What were you guys saying about RT news?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-06-2013, 05:38 AM
RE: What were you guys saying about RT news?
(13-06-2013 09:45 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Hey there, I and I. Let's see what you've got this time.

(13-06-2013 02:17 PM)I and I Wrote:  RT just ... won the award for best live coverage 24 hour news channel.

Man, I wouldn't have expected that. Well, let's investigate the link, and -
...
RT Wrote:[RT] captured the Golden Nymph for Best 24-hour News Programme ... for its coverage of the Chelyabinsk meteorite explosion earlier this year
...
for best live coverage of an event as it unfolds

Uh huh. Let's review. The award they won? The totally obscure nobody's-ever-heard-of-it-until-now award? Given out by Monaco's state media organisation, I see. Side note - Monaco's totally know for being completely on the level, right guys?

And what was it they won for, again? Coverage of the meteor over Chelyabinsk? Well, rustle my jimmies. How did a Russian station ever manage to get live coverage of a small Russian town before CNN did? HOW? The mind boggles. In fact the linked press release says how - they coincidentally had a documentary crew in the area at the time.

Oh and also there's the fact RT ≠ RT English (much as, say, Al Jazeera ≠ Al Jazeera English, or BBC ≠ BBC World). I know these subtle distinctions can be hard to grasp.

But never mind that. We can't let facts get in the way of a good narrative!

After all, Russia Today never does.

Check and mate.

[Image: 3cdac7eec8f6b059070d9df56f50a7ae.jpg]
Now with 40% more awesome.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-06-2013, 01:27 PM
RE: What were you guys saying about RT news?
(13-06-2013 03:08 PM)bemore Wrote:  It appears that you hold them in high regard, that they wish to report on "truth".

They are owned by RIA Novosti which is the one of the biggest news organisations in Russia which is owned by the government/state.

They are quick to criticise the west yet they never ever report on their own mass levels of corruption and human rights abuses that happen in their own country. They have their own agenda pretty much like our news agencies over here.

Actually, I don't trust anything Russia Today has to say about events concerning Russia, but they are pretty-damned accurate about everything else - same with Al Jazeera.

For the past 70-years, the United States government has had a world-wide propaganda news service called "Voice of America", but I don't here any of you guys complain about that! Long ago, I found that Voice of America is pretty accurate when it covers issues not directly affecting the USA - but highly suspect otherwise. In that way, it's just like "Russia Today".

News is anything anybody wants to suppress; everything else is public relations.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-06-2013, 02:02 PM
Re: What were you guys saying about RT news?
That I hate their app removed the only section of quality.

I don't need top stories of French actors being ill.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-06-2013, 02:29 PM
RE: What were you guys saying about RT news?
(18-06-2013 01:27 PM)Julius Wrote:  
(13-06-2013 03:08 PM)bemore Wrote:  It appears that you hold them in high regard, that they wish to report on "truth".

They are owned by RIA Novosti which is the one of the biggest news organisations in Russia which is owned by the government/state.

They are quick to criticise the west yet they never ever report on their own mass levels of corruption and human rights abuses that happen in their own country. They have their own agenda pretty much like our news agencies over here.

Actually, I don't trust anything Russia Today has to say about events concerning Russia, but they are pretty-damned accurate about everything else - same with Al Jazeera.

For the past 70-years, the United States government has had a world-wide propaganda news service called "Voice of America", but I don't here any of you guys complain about that! Long ago, I found that Voice of America is pretty accurate when it covers issues not directly affecting the USA - but highly suspect otherwise. In that way, it's just like "Russia Today".

News is anything anybody wants to suppress; everything else is public relations.

According to the people here if it doesn't squirt out of Uncle Sam and land in their mouth then its not news.

They even don't consider American news that is critical of uncle SAMs squirts as real news.

