Jump to content

Syria


jake

Recommended Posts

https://youtu.be/g1VNQGsiP8M

 

I ask that you watch this.

Been linked previously but attracted little if any comment. It doesn't suit the anti- Russian/Putin agenda. It's very difficult to argue against it and for those who support the western military industrial complex it is impossible to agree with it hence no comment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Been linked previously but attracted little if any comment. It doesn't suit the anti- Russian/Putin agenda. It's very difficult to argue against it and for those who support the western military industrial complex it is impossible to agree with it hence no comment.

 

You can only imagine the disbelief of the syrian people at the gullibility of people in the west fawning ove obama .

 

They watch their children die while the so called clever voters cream themselves because the president makes good speeeches.

 

 

Shameful

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can only imagine the disbelief of the syrian people at the gullibility of people in the west fawning ove obama .

 

They watch their children die while the so called clever voters cream themselves because the president makes good speeeches.

 

 

Shameful

Totally this, but Obama has done it in an understated and much more dignified way.

 

I don't think he has offended many muslims by what he has said though and many are now too dead to complain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

maroonlegions

The expansion of the American military  industrial complex is the state of Syria.

 

War is big business to the arm dealing multi nationals and cooperation's.

 

Peace is non profitable.  

 

 

AAEAAQAAAAAAAAfnAAAAJDFiYjQzOTFjLWNkMTIt

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Craig Gordons Gloves

No comments are telling coconut doug.

 

Where are the obama war criminal apologists to defend?

 

There are probably no comments because you're having the same conversation on the US Elections thread.  Just a thought...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are probably no comments because you're having the same conversation on the US Elections thread. Just a thought...

 

I didnt post the link.

 

Have you watched it?

 

Or is it fake ?

 

You prefer after dinner speakers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Coconut doug.

It appears like tou said.

 

The truth ignored

Then what is the motivation for those who would pontificate on all manner of things. How can you be secure in the things you say and believe without seeking to test your beliefs against alternative information and opinion? Knowledge is uncertainty somebody said a few tears back but now it seems if you question anything you are a loony or unpatriotic. Down is most definately up, but I'm not so sure that up is down anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then what is the motivation for those who would pontificate on all manner of things. How can you be secure in the things you say and believe without seeking to test your beliefs against alternative information and opinion? Knowledge is uncertainty somebody said a few tears back but now it seems if you question anything you are a loony or unpatriotic. Down is most definately up, but I'm not so sure that up is down anymore.

 

At least we dont have to watch as our loved ones are burnt broken and killed.

 

But im being paranoid .

Immature.

Im riddled with mental illness.

 

You know what im glad to be accused of that.

 

If it means i dont lick the arse of murderers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Craig Gordons Gloves

I didnt post the link.

 

Have you watched it?

 

Or is it fake ?

 

You prefer after dinner speakers.

****s sake, I did watch it, and like everything I watch, I don't instantly form the same view. I thought, that's interesting, it's a different view from other things I've read and heard. Wonder if that means that the real truth is somewhere in the middle...

 

Your after dinner speaker remarks are simplistic in the extreme, but then I suspect you know that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

****s sake, I did watch it, and like everything I watch, I don't instantly form the same view. I thought, that's interesting, it's a different view from other things I've read and heard. Wonder if that means that the real truth is somewhere in the middle...

 

Your after dinner speaker remarks are simplistic in the extreme, but then I suspect you know that.

 

I suspect you know that i use the after dinner speech as a retort.

But you know that.

 

Dont get touchy because i place more importance on substance rather than style

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bring Back Paulo Sergio

Ah, an informative peice from someone with actual interactions with the Syrian people and it's largely ignored.

 

Of course nobody gives a **** about Syria, just the impact it may have on their life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have to think that a more simplistic approach to Syria may work better, that is to target ISIS and only ISIS. Said organisation are, as mentioned in the video, profiting from the far too many factions all fighting for different but ultimately the same outcome, their own agenda strengthened.  Surely the Assad regime can be dealt with, if need be, after ISIS are removed.

