| "Nuke North Korea now: It's the only option" on 10:33 - Sep 8 with 4609 views | giant_stow |
| "Nuke North Korea now: It's the only option" on 10:27 - Sep 8 by caught-in-limbo |
I strongly recommend https://consortiumnews.com for news on North Korea at present. The independent journalists who comment on North Korea are streets ahead of anything coming from the Guardian or the BBC at present.
Definitely worth a look. |
Ta for the link - I'll keep an eye on it. Out of inbterest, what is it you like about their coverage?
Swansea, that description of Trump is brutally brilliant! |  |
|  |
| "Nuke North Korea now: It's the only option" on 10:40 - Sep 8 with 4597 views | amy73 |
I guess it depends on your view of life. For me, I would rather a million people on the other side of the world died rather than one person I know. Selfish, I know - but there you have it. |  | | |
| (No subject) on 10:57 - Sep 8 with 4570 views | BOjK |
| (No subject) on 18:33 - Sep 7 by Yaffle |
This fellow from the 'Chief Economists Department' at LSE has written possibly the worst piece of 'journalism' I have had the misfortune to read in a very long time. In the interest of balance, I found this an entirely more rational and considered perspective.
https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/09/06/end-games-the-apocalyptic-trope-that-swa
"...even if there were some kind of war between the US and North Korea, it would not remotely lead to anything like the “end of the world.” The US has thousands of immediately launchable nuclear weapons; North Korea has, er, none. And even if you believe Pyongyang’s propaganda (and if you swallow it about their nuclear weapons program, why not believe their BS about the happy workers’ paradise they have there?), you’re still left with the fact that North Korea might be able to put a weapon on a missile at some point in the future. OK, then they could possibly lob this missile (or heck, two or three of them, maybe) in the direction of the United States — which, we assume, would just stand back and watch this happen, despite having North Korea absolutely blanketed with surveillance and having the ability to destroy any launcher the instant it reared skyward. And then North Korea would be obliterated by a US retaliation." |
I'm not sure this is much more considered either. Sure, no Westerners would die, but the North could cause massive damage to the South. The States are going to nuke North Korea, but Seoul (35 miles from border; population 9.9 million) will be just fine will it? Despite possibilities of fall-out, contamination, retaliation etc etc.
The author wouldn't be laughing off the possibility of war if he lived across the border from North Korea I can tell you.
Many wise heads have said there isn't a military solution to the North Korean problem, and I agree with them. |  |
| |
| (No subject) on 11:07 - Sep 8 with 4559 views | lowhouseblue |
| (No subject) on 10:57 - Sep 8 by BOjK |
I'm not sure this is much more considered either. Sure, no Westerners would die, but the North could cause massive damage to the South. The States are going to nuke North Korea, but Seoul (35 miles from border; population 9.9 million) will be just fine will it? Despite possibilities of fall-out, contamination, retaliation etc etc.
The author wouldn't be laughing off the possibility of war if he lived across the border from North Korea I can tell you.
Many wise heads have said there isn't a military solution to the North Korean problem, and I agree with them. |
i also think the chinese would be quite p1ssed off about it. |  |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| "Nuke North Korea now: It's the only option" on 11:49 - Sep 8 with 4529 views | Yaffle |
The B61 is the same weapon that was held at Lakenheath until around 2009. Interesting article too. |  | | |
| "Nuke North Korea now: It's the only option" on 11:56 - Sep 8 with 4523 views | giant_stow |
| "Nuke North Korea now: It's the only option" on 11:49 - Sep 8 by Yaffle |
The B61 is the same weapon that was held at Lakenheath until around 2009. Interesting article too. |
good knowledge sir!
Anyone know if the Turks could just use these weapons as is or are they controlled by all the american security protocols? | |
| |
| (No subject) on 12:00 - Sep 8 with 4519 views | StokieBlue |
That article is nonsensical.
There is no way that Erdogan’s would seize (let's say what it is, steal) US nuclear weapons. It's a suicidal thing to even consider and it's a scaremongering article. It would mean expulsion from NATO an the basic disarming his country overnight by the US.
Pretty hard to maintain control as a strongman leader when you've lost half your military and been comprehensively battered.
The trouble with these websites with independent journalists is that in order to get people to read them they have to make "tail risk events" seem plausible and likely to happen. That's not the case and that is the reason they are tail risk events.
SB [Post edited 8 Sep 2017 12:00]
|  |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| "Nuke North Korea now: It's the only option" on 12:04 - Sep 8 with 4511 views | caught-in-limbo |
| "Nuke North Korea now: It's the only option" on 10:33 - Sep 8 by giant_stow |
Ta for the link - I'll keep an eye on it. Out of inbterest, what is it you like about their coverage?
