Topic: I don't know why RT and Radio Sputnik get such a bad rap
Meta !Sober//iZs started this discussion 6 years ago #90,526
They seem pretty reasonable to me ?Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 2 hours later[^] [v] #1,030,765
@OP
I'd probably be wasting my time if I tried to explain. I could talk about how they're tools of the Russian state, regularly spread conspiracy theories, and how each branch supports whatever cause will destabilise an area the most. But I already know that you and anyone else that likes them won't listen.
I'd probably be wasting my time if I tried to explain. I could talk about how they're tools of the Russian state, regularly spread conspiracy theories, and how each branch supports whatever cause will destabilise an area the most. But I already know that you and anyone else that likes them won't listen.
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,030,769
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 7 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,030,773
@1,030,765 (B)
> I'd probably be wasting my time if I tried to explain. I could talk about how they're tools of the Russian state, regularly spread conspiracy theories, and how each branch supports whatever cause will destabilise an area the most. But I already know that you and anyone else that likes them won't listen.
As opposed to US networks. The Kunduz hospital airstrike that killed over 40 innocent civilians received a lot of coverage on CNN and FOX didn't it? And Saudi Arabia using US weapons to commit genocide in Yemen, Americans are really clued up on that little bit of highly lucrative war crime aren't they? Or the time America launched airstrikes on Syria because they claimed Assad had used chemical weapons against his people, and then later the independent Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons stated that no CWC-scheduled chemicals or nerve agent related chemicals were detected in the area (but hey, since when has the American government cared about facts when creating some more servile client states for itself and feeding nonsense to a dumb and apathetic population?). That pesky little detail received a lot of coverage on the American networks, didn't it?
How did you put it? "I already know that you and anyone else that likes them won't listen". Good talk, kid.
> I'd probably be wasting my time if I tried to explain. I could talk about how they're tools of the Russian state, regularly spread conspiracy theories, and how each branch supports whatever cause will destabilise an area the most. But I already know that you and anyone else that likes them won't listen.
As opposed to US networks. The Kunduz hospital airstrike that killed over 40 innocent civilians received a lot of coverage on CNN and FOX didn't it? And Saudi Arabia using US weapons to commit genocide in Yemen, Americans are really clued up on that little bit of highly lucrative war crime aren't they? Or the time America launched airstrikes on Syria because they claimed Assad had used chemical weapons against his people, and then later the independent Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons stated that no CWC-scheduled chemicals or nerve agent related chemicals were detected in the area (but hey, since when has the American government cared about facts when creating some more servile client states for itself and feeding nonsense to a dumb and apathetic population?). That pesky little detail received a lot of coverage on the American networks, didn't it?
How did you put it? "I already know that you and anyone else that likes them won't listen". Good talk, kid.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous B replied with this 6 years ago, 24 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,030,777
@previous (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
You emigrated to Russia so I'd expect you to be sympathetic. Not doing a very good job of hiding that, by the way. Why did you use your Father Merrin persona for that post?
But I noticed you tried to attack the US media instead of actually defending RT, so perhaps you're aware of RT's bias and satsified trying to claim they're as bad as everyone else?
You emigrated to Russia so I'd expect you to be sympathetic. Not doing a very good job of hiding that, by the way. Why did you use your Father Merrin persona for that post?
But I noticed you tried to attack the US media instead of actually defending RT, so perhaps you're aware of RT's bias and satsified trying to claim they're as bad as everyone else?
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U replied with this 6 years ago, 49 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,030,784
@previous (B)
> But I noticed you tried to attack the US media instead of actually defending RT
My aim wasn't to "defend" RT, it was point out your hypocrisy, ignorance and misplaced arrogance in assuming which types of people won't "listen" to your edgy unmasking of a biased media. Sorry it made you so defensive.
You have yourself a blessed day, my child.
> But I noticed you tried to attack the US media instead of actually defending RT
My aim wasn't to "defend" RT, it was point out your hypocrisy, ignorance and misplaced arrogance in assuming which types of people won't "listen" to your edgy unmasking of a biased media. Sorry it made you so defensive.
You have yourself a blessed day, my child.
