Quote:

---

Originally posted by whozit:
What ever money she gets I'm sure will be donated to "Trump 2016".

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
THUGGR
Humanitarian. (snicker)
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=58208&p=5

---

Quote:

---

Too funny. You made me spit out my morning coffee.- MAGONS

Starbucks coffee? Are you another bitching hypocrite? Or just another dullard?

---

Quote:

---

Now that you mention it KPO, that's my greatest regret: not having rational, intelligent opposing view points in this thread. It's actually possible to imagine a well informed discussion with pro Russians

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:

Quote:

---

Now that you mention it KPO, that's my greatest regret: not having rational, intelligent opposing view points in this thread. It's actually possible to imagine a well informed discussion with pro Russians

---

Such pro-Russians are hard to find. I've argued with quite a few Russians and Western pro-Russians on another site over the last couple of years, and between here and there I've met only one who was cogent and informed, and didn't just parrot Russian propaganda talking points - "Nazis in Kiev", "genocide in Donbas" and "Maidan coup" etc. A woman who was half Russian and half Serbian, and well travelled. We talked about the constitutionality of the Yanukovich ouster, the extent of the fallibility of Western media and its strength as a system, and she argued that while yes of course Russia was meddling in eastern Ukraine, that it was no different from what the United States would do in a similar situation - and she pointed to CIA sponsored wars in Latin America throughout the Cold War.

It's not personal. It's just war.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:
I didn't completely agree with her by any means, but she did have some intelligent, independent thoughts.

It's not personal. It's just war.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by whozit:
What ever money she gets I'm sure will be donated to "Trump 2016".

---

Quote:

---

Apparently kpo can't read.

---

Quote:

---

It was THUGGR who posted that for me it was about Russia,

---

Quote:

---

You can always find upside-down-and-backward land in what passes for kpo's brain. I guess if you swallow as much propaganda as kpo has, it damages your thinking.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
THUGGR
It's quite gratifying to see Russian supporters here feeling so insecure about themselves, that they will not defend their love of Russia and instead deny it.

kpo
Signy, kiki, whoever said this incident was "Russia's fault?"


Apparently kpo can't read. It was THUGGR who posted that for me it was about Russia, which is what I responded to

And then he lies, too "I treat people the way they treat me ... "recruiting" photos of headless children ... If you question Russia, then you must be pro US" When what he actually posts is flamebait, one-sided criticisms of Russia and one-sided support of the west, and statements that if you criticize the US you MUST be pro-Russian.

You can always find upside-down-and-backward land in what passes for kpo's brain. I guess if you swallow as much propaganda as kpo has, it damages your thinking.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
" neo-Nazi videos are a reliable historical source"

Never posted that. Please. Find me that quote. Oh that's right, that's yet ANOTHER strawman of yours. You know - we already discussed that. It's a form of dishonesty. So like you to do that, again ...

---

Quote:

---

How does it feel to ... To deny the undeniable fact that OSCE has never encountered Russian troops in Ukraine for example? Or that OSCE UAVs were jammed over Ukrainian territory? Or that Ukrainian troops actively denied access to OSCE inspectors? Those are all facts contained in the OSCE reports. Do you think that if you foam at the mouth enough it'll make those facts go away?

---

Quote:

---

What are you claiming?
Archival filmography isn't factual?

---

Quote:

---

I never suggested you trust any information just because it came from a particular website. I also criticized you for dismissing it for the same reason.

---

Quote:

---

I said that you should VERIFY the CONTENT through OTHER sources.

---

Quote:

---

To deny the undeniable fact that OSCE has never encountered Russian troops in Ukraine

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by G:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:
G, 1kiki's mental health short comings include some sort of transference. She clams it is her opponent that's doing what she is doing. I'm sure there are a few other psychoses there as well, but transference, and pathological liar are definitely amongst them.

---

It's like a reflective transference and everyone's a mirror - that's a frightening prospect. Hmmm... Boomerang Psychosis... naw, needs more work.

---

Quote:

---

That’s an erroneous interpretation. They claim that the metadata shows that the images were processed using Photoshop. Based on that they are concluding it was the clouds that were likely added in order to conceal something. The truth is that the indication of Photoshop in the metadata doesn’t prove anything. Of course the Russians had to use some sort of program in order to process the satellite image for the presentation. They added frames and text blocks in order to explain it to the public. The artifacts which have been identified could be a product of that — or also a product of saving multiple times in JPG format.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Bellingcat says its findings are based on the use of the analysis tool FotoForensic.com, a website.

