9 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

Really.  Too funny coming from Russia.

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/russia-isis-civilian-deaths-united-nations-syria-2016-8

 

The difference is in the West leaders listen to and are influenced by public opinion (not too many will care about Raqqa though), in Russia the leaders can do what they want. That means that Western criticism of Russia is ineffective, but Russian criticism of the western coalition has more effect.

3 hours ago, Krataiboy said:

With so much tat from the pro-US lobby and their tame media sources, a bit of tit from the other side is overdue.

 

The London-based Syrian Network For Human Rights has been widely criticised as a pro-West, anti-Assad/Russia outfit. This view is reinforced by the particular source I quoted. Others I checked believe the Network uses dubious methodology and produces exaggerated figures.  

 

Did you actually actually visit the website I recommended and check the author's credentials? If so, perhaps you would explain why you consider it biased. 

 

I can't see how resorting to dubious sources makes your point stronger. It should be possible to level criticism and point out flaws in the Syrian Network For Human Rights' reporting without it.

 

Yes, I'm well familiar with the website and the author's writings and views. You're welcome to search past topics where this came up (at least a few times), and discussed to death. Not going into all that nonsense again. That she's hardly an objective observer is pretty evident even without much digging in her ramblings.

3 hours ago, punchjudy said:

 

off topic!...... this is about US war crimes

 

2 hours ago, punchjudy said:

 

CNN is just US biased crap

 

Welcome back, "new" opinionated poster....

2 minutes ago, stevenl said:

The difference is in the West leaders listen to and are influenced by public opinion (not too many will care about Raqqa though), in Russia the leaders can do what they want. That means that Western criticism of Russia is ineffective, but Russian criticism of the western coalition has more effect.

If that were true, the US would have got out of Vietnam years earlier and Britain would never have joined the arguably illegal war on Iraq. The lessons of history are easily learned with hindsight.

5 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

I can't see how resorting to dubious sources makes your point stronger. It should be possible to level criticism and point out flaws in the Syrian Network For Human Rights' reporting without it.

 

Yes, I'm well familiar with the website and the author's writings and views. You're welcome to search past topics where this came up (at least a few times), and discussed to death. Not going into all that nonsense again. That she's hardly an objective observer is pretty evident even without much digging in her ramblings.

As I pointed out in my earlier posting, there are numerous other sources which mirror her view of the Syrian Network for Human Rights. Presumably, you are already familiar with them and have concluded, as an "objective observer"  that they, too, are all dubious?

6 minutes ago, Krataiboy said:

If that were true, the US would have got out of Vietnam years earlier and Britain would never have joined the arguably illegal war on Iraq. The lessons of history are easily learned with hindsight.

You can't compare the media influence (traditional and social) at present with that influence 50 years ago, or even 20 or 10 years.

Just now, stevenl said:

You can't compare the media influence (traditional and social) at present with that influence 50 years ago, or even 20 or 10 years.

 

Just now, stevenl said:

You can't compare the media influence (traditional and social) at present with that influence 50 years ago, or even 20 or 10 years.

And your evidence for this statement is?

4 minutes ago, Krataiboy said:

 

And your evidence for this statement is?

Donald Trump.

Just now, stevenl said:

Donald Trump.

Game, set and match to you!

5 minutes ago, Krataiboy said:

As I pointed out in my earlier posting, there are numerous other sources which mirror her view of the Syrian Network for Human Rights. Presumably, you are already familiar with them and have concluded, as an "objective observer"  that they, too, are all dubious?

 

I admit to having a more than average familiarity with information and media sources covering some ME issues. As for what you claim, that's not exactly the case. There is less distinct reporting as you suggest, and quite a bit of re-hashed stories making the rounds. Presumably, you'll post more inane comments as to things I didn't claim.

20 minutes ago, Krataiboy said:

If that were true, the US would have got out of Vietnam years earlier and Britain would never have joined the arguably illegal war on Iraq. The lessons of history are easily learned with hindsight.

 

No, that's just taking things to silly extremes. The media doesn't have that sort of hold on decision makers, but it does bear more influence in the West as opposed to Russia.

Just now, stevenl said:

Donald Trump.

No, seriously. A clever riposte, but do you really believe it? Most of the mass media, domestic and international,  painted Trump as a buffoon and no hoper. And, just like the Brexit referendum, they got it wrong.

 

The truth is that people across the world now no longer believe politicians OR the press. With good reason. Hence the growth of all that "fake news" on alternative web sites and social media that has the Establishment in such a tizzy.

2 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

I admit to having a more than average familiarity with information and media sources covering some ME issues. As for what you claim, that's not exactly the case. There is less distinct reporting as you suggest, and quite a bit of re-hashed stories making the rounds. Presumably, you'll post more inane comments as to things I didn't claim.

 

Cop-out.

