And here is BBC Newsweek going full propaganda mode

[Felya]

Anything u read on western news about Russia, take it with a grain of salt.

Yes! Listen to Russian state media! When they tell you the West should not be trusted, you must listen!

[Deleted]

Russia uses chemical weapons on British soil.

"PROPAGANDA!" Screams the Russian troll.

Yep its propaganda.
I thought by now even the most mindless among us which are liberals got the idea that mainstream media is oozing with propaganda.

Havent Hillary 99.(9)% odds of winning thought you anything.


Negate whatever affirmation mainstream media says and you are much closer to the truth.

If mainstream media says Hillary will win. Negate that afirmation and you are closer to the truth.
If mainstream says Russia is implicated in US ellections. Negate that, and you are closer to the truth.



Mainstream media by now shouldnt be trusted even with weather.
Look at their gesticulations and holding of empty papers in hand to look more professional. If they would be in stock market looking like that, it would be instant scam alert.

Even retards can smell this type of acting. But liberals are beneath retards. They are sheep to be used in w/e interests big groups have, then disposed of just like toilet paper.


I havent met a group of people more dumb than these progressives and liberals. They are the fucked up generation.

[Deleted]

Because those aren't paid by taxpayer money? Because BBC is State Media? (i even put that in OP)

So you only care about state media propaganda. Which is odd, because there has been plenty of stories about BBC bias that you elected not to share, and your certainly not a stranger to note on such things either. I neither have any recollection of you ever noting on BBC bias nor any form of interest in Corbyn, which is why I have asked all these questions to see if there was some level that you'd actually acknowledge any of that, the answer is no.

Now to stop beating around the bush, I honestly don't buy it. You're way too consistent with posting pro-Russia for you to just have fallen over this tweet and felt so strongly that you needed to share it simply because you are so concerned about bias propaganda (especially because it falls way out of your style), because the English media is rife with the notion of media being bias in one way or the other, Corbyn especially being a victim of unflattering imagery and stories. No, the thing is that this is by mere coincidence the one time that Corbyn has indirectly helped Russia by the notion of putting doubt in their involvement of the assassination of the spy, and that means unflattering imagery of him being a Russian, is where the issue is at for you and pointing out that it is propaganda like is nothing but a ploy to sow distrust in something that is indirectly harmful to the narrative of Russia greatest ever.

But let me be fair, I do find it propaganda-esque, but it coming from a know propagandist is not exactly something that makes me particularly interested in any level outrage.

[zmp]

BBC is almost worse than CNN.

[Cthulhu 2020]

I know some things, i see other things, i make my own conclusions.

Makes tons of definitive declarations of fact in a thread, including tons of stuff he thinks he knows but doesn't, gets called on it and immediately backpedals into trying to look rational. Works every time.

[Shalcker]

So you only care about state media propaganda. Which is odd, because there has been plenty of stories about BBC bias that you elected not to share, and your certainly not a stranger to note on such things either.

It happened that i was already reading people who could retweet this for long time; but current situation (and it's "Russian link") is certainly why i was driven enough to post it on forum as separate thread.

I neither have any recollection of you ever noting on BBC bias nor any form of interest in Corbyn, which is why I have asked all these questions to see if there was some level that you'd actually acknowledge any of that, the answer is no.

I'm pretty sure i noted BBC bias a few times, but that gets old fast; but as far as Corbyn goes that is British politics i'm not too interested in, even if i'm broadly supportive for left ideas of the kind Corbyn seem to represent - and thus in any possible clash between Corbyn and Tories or his Labour detractors, threads about which do sometimes appear on this forum or pass through my news sources, more likely to take his position.

Now to stop beating around the bush, I honestly don't buy it. You're way too consistent with posting pro-Russia for you to just have fallen over this tweet and felt so strongly that you needed to share it simply because you are so concerned about bias propaganda (especially because it falls way out of your style), because the English media is rife with the notion of media being bias in one way or the other, Corbyn especially being a victim of unflattering imagery and stories. No, the thing is that this is by mere coincidence the one time that Corbyn has indirectly helped Russia by the notion of putting doubt in their involvement of the assassination of the spy, and that means unflattering imagery of him being a Russian, is where the issue is at for you and pointing out that it is propaganda like is nothing but a ploy to sow distrust in something that is indirectly harmful to the narrative of Russia greatest ever.

Yes, it happens that this time i think Corbyn is absolutely right in issue about which i do care strongly.

And, it would seem to me, Tories are making giant blunder pushing their current narrative, including attacks on him; i assume that is likely to play in Corbyn's favour if and when evidence will be found lacking. Hopefully that'll happen fast enough to affect upcoming elections.

I'm for punishment based on evidence; evidence that is actually known rather then alleged.

But let me be fair, I do find it propaganda-esque, but it coming from a know propagandist is not exactly something that makes me particularly interested in any level outrage.