Kriese: And its founder Neal Krawetz also distanced himself from Bellingcat’s conclusions on Twitter. He described it as a good example of “how to not do image analysis.” What Bellingcat is doing is nothing more than reading tea leaves. Error Level Analysis is a method used by hobbyists.

---

Quote:

---

SO, you go to a website and you see that they post something that strikes you as being "pro-Hitler", and because they post some items that you don't agree with, you reject everything else they write.- SIGNY

Err, yes...? What do you do when you see something pro-Hitler on a website? Well I guess we know that, you post something from that website on these boards. But what goes through your mind when you see that source praising the Nazis? It doesn't bother you? - KPO

So, you go to a website and you find some articles that contain errors of fact, or which consistently portray an event from a POV, or publish outright lies ... and then you judge (some) authors ... or perhaps the entire website ... to be so contaminated by ideology as to be avoided at all costs. (I guess because it would smirch your intellectual purity?)
Well, I can point to the NYT (which repeatedly and to this day publishes demonstrable lies) and the BBC (which, if nothing else, is biased towards NATO) and bellingcat (which has made such serious errors in regards to both the Syrian gas attack and image analysis of Ukraine as to negate their own conclusions) ... what am I supposed to do, using YOUR yardstick?

Stop reading them? According to you, I should. That's what YOU would do, if you were at all even-handed about your treatment of information sources.

What you fail recognize, apparently, is that ALL information is ideological. ALL media, ALL websites, ALL publications (even scientific ones) start out with assumptions and a specific position from which they view the world. ALL information is limited/ selected, if only by lack of knowledge. Whether it is a specific eyewitness POV (Twitter) or compilation of eyewitnesses (bellingcat) or formal publication (BBC, NYT) or even historical investigation ....

Every single piece of information has already been preselected by the presenter.

(And BTW- eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable, as are human memories.)

You say that you "know" this, and yet you continue to treat some sources as "suspect" and other sources as sacrosanct (and rely on, and quote liberally and unreservedly, as if they were truth) when in reality you should treat all information with suspicion.

I read a book, a long time ago, called "Man Against Myth" ("It is an instructive, amusing and courageous book whose success is most desirable in public interest."-Albert Einstein) and the point the author makes ... and the point that I have been trying to make over and over .... and apparently failing spectacularly ... is that everyone views the world thru tinted lenses. EVERYONE. The very beginning of the book makes a passionate case for seeing those tints which color our views, and that the hardest myths to uncover are those which are the most comprehensive... because, being universal, they're the hardest to identify.

It's easy for us to see the myths behind Russian publications (Well, maybe not so much for you, since you refuse to read them!) but ... what are the assumptions and myths behind the BBC? What are the myths behind bellingcat? The NYT? Please don't tell me there are none, because there are, and I've pointed out some in this thread already.

I'll go further with bellingcat, because I've pointed out this before in the Syrian gas attack: Images are only PART of the story. They need to be, among other things, reliably authenticated and analyzed, because contending sides are all adept at contaminating the twittersphere, to the point of staging events. There is forensic on-the ground physical evidence ... chemical weapons have trace impurities and stabilizers which reliably rule out manufacturers. There are the physical shells. There is electronic intel. Doctor's exams. Eyewitness testimony to sights, sounds, smells. May I repeat that I pointed this out AT THE TIME?

Bellingcat's assumption - it's foundation myth, if you will- is that it presumes that image analysis ALONE is sufficient to uncover the truth. (Is the founder an avid video-gamer? That's what I'd suspect.) That is EXACTLY where they have failed, to the point that even professional image analysts have stepped forward to discredit bellingcat's methodology. But even with better methodology, bellingcat is ignoring other vital - and perhaps more probative- information. So, bellingcat is limited in what it can provide.

One thing I know for sure- you will NEVER get closer to the truth by holding up your skirts and tiptoeing around things you disagree with. The only thing that you ensure by such behavior is that you'll stay in a zone where nothing new penetrates. As if the world has nothing new to tell you, and you know everything important already.

---

Quote:

---

kpo: I pointed out instances where the neo-Nazi propaganda film was NOT factual
1kiki: No, you didn't.

