(22-05-2022 03:42 )lovebabes56 Wrote: Can we agree on one thing - that whatever happens and whatever our views are privately off forum - we stand firmly with UKRAINE on this forum?
I'd resisted responding to this, but as my post making the vital point, about cross-checking as many sources as possible, to get the best approximation of truth and reality, has been banished to a segregated thread, away from this homogenised thread, as this post probably will be too, I might as well say what I think..
I stand firmly with the international working class, against all nationalist warmongers, including Zelensky, who has effectively pressganged the whole male adult population of Ukraine, by not only conscription, but also forbidding them to leave the country, with few exceptions.
Not that this is about particular individuals, in the Ukrainian and Russian ruling classes, whatever the state of health of Putin, according to a conspiracist such as Oliver Stone!
I did make clear in some of my earliest forum posts, where I criticised blm, and identity politics, more widely, of which nationalism is merely the most widely 'respectable' form, about my internationalist Marxist outlook, but many might have missed it, and I've not been prompted to reiterate it directly since.
My point about not limiting sources, doesn't necessarily mean 'neutrality', such as the "balance" the BBC purports to strike.
However, I would expect higher standards, from those with an internationalist humanist outlook.
It puzzles me what distinguishes "trusted" from "suspect" sources, on this forum.. why are CNN, The Economist, and the 'Eurasia Group'(?), seemingly trusted without qualification..
Do none of these parties, including BBC, not have their own self-interested agendas, or are not party to wider ones?!
Ben Chu has always reminded me of Family Guy's Quagmire, that last word being all too pertinent in manoeuvres among imperialisms large and small.
'Eurasia Group' is evidently in "risk consultancy", which could mean a multitude of things, including a euphemism for PR, and even involvement on the ground, both of which have been part of wars, long before the social media age.
As I said in my aforementioned post, the Yugoslav war in the 1990s, is the most recent reference point for the role of the media in a major European war.
The recognition of seceding Slovenia and Croatia by Germany in late 1991, followed by USA several months later, was what escalated the conflict, and openly internationalised it into a full-blown war.
From that period onwards, certain parts of disintegrating Yugoslavia, especially Croatia, effectively had their own partisans in much of the Euro-American media.
As I said in a post in the segregated thread, if disagreements are allowed on this forum, why transfer disagreeing posts to a separate thread?!
If this is the nearest thing to a 'happy/ier news' thread on this subject, it's difficult to know what the point of either thread is, other than to create two echo chambers!
Real Ecstasy
Hot & Wet
Live Sex Latinas
Babestation
Search
Member List
Help