There are many u.s. mainstream media outlets that have admitted that the opposition in Syria is is alqaeda and its affiliates.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/time-to-end...da/5333204

Or when John McCain went to Syria and had his picture taken with alqaeda members. The people here are dumber than shit and will still claim the u.s. isn't supporting terrorists.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-06-2013, 04:42 PM
RE: What were you guys saying about RT news?
(18-06-2013 02:29 PM)I and I Wrote:  u.s. mainstream media
(18-06-2013 02:29 PM)I and I Wrote:  http://www.globalresearch.ca


Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
18-06-2013, 05:34 PM
RE: What were you guys saying about RT news?
(18-06-2013 02:29 PM)I and I Wrote:  The people here are dumber than shit and will still claim the u.s. isn't supporting terrorists.

My ineffable patience twitched (ineffably) Big Grin

Gotta ask yourself dude, if you really believe that the majority of people are dumb as shit and simply sucking up everything the government says then why do you come here and post?

If you think you are "waking people up" then believe me, from experience that is a futile task and instead of "waking people up" its more like wanting something to re-enforce YOUR own views.

For no matter how much I use these symbols, to describe symptoms of my existence.
You are your own emphasis.
So I say nothing.

-Bemore.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like bemore's post
18-06-2013, 05:52 PM
RE: What were you guys saying about RT news?
You and Timecube, I and I. If all else fails, you're still consistent.

(18-06-2013 02:29 PM)I and I Wrote:  The people here are dumber than shit and will still claim the u.s. isn't supporting terrorists.

WHY.

Why are they supporting terrorists? Protip: papers marked 'for shits and giggles' will receive no credit.

Forget the details. Say I believe you. We can disagree about details - who's how evil in Syria, or whatever damn country you want to name (PS: evil US proxies? Khmer Rouge. Game over, man). You love straw more than a starving horse. Forget that. Forget how. Forget where. Forget to what extent. Forget for how long. Forget who.

But WHY.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-06-2013, 07:41 PM
RE: What were you guys saying about RT news?
(18-06-2013 04:42 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(18-06-2013 02:29 PM)I and I Wrote:  u.s. mainstream media
(18-06-2013 02:29 PM)I and I Wrote:  http://www.globalresearch.ca



So you don't read.

The link I posted has several links to Mainstream U.S. news papers.

Again, you only swallow uncle sams love squirts and reject even the U.S. mainstream media that goes against uncle sam. What a joke of an atheist. Aren't atheists supposed to question things?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-06-2013, 08:43 PM
RE: What were you guys saying about RT news?
(18-06-2013 07:41 PM)I and I Wrote:  So you don't read.

Of course not. Why, the very idea!

(18-06-2013 07:41 PM)I and I Wrote:  The link I posted has several links to Mainstream U.S. news papers.

Stormfront has links to real articles too, but if those articles are themselves worth anything, don't link to Stormfront...

The thick editorializing in the link you gave claims that the situation in Syria today - described as a "a sectarian bloodbath driven to astronomical heights" - is deliberate.

Fuck it. We'll do this live. A review, if you will:

Up front - Assad is a murderous jackass. True/false? (hint: it's true)

Contemporaneous protests began two years ago, in Syria among many, many other countries. True/false?

Killing people started with the Syrian Army. And once the army started gunning down people in the streets, things were going to militarize and radicalize. Leading secular figures and foreign intellectuals started out talking big about rights and democracy and all that jazz. They weren't the ones with guns.

You might wonder, then - who did have guns? Well, the army. Kurds. Islamists. The Kurds have little to no outside support (being a thorn in the side of NATO ally Turkey and a wrench in American plans for Iraq, and simultaneously annoying Iran and [Russian-friendly] Armenia will do that for you), and they only want to be left alone.

Of course, the Islamists do have plenty of outside support. They've received weapons from (and, er, actually were themselves from) several other countries (Iraq, predominantly; backed by everybody's favourite reactionaries in places like Qatar, Bahrain, and Saudi Arabia).

Unfortunately, the secularists had nobody's backing.

