Because I think it is funny to say " soviets" instead of "russians" and what's the difference? putin is KGB!
Massive difference really; but never mind.
morninggloryseed said:
It was that hard to google this, no need to knock my newssource. I try to make it clear if Im posting fake news. The story is legit.
my apologies - when i posted that, i wasn't able to see any other outlets reporting it, and it seemed very typically gung-ho about beating the drums of war.
The NY Post article indicates that Fox broke the story ("...a US defense official told Fox") - and i'm not quite clear on whether or not any other mentions of it had been published at that time i posted that (i'm not going to calculate the times/time zone differences) but regardless, let me just say i was wrong.
Nothing personal intended - it wasn't meant to read that way - but i admit that i consider Fox to be one of the
least credible of the world's large mainstream news outlets, so i never take their reports at face value.
Their history of supporting acts of US military aggression is so well-documented that it is simply not possible for me to take their reports seriously, so it's something of a reflex action to doubt them as a source.
I don't think i can adequately explain exactly how low a regard most people outside the US hold Fox news in.
Most Australians that care enough to have an opinion of Fox News seem to respond somewhere between ridicule and horror - with a
massive dash of scepticism.
i daresay much the same is true for people with whom i talk politics from other (non-US) parts of the world; this is because (amongst other things), Fox's US-centric view of global affairs, as well as its practice of editorialising pretty much everything it reports, stands out like Donald Trump's comb-over to those of us who don't live in the States.
This editorialising makes the whole Trumpian "fake news" refrain all the more ironic, because Fox News practically invented the modern style of "opinion" journalism which eschews factual reportage in favour of colouring everything with a vaguely consistent ideological line - which to me seems the antithesis of good journalism.
The heavily US-focused perspective obviously doesn't convince everybody on the home front either - nobody i'm close to
within the USA seem to feel any differently from me in that regard, and i'm sure plenty of american bluelighters are just as dubious of fox as i am.
I distinctly remember the horror one of my family members expressed when fox pay-tv came to australia ~20 years ago, because she lived in the States [and still does] and was concerned that the network would have the same kind of toxic impact on the Australian media landscape that it has had over there.
Sadly, the network's shadowy overlord had already been asserting his influence on the Australian press for decades - because
we spawned the bastard, and he simply expanded his tabloid and propaganda empire far beyond our shores when he became a US citizen and spread his influence to the UK and elsewhere.
The invasion of Iraq (the disastrous, illegal invasion that contributed significantly to this godawful mess in the middle east now) was supported and justified by every one of Murdoch's newspapers and networks in the lead-up to the 2003 invasion.
I didn't trust them then, i don't trust them now, and i'll never take them seriously in future.
The power of crooked media manipulators cannot be underestimated. Hell, without Faux News, it's hard to imagine Trump being elected in the first place...but admittedly, all these months later, it's still a tad difficult to fathom how Trump did manage to win the election.
These are unprecedented, unsettling times, to say the least.
Even if i completely missed the other news agencies' stories about the Russian warship Fox reported, looking at both articles (fox and NY Post), i think the tone of each of them are subtly - yet significantly different.
the Fox piece gives the impression, at a glance, that the Russian ship is
charging into battle with US ships ("Russian warship steams toward US destroyers that launched Syria strikes") whereas the NY Post piece is a tad more restrained ("Russian warship heads toward US destroyers after strike on Syria").
That's just the headline - but the sensationalism (hyping war and implying imminent military escalation on Russia's behalf) stands out to me.
Neither article is at all substantial, so maybe this one can be blamed on subeditors...
I wonder though, if there is something to be gained for a news outlet that nurtures a cosy relationship with trump - in giving the impression to their readers/viewers that the US and Russia are engaged in a tense standoff - considering the numerous questions that have been building regarding trump's administration and it's dealings with Russian government figures.
It does seem convenient, but that may simply be my bias and suspicion.
It is all rather intriguing - and all rather nauseating, if you ask me.
![:\](https://bluelight.org/xf/BL_Images/Orig_Emoji/wrygrin.gif "wry grin :\")
As an observer of a couple of decades' worth of US military shenanigans (and a student of a century's worth) it is difficult not to be very, very wary of any sort of jingoistic sentiment that accompanies US forces bombing something.
It may be a tired cliché that
truth is the first casualty of war - but it is probably more hauntingly true now than ever before; "truth" has been under constant attack since Trump re-invented himself as a "politician" (or whatever he's pretending to be).
Previous administrations have always had a very gentle run from the press in similar situations - critical analysis is almost always completely absent from press reports of american military actions, at least in the early reports.
To outside observers such as myself - those of us who distrust the agendas of the US military establishment and abhor war - the undertones of glee that "Trump has launched missiles at Syria" (to paraphrase) is just too rich to stomach.
Speaking of rich -
fox news article on the US bombing of the Syrian airbase said:
"Assad choked out the lives of helpless men, women and children. It was a slow and brutal death for so many. Even beautiful babies were cruelly murdered in this very barbaric attack. No child of God should ever suffer such horror," Trump said. "Tonight I ordered a targeted military strike on the airfield in Syria from where the chemical attack was launched."
For a man who made it one of his top priorities upon being elected President of the USA to prevent r
efugees from Syria (and a lot of other countries) from finding safe haven from this hellish warzone in his large and prosperous nation, that comment is beyond sick.
As i alluded to earlier - war kills kids. it kills babies. innocent civilians of all demographics have been brutally killed and maimed in this conflict, and every other war America (or any other nation, alliance or militia) has engaged in for the past century.
it beggars belief that a man in his position could say such a thing.
but this is trump. he plumbs new depths of indignity on a daily basis.
cashflow_donkey said:
I think this whole situation is so convoluted that it is impossible to have a real opinion on the matter.
Agreed. The complexities, contradictions, ambiguities and mountains of bullshit make this far too messy to boil down to a simple conclusion or course of action for us laymen to get behind (in my opinion).
