I mean anything can happen at this rate.
The U.S. and Israel attack Iran | Peace deal finally on?
- Thread starter rio's upper lip
- Start date
-
In the latest edition of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) chats to author, Dan Williamson, about his new book 'If I Hadnt Seen Such Riches' which chronicles our 1990/91 European Cup Winners Cup victory, which is a trip down memory lane for those old enough to remember it and a vital history lesson for those who don't.
And I had just cooled down after you dismissed my "hot take" . Honestly, I wouldn’t be surprised by the quality of that article in the FT. The Economist also produces honest, objective accounts, in what may seem an unlikely source. But coverage of a huge tragedy isn’t measured by the three or four journalists who take the time to do it properly. When I use the phrase “mainstream media,” I’m referring to the global corporate media as a whole. Pointing to a handful of articles among the millions of words written and spoken about the war since this tragedy doesn’t really address the issue. The point, which you already acknowledged, is that not all deaths are treated equally.
A lot of what I read is basically journalism, but sometimes it’s published years after the fact. I value depth and careful investigation over immediacy. Alongside mainstream outlets, I also read what I consider very good left-wing media, such as Jacobin and Novara Media, so I’m aware of what isn’t being spoken about as well as what is. The idea that relative silence around the deaths of over 100 children represents journalistic integrity is a bit mad, because many of the same outlets are often happy to circulate hearsay and cant when it suits them. Again, the issue is the selectivity. And while I agree with your point about the value of careful reporting, it still doesn’t alter the relative lack, both in appropriate tone and in volume, of coverage of the school bombing in the immediate aftermath. I’m fully with you on news being more measured 10 days, or even 10 months, after the fact, which is why I don’t engage with news on social media and tend to treat daily news more like gossip. But it's interesting to see the gossip topics.
It's not the same, it's not the same scale and it's not the same context. We could do it but the impact would be far larger, we had easy alternatives to Russia, we don't have easy alternatives to essentially everyone.
Could we do it in spite of everything? Yes, but short term it's a terribe idea for average people. Now it needs to happen methodically with a long term strategy.
Interesting divide in the MAGA base - most of the big MAGA podcasters have been vocal against the war - Rogan, Candace Owens, Tucker, Fuentes, Megyn Kelly but the Republicans as a group seem to approve of the war.
It's just the 5 stages of centrism, first comes the denial of anything that isn't just mild tutting, then comes the 'it's complicated', followed by silence, claims that they always agreed, brunch.
This is like Scooby Doo not being in favor of Scooby snacks.
Play the world's smallest violin for Zelensky. Man was pimping out his anti drone tech just a couple of days ago
Right on! Pathetic Ukrainians, they’re pimps and I’m glad someone finally said it!
Just because millions of your citizens are have experienced genocide you want sympathy? Go f*ck yourself!
If I hear one more complaint about the systematic rape and torture I’m gonna have to attack a Ukrainian in the streets.
Moron.
Last edited:
I'm saying it's obvious why UK/US schoolkids being killed will get more coverage in US/UK media than kids being killed in other countries. This would not be hypocritical or (unfairly) biased.
When I said that I hadn't realised that you meant coverage of deaths in Israel vs Iran. And yeah, that would be biased. I guess it's a consequence of the Jewish diaspora and the level of power and influence they have (especially in the US).
Most likely as they're still searching for them.
And racism. Don’t forget the racism.
Because air-to-air refuelling in incredibly hard.
Look at this for example of the planning for the Vulcan missions
Or Dublin, or London, Washington.
Yeah, that too.
In the case of the US, it's a bit different. In the last 72 hours there has been hundreds of gun related incidents and around 30 people died. From what I understand it makes local news, basic article and that's it.
Both were KC-130RT's actually, the only ones capable of refuelling other tankers.
There was a story that Zelensky wanted to help the US against the drone attack by Iran. The poster was referencing that. It had nothing to do with Ukrainians except one Ukrainian trying to butt into something he should probably avoid.
Ukraine’s one of those times we suddenly cared... not just beause someone told us to, but due to being trained/conditioned to care about some lives more than others.
