Official British Anti Russian propaganda thread

[Jog On]

Free speech isn't the same as spreading hostile state's propaganda (the original real fake news) - you don't speak, Putin speaks for you, and thinks too because you are a moron.

For that reason banning you in no way infringes freedom of free speech, which by the way does not exist in Russia and Iran that you support so much.

MODS do your job - protect CUK!

Being unsupportive of our foreign policy and questioning the quality of information and motives behind a strong narrative that we've see used to take us to war based on lies - is not the same as spreading a hostile state's propaganda.

If we hadn't gone into Iraq based on fabrications and if all this spy stuff wasn't off the back of a whole load of other related stuff going on in Syria we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Do you not care about the idea that we could be going into WW3 based on the same quality of information that took us into Iraq?

[Jog On]

Try this link. https://undocs.org/S/2016/738

page loads but PDF is blank

Of course banning from a website is not an infringement of free speech. But the conspiracy snowflakes do value their sense of victimhood.

So dodgy links, insults and calls to ban are your arguments.

This is a waste of my time - you win, well done and enjoy your war with Russia. I'm sure it will be an absolute blast (see what I did there? - Boom Boom!)

[AtW]

"page loads but PDF is blank"

Just look at the length this guy would go to try to avoid seeing info he does not like! He hates MSM, but happy to take Russian propaganda info on face value - it's maliciously moronic, actively helping the state that publicly positions itself as the enemy of the West, go and foing live there moron - they'll teach you free speech lesson you deserve

[northernladyuk]

"page loads but PDF is blank"

Link and PDF work fine for me. Must be some kind of filter to stop actual facts.

[AtW]

Being unsupportive of our foreign policy and questioning the quality of information and motives behind a strong narrative that we've see used to take us to war based on lies - is not the same as spreading a hostile state's propaganda.

The problem isn't you being unsupportive of our foreign policy, the problem is that you are ACTIVELY SUPPORTIVE of Russian foreign policy, which is very hostile to UK and the West in general.

All the RT tulip you post is basically collection of key Russian foreign policy points aimed at the Western useful idiots like yourself.

You know it perfectly well, unless you are a complete moron (which seems increasingly likely now).

[AtW]

Link and PDF work fine for me. Must be some kind of filter to stop actual facts.

Both links (mine and yours) worked fine for me, so I guess the filter must be in his head...

[Jog On]

Link and PDF work fine for me. Must be some kind of filter to stop actual facts.

Have you read it? I had to download the word doc version which says this:

VI. Concluding remarks


80. Immediately after its establishment, the Leadership Panel noted a decrease in the number of allegations of use of chemicals as weapons in the Syrian Arab Republic. However, such allegations have continued during its mandate and, more recently, have included various chemical agents, some among them listed as chemical weapons under the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction.

81. The allegations of the use of Convention-listed chemical weapons and/or toxic chemicals as weapons in the Syrian Arab Republic received by the Mechanism from Member States between December 2015 and August 2016 include sarin (13), sulfur mustard (12), VX (4), chlorine (41) and other toxic chemicals or agents (61). The information suggests the involvement of both the Government and other actors in these alleged incidents.

Very carefully worded throughout with language like "suggests, alleged". Nothing concrete at all and some of the incidents point to ISIS having and using chemical weapons. This document is proof that there is no proof!

This is the kind of thing that makes me want to 'question more'.

Anyway - this is a pointless conversation and we're not going to agree.

[tarbera]

$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Kaaaaaaching

1st on many

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-r...-idUSKBN1H417S

[Paddy]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...=.992079d9b2c3

"Asked about the Saudi-funded spread of Wahhabism, the austere faith that is dominant in the kingdom and that some have accused of being a source of global terrorism, Mohammed said that investments in mosques and madrassas overseas were rooted in the Cold War, when allies asked Saudi Arabia to use its resources to prevent inroads in Muslim countries by the Soviet Union."

So Saudi Arabia is clearly saying that US was behind terrorism! But another fact is that US later used terrorism as a pretext to invade other countries!

[AtW]

Saudi Arabia could have stopped it now, if they wanted, which they clearly don't.