India Coffee House

[Afif]

I can understand Hindi too!

 

[Jackdaws]

@Nilgiri what is your thought on BBC's recent documentary about Modi's role in Gujrat 'riot'?
Looks like it is creating a lot of controversy!

It's by and large accurate and well researched. The fact that Modi has banned it speaks volumes. Of course it is going to backfire as more people will watch it. But his followers will still worship him.

 

[Nilgiri]

It's by and large accurate and well researched. The fact that Modi has banned it speaks volumes. Of course it is going to backfire as more people will watch it. But his followers will still worship him.

Simple question for you to establish basis of consistency.

Would a documentary produced by the Nazi party (post-holocaust if this party survived and still existed) on just about any subject related to life and death (but lets go with a riot), have to be treated credibly?...especially after zero investigation and prosecution of its leaders and main media mouthpiece?

....or should it be banned if it (especially) undermines the supreme court process of another country where the riot happened and was investigated and prosecuted?

 

[Afif]

Would a documentary produced by the Nazi party (post-holocaust if this party survived and still existed) on just about any subject related to life and death (but lets go with a riot), have to be treated credibly?...especially after zero investigation and prosecution of its leaders and main media mouthpiece?

I know you are not asking me, but Care to explain more?
Cause I don't see how BBC fits such description or comparison.

 

[Afif]

It's by and large accurate and well researched. The fact that Modi has banned it speaks volumes.

Yes, this is my understanding too.

But his followers will still worship him.

It is unfortunate that some people celebrate him and such 'incident'.

You can regularly find some folks in 'Hindustan times comment section' who are like,
'We should teach them more lessons like that!' similar to how Amit Shah said last year in his rally.

 

[Nilgiri]

I know you are not asking me, but Care to explain more?
Cause I don't see how BBC fits such description or comparison.

Simple.

If you score the Nazis wherever you do in the 1 - 100 scale of Fascist death toll.

Where would you score Tony Blair, Jack Straw (who has gone on the record in this documentary) and the BBC role in their era with regards to the manufactured cassus belli w.r.t Iraq and the final death toll there (the estimate is quite wide, but even if you take the lowest end of it).

Has the BBC investigated itself in a basic way for starters?

They certainly didn't over Savile.

Any court cases get filed against Blair, Straw and the other top honchos of that regime?

Forget anything approaching a supreme court process.

I guess it boils down to if you think the Iraq war was a war crime and they war criminals.

Even if you don't consider them to be (say no murder intent), there is still the manslaughter charge....over deliberate WMD lie (that they knew!).

Nuremberg prosecuted and convicted many Nazis on far less than that. So where is the applicability here before becoming credible to assert on others?

Then we can compare all of that to the credibility of an actual supreme court process of another country....where an actual investigation happened (unlike with the UK govt).

What is the ratio of iraq war unnecessary death (with not even a basic court accountability on it) to begin with, and what is the minimum possible hypocrisy ratio? 10 times, 100 times?

Its why if its a foreign country, Switzerland, Scandinavia or similar such country would be taken lot more seriously than Bush and Blair inc...and their media mouthpieces of the time.

There's plenty to choose from within India itself (at high risk to those that produced it), I find that far more credible in the end compared to Iraq War incorporated war criminals.

 

[Afif]

I guess it boils down to if you think the Iraq war was a war crime and they war criminals.

Even if you don't consider them to be (say no murder intent), there is still the manslaughter charge....over deliberate WMD lie (that they knew!).

You are right, in a JUST WORLD they all should have been charged and prosecuted for the massive manslaughter they caused and the LIE they manufactured to justify that war.

Having said that, i don't think they were war criminals, the purpose of that stupid war wasn't to deliberately kill Iraqi civilians ( No murder intent )
The whole reason was i believe, western geopolitical and economic interest and exploitation.

Then we can compare all of that to the credibility of an actual supreme court process of another country....where an actual investigation happened (unlike with the UK govt).

No offense, but i doubt what Indian supreme court did was an 'actual and thorough investigation'.
( And i believe i have the right to personally hold that opinion as i have my reasons, but let's not go down that rabbit hole )

and what is the minimum possible hypocrisy ratio? 10 times, 100 times?

Its why if its a foreign country, Switzerland, Scandinavia or similar such country would be taken lot more seriously than Bush and Blair inc...and their media mouthpieces of the time.

There's plenty to choose from within India itself (at high risk to those that produced it), I find that far more credible in the end compared to Iraq War incorporated war criminals.

It is not that hard to agree with your reasoning.
Yes, BBC has no right to talk about others that way when have their own history and record filled with hypocrisy and double standard. But still, it doesn't make whatever BBC says uncredible on its own, just because they don't have the right to say so.

