Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
 Share
yorkie1999

Also in the news

By yorkie1999, in General Chat

Recommended Posts

Guest MattP

Guest MattP

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, leicsmac said:

For the record, the possibility of this being a set-up was being discussed given the US's previous expertise in that regard as opposed to the certainty of it being so, and Iran are certainly no angels given how provocative they have been as well as there was no good reason for them to start spouting off about their enrichment capabilities. Since when was waiting for "conclusive evidence" (of course the burden of proof evidently differs from person to person) a bad thing in matters like this? I honestly don't get the idea that someone with power in one place is somehow consistently more trustworthy than someone in a different place merely because of where those places are - being born and raised in the "right" country doesn't give you some kind of inviolable moral purity that means you don't lie or cheat for your own advantage. People keep telling me that realpolitik is a fact of life - well that's the basis of it, right there, and we see it every day.

 

Is it possible to have some kind of nuance in these debates at all?

Is this the nuance you are looking for?

 

On 13/06/2019 at 21:56, Buce said:

I'd guess Saudi or Mossad.

 

You just need to ask which nations have most to gain by setting the US attack dog on Iran.

 

On 13/06/2019 at 21:58, Grebfromgrebland said:

The US could've done this them selves and I imagine we'll back them on an invasion and help kill another few hundred thousand people.

 

On 13/06/2019 at 22:06, Lionator said:

That's probably the end game, that Saudi Arabia and Israel are the major forces in the Middle East, then America will basically own the Middle East. Who is the only country currently preventing that? Iran, who are supposedly propped up by Russia.

 

It's amazing how Iran only become an issue during Republican presidencies. Rouhani is their most moderate and wide reaching president since the revolution (it's still an awfully backwards country), building many diplomatic relations. Why would he suddenly throw all of that progress away and put his own people at risk? The answer, he wouldn't. 

Come off it Mac - the desire for confirmation bias to blame the US/Trump is so obvious it's ridiculous. 

 

And as I said - if it is proven Iran did it, the conversation then moves to what Trump did to make them do it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kopfkino

Kopfkino

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, leicsmac said:

 

Cripes, this strawman thing must be catching today.

 

For the record, the possibility of this being a set-up was being discussed given the US's previous expertise in that regard as opposed to the certainty of it being so, and Iran are certainly no angels given how provocative they have been as well as there was no good reason for them to start spouting off about their enrichment capabilities. Since when was waiting for "conclusive evidence" (of course the burden of proof evidently differs from person to person) a bad thing in matters like this? I honestly don't get the idea that someone with power in one place is somehow consistently more trustworthy than someone in a different place merely because of where those places are - being born and raised in the "right" country doesn't give you some kind of inviolable moral purity that means you don't lie or cheat for your own advantage. People keep telling me that realpolitik is a fact of life - well that's the basis of it, right there, and we see it every day.

 

Is it possible to have some kind of nuance in these debates at all?

 

NB. Regarding Trump, it's difficult to analyse the actions of his administration with nuance as he shows so little of it, however that doesn't mean it shouldn't be done and is being done. The opinion that most of the actions it is taking are almost universally bad (with the possible exception of economic matters, being enthusiastic about NASA and not getting involved in a full-scale war yet) is a result of analysis of those actions, not prejudice.

 

Nuance would be nice. Like taking account of and understanding the nuances of the Middle East rather than presenting some sixth-form caricatures of the region. That'd be a good place to start on nuance. Also any other things you want to exempt from analysing with nuance? 

 

And given Matt's quotes, it doesn't look like people were keen on "conclusive evidence" to me. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grebfromgrebland

Grebfromgrebland

Posted
Posted

More links to foreign investment interference is UK media and agenda.

It seems no UK media outlet actually has the UK's interests at heart. As a country we're screwed no matter what.

 

Independent and Standard urge state not to investigate Saudi ties

ESI Media says it is editorially independent and investigation could affect future investment

Jim Waterson Media editor

Mon 17 Jun 2019 20.10 BSTLast modified on Mon 17 Jun 2019 20.12 BST

  •  
  •  
  •  
Shares
29
 
 

Evgeny Lebedev, who controls both the Evening Standard and the Independent

The Evening Standard and Independent have asked the government not to investigate the news outlets’ Saudi Arabian investors, saying the UK media industry could become financially unsustainable if officials probe the source of the offshore investments.

Last week the culture secretary, Jeremy Wright, raised concerns that the investments, made through Cayman Islands companies controlled by a previously unknown Saudi banker, could hide a financial backer with “strong links to the Saudi Arabian state”.

The government also said this sale of 30% stakes in the free London newspaper and its online-only sister title “may have an effect on the Evening Standard and the Independent’s news agendas”. Both outlets are controlled by Evgeny Lebedev, son of the Russian oligarch Alexander Lebedev, while the Evening Standard is edited by the former Conservative chancellor George Osborne.

ESI Media, which operates both titles, responded to the government on Monday. It did not dispute the government’s claim that its investors had close ties to the Saudi state, but said it remained editorially independent. It said there was no justification for the government to investigate the deals, and claimed such action could harm its financial future.