6 minutes ago, Krataiboy said:

No, seriously. A clever riposte, but do you really believe it? Most of the mass media, domestic and international,  painted Trump as a buffoon and no hoper. And, just like the Brexit referendum, they got it wrong.

 

The truth is that people across the world now no longer believe politicians OR the press. With good reason. Hence the growth of all that "fake news" on alternative web sites and social media that has the Establishment in such a tizzy.

I think they got it right, unless you think he is not a buffoon. I mentioned, very clearly, all media BTW, suddenly leaving social media out of the equation is a major distortion of a discussion.

 

But were getting off topic, I am not getting into that with you here.

12 minutes ago, Krataiboy said:

 

Cop-out.

7 minutes ago, stevenl said:

I think they got it right, unless you think he is not a buffoon. I mentioned, very clearly, all media BTW, suddenly leaving social media out of the equation is a major distortion of a discussion.

 

But were getting off topic, I am not getting into that with you here.

You're right. It's too complicated for this kind of exchange. Maybe over a beer one day. . . 

Off-topic posts removed.  

11 hours ago, Krataiboy said:

 

I'll let others be the judge of who is losing credibility. I think you're just sore at being outed.

Outed for what?  Going against those who just post anti-US stuff with dodgy links? LOL.  I try to only post credible links.  And am OK if they are proven to be wrong. 

 

Your posts seem to be getting the most heat.  As usual.

12 hours ago, stevenl said:

Donald Trump.

 

11 hours ago, Krataiboy said:

Game, set and match to you!

An excellent point, stevenl, as to why it's hard to go back in time to try and prove a point.  So many bring up Vietnam, etc.  Just can't compare it.  Though some try awfully hard. LOL

3 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

 

An excellent point, stevenl, as to why it's hard to go back in time to try and prove a point.  So many bring up Vietnam, etc.  Just can't compare it.  Though some try awfully hard. LOL

Sneaky!

3 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

Outed for what?  Going against those who just post anti-US stuff with dodgy links? LOL.  I try to only post credible links.  And am OK if they are proven to be wrong. 

 

Your posts seem to be getting the most heat.  As usual.

I think it was Mark Twain who observed that if you found yourself in a majority it was time to start worrying. He was no mug. And he wasn't CIA (unless you can cite a "credible" website which proves otherwise).

19 minutes ago, Krataiboy said:

I think it was Mark Twain who observed that if you found yourself in a majority it was time to start worrying. He was no mug. And he wasn't CIA (unless you can cite a "credible" website which proves otherwise).

Please post properly. Mark Twain did not say that.  You've changed it to suit your purpose.  His quote was this:

https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/m/marktwain122378.html

Quote

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.

And the basis actually came from another.  And has nothing to do with what you're saying.  Twisted for sure.

 

CIA?  More deflection?  LOL
 

5 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

Please post properly. Mark Twain did not say that.  You've changed it to suit your purpose.  His quote was this:

https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/m/marktwain122378.html

And the basis actually came from another.  And has nothing to do with what you're saying.  Twisted for sure.

 

CIA?  More deflection?  LOL
 

Nitpicking as usual. And what's that LOL about?

 

Oh, I get it - Late Of Langley. I knew it!!

Edited October 24, 20178 yr by Krataiboy

2 minutes ago, Krataiboy said:

Nitpicking as usual. And what's that LOL about?

 

Oh, I get it - Late Of Langley. I knew it!!

Nitpicking?  You made an extremely inaccurate post.  And you say I'm nitpicking?  Good gosh.  Again, ya got nothing.

I said: I think  it was Mark Twain who observed that if you found yourself in a majority it was time to start worrying.

 

The verbatim quote: "Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect".

 

Vive le difference!

 

Did you nit-pick like this when you were at Langley? No wonder you got posted!

4 minutes ago, Krataiboy said:

I said: I think  it was Mark Twain who observed that if you found yourself in a majority it was time to start worrying.

 

The verbatim quote: "Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect".

 

Vive le difference!

 

Did you nit-pick like this when you were at Langley? No wonder you got posted!

You totally changed the quote.  It's a lie.  It's not from Mark Twain.  You made it up!

 

I read his actual quote as meaning something entirely different.  In other words, being on the majority is OK.  Just pause to make sure you are doing the right thing.

 

Again, ya got nothing.

Just now, craigt3365 said:

You totally changed the quote.  It's a lie.  It's not from Mark Twain.  You made it up!

 

I read his actual quote as meaning something entirely different.  In other words, being on the majority is OK.  Just pause to make sure you are doing the right thing.

 

Again, ya got nothing.

Well, they do say we are two nations divided by a common language, dear boy.

1 minute ago, Krataiboy said:

Well, they do say we are two nations divided by a common language, dear boy.

Language has nothing to do with it.  And I'm not your dear nor a boy.  Please move on to harass other members.