Putin Comments on Europe's Migrant Issues

[vostok]

Welcome to Europe, where Islamists have a free pass with raping little children.

It is beyond my imagination. I find it difficult even to admit that such a thing is possible in our world.

 

[TMA]

True is that Russia will become a Muslim majority nation even before every single Western nation reach this demographic state. Putin is an idiot.

Putin may be many things - but an idiot is not one of them.

It is beyond my imagination. I find it difficult even to admit that such a thing is possible in our world.

Don't you get it? They who control power in Western Civiliztion want to cause ethnic conflict. So they will then have no possibility of being kicked out.

 

[ptldM3]

Yeah well, if you are silly enough to blindly believe the unbiased reporting of Russian State media RT..... I'm not surprise that's how you think.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_(TV_network)#Criticism

One of the most moronic excuses for ignorance and bias. By this logic anything the US or U.K. or any government says should also be rebuked because it is officially coming from those states. Outlets such as CNN and MSNBC are oragans of the Democratic Party, they will say anything including flat out lie to advance the agenda under the Democratic Party.


RT has also criticized the Russian government so your argument of 'oh it RT!' is rubbish. It's not one of the most watched news networks in the world by accident.

 

[Desert Fox]

It is beyond my imagination. I find it difficult even to admit that such a thing is possible in our world.

In Europe, it is possible. In fact in Europe, anything is possible.

One of the most moronic excuses for ignorance and bias. By this logic anything the US or U.K. or any government says should also be rebuked because it is officially coming from those states. Outlets such as CNN and MSNBC are oragans of the Democratic Party, they will say anything including flat out lie to advance the agenda under the Democratic Party.


RT has also criticized the Russian government so your argument of 'oh it RT!' is rubbish. It's not one of the most watched news networks in the world by accident.

He enjoys talking out of his @$$ when he can't refute facts.

 

[A_Poster]

I suggest you show some evidence for your claim.

Exhibit A: Media coverage of Trump vs Hillary election in USA. Any neutral observer could see how blindly mainstream media in USA is biased against Trump.

Exhibit B: Mainstream media in west apologizing for Islamofascism for a decade and half, and still doing so but in a covert manner as today no one buy lies of Islam not being an violent expansionist cult. (The whole sham of "religion of peace" run by mainstream media since 2001)

Exhibit C: The demonization of Russia (including ridicule and fear mongering over passage of their carrier through English channel which is international water and shortest path for passage to Syria from Russia) and Assad, even though opponents of Assad are even worse than him (not saying Assad is an angel)

Also, for much of 2015, graduate students at Columbia School of Journalism took part in the RT Watch project, monitoring RT's (US) output. Casey Michel, who worked on the project, wrote "RT ignores the inherent traits of journalism—checking sources, relaying facts, attempting honest reportage" and "you’ll find 'experts' lacking in expertise, conspiracy theories without backing, and, from time to time, outright fabrication for the sake of pushing a pro-Kremlin line"

Rest of the media is also guilty of everything that "Columbia School of Journalism" accused RT of. It is just that 'Columbia' school of 'Journalism' would never call out their peers at MNSBC, CNN, BBC et al; which apart from being more biased than RT, also claim to be neutral.

You fail to see that I made no claims whatsoever about Western media. You also assume I believe what's in the newspapers and on TV at home. Silly you. But explain me this, since I and my compatriots have access to pretty much any media anywhere via internet and other means (I can buy foreign newspapers, including Asian ones around the corner), how large do you think is the chance of 'my' media getting away with biased reporting? WHere in your definition do 'my media' end? Western Europe, the Western hemisphere, Anglo-Saxon media (I am fluent in at least 2 more languages besides Dutch and English, and work wonders with translation software)? Talk about laughable.

Then what is your problem with RT?

Western media do propaganda and only do propaganda, so does RT. RT is an alternative source of propaganda so that you could hear both sides.

And being fluent in multiple languages does not mean anything.when pattern of bias in all languages is same. Anglo-Saxon and vernacular media is western Europe is controlled by same interests so bias of mainstream media is same on both continents, and rest of the media do not care enough about Europe to deeply analyse their suicidal tendencies (which are just homicidal tendencies driven onto self).

 

[mike2000 is back]

I can't f@kin believe it. It can not be true - I mean story about the court.

You will be surprised what some of our western european courts can overlook just because they want to remain politically correct. Lool

 

[Penguin]

One of the most moronic excuses for ignorance and bias. By this logic anything the US or U.K. or any government says should also be rebuked because it is officially coming from those states. Outlets such as CNN and MSNBC are oragans of the Democratic Party, they will say anything including flat out lie to advance the agenda under the Democratic Party.


RT has also criticized the Russian government so your argument of 'oh it RT!' is rubbish. It's not one of the most watched news networks in the world by accident.

Sure. Like there is no significant difference between state owned/funded media and commercial media...

CNN and MSNBC may (or may not) be organs of the Democratic Party (nb. you should try and substantiate that claim with some evidence on the alledged relationship, which - if true - incidentally doesn't make it STATE/GOVERNMENT directed) but the thing is, there are other significant networks/media that may (or may not be) organs of the Republicans. Aside from easily accessible non-US media. That's a little different in Russia, I believe.

 

[Penguin]

Exhibit A: Media coverage of Trump vs Hillary election in USA. Any neutral observer could see how blindly mainstream media in USA is biased against Trump.

