The Syrian "Revolution": A Farce from Beginning to End

wegs said:
Okay, fair enough. Thanks.

Then, what network/publication to trust, if they all offer to varying degrees, some form of bias?

I'm not an avid consumer of news as I once was, because of the blatant bias that prevails with the more popular news networks, and even some of their fringe competitors. So as you state here, the credibility factor should come into question, when you see the ties connected with various news organizations. Which is a totally fair statement. But, news organizations like all 'businesses,' have a desire to stay afloat, to profit. A smaller pub/network might start off with an unbiased, wholesome mission, and then in order to grow, they may accept the 'help' from entities with ulterior motives. For now, I want to believe that Al Jazeera is providing a more realistic view of the news, compared to its competitors...we shall see what the future brings.

Anyway, putting this here; it's an interesting read about the Al Jazeera 'story,' and how it's unfolding.
You all be the judge. ;)


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/19/b...ber-look-at-the-news.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Click to expand...

It can often be hard to separate the truffles of truth from the bogs filled with Al Manure, but there are certain criteria to follow. For starters, you should note the amount of ass-kissing tribute paid to the leaders of the nation or group responsible for the publication, as well as noting the health and education standards of the region (stupid ignorant people are more likely to make up stupid ignorant bullshit). If you believe PressTV, life in Iran is so good that all American men should get sex change operations just so they can go there and legally prostitute themselves for a chance at citizenship (they have this bizarre Genghis Khan ban against homosexuals, but the Iranian government sanctions and partially funds male sex change operations and treats the results as literal).

Secondly you should take note of the consistency of the reporting, and the quality of the corroborating evidence. This is only irrelevant to people who think they're living in the Truman Show and the entire world is conspiring to mislead them, right down to the local post office. Groups like PressTV put out some pretty wild nonsense and regularly copy Borat's rants against Zionism as the explanation for every ill from the black plague down to Hurricane Katrina. They're always making big announcements about how Iran's latest homemade flying pile of copied scrap is going to shock America worse than the attack on Pearl Harbor, clear signs of their evident and well-deserved national inferiority complex.

Thirdly, as I said before, note the level of criticism organizations like PressTV reserve for their own governments/leaders- scant, nonexistent, other than the dutiful calls for higher dosages of insanity. Zionist American troops must be placing spiked pits around Iran's borders to keep out all the billions of refugees who want to go live in that paradise of plenty, there's simply no other plausible explanation.
 
wegs said:
Anyway, putting this here; it's an interesting read about the Al Jazeera 'story,' and how it's unfolding.
You all be the judge. ;)


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/19/b...ber-look-at-the-news.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Click to expand...

I don't expect it to be without its flaws and biases, but I'm looking forward to Al Jazeera providing an alternative viewpoint on many American issues. In the past they've been known to go after corporate wrongdoings in a way that the mainstream US networks were too intimidated to duplicate. If their reporting starts sounding too close to what the mainstream US networks are reporting, watch the fanatics and fascists of the world accuse them of being under Zionist/western control (already happening in this very thread because Al Jazeera won't be a good doggy and support Assad's massacres).
 
CptBork said:
I don't expect it to be without its flaws and biases, but I'm looking forward to Al Jazeera providing an alternative viewpoint on many American issues. In the past they've been known to go after corporate wrongdoings in a way that the mainstream US networks were too intimidated to duplicate. If their reporting starts sounding too close to what the mainstream US networks are reporting, watch the fanatics and fascists of the world accuse them of being under Zionist/western control (already happening in this very thread because Al Jazeera won't be a good doggy and support Assad's massacres).
Click to expand...

I read your post above this one, and have questions, but too hard to multi quote on my phone. :/
I will post said questions, another time.

Your point in this post about Al Jazeera covering news associated with "corporate America", etc... and perhaps offering a refreshingly unbiased (non political?) view, will be very interesting to see. It's hard to say how advertisers might affect things. Hmm! As the media turns...looking forward to seeing how it plays out. :)
 
BBC News uses 'Iraq photo to illustrate Syrian massacre'

"Photographer Marco di Lauro said he nearly “fell off his chair” when he saw the image being used, and said he was “astonished” at the failure of the corporation to check their sources.

The picture, which was actually taken on March 27, 2003, shows a young Iraqi child jumping over dozens of white body bags containing skeletons found in a desert south of Baghdad.

It was posted on the BBC news website today under the heading “Syria massacre in Houla condemned as outrage grows”."

link to story : http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...Iraq-photo-to-illustrate-Syrian-massacre.html


also : Lying About Syria, and the Lying Liars Who Lie About the Lying

" - Source: Washington's Blog

“U.S. prepares for possible retaliatory strike against Syria,” announces a Los Angeles Timesheadline, even though Syria has not attacked the United States or any of its occupied territories or imperial forces and has no intention to do so.

