Messages

She was named in court, too.

So her "anonymity" meant very little.

Don't like the look of the Olympic Stadium in Kiev as a venue for the final. Has a running track which is always a buzzkill and then a path outside that about half the width of the track again. The seating is very gradually inclined and those in the upper deck, especially behind the goals will need binoculars as they'll be a couple of hundred metres away.

It'll do very nicely.

Four of Liverpool's five European Cup victories have come in stadiums with tracks around the pitch.

Even the sole exception, the Parc Des Princes in 1981, has a much extended area behind the goal compared to most stadiums.

But there's no such a thing as "rape culture", or something.

A CORK SCHOOL is investigating after a list which said "the girls with the most number of ticks will get raped" was found in a boys' bathroom.

http://www.thejournal.ie/mallow-school-rape-list-3954562-Apr2018/

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/cork-secondary-school-investigates-rape-list-found-in-boys-toilets-1.3460099?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fnews%2Feducation%2Fcork-secondary-school-investigates-rape-list-found-in-boys-toilets-1.3460099

[you believe Jackson lied about having vaginal sex with the complainant.]

Dara Florence's version of what she saw in the bedroom flatly contradicted the complainant's version.

It did no such thing.

It flatly contradicted Jackson.

If you believe Florence, you believe Jackson lied about having vaginal sex with the complainant.

I do, sid I sure do.
But I also said, that what the defence has to say is/was immaterial. It was up to the prosecution to prove its case and they didn't.
You either accept the rule of law or you don't.

(BTW, when you calm down a bit, you will find that Florence contradicted both parties.)

Where did I say I didn't accept the verdict?

What Florence said didn't contradict the complainant in terms of consent at all.

It did contradict Jackson, categorically.

Is Assad engaging in barbarity and ethnic cleansing? No idea.

I'll just leave that there.

No more needs to be said about your agenda.

Classic stuff. Someone doesn't know something and they have an agenda. And of course you didn't answer who it was he was cleansing. Let me know when you make it back from Syria with the evidence. Actually, don't.

You're a comedy act.

Let me guess, you read Eva Bartlett? 

Is Assad engaging in barbarity and ethnic cleansing? No idea.

I'll just leave that there.

No more needs to be said about your agenda.

If Ronaldo plays like he did last night, and history shows that's how he usually plays in the really big matches, Liverpool have little to fear from Real Madrid.

Liverpool wouldn't be a big match for Madrid though

Liverpool have never lost a knockout European Cup/Champions League tie to a La Liga team.

Liverpool's knockout European Cup record against Real Madrid is:

Played: 3
Won: 3
Goals for: 6
Goals against: 0

Not much of a match, there, alright.

Dara Florence's version of what she saw in the bedroom flatly contradicted the complainant's version.

It did no such thing.

It flatly contradicted Jackson.

If you believe Florence, you believe Jackson lied about having vaginal sex with the complainant.

If Ronaldo plays like he did last night, and history shows that's how he usually plays in the really big matches, Liverpool have little to fear from Real Madrid.

[especially after Trump said he wanted US troops out of Syria.]

Sid, although Russia is clearly a player in Syria, this thread is entitled "Syria". It was resurrected today and in two hours you've posted sevn posts and mentioned Russia nine times despite nobody else mentioning Russia, except in response to you.

There's little need for this thread to be turned into a You v Russia thread. There are others out there. It's clear; Russia can't be defended without whataboutery being used. Understood.

Does anyone, including Sid, have any reason or logic to believe why Assad would have committed this crime (without mentioning Russia)? Does anyone have any evidence that the crime happened? In the latter case, I've read reports that doctors reported casualties suffering from symptoms likely caused by a chemical attack. Conversely, I've read reports that hospitals have received no patients with these symptoms. Which should I believe and why?

Additionally, if Assad is 100% guilty of this alleged crime, does anyone think they should be attacked and to what end?

Russia gets mentioned because they are inextricably linked to the situation in Syria - Assad is their puppet. If you want to airbrush this fact, fire ahead by all means but don't expect your view to be taken seriously, especially when your contributions to anything involving Russia appear to be nothing more than to parrot whatever line the Russian government is taking, as you do again here.

Barbarity and forced ethnic cleansing is all the logic Assad and his Russian paymasters need for an attack such as this, especially after Trump said he wanted US troops out of Syria.

Last year there was a similar chemical attack after Trump said the US was not interested in ousting Assad.

The OPCW and the UN concluded that Assad was behind that attack.

But sure, far better to listen to RT and other shameless Russian propaganda.

I have to hand it to you Sid, you're one in a million. I kind of knew after my post that I shouldn't have bothered. We live and learn I guess.

Just one thing, if only because I actually do like to hear differing views on things, regardless of how rigid they are; could you explain the logic, if there is any, about the bit in bold above? See if you can do it without using the R word. 

You probably shouldn't have bothered, because you're not contributing anything except the Russian propaganda line.

And again, you don't get to decide what gets discussed merely because you've decided to assume to role play an RT presenter.

There's a piece of basic logic you're missing here: when your "enemy" shows weakness, that's when you attack.

But Trump is a stooge.

Putin and Assad are playing him like a fiddle. So are the neo-cons.

Trump doesn't know whether he's coming or going. On the one hand he has to appease his Russian paymasters, yet on the other, he has to appease the neo-con nut jobs. He's an unpredictable idiot who, like a 12 year old, is ruled by his moods.

Now, why does Russia flat out deny that a chemical attack took place?