 

Just look at Afghanistan and Iraq where there has been "regime change" forced upon them; has anything really improved?  For all the bloodshed those conflicts cost id suggest not enough.

 

Who do America think they are that they can just start flexing their muscle and interfering in others business?  No wonder Putin has such little respect for the West.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Space Mackerel

You have to think that a more simplistic approach to Syria may work better, that is to target ISIS and only ISIS. Said organisation are, as mentioned in the video, profiting from the far too many factions all fighting for different but ultimately the same outcome, their own agenda strengthened.  Surely the Assad regime can be dealt with, if need be, after ISIS are removed.

 

Just look at Afghanistan and Iraq where there has been "regime change" forced upon them; has anything really improved?  For all the bloodshed those conflicts cost id suggest not enough.

 

Who do America think they are that they can just start flexing their muscle and interfering in others business?  No wonder Putin has such little respect for the West.

Who are ISIS though? What's their history? How did the come into being? Who funded them?

The answers lie closer to home than you think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who are ISIS though? What's their history? How did the come into being? Who funded them?

The answers lie closer to home than you think.

 

I presume you are talking about the contingent from Dewsbury, University of Westminster et al that have staged a very real hostile foreign invasion, burying local kids alive and running over people with steamrollers. Just so happens these grown men didn't need Dick Cheney twisting their arm or tricking  them into it with double agents. They and their fellow 10k odd foreign recruits truly believe(d) there are/ were doing God's own work. What more motivation could one need?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Space Mackerel

I presume you are talking about the contingent from Dewsbury, University of Westminster et al that have staged a very real hostile foreign invasion, burying local kids alive and running over people with steamrollers. Just so happens these grown men didn't need Dick Cheney twisting their arm or tricking  them into it with double agents. They and their fellow 10k odd foreign recruits truly believe(d) there are/ were doing God's own work. What more motivation could one need?

Daily Mail/Express type post :-/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Daily Mail/Express type post :-/

Please point to a single line or statement in the above that you would wish to contend. These points are rooted in recorded events in the past few years which should give you something to go on.

 

Your last two posts have simply relied upon mass conspiracy innuendo and attempts to bracket a pointed refutation as being worthy only of the tabloid press. Please do reveal your reasoned, sensible understanding of this group's origins and motivations. What do you understand that Joby Warrick, Jason Burke, Martin Chulov, Michael Weiss, Hassan Hassan etc haven't got their heads round? Or are you privy to some information that every writer or reporter covering the group in the last two years is not? Maybe they are also part of this shady cover-up?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Space Mackerel

Please point to a single line or statement in the above that you would wish to content. There are actual statements rooted in recorded events in the past few years which give you something to go on.

 

Your last two posts have simply relied upon mass conspiracy innuendo and attempts to bracket a pointed refutation as being worthy only of the tabloid press. Please do reveal your reasoned, sensible understanding of this group's origins and motivations. What do you understand that Joby Warrick, Jason Burke, Martin Chulov, Michael Weiss, Hassan Hassan etc haven't got their heads round? Or are you privy to some information that every writer or reporter covering the group in the last two years is not? Maybe they are also part of this shady cover-up?

There's no cover up, just ill informed people in the West and what's going on.

 

Link from your trusted Daily Mail

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/03/29/what-is-wahhabism-the-reactionary-branch-of-islam-said-to-be-the/

 

These Saudi sheckles buy arms from the US and the UK and also go to building mosques all over the world, especially Africa.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's no cover up, just ill informed people in the West and what's going on.

 

Link from your trusted Daily Mail

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/03/29/what-is-wahhabism-the-reactionary-branch-of-islam-said-to-be-the/

 

These Saudi sheckles buy arms from the US and the UK and also go to building mosques all over the world, especially Africa.

