RugbyRebels

Don’t forget everyone. To comment on a situation you most both live in the vicinity and be neutral.

rowan wrote:By your method of evaluation we should also disregard the Jewish claim to victimhood in WWII on account of the Zionist movement and its crimes in the Middle East.

I've already pointed out that Britain and America committed their own share of war crimes during the two world wars. There were no good guys. Not unless we talk about individuals - human beings who sacrificed their lives in defence of their homeland. In the Soviet Union there were 20 million of them, and we have them to thank, more than anyone, for victory. It is a hateful and juvenile mentality which attempts to twist the narrative and insult the memory of the victims with insidious comparisons.

First off, there is so much inconsistency in this single post that it superbly illustrates how wharped and ill-informed your thinking is.

By my method of evaluation, the claim for Jewish victim-hood in the Second World War is a matter of irrefutable historical record but has nothing to do with Zionist crimes in the Middle East today. I do not deny that at least 20 million Russians died as a consequence of the Second World War, just as I do not deny that somewhere in the region of 6 million Jews were murdered by Nazi Germany and its accomplices.

What I do argue is that these casualties do not in any way excuse or mitigate the criminal actions of today's Israel or today's Russia - they are irrelevant. Wheeling them out as part of the argument is pointless. To suggest that 20 Soviet million war dead should provide some shield against legitimate diplomatic opprobrium today is utterly ludicrous. The insult - and I am sure it is considered and intended - is not leveled at the 20 million Soviet war dead, but at the miserable, testosterone-jet-fueled cunts that control Russia today and their apologists.

I disagree with you there. I think it's totally inappropriate and in fact downright contemptuous to compare Russia to the Nazis in any way or form when there is actually no basis for this and in light of the vast number of Russians killed in the fight against the Nazis. Even much of the mainstream media has agreed with its more liberal and honest counterpart on this point. The mop-headed baboon's comments were heinous and juvenile, even by his own usual depraved standards.

In saying that, it is very clearly a distraction. Without the Russian bogeyman the West has no justification for its endless wars of greed. There is, of course, a better case for comparing America and Britain to the Nazis, given these ongoing wars, which have killed millions since 9/11 alone. ^ that's precisely what the distraction is all about - that and a somewhat childish intent to scandalize Putin's latest political success and the upcoming FIFA World Cup tournament in Russia.

rowan wrote:I have a neutral perspective and you dont...

I think it's totally inappropriate and in fact downright contemptuous to compare Russia to the Nazis in any way or form when there is actually no basis for this and in light of the vast number of Russians killed in the fight against the Nazis...

There is, of course, a better case for comparing America and Britain to the Nazis.

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

Given the history of the Great Game and its sequel the Cold War we must take anything the Brits or Americans say about Russia with a grain of salt. It's a little like talking to Indians about Pakistanis & vice versa, or Turks about Greeks & vice versa. You don't expect a balanced perspective in those situations and rarely receive one. For me I'd say Russia is distinctly the lesser of two evils in comparison with the US & UK, but that's viewing it solely through the lens of foreign policy and interventions. The respective domestic issues are far too complex and varied and your view would depend on such demographics as race, gender, social status and son on.

rowan wrote:Given the history of the Great Game and its sequel the Cold War we must take anything the Brits or Americans say about Russia with a grain of salt. It's a little like talking to Indians about Pakistanis & vice versa, or Turks about Greeks & vice versa. You don't expect a balanced perspective in those situations and rarely receive one. For me I'd say Russia is distinctly the lesser of two evils in comparison with the US & UK, but that's viewing it solely through the lens of foreign policy and interventions. The respective domestic issues are far too complex and varied and your view would depend on such demographics as race, gender, social status and son on.

For fucks sake. You can't accommodate a sympathetic ear. You deliberately avoid any means by which you could be compartmentalised in a discussion, but you pigeon hole everyone on this board with gay abandon from your foxhole. Not a single person on here has supported the sort of rhetoric you have predetermined they posses. Not one. Fucking hell. What makes you so special?

rowan wrote:Given the history of the Great Game and its sequel the Cold War we must take anything the Brits or Americans say about Russia with a grain of salt. It's a little like talking to Indians about Pakistanis & vice versa, or Turks about Greeks & vice versa. You don't expect a balanced perspective in those situations and rarely receive one. For me I'd say Russia is distinctly the lesser of two evils in comparison with the US & UK, but that's viewing it solely through the lens of foreign policy and interventions. The respective domestic issues are far too complex and varied and your view would depend on such demographics as race, gender, social status and son on.

