Jump to content

Thug

Established Member
  • Posts

    3,120
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Posts posted by Thug

  1. https://theintercept.com/2024/01/04/cnn-israel-gaza-idf-reporting/
     

    Quote

    WHETHER REPORTING FROM the Middle East, the United States, or anywhere else across the globe, every CNN journalist covering Israel and Palestine must submit their work for review by the news organization’s bureau in Jerusalem prior to publication, under a long-standing CNN policy. While CNN says the policy is meant to ensure accuracy in reporting on a polarizing subject, it means that much of the network’s recent coverage of the war in Gaza — and its reverberations around the world — has been shaped by journalists who operate under the shadow of the country’s military censor. 

    Quote

    CNN, like other American broadcasters, has repeatedly agreed to submit footage recorded in Gaza to the military censor prior to airing it in exchange for limited access to the strip, drawing criticism from those who say the censor is providing a filtered view of events unfolding on the ground. 

    Interesting read.

    • Like 2
  2. 6 minutes ago, bickster said:

    Yeah but they absolutely will know which party did completely f*** the money in their pockets

    Yes of course, but people can be swayed by more emotive issues.

    Look at the last general election.  Labour were making it absolutely clear that they were "for the many, not for the few" in terms of economy.

    But got thumped on emotive issues. (I also know that many didn't 'trust' him with the economy... but that was based more on a smear campaign than anthing else)

     

    I'm not saying you're wrong, and clearly things have worsened since then.  But I wouldn't say it's clear cut.  For example:

    https://www.statista.com/statistics/886366/issues-facing-britain/

    Quote

    Which of the following do you think are the most important issues facing the country at this time?(June 2019 to February 2024)

     

    You're absolutely right that the major concern is the economy with 50%

    But this also means to the other 50% that it wasn't.

    50% economy

    44% Health

    39% Immigration.

     

    Some people (myself included) would prioritise other concerns because I have no faith that either party is going to make much difference to the economy. 

    My main priority is that I hate the recent conservative rhetoric of trying to blame the vulnerable for their own catastrophic failures.  I think they are on a very dangerous course of causing civil unrest, and need to be gone.  Even if it means I have to pay more tax for the next decade.

    Of course I understand that not everyone thinks like me, and maybe I'm foolish to think that anyone other than those in my circle of friends do think the same..

    I hope that makes a little sense, even if you disagree?

    • Like 1
  3. 36 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

    The actual overstatement of Israel’s financial capabilities by people with a brain baffle me. Without US aid the country has the GDP of a tiny European nation. The whole finance thing has been disproven 10.000 times and is as stupid as saying that Israel somehow controls the West.

    Wrong.

  4. 15 hours ago, magnkarl said:

    So instead of judging Iran on its actions and using this law as justification for brutal repression of non-Muslim minorities, you want to get into semantics? The last sentence tells you all you need to know.

    How many Jews are left in Iran compared to before the coup, how are the Kurds, the Coptic Christians?

    It’s a bit like trying to say that Adolf meant something else without looking at his actions, but purely analysing his speeches for semantics.

    I have to type my post out again because, well, I have to.

     

    But what you are doing is using a straw man fallacy.

    Your initial standpoint was that it is ‘literally’ in Iran’s constitution to wipeout all Jews.  You then posted a conveniently truncated version of article 14 to ‘prove’ your point.

    Even this truncated version did not prove your claim in the slightest.

    When a full version of the article 14 is posted, proving you wrong, you then argue a completely different point - this is where the straw man comes in.  You changed the argument from the literal existence within the Iranian constitution to wipe out all Jews, to the fact that the Iranian regime is guilty of this.

    These are two completely separate claims here.

    1. That the Iranian constitution ‘literally’ calls for the ethnic cleansing of Jews

    2. The Iranian government is/was carrying out the ethnic cleansing of Jews.

    Point 1 has been disproven.  
    Point 2 was not disputed.

    You are using point 2, to argue point 1.

    I.e your classic ‘straw man’

    This is NOT semantics.  This is a debating tactic that is used frequently, and has been employed persistently by the western media during the current conflict for propaganda purposes.

    I would appreciate it if you would withdraw your false claim that the ethnic cleansing of Jewish people was ‘literally’ in the Iranian constitution - this is a lie, and you are spreading disinformation.
     

    Posting truncated versions of articles to suit your agenda and support your narratives is not ethically sound.  I guess you got it from Wikipedia.  I suggest in future, to prevent misunderstandings, you go directly to the source you are quoting.  