 

 

Do you honestly think that petrodollar funded Wahabist mosques is some smoking gun or something that someone with the most basic knowledge on the topic isn't aware of? I'm not to blame for the decision of an NHS doctor to give up their life of comfort here cos I fill my car up. Moral responsibility anywhere outside of the domain of furious hand wringing, self loathing leftists thankfully doesnt work like that.

 

And batter on with your DM patter seeing as youre the only one that brought it up. As long as they continue to give public intellectuals like P Hitchens column space I'll continue to give it a read every now and then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Space Mackerel

Do you honestly think that petrodollar funded Wahabist mosques is some smoking gun or something that someone with the most basic knowledge on the topic isn't aware of? I'm not to blame for the decision of an NHS doctor to give up their life of comfort here cos I fill my car up. Moral responsibility anywhere outside of the domain of furious hand wringing, self loathing leftists thankfully doesnt work like that.

 

And batter on with your DM patter seeing as youre the only one that brought it up. As long as they continue to give public intellectuals like P Hitchens column space I'll continue to give it a read every now and then.

WTF are you on about? :rofl: Doctors and filling up cars?

 

I gave you a link to a "trusted" :lol: site and this is the way you react? Must have been some hard reading eh?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WTF are you on about? :rofl: Doctors and filling up cars?

 

I gave you a link to a "trusted" :lol: site and this is the way you react? Must have been some hard reading eh?

Why would i open your links when youd signposted your earth shattering revalation already?!

 

You maybe aren't familiar with the concept of petrol coming from Saudi oil fields even though their proliferation of Salafism is what you alluded to. Using an example of a well integrated, well paid Brit who still cant resist the 'call' is also seemingly too much for you to join the dots in the argument. Look him up you simpleton.

 

Honestly, its really difficult to not talk down to you and to put it plainly, I genuinely will have forgotten more about the topic than you know but really, what is the point? Your reaching for the trusty emojis simply confirms your cretinous capacity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Space Mackerel

Why would i open your links when youd signposted your earth shattering revalation already?!

You maybe aren't familiar with the concept of petrol coming from Saudi oil fields even though their proliferation of Salafism is what you alluded to. Using an example of a well integrated, well paid Brit who still cant resist the 'call' is also seemingly too much for you to join the dots in the argument. Look him up you simpleton.

Honestly, its really difficult to not talk down to you and to put it plainly, I genuinely will have forgotten more about the topic than you know but really, what is the point? Your reaching for the trusty emojis simply confirms your cretinous capacity.

"Can't resist the call" :lol: Dad's Army aye? Shoulder, pitch fork! Brought a wee pack lunch? Brought your scarf Private Pile? :lol:

Where does the UK get its energy requirements these days? LPG, oil, natural gas, electricity, solar, nuclear? Please do keep us all informed. Scotland is doing mighty fine with renewables these days. That must be a sickener to you wee UJ's now, eh?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bring Back Paulo Sergio

Nobody addresses the video in the OP. Instead they'll continue listening to their favorite corporate news outlets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nobody addresses the video in the OP. Instead they'll continue listening to their favorite corporate news outlets.

But she is a journalist for a corporate news outlet...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I ask that you watch this.

Have you bothered to look into the articles which float around this? Or into the fact Eva Bartlett has been reluctant to discuss her evidence on her reporting with other news agencies or other organisations.

 

This is a Channel 4 News fact check on her video. I suggest you read it: https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-eva-bartletts-claims-about-syrian-children

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://youtu.be/g1VNQGsiP8M

 

I ask that you watch this.

Thanks.

She sounds like she knows the score, although I see some people have tried to de-bunk her.

I think she's right about the hospital bombing & chemical weapons reporting. Sounds way too similar to wmd and babies in incubator tales.

.....and the agenda bit, she nailed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you bothered to look into the articles which float around this? Or into the fact Eva Bartlett has been reluctant to discuss her evidence on her reporting with other news agencies or other organisations.

 

This is a Channel 4 News fact check on her video. I suggest you read it: https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-eva-bartletts-claims-about-syrian-children

I read it.