 

[Nilgiri]

You are right, in a JUST WORLD they all should have been charged and prosecuted for the massive manslaughter they caused and the LIE they manufactured to justify that war.

Having said that, i don't think they were war criminals, the purpose of that stupid war wasn't to deliberately kill Iraqi civilians ( No murder intent )
The whole reason was i believe, western geopolitical and economic interest and exploitation.

No offense, but i doubt what Indian supreme court did was an 'actual and thorough investigation'.
( And i believe i have the right to personally hold that opinion as i have my reasons, but let's not go down that rabbit hole )

It is not that hard to agree with your reasoning.
Yes, BBC has no right to talk about others that way when have their own history and record filled with hypocrisy and double standard. But still, it doesn't make whatever BBC says uncredible on its own, just because they don't have the right to say so.

All I would like to see is those with less blood on hands, investigate/talk about those with more blood on their hands.

That should be the direction of this to have credibility, not the other way around. However you allocate the precise culpability intensity, the scale is far larger than anything done in India by govt policy or dereliction.

UK (and Blair + Straw regime more specifically and the BBC mouthpiece) would have more standing to do this if they didn't tag along (and get called a poodle, I still remember it) to inflict on Iraq what they did and were entirely dishonest about why.

i.e stay away just like UK did for Vietnam war.

I don't know what this is all supposed to be other than muddying the waters with a dirty snipe outsourced to the poodle that neo-con/neo-lib halliburton inc is too greedy to take.

Blair and Straw were literally supposed to be labour party lefties! Hard to believe it to this day.

Its why I would take someone like Swiss or Sweden far more credibly (if we are to leave Indian shores regd its own documentarians).

They also dont have some backdrop of colonialism either and at least couple centuries of neutrality in nastiest of European mass-warfare too.

So again, if you find this credible, would you would find it credible by just about any larger evildoer on the issue at large?.

Or there is some cut-off point where they become non credible no matter what they organise, package and say (based on journalism work mostly done by Indian folks themselves - quite unlike what can be done in China by Chinese regarding Uighurs for example).

Definitely far less credible than the Indian supreme court....whatever you rate that as.

Otherwise they can for starters commence a process at least what Indian supreme court did, if its so easy and flimsy to do.

But not even a slight movement, here's a knighthood for Blair instead.

See how that works?

 

[Nilgiri]

Warm greetings to all well-wishers of India on this republic day (26th January).

Jai Hind.

The parade should commence few hours from now and will archive automatically for replay I believe:

Extras:

English:

Hindi:

 

[TR_123456]

Happy Republic Day India.

 

[Jackdaws]

Simple question for you to establish basis of consistency.

Would a documentary produced by the Nazi party (post-holocaust if this party survived and still existed) on just about any subject related to life and death (but lets go with a riot), have to be treated credibly?...especially after zero investigation and prosecution of its leaders and main media mouthpiece?

....or should it be banned if it (especially) undermines the supreme court process of another country where the riot happened and was investigated and prosecuted?

Attaching such a yardstick is downright wrong. Post ww-2, the Western press became completely free and is not beholden to the Govt / State.

Does one credit American media for bringing down the Nixon administration? Yes. But should they be held accountable for their own roles in publishing pro slavery articles and even ads to turn in runaway slaves? Yes.

Different issues. Equating the two is just whataboutery.

Indira Gandhi muzzled the press during the Emergency. Do we give her a free pass for that? Or Rajiv Gandhi for banning Satanic Verses?

 

[Jackdaws]

Yes, this is my understanding too.

It is unfortunate that some people celebrate him and such 'incident'.

You can regularly find some folks in 'Hindustan times comment section' who are like,
'We should teach them more lessons like that!' similar to how Amit Shah said last year in his rally.

It's a complex history. Congress exploited the fear of Muslims in post Partition India and thus garnered the minority vote. BJP just played the same game and exploited the historical wrongs of Islamic rulers and Congress largesse to the Muslims and garnered the majority Hindu vote.

 

[Jackdaws]

Happy Republic Day

 

[Nilgiri]

Attaching such a yardstick is downright wrong. Post ww-2, the Western press became completely free and is not beholden to the Govt / State.

Does one credit American media for bringing down the Nixon administration? Yes. But should they be held accountable for their own roles in publishing pro slavery articles and even ads to turn in runaway slaves? Yes.

Big lol at free media...

You are either extremely naïve or ignorant.
I'll put it down to the former since you are a buddy.

