Is WWIII inevitable?

[ray_noel]

para sa mga na-exploit ng western media with images of suffering in ukraine appealing to your emotions making you so angry at russians that you smash bottles of vodka and punch a russian model and post emotionally on socmed to demand the US go into ukraine without thinking it can start ww3

here's the guy... a decisionmaker... standing between your emotions and ww3

Tapos na ang usapan… nato lang ang may chance to defend ukraine… or ninja assasin ka putin….

time na lang hinihintay, it will be under russia…

Kawawang ukraine, masaya naman ang russia sa minerals… parang laro ng red alert, pag wala ka nang minerals, time to attack the neighbor para kunin minerals nila…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[tsupermario]

para sa mga na-exploit ng western media with images of suffering in ukraine appealing to your emotions making you so angry at russians that you smash bottles of vodka and punch a russian model and post emotionally on socmed to demand the US go into ukraine without thinking it can start ww3

In news reports, Russia’s so-called “special operation” has repeatedly – and accurately – been described as an “invasion”, “assault” and “unprovoked aggression”. The Russian military has been condemned for “deliberately targeting civilians” and “shelling residential areas”. No weight at all was given to Russia’s baseless claims that “civilians were being used as shields”.

As a journalist who covered conflict, I support the use of these terms and terminologies in the coverage of the war in Ukraine. I have long argued for journalists using language that accurately conveys the truth of a situation evolving before their eyes – language that is not restricted by a desire to be “objective”, “balanced” and “unbiased” even in the face of imperial aggression, unprovoked military assault, invasion or war crimes.

But while I fully support the use of such accurate language and terminology in the coverage of Russia’s invasion, I’m still shocked and frustrated. For when I was covering Israel’s “assaults” on Lebanon in the 1990s for Western media, I was never allowed to describe what was happening in the country this accurately. When I was reporting for BBC Arabic during Israel’s occupation of southern Lebanon, for example, I was told never to refer to the Israeli military as the “occupying force” for the sake of impartiality. I was asked never to talk of “resistance” in what was then occupied South Lebanon, and to always describe any such action in occupied territories as “military operations against Israeli forces” – again to remain impartial and loyal to the BBC’s sacred editorial guidelines.

And for all these years, it was not just us journalists from the Global South who were scolded for being “emotive”, “partial”, or “not balanced” in our coverage of conflicts either. Whenever they tried to tell things as they are, our white, European and American colleagues too have faced accusations of bias and lack of objectivity.
…

Every single Western journalist who contributed to the coverage of the Ukraine war and used terms like “resistance”, “invasion” and “aggression” needs to stop and think why it was not acceptable for us Lebanese journalists to use those same terms when we were covering Israel’s assaults on civilians in our country in 1993, 1996, and 2006.

They need to stop and question why my sympathy for the victims of war in Lebanon, my efforts to reflect their pain and explain their struggles were seen as a sign of bias and unprofessionalism, but similar coverage of Ukraine today is being saluted as exemplary and humane – and to be clear, it is exemplary and humane.
…

As we watch the rolling coverage of the Ukraine war on British, American and other Western channels, and see journalists show empathy, emotion and humanity as they report on atrocities unravelling before their eyes, we should start questioning what objectivity, neutrality and impartiality really mean in journalism.
…

I am writing this merely to call upon Western journalists to reconsider their long-claimed upper moral grip on what constitutes professional, quality journalism – objective, non-partisan, impartial coverage – now that they are reporting on atrocities and human suffering somewhere close to home.

It is time we see absolute objectivity, impartiality and neutrality is not always a prerequisite to quality journalism. In fact, when dealing with atrocities and human suffering they can be an obstacle in front of good, accurate, meaningful coverage. It is time to rethink the meaning and importance of impartiality when covering human tragedy imposed by a destructive force – be it a friend or a foe.

Ukraine war: Is impartiality always key to quality journalism?

Ukraine war: Is impartiality always key to quality journalism? | Media | Al Jazeera

mind conditioning or journalists doing their job?