Swansea, that description of Trump is brutally brilliant! |
The authors are highly respected investigative journalists with decades of experience both in journalism and in western political life. Their views are well presented, intelligent and show no vested interest.
Pretty much everything they right is excellent. |  |
| |
| (No subject) on 12:04 - Sep 8 with 4509 views | giant_stow |
| (No subject) on 12:00 - Sep 8 by StokieBlue |
That article is nonsensical.
There is no way that Erdogan’s would seize (let's say what it is, steal) US nuclear weapons. It's a suicidal thing to even consider and it's a scaremongering article. It would mean expulsion from NATO an the basic disarming his country overnight by the US.
Pretty hard to maintain control as a strongman leader when you've lost half your military and been comprehensively battered.
The trouble with these websites with independent journalists is that in order to get people to read them they have to make "tail risk events" seem plausible and likely to happen. That's not the case and that is the reason they are tail risk events.
SB [Post edited 8 Sep 2017 12:00]
|
I hope you're right and must admit, i'm a sucker for a good 'what if', but how come you're so certain it's bollox? If the Turks did steal these weapons and did it quickly enough, what could the yanks do (presuming the answer to my other question is that these bombs would be ready to use / no security)? | |
| |
| "Nuke North Korea now: It's the only option" on 12:05 - Sep 8 with 4506 views | giant_stow |
| "Nuke North Korea now: It's the only option" on 12:04 - Sep 8 by caught-in-limbo |
The authors are highly respected investigative journalists with decades of experience both in journalism and in western political life. Their views are well presented, intelligent and show no vested interest.
Pretty much everything they right is excellent. |
Fair enough, but everyone has a vested interest / bias somewhere in them. | |
| |
| "Nuke North Korea now: It's the only option" on 12:16 - Sep 8 with 4492 views | CBMTOBWMMBG |
| "Nuke North Korea now: It's the only option" on 10:27 - Sep 8 by caught-in-limbo |
I strongly recommend https://consortiumnews.com for news on North Korea at present. The independent journalists who comment on North Korea are streets ahead of anything coming from the Guardian or the BBC at present.
Definitely worth a look. |
Thanks, reading it now, its very good | | | |
| "Nuke North Korea now: It's the only option" on 16:08 - Sep 8 with 4441 views | caught-in-limbo |
| "Nuke North Korea now: It's the only option" on 12:05 - Sep 8 by giant_stow |
Fair enough, but everyone has a vested interest / bias somewhere in them. |
Not professionally they don't. I don't and I don't think a professional INDEPENDENT investigative journalist would necessarily either.
But perhaps I'm missing something. What do you think Parry and Polk's (the two journalists I've linked today) vested interest might be as respected independent investigative journalists over the last 20 years? | |
| |
| "Nuke North Korea now: It's the only option" on 16:24 - Sep 8 with 4433 views | StokieBlue |
| "Nuke North Korea now: It's the only option" on 16:08 - Sep 8 by caught-in-limbo |
Not professionally they don't. I don't and I don't think a professional INDEPENDENT investigative journalist would necessarily either.
But perhaps I'm missing something. What do you think Parry and Polk's (the two journalists I've linked today) vested interest might be as respected independent investigative journalists over the last 20 years? |
Of course they do, if their stuff is boring they won't get published and won't get any money. Everyone has to eat.
That article posted is a very low probability tail risk event (Turkey one), hence no mainstream news agency would dream of reporting it (as they shouldn't). They have gone to the far end of the curve and takes the least probable scenario and then spun it into a story that sounds plausible.
SB | |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| "Nuke North Korea now: It's the only option" on 16:28 - Sep 8 with 4426 views | giant_stow |
| "Nuke North Korea now: It's the only option" on 16:08 - Sep 8 by caught-in-limbo |
Not professionally they don't. I don't and I don't think a professional INDEPENDENT investigative journalist would necessarily either.
But perhaps I'm missing something. What do you think Parry and Polk's (the two journalists I've linked today) vested interest might be as respected independent investigative journalists over the last 20 years? |
I know nothing about either of them Mrs. My point is that it's humanly impossible for anyone to put aside all their bias and vested interests. It's not a dig - just an observation. | |
| |
| "Nuke North Korea now: It's the only option" on 17:49 - Sep 8 with 4404 views | caught-in-limbo |
| "Nuke North Korea now: It's the only option" on 16:28 - Sep 8 by giant_stow |
I know nothing about either of them Mrs. My point is that it's humanly impossible for anyone to put aside all their bias and vested interests. It's not a dig - just an observation. |
You could say, I have a vested interest from a professional point of view. As a private teacher I've realised I get paid more per hour and get more hours and hold on to students for years by being really good at my job. Actually, I call it pride in my work and pride in myself - fortunately, it pays well too.
