US troops surround Syria on the eve of invasion?

Moderators: DrVolin, 82_28, Elvis, Jeff

Re: US troops surround Syria on the eve of invasion?

Postby Sounder » Sat Apr 14, 2018 7:40 am

* Tax receipt will be made available to any doubting Thomases.


My daddy said something way back when there were many ads on TV exhorting folk to send money to feed the starving children in Africa. In response to my suggestion that we had to send some money. He said; it is very good to feed starving children but it is very bad to send money to people that make money because of starving children.
All these things will continue as long as coercion remains a central element of our mentality.
Sounder
 
Posts: 3815
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 8:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: US troops surround Syria on the eve of invasion?

Postby Elvis » Sat Apr 14, 2018 7:57 am

If you didn't watch it, I recommend having a look at this video posted above by BenD.

RT fills in some blanks, critical background info conveniently not provided by the usual MSM:


https://youtu.be/LKE6YKw5Y40
"Frankly, I don't think it's a good idea but the sums proposed are enormous."
User avatar
Elvis
 
Posts: 5934
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 7:24 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: US troops surround Syria on the eve of invasion?

Postby Jerky » Sat Apr 14, 2018 8:07 am

Out of curiosity Elvis, would you say RT is more or less reliable than, say...

The New York Times?

or CNN?

or The Washington Post?

or BBC?

or CBC?

or Al-Jazeera?

Jerky
User avatar
Jerky
 
Posts: 2130
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 6:28 pm
Location: Toronto, ON
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: US troops surround Syria on the eve of invasion?

Postby Elvis » Sat Apr 14, 2018 8:23 am

In the case of the subject of that video, RT is obviously more "reliable" if you want pertinent background on the gas claims, SAMS, etc.

If those other outlets listed have brought this information forward, I'll give them credit. I haven't seen it.

Sure ain't happening on Sky News! :lol:


https://youtu.be/zgj7gRvsjMU
"Frankly, I don't think it's a good idea but the sums proposed are enormous."
User avatar
Elvis
 
Posts: 5934
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 7:24 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: US troops surround Syria on the eve of invasion?

Postby JackRiddler » Sat Apr 14, 2018 12:45 pm

Jerky » Sat Apr 14, 2018 7:07 am wrote:Out of curiosity Elvis, would you say RT is more or less reliable than, say...

The New York Times?

or CNN?

or The Washington Post?

or BBC?

or CBC?

or Al-Jazeera?

Jerky


I reject the premises underlying the question.

Depends on story, author, sources, context, interest, and issue in each case. If you can't distinguish between these elements, if some sound synonymous to you, it's already a problem.

Very often, the branded identity of the channel delivering a story is not as important as the configuration of these factors in an individual story. Also very often, all of the above are merely repeating verbatim a story released by only one channel, or a press performance by another state, NGO or corporate agency.

Anyone relying on one of these news producers in any given case is usually not getting a reliable picture. This is not team sport. I do not say, oh it's Al Jazeera and they score a lot of goals, like Manchester United.

Anyone working without some history, politics and geography relevant to each case or issue being covered is definitely not getting a reliable picture.

Anyone not applying critical thinking and researching additionally in each case wherein there is any question about the story's accuracy or contextualization or thrust is a fool. (Or rather, they're a fool if they then present an opinion. It's wiser to stay out of it if you don't know shit about it.)

Anyone who thinks it's a lot of work to know anything in this environment (which is hostile both to straight stories without spin and to complicated contextual deliveries or logical analysis), and who figures that even after you do the work what you know will still be conditional, is correct.

Anyone who demands that it not be so and wants a one-stop shop is a fool and an ass. But if they just shut up and go watch other shit on TV, or make cupcakes, that's fine. They're doing less damage than if they regale us with their instincts and conditioned responses despite lacking the basic knowledge and sense.

If I had to speak of consistently (but not always) reliable, I wouldn't list any of the corporate and state news networks you consider worthy of implying are more "reliable" than RT. I wonder why you would want to mount a relative defense of any of them compared to RT.

Democracy Now! and The Intercept are relatively reliable, far more so than any of the above. That doesn't mean they don't both often let through obvious propagandists (more usually in the form of authors or sources, rather than stories crafted as propaganda pieces by the outlet itself).

DN! especially relies on reporters from some of the above news sources, but at least what you are getting is the reporter and the story in depth, rather than a production-filtered version cut down to the typical TV format.