Is Assad engaging in barbarity and ethnic cleansing?

Are the Russians helping him in this?

If you could answer those questions, that would be great.

Sid, although Russia is clearly a player in Syria, this thread is entitled "Syria". It was resurrected today and in two hours you've posted sevn posts and mentioned Russia nine times despite nobody else mentioning Russia, except in response to you.

There's little need for this thread to be turned into a You v Russia thread. There are others out there. It's clear; Russia can't be defended without whataboutery being used. Understood.

Does anyone, including Sid, have any reason or logic to believe why Assad would have committed this crime (without mentioning Russia)? Does anyone have any evidence that the crime happened? In the latter case, I've read reports that doctors reported casualties suffering from symptoms likely caused by a chemical attack. Conversely, I've read reports that hospitals have received no patients with these symptoms. Which should I believe and why?

Additionally, if Assad is 100% guilty of this alleged crime, does anyone think they should be attacked and to what end?

Russia gets mentioned because they are inextricably linked to the situation in Syria - Assad is their puppet. If you want to airbrush this fact, fire ahead by all means but don't expect your view to be taken seriously, especially when your contributions to anything involving Russia appear to be nothing more than to parrot whatever line the Russian government is taking, as you do again here.

Barbarity and forced ethnic cleansing is all the logic Assad and his Russian paymasters need for an attack such as this, especially after Trump said he wanted US troops out of Syria.

Last year there was a similar chemical attack after Trump said the US was not interested in ousting Assad.

The OPCW and the UN concluded that Assad was behind that attack.

But sure, far better to listen to RT and other shameless Russian propaganda.

[Lies tend to be found out in countries with a free press.]

You can't believe any of them to be frank.

Lies tend to be found out in countries with a free press.

What institutions exist in Russia to expose government lies and hold them to account?

I don't agree. There are many lies that governments peddle that are not proven otherwise. Who bombed Dublin and Monaghan in 1974 for example? Also - I'm not sure what you mean by a "free press".....do we have that in Ireland or in Britain or America? We may have the appearance of it but it's being worn away all the time. I know little about Russia, I'd have my doubts they do either.

I'm under no illusions that Russia is not to be trusted. I just realise the UK and USA aren't to be trusted either.

In comparison to Russia, the press we have is indeed extremely free. That is very far from saying it is perfect or that there are not problems with it.

A democratic system does indeed have a happy knack of exposing lies.

Bloody Sunday, Hillsborough, Iraq, all lies, all exposed.

Could such lies have been exposed in Russia?

Why is Russia so keen to spread disinformation in the west?

False equivalence is a cancer in public discourse.

Absolutely. So's groupthink and blind acceptance.

Apparently accepting what the OPCW and the UN say constitutes "groupthink and blind acceptance" now, eh. Deary me.

[As for the 'gang-bang' or whatever you want to term the incident that played out that night, the jury found that she was a willing participant.]

I remember it happened to OJ Simpson as well. He got cleared and was vilified and ostracised afterwards...

Double murder and a threesome? Are you for real?

What's the differnce? Both trials conducted on their own merits. OJ walked and the Jackson trio walked. No consistency thinking that OJ got away with murder and Jackson and co. didn't get away with rape. You might think that a  gang- bang on an 19 yr old girl is not a big deal- but this girl obviously was not a willing participant. Does a girl have to be killed or badly beaten before there is a conviction? It appears like there is no point police or procecution bothering with a case otherwise.

Maybe the whole thing about definition of rape needs to be looked at? The message seems to be that unless a girl is destroyed by a phycho, forget about it, she were asking for it. You happy with that? Ever wonder in a lot of cultures around the world that girls are subjected to genital mutilation, others forced to wear burkas and hijabs and be chaperoned by family?
The thing that a lot of people are missing in this story is the lack of care and responsibility there was towards that girl. Girls have freedom here that they don't have in other parts of the world and that should be cherished, not taken advantage of. Jackson had a duty of care for that girl in his house and he fucked up. Their 'apologies' afterwards acknowledged that to an extent. 

The girl is an adult, it is her responsibility to look after herself, its wasn't up to Jackson or anybody else.  He probably 'f*cked up' in allowing strange girls into his house and probably won't make that mistake again.  As for the 'gang-bang' or whatever you want to term the incident that played out that night, the jury found that she was a willing participant.

They did not.

Quite amazing that this still has to be explained to posters.

[Lies tend to be found out in countries with a free press.]

You can't believe any of them to be frank.

Lies tend to be found out in countries with a free press.

What institutions exist in Russia to expose government lies and hold them to account?

I don't agree. There are many lies that governments peddle that are not proven otherwise. Who bombed Dublin and Monaghan in 1974 for example? Also - I'm not sure what you mean by a "free press".....do we have that in Ireland or in Britain or America? We may have the appearance of it but it's being worn away all the time. I know little about Russia, I'd have my doubts they do either.

I'm under no illusions that Russia is not to be trusted. I just realise the UK and USA aren't to be trusted either.

In comparison to Russia, the press we have is indeed extremely free. That is very far from saying it is perfect or that there are not problems with it.

A democratic system does indeed have a happy knack of exposing lies.

Bloody Sunday, Hillsborough, Iraq, all lies, all exposed.

Could such lies have been exposed in Russia?

Why is Russia so keen to spread disinformation in the west?

False equivalence is a cancer in public discourse.

You can't believe any of them to be frank.

Lies tend to be found out in countries with a free press.

What institutions exist in Russia to expose government lies and hold them to account?