There are lots of things I could do to make a lot more money short term, but I don't.
I'm trying to think how a site like consortiumnews.com makes its money if there's no advertising. Actually, I know - it's donation based only and the authors sell books. Seeing why Parry (the site owner) set up the site, it makes sense for him to be good at his job and employ other good writers who report news well and accurately. If he points out why wars like the Iraq invasion of 2003 and the attack on Libya were waged on lies and false pretences and lies he's eventually going to get found out and discredited if he turns out to be wrong. But he hasn't.
I'm sure Parry could make a lot more money my reporting in line with the mainstream western press. Certainly, with his employment history he'd make a lot of money from books, articles and public speaking appearances if he championed either of the main political parties' geopolitical point of view, but he doesn't. Perhaps he has the same sort of pride in himself and a professional pride that I have and choses not to be a presstitute for a living. | |
| |
| "Nuke North Korea now: It's the only option" on 17:55 - Sep 8 with 4402 views | caught-in-limbo |
| "Nuke North Korea now: It's the only option" on 16:24 - Sep 8 by StokieBlue |
Of course they do, if their stuff is boring they won't get published and won't get any money. Everyone has to eat.
That article posted is a very low probability tail risk event (Turkey one), hence no mainstream news agency would dream of reporting it (as they shouldn't). They have gone to the far end of the curve and takes the least probable scenario and then spun it into a story that sounds plausible.
SB |
You obviously live in a capitalistic world where all news agencies are in it to make money alone. In that kind of world there is no position for journalists who write with integrity and honesty all the time. You're right of course - that is how it works almost across the board. But I believe there are a few examples of journalists that maintain professional integrity - Parry being one of them. | |
| |
| "Nuke North Korea now: It's the only option" on 18:07 - Sep 8 with 4394 views | giant_stow |
| "Nuke North Korea now: It's the only option" on 17:49 - Sep 8 by caught-in-limbo |
You could say, I have a vested interest from a professional point of view. As a private teacher I've realised I get paid more per hour and get more hours and hold on to students for years by being really good at my job. Actually, I call it pride in my work and pride in myself - fortunately, it pays well too.
There are lots of things I could do to make a lot more money short term, but I don't.
I'm trying to think how a site like consortiumnews.com makes its money if there's no advertising. Actually, I know - it's donation based only and the authors sell books. Seeing why Parry (the site owner) set up the site, it makes sense for him to be good at his job and employ other good writers who report news well and accurately. If he points out why wars like the Iraq invasion of 2003 and the attack on Libya were waged on lies and false pretences and lies he's eventually going to get found out and discredited if he turns out to be wrong. But he hasn't.
I'm sure Parry could make a lot more money my reporting in line with the mainstream western press. Certainly, with his employment history he'd make a lot of money from books, articles and public speaking appearances if he championed either of the main political parties' geopolitical point of view, but he doesn't. Perhaps he has the same sort of pride in himself and a professional pride that I have and choses not to be a presstitute for a living. |
You've got me wrong - I'm not questioning his or his site's integrity and professionalism at all (and am still grateful for the link to it - I wasn't being sarky earlier!).
He will have bias though - no one can switch it off. Not even you. | |
| |
| "Nuke North Korea now: It's the only option" on 18:27 - Sep 8 with 4385 views | caught-in-limbo |
| "Nuke North Korea now: It's the only option" on 18:07 - Sep 8 by giant_stow |
You've got me wrong - I'm not questioning his or his site's integrity and professionalism at all (and am still grateful for the link to it - I wasn't being sarky earlier!).
He will have bias though - no one can switch it off. Not even you. |
I wasn't accusing you of questioning him or his site's integrity - I was only pointing out that you can have no vested interest in your job.
It's perfectly possible he has no professional bias (or vested interest). I don't. | |
| |
| (No subject) on 19:05 - Sep 8 with 4369 views | caught-in-limbo |
| (No subject) on 12:00 - Sep 8 by StokieBlue |
That article is nonsensical.
There is no way that Erdogan’s would seize (let's say what it is, steal) US nuclear weapons. It's a suicidal thing to even consider and it's a scaremongering article. It would mean expulsion from NATO an the basic disarming his country overnight by the US.