Read the comments after too.

Seems to strengthens her claim, if some of the comments are to be believed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read it.

Read the comments after too.

Seems to strengthens her claim, if some of the comments are to be believed.

So the comments carry more weight than the article?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the comments carry more weight than the article?

It's not even fit to be called a news article - basically says Eve Bartlett might have been talking about these 3 girls, but she's not got back to us to confirm !

Also implies she's not independent,  working exclusively for the Russians - which is exactly the false information she's talking about in the OP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not even fit to be called a news article - basically says Eve Bartlett might have been talking about these 3 girls, but she's not got back to us to confirm !

The suggestion here is that the White Helmets filmed the same child ? presumably some kind of actor ? at three different locations, presumably to exaggerate the effects of regime bombing, or to fake attacks altogether.

 

This is almost certainly nonsense.

 

we think it is beyond reasonable doubt that the three little girls in these pictures are different people.

 

Beyond reasonable doubt is enough to get you a criminal conviction.

 

The claim they sought to investigate which Ms Bartlett would appear to be wrong.

 

Also implies she's not independent, working exclusively for the Russians - which is exactly the false information she's talking about in the OP.

She writes peices and picks up a cheque from RT. She was invited to speak on behalf of the Assad government at the UN (hardly a neutral party to the conflict).

 

Jake - and others - claiming she is more impartial or less biased than the western reports. I'm merely suggesting such an accusation is a tad bogus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She writes peices and picks up a cheque from RT. She was invited to speak on behalf of the Assad government at the UN (hardly a neutral party to the conflict).

 

Jake - and others - claiming she is more impartial or less biased than the western reports. I'm merely suggesting such an accusation is a tad bogus.

She's an independent journalist and picks up a cheque from whoever publishes her work,

Don't think she's claiming to be neutral - obviously on the side of Russia/Syria. What makes her interesting is she's an eyewitness, who's lived in the middle east war zones for years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She's an independent journalist and picks up a cheque from whoever publishes her work,

 

One of whom is RT. An organisation which has a strong pro-Moscow/Assad line. She had that speech "facilitated" by the Syrian Ambassador and the point she makes are in dispute. Doesn't strike me as particularly free-lance or unbiased.

 

Don't think she's claiming to be neutral - obviously on the side of Russia/Syria. What makes her interesting is she's an eyewitness, who's lived in the middle east war zones for years.

As have many BBC, NBC, CNN, Al-Jazeerah and other reporters reporting there. Why is here testimony being disputed so readily and shown to have many loopholes in what she says? That's a good question to ask.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The suggestion here is that the White Helmets filmed the same child ? presumably some kind of actor ? at three different locations, presumably to exaggerate the effects of regime bombing, or to fake attacks altogether.

 

This is almost certainly nonsense.

 

we think it is beyond reasonable doubt that the three little girls in these pictures are different people.

 

Beyond reasonable doubt is enough to get you a criminal conviction.

 

The claim they sought to investigate which Ms Bartlett would appear to be wrong.

 

 

She writes peices and picks up a cheque from RT. She was invited to speak on behalf of the Assad government at the UN (hardly a neutral party to the conflict).

 

Jake - and others - claiming she is more impartial or less biased than the western reports. I'm merely suggesting such an accusation is a tad bogus.

Two of the most iconic images from the war - Alan kurdi and boy back of ambulance were shown to be cynically arranged albeit not 'fakes'. The Prob is msm act as though internet doesnt exist and follow the propaganda bait. The photographer of the latter was shown to be pals with the evils that beheaded the 12 year old Palestinian Assad 'soldier'. There are serious questions about the msms journalistic integrity but of course they all follow one another so none ask these.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of whom is RT. An organisation which has a strong pro-Moscow/Assad line. She had that speech "facilitated" by the Syrian Ambassador and the point she makes are in dispute. Doesn't strike me as particularly free-lance or unbiased.