Quoth the article:

“the president made no decisions, but the high-level talks came as the Pentagon acknowledged it was moving U.S. forces into position in the region.”

Forgive me, but who the SNAFU made that decision? Does the commander in chief have any say in this? Does he get to make speeches explaining how wrong it would be to attack Syria, meet with top military officials who leave the meeting to prepare for attacks on Syria, and go down in history as having been uninvolved in, if not opposed to, his own policies?

Threatening to attack Syria, and moving ships into position to do it, are significant, and illegal, and immoral actions. The president can claim not to have decided to push the button, but he can’t pretend that all the preparations to do so just happen like the weather. Or he couldn’t if newspapers reported news. - "

link to story : http://www.blacklistednews.com/Lyin...ho_Lie_About_the_Lying/28376/0/38/38/Y/M.html
 
Last edited:
I think you (dmoe) summarized exactly how this will play out. If it plays out.

If it weren't so sad, it would be funny.

And I'm outraged by this story!
 
dumbest man on earth Threatening to attack Syria said:
http://www.blacklistednews.com/Lying_About_Syria%2C_and_the_Lying_Liars_Who_Lie_About_the_Lying/28376/0/38/38/Y/M.html[/url]
Click to expand...

Yea we are going to kill some of the bastards and impose peace as we have done in Iraq and in Afghanistan. Now we have drones we are going to send them from aircraft carrier , and whatever collateral human damage , that is just part of bringing peace to the Syrian .
 
arauca said:
Yea we are going to kill some of the bastards and impose peace as we have done in Iraq and in Afghanistan. Now we have drones we are going to send them from aircraft carrier , and whatever collateral human damage , that is just part of bringing peace to the Syrian .
Click to expand...

We should not be attacking like this.
Should this happen, it will not turn out as you think, arauca.

Oh my gosh, can anyone else see this?
:(
 
To your point, dmoe -- you are right. Obama can say anything he likes, putting our military into position doesn't happen without some type of agreement from him.

If we carry this out, the damage it will do to innocent men, women and children is staggering.
 
Forget about ad revenue-generating reports from mainstream media organizations that can't even access the battlefield. Have you not seen any of the dozens of videos uploaded to Youtube showing multitudes of men, women and children hacking and wheezing to death? Even Iran's President Rouhani now admits there was a massive chemical attack (which only now makes it true in the eyes of far too many gullible idiots), the only point of contention at this point is whom to blame. Personally, I think the Syrian government's lack of a timely response to UN demands to inspect the attack site tells us everything we need to know about the responsible party. Chemical samples will nonetheless be smuggled to the relevant inspectors, hopefully the rockets which delivered the warheads can be recovered too because apparently some of them have been left intact (they didn't explode, as one would expect for a chemical warhead).

CBS reports that US spy satellites detected activity at Assad's local chemical weapons storage facilities 20 minutes before the attack. There are also claims on various Israeli websites that Israeli intelligence spotted the activity and even intercepted command-level orders to use the warheads, along with criticism over Israel's failure to warn Syrian rebels of the impending attack, but I only consider this for colour commentary since I'm aware many people wouldn't trust an Israeli news source even if their lives depended on it. On the other hand you have raving alcoholic windbag lunatics like George Galloway accusing Israel of giving chemical weapons to Al Qaeda to stage a false-flag attack inside Syria, which in turn relies on a vast web of preposterous assertions that his like have made over the years with no real sources other than the Ayatollah and his international entourage of testicle fondlers. The Syrian government on the other hand tried to fake evidence of a rebel chemical attack, and the best they could manage was to show footage of a couple of soldiers taking a time out because their morning pancakes weren't cooked properly.

From a logistics point of view, and knowing what Assad has openly admitted to possessing in his arsenal, there's virtually no chance that Syrian rebels conducted these strikes. If you say Assad couldn't possibly be crazy enough to do such a thing, I say he's counting on you to provide cover for the fact that yes, he actually is f'ing crazy and he has already maimed, massacred and exiled millions of his own people in order to retain his throne; 1000 deaths in a gas attack is peanuts. As far as claims that Assad is winning his civil war and would have no reason to launch the attacks, there are plenty of contrary assessments in which Assad's victory is simply nowhere in sight, his forces and supporters are becoming increasingly exhausted and the rebels are making solid gains around the country even as they suffer localized setbacks. There are rumours of newly-trained foreign-backed Syrian rebel forces entering the country from Jordan and passing right through the areas that were gassed, and a widespread belief that Assad used the attacks as a warning against foreign intervention, with a belief that his Western enemies will ultimately back down rather than risk confronting him.