Kind of. Although there's also a level of compassion fatigue once bad stuff drags on and on. That's a big factor in wars and deaths in the middle east being perhaps more easily ignored than something similar happening in a part of the world where wars happen less often. It's also the reason why western media seemed super involved in what was happening in Ukraine when it first kicked off but it's been pushed towards the back pages of our newspapers over the last year or so.
Nah, it's nowt to do with fatigue. It's obvious why though. Not sure we even need to debate this.
Yes, I understand what his disgusting reference was about.
Is that supposed to make it better?
My understanding is that the other countries are after defensive drone technology, if that’s the concern, that Ukraine is looking to join in attacking Iran.
You completely missed the mark here. The point was that Zelensky has been consistently screwed over by the US and specifically Trump but he still offered to help them just for sanctions to be partially lifted on Russia who happen to be at war with Ukraine.
Ukrainians are the victims in a war of aggression they didn't want. No-one thinks ill of them.
Please have some coffee and breakfast.
I dunno, man. It's the same way it became normalised for us to look at photos of schoolkids in Northern Ireland with soldiers pointing loaded guns at them. Those kids looked exactly the same as kids living in England/Scotland/Wales but I don't remember this causing much outrage in those countries at the time. It was just accepted that the whole region was completely fecked up and that was just the way things were. Seems insane now, looking back, but we can get used to crazy shit, given enough time.
You are right about black/brown deaths being less valued in western media than when white people are killed. I don't want to give the impression I disagree with this. Just saying there's a lot of other factors at play here too.
Funny, but that’s a way to distract from the real issues:
1. we’re again destroying a middle eastern country
2. we’re again doing it for Israel
3. as a superpower, we’re again following a country of 10 million people
4. we will likely do it again
The U.S. media will keep criticizing Trump, and rightly so, but will be afraid of saying the “I word.”
That’s the problem.
My god Hegseth is such an amateur. Insane bloke to have as the head of the military.
Em, those pictures still make me angry. The reason they didn’t hit the UK the way they should have is exactly the same dynamic we see today. For centuries, people in Ireland were framed as animals, dehumanised, othered, and the British media and schools presented a deliberately narrow, one-eyed account of the conflict. No Blacks No Dogs No Irish. That selective coverage made it easy for the public to accept cruelty and oppression as “normal” in that context. It’s the same pattern with how deaths and suffering are reported now. Media framing shapes perception, shapes outrage, or makes it vanish. The images and tone and volume of coverage themselves are never neutral; the way they’re presented, or hidden, tells a story about whose lives “count.”
edit - on every read that post about NI gets more mental. "It was just accepted that the whole region was completely fecked up and that was just the way things were".
Are you for real?
It's almost as if electing a fool, who has surrounded himself with other fools wasn't a good idea.
Because air-to-air refuelling in incredibly hard.
Look at this for example of the planning for the Vulcan missions
They wouldn't be doing anything near as complicated as this around Iran and neither aircraft was apparently capable of taking on fuel.
This is an extreme example from the Falklands war which is not indicative of modern operations.Because air-to-air refuelling in incredibly hard.
Look at this for example of the planning for the Vulcan missions
I would bet on Mossad.
That’s a fecking insane post.
He was chosen because Trump knows him; likes his look and thinks he's good on TV because of his Fox and Friends background, and most importantly, because's he more likely to be obedient and loyal to him when things inevitably go wrong - unlike a proper defense secretary who is likely to do the right thing when Trump asks him to break the law on his behalf.
I assume you meant KC-135RT's 'cos 130's are Herky birds
Admin Note
Please take the military hardware chat to its appropriate thread
https://www.redcafe.net/threads/military-enthusiasts-on-the-caf.468767/
https://www.redcafe.net/threads/military-enthusiasts-on-the-caf.468767/
Why do certain posters always feel the need to pollute this thread with their “knowledge” on modern military tech. Nobody gives a shit.
I would imagine given this is a thread about a war which is using modern military tech, when someone (as they did) asks "Any expert want to shed some light?" someone is likely to answer.
Mercy me.I never thought it would ever getbad enough that we could even make that joke, but whad'ya know, a week or so in and here we are.