Pretty hard to maintain control as a strongman leader when you've lost half your military and been comprehensively battered.
The trouble with these websites with independent journalists is that in order to get people to read them they have to make "tail risk events" seem plausible and likely to happen. That's not the case and that is the reason they are tail risk events.
SB [Post edited 8 Sep 2017 12:00]
|
"The trouble with these websites with independent journalists is that in order to get people to read them they have to make "tail risk events" seem plausible and likely to happen."
That's hilarious. But you're right who wants to get news from independent journalists - let's have state run or big corporation and financial sector funded media only.
Bookmarked. | |
| |
| (No subject) on 23:29 - Sep 8 with 4329 views | StokieBlue |
| (No subject) on 19:05 - Sep 8 by caught-in-limbo |
"The trouble with these websites with independent journalists is that in order to get people to read them they have to make "tail risk events" seem plausible and likely to happen."
That's hilarious. But you're right who wants to get news from independent journalists - let's have state run or big corporation and financial sector funded media only.
Bookmarked. |
That's a willful misrepresentation of what I said and unbelievably disingenuous.
In fact the important part of the sentence is the bit you decided not to highlight in bold. I'll just assume that you chose to highlight the other bit as that fits your narrative.
Bookmark away.
SB | |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| (No subject) on 23:36 - Sep 8 with 4324 views | caught-in-limbo |
| (No subject) on 23:29 - Sep 8 by StokieBlue |
That's a willful misrepresentation of what I said and unbelievably disingenuous.
In fact the important part of the sentence is the bit you decided not to highlight in bold. I'll just assume that you chose to highlight the other bit as that fits your narrative.
Bookmark away.
SB |
But there's no advertising on the site. What benefit does the site have in promoting stories which will not happen? Surely, after 22 years of the site its readers would have left if their articles were nonsensical.
I really don't get your point. Could you explain it? | |
| |
| (No subject) on 09:14 - Sep 9 with 4250 views | StokieBlue |
| (No subject) on 23:36 - Sep 8 by caught-in-limbo |
But there's no advertising on the site. What benefit does the site have in promoting stories which will not happen? Surely, after 22 years of the site its readers would have left if their articles were nonsensical.
I really don't get your point. Could you explain it? |
A few points to consider here:
1) I never mentioned that website specifically, I mentioned the need for independent journalist to focus on tail events in order to get readers - this holds true across other sites and media in my opinion.
2) That website does have advertising for books down the right written by the same people and also has a a donations page. Not bombarding people with advertising I agree but aiming to sell the same type of stuff in book form. In fact one of the books being sold is a conspiracy theory book - surely the definition of a tail risk event?
3) I assume you understand the concept of tail risk? They have taken the far right side of the bell curve which is the most implausible scenario and then written an article around it without any actual evidence. The entire article is hearsay, there is nothing pointing to the fact Erdogan will do any of this. In fact it reads more like a plot from a 1990's Tom Clancy thriller.
Hope that helps.
SB [Post edited 9 Sep 2017 9:17]
| |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| (No subject) on 09:36 - Sep 9 with 4234 views | lowhouseblue |
| (No subject) on 09:14 - Sep 9 by StokieBlue |
A few points to consider here:
1) I never mentioned that website specifically, I mentioned the need for independent journalist to focus on tail events in order to get readers - this holds true across other sites and media in my opinion.
2) That website does have advertising for books down the right written by the same people and also has a a donations page. Not bombarding people with advertising I agree but aiming to sell the same type of stuff in book form. In fact one of the books being sold is a conspiracy theory book - surely the definition of a tail risk event?
3) I assume you understand the concept of tail risk? They have taken the far right side of the bell curve which is the most implausible scenario and then written an article around it without any actual evidence. The entire article is hearsay, there is nothing pointing to the fact Erdogan will do any of this. In fact it reads more like a plot from a 1990's Tom Clancy thriller.
Hope that helps.
SB [Post edited 9 Sep 2017 9:17]
|
having flicked through articles on the first page of that website (i don't know why) i would say that they are generally impressively and consistently independent of all evidence. they are just assertions and opinion pieces by people who really don't like the US. there's an absence of evidence but no absence of agenda. [Post edited 9 Sep 2017 9:37]
| |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| "Nuke North Korea now: It's the only option" on 10:15 - Sep 9 with 4213 views | britbiker |
| "Nuke North Korea now: It's the only option" on 16:28 - Sep 7 by SpruceMoose |
"Nuke Norwich now: It's the only option"
Fixed that for you! |
But look what happened last time we nuked Norwich. Six fingered mutants everywhere. |  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
