RugbyRebels

Ad hominems, Sarge. Just for once try to address the arguments, rather than attack the messenger. I mean, according to you, anyone who doesn't agree with the warmongering corporate mainstream propaganda of the US & Britain has been discredited. Discredited by who? The world's foremost independent investigative journalists and political commentators haven't been discredited just because some guy on a rugby chat bored says so, that's for certain...

I provided 4 examples of individual writers who have criticised Pilger's latest work. Obviously these are not credible to you because they take a contrary view to your own.

World's foremost independent investigative journalists and political commentators?

Says who?

You?

Or yet another twat with a crusade?

Let me be clear.

I have not had sight of the/any evidence regarding the causes of the injuries sustained by Nick Bailey and the Skripals or who may have perpetrated the assault.

You have not had sight of the/any evidence regarding the causes of the injuries sustained by Nick Bailey and the Skripals or who may have perpetrated the assault.

Neither John Pilger, Nafeez Ahmed nor any other political commentator has had sight of the/any evidence regarding the causes of the injuries sustained by Nick Bailey and the Skripals or who may have perpetrated the assault.

The facts of the matter are obscured to all of us and our opinions can only be formed on our world view. Mine is formed by my experience; others by theirs. It would require a compelling, evidence-based and measured argument from a truly independent source to convince me that other views, which have helped shape my own, are wrong.

My argument is that you have failed to offer anything like a compelling, evidence-based and measured argument from a truly independent source.

Tu quoque!

SerjeantWildgoose wrote:

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

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

I wish I'd said that.

morepork wrote:At the risk of sounding redundant, not one person on here has supported either the morally degenerate practice ....or the negative impact of the US military industrial complex on contemporary history.

The US made huge profits from WWI and II. They paid a price in terms of humans but both conflicts were a massive money spinner with almost zero impact on the Homeland. Same in the middle east.

In fact they've suffered no Homeland damage from war since their own Civil war. Not surprising their governance eulogises the military and seeks the profits of war.
That they are seeking more of the same is not a big surprise.

kk67 wrote:
The US made huge profits from WWI and II. They paid a price in terms of humans but both conflicts were a massive money spinner with almost zero impact on the Homeland. Same in the middle east.

In fact they've suffered no Homeland damage from war since their own Civil war. Not surprising their governance eulogises the military and seeks the profits of war.
That they are seeking more of the same is not a big surprise.

Very true, with the exception of Hawaii, which they don't care about, and whose native peoples have never wanted to be part of the USA either.

Meanwhile, another good read:

Skripal posed no further threat to the Russian state. There is at least one report that he sought to return to Russia recently. It’s hard to comprehend why at this time Moscow would poison him and his young daughter visiting from Russia with a nerve agent (Novichok) created in the USSR from the 1970s but subsequently banned and destroyed under international supervision. Cui bono? Who profits from these poisonings?

https://www.mintpressnews.com/the-skrip ... in/239684/

3000 people were killed in NYC 2001. Is it the result of a conventional war? Maybe not, but 3000 nonetheless.

Numbers of dead...wow.
Put a number on it ,

kk67 wrote:Numbers of dead...wow.
Put a number on it ,

The number was to make the point, possibly peripheral to your direct statement, that these deaths definitely qualify for the homeland damage designation. I'm happy to accept critique of the cause of said deaths, but cannot dismiss them outright.

morepork wrote:3000 people were killed in NYC 2001. Is it the result of a conventional war? Maybe not, but 3000 nonetheless.

Not. & who would you pin the blame on? Saudi Arabia? Afghanistan? There have been countless other terrorist attacks in America, many committed by white supremacists, of course. In fact, 94% of terrorist attacks in the US between 1980 and 2005 were not committed by Muslims. Even Jewish extremists carried out more. While less than 0.0002% of Americans violently killed since 9/11 were done so at the hands of Muslims. In fact, the rate of violent deaths among Muslims in America has been somewhat higher.

morepork wrote:

kk67 wrote:Numbers of dead...wow.
Put a number on it ,

The number was to make the point, possibly peripheral to your direct statement, that these deaths definitely qualify for the homeland damage designation. I'm happy to accept critique of the cause of said deaths, but cannot dismiss them outright.