Viewing it solely thru a lens, yes, but not the one you've outlined there, an entirely different, less objective, more prejudice lens would be more accurate.

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

A lot of hypocrisy and twisting comments out of context here, as usual, which is clearly designed to complicate a very simple matter and attack the messenger rather than the message.

The Nazi comparisons were puerile, not based remotely on reality, insensitive given the historical context, and if anything more applicable to Britain itself, given its integral role in America's genocidal wars over the past few decades. In fact, it says a lot more about the British mentality than it does about Russia or Putin. Even the mainstream media has come out and condemned the mop-headed baboon on this occasion, which is really saying something.

Please don't quote him just 'cause he's dafter than a syphilitic polecat (this line is in no way stolen from a dead man)

rowan wrote:A lot of hypocrisy and twisting comments out of context here, as usual, which is clearly designed to complicate a very simple matter and attack the messenger rather than the message.

Have a look in the mirror man. If you persist with this nonsense, Digby will do a minute by minute of the whole thread. Think of the children you wanksock.

morepork wrote:

rowan wrote:A lot of hypocrisy and twisting comments out of context here, as usual, which is clearly designed to complicate a very simple matter and attack the messenger rather than the message.

Have a look in the mirror man. If you persist with this nonsense, Digby will do a minute by minute of the whole thread. Think of the children you wanksock.

So the US expels 60, and what is it 14 different EU countries all expel some Russian "diplomats", all because the Russians absolutely FRICKIN OBVIOUSLY did not use chemical weapons. Why do these people not know as much as (some of ) us? Are they incapable of seeing the Obvious Truth? Or has someone turned off their internet connections?

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

Sure, by your method of evaluation the invasion of Libya must have been justified as well - and everything else NATO has ever done

There's no proof, no motive, no logic to these silly accusations, as anyone with a modicum of intelligence can plainly see.

John Pilger was a truly great crusading journalist. His "Heroes" book is one I treasure and much of his TV documentary work was first rate.

Pity to see his standards have fallen so far.

Pilger has gone the way of far too many 'protest' journalists. They start off giving a voice to those who have been legitimately wronged, pick up a few awards and then become so full of their own importance that they believe their endorsement is all any nonsensical protest needs to lend it credibility.

This works right up to the point where the sane world wises-up and realises that the protest and the protestor are relying on each other for the credibility which one never had and the other has long since lost.

Not remotely true. Pilger's latest film The Coming War on China, released last year, won rave reviews. Even the Guardian heaped praise and described it as gripping,and of course the Guardian is one of a number of major international newspapers - in Britain, America, Australia and elsewhere - that continues to publish Pilger's work. In fact, he has probably never been more in demand, due to his tremendous experience, insight and expertise, and pops up in interviews all over the world. & he's far from alone in his perspective on this current farce. In fact, you are really only expressing your own personal view of Pilger, and that says an awful lot more about you than it does about him, of course.

The Coming War on China - no prizes for who that's about, besides China. Donny sees the world through the foggy little prism of the US and its NATO subordinates - a group of white men who specialize in arranging rapacious wars against the non-white nations of this world. Do we see China boycotting Russia? Of course not. They'd be more likely to boycott the US & EU, as would most Latin American, African and Middle Eastern countries if we look beyond the US-backed puppet governments and dictators. The people of the Middle East consider the US by far the biggest threat to peace in the region, followed by Israel. The US & EU are thoroughly despised around the world, and for very good reason. Nobody believes these lying warmongers any more, not even the bulk of their own citizens.

SerjeantWildgoose wrote:Pilger has gone the way of far too many 'protest' journalists. They start off giving a voice to those who have been legitimately wronged, pick up a few awards and then become so full of their own importance that they believe their endorsement is all any nonsensical protest needs to lend it credibility.

Hmmmm. If that keeps you warm at night, then go with it.
The older I get and the more I follow the money....the more the BS justifications that some old cigar munching fecker in a nice suit told me when I was a kid sound even more daft.

Anyone else seen '55 days in Peking' ?. David Niven and Charlton Heston.
I was channel hopping but watching it intermittently. WTF were we doing other than nicking their stuff...?.

Unusual to see Big Dave Niven as the baddie..... he portrayed an unlikable military officer surprisingly well.

rowan wrote:Not remotely true. Pilger's latest film The Coming War on China, released last year, won rave reviews.

