How close are we to WWIII?

3db

3db

Audioholic Slumlord
Very interesting discussion about the definition of a terrorist label at the 25 minute mark. Basically, it boils down to whether or not the group is allied for or against the west.

 
D

Dude#1279435

Audioholic Warlord
Looks like it backfired for the Saudis when they attacked that plane of Houthi/Yemen leaders. Can't remember the name but now that sea of water appears to be blocked off. I'm perplexed at what they were thinking?
 
3db

3db

Audioholic Slumlord
Looks like it backfired for the Saudis when they attacked that plane of Houthi/Yemen leaders. Can't remember the name but now that sea of water appears to be blocked off. I'm perplexed at what they were thinking?
Obviously, they werent thinking. The Houthis caused the US to withdraw from the Bab-el-Mandeb strait and Red Sea after loosing $6milion reaper drones at a rate of one a week and 3 F18s. If the houthis can rebuff the US, then the factions that are the Saudi army stand no chance against the Houthis.

This is a long one but it shows the amount of US interference in the middle east and the US both indirectly and directly built the Houthis. The US is every bit as bad as the Israelis. Its awful.


To see how stupid this is, the US is supporting the currentv Syrian president, a former al qaida leader responsible for killing many US soldiers. And the US are calling the Houthis terrorists? Please. Just US propaganda which the non independent thinking people would latch on to.
 
Last edited:
Mikado463

Mikado463

Audioholic Warlord
And the US are calling the Houthis terrorists? Please. Just US propaganda which the non independent thinking people would latch on to.
At the same time your CBC created an abundance of confusion over the 25th anniversary of 9/11 'terrorist' attacks with their circle jerk BS. See, it goes both ways....... :rolleyes:
 
D

Dude#1279435

Audioholic Warlord
MBS- are they referring to Mohammad bin Salman? I was watching Breaking Points and they were mentioning this and couldn't figure out who they were talking bout.
 
D

Dude#1279435

Audioholic Warlord
Obviously, they werent thinking. The Houthis caused the US to withdraw from the Bab-el-Mandeb strait and Red Sea after loosing $6milion reaper drones at a rate of one a week and 3 F18s. If the houthis can rebuff the US, then the factions that are the Saudi army stand no chance against the Houthis.

This is a long one but it shows the amount of US interference in the middle east and the US both indirectly and directly built the Houthis. The US is every bit as bad as the Israelis. Its awful.


To see how stupid this is, the US is supporting the currentv Syrian president, a former al qaida leader responsible for killing many US soldiers. And the US are calling the Houthis terrorists? Please. Just US propaganda which the non independent thinking people would latch on to.
It was mentioned after the Houthis were bombed to death by the Saudis a year ago they still fought back. So it begs what the Saudis were thinking now?
 
3db

3db

Audioholic Slumlord
At the same time your CBC created an abundance of confusion over the 25th anniversary of 9/11 'terrorist' attacks with their circle jerk BS. See, it goes both ways....... :rolleyes:
Except that the CBC bullshit doesn’t affect other countries well being like the absolute poop that the US has caused in the Middle East.

Do you have a link to explain this CBC comment? ;)
 
Last edited:
GO-NAD!

GO-NAD!

Audioholic Warlord
The problem isn't/wasn't the policy itself. It's no different than the policy of other reputable news organizations. The problem was the reminder memo sent out to CBC journalists prior to the 9/11 anniversary. CBC management should have known that many people would mischaracterize the memo as denying that the 9/11 attacks were terrorist acts. I don't think the CBC has ever claimed the attacks were not terrorist acts. They should have reminded staff of the policy, without referral to 9/11.

The point of the policy is to have journalists make an effort to avoid inserting editorial/biased views into news reports. The use of loaded terms - such as "terrorist" should be limited to quoting government officials and other commentators.

For example, the Reagan administration considered the Nicaraguan Sandinistas to be terrorists and the Contras to be "freedom fighters". Meanwhile, left-leaning people would have considered them to be the reverse. The reality was that the violent acts committed by each group qualified them both as terrorists.

If we want reporters to insert their own assessments into reports, then don't be surprised if you see articles calling the sinking of boats in the Caribbean, "terrorist attacks".
 
Mikado463

Mikado463

Audioholic Warlord
Agreed, good post !

As for the CBC not claiming they were terrorist attacks, agreed, but then I don't think they ever claimed they were either. Matter of semantics perhaps.
 
3db

3db

Audioholic Slumlord
By listening to this former IDF spokesperson, you will understand why I’m so critical of the current Israeli regime and anyone that believes in this ideology. Jonathan keeps pulling out the same old arguments of being a victim of antisemitism, hatred of the world against the Jewish people, etc and denying (and honestly believing this) the violence and hatred that Israel is spreading across the Middle East. The current Israeli regime has become exactly what they’re fighting against, a radical racist group of people who are bent on ethnic cleansing and attempting genicide.

It’s also clear that Western journalists have been and continue to be targets of the IDF so that Israel can try to control the news coming out of the Middle East.

I don’t hate or dislike Jewish people and I dont support antisemitism. However, Israel’s actions are based on using antisemitism and their religion to legitimize deplorable acts against humanity. The real reason behind their actions is Zionist fascism , to take over the Middle East and grow a greater Israel whose core beliefs are that of racial and religious intolerance. We saw this in the 1930s when Nazi Germany came to power and we are seeing it again now when Nazi Israel is attempting to do the same thing.

 
Last edited:
D

Dude#1279435

Audioholic Warlord
By listening to this former IDF spokesperson, you will understand why I’m so critical of the current Israeli regime and anyone that believes in this ideology. Jonathan keeps pulling out the same old arguments of being a victim of antisemitism, hatred of the world against the Jewish people, etc and denying (and honestly believing this) the violence and hatred that Israel is spreading across the Middle East. The current Israeli regime has become exactly what they’re fighting against, a radical racist group of people who are bent on ethnic cleansing and attempting genicide.

It’s also clear that Western journalists have been and continue to be targets of the IDF so that Israel can try to control the news coming out of the Middle East.

I don’t hate or dislike Jewish people and I dont support antisemitism. However, Israel’s actions are based on using antisemitism and their religion to legitimize deplorable acts against humanity. The real reason behind their actions is Zionist fascism , to take over the Middle East and grow a greater Israel whose core beliefs are that of racial and religious intolerance. We saw this in the 1930s when Nazi Germany came to power and we are seeing it again now when Nazi Israel is attempting to do the same thing.

I can't listen to that guy. Its too painful lol.
 
newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top