| Submit your comments on this article |
| Syria-Lebanon-Iran |
| How Britons were conned by Iranian gunboat trick |
| 2007-03-31 |
| Posted by:BrerRabbit |
| #13 What is everyone expecting of the Britts; lets face it, this is the second time they reached for the vasoline® and now they have to take it real deep! With 'Big Bro" looking on down the block, maybe they feel comforted overall during the crisis! |
| Posted by: smn 2007-03-31 20:22 |
| #12 Daily Torygraph. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2007-03-31 19:22 |
| #11 National Review, Weekly Std |
| Posted by: Frank G 2007-03-31 19:17 |
| #10 are there any? |
| Posted by: Angaiger Tojo1904 2007-03-31 18:53 |
| #9 I dunno. How are the conservative rags faring? Are there any worth mentioning? :-) |
| Posted by: gorb 2007-03-31 18:17 |
| #8 Nobody "wants" content from newspapers. You only get to read what the Editors "want" to provide to you. If you are interested enough to "want" specific content you go to the Internet where you can seek out multiple sources of whatever is your pleasure. thats why the sales #s of these rags keep going down the shitter. |
| Posted by: RD 2007-03-31 17:38 |
| #7 Nobody "wants" content from newspapers. You only get to read what the Editors "want" to provide to you. If you are interested enough to "want" specific content you go to the Internet where you can seek out multiple sources of whatever is your pleasure. |
| Posted by: Angaiger Tojo1904 2007-03-31 16:08 |
| #6 The Times is a pinko rag to the left of the New York Times. Because that's what the British elites want. So pink they don't realize they are at war and that they have no say in the matter. At this point they don't even seem to care whether they die on their feet or their backs. I know that's not the opinion of our UK contingent, but I never thought they were so far from the Brit mainstream. Others have commented about being afraid. I'm not afraid of how it will all turn out, but it is starting to feel awfully lonely. Sort of May 1940. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2007-03-31 16:07 |
| #5 Interesting. I don't see it to the left of the NYT at all. I see it somewhat to the right of the NYT. Actually, they publish content from both perspectives. They are one of the few papers where I can find articles from both the right and the left perspective on an issue in the same day's paper. Yes, I will grant you that they sometimes publish articles that might be to the left of the NYT's "official" position, but they will also publish articles to the right as well. The NYT is pretty much a "lockstep" paper. Articles must be in line with the publisher's agenda or they never see print. The Times of London gives me a different impression. |
| Posted by: crosspatch 2007-03-31 16:02 |
| #4 CP: Yes, but it is now owned by Rupert Murdoch's NewsCorp. The same company that owns Fox News in the US. Rupert Murdoch is a businessman. With the exception of the New York Post, News Corp is a for-profit organization. The Times is a pinko rag to the left of the New York Times. Because that's what the British elites want. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2007-03-31 15:56 |
| #3 Yes, but it is now owned by Rupert Murdoch's NewsCorp. The same company that owns Fox News in the US. |
| Posted by: crosspatch 2007-03-31 15:20 |
| #2 The Times was the most pro-appeasementvoice during the 30s |
| Posted by: JFM 2007-03-31 14:51 |
| #1 The speed and cunning shown by the Revolutionary Guards has raised suspicions that their action was premeditated. A senior military officer described it as “deliberate”. This is from the Times! They still don't get it. Once the ostrich gets its wings in the sand, can it ever hope to extricate itself? |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2007-03-31 13:58 |