Western media lies about Syria exposed (Canadian journalist Eva Bartlett)

145791015

Comments

  • Meltdown99Meltdown99 None Of Your Business...Posts: 2,280
    All the US has done in that region is destabilize it...the us is not a beacon for good in this world
  • my2handsmy2hands Posts: 15,003
    All the US has done in that region is destabilize it...
    I tend to agree with that... but i think it's naive and incorrect to just put it all on "evil" America... didnt your liberal PM just support the strikes? but that's not what I've been debating... you also haven't heard me support any missile strikes,  American action,  or American intervention at all... thats a much broader conversation that i'm not typing and reading on my Phone lol... but my instinct would almost always be NO to all of the above
  • polaris_xpolaris_x Posts: 13,551
    my2hands said:
    polaris_x said:
    Oh. My. God. 

    A woman with an interest, a degree, and career in political science and geopolitics took a job at Amnesty International. Holy shit, this is the smoking gun! 

    Taking a better job in the field you are interested in and work in does not make you evil or some global conspirator. That's called having a career. 

    And she was only there for a year? LOL


    so ... literally a person from the state department who's mandate is to determine foreign policy taking a job at Amnesty doesn't phase you one bit!??? ... I guess Scott Pruitt taking over the EPA is also good in your eyes? ... the head of a drug company working for the FDA? ... all legit things?
  • polaris_xpolaris_x Posts: 13,551
    benjs said:
    The mainstream media, American government, Russian government, Syrian government, and Daesh, all have vested interests in pushing their agendas. All of them have acted in disingenuous ways and have shown efforts to complicate the way situations would be perceived in their immediate pasts. Because of this, Occam's Razor can't guide a course of action because all players can be presumed to be consciously complicating, confusing, and conflating the reality.

    Depending on who's correct in their published position, bombing campaigns will have different outcomes. I would really love to hear one single rational explanation for how external parties' bombings of Syria will amount to improvements to the livelihoods of Syrians, how it is determined whose position is correct, and what risks reside if source information is proven invalid after the fact (meaning the wrong source is assumed correct). If these cannot be reasonably expressed, what right do any external parties have to be the global police force?

    I've read, and it really feels like in the battle for Syria's future, everything except Syrians get considered.
    exactly ... you clearly don't appear to be taking any sides here which is good ...

    every time i ask people who are against assad here a rational question - no one wants to answer:

    why launch a chemical attack just before winning a war?
    why not wait one more day for the OPCW?

    no one has any rational explanations here and have avoided the question since page 1
  • polaris_xpolaris_x Posts: 13,551
    edited April 14
  • Meltdown99Meltdown99 None Of Your Business...Posts: 2,280
    my2hands said:
    All the US has done in that region is destabilize it...
    I tend to agree with that... but i think it's naive and incorrect to just put it all on "evil" America... didnt your liberal PM just support the strikes? but that's not what I've been debating... you also haven't heard me support any missile strikes,  American action,  or American intervention at all... thats a much broader conversation that i'm not typing and reading on my Phone lol... but my instinct would almost always be NO to all of the above
    I have no use for Trudeau...of course he backing the us ... doesn’t mean I do.
  • Meltdown99Meltdown99 None Of Your Business...Posts: 2,280
    If it comforts you I’ll also put the UK in the mix with America.  I have no use for the UK either.  
  • polaris_xpolaris_x Posts: 13,551
    my2hands said:
    All the US has done in that region is destabilize it...
    I tend to agree with that... but i think it's naive and incorrect to just put it all on "evil" America... didnt your liberal PM just support the strikes? but that's not what I've been debating... you also haven't heard me support any missile strikes,  American action,  or American intervention at all... thats a much broader conversation that i'm not typing and reading on my Phone lol... but my instinct would almost always be NO to all of the above
    I have no use for Trudeau...of course he backing the us ... doesn’t mean I do.
    ya ... not 100% certain but pretty sure I said fuck trudeau somewhere on this forum ... probably in the canadian politics thread ...

    we are complicit as is the CBC and all mainstream media outlets in Canada
  • All the US has done in that region is destabilize it...the us is not a beacon for good in this world

    Correct.

    And regarding the Trudeau comments... he's developing as a weakling. As much hope as I had for him... I'm losing faith in him. The campaign slogan against him was 'he's just not ready'. The slogan might have been true.
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • I think this tweet sums up much about the situation:


    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • JimmyVJimmyV Boston's MetroWestPosts: 12,185
    I think this tweet sums up much about the situation:


    It's spot on. Trump's strategy is basically blow some shit up to look tough while wagging the dog, do nothing to actually improve the situation, and then prevent as many refugees as possible from entering the United States.
    ___________________________________________

    "...I changed by not changing at all..."
  • dignindignin Posts: 6,312
    All the US has done in that region is destabilize it...the us is not a beacon for good in this world
    Strawman. Nobody is arguing that.
  • dignindignin Posts: 6,312
    polaris_x said:
    benjs said:
    The mainstream media, American government, Russian government, Syrian government, and Daesh, all have vested interests in pushing their agendas. All of them have acted in disingenuous ways and have shown efforts to complicate the way situations would be perceived in their immediate pasts. Because of this, Occam's Razor can't guide a course of action because all players can be presumed to be consciously complicating, confusing, and conflating the reality.