[tsupermario]

nakita niyo ba ung nangyari sa canada?

ung mga nag protesta against vaccine mandate had their bank accounts frozen

freedom?

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has invoked the never-used Emergencies Act to give his government enhanced authority in response to the anti-vaccine mandate protests and blockades gripping Canada.

The law will grant Mr Trudeau's government extraordinary powers for 30 days - including the power to prohibit public assembly, travel and the use of specific property.

The move comes amid weeks of disruptive - and expensive - demonstrations against Covid-19 restrictions.
…

The Emergencies Act, passed in 1988, bestows the government with added powers in times of national crisis.

The situation must meet a high bar, specifically an "urgent and critical situation" that "seriously endangers the lives, health or safety of Canadians".

And Cabinet may only invoke the legislation if the emergency cannot be addressed by any existing federal law and if it exceeds the capacity of the provinces to handle it effectively.

The Emergencies Act outlines four different types of emergencies: public welfare emergencies, public order emergencies, international emergencies and war emergencies. If the legislation is invoked this week, it will likely be under the 'public order' category. Again, the criteria here is strict - lawful protests do not qualify.

Instead, the situation must be considered a threat to the security of Canada, as defined by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act. This law outlines four possible scenarios:
* Espionage or sabotage
* Foreign-influenced activities
* Threats or use of acts of serious violence for political, religious or ideological objectives
* Covert, unlawful acts intended to undermine or overthrow the constitutionally established government
It is so far unclear which scenario Mr Trudeau would rely on to justify the use of the Emergency Act - none of these four scenarios have been clearly present in Ontario.

To invoke the law, the prime minister must also consult with the premiers of any impacted provinces before putting the move before Parliament. If the act does not pass a vote there, the proclamation will be revoked.

Canada trucker protest: What powers will Emergencies Act give Trudeau? - BBC News

effective only for 30 days, may be revoked by Parliament, can be invoked only on specific instances - not as dire as it was made out to be. pinas has a similar mechanism in declaring martial law

democracy is not absolute freedom

[uls]

mind conditioning or journalists doing their job?

mag self reflect ka

tanongin mo sarili mo bakit mas may sympathy ka sa ukrainians kesa sa syrians, afghans, iraqis, palestinians etc

dahil consumer ka ng western media

kung ano ang emotional bias ng reporting nila it influences how you feel

western media always portrays Americans, Europeans, Israelis as the good guys

Syrians, Iraqis, Afghans, Palestinians as the bad guys

and that becomes your world view

have you ever wondered why you a brown skinned man living in the philippines would have such strong western bias?

coz you've been consuming western media all your life

[uls]

why is it when palestinian boys throwing rocks at Israeli soldiers get killed parang wala lang para sayo

pero awang awa ka sa mga ukrainians

it's the way western media frames it

palestinians = bad

palestinians -- not white -- white western reporters cannot empathize with their suffering

ukrainians -- white, european -- white western reporters get extremely emotional seeing their own kind suffer

tapos nadala ka sa emotional reporting nila

[uls]

Tapos na ang usapan… nato lang ang may chance to defend ukraine… or ninja assasin ka putin….

time na lang hinihintay, it will be under russia…

Kawawang ukraine, masaya naman ang russia sa minerals… parang laro ng red alert, pag wala ka nang minerals, time to attack the neighbor para kunin minerals nila…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

para kay putin nag umpisa na ang ww3

[shadow]

So the consensus is Putin will start using chemical warfare against Ukraine, kaya pala nag propaganda na about biolabs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[uls]

i'm trying to see things from Putin's POV

the west is supplying weapons to ukraine

the west is providing intelligence to ukraine

the west imposed economic sanctions on ukraine

the west sent trainers to ukraine

WASHINGTON, Feb 12 (Reuters) - About 150 U.S. troops from the Florida National Guard who have been in Ukraine to help train Ukrainian forces are leaving the country as the threat of a Russian invasion increases, the Pentagon said on Saturday.

maari para kay putin declaration of war na mga yan

it's the west that thinks ww3 hasn't yet started

[uls]

------------------------------------------

[StockEngine]

I wonder what Xi will do with Russia. XiTin........