3 ms·

> Are you implying that because it's the BBC and Concorde was an Anglo-french creation that they are biased against the TU-144? Not so much against the TU-144,

> Are you implying that because it's the BBC and Concorde was an Anglo-french creation that they are biased against the TU-144? Not so much against the TU-144, but to the Russians in general. The eagerness from particularly the US to paint the Russians as aggressor in the last years concerns me. I hear drums beating. And wherever the US goes ... I am not arguing the rest of your points : fair enough.

adventured 9y ago
> The eagerness from particularly the US to paint the Russians as aggressor in the last years concerns me That makes absolutely zero sense in the context of the article you were lambasting without supporting argumentation. Rather, it comes across as a cheap bailout excuse for your original comment. What would any US effort to paint Russia as an aggressor, have to do with what you said about the BBC + the Concorde vs the Tu-144? Where would anything to do with being an aggressor, play into that?
- the-dude 9y ago
  I believe such public relation campaigns are much broader and are aimed at emotions more than facts. Please take a look, a look at how silly our enemy is. edit: a bit like a (PG) submarine
  - adventured 9y ago
    I certainly understand the PR wars that nations fight, whether the US / Britain / Russia / China / et al. I don't see how that relates to US accusations of Russian aggression and the quality of the Tu-144 that the BBC article is discussing. For example, you haven't refuted anything about what the article actually says regarding the plane's deficiencies. If one were to follow your premise here to its logical conclusion, it would lead to this: you can never negatively critique anything created by the Soviet Union, or you're working for the US in a PR war against modern Russia.
rimliu 9y ago
How do you call a country annexing a part of other country if not agressor?
- dang 9y ago
  Please keep generic politics off HN. I know the parent post started the move, but completing the descent into off-topic hell is precisely the wrong response. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

adventured 9y ago

> The eagerness from particularly the US to paint the Russians as aggressor in the last years concerns me That makes absolutely zero sense in the context of the article you were lambasting without supporting argumentation. Rather, it comes across as a cheap bailout excuse for your original comment. What would any US effort to paint Russia as an aggressor, have to do with what you said about the BBC + the Concorde vs the Tu-144? Where would anything to do with being an aggressor, play into that?

the-dude 9y ago
I believe such public relation campaigns are much broader and are aimed at emotions more than facts. Please take a look, a look at how silly our enemy is. edit: a bit like a (PG) submarine
- adventured 9y ago
  I certainly understand the PR wars that nations fight, whether the US / Britain / Russia / China / et al. I don't see how that relates to US accusations of Russian aggression and the quality of the Tu-144 that the BBC article is discussing. For example, you haven't refuted anything about what the article actually says regarding the plane's deficiencies. If one were to follow your premise here to its logical conclusion, it would lead to this: you can never negatively critique anything created by the Soviet Union, or you're working for the US in a PR war against modern Russia.

rimliu 9y ago

How do you call a country annexing a part of other country if not agressor?

dang 9y ago
Please keep generic politics off HN. I know the parent post started the move, but completing the descent into off-topic hell is precisely the wrong response. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html