    Depending on who's correct in their published position, bombing campaigns will have different outcomes. I would really love to hear one single rational explanation for how external parties' bombings of Syria will amount to improvements to the livelihoods of Syrians, how it is determined whose position is correct, and what risks reside if source information is proven invalid after the fact (meaning the wrong source is assumed correct). If these cannot be reasonably expressed, what right do any external parties have to be the global police force?

    I've read, and it really feels like in the battle for Syria's future, everything except Syrians get considered.
    exactly ... you clearly don't appear to be taking any sides here which is good ...

    every time i ask people who are against assad here a rational question - no one wants to answer:

    why launch a chemical attack just before winning a war?
    why not wait one more day for the OPCW?

    no one has any rational explanations here and have avoided the question since page 1
    I answered your first question.
  • dignindignin Posts: 6,312
    benjs said:
    The mainstream media, American government, Russian government, Syrian government, and Daesh, all have vested interests in pushing their agendas. All of them have acted in disingenuous ways and have shown efforts to complicate the way situations would be perceived in their immediate pasts. Because of this, Occam's Razor can't guide a course of action because all players can be presumed to be consciously complicating, confusing, and conflating the reality.

    Depending on who's correct in their published position, bombing campaigns will have different outcomes. I would really love to hear one single rational explanation for how external parties' bombings of Syria will amount to improvements to the livelihoods of Syrians, how it is determined whose position is correct, and what risks reside if source information is proven invalid after the fact (meaning the wrong source is assumed correct). If these cannot be reasonably expressed, what right do any external parties have to be the global police force?

    I've read, and it really feels like in the battle for Syria's future, everything except Syrians get considered.
    Occam's Razor most definitely applies. We can still logically look to see who stands to gain from what action.

    And if bombing facilities stops the use of chemical weapons then it surely is worth it. Not saying that is what is actually happening but turning a blind eye to atrocities against civilians is not the answer. We should have learned that lesson from WWII.

    As a qualifier, I marched against the war in Iraq and the people comparing this situation to that situation have a poor memory.
  • JC29856JC29856 Posts: 9,617

    These past few days have been filled with accusations against Bashar Al-Assad´s government that blame it for the chemical attack that took place in Douma, near Damascus, the Syrian capital.

    There are a large number of articles and pieces representing different views about the incident and the parties that are to blame, which is why I will, in this short article, focus on the benefits and disadvantages of carrying out such an attack for Al-Assad and his allies.

    First, we need to have an understanding of the place where the chemical attack took place (there are many who argue whether or not it really happened but I will not dedicate time to that discussion) and its situation.

    Douma was until just days ago the last bastion of the rebels and it was under the control of a combination of FSA and jihadi-related groups like Jaysh al-Islam. At the time of the attack —7th April— the Syrian Army and allies had fully surrounded Douma and were already beginning to storm the city.

    The Syrian forces had the clear advantage and it was just a matter of time that this rebel bastion would also fall under the government´s forces control. Also the militants in Douma were cut off from the outside world and posed no immediate threat to the Syrian forces.

    All of this brings us to the question that why would Al-Assad want to gas his own people knowing the severe repercussions that it would have for him? Does it actually make any sense for the Syrian “regime” to carry out a highly controversial (and indiscriminate) attack against the very same people he is achieving military victory against?

    One could argue that the Syrian government wanted to make an example of the rebels left in Douma in order to scare their comrades in Idlib and Daraa into submission. This argument makes little sense since there are many, many more ways to intimidate the enemy than launching a chemical attack that would turn the whole world against you while you are on the verge of victory.

    So would there be any benefit for Al-Assad in launching a chemical attack on Douma in these circumstances? No. But then it begs the questions that, if the attack really did take place, then, who did it and what parties are to benefit the most from it?

    Sadly, these are questions that, at the very least, we haven´t seen a lot in the media and, even worse, among the many people that are commenting on the issue on the different social media networks.

    https://southfront.org/accusations-against-syria-a-logical-take-on-douma-chemical-attack-allegations/




    “I used to spend a lot of time in this room...back when it was a shit hole and I was a shit head.”
    big·otˈbiɡət/ noun: a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.
    big·ot·ryˈbiɡətrē/ noun: intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.