The Coming War on China - no prizes for who that's about, besides China. Donny sees the world through the foggy little prism of the US and its NATO subordinates - a group of white men who specialize in arranging rapacious wars against the non-white nations of this world.

Excellent example.

And exactly how much of his film does Pilger devote to the rapacious factory fishing of sovereign waters by China off the west coast of Africa? China is possibly THE most rapacious larcenist on the planet and its stripping of fish stocks from the territorial waters of every nation from Gambia down to Côte d'Ivoire - that is to say those who have no coast guard or maritime capability and are, consequently, defenceless - is only one example. This example alone is responsible for the loss to these impoverished countries of a significant chunk of their revenues and, by removing the principal source of protein from its peoples' diets, responsible for regional malnutrition and all of the health issues that come with it.

Foggy little prisms work both ways and Pilger's version is no less clouded than anyone else's. By choosing to champion China, he is beyond the bottom of the barrel and scraping away at the bedrock.

rowan wrote:In fact, you are really only expressing your own personal view of Pilger, and that says an awful lot more about you than it does about him, of course.

Surely the one essential requirement of debate is the capacity to form and communicate a contention based on one's 'own personal view' [Note to self; what else can my own view be but 'personal'?] and not to merely swamp those of an opposing view with exhaustive third-hand quotes from niche sources and burnt-out professional protestors?

kk67 wrote:WTF were we doing other than nicking their stuff...?.

Er, opening up their markets and bringing Christianity and Opium to the people?

kk67 wrote:Unusual to see Big Dave Niven as the baddie..... he portrayed an unlikable military officer surprisingly well.

Why surprisingly? Niven spent some years as an unlikable officer in the Highland Light Infantry, the Rifle Brigade and even the early Commandos.

I take it you haven't seen The Coming War on China then, because it received wide acclaim for its impartiality among other factors. That's something you lack, however, with your wildly exaggerated claims, and whatever else China is doing, it certainly isn't bombing several nations constantly over a period of years and even decades in some cases, killing millions and destroying the lives of millions more.

You're quite happy to point out what you regard as the limitations of other people's perspectives, even those of one of the world's most respected political journalists and documentary makers, but become quite snarky when it is pointed out to you that your own perspectives also have their limitations. So it does need to be pointed out that you, too, see the world through a foggy little prism, and your disparaging comments about Pilger only reflect this.

Pilger is absolutely right, as usual. There is no evidence and no motive to suggest Russia did this. Quite the opposite, in fact. NATO is furious with Moscow at the moment for thwarting its designs on Syria, it needs a bogeyman to cover its own ongoing war crimes, Theresa May wants to look like a strong leader to revive her sagging approval ratings, and there is a childish agenda to shroud in controversy any major sports event which is held in Russia. We've seen this time again.

Good read here:

This is a good review.

David Hunt writing for The Diplomat in December 2016 https://thediplomat.com/2016/12/the-tro ... -on-china/):

"I was left feeling an odd mixture of sympathy and exasperation after enduring John Pilger’s latest documentary, The Coming War on China.

Despite the journalist’s long career of opposing tyranny, oppression, and dictatorship wherever he may find it, Pilger’s loathing of the United States has led him to produce a film that acts as an apology for Chinese totalitarianism, distorts the truth about Asian politics, and presents China as a passive victim in a potential new superpower war. Actually, my sympathy for his intellectual descent is less sincere than my anger; what I watched was an incendiary spectacle that manages to circle the triumvirate of narcissism, ignorance, and propaganda."

Yeah, well, that's just like, your opinion man.

This is a very good review.

Jake Wilson in the Sydney Morning Herald (https://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/mo ... u85q5.html):

"John Pilger's new documentary The Coming War on China ought to be a film of urgent interest, given the not insubstantial possibility that the war in question might wind up killing us all. But even by Pilger's standards, this is a vague, blustery polemic, wandering from one subject to another in a disorientating way.

As with Michael Moore's Where To Invade Next, the title is deliberately misleading. Though a portion of the film was shot in China, Pilger has little of substance to say about the current political situation there – and though he supplies a brief history of racist US attitudes towards the Chinese, his real interest lies in mounting a broader critique of American foreign policy in the Pacific and beyond over the past half century."

morepork wrote:Yeah, well, that's just like, your opinion man.

Back off Big Nose! THESE FECKING OPINIONS DON'T READ THEMSELVES YOU KNOW!