---

Quote:

---

Historian Götz Bergander, who was himself an eyewitness of the raids, found no reports on strafing for 13–15 February, neither by any of the pilots nor by the German military and police. He asserted in Dresden im Luftkrieg (1977) that only a few tales of civilians being strafed were reliable in details, and all were related to the daylight attack on 14 February. He concluded that some memory of eyewitnesses was real, but that it had misinterpreted the firing in an airfight as being deliberately aimed at people on the ground.[67] In 2000, historian Helmut Schnatz found that there was an explicit order to RAF pilots not to strafe civilians on the way back home from Dresden. He also reconstructed timelines with the result that strafing would have been almost impossible due to lack of time and fuel.[68] Frederick Taylor in Dresden (2004), basing most of his analysis on the work of Bergander and Schnatz, concludes that no strafing took place, although some stray bullets from an aerial dog fight may have hit the ground and been mistaken for strafing by those in the vicinity.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:

MEANWHILE remember what you claimed about my posts? You claimed I said THIS: who argues vehemently that neo-Nazi videos are a reliable historical source

Yanno, I'm STILL waiting for you to find me that quote.

---

Quote:

---

When Signy posted a propaganda video on the WWII Dresden bombing from the neo-Nazi website 'Hellstorm' and I called her out on it, you defended the video thus:

1kiki: "You insist on calling facts - archival filmography, direct quotes, historically documented lists of cities bombed - propaganda."

And thus you continue arguing down the thread, referring to the neo-Nazi video as 'factual'.

http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=59952&p=2

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
"You insist on calling facts - archival filmography, direct quotes, historically documented lists of cities bombed - propaganda."

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
"You insist on calling facts - archival filmography, direct quotes, historically documented lists of cities bombed - propaganda."

---

Were you or were you not talking about the neo-Nazi video when you said these words?

Now everyone watch while kiki avoids answering the question...

It's not personal. It's just war.

---

Quote:

---

And in case anyone is in any doubt about the nature of the website we are talking about, which Signy posted the video from, this is it -

---

Quote:

---

I choose not to be so simple because to me it won't save anyone, and to think so to me points to someone who's doing it purely for ego, self-aggrandisment.

---

Quote:

---

I was talking about the content of the video.

---

Quote:

---

The first was a "misquote" from Churchill. Now, frankly, I think Churchill said EXACTLY that they would target German cities.

---

Quote:

---

You focused on two relatively minor points:

---

Quote:

---

I've spoken with several people who knew Dresden survivors, those survivors had a distinct memory of being strafed

---

Quote:

---

So, all of these points are lies?

---

Quote:

---

I'm not going to answer whatever you choose to post, because while I can (AND HAVE) pointed to "reportage" from Bellingcrap and NYT which should have thoroughly discredited these websites in your mind,

---

Quote:

---

That was so nice of them to indicate where they spliced phrases together, don't you think?

---

Quote:

---

When Churchill said "German cities, harbours and centres of war production", was he somehow excluding cities?

---

Quote:

---

As an expose of the little-known historical fact that Churchill considered cities a legitimate target and adopted a policy of carpet-bombing them in 1942

---

Quote:

---

...the video is historically accurate, and not Nazi propaganda.

---

Quote:

---

This book says this about the subject: (Among the Dead Cities: Is the Targeting of Civilians in War Ever Justified? By A.C. Grayling)

---

Quote:

---

My story: You have to understand why Hungary decided to build a fence. All throughout the summer, every single day, thousands of Muslims poured in through Serbia and were all shipped to Budapest. We suffered for months, and not once did the EU help us! All they did was criticise, and the people had enough and voted for Viktor Orbán in a national consultation to protect the nation.
I manage a restaurant by Western Railway Station. This building is a historical monument, was built in 1877 by the Eiffel Company. Hundreds of Muslims lined the station, left massive piles of trash everywhere, let their children run around half naked and dig in trash bins. There was a dysentery outbreak in July amongst the migrants. They left vomit and diarrhea on Eiffel Square.
The square was cordoned off and the National Public Health Service came in the early morning, wearing biohazard suits and masks and disinfected everything with undiluted bleach. They repeated this procedure for a week straight, and every single public transport bus, tram, and metro, was also disinfected. After this, the migrants were no longer allowed to travel for free on public transport. They got their own bus which took them around the three various train stations in Budapest.
The sad thing is I had to tell every colleague to keep quiet about the migrants. There were liberal activists and journalists cruising around, one idiot even baked a pink birthday cake for the migrants which was left squashed and uneaten on the floor… if the activists ever got word of something bad our restaurant was doing, they could easily have reported us to the liberal media. This is a horrible feeling, like back in Communism. You don’t know who you can trust, because any stray word could be overheard by the ‘secret police’, and you could be dragged off to be tortured…
Needless to say, the presence of migrants caused incredible dives in our revenue. Guests did not want to come in, migrants would aggressively demand for us to charge their phones. It was a nightmare and I am SO HAPPY that this is finally over! Our streets are beautiful and safe again! I give endless praise to our government and our Prime Minister. He wants order and safety and a good life for his citizens and a good, Hungarian future for children.

