Ask Your Question today
Is it normal that russia is the latest victim of cancel culture? Before cancel culture without the fear of being boycotted big business dindt bat an eyelash to unwarranted attacks and wars.
If Russia is a victim of cancel culture, then cancel culture is being levied appropriately for once.
I do regret though that we have to take out the whole Russian economy and not just Putin and his close allies.
i picture putin walkin outta the un while givin tony montanas 'say goodnight to the bad guy' speech
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vx0zU0meEFE
I agree with the censorship of russia not because of censoring their point of view but to just break the fingers of the russian economy and influence game.
The only way putin will stop if there is a substantial amount of at home turmoil that forces him to stop. To that end, sorry russian civilians being kicked off of CS go is a better alternative than getting bombed and invaded.
If we end Russia as a substantive threat. China is open wide to be the next big bad. Dont have to focus on a two theater war.
Our soldiers simply aren’t tiktok dancing, cuddling puppies on camera, or coming up with zany one-liners, enough to gain the support of millennials on Twitter so they can make little acrylic pins of our flag to sell on their Etsy.
It’s tragic
Invading a sovereign nation and killing innocent civilians because your leader has some deluded dream of rebuilding a bygone authoritarian empire is tragic.
Good luck with the upcoming economic catastrophe. It's gonna be the 90s all over again, but without all the cool stuff from the era. If I were you, I'd stock-up tons of Adidas tracksuits until it's too late.
If they ban RT ill use a VPN to read their stories. I like to get both sides.
YouTube videos about the flat earth, hollow earth, Tartarian Empire, a secret Nazi base in Antarctica and the holographic moon also provide an alternative point of view.
You forgot that Elvis is not only alive but plotting to take over the world....
Ya, vecause EVERYTHING the BBC and CNN said about the war on terror was truthful, including guantonimo bay being only filled with terrorists. And Sadam having nukes etc.
Your ego is more important to you than the truth and thats why you get mad and always resort to slander. You are just a snobby old geezer and cant handle your holy BBC being possibly wrong about anything.
Jeez-Marie, dude! Having a bad day? Did I touch a raw nerve?
It's amusing how you accuse me of habitually resorting to slander, and then do exactly that yourself.
I don't consider the BBC holy, but I do think it does its best to be accurate and fair. Something which suggests that it generally manages to do that is how those on the whacko right in Britain believe the Beeb is run by a bunch of socialists, while the loony fringes of the British left are convinced it's nothing but a mouthpiece of the Conservative Party. Any organisation that gets hammered from both sides is most likely between them.
I mean, for fuck sake, until fairly recently and in the name of "balance", the BBC would invite some fanatical fruitcake with literally no understanding of climatology (or necessarily any other branch of science) on every time they had an interview with a serious climate scientist about climate change. It was really kinda like them doing an interview with some kid who was the youngest person to ever sail singlehanded around the world, and them having a flat-earther there to say that she didn't actually do it.
Obviously, there's absolutely nothing wrong with getting various perspectives on any story and trying to draw your own conclusions, but it's absurd to believe that Russia Today is a reasonable counterbalance to serious, mainstream Western media. RT is a state-owned, state-controlled organisation, dude. It's a propaganda arm of the Russian government. The only thing that could possibly be considered a reasonable counterbalance to what RT says is whatever information the Ukrainian government is putting out. Neither of them is even trying to tell the complete and unvarnished truth, because they both have agendas and they both hope that their output will have an effect which benefits their side.
You do understand that while they did not find an actual nuke in Iraq that they did find the uranium enrichment facility, did confiscate a significant amount of bomb grade material (not quite yet critical mass for the purity with a gun type assembly bomb - but well on its way), and did find the smoking gun document on Saddam's nuclear bomb ambitions.
Also, the news has really mislead on what was found after the 2nd war. The news is right that they did not find the actual chemical weapons and a few other things they believed Iraq had.
But they did find a fully complete chemical weapon production factories - complete with all key raw ingredients in storage tanks... just waiting to be started up (after sanctions expired); and another under construction.
In essence the US intelligence was right. Iraq had purchased the equipment and built one and was completing a 2nd facility for chemical weapons production. Saddam just hadn't started production yet so we did not find any actual weapons.
While the news stories of these facilities was published... it was like Page 3 news and no one paid much attention to it. Just that the US had not found actual chemical weapons.
Google Nayirah al-Ṣabaḥ this chic testified before congress claiming to be someone who narrowly escaped sadams wrath. She PERSONALLY saw Iraqi soldiers throwing babies in a incinerator at an orphanage. This was all shown on live TV and then it was later leaked she was the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the US and the entire story was made up for US war propaganda. She wasnt even there when they invaded.
Im not even gonna get started on Gautanamo Bay, or Libya, or syria because you probably arent even gonna read it. I dont understand why you old heads trust any mainstream media so much. You should be smart enough to realize that alot of what you see ESPECIALLY when it comes to war is propaganda. RT is also propaganda. Its not always just a about what they tell you its also what they dont tell you.
Who said I read this stuff on mainstream media.
There are sites that deal with nuclear proliferation and chemical weapons.
It's interesting that 4-5 years ago I was touring Oak Ridge (the public areas and museums) and I repeated a story about the Iraq calutrons (magnetic separation machines) and a Rolex watch. The guy at the museum said there was someone he could call that I'd probably like to talk to.
Said person verified the story, and asked what else I knew and from where. I summarized the article I recalled and my memory of what kind of site I read it on; and he verified that as well. Then he told me that he didn't understand why the major news organizations never really focused on what they did find.
Oak Ridge still has a lot of nuclear research and other work going on; and some of it is top secret or above (Q clearance most likely).
This is the 2nd time in my life where I have gotten some rarely talked about information at one of the National Labs because 1) I know a lot more than most people know about nuclear things and most important 2) because I had an "active clearance" in the approved nuclear site worker database, so with a quick look they knew that I had already passed the base stringent security clearance to be able to work in any nuclear site in the USA - and most of the world. I did not have any security clearances above that. But, nothing we talked about was secret.