NATO and EU close ranks in bid to halt migrants, counter Russia
Yes, because of course the biggest threat we have in Europe now comes from Russia., it's so obvious to everybody.
Orthodox churches being built everywhere, Russians forcing their food on us, aggressively-looking Russian ladies in the streets with militant clothing, occasionally blowing themselves up, all the latest terrorist actions in France, Belgium, UK... having been committed by Russian militants, Russian culture being forced on us more and more everyday. Camps everywhere in Western Europe, full of Russian immigrants....
Suburbs out of control because of Russian presence
Streets in major cities of Europe looking as if in Russia
Free-trade treaties opening our borders and market to Russian products
Stupid movies with Russian behaviours forced on us and our kids.
What a joke : how long are we going to follow those war-mongers from the other side of the Atlantic, who should better take care of their own migrant and alien population
Orthodox churches being built everywhere, Russians forcing their food on us, aggressively-looking Russian ladies in the streets with militant clothing, occasionally blowing themselves up, all the latest terrorist actions in France, Belgium, UK... having been committed by Russian militants, Russian culture being forced on us more and more everyday. Camps everywhere in Western Europe, full of Russian immigrants....
Suburbs out of control because of Russian presence
Streets in major cities of Europe looking as if in Russia
Free-trade treaties opening our borders and market to Russian products
Stupid movies with Russian behaviours forced on us and our kids.
What a joke : how long are we going to follow those war-mongers from the other side of the Atlantic, who should better take care of their own migrant and alien population
Or Syrians in Aleppo...
Or Syrians in Aleppo...
But that doesn't fit western MSM propaganda.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: West Midlands
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There's probably a difference between under-reporting and propaganda.
Any idea of the difference in scale between the casualty figures or the systematic process with which one is being carried out by 2 State actors? If you want a pop at the Western media, why not look at the coverage of the Saudi-led intervention in Yemen, which it is claimed, is supported by the UK by the wicked sale of armaments. The Times featured it at the weekend.
It still doesn't come anywhere near the eradication of rebel-held Aleppo, so I can't see how you reasonably claim this to be propaganda.
Any idea of the difference in scale between the casualty figures or the systematic process with which one is being carried out by 2 State actors? If you want a pop at the Western media, why not look at the coverage of the Saudi-led intervention in Yemen, which it is claimed, is supported by the UK by the wicked sale of armaments. The Times featured it at the weekend.
It still doesn't come anywhere near the eradication of rebel-held Aleppo, so I can't see how you reasonably claim this to be propaganda.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a regime apologist.
My issue is that the Jihadi sunni terrorist rebels are just as bad as the Shia state backed terrorists. And this isn't reported by the western MSM. One side is as bad as the other.
My issue is that the Jihadi sunni terrorist rebels are just as bad as the Shia state backed terrorists. And this isn't reported by the western MSM. One side is as bad as the other.
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Moscow region
Age: 65
Posts: 567
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with downsizer.
Both sides in Syria are bad and should be stopped and disarmed. However, from the point of view of "our civilization", any secular regime is better than a dictatorship of religious fanatics.
Mass media are now doing very dangerous things. Reporting only negative facts about one side and keep silence about similar acts from another is an everyday practice. E.g., when Al Nusra terrorists (read, Al-Qaeda) were bombed in Eastern Aleppo, the western world got furious about collateral damages and casualties of civil population that was used as a human shield. After the truce (which was used by Al Nusra to re-group and get more weaponry) and 2 weeks of pause in bombing, these terrorists have started an offensive to the western part of the city. And they use not only mortars, but also chemicals (chlorine). In the same way, many civilans including children were killed in the areas controlled by the government (yes, bad government). What was reported by media like Euronews, DW, France 24? It was vaguely said that fighting still goes on, and that Aleppo deserves peace. Right, but why not to "invite the actors" (supported by the West) to an international war tribunal, in the same way as the Assad's gang was "invited"?
Both sides in Syria are bad and should be stopped and disarmed. However, from the point of view of "our civilization", any secular regime is better than a dictatorship of religious fanatics.
Mass media are now doing very dangerous things. Reporting only negative facts about one side and keep silence about similar acts from another is an everyday practice. E.g., when Al Nusra terrorists (read, Al-Qaeda) were bombed in Eastern Aleppo, the western world got furious about collateral damages and casualties of civil population that was used as a human shield. After the truce (which was used by Al Nusra to re-group and get more weaponry) and 2 weeks of pause in bombing, these terrorists have started an offensive to the western part of the city. And they use not only mortars, but also chemicals (chlorine). In the same way, many civilans including children were killed in the areas controlled by the government (yes, bad government). What was reported by media like Euronews, DW, France 24? It was vaguely said that fighting still goes on, and that Aleppo deserves peace. Right, but why not to "invite the actors" (supported by the West) to an international war tribunal, in the same way as the Assad's gang was "invited"?
