well then you state they are 'more left' or 'more progressive' than you. make it a relative statement, rather than an (incorrect) declarative one. someone being a little left of hardcore right-wing does not make them 'left-wing'. if the topic at hand you are discussing / the news story / an individual's politics has no left-wing aspects, stop calling it left-wing. 'left of you' is not 'left-wing'. read a book.Extra Medium wrote:
I'm an American on an American forum in a thread about a crime that happened in America responding to a post about American media that included a list of American media outlets followed by rebuttals talking about American media. YOU are the ONLY person here that is mentioning ANYTHING about foreign countries, foreign media, and foreign opinion. I understand that all of America is relativly centrist in the eyes of the world but I can't sit here and make an argument where I call both sides fucking centrists for the sake of international political correctness can I?Uzique The Lesser wrote:
i'm not saying you should care what someone from australia's opinion is of CNN - all i'm saying is that if you're going to call-out its spot on the political compass, do it correctly. america has a really bad habit of misapplying terms like 'leftist' and 'liberal' (normally to try and sully people), when really the things being spoken about are entirely centrist.
We're about to go to war with Syria and when I turned on Fox yesterday (accidentally) all they were talking about was a fire on a cruise ship that didn't even kill anyone. Interviewing stupid fucking tourists. Awww ya go Amerikur
about to go to war with syria? where do you get all this Stupid from?
Uzique The Lesser wrote:
about to go to war with syria? where do you get all this Stupid from?
More likely we're about to go to war with Al Qaeda in about five years, after they've turned Syria into the next Afghanistan.
So in that respect I suppose we will be going to war with Syria....
So in that respect I suppose we will be going to war with Syria....
Fuck Israel
John McCain sneaking into Syria over the weekend. Israel saying they'd bomb Russian ships. Etc. etc. I was exagerrating. Take a chill pill.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
about to go to war with syria? where do you get all this Stupid from?
lolExtra Medium wrote:
I understand that all of America is relativly centrist in the eyes of the world
none of that indicates the risk of war at all. if anything it just signals the fact we're turning syria over to the dogs of geopolitical power-games. it's going to get very interesting... but no western power is going to deploy there. it's a cash-in, if anything.Spearhead wrote:
John McCain sneaking into Syria over the weekend. Israel saying they'd bomb Russian ships. Etc. etc. I was exagerrating. Take a chill pill.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
about to go to war with syria? where do you get all this Stupid from?
Don't be ridiculous. Russia is preventing foreign intervention in Syria by being a foreign power intervening and selling weapons to Syria.Spearhead wrote:
John McCain sneaking into Syria over the weekend. Israel saying they'd bomb Russian ships. Etc. etc. I was exagerrating. Take a chill pill.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
about to go to war with syria? where do you get all this Stupid from?
Yeah just like how the US prevented teh soviets from intervening in afghanistan by giving the muj weapons right?DesertFox- wrote:
Don't be ridiculous. Russia is preventing foreign intervention in Syria by being a foreign power intervening and selling weapons to Syria.Spearhead wrote:
John McCain sneaking into Syria over the weekend. Israel saying they'd bomb Russian ships. Etc. etc. I was exagerrating. Take a chill pill.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
about to go to war with syria? where do you get all this Stupid from?
Nobody wants to intervene in syria. It's just a piss poor excuse omg russia is gonna threaten us
sometimes i genuinely think americans are given a whole different history/world events news than the rest of the world.
I obviously wasn't serious, you'll note.Cybargs wrote:
Yeah just like how the US prevented teh soviets from intervening in afghanistan by giving the muj weapons right?DesertFox- wrote:
Don't be ridiculous. Russia is preventing foreign intervention in Syria by being a foreign power intervening and selling weapons to Syria.Spearhead wrote:
John McCain sneaking into Syria over the weekend. Israel saying they'd bomb Russian ships. Etc. etc. I was exagerrating. Take a chill pill.
Nobody wants to intervene in syria. It's just a piss poor excuse omg russia is gonna threaten us
manifest destiny.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
sometimes i genuinely think americans are given a whole different history/world events news than the rest of the world.
This war is more Qatar/Saudi Arabia's interests vs the West. Sure Assad does business with Iran, let's Russia station their military in his country, and switched sides during the Iraq war. All reasons that would make Washington scream "regime change" the second they see an opening(Arab Spring). At the end of the day, they would prefer to do business with the evil they know instead of the evil they don't know.
That being said, no country is going to intervene on behalf of the rebels. None of their interests are being directly threatened. They don't gain anything by taking out Assad.
Russia is protecting Syria by selling them advance weapons, vetoing security council resolutions(as if they matter), and providing logistical support to the Syrian military. Iran is helping them as well but not to the same extent. The Syrian military is capable, better funded and equipped, and loyal to the regime. It is really all that matters.
The EU weapons embargo was lifted so that could be a game changer if these countries do what the US did in the 1980s during Soviet-Afghan war.
That being said, no country is going to intervene on behalf of the rebels. None of their interests are being directly threatened. They don't gain anything by taking out Assad.
Russia is protecting Syria by selling them advance weapons, vetoing security council resolutions(as if they matter), and providing logistical support to the Syrian military. Iran is helping them as well but not to the same extent. The Syrian military is capable, better funded and equipped, and loyal to the regime. It is really all that matters.
The EU weapons embargo was lifted so that could be a game changer if these countries do what the US did in the 1980s during Soviet-Afghan war.