A spokesperson said: “We have explained why there is no proper legal basis for an investigation into these transactions, which we believe would be counterproductive and detrimental to the health and stability of the UK media landscape.

“We have nothing to fear from an investigation, but regard it as an unnecessary and expensive distraction, which could have a devastating effect on any future investment needed for the wider industry’s sustainability and growth.

“Our media outlets are firmly committed to the accurate presentation of news and freedom of expression. Our editorial record speaks for itself. We uphold these values proudly, reflecting the trust the public places in us. We know that this trust is important – and all the more so in the current political climate. Our editorial policies, guidelines and reporting reflect these standards, as we have again reiterated to the secretary of state today. We have no further comment to make at this point.”

The government will make a final decision on whether to a launch a full investigation into the Saudi investment by the end of the month.

The dire financial state of the UK media industry has raised concerns that prestigious British news brands could be influenced by the availability of money from overseas, especially from Gulf states involved in a Middle Eastern proxy war, spending millions on lobbyists and soft power campaigns.

Last year Lebedev accompanied an Evening Standard reporter on a tour of war-torn Yemen along with Saudi-backed troops, posing for pictures on his personal Instagram account.

The Independent has already launched a series of foreign-language sites using its brand, which are controlled and operated by Saudi Arabian journalists and aimed at readers in the Middle East.

Saudi Arabia has a historically poor record for journalism and freedom of speech. It was ranked 169th out of 180 countries in the 2018 World Press Freedom Index, while last year the Saudi government was implicated in the murder of the journalist Jamal Khashoggi in its own consulate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grebfromgrebland

Grebfromgrebland

Posted
Posted

Snowden, Assange and Manning statues unveiled in Berlin

By Joanna Gill  with AP, REUTERS• 01/05/2015
Snowden, Assange and Manning statues unveiled in Berlin
 
 

Taking a stand in Berlin’s Alexanderplatz are whistleblowers Chelsea Manning, Julian Assange and Edward Snowden.

The sculptures represent three contemporary heroes who have lost their freedom for the truth. 

The life-size bronze statues were unveiled on Friday in front of members of the German Green Party as well as activists.

 

All three figures are considered heroes on the political left for leaking US intelligence documents.

The artist behind the work Italian sculptor Davide Dormino explains that he wanted to “represent three contemporary heroes who have lost their freedom for the truth.” He says that they act as a reminder of “how important it is to know the truth and have the courage to know the truth.”

Entitled Anything to Say the sculpture encourages supporters to stand up for freedom of speech and information.

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange faces extradition to Sweden to face investigation into accusations of rape and sexual assault, but fears he will be extradited to the US to face questions over his role in leaking secret US documents. He has taken asylum in Ecuador’s London Embassy. US soldier Chelsea Manning (born Bradley Manning) was convicted in 2013 on charges relating to the Espionage Act for leaking US intelligence and military documents to Wikileaks. She is currently serving a 35 year prison sentence. Edward Snowden is currently evading extradition to the US by taking asylum in Russia. He released classified information from the National Security Agency (NSA) to journalists revealing the scale of the US government’s global surveillance capabilities.

Their statues will have fewer restrictions on their movements with a scheduled world tour.

If you are in Berlin the sculptures can be found here at Die ökologische Kulturoase .

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Buce

Buce

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, RobHawk said:

All this tells us is that the Tory's are idiots. Nothing most of us didn't already know. ?

 

What it shows is that the Tories are English nationalists and no longer represent the UK.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
Voll Blau

Voll Blau

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted
1 hour ago, bovril said:

Nationalism is a hell of a drug.

I'm not even sure it's even that any longer, it's just the cult of Brexit full stop. There now seems to be no other objective to it than the act itself. An utterly pointless waste of time and money.

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
David Guiza

David Guiza

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted

Imagine being satisfied with a single issue man as the PM, the dismantling of a political party that has existed for decades, the breaking up of Great Britain after centuries and significant damage to financial and social welfare just to leave a club. There are some utterly bizarre people that walk among others. It's so utterly depressing. 

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bovril

bovril

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, David Guiza said:

Imagine being satisfied with a single issue man as the PM, the dismantling of a political party that has existed for decades, the breaking up of Great Britain after centuries and significant damage to financial and social welfare just to leave a club.

All because Nigel Farage didn't want to live next door to Romanians lol 

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
Buce

Buce

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted
42 minutes ago, David Guiza said:

Imagine being satisfied with a single issue man as the PM, the dismantling of a political party that has existed for decades, the breaking up of Great Britain after centuries and significant damage to financial and social welfare just to leave a club. There are some utterly bizarre people that walk among others. It's so utterly depressing. 

 

And that single-issue PM is being foisted on us by 160,000 of the least representative section of society.

 

Where is the democracy in that?

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, MattP said:

Is this the nuance you are looking for?

 

 

 

Come off it Mac - the desire for confirmation bias to blame the US/Trump is so obvious it's ridiculous. 