---

Quote:

---

We’ve reported in the past on a pernicious piece of legislation known as Bill 59, which is up before the legislature in Quebec and is considered likely to become law. It effectively implements UN Resolution 16/18 in Quebec, criminalizing “the call to hate, demonize, and dehumanize certain groups”. We all know what the “certain groups” will be, and I can guarantee they won’t include any Anabaptists or Amish.

With Justin “Baby Doc” Trudeau now in charge of piloting the Canadian ship of state, we can also expect that Bill 59 will eventually be extended to the entire Canadian commonwealth and become the law of the land. Like the Human Rights Commissions, only statutorily-based.

Vlad Tepes, who lives in Ottawa just a stone’s throw from Modern Multicultural Quebec, is considering possible workarounds in anticipation of the day when government agencies start blocking certain websites. Below are excerpts from his post about virtual private networks:
http://gatesofvienna.net/2015/11/gagged-in-quebec-and-beyond/

---

Quote:

---

Living Apart Together: British Muslims and the paradox of multiculturalism, survey of British Muslims, by the conservative think-tank Policy Exchange, Jan 2007. Authored by Munira Mirza.

37 percent of young British Muslims want Sharia law in Britain.
36 percent of young British Muslims think apostates should be killed.
13 percent of young British Muslims said they "admired" Al Qaeda


Survey of British Muslims, Channel 4, Aug 2006 (also here)
http://markhumphrys.com/islam.uk.html




36 percent said they wanted Sharia law in the UK.
Half said British people who insult Islam should be arrested and prosecuted.

---

Quote:

---

81% of Egyptians want strict Sharia imposed in every Islamic country
76% of Pakistanis want strict Sharia imposed in every Islamic country
49% (plurality) of Indonesians want strict Sharia imposed in every Islamic country
76% of Moroccans want strict Sharia imposed in every Islamic country


35% of young Muslims in Britain believe suicide bombings are justified (24% overall).
42% of young Muslims in France believe suicide bombings are justified (35% overall).

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/opinion-polls.htm
41% of Pakistanis approve of attacks on Americans
38% of Moroccans approve of attacks on Americans
83% of Palestinians approve of some or most groups that attack Americans (only 14% oppose)
42% of Turks approve of some or most groups that attack Americans (45% oppose)

Only 7% of British Muslims think of themselves as British first (81% say 'Muslim' rather than 'Briton')
46% of Muslims in Germany hope there will eventually be more Muslims than Christians in Germany.

83% of Pakistanis support stoning adulterers
78% of Pakistanis support killing apostates

---

Quote:

---

religious fundamentalism is not a marginal phenomenon within West European Muslim communities. Almost 60 per cent agree that Muslims should return to the roots of Islam, 75 per cent think there is only one interpretation of the Koran possible to which every Muslim should stick and 65 per cent say that religious rules are more important to them than the laws of the country in which they live. Consistent fundamentalist beliefs, with agreement to all three statements, are found among 44 per cent of the interviewed Muslims
http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Muslim_Statistics_-_Shariah

---

Quote:

---

While liberals should be the ones pointing the way beyond this Iron Age madness, they are rendering themselves increasingly irrelevant. Being generally reasonable and tolerant of diversity, liberals should be especially sensitive to the dangers of religious literalism. But they aren’t.
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/response-to-controversy

---

Quote:

---

“I’m a proud liberal. I’ve been trying to convince liberals, some of them, that they need to go back to school on this issue of Islam and what it means to be a liberal,” Maher said in an interview with Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard. “And you, I think, are on the same page.”

---