On your list, BBC (or at any rate, the BBC International news hour on NPR, which is what I get of it) stands out of the pack (including RT) as by far the worst. It is the most dumbed-down and most obviously propagandistic in every way. Narrow selection of stories, you can practically say, "round up the usual suspects" -- with inevitable and totally predictable framing. Also the format and structure of "reporting," the turgid emotionalism and resort to child-level tropes exceeds all of the others. The certainty that nothing will get through by mistake. Not a single true tone will be struck, not even when occasionally reporting a true fact. It is an embarrassment to anyone sentient and literate involved in its production.

For most of the rest on your conventional and boring list, the same set of criteria apply. Depends on the story, the author, the sources used, the interests involved, the current conjunctural context, the overall treatment of issue to date, the general credulity regarding certain tropes or sources, social propriety in a Chomskyan sense (the bounds of acceptable discourse), how much pre-wash we have all been subjected to regarding a given subject, etc. Can never omit consideration of all of these factors regardless of which channel we think we should trust more than the others.

Certainly the historic Washington Post's stories from Langley were always of interest, to take one example. It was useful to have voices of that institution speaking "confidentially" their preferred insider version on a given issue. RT is a lot like that. It is useful to get the actual Russian state propaganda, rather than allowing the Western propaganda outlets misrepresent even that. RT is also a lot more amateur and allows more voices. They have to sell themselves to an audience, not advertisers, and part of that means providing the news that the Western outlets are systematically omitting. RT America is a separate division and has lots of relatively good stuff, Lee Camp, Hedges, Watching the Hawks, etc. The worst thing on RT is probably the Fox-lite Euro version of the daily news report (migration panic, sympathy for Le Pen et al., avoidance and occassional apologetics regarding Russian domestic reaction and anti-gay policy, etc.).

Finally, what the hell does "reliable" even mean? The most reliable news channel of all is FOXNEWS. Like BBCi radio on NPR, it can be relied on to always spin things according to one recipe from which it will almost never deviate. This often allows direct translations (by the 180-degree method) of Foxspeak to likely truth.

All caveats apply. Tough shit. You don't get the Jerky Channel that beats all the rest. Do the work or shut up.

But thanks for helping me to clarify these things for myself.

.
Last edited by JackRiddler on Sat Apr 14, 2018 6:29 pm, edited 3 times in total.
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 14270
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: US troops surround Syria on the eve of invasion?

Postby liminalOyster » Sat Apr 14, 2018 1:56 pm

^

Agentive media consumption can make anyone of these outlets a good source. Meta-data about a given outlet's interests (ala historical CIA/WaPo above) allows you to read the story at multiple levels. RT sometimes hosts some stellar contra-establishment US figures, which can be nice, but that much more interesting for revealing something about how state-run large-scale propaganda efforts are shaped and deployed and how Russia makes use of internal opposition, etc, which then, in turn, suggests how the US likely does the same. And so at least stokes stronger instincts about where given narratives are most vulnerable to bullshit and should be most carefully scrutinized.
"It's not rocket surgery." - Elvis
User avatar
liminalOyster
 
Posts: 1250
Joined: Thu May 05, 2016 10:28 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: US troops surround Syria on the eve of invasion?

Postby JackRiddler » Sat Apr 14, 2018 6:31 pm

Yes. I like that. Agentive critical consumption. Can't "trust" any of them, have to do the work yourself. And there is no simple formula for that either. It's not like you can watch one and then its supposed ideological opposite and the truth will be in the proverbial "somewhere" in between.
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 14270
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: US troops surround Syria on the eve of invasion?

Postby JackRiddler » Sat Apr 14, 2018 6:51 pm

.

(See NY Times coverage below.)

Non-existent chemical weapons "program" already dismantled by inspectors in 2013 is successfully bombed away. Sounds so damn familiar, doesn't it? (Given that the accusation is of the use of chlorine gas, did they vaporize every container of bleach in Syria? Magic!) I pray this declaration of the Trepidatious Transatlantic Three signals their macho satisfaction with the fiery ritual, and an end to this particular round of madness. As many have pointed out, that hinges on the presumed "reasonableness" and restraint of Vladimir "Chechnya Flat and Free" Putin to accommodate. The Russians have issued their complementary statement, a claim that they shot down 2/3 of the missiles. (Amazing! Magic! Such a biggus dickus, also!) The problem beyond that is that Trump's "mission accomplished" declaration is a standing invitation to the United Front of The McCain Memorial Squad, "FSA"-Jihadi International, Neocon-Clintonista Brigade, Save the Tories and the Parisian Prevent '68 to smell more chlorine and mock the Dickless Developer into renewed erections, erm, escalations. Also, hello, chlorine. Even if no false flagging is happening, it's not under the SAA's absolute control to prevent every pro-Assad militia from firing it off.