You must have heard that on BBC America, seeing as how you are the only person in the world that seems to know about it.Spearhead wrote:
We're about to go to war with Syria and when I turned on Fox yesterday (accidentally) all they were talking about was a fire on a cruise ship that didn't even kill anyone. Interviewing stupid fucking tourists. Awww ya go Amerikur
God damn the stupidity and banality of bf2s really does just fucking suck most of the time. I was obviously using rhetorical language. Like most of you people do every single day here. "We're about to go to war" was relevant to Iraq for like 12 fucking years. I didn't mean next week, or tomorrow, you shit for brains, I meant that shit is hitting the fan since the man who was almost president is trying to rock the boat by going there.
BF2s -- the only place where having fun with language gets you spat on.
Heres a pro-tip : try reading the rest of what I said next time. It was an obvious swipe at the American medias obsession with fluff stories when more important things are going on in the world. Its called context. Sometimes you exagerate in order to compare two different things, for the sake of argument. Half of the time here on bf2s I'm playing devils advocate. I can recognize it when other people do too. But for the lazy, it is confusing and offensive.
BF2s -- the only place where having fun with language gets you spat on.
Heres a pro-tip : try reading the rest of what I said next time. It was an obvious swipe at the American medias obsession with fluff stories when more important things are going on in the world. Its called context. Sometimes you exagerate in order to compare two different things, for the sake of argument. Half of the time here on bf2s I'm playing devils advocate. I can recognize it when other people do too. But for the lazy, it is confusing and offensive.
Last edited by Spearhead (2013-05-30 01:50:43)
wow, what an angry and condescending little twerp. don't say we're "lazy" and "cannot understand rhetorical" language. if i can breeze through lucretius, i think i can just about handle the brilliance coming from some sun-state redneck. i can understand rhetorical language perfectly well, thank you.Spearhead wrote:
God damn the stupidity and banality of bf2s really does just fucking suck most of the time. I was obviously using rhetorical language. Like most of you people do every single day here. "We're about to go to war" was relevant to Iraq for like 12 fucking years. I didn't mean next week, or tomorrow, you shit for brains, I meant that shit is hitting the fan since the man who was almost president is trying to rock the boat by going there.
BF2s -- the only place where having fun with language gets you spat on.
Heres a pro-tip : try reading the rest of what I said next time. It was an obvious swipe at the American medias obsession with fluff stories when more important things are going on in the world. Its called context. Sometimes you exagerate in order to compare two different things, for the sake of argument. Half of the time here on bf2s I'm playing devils advocate. I can recognize it when other people do too. But for the lazy, it is confusing and offensive.
you were trying to emphasize how the american media's priorities are all wrong, and how their reporting tends to go for the picturesque/trivial-- nobody is questioning that. however your "we're about to go to war with syria" statement is what got people snorting. we're not about to go to war with syria. you can't complain about the quality of US news and then portray such a shoddy understanding of world-events yourself. mccain going to syria has NO parallels with the "years before iraq". the western world are not even gearing up or looking at syria in the same way as they were looking at iraq - it's a completely different geopolitical situation, and a completely different era. the situation in syria is by no means a case of 'there's a dictator, let's go topple him'. it's far more complicated than that. many syrians still support assad. there is no consensus. the international community have never mentioned war or invasion once. frankly it's kind of surprising we're even agreeing to sell weapons to the rebels - and that reflects badly on us. we are not "about to go to war" with syria, by any measure. so your 'rhetoric', which nobody supposedly 'got', was just faulty, not clever.
Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-05-30 03:57:41)
Only on bf2s could a topic about a mexican shooting a black kid turn into a discussion about BBC America falsely reporting that the U.S. will declare war on Syria. Get your fucking facts straight spearhead and get back on topic por favor.
the BBC would never post something as stupid as "america is going to declare war on syria".
I know right? They spend all their time making sure the news is correct and almost no time at all making sure their employees aren't raping children for several decades.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
the BBC would never post something as stupid as "america is going to declare war on syria".
could point out to me a figure from the british news network involved in pedophilia or child abuse? last time i checked it was a children's entertainer. you are capable of understanding that large 'umbrella' organizations do more than one thing, right? bbc's news-reporting and reliability is not sullied because a popular television presenter and DJ fiddled some kids. i know that concept may blow your mind.
Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-05-30 10:39:59)
Rolf isn't even british
I dont know where he comes from, but I'm sure its a lovely place..
I dont know where he comes from, but I'm sure its a lovely place..
Too soon?Uzique The Lesser wrote:
could point out to me a figure from the british news network involved in pedophilia or child abuse? last time i checked it was a children's entertainer. you are capable of understanding that large 'umbrella' organizations do more than one thing, right? bbc's news-reporting and reliability is not sullied because a popular television presenter and DJ fiddled some kids. i know that concept may blow your mind.
too soon for what?
The same mgmt team was responsible for the whole organisation, for not doing anything for all those years, and for finally burying the Newsnight expose.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
could point out to me a figure from the british news network involved in pedophilia or child abuse? last time i checked it was a children's entertainer. you are capable of understanding that large 'umbrella' organizations do more than one thing, right? bbc's news-reporting and reliability is not sullied because a popular television presenter and DJ fiddled some kids. i know that concept may blow your mind.
The BBC has mud on it.
BBC News policy is semi-political, its not straight down the middle by any stretch, not in terms of opinion as they don't offer any, but in terms of airtime they give to different sides and issues.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2013-05-31 02:57:49)
Fuck Israel