The UK Politics and EU Referendum thread - merged

[AlunB]

Is wilfully misrepresenting someone's position in order to further the cause of free speech really the best use of free speech?

Obviously referring to the Breitbarts and Spikeds of this world and not the Barry Carters here.

[DaveShoelace]

Is wilfully misrepresenting someone's position in order to further the cause of free speech really the best use of free speech?

Obviously referring to the Breitbarts and Spikeds of this world and not the Barry Carters here.

Well it's certainly not the best use of free speech, thats for sure, but one of the points of free speech is not that one type is better than the other. You either have it, or you dont.

But yeah both those publications are guilty of occassionally making very good points which get completely lost because of all the other shite they spew. A bit like conspiracy theorists in that regard, they usually end up being spot on with one of their crackpot theories, but nobody takes them seriously because of all the other wacko stuff.

[DaveShoelace]

Speaking of crazy media outlets, does anyone else watch Russia Today?

Obviously they have a ridiculous anti-american agenda but they often have some really interesting stuff on, as long as you take it all with a pinch of salt.

[The Camel]

David Icke was pretty spot on about his VIP Paedophile ring.

Makes me wonder what really goes on at Bildeburg.

[AlunB]

David Icke was pretty spot on about his VIP Paedophile ring.

Makes me wonder what really goes on at Bildeburg.

Jon Ronson went there once. Not a lot apparently.

[DaveShoelace]

Is wilfully misrepresenting someone's position in order to further the cause of free speech really the best use of free speech?

Obviously referring to the Breitbarts and Spikeds of this world and not the Barry Carters here.

Well it's certainly not the best use of free speech, thats for sure, but one of the points of free speech is not that one type is better than the other. You either have it, or you dont.

But yeah both those publications are guilty of occassionally making very good points which get completely lost because of all the other shite they spew. A bit like conspiracy theorists in that regard, they usually end up being spot on with one of their crackpot theories, but nobody takes them seriously because of all the other wacko stuff.

Oh wait, I didn't read you original post properly, didn't notice you wrote free speech twice.

I think my original reply stands, but yes that is a very good point and it certainly does happen.

You get free speech advocates on both sides of the political spectrum, but as a personal observation it is the right-leaning side that do willfully misinterprate things. Brietbart being a good example.

[AlunB]

Speaking of crazy media outlets, does anyone else watch Russia Today?

Obviously they have a ridiculous anti-american agenda but they often have some really interesting stuff on, as long as you take it all with a pinch of salt.

No I've never really checked it out. I've seen it namechecked a few times though. Will take a look.

Re the free speech thing, yeah that was what I mean. I'm not even 100% sure I'm in favour of absolute free speech. Americans wet themselves about it because it's in the Bill of Rights.

[DaveShoelace]

David Icke was pretty spot on about his VIP Paedophile ring.

Makes me wonder what really goes on at Bildeburg.

Jon Ronson went there once. Not a lot apparently.

Beat me to it. Jon Ronson's book Them where he effectively did manage to bring Bildeberg out of their secretive shell, is one of the funniest books I've ever read.

[TightEnd]

Brexit chances rise to new high of 38%, according to Ladbrokes' latest referendum odds.

[Ironside]

It needs a good shaken about

[ripple11]

 The migrant crisis isn't going to end before the referendum, which surely means the "leave" vote will be much easier to galvanize than before.

[DaveShoelace]

Q of the day

This isn't me being provocative, it's actually me being completely ignorant and wanting to know more.

Why do people have a problem with drone strikes?

I am anti-war, I don't want drone strikes and I don't want our air force flying over targets in standard planes and bombing them either.

However, if, in a war type situation, we have to attack a target, isn't using an unmanned drone just common sense?

Is the collatoral damage from drones much worse for some reason?

Is it 'too easy' for us to use drones and that in itself is becoming a problem?

Is it just because its an 'unfair fight' that people have a problem?

Or am I largely missing the point, and it's the strikes themselves people object to, rather than the drone itself?

[titaniumbean]

Q of the day

This isn't me being provocative, it's actually me being completely ignorant and wanting to know more.