I just note it as opportunistic smearing pushing current government narrative; and, in fact, i consider anti-Russian UK actions to be opportunistic attack created to push image of May strength and decisiveness (as well as unity with "partners", solely needed after all Brexit woes), of which attack on Corbyn is organic extension.

Attack that is going to do them more harm then good.

[Netherspark]

Who else guessed the OP from just the thread title?

[Dentelan]

Former Russia spy attacked with Russian made gas. Gee, I wonder who could possibly be responsible for that? Is it Russia? Because it looks a lot like it's Russia.

If i kill your ex wife with your knife, does it mean murderer is you?

[Blur4stuff]

You might as well go argue with a twitter bot. These people here are paid to defend Russia and in some cases they do it simply because they love Putin, knowing full well what he's done.

Why are they allowed to keep accounts and post? Great question. One that bigger companies like Facebook, Twitter and Reddit still refuse to answer.

[zmp]

You might as well go argue with a twitter bot.

Does it run a higher cpu unit than the ones Russian/American bots are using?

[luc54]

If i kill your ex wife with your knife, does it mean murderer is you?

You are comparing knife to a specially Soviet or Russian made nerve agent that's only really available to state. You have two choices: Russia used them or they don't control their deadly chemical weapon storage well. Since they didn't admit 2nd option it's pretty logical to conclude that #1 is the right choice.

[Shalcker]

You are comparing knife to a specially Soviet or Russian made nerve agent that's only really available to state. You have two choices: Russia used them or they don't control their deadly chemical weapon storage well.

Or Russia destroyed them and someone else recreated them from data gathered by spies and dismantled Uzbekistan facility.
Or someone created independently agent that broadly fits what is known about Novichok group of agents.

Since they didn't admit 2nd option it's pretty logical to conclude that #1 is the right choice.

It is false dichotomy.

[luc54]

Or Russia destroyed them and someone else recreated them from data gathered by spies and dismantled Uzbekistan facility.
Or someone created independently agent that broadly fits what is known about Novichok group of agents.

It is false dichotomy.

It's unlikely Russia goes destroying their USSR era weaponry. I mean why would they? It also fits their modus operandi to murder traitors in a spectaculary way. Why would some criminal organziation develop a new form of never agent just to try to murder some of their traitors? Putin/oligarchs like to murder their opponents in a way that gives them plausible deniability while at some time having strong link to them to show their opponents that they shouldn't dare to oppose them.

[Dsonsion]

Ok, on this one you've got a point, resident Russian propagandist. If this is the worst you could find, the western and real democracies have a long way to go to be even comparable to Russia's media.

[Deleted]

Just to bring context :

You can watch this newsnight here : https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episod...night-15032018

At 12 minutes.

It is very traitor baiting, very smeary.

[Dentelan]

You are comparing knife to a specially Soviet or Russian made nerve agent that's only really available to state. You have two choices: Russia used them or they don't control their deadly chemical weapon storage well. Since they didn't admit 2nd option it's pretty logical to conclude that #1 is the right choice.

Since nato have all the samples and formulas of all soviet chemical weapons from uzbekistan, why cant they made so called russian chemical weapon and use it in provacation to push more sanctions ?
If it was russia then:
- Why dont russia killed ex spy in russia, since it was known hes betrayer long ago?
- Why method of killing is so dirty, chemical aoe weapon, and not pure n silent one? Or u think fsb is so stupid?
- Why would russia do such thing right before the elections?
- What are the benefits and final goal?
Its easy to say "cuz they r russns!!!", but this is not serious discussion

[Orbitus]

You're saying BBC is now comparable to RT and Sputnik; exactly my point.

NOT EVEN FUCKING CLOSE. BBC is better than any Russian news outlet anywhere. Simply because Russian news outlets don't have something like the first amendment that protects them. They don't have freedom of journalism without worrying that they are going to be on the hit list next if they question Putin.

- - - Updated - - -

They probably did but that doesn't mean all news about Russia on Western media outlets are true. In fact, most of the are propaganda/agenda driven articles.

Are you saying they didn't hack our voting rolls in 21 stats and succeed in 7? Are you saying they didn't help Trump win the election? Are you saying they didn't attempt to do the same for England, German and France elections? Because they did. I guarantee it is more true than what is coming out of fucking Russia.

[Kuntantee]

Are you saying they didn't hack our voting rolls in 21 stats and succeed in 7? Are you saying they didn't help Trump win the election? Are you saying they didn't attempt to do the same for England, German and France elections? Because they did. I guarantee it is more true than what is coming out of fucking Russia.

Stop posting random non-sense as if I wrote them. I don't know if Russia is hacked you or not. I frankly do not care...

[Orbitus]

Stop posting random non-sense as if I wrote them. I don't know if Russia is hacked you or not. I frankly do not care...

When you have people from 2 administrations that say it happened and have provided the evidence, and several other countries that said it happened, then yes it happened. Let me guess? Russian?

[Kuntantee]

When you have people from 2 administrations that say it happened and have provided the evidence, and several other countries that said it happened, then yes it happened. Let me guess? Russian?

Which countries?