The EU debate - Part III

The reports on wmd show the level of our mainstream media, before we look at Murdoch and Co.

 

What reports on WMDs? There have been lots down the years.

 

so then you should be able to criticise their points through discussion rather than limiting your criticism to the fact that they are on Russia Today.

 

It's funny, because when I do that with the spam that you post, you ignore it and carry on regardless.

When someone's claims are that the Syrian regime are actually the good guys and are doing nothing wrong, then there's not much to discuss.
Neither side are good. It's two **** storms hitting each other and there's virtually nobody claiming otherwise.
If someone disputes that, then they need to provide evidence, beyond claiming that they were there and spoke to people.

 

https://off-guardian.org/2015/12/19/western-poll-assad-supported-by-most-syrians/

 

Putin's supported by most Russians. What does that prove?
21% of that poll think that ISIS are a good influence, FFS.

 

It proves that Russians support Putin. It doesn't mean he's right.
Same as the other polls show that most Syrians support Assad despite the west saying there is a popular uprising against Assad.
ISIS support is mainly in Raqqa

 

He knows RT's biased, because the BBC told him.

“For those who understand, no explanation is needed. For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.”

 

A poll can show that Assad has 47% support and there can still be a popular uprising, even if it's accurate.
47% is actually pretty low, especially considering the state of the media in Syria.

 

Actually RT told me and I posted the video on here. You don't think it is, though.
Don't worry, I'm sure that your alt-right bullshit artists are spot on and it's not state-sponsored propaganda, as everyone else knows it is.

 

Is that the RT journalist quitting, posted on the RT youtube channel?

I don't think anyone is suggesting they're not biased or state funded, it's more the case that they're pointing out the other mainstream channels are too.

Only a fool takes information from any of them as gospel, you need to do some digging.

Bigger fools dismiss reports because of where they're posted.

 

All media is biased and should be treated as such.

 

Exactly.

 

An alternative view of Ukraine.

 

It's not all state owned and sponsored, with virtually no dissenting voices allowed, though.

 

There's a big difference between having a slight political bias and being a propaganda channel, though.
A Tesco value sandwich and an actual turd sandwich might both be bad meals, but one's far, far worse.

Since when did you do any digging, anyway? You post links and don't even comment on them.
I actually look at the sources and see who they work for, at least. You don't even do that.

 

Another alt-right link? It's 50 minutes long and it's from another conspiracy loon.
How many people do you expect to watch that? Have you even watched it?

 

Of course not!....

 

They threatened to send her to Crimea in response. She no longer works for RT.
She was hired because she was a 9/11 conspiracy loon.