Exhibit B: Mainstream media in west apologizing for Islamofascism for a decade and half, and still doing so but in a covert manner as today no one buy lies of Islam not being an violent expansionist cult. (The whole sham of "religion of peace" run by mainstream media since 2001)

Exhibit C: The demonization of Russia (including ridicule and fear mongering over passage of their carrier through English channel which is international water and shortest path for passage to Syria from Russia) and Assad, even though opponents of Assad are even worse than him (not saying Assad is an angel)

Your personal assessment and opinion of 'western media', which is an opague and ill-defined term, does not constitute evidence. Besides, its non-specific in a variety of ways.

Rest of the media is also guilty of everything that "Columbia School of Journalism" accused RT of. It is just that 'Columbia' school of 'Journalism' would never call out their peers at MNSBC, CNN, BBC et al; which apart from being more biased than RT, also claim to be neutral.

So you claim. That (student-initated, graduate) project actually looked at whether there was any factual basis for elitist 'RT bashing'. It helps if you actually look at the project.

Then what is your problem with RT?

Western media do propaganda and only do propaganda, so does RT. RT is an alternative source of propaganda so that you could hear both sides.

I don't have a problem with RT, I have a problem with people who take what RT puts out blindly as truthfull or unbiased. And for several reason, including state ownership/funding and level of journalistic reporting integrity, that may be worse of an error than to see and compare media of one or more Western (European) countries of which it is know that some are left, other right, and yet others more directed at one demographic or another.

And being fluent in multiple languages does not mean anything when pattern of bias in all languages is same.

Sure. Dependence on English language media doesn't mean anything, right?

In a work related context, as a Dutchman, if you are dependent on English speaking management literature for knowing your field, you miss out on some very interesting and notably different traditions and perspectives in e.g. French and German management literature, a significant portion of which is only made available in the local languages.

Ever looked up information on military hardware development? If is very enriching when you can also go through source documentation in e.g German, French, Spanish, to name but a few other major languages. Likewise, with media. You do not think it make a difference when you can actually read foreign media in the original language (which also means you have better access to e.g. what regional and local media pay attention to and how, which is far more informative as far as probing 'grass roots'-sentiments.

Anglo-Saxon and vernacular media is western Europe is controlled by same interests so bias of mainstream media is same on both continents, and rest of the media do not care enough about Europe to deeply analyse their suicidal tendencies (which are just homicidal tendencies driven onto self).

How would you be able to assess this without being able to actually read e.g. a German or Italy [put any country here] newspaper. How would you know if there is/isn't any difference between English- and local-language versions of the same media?

As for suicide data, please do not start again the kind of lame-***, fake discussion like Sweden has the highest rate incidence of rape again, which originates from how Swedes define and count sexual abuse. Likewise, there are established criminologial explanations of why suicide rates in some countries gets reported more accurate in some countries and not at all in other countries (and culture has a lot to do with hiding unwanted social data)

Perhaps you find this interesting: http://www.journalism.org/2014/10/2...tinct-favorites-emerge-on-the-left-and-right/

 

[vostok]

You will be surprised what some of our western european courts can overlook just because they want to remain politically correct. Lool

Then you urgently need to change something, otherwise you'll just commit suicide, as the Soviet Union once did. Or even worse.

 

[ptldM3]

Sure. Like there is no significant difference between state owned/funded media and commercial media...

CNN and MSNBC may (or may not) be organs of the Democratic Party (nb. you should try and substantiate that claim with some evidence on the alledged relationship, which - if true - incidentally doesn't make it STATE/GOVERNMENT directed) but the thing is, there are other significant networks/media that may (or may not be) organs of the Republicans. Aside from easily accessible non-US media. That's a little different in Russia, I believe.

You must have been born yesterday. CNBC and CNN are staunchly Democratic while Fox News is staunchly Republican. Obama even said that Fox is a Republican network while Republicans joke that CNN is the "Clinton News Network". CNN, CNBC, ect have been viciously attacking Trump and even cutting people off the air that said negative things about Clinton, Fox is clearly pro Trump and anti Clinton.


clearly as I stated above there is strong bias on all networks. RT is transparent to where its funding comes from and like all networks shares its point of view. How many times have you attacked western mainstream media? None that I have seen yet you attack RT.



You did not know the media bias of US networks that represent Republican views vs news networks that represent Democratic views, so I don't expect you to know anything about RT. If you did you would know they often invite people with opposing view points to argue their position.

Many people including Americans that work for RT have said that no one controls them. RT has even aired negative things about Russia and its policies.

 

[GiannKall]

If he really had raped the boy he would be in jail. Since we was set free obviously it was not rape. Just another case of far right media going crazy

 

[ARABIC]

nice

 

[Faiez]

putin needs to go...

 

[mike2000 is back]

If he really had raped the boy he would be in jail. Since we was set free obviously it was not rape. Just another case of far right media going crazy

So the boy was taken to hospital and suffered severe internal injuries for nothing huh?lol
I'm sure a small underage boy of 10 will lie about such a thing for no good reason. I'm also sure the culprit saying he had acted because of a “sexual emergency” as he had not had sex for four months is also because he was brainwashed or forced to say so. Lol
The court also offered compensation to the familly of the boy for no reason. Lol

 

[vostok]

So the boy was taken to hospital nd suffered severe internal injuries for nothing huh?lol
I'm sure a small underage boy will lie about such a thing for no good reason. I'm also sure the culprit saying he had acted because of a “sexual emergency” as he had not had sex for four months is also because he was brainwashed or forces to say so. Lol
The court also offered compensation to the familly of the boy for no reason. Lol

In better times, good burghers would just hange this faggot on the nearest tree.