Russia - threadbanned users in OP

Speak for yourself. That's blatantly false revisionism. It was clearly obvious at the time, that the WMD stuff was nonsense and simply the flimsiest of pretexts for Bush to do what he was going to do anyway. This was proven when the UN sent Hans Blix into Iraq and he came back and said there was no evidence of any WMD. All they found were empty canisters. They simply ignored him and invaded anyway.

The fact that people knew that the whole thing was built on a lie made it all the more infuriating. That is why millions of people took to the streets in protest. They were incensed that they were being taken for fools. In contrast millions of people didn't take to the streets when they invaded Afghanistan because the reasoning behind that invasion was clear.

FAIR is a US non profit that are based in NYC. They scrutinize US media for distortions since that is where they based. Does that make them "anti US"? Criticizing New York Times, Washington Post and others is anti-US ?

So even though the majority of people in the UK supported the Iraq war, most people disbelieved the main reasons for starting the war in the first place? This is clearly delusional revisionism by yourself, which is pretty actually pretty common if you look at the article below.

You also are acting on the belief that the people who opposed the war did so because they disbelieved CIA/government claims, which is completely false.

Yeah stop living in the past when it comes to 2014 and annexing pieces of land! Now let's all get back to present day and the Iraq situation 😀

That article you linked isn't exactly the even-handed looked behind the curtains that it's portraying itself to be though. It engages in exactly the sort of selective editing that it itself is accusing those media organisations of in order to portray things in a certain slant.

It's basically the Clare Daly/Mick Wallace hard-left view of things where everything the USA does is bad and everyone who opposes them is therefore good. I also noted that a lot of the other pieces written by that author are pro-Maduro pieces on Venezuela which is more of the same.

They link to their sources. One small point of difference being that FAIR are tiny non-profit, whereas the media organizations they criticize are monopolistic, massive, for-profit companies that have gargantuan budgets and play favoritism with companies, people and personalities in positions of actual power.

As I said before, what the Ukrainians are disputing is the Western narrative, that the Russians have put those troops there as they are preparing to invade, I've been claiming the Americans and British are hyping the situation up and making the threat seem far worse than it actually is, you and other posters have constantly made things up claiming I am saying there is no threat at all.

As The president said himself in his interview on Friday, "The interpretation in the West and specifically the media campaign, the scare about an imminent Russian invasion, should be viewed carefully, This narrative is fed by nameless, anonymous officials to the media, while it’s far from clear that this is an accurate description of Russian plans".

Yet you and other posters do not know how to argue with this very valid point and claim I am saying that there is no threat at all, I don't believe an invasion is "imminent" and I don't believe Russia are "currently planning a false flag attack against their own people" as the intelligence agencies of the UK and US and their governments are claiming. Not that these points matter, you and the rest will make up your own conspiracies that nobody believes in your next post and then try and use it to discredit the genuine questions of the narrative by me, Russia, China and even Ukraine themselves.

The party can begin.

It's very possible to be partisan without resorting to lies. All you need to do is be selective about what information you choose to highlight or omit details that don't suit the narrative that you are trying to portray.

That article is full of that kind of sleight of hand. Here is a paragraph about the Crimean referendum in a section where the narrative subtext that he's driving at is along the lines of "It's overwhemingly Russian anyway"

All of that is true. He pulls a few tricks though:

• He used the native speakers stat to categorise the makeup of the population. Had he used the ethnic breakdown (which is often more of a reflection of how people see themselves - for example Irish people who speak English don't generally self-identify as English), the numbers would have been dramatically different: Russian: 67.9%, Ukrainian: 15.7%, Tatars: 12.63%. The Russians are still in the majority but it's not as overwhelming as the 82-2 that he reported. Also, notice how he ignored the Tatars language (10% for what it's worth). The only conclusion I can draw here is he picked the stat that fitted his narrative.
• Speaking of ignoring them, he neglected to mention that the indigenous people of Crimea, the Tartars, boycotted the referendum in protest at potential Russian rule. Now even had they decided to vote the referendum result would have been the same as they were a minority but the result would not have been the resounding 95% that he uncritically reports here.

That's just one paragraph in one section. The whole piece is full of that kind of thing. He's clever so it's subtle. You'd need to do some work if you weren't familiar with the subject matter to realise that he's not giving you the full picture - ironically enough considering the whole premise of the website appears to be a critique of media bias.

Yes Libya, another ‘humanitarian’ war when the UK used, yes used the hardline Libyan Islamic Fighting Group to overthrow Gadaffi.

These UK based jihadists were allowed to travel unhindered back and forth between the UK and Libya and as assets were obviously known to the authorities. This terrorist group went on to commit the Manchester Arena atrocity.

No doubt the media described these jihadists as ‘rebels’ and ‘activists’.

My brain is hijacked how? I'm literally just listening to the concerns of Ukraine and other countries who claim that the Western narrative on the build up of troops is far from clear in being an accurate description of Russia's plans.

I really don't know much about it as I doubt any of us do so it's hard for me to say what the build up of troops is all about, I guess the situation could be compared with the Cuban missile crisis, which escalated into an international crisis when American deployments of missiles in Italy and Turkey were matched by Soviet deployments of similar missiles in Cuba, there's all sorts of games being played by Russia and the USA behind the scenes I don't see how people on here are claiming to know it all and they know exactly what's going on, it could possibly be just some sort of warning to Ukraine over their strengthening relations with US and they actually have no plans of invading.