The Homeland designation.
Is that Tuesday morning when the White House has it's kill meets..?.

rowan wrote:

morepork wrote:3000 people were killed in NYC 2001. Is it the result of a conventional war? Maybe not, but 3000 nonetheless.

Not. & who would you pin the blame on? Saudi Arabia? Afghanistan? There have been countless other terrorist attacks in America, many committed by white supremacists, of course. In fact, 94% of terrorist attacks in the US between 1980 and 2005 were not committed by Muslims. Even Jewish extremists carried out more. While less than 0.0002% of Americans violently killed since 9/11 were done so at the hands of Muslims. In fact, the rate of violent deaths among Muslims in America has been somewhat higher.

You are assuming that I apportion blame for the overall rate (which I most definitely do not) to the ethnographic you state here. Far more Americans have died at the hands of coordinated domestic groups....you'll get no argument from me there. Please do not attempt to paint me as a proponent of blaming your selected ethnicities for the loss of life overall, as I would find that grossly offensive. I am merely pointing out that the loss of 3000 lives qualifies for definition of homeland damage. I lived through that NYC tragedy, so please be respectful of that.

kk67 wrote:

morepork wrote:

kk67 wrote:Numbers of dead...wow.
Put a number on it ,

The number was to make the point, possibly peripheral to your direct statement, that these deaths definitely qualify for the homeland damage designation. I'm happy to accept critique of the cause of said deaths, but cannot dismiss them outright.

The Homeland designation.
Is that Tuesday morning when the White House has it's kill meets..?.

What is the homeland designation and what is your point?

The Whitehouse has weekly meetings regarding who they will kill.

It seems very odd to me, not at all odd, that we have constant media conflagrations like this week about cheating in Cricket when we have constant examples of cheating in multinationals and their accountancy stooges.

There are lots of cheap Jeremy Kyle telly programs about 'catch a contractor'...... but precious few programs about 'catch a dodgy accountant', 'Catch a dodgy insurance salesman'....'Snare a paedophile copper'.
Lots of attempts to demonize the vulnerable.......Lots of attempts to Lionize the psychopathic.

If the Elite are a bunch of crooks,....what will society become.

morepork wrote:

rowan wrote:

morepork wrote:3000 people were killed in NYC 2001. Is it the result of a conventional war? Maybe not, but 3000 nonetheless.

Not. & who would you pin the blame on? Saudi Arabia? Afghanistan? There have been countless other terrorist attacks in America, many committed by white supremacists, of course. In fact, 94% of terrorist attacks in the US between 1980 and 2005 were not committed by Muslims. Even Jewish extremists carried out more. While less than 0.0002% of Americans violently killed since 9/11 were done so at the hands of Muslims. In fact, the rate of violent deaths among Muslims in America has been somewhat higher.

You are assuming that I apportion blame for the overall rate (which I most definitely do not) to the ethnographic you state here. Far more Americans have died at the hands of coordinated domestic groups....you'll get no argument from me there. Please do not attempt to paint me as a proponent of blaming your selected ethnicities for the loss of life overall, as I would find that grossly offensive. I am merely pointing out that the loss of 3000 lives qualifies for definition of homeland damage. I lived through that NYC tragedy, so please be respectful of that.

It was a rhetorical question, not even directed at you personally, and they weren't my selected ethnicities but those of the US source I reference. My only point was that acts of terrorism cannot be regarded as acts of war unless they are state-sponsored, and there was nothing remotely disrespectful about that comment at all.

Incidentally, Mexican soldiers under Pancho Villa and Jose Escobar carried out raids within US territory during the border wars early last century. Those would be the only attacks on Mainland America involving fatalities (a few hundred soldiers, in total) since the Civil War. The US, meanwhile, has conducted well over 100 foreign interventions during that time, and almost 200 since independence. It has, in fact, not been at peace for more than 21 years at any time since its independence. Here is a list of its foreign interventions since WWII.