Anonymous B replied with this 6 years ago, 1 hour later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,030,793
@previous (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
Your response was more a knee-jerk reaction than anything else. You passionately attacked the American media and military, despite me saying nothing about them. Indeed, I'm not an American myself.
But if you agree that RT is biased anyway, then we don't really have much to argue about.
Your response was more a knee-jerk reaction than anything else. You passionately attacked the American media and military, despite me saying nothing about them. Indeed, I'm not an American myself.
But if you agree that RT is biased anyway, then we don't really have much to argue about.
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U replied with this 6 years ago, 2 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,030,794
@previous (B)
> despite me saying nothing about them.
Congratulations, you're starting to understand.
I really didn't think my post would get under your skin like this. I merely pointed out your misplaced arrogance and hypocrisy. Stop being so defensive and go enjoy your Sunday!
> despite me saying nothing about them.
Congratulations, you're starting to understand.
I really didn't think my post would get under your skin like this. I merely pointed out your misplaced arrogance and hypocrisy. Stop being so defensive and go enjoy your Sunday!
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 21 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,030,799
> Or the time America launched airstrikes on Syria because they claimed Assad had used chemical weapons against his people, and then later the independent Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons stated that no CWC-scheduled chemicals or nerve agent related chemicals were detected in the area
I wonder if the two weeks of Russian Army presence before the OPC was allowed access has anything to do with that?
I wonder if the two weeks of Russian Army presence before the OPC was allowed access has anything to do with that?
PEDOFILTH IDENTIFIER joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 10 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,030,803
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U replied with this 6 years ago, 6 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,030,808
@1,030,799 (E)
> I wonder if the two weeks of Russian Army presence before the OPC was allowed access has anything to do with that?
Their report said it didn't (and in fact couldn't, if you know even the remotest thing about what the American government's claim was). But of course you already knew that didn't you? Because you receive your information from unbiased America media and you always make sure to check things before posting about them don't you?
Since you appear interested in this theme, here is what happens on the "fair and balanced" Western media when the former head of the British armed forces tries to point out the blatant and obvious lies of the American version of events in Syria:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43_dPKJmbBc
> I wonder if the two weeks of Russian Army presence before the OPC was allowed access has anything to do with that?
Their report said it didn't (and in fact couldn't, if you know even the remotest thing about what the American government's claim was). But of course you already knew that didn't you? Because you receive your information from unbiased America media and you always make sure to check things before posting about them don't you?
Since you appear interested in this theme, here is what happens on the "fair and balanced" Western media when the former head of the British armed forces tries to point out the blatant and obvious lies of the American version of events in Syria:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43_dPKJmbBc
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
Anonymous E replied with this 6 years ago, 2 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,030,809
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U replied with this 6 years ago, 6 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,030,813
@previous (E)
> Lol I'm not clicking on any information that disturbs my world view
What a surprise. Thanks, that'll be all.
> Lol I'm not clicking on any information that disturbs my world view
What a surprise. Thanks, that'll be all.
Anonymous E replied with this 6 years ago, 42 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,030,816
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U replied with this 6 years ago, 1 hour later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,030,836
Anonymous E replied with this 6 years ago, 3 hours later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,030,896
Syntax joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 9 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,030,900
@previous (E)
Unfortunately he is more obsessed with little boys
inb4_so_called_priest_says_eye-candy-as-one_expects-priest-to-utter-to_congregation.jpg
Unfortunately he is more obsessed with little boys
inb4_so_called_priest_says_eye-candy-as-one_expects-priest-to-utter-to_congregation.jpg
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 19 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,030,908
@1,030,773 (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
> As opposed to US networks. The Kunduz hospital airstrike that killed over 40 innocent civilians received a lot of coverage on CNN and FOX didn't it? And Saudi Arabia using US weapons to commit genocide in Yemen, Americans are really clued up on that little bit of highly lucrative war crime aren't they? Or the time America launched airstrikes on Syria because they claimed Assad had used chemical weapons against his people, and then later the independent Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons stated that no CWC-scheduled chemicals or nerve agent related chemicals were detected in the area (but hey, since when has the American government cared about facts when creating some more servile client states for itself and feeding nonsense to a dumb and apathetic population?). That pesky little detail received a lot of coverage on the American networks, didn't it?