    If you want to make your claim that the Iranian government are/were/will carry out the ethnic cleansing of Jews under the veil of article 14 by making false charges, be my guest. You won’t have an argument from me.  It’s a disgusting practice when Iran do it, and it’s a disgusting practice when Israel do it, and it’s a disgusting practice when the US use their anti-terrorism laws to hold people without charge for decades in Guantanamo bay.

    Misusing the constitution is NOT the same as your claim.

     

    • Thanks 1
  5. 1 hour ago, magnkarl said:

    Article 14 of the Iranian constitution, the article the government uses to wipe out minorities;

    Article 14 (Non-Muslims)

    "The government ... and all Muslims are duty-bound to treat non-Muslims" with "Islamic justice", provided those non-Muslims "refrain from engaging in conspiracy or activity against Islam and the Islamic Republic of Iran."

    Interpret that the way you will, but it is what the government uses to ruthlessly purge Jews, Kurds, Zoroastrians etc.

    That’s a conveniently edited version

    heres article 14 in full.

    Article 13 talks about how those minorities are free to exercise their religious beliefs.

     

     

    You_Doodle_Pro_2024-02-03T12_02_54Z.jpeg

    • Like 1
  6. 7 minutes ago, colhint said:

    I would guess that a l large amount of that good a long with medical aid and fuel goes straight to Hammas

    Yh.  And they fill their home made rockets with food to fire at Israelis chilling on the beach.

     

  7. 16 minutes ago, foreveryoung said:

    Yeah, Smith took us as far as he could, an we moved on to Emery, bingo.

    Nothing wrong with having high expectations in life, or different opinions, deal with it!!

    Nothing at all.

    but at the same time, if you voice your opinion on a forum, expect to have it commented on, and disagreed with.

    This place would be properly boring if everyone agreed all the time.  

    So as much as I don’t agree with your opinion on this matter, I’m very much glad you have it, and voiced it.

    • Like 1
  8. 11 minutes ago, vreitti said:

    True, in a way. FFW I'd still have played Zaniolo over Duran yesterday.

    Zaniolo would have come on and done more of the same of Diaby/Bailey.

    We needed to try something different 

  9. 4 minutes ago, vreitti said:

    Comments like this make it pointless to even discuss. We all see the game differently I suppose.

    Comments like yours make it pointless to discuss.

    The entire game we took short corners because we didn’t have any confidence in winning any aerial battle.  The entire game our crosses were easily dealt with.

    He came on and suddenly we have a different avenue to exploit.  For 60 minutes we had Diaby and Bailey fail to create anything of real significance.  He came on, had a header on target.  Had a flick that went just wide, and had another header that went just wide.  But most importantly he gave us an aerial threat that Bailey and Diaby just didn’t give us.  
     

    We had our tactics negated by their defence.  And we needed something different, that he did.

    Hence he  ‘made an impact’

     

    • Like 1
  10. 2 hours ago, vreitti said:

    I really despair at all these comments of Duran 'doing well' or 'making an impact'. Maybe we're just watching a different game or another sport entirely. The only worthwhile impact from yesterday, was that cute, little flick, that almost went on goal, and that was in over 30 minutes of pitch-time.

    Apart from that moment, he was mostly running around like a headless chicken, constantly raising his arms, moaning and shouting at others. Which tbh, is his usual contribution in most games. I suppose one positive from yesterdays game, was him not getting unnecessarily booked (for the umpteenth time).  

    People are also very keen to point out a weekly basis, that he has an abundance of ability. What do we mean by 'ability' these days, and where exactly is this noticeable? 

    I get it, he's a 20 year old kid, from a place, a tad more exotic than Exeter, and we all want him to do well, but his actual output thus far is simply shit.

     

    His output was more than Bailey, Watkins and Diaby combined yesterday.

     

    He did well.  He made an impact.

     

    Before he came on we didn’t look like doing anything at all.  After he came on we looked a bit less like not doing anything at all.

  11. On 10/01/2024 at 17:56, sidcow said:

    Which comes back to my point. How much money do you need really? 

    They're all multimillionaires. Their families are already set up for generations. 

    Why not just go play somewhere you'll actually enjoy (and still probably get paid more than most people can dream of) 

    Makes no sense to me to drag yourself to somewhere you probably won't like living to play in front of zero fans in a soulless place just so you can sit on a slightly larger throne of cash and have a few more £20s to wipe your arse with. 

    Ah, but you’re asking the wrong crowd.

    Smaug, Thorin (son on Thrain) and any conservative MP will explain much better than anyone here.

×
×
  • Create New...
Â