China 1949 to early 1960s
Albania 1949-53
East Germany 1950s
Iran 1953 *
Guatemala 1954 *
Costa Rica mid-1950s
Syria 1956-7
Egypt 1957
Indonesia 1957-8
British Guiana 1953-64 *
Iraq 1963 *
North Vietnam 1945-73
Cambodia 1955-70 *
Laos 1958 *, 1959 *, 1960 *
Ecuador 1960-63 *
Congo 1960 *
France 1965
Brazil 1962-64 *
Dominican Republic 1963 *
Cuba 1959 to present
Bolivia 1964 *
Indonesia 1965 *
Ghana 1966 *
Chile 1964-73 *
Greece 1967 *
Costa Rica 1970-71
Bolivia 1971 *
Australia 1973-75 *
Angola 1975, 1980s
Zaire 1975
Portugal 1974-76 *
Jamaica 1976-80 *
Seychelles 1979-81
Chad 1981-82 *
Grenada 1983 *
South Yemen 1982-84
Suriname 1982-84
Fiji 1987 *
Libya 1980s
Nicaragua 1981-90 *
Panama 1989 *
Bulgaria 1990 *
Albania 1991 *
Iraq 1991
Afghanistan 1980s *
Somalia 1993
Yugoslavia 1999-2000 *
Ecuador 2000 *
Afghanistan 2001 *
Venezuela 2002 *
Iraq 2003 *
Haiti 2004 *
Somalia 2007 to present
Honduras 2009 *
Libya 2011 *
Syria 2012 to present
Ukraine 2014 *
Yemen 2015 to present

rowan wrote:

morepork wrote:3000 people were killed in NYC 2001. Is it the result of a conventional war? Maybe not, but 3000 nonetheless.

Not. & who would you pin the blame on? Saudi Arabia? Afghanistan? There have been countless other terrorist attacks in America, many committed by white supremacists, of course. In fact, 94% of terrorist attacks in the US between 1980 and 2005 were not committed by Muslims. Even Jewish extremists carried out more. While less than 0.0002% of Americans violently killed since 9/11 were done so at the hands of Muslims. In fact, the rate of violent deaths among Muslims in America has been somewhat higher.

Are you claiming that none of those fighting the US in Afghanistan or Iraq are muslim? Else it can't possibly be the case that such a small % of Americans killed since 9/11 have been killed by muslims. I doubt we'd be looking at 50% or anything close, maybe not even 25%, but there's no chance it'd be some fraction of 1%

The discussion is about attacks on American territory, Digby. But for the record there were over 400 K American deaths in WWII and almost 60 K in Vietnam, compared with only 4.5 K in Iraq and 2.3 K in Afghanistan. Meanwhile, around 250 K Vietnamese, 2.4 million Iraqis and 150 K Afghanis perished as a result of those wars.

I'm going to guess at more people have died at the hands of the USA rather than yes my sentence made no snese

Digby wrote:I'm going to guess at more people have died at the hands of the USA rather than yes my sentence made no snese

If you're getting more money than is reasonable. You probably reckon it's reasonable.

kk67 wrote:
There are lots of cheap Jeremy Kyle telly programs about 'catch a contractor'......

You've just gone up in my estimation. Clearly you have never watched Jeremy Kyle, whose telly programmes are all about fat, ugly people who fuck their spouses' mothers.

...with bad teeth. Don't forget the bad teeth...they are crucial to his US sales.
Many of them are 'actors' wearing fake teeth. The US loves it.

oh dear... looked like May jumped the gun.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/h ... 86761.html

"UK experts cannot prove novichok nerve agent used on Skripals came from Russia, MoD says"

Zhivago wrote:oh dear... looked like May jumped the gun.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/h ... 86761.html

"UK experts cannot prove novichok nerve agent used on Skripals came from Russia, MoD says"

How embarrassing for the British

Similar to the Americans having to fess up to the fact they had no evidence against Assad at all, after Trump had already fired a missile at them as punishment (ostensibly) . . .

Does that mean that Corbyn was right to wait on the evidence?
Still seems vastly more likely to be Russia than anywhere else though.