I told some students yesterday to imagine this had come from Kennedy in 1962:

Russia vows to shoot down any and all missiles fired at Syria. Get ready Russia, because they will be coming, nice and new and “smart!” You shouldn’t be partners with a Gas Killing Animal who kills his people and enjoys it!


People would not have been thinking, oh it's just kayfabe. Hell, they wouldn't have even been in school. Everyone would have been looking for their fucking bunker. You can only rely on Putin so far to see shit like that and discount it as a ratings ruse for a TV show running in the mind of one fool who only plays at being the POTUS.


https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/14/worl ... lysis.html

Pentagon Declares Syria Strikes Successful
‘Heart’ of Assad’s Chemical Program Struck, Officials Say

By HELENE COOPER and BEN HUBBARD 3:54 PM ET

Warplanes and ships from the United States, Britain and France launched more than 100 missiles at storage and research facilities near Damascus and Homs, Defense officials said.

Russia called an emergency session of the U.N. Security Council, where the U.S. said it would strike again if Syria used chemical weapons.



This part is sick:

The American-led strikes on Syria jolted residents of Damascus, the capital, from their beds as their walls and windows shook. American officials said the offensive was to punish Syria for the Douma attack, which left scores dead.

A group from the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, which had announced a fact-finding mission to determine if chemical weapons were used in the Douma attack, arrived in Damascus on Saturday morning, the group said in a statement.


Just a jolt, hey. And what a nice greeting for the supposed weapons inspectors. Respect!

.
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 14270
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: US troops surround Syria on the eve of invasion?

Postby BenDhyan » Sat Apr 14, 2018 7:40 pm

^^ Yeah, interestingly Russian FM spokesperson expressed suspicion about why the bombing had to occur before the inspectors had time to carriy out their inspection... Russia: US Attack would Destroy any Chemical Evidence
Ben D
User avatar
BenDhyan
 
Posts: 503
Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2017 8:11 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: US troops surround Syria on the eve of invasion?

Postby seemslikeadream » Sun Apr 15, 2018 10:22 am

In 2016, the year before Trump became President, the United States accepted 15,000 Syrian refugees.

This year we have accepted 11.





Friday at 6:30 she tweets FAKE NEWS

Sarah Sanders

Last night the President put our adversaries on notice: when he draws a red line he enforces it. (Inside the Situation Room as President is briefed on Syria - Official WH photos by Shealah Craighead)
Image
https://twitter.com/PressSec





trump did bomb Syria to distract from Cohen scandal

photographic evidence that trump had not originally been planning the bombing run on Friday night

Mike Pence sitting next to trump, even though Pence was in Peru at the time

If trump had spent the week planning to bomb Syria on Friday night, there is no way that Pence would have taken off for Peru, and Haley would have taken off for New York

Image
THIS IS THE END OF MY PRESIDENCY. I'M F***ED
- trump May 17, 2017


Dotard = Bulger Rat

trump is member of a transnational crime syndicate masquerading as a government

Why we do think that Trump owes debt to Putin? 50 reasons
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 30436
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: US troops surround Syria on the eve of invasion?

Postby Belligerent Savant » Sun Apr 15, 2018 12:45 pm

.

The below OP-ED is from a news source based in China; scrutiny should certainly be applied, as with any source.

That said, it's a testament to the degree of blatant propaganda/slant in the West that an OP-ED from the East comes across as the most coherent, clear-eyed assessment of the current situation.



US President Donald Trump announced on Friday he ordered strikes on the Syrian regime in response to a chemical attack last weekend. He said the strikes were in coordination with France and the United Kingdom. Syrian President Bashar al-Assad said his country is being "invaded" by the three countries. The Russian Embassy in the USA said in a statement that "insulting the President of Russia is unacceptable and inadmissible."

In a sensational statement, Trump asserted the Bashar Assad government used chemical weapons on civilians. He said "The evil and the despicable attack left mothers and fathers, infants and children thrashing in pain and gasping for air. These are not the actions of a man. They are crimes of a monster instead." Trump also warned "Russia must decide if it will continue down this dark path or if it will join with civilized nations as a force for stability and peace."

The facts cannot be distorted. This military strike was not authorized by the UN, and the strikes targeted a legal government of a UN member state. The US and its European allies launched strikes to punish President Bashar al-Assad for a suspected chemical attack in Duma last weekend. However, it has not been confirmed if the chemical weapons attack happened or if it did, whether government forces or opposition forces launched it. International organizations have not carried out any authoritative investigation.

The Syrian government has repeatedly stressed that there is no need for it to use chemical weapons to capture the opposition-controlled Duma city and the use of chemical weapons has provided an excuse for Western intervention. The Syrian government's argument or Trump's accusations against the "evil" Assad regime, which one is in line with basic logic? The answer is quite obvious.