Here's a simple question, if the BBC are so "free" ...have they done a basic series on the iraq war covering blair, straw et al role in the eventual mass murder/manslaughter scale in any kind of relevant detail?....before the virtue signalling white man burden stuff towards others on same topic?

Or has the approach (ever since the WMD-fraud outgrew even its alloted xxxxl britches) been one of "savile?, who's savile? We dont know savile!" gaslighting used in the same time for the other issue exposed with the BBC at the same time?

Must the line between purer than the driven snow "free" media and "yes sir, right away mr PM sir" pro-war pedophilia-defending pigs be this fine?

Hey @GoatsMilk , @Barry you remember all this crap going down? Or am I hallucinating or going senile?

Is the BBC a clean free neutral organisation with no agenda and a good use of your TV license tax dollars guys?

*Looks up what the BBC has to say about Turkiye on some life and death stuff after BBC role in the iraq war of all things*

Gee....sounds totally non-agenda driven...jackdaws gives it a big thumbs up score, whatever will we do?

They just had a big ole sea change since WW2 ended ....kahblamo! they're awesome!

wait a cotton picken second here...dafuq is going on here with the western media?

When we look at the western media, its not independent in any shape or form, the PKK narrative is completely unified. So when a so called islamist terrorist attack occurs there is no outside independent entity that can investigate these things and set the record straight.

And who could forget all the lies about Iraq and Saddam? Weapons of mass destruction, babies being cooked in ovens. Absolute nonsense.

Turkey was the prime bogeyman in the Brexit propaganda here.

They would constantly bring up:

Turkey's population (various figures)
Turkey is full of Muslims and brown people
The possibility of terrorism
Saying Turkey has 12 million criminals waiting to come to the UK via free movement of people.
Turks were coming for your jobs and women
That the UK was paying Turkey 1 billion to join the EU via misuse of EU funds
Britain's new border would be with Syria and Iraq when Turkey joined
Turkey is a major drugs and terrorist gateway into the EU
hUmAn RIgHtS AbuSeS
What about the KURRRRRRDDDDS?
Armenian Genocide

The UK literally went full racist hate against you, and everyone here went along with it, even supposed white liberal leftists who abhorred racism. When it's against you, it's alright though. You have no friend in the UK.

To stay on topic, there's no new deal signed, it's a continuity agreement that keeps the current trade deals in place until they can find a way to exploit you again later.

woah woah woah........ but jackdaws is telling me something else? Hmmm I wonder I wonder....


and then you bring up watergate of all things lol, thats the FBI media clownshow you want to hold up (with again no actual look into it)?
Of all the things you pick, you pick that one lmao....

.felt was a media guy? whew who knew!...ford and the warren commision? Nothing to see there folks lol. The Media is FREEEEEEEEE.nnngggh lol.

Hecks its missing the woods for the leaves to begin with (forget trees)...
US MSM's role in Vietnam right in those same years....*shudders*

Noam Chomsky looked both ways and picked far more precise instances in manufacturing consent (which you jackdaws obviously have not watched even though its literally tier 1 media-101 stuff) for a reason.

The Media role in Nam's butchery and genocide was just too obvious already by that point to most that had some modicum of honesty in their heart.

but then the media told you not to watch it (at the time, now its celebrated and gentrified as the "media era" has supposedly moved on)....jackdaws et al. must not be led into the path of wrong think.

Each darn day I increasingly see just how correct Orwell was about big brother indoctrination and acceptance....or maybe how intense and omni present aldous huxley's "Soma" really is in the end.

Sad with maybe some humour as well is how I feel about it.

 

[Rodeo]

Happy Republic Day!

 

[Afif]

Having said of all this, western media is considerably more independent than third and second world countries media.

 

[Nilgiri]

Having said of all this, western media is considerably more independent than third and second world countries media.

That's irrelevant in the larger scheme of things given the lives lost when the ball is dropped given their commensurate power to said "2nd and 3rd world" and the white man burden superiority complex that exacerbates this further.

 

[Afif]

That's irrelevant in the larger scheme of things given the lives lost when the ball is dropped

That is never irrelevant. No offense, but it seems this particular argument of yours is mostly based on body count and whataboutism. Thus, you are reaching such conclusion.

given their commensurate power to said "2nd and 3rd world" and the white man burden superiority complex that exacerbates this further.

I am only reffering to the 3rd world and 2nd world classifications in terms of social and economic development stage. Which is true irrespective of anything and there is no point of questioning it.

 

[GoatsMilk]

Big lol at free media...

You are either extremely naïve or ignorant.
I'll put it down to the former since you are a buddy.