Wow. What a poorly researched bit of whataboutism.
You can easily find stories in American media (including Fox and CNN) about all of these incidents. Way to ignore the bias in RT reporting by ranting about something else entirely though.
> As opposed to US networks. The Kunduz hospital airstrike that killed over 40 innocent civilians received a lot of coverage on CNN and FOX didn't it? And Saudi Arabia using US weapons to commit genocide in Yemen, Americans are really clued up on that little bit of highly lucrative war crime aren't they? Or the time America launched airstrikes on Syria because they claimed Assad had used chemical weapons against his people, and then later the independent Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons stated that no CWC-scheduled chemicals or nerve agent related chemicals were detected in the area (but hey, since when has the American government cared about facts when creating some more servile client states for itself and feeding nonsense to a dumb and apathetic population?). That pesky little detail received a lot of coverage on the American networks, didn't it?
Wow. What a poorly researched bit of whataboutism.
You can easily find stories in American media (including Fox and CNN) about all of these incidents. Way to ignore the bias in RT reporting by ranting about something else entirely though.
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U replied with this 6 years ago, 1 hour later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,030,940
@previous (H)
> > As opposed to US networks. The Kunduz hospital airstrike that killed over 40 innocent civilians received a lot of coverage on CNN and FOX didn't it? And Saudi Arabia using US weapons to commit genocide in Yemen, Americans are really clued up on that little bit of highly lucrative war crime aren't they? Or the time America launched airstrikes on Syria because they claimed Assad had used chemical weapons against his people, and then later the independent Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons stated that no CWC-scheduled chemicals or nerve agent related chemicals were detected in the area (but hey, since when has the American government cared about facts when creating some more servile client states for itself and feeding nonsense to a dumb and apathetic population?). That pesky little detail received a lot of coverage on the American networks, didn't it?
>
> Wow. What a poorly researched bit of whataboutism.
Then you should be able to post a rebuttal of what I wrote rather than just "wow, that wasn't right!", shouldn't you? Go ahead, I will wait.
> > As opposed to US networks. The Kunduz hospital airstrike that killed over 40 innocent civilians received a lot of coverage on CNN and FOX didn't it? And Saudi Arabia using US weapons to commit genocide in Yemen, Americans are really clued up on that little bit of highly lucrative war crime aren't they? Or the time America launched airstrikes on Syria because they claimed Assad had used chemical weapons against his people, and then later the independent Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons stated that no CWC-scheduled chemicals or nerve agent related chemicals were detected in the area (but hey, since when has the American government cared about facts when creating some more servile client states for itself and feeding nonsense to a dumb and apathetic population?). That pesky little detail received a lot of coverage on the American networks, didn't it?
>
> Wow. What a poorly researched bit of whataboutism.
Then you should be able to post a rebuttal of what I wrote rather than just "wow, that wasn't right!", shouldn't you? Go ahead, I will wait.
Anonymous H replied with this 6 years ago, 19 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,030,957
@previous (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
LOL I'm not doing your homework for you. You have to choose to educate yourself. I assume you can google stories about US weapons in Yemen or dig up the OPCW report that actually cites CNN reporting and video. Please stop making up pretend facts to defend RT reporting.
Just crying "I don't like US news media!" doesn't make RT reporting look any better.
LOL I'm not doing your homework for you. You have to choose to educate yourself. I assume you can google stories about US weapons in Yemen or dig up the OPCW report that actually cites CNN reporting and video. Please stop making up pretend facts to defend RT reporting.
Just crying "I don't like US news media!" doesn't make RT reporting look any better.
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U replied with this 6 years ago, 17 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,030,972
@previous (H)
> LOL I'm not doing homework
Yes, I already had you pegged for intellectual laziness. Thanks for confirming.
> LOL I'm not doing homework
Yes, I already had you pegged for intellectual laziness. Thanks for confirming.
Anonymous H replied with this 6 years ago, 17 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,030,979
@previous (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
You even had to fake a quote. The commitment to fake news is strong with this one.
You even had to fake a quote. The commitment to fake news is strong with this one.