The US has a record of launching wars on deceptive grounds. The Bush government asserted the Saddam regime held chemical weapons before the US-British coalition troops invaded Iraq in 2003. However, the coalition forces didn't find what they called weapons of mass destruction after overthrowing the Saddam regime. Both Washington and London admitted later that their intelligence was false.

Washington's attack on Syria where Russian troops are stationed constitute serious contempt for Russia's military capabilities and political dignity. Trump, like scolding a pupil, called on Moscow, one of the world's leading nuclear powers, to abandon its "dark path." Disturbingly, Washington seems to have become addicted to mocking Russia in this way. Russia is capable of launching a destructive retaliatory attack on the West. Russia's weak economy is plagued by Western sanctions and squeezing of its strategic space. That the West provokes Russia in such a manner is irresponsible for world peace.

The situation is still fomenting. The Trump administration said it will sustain the strikes. But how long will the military action continue and whether Russia will fight back as it claimed previously remain uncertain. Western countries continue bullying Russia but are seemingly not afraid of its possible counterattack. Their arrogance breeds risk and danger.

Posted in: EDITORIAL



http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1097887.shtml
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 2209
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: US troops surround Syria on the eve of invasion?

Postby seemslikeadream » Sun Apr 15, 2018 1:35 pm

Now and forever I am your king


Image


Without mentioning Mueller, Trump lawyers urge high court to bolster his power to fire executive officials

David G. Savage
By DAVID G. SAVAGE
APR 15, 2018 | 7:00 AM
| WASHINGTON


President Trump says he has the power to fire special counsel Robert S. Mueller III, who is leading the Russia investigation. (Saul Loeb / AFP/Getty Images)

The Supreme Court is set to hear a seemingly minor case later this month on the status of administrative judges at the Securities and Exchange Commission, an issue that normally might only draw the interest of those accused of stock fraud.
But the dispute turns on the president's power to hire and fire officials throughout the government. And it comes just as the White House is saying President Trump believes he has the power to fire special counsel Robert S. Mueller III.

Trump's Solicitor Gen. Noel Francisco intervened in the SEC case to urge the high court to clarify the president's constitutional power to fire all "officers of the United States" who "exercise significant authority" under the law.
"The Constitution gives the president what the framers saw as the traditional means of ensuring accountability: the power to oversee executive officers through removal," he wrote in Lucia vs. SEC. "The president is accordingly authorized under our constitutional system to remove all principal officers, as well as all 'inferior officers' he has appointed."

In addition to representing the administration before the Supreme Court, Francisco, a former law clerk for the late Justice Antonin Scalia, could be in line to oversee the Mueller inquiry if Deputy Atty. Gen. Rod Rosenstein is fired. Atty. Gen Jeff Sessions has recused himself from the investigation.
Peter Shane, a law professor at the Ohio State University, called Francisco's argument a "radical proposition," and one that goes beyond what is at issue in the case. The justices said they would focus only on how the SEC in-house judges are appointed. But Francisco is asking them to go further and rule on the "removal" issue.
"The solicitor general is obviously trying to goad the court into a broad statement about the removability of all officers of the United States," Shane said. "Were the court to make any such statement, it would surely be cited by Trump as backing any move by him to fire Mueller directly."
For decades, constitutional experts have fundamentally disagreed about the balance of power between Congress and the president.
Many of them, especially liberals, argue that because Congress has "all legislative powers," it can structure the government as it sees fit, including by creating independent agencies that are not under the president's direct control.
But others, mostly conservatives, adhere to what is sometimes called the "unitary executive" theory. They argue that because the Constitution puts executive power in the hands of one president, he is thereby entitled to hire and fire all those who wield significant executive authority.
Francisco points to two provisions of the Constitution as giving the president very broad authority. One says the president shall appoint ambassadors, judges and "all other officers of United States." The other says the president "shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed."
"The president's constitutional responsibility to faithfully execute the laws requires adequate authority to remove subordinate officers," Francisco told the court in February. "The framers understood the close connection between the president's ability to discharge his responsibilities as head of the executive branch and his control over its personnel…. The president's ability to execute the law is thus inextricably linked to his authority to hold his subordinates accountable for their conduct."
Francisco's defense of broad presidential power is likely to win favor with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and the court's other conservatives. In 2010, Roberts spoke for a 5-4 majority that struck down a provision in the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which created an independent public accounting board at the SEC whose members could be fired only for "good cause."
Roberts said shielding these "officers of the United States" from presidential control was unconstitutional. "Since 1789, the Constitution has been understood to empower the president to keep these officers accountable — by removing them from office, if necessary," he wrote in Free Enterprise Fund vs. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board.
The new SEC case is similar, though it involves hiring, not firing. The commission relies on administrative law judges who act as hearing officers when people or companies are accused of deceptive schemes involving stocks. In the past, they were chosen by the chief in-house judge based on merit, and they could be fired only for good cause.
The SEC accused Raymond Lucia of marketing a deceptive wealth-management strategy called "Buckets of Money." After a nine-day hearing, an administrative law judge decided Lucia had misled investors and recommended a civil penalty of $300,000. The SEC itself made the final decision, but Lucia appealed, contending the procedure for choosing the administrative judges was unconstitutional.
The Obama administration defended the SEC, arguing these in-house judges were mere employees, not officers of the United States, because they had no final decision-making power. But the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., split 5 to 5 on the issue.
Last year, Trump's lawyers switched sides and joined in challenging the SEC's approach as unconstitutional. This was in line with the conservative backlash against the so-called "administrative state," which includes an effort to bring these agencies and their employees under presidential control.
In January, the high court agreed to decide the "Appointments Clause" question, but Francisco filed a brief urging the court to also rule that such "officers" may be removed if they fail to "perform adequately."
Lawyers who have followed the case predict the justices will try to decide the SEC dispute narrowly and without signaling their views on the president's potential control over the special prosecutor at the Justice Department.
Mueller was appointed under department regulations that say the special counsel may be removed only for "misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity, conflict of interest or for other good cause." Under those rules, only Rosenstein currently would have the power to fire Mueller. Some lawyers argue that the regulations have the force of law and would prevent Trump from directly firing Mueller.
But Francisco's brief suggests the administration lawyers believe the Constitution itself authorizes the president to remove officials who wield executive power in the government. Last week White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said the administration had been advised that the president has the power to fire the special counsel.
On Friday the court agreed to Francisco's request to participate in the April 23 argument so he can advocate for a ruling on the president's removal power.
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-p ... story.html


