somewhere you claim anyone can. Yeah sure. Edited by Rudi Hedman (11 May 2022 4.00pm) That you, or anyone else, doesn't like the representatives that we have chosen doesn't change the system. All it does is encourage you to try to convince enough others of your opinions, so you can get the representatives you want. The answer is always in our own hands. If you cynically perceive there is insufficient interest in achieving change, then you need to create that interest. Farage, for all his many faults, managed to galvanise action on a specific issue, which was ill-judged in my opinion, but he did demonstrate it can be done.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 11 May 22 6.54pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by W12
Centralised Global "Governance" (read Government) They are f***ing nuts in my opinion. Outrageous in what way?
Edited by W12 (11 May 2022 5.20pm) All total bs! They are just in the imagination of people who are convinced by conspiracy theories. They are no more real than the tooth fairy, and those who accept them must have the same mental age as those who believe in her.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.