Why do people have a problem with drone strikes?

I am anti-war, I don't want drone strikes and I don't want our air force flying over targets in standard planes and bombing them either.

However, if, in a war type situation, we have to attack a target, isn't using an unmanned drone just common sense?

Is the collatoral damage from drones much worse for some reason?

Is it 'too easy' for us to use drones and that in itself is becoming a problem?

Is it just because its an 'unfair fight' that people have a problem?

Or am I largely missing the point, and it's the strikes themselves people object to, rather than the drone itself?

these leaks are fascinating. check them out to get some context.

https://theintercept.com/drone-papers/


modern military and intelligence phraseology is all about obsfucating what's happening. They call these targeted killings (aka random assassination/executions) yet all they target is a telephone sim card, that at one point in time may or may not have communicated with someone bad, been used by someone bad or w/e. Hence so many 'weddings' get hit and hundreds are injured, they don't actually know what they are shooting at most of the time. But as they are shooting at people in a foreign country no shits are given. It's also seen as a lot cleaner as there are no boots on the ground so people (our "good guy" people) cant be injured.  In one period of time they had a 90% get it wrong and kill random people rate, yet that is considered A OK because team america fuck yeh. So what they do is they say, we were aiming for Mr A, mr A wasn't there and we killed a group of innocent men, so obviously we write down that they were the baddies too and increase the 'bad guys killed column' instead of being honest and saying they slaughtered more innocents through lazy incompetence. It's all a numbers game to feed to the press (with accidental but totally legit and acceptable leaks), then they have the actual data leaked and they look like the ***** they are and desperately try and imprison/destroy the life of the leaker.

[DaveShoelace]

Q of the day

This isn't me being provocative, it's actually me being completely ignorant and wanting to know more.

Why do people have a problem with drone strikes?

I am anti-war, I don't want drone strikes and I don't want our air force flying over targets in standard planes and bombing them either.

However, if, in a war type situation, we have to attack a target, isn't using an unmanned drone just common sense?

Is the collatoral damage from drones much worse for some reason?

Is it 'too easy' for us to use drones and that in itself is becoming a problem?

Is it just because its an 'unfair fight' that people have a problem?

Or am I largely missing the point, and it's the strikes themselves people object to, rather than the drone itself?

these leaks are fascinating. check them out to get some context.

https://theintercept.com/drone-papers/


modern military and intelligence phraseology is all about obsfucating what's happening. They call these targeted killings (aka random assassination/executions) yet all they target is a telephone sim card, that at one point in time may or may not have communicated with someone bad, been used by someone bad or w/e. Hence so many 'weddings' get hit and hundreds are injured, they don't actually know what they are shooting at most of the time. But as they are shooting at people in a foreign country no shits are given. It's also seen as a lot cleaner as there are no boots on the ground so people (our "good guy" people) cant be injured.  In one period of time they had a 90% get it wrong and kill random people rate, yet that is considered A OK because team america fuck yeh. So what they do is they say, we were aiming for Mr A, mr A wasn't there and we killed a group of innocent men, so obviously we write down that they were the baddies too and increase the 'bad guys killed column' instead of being honest and saying they slaughtered more innocents through lazy incompetence. It's all a numbers game to feed to the press (with accidental but totally legit and acceptable leaks), then they have the actual data leaked and they look like the ***** they are and desperately try and imprison/destroy the life of the leaker.

Yes I think I read the thing before about the sim card and that 73-90% of drone strikes did not get the right person, but my question is, is this a specific drone problem, or would this also happen if it was the airforce carrying out the mission instead?

I'm guessing the big problem is not the drone itself, but the collatoral damage and very limited reliable data to suggest they are getting the people they planned to?

[TightEnd]

There is a huge difference in the attitude of Cameron and Corbyn to the killing of Jihadi John

One says it was absolutely necessary and self defence

The other says its unacceptable and he should have been tried in a court of law

given the very low likelihood of the latter, how realistic is Corbyn's idealistic approach compared to the pragmatism of what has actually happened?