 

And as I said - if it is proven Iran did it, the conversation then moves to what Trump did to make them do it. 

I don't think you're wrong about the confirmation bias - I can only speak for myself here when I'm asking for nuance to be displayed all round rather than jingoistic support for one party or the other when we don't know enough about the situation and what we do know we've been told anyway, and in situatuions like this there's always motivation for parties in all areas to lie.

 

7 hours ago, Kopfkino said:

 

Nuance would be nice. Like taking account of and understanding the nuances of the Middle East rather than presenting some sixth-form caricatures of the region. That'd be a good place to start on nuance. Also any other things you want to exempt from analysing with nuance? 

 

And given Matt's quotes, it doesn't look like people were keen on "conclusive evidence" to me. 

Yeah, that's what I'm getting at...the last time I checked, presenting Iran as a warmongering dictatorship that should be happy to be the latest to feel good honest American cold steel is hardly nuanced (yes, I know no one here has said those exact words, but presuming guilt and sentence in this matter before all the facts are in is tantamount to similar). Apart from the dictatorship part - that's broadly true. Oh, and in the interests of fairness, that goes both ways too.

 

Look, allow me to be clearer - all I want to see here is less bad guy/good guy dichotomy being applied to USA/Iran (whatever way it's being applied) and the same dichotomy applied to "people who want and would gain from war/people who don't want war"; which, the last time I checked wasn't the sole preserve of one particular flag.

 

WRT your question in the second sentence, not quite sure what you're getting at but IMO there should be nothing involving human interaction that is exempt from being analysed with nuance, given the way that humans are. Of course, certain matters often don't take much analysis (chattel slavery, human responsibility for climate change, Peter Taylor's managerial reign at Leicester City) but it should still be made.

 

3 hours ago, bovril said:

Nationalism is a hell of a drug.

If we're looking at it like that, you might add that it's responsible for a toll of death, suffering and misery that the strongest Class A drugs can only glare at with envy.

Edited by leicsmac
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jon the Hat

Jon the Hat

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Buce said:

 

And that single-issue PM is being foisted on us by 160,000 of the least representative section of society.

 

Where is the democracy in that?

He was talking about Farage no?  Farage is not going to be the next PM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Buce

Buce

Posted
Posted
16 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

Nonsense, the Conservative and Unionist Party are not Engligh nationalists.  British yes, English no.

 

12 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

He was talking about Farage no?  Farage is not going to be the next PM.

 

No, he was talking about this:

 

2 hours ago, David Guiza said:

Imagine being satisfied with a single issue man as the PM, the dismantling of a political party that has existed for decades, the breaking up of Great Britain after centuries and significant damage to financial and social welfare just to leave a club. There are some utterly bizarre people that walk among others. It's so utterly depressing. 

 

4 hours ago, Voll Blau said:

Interesting set of results.

 

So, where is the British nationalism in that?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jon the Hat

Jon the Hat

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

 

No, he was talking about this:

 

 

 

So, where is the British nationalism in that?

Well yes alright.  How exactly did YouGov sample Party members when that list is confidential?  The questions are also a bit leading imo, although if we left and Scotland decided to go independent then that wouldn't be a disaster for the rest of the UK.  It would be for Scotland though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest MattP

Guest MattP

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Buce said:

And that single-issue PM is being foisted on us by 160,000 of the least representative section of society.

 

Where is the democracy in that?

How you come to the conclusion the Tory membership is the 'least representative section of society? Genuinely interested given the Tories I know range from brickies to doctors.

 

On the issue of that polling.

 

Very admirable to believe in British independence to such extent you'll destroy your own party for it. Thought the negative to Corbyn coming PM though was very weird - if that happens so be it, it will probably be 18-24 months max before a Conservative majority again anyway.

 

I think Scottish independence is inevitable now anyway in or outside the EU - and the reaction and consequence of that will make the Brexit negotiation seem stable when the Scottish government has to enforce it's hard border - surprised so many are happy to bin off Northern Ireland though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Alf Bentley

Alf Bentley

Posted
Posted

Anybody speculating on the outcome of the Tory leadership vote later?

 

In past such competitions, I remember votes sometimes moving around wildly between rounds, sneaky tactical voting etc.

 

Wouldn't surprise me if a few Boris voters make a tactical switch to Raab, to keep him in the contest at the expense of Stewart and/or Javid. They have plenty to spare.

I'm sure they'd prefer their man to potentially face a fellow Brexiteer & arguably a less tricky opponent.

 

I'm guessing:

- Boris wins big again, but not quite as big as expected due to a few transfers to Raab

- Gove might just sneak past Hunt into 2nd

- Raab finishes 4th to make the cut, Stewart 50-50 to make the 33-vote cut, Javid finishes last & is out...

 

I'm NOT ITK :thumbup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest MattP

Guest MattP

Posted
Posted

Also....on the Farage question. 

 

"Nigel Farage is a Tory who is anti-EU and absolutely loves Margaret Thatcher"

 

"I can't believe it, Tories actually want Farage to lead their party"

 

Err...the clue is probably there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...