smokingboot (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
smokingboot) wrote2016-12-15 09:40 am
smokingboot) wrote2016-12-15 09:40 am
Three Speeches
Remarkably,the lizard man shed his skin and revealed himself to be human after all. Many MPs have demonstrated the reverse. The house looks almost empty for this emergency discussion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UdJLkHUglUw
But what does GO think we should have done? The devil's in the detail. It was evident that the governments of the west should not fund/train/aid fundamentalist lunatics in an attempt to please Saudi, weaken Assad, feck things up further between Sunni, Shia, Wahhabists, whatever. But does GO think we should have bombed in order to stop bombing? Is there an answer?Our duty, now, is clear cut in pressing hard for ceasefire, humanitarian aid, evacuation and protection for civilians, irrespective of winners and losers. And at least he is prepared to take some responsibility, this last unshared by most in the house.
Our endless backing of The Devil We Know is a serious weakness.Another is the increasing inability, or unwillingness, of our mainstream media to actually report, and/or rely on credible sources.
https://www.facebook.com/search/top/?q=eva%20bartlett Eva Bartlett comes across as very credible, but I have no real idea of who she is. How do we know she is any better than the media she lambasts? Only this powerful sense she gives of really knowing her stuff. But that's just an impression. Who is she?
By contrast, everyone knows who Samantha Powers is.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/2016/12/13/u-s-ambassador-samantha-power-savages-assad-russia-over-aleppo/
It seems she was asked to recall which country she represents. The stars and stripes are a tiny symbol compared to what she stands for here; humanity and the world, which is somewhere, whatever the wretched may say. In reality it is the only somewhere.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UdJLkHUglUw
But what does GO think we should have done? The devil's in the detail. It was evident that the governments of the west should not fund/train/aid fundamentalist lunatics in an attempt to please Saudi, weaken Assad, feck things up further between Sunni, Shia, Wahhabists, whatever. But does GO think we should have bombed in order to stop bombing? Is there an answer?Our duty, now, is clear cut in pressing hard for ceasefire, humanitarian aid, evacuation and protection for civilians, irrespective of winners and losers. And at least he is prepared to take some responsibility, this last unshared by most in the house.
Our endless backing of The Devil We Know is a serious weakness.Another is the increasing inability, or unwillingness, of our mainstream media to actually report, and/or rely on credible sources.
https://www.facebook.com/search/top/?q=eva%20bartlett Eva Bartlett comes across as very credible, but I have no real idea of who she is. How do we know she is any better than the media she lambasts? Only this powerful sense she gives of really knowing her stuff. But that's just an impression. Who is she?
By contrast, everyone knows who Samantha Powers is.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/2016/12/13/u-s-ambassador-samantha-power-savages-assad-russia-over-aleppo/
It seems she was asked to recall which country she represents. The stars and stripes are a tiny symbol compared to what she stands for here; humanity and the world, which is somewhere, whatever the wretched may say. In reality it is the only somewhere.
no subject
Oh I'd be very suspect about Bartlett. https://pulsemedia.org/2016/12/15/russia-today-and-the-post-truth-virus/
Re Bartlett, Thank you!
What you found backs up my own sense of disquiet listening to her, not because of what she says - if it's true, it's true - but because the way she says it sounds almost coached. The sense of certainty is very strong... She never misses a beat when she drops words like 'terrorist' into the mix, and speaks as though these terms are objective, absolute facts accepted by all listening to her, when she must know that this is not necessarily the case.
It also happens at a point when the Times is reporting on some sort of Russian disinformation war, wading deep into cyberhacking/propaganda etc. It's all getting a bit Smiley...