Now and forever I am your king



https://m.youtube.com/watch?time_contin ... _VoXpFVIJ4


and the world will suffer



David Rothkopf

What is to be done about Syria is a question that has tormented serious policy people for 7 yrs now. Half a million people have died and 7 million displaced while the international community has debated the best path forward. Untold devastation and cruelty has continued unabated.
THIS IS THE END OF MY PRESIDENCY. I'M F***ED
- trump May 17, 2017


Dotard = Bulger Rat

trump is member of a transnational crime syndicate masquerading as a government

Why we do think that Trump owes debt to Putin? 50 reasons
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 30436
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: US troops surround Syria on the eve of invasion?

Postby Belligerent Savant » Sun Apr 15, 2018 2:22 pm

.
Out of the numerous paste-jobs in your latest posting, only 1 -- the one with the least amount of verbiage -- contains the word "Syria" in it, and it references policies going back seven years, well before Trump's election. None offer a comment to the posting prior to yours.

What are your thoughts, in your own words?
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 2209
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: US troops surround Syria on the eve of invasion?

Postby seemslikeadream » Sun Apr 15, 2018 2:27 pm

I started this thread 7 years ago


Back when I was posting RT and Ben was linking to Huffington Post
Last edited by seemslikeadream on Sun Apr 15, 2018 2:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
THIS IS THE END OF MY PRESIDENCY. I'M F***ED
- trump May 17, 2017


Dotard = Bulger Rat

trump is member of a transnational crime syndicate masquerading as a government

Why we do think that Trump owes debt to Putin? 50 reasons
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 30436
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: US troops surround Syria on the eve of invasion?

Postby MacCruiskeen » Sun Apr 15, 2018 2:33 pm

An actual real tweet from Ms Slaughter:

Anne-Marie Slaughter

Verified Account
@SlaughterAM

I believe that the US, UK, & France did the right thing by striking Syria over chemical weapons. It will not stop the war nor save the Syrian people from many other horrors. It is illegal under international law. But it at least draws a line somewhere & says enough.

05:57 - 14. Apr. 2018

https://twitter.com/SlaughterAM/status/ ... 1538689024


"Bombing Syria is illegal, yes, and it won't help Syrians, no -- but I support it anyway. For, like, reasons."

Ms Slaughter is a lawyer.
Last edited by MacCruiskeen on Sun Apr 15, 2018 2:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
There sawe I fyrst the derke ymagynyng
Of felony [...]
The pyckpurse and eke the pale drede,
The smyler, with the knyfe under the cloke.
User avatar
MacCruiskeen
 
Posts: 9535
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:47 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 14 guests