Here's a simple question, if the BBC are so "free" ...have they done a basic series on the iraq war covering blair, straw et al role in the eventual mass murder/manslaughter scale in any kind of relevant detail?....before the virtue signalling white man burden stuff towards others on same topic?

Or has the approach (ever since the WMD-fraud outgrew even its alloted xxxxl britches) been one of "savile?, who's savile? We dont know savile!" gaslighting used in the same time for the other issue exposed with the BBC at the same time?

Must the line between purer than the driven snow "free" media and "yes sir, right away mr PM sir" pro-war pedophilia-defending pigs be this fine?

Hey @GoatsMilk , @Barry you remember all this crap going down? Or am I hallucinating or going senile?

Is the BBC a clean free neutral organisation with no agenda and a good use of your TV license tax dollars guys?

*Looks up what the BBC has to say about Turkiye on some life and death stuff after BBC role in the iraq war of all things*

Gee....sounds totally non-agenda driven...jackdaws gives it a big thumbs up score, whatever will we do?

They just had a big ole sea change since WW2 ended ....kahblamo! they're awesome!

wait a cotton picken second here...dafuq is going on here with the western media?





woah woah woah........ but jackdaws is telling me something else? Hmmm I wonder I wonder....


and then you bring up watergate of all things lol, thats the FBI media clownshow you want to hold up (with again no actual look into it)?
Of all the things you pick, you pick that one lmao....

.felt was a media guy? whew who knew!...ford and the warren commision? Nothing to see there folks lol. The Media is FREEEEEEEEE.nnngggh lol.

Hecks its missing the woods for the leaves to begin with (forget trees)...
US MSM's role in Vietnam right in those same years....*shudders*

Noam Chomsky looked both ways and picked far more precise instances in manufacturing consent (which you jackdaws obviously have not watched even though its literally tier 1 media-101 stuff) for a reason.

The Media role in Nam's butchery and genocide was just too obvious already by that point to most that had some modicum of honesty in their heart.

but then the media told you not to watch it (at the time, now its celebrated and gentrified as the "media era" has supposedly moved on)....jackdaws et al. must not be led into the path of wrong think.

Each darn day I increasingly see just how correct Orwell was about big brother indoctrination and acceptance....or maybe how intense and omni present aldous huxley's "Soma" really is in the end.

Sad with maybe some humour as well is how I feel about it.

Once you mentally come out of the trap and start being able to critically asses the situation at hand its impossible to go back to seeing it how it was. When i was a kid i used to watch the news thinking i was being informed, i watch it now and i know its nearly always pure propaganda that is utilised to manufacture consent or social change. Its highly organised and intentional in what it aims to achieve.

So in a country like england it will always push geopolitical interests or cultural interests that the state wants or intends. In a country like Turkiye thats highly compromised the media may even work to undermine the states geopolitical interests, national sovereignty and social harmony. A good example was the FETO owned Zaman before AK party shut them down.

All that properganda from western media against Turkiey was pushed in that paper with an "islamic face" for example you read articles telling Turks it was time to recognise the genocide accusation. That Kurds deserved autonomy/independence and the PKK is not as bad as we believe, the state is to blame. And i could go on and on.

Now the most disappointing thing is that i have family members that will not come out of it.

Once you leave that paradigm the next thing you realise is that the state and corporations have already prepared your new leaders/informers like Alex Jones/David icke. Then what happens is these clowns start mixing the truth with lunacies and then people start talking about aliens, energies, lizard people. So we go from things like pointing out how central banks work and the big con of it all, then its gets mixed with lizard people. These people then go on to help the system because what they spread is seen as bullshit by the common individual.

 

[Nilgiri]

That is never irrelevant. No offense, but it seems this particular argument of yours is mostly based on body count and whataboutism. Thus, you are reaching such conclusion.

I am only reffering to the 3rd world and 2nd world classifications in terms of social and economic development stage. Which is true irrespective of anything and there is no point of questioning it.

It is entirely irrelevant...and I really don't care what "it seems" to you.

If a proven rapist comes my way giving a sermon about abstinence, he gets a punch in the face. Its that simple.

Just like how it is if a war criminal starts blathering on about human rights one fine day.

I'll hear about the subject from people that actually aren't hypocrites to begin with.

Not my fault if this is too difficult for you to understand.

As for the 2nd and 3rd world, please.... I dont need white man complex cringe on the "we thus are the relative imperator on truth and objectivity".

When USAF was napalming vietnamese villages en masse and US grunts were going trigger happy on the ground..... I'm sure their victims were really thinking about they had to just take it because they are "2nd and 3rd world"....and the US media role in it was "independent".

Or in quite more direct terms as Muhammad Ali said.... "no viet cong ever called me a N...r"