Who's backing Assad? Initially, nobody - the Russians just wanted Tartus left alone. But two years later? Russia's doubled down (never let it be said they don't appreciate the art of diplomatic trolling - hey, that reminds me of somebody!) And Iran. Why? Well, they're not above trolling either, but much as radical Sunnis hate everybody, they hate Iran. Describing circa-2007 Iran and Syria as allies - or even friends - is wildly misinformed. But when one's the other's enemy's enemy... Besides, do you really think Assad (whose main powerbase is not Shia, so there's that) gives a shit who his friends are right now? His friends are anyone not actively shooting at him.

Once people start dying by the thousands, the question arises as to what should be done. If providing humanitarian aid is supporting terrorists, then fuck it, let's support as many terrorists as we can.

(18-06-2013 07:41 PM)I and I Wrote:  Again, you only swallow uncle sams love squirts and reject even the U.S. mainstream media that goes against uncle sam.

Well, yeah, but have you seen how much the Chinese are paying me?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
18-06-2013, 11:47 PM
RE: What were you guys saying about RT news?
(18-06-2013 08:43 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(18-06-2013 07:41 PM)I and I Wrote:  So you don't read.

Of course not. Why, the very idea!

(18-06-2013 07:41 PM)I and I Wrote:  The link I posted has several links to Mainstream U.S. news papers.

Stormfront has links to real articles too, but if those articles are themselves worth anything, don't link to Stormfront...

The thick editorializing in the link you gave claims that the situation in Syria today - described as a "a sectarian bloodbath driven to astronomical heights" - is deliberate.

Fuck it. We'll do this live. A review, if you will:

Up front - Assad is a murderous jackass. True/false? (hint: it's true)

Contemporaneous protests began two years ago, in Syria among many, many other countries. True/false?

Killing people started with the Syrian Army. And once the army started gunning down people in the streets, things were going to militarize and radicalize. Leading secular figures and foreign intellectuals started out talking big about rights and democracy and all that jazz. They weren't the ones with guns.

You might wonder, then - who did have guns? Well, the army. Kurds. Islamists. The Kurds have little to no outside support (being a thorn in the side of NATO ally Turkey and a wrench in American plans for Iraq, and simultaneously annoying Iran and [Russian-friendly] Armenia will do that for you), and they only want to be left alone.

Of course, the Islamists do have plenty of outside support. They've received weapons from (and, er, actually were themselves from) several other countries (Iraq, predominantly; backed by everybody's favourite reactionaries in places like Qatar, Bahrain, and Saudi Arabia).

Unfortunately, the secularists had nobody's backing.

Who's backing Assad? Initially, nobody - the Russians just wanted Tartus left alone. But two years later? Russia's doubled down (never let it be said they don't appreciate the art of diplomatic trolling - hey, that reminds me of somebody!) And Iran. Why? Well, they're not above trolling either, but much as radical Sunnis hate everybody, they hate Iran. Describing circa-2007 Iran and Syria as allies - or even friends - is wildly misinformed. But when one's the other's enemy's enemy... Besides, do you really think Assad (whose main powerbase is not Shia, so there's that) gives a shit who his friends are right now? His friends are anyone not actively shooting at him.

Once people start dying by the thousands, the question arises as to what should be done. If providing humanitarian aid is supporting terrorists, then fuck it, let's support as many terrorists as we can.

(18-06-2013 07:41 PM)I and I Wrote:  Again, you only swallow uncle sams love squirts and reject even the U.S. mainstream media that goes against uncle sam.

Well, yeah, but have you seen how much the Chinese are paying me?

You states that the secularists has no backing, this is not true, Assad and his government are secular and they are getting support from Russia and Iran.

You also lied about the groups attempting to overthrow Assad, they are not Syrian anymore at this point, and for some time have been foreign militants. Assad is as murderous as any other leader would be if foreign fighters were attempting to topple the government. What if china were funding fighters in the u.s. and doing the same horrendous acts? Of course the u.s. would do the same thing.

You act as if Assad is breaking some international law by trying to stop foreign forces from toppling its government.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: