Thank you for that mature and insightful contribution. It's nice to see that you're open to debate and discussion. It's "lying", by the way.
What an idiot! Same response as Tubby to anybody who disagrees with his views. They're lying and have no comprehension.
Can we have no more insults to other members on here, please? Disagreement's fine. It's the only way that anything gets interesting. Keep it civil though, please.
It's patently obvious that anybody who pays any significant attention to the press or media and who claims either : - that there has been more press and media coverage of civilians killed in Mosul by US bombing, than there has been of civilians killed in Aleppo by Russian bombing or - that they have seen more press and media coverage of civilians killed in Mosul by US bombing, than they have of civilians killed in Aleppo by Russian bombing is lieing. I am not accountable for that lie, and there is no need for me to have to substantiate the contention that Aleppo has received greater press coverage, because any person who follows current affairs to any extent, knows it to be true. It's all very well to accuse me of insulting other posters by calling them liars, but when they are patently being dishonest, the problem lies in that dishonesty, and not in my identification of it.
That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. You've made a claim. It's not victimising you to ask you to support it or for others to disagree with it. It certainly doesn't mean that someone has a "halfwitted agenda" or that they're being dishonest. You claim that you want a discussion, yet you explode when challenged. Hardly promoting healthy discourse, is it?
Two questions here : 1. Are a significant number of sorties flown on Mosul done by USA military ?? 2. If the answer to 1 is yes, are those sorties being flown with the explicit knowledge/endorsement, or are they being done anyway by the USA military ?? The answers to the above will determine whether Hair Donald can stop those sorties.
The Iraqi military explicitly asked for this one, apparently: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-39398336
So from that I deduce that nobody can say whether : 1. Hair Donald knew about the planned air strikes or not 2. The said civilian casualties have been caused by IEDs made by the mad muslim muppets, or yet more "precision" attacks by the USAF. <Now, you ladies carry on>
I'll come back with a view to contributing in a more collalorative and respectful way another day. Already trying to stave sleep off tonight before i get somehing finished. I would say briefly though, that this thread would be of a lot more value, if we all discussed matters in an objective way, rather than steering everything towards pur pre stated agendas come what may. We should all be mostly mature enough and intelligent enough to manage that, I would have thought.
Trump's aware of the activities against ISIS in general and has upped the number of drone strikes, but I doubt he knew the specifics. He doesn't seem that hands on, to me. As for the Iraqi Army claims about it being a car bomb, I wouldn't like to say yet, but I'd treat it with scepticism. They just happened to bomb the place that the US were bombing, too? Really? We'll see, I guess.
Russia protests: Opposition leader Navalny and hundreds others arrested - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-39398305 Now there's a surprise, Putin clamps down on the opposition by once again arresting it's leader and staff for engaging in democratic protest. Oh - sorry, it was an illegal protest. Why? Because it was against Putin...... Just as well he's doing such a humanitarian job in Syria or you might assume he was some dictatorial warlord!
It's not ideal obvs, but hey, if it prevents a 'Syria' from happening in a country with vast quantities of nuclear weapons, I won't lose too much sleep over it. And while I can understand the "dictatorial" bit (not that ai necessarily thinkmit's a big issue), I don't personally agree with the warlord tag. Again, I'd attach that mich more readily to UK or US. But hey, these discussions only seem to lead to rows, so...
So while the vast majority of British businesses were hit with a hike in business rates in the recent Budget, guess whose company has not only avoided that hike but has received a 10% cut in the business rates they have to pay? If your guess was Phillip Hammond, who coincidentally happens to be Chancellor of the Exchequer, you would be correct. Now for the follow up question: just how much of a toxic mega **** will Theresa May be when this is brought up at PMQs?
1. Is his "company" premises in a region where rateable value has diminished ?? 2. Has said company moved to that region in between the change of rate values ??
1.) No, as the average rates in Wrexham increased in the Budget 2.) No, as they have been based in Wrexham since 1994 (source: their website) It's also worth noting that the showroom for the wallpaper form owned George Osborne's family based on King's Road also got a remarkably beneficial business rate cut in the budget, while the majority of businesses in that postcode saw a large hike in their rates.
Hmm. The rate reduction may be legit (I have encountered businesses in the past who for years were over-paying) , but as with all these things, he + local council etc will be well advised to put as much of the paperwork as possible out there in the open.