No reasonable person should expect Assad to get away with setting a new precedent in which chemical weapons become a legitimate tool for military conquest, and I believe the appropriate punishment is coming just around the corner. Furthermore, other nations in the region simply can't afford to sit idly by while a loose cannon next door openly threatens to light the whole region on fire while gassing his own civilians. Frankly if you agree Assad should be punished but don't want to see the US do it, I believe nations such as Israel and Turkey are fully capable of performing the deed and defending themselves from any counterattack. In that case however, expect massive civilian casualties in Lebanon and Syria after the inevitable retaliation comes from Assad and his allies- that's the way Assad and Hezbollah choose to fight- and don't expect UN interference in Israel and Turkey's self-defense will be tolerated as it has in the past.
 
CptBork said:
CBS reports that US spy satellites detected activity at Assad's local chemical weapons storage facilities 20 minutes before the attack. There are also claims on various Israeli websites that Israeli intelligence spotted the activity and even intercepted command-level orders to use the warheads, along with criticism over Israel's failure to warn Syrian rebels of the impending attack, but I only consider this for colour commentary since I'm aware many people wouldn't trust an Israeli news source even if their lives depended on it.
Click to expand...

Bolded for emphasis by me...

Why?
I don't believe that to be true. There is a lot of conjecture in that there post of yours, CptBork. :eek:
No matter what side of the aisle you sit on....US strikes should never be based off allegations.
That is the problem I'm having with this; if we strike, it better be because we were certain as to why.

PS >> This, from the article I posted above:

It took months of negotiations between the U.N. and Damascus before an agreement was struck to allow the 20-member team into Syria to investigate. Its mandate is limited to those three sites, however, and it is only charged with determining whether chemical weapons were used, not who used them.

What does this mean, exactly?
 
CptBork, you stated in Post #49 : "Personally, I think the Syrian government's lack of a timely response to UN demands to inspect the attack site tells us everything we need to know about the responsible party."

You may be interested in this :
"Syria To Allow Inspection Of Alleged Chemical Weapons Attack; US Rebuffs, Says "Too Late'"
"Update: and there you have it - the US "demand" was nothing but a farce, and the second Syria complied the US says it was never interested in the first place."
" "If the Syrian government had nothing to hide and wanted to prove to the world that it had not used chemical weapons in this incident, it would have ceased its attacks on the area and granted immediate access to the U.N.— five days ago," a senior administration official said. "

much more to read @ :
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-...eged-chemical-weapons-attack-us-says-too-late
 
wegs said:
Everything you say has merit...BUT...we need ALL of the facts before attacking. I'm not pro-Syria, by any means, but we shouldn't strike unless we have all the facts. Syria will see us as invading, and this will not shake out well. I'm telling you.



http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/08/24/syria-rebels-chemical-weapons/2695243/

(and this is but one of a number of news sources reporting the same)
Click to expand...

why should Syria been attacked by US , Syria is a soveran country , we don't have any right to attack them . It is sad for humanity
 
arauca said:
we don't have any right to attack them
Click to expand...

As it stands, no, we don't have a 'reason' to attack them. But, depending on what newspaper you read, what news'feed' you follow, what news network you watch, that might be up for interpretation. I just see any potential outcome as being horrific. Just my $.02
 
Grok'd. Worth a lot more than just $.02, wegs.

lies...colonialism...nation building...democratizing...engineering regime change...false flags...hidden agendas...
...horrifying actions usually produce horrific outcomes...
 
dumbest man on earth said:
Grok'd. Worth a lot more than just $.02, wegs.

lies...colonialism...nation building...democratizing...engineering regime change...false flags...hidden agendas...
...horrifying actions usually produce horrific outcomes...
Click to expand...

When you see the chaos going on in other parts of the world, it really makes me realize that my petty everyday problems are just that...petty. :eek:
 
wegs said:
...we don't have a 'reason' to attack them.
Click to expand...

The prevention or cessation of the use of WMD is an extremely good reason for military intervention, a case for which can always be made when there is sufficiently strong evidence that the Geneva conventions - in this case the use of chemical weapons - have been violated.
 
p-brane said:
The prevention or cessation of the use of WMD is an extremely good reason for military intervention, a case for which can always be made when there is sufficiently strong evidence that the Geneva conventions - in this case the use of chemical weapons - have been violated.
Click to expand...

If the violation is enough to warrant it, why are we pausing? It leads me to think that they still haven't conclusively connected all the dots yet with Syria, but to your point yes.

Here's an interesting article, that I want to believe is unbiased.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/24/us-syria-crisis-idUSBRE97K0EL20130824

Question, so should we attack the chemical weaponry units (we aren't talking a ground war yet)...what kind of damage would we be looking at?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top