 

As have many BBC, NBC, CNN, Al-Jazeerah and other reporters reporting there. Why is here testimony being disputed so readily and shown to have many loopholes in what she says? That's a good question to ask.

No one's denying she's writing from a pro-Assad stance -that's allowed as a free-lancer . If she's pro-Assad, she's anti - Islamic State so seems reasonable enough ?

 

Some bodies are disputing what she says because some people don't want you to hear a credible alternatives to the official view. Maybe there actually is a regime change agenda here and the Russians maybe aren't bombing hospitals & schools and the sides we're supporting have taken out some innocent lives too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nobody addresses the video in the OP. Instead they'll continue listening to their favorite corporate news outlets.

The op like the rest of the media, is total shite.

You believe what you want to believe or what makes your arguments, and then ignore the rest.

Here's a thought, why don't you go and find out for yourself, go to Syria.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But she is a journalist for a corporate news outlet...

She tells you right at the start that she is independent and self funded. You have chosen not to believe her and so will not believe anything she says.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She tells you right at the start that she is independent and self funded. You have chosen not to believe her and so will not believe anything she says.

She's a bullshitter. But hey if you chose to pass on misinformation without checking it out, well you're as much of a liar as them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you bothered to look into the articles which float around this? Or into the fact Eva Bartlett has been reluctant to discuss her evidence on her reporting with other news agencies or other organisations.

 

This is a Channel 4 News fact check on her video. I suggest you read it: https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-eva-bartletts-claims-about-syrian-children

What evidence is it that she is reluctant to discuss and with whom?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She's a bullshitter. But hey if you chose to pass on misinformation without checking it out, well you're as much of a liar as them.

 

Theres lots of accounts of whats been happening in Syria.

Perhaps you should look further than the bbc guardian etc .

Whats surprising is the UN reports not picked up by msm .

That the majority have sought refuge in government held areas.

 

Not a peep.

 

Theres lots of information out there.

And if we are questioning different aspects of medias reliability then lets not forget our msm lies.

Collusion amongst our establishments.

We were backing proscribed terrorists.

 

But hey if you want to believe the bbc and guardian thats for you to decide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She tells you right at the start that she is independent and self funded. You have chosen not to believe her and so will not believe anything she says.

Not at all. I don't not believe she's a freelance journalist. I am however of the view that;

 

1. She will be paid for doing RT work or articles they carry by RT. No different from anyone else by the way.

 

2. It is odd for a freelance journalist to be so willing to accept the invitation of the Syrian delegation at the UN. Speak on their behalf due to their ambassador being absent and for her independent view to mirror the Russian/Syrian message on Aleppo very closely.

 

Equally, if you care to read any of my links on her speech- the Buzzfeed and the Channel 4 fact check ones - you will see easy to point out holes appear in her narrative. Not to mention the article for the Columbia Journalism Review in which clearly RT do follow a very pro-Kremlin line on their reporting of events.

 

So, I have no doubt she was there. But I don't think you can hold her up as a neutral moral arbiter of what is and isn't fact in the Syrian War.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What evidence is it that she is reluctant to discuss and with whom?

Channel 4 contacted her to discuss her allegations and she refused comment. Added to that the Buzzfeed article suggests a similar approach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Theres lots of accounts of whats been happening in Syria.

Perhaps you should look further than the bbc guardian etc .

Whats surprising is the UN reports not picked up by msm .

That the majority have sought refuge in government held areas.

 

Not a peep.

 

Theres lots of information out there.

And if we are questioning different aspects of medias reliability then lets not forget our msm lies.

Collusion amongst our establishments.

We were backing proscribed terrorists.

 

But hey if you want to believe the bbc and guardian thats for you to decide.

I don't believe a word the BBC puts out and I've never read any of the papers you list.

But at least they're regulated, pity Jones ,nibs, and you are not, split utter garbage about 9/11 , Syria without consequences. You got one stat right apparently, now you're some sort of authority on Syria and won't stfu about Obama, is it cause he's black, or is he?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...