  • JC29856JC29856 Posts: 9,617
    edited April 14
    polaris_x said:
    benjs said:
    The mainstream media, American government, Russian government, Syrian government, and Daesh, all have vested interests in pushing their agendas. All of them have acted in disingenuous ways and have shown efforts to complicate the way situations would be perceived in their immediate pasts. Because of this, Occam's Razor can't guide a course of action because all players can be presumed to be consciously complicating, confusing, and conflating the reality.

    Depending on who's correct in their published position, bombing campaigns will have different outcomes. I would really love to hear one single rational explanation for how external parties' bombings of Syria will amount to improvements to the livelihoods of Syrians, how it is determined whose position is correct, and what risks reside if source information is proven invalid after the fact (meaning the wrong source is assumed correct). If these cannot be reasonably expressed, what right do any external parties have to be the global police force?

    I've read, and it really feels like in the battle for Syria's future, everything except Syrians get considered.
    exactly ... you clearly don't appear to be taking any sides here which is good ...

    every time i ask people who are against assad here a rational question - no one wants to answer:

    why launch a chemical attack just before winning a war?
    why not wait one more day for the OPCW?

    no one has any rational explanations here and have avoided the question since page 1
    The only logical answer is: Assad has a perverted fetish for it. Other than that there is no rational answer.

    https://www.alternet.org/world/inside-shadowy-pr-firm-thats-driving-western-opinion-towards-regime-change-syria

    Inside the Shadowy PR Firm That’s Lobbying for Regime Change in Syria

    Posing as a non-political solidarity organization, the Syria Campaign leverages local partners and media contacts to push the U.S. into toppling another Middle Eastern government.

    Post edited by JC29856 on
    “I used to spend a lot of time in this room...back when it was a shit hole and I was a shit head.”
    big·otˈbiɡət/ noun: a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.
    big·ot·ryˈbiɡətrē/ noun: intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.

  • dignindignin Posts: 6,312
    ^^^^And now for Russia's unfiltered opinion......
  • josevolutionjosevolution Posts: 19,211
    I say pull all American troops from Syria and let them deal with the situation let the good guy Assad bring peace to his own country let’s see how that goes ...
    jesus greets me looks just like me ....
  • polaris_xpolaris_x Posts: 13,551
    JC29856 said:

    These past few days have been filled with accusations against Bashar Al-Assad´s government that blame it for the chemical attack that took place in Douma, near Damascus, the Syrian capital.

    There are a large number of articles and pieces representing different views about the incident and the parties that are to blame, which is why I will, in this short article, focus on the benefits and disadvantages of carrying out such an attack for Al-Assad and his allies.

    First, we need to have an understanding of the place where the chemical attack took place (there are many who argue whether or not it really happened but I will not dedicate time to that discussion) and its situation.

    Douma was until just days ago the last bastion of the rebels and it was under the control of a combination of FSA and jihadi-related groups like Jaysh al-Islam. At the time of the attack —7th April— the Syrian Army and allies had fully surrounded Douma and were already beginning to storm the city.

    The Syrian forces had the clear advantage and it was just a matter of time that this rebel bastion would also fall under the government´s forces control. Also the militants in Douma were cut off from the outside world and posed no immediate threat to the Syrian forces.

    All of this brings us to the question that why would Al-Assad want to gas his own people knowing the severe repercussions that it would have for him? Does it actually make any sense for the Syrian “regime” to carry out a highly controversial (and indiscriminate) attack against the very same people he is achieving military victory against?

    One could argue that the Syrian government wanted to make an example of the rebels left in Douma in order to scare their comrades in Idlib and Daraa into submission. This argument makes little sense since there are many, many more ways to intimidate the enemy than launching a chemical attack that would turn the whole world against you while you are on the verge of victory.

    So would there be any benefit for Al-Assad in launching a chemical attack on Douma in these circumstances? No. But then it begs the questions that, if the attack really did take place, then, who did it and what parties are to benefit the most from it?

    Sadly, these are questions that, at the very least, we haven´t seen a lot in the media and, even worse, among the many people that are commenting on the issue on the different social media networks.

    https://southfront.org/accusations-against-syria-a-logical-take-on-douma-chemical-attack-allegations/




    exactly ... it's why Peter Ford is more and more irritable in interviews ... people aren't thinking critically about this ...

    but ultimately what is most troubling to me is that people don't care enough to at least consider the possibility that the rhetoric is false ... i've posted numerous links and articles and no one is really countering any of this ... hopefully, as with Iraq - the truth will eventually come out and people will be more critical of the information they get and not just assume it's true because it's what they want to believe ...
  • josevolutionjosevolution Posts: 19,211
    polaris_x said:
    JC29856 said:

    These past few days have been filled with accusations against Bashar Al-Assad´s government that blame it for the chemical attack that took place in Douma, near Damascus, the Syrian capital.

    There are a large number of articles and pieces representing different views about the incident and the parties that are to blame, which is why I will, in this short article, focus on the benefits and disadvantages of carrying out such an attack for Al-Assad and his allies.

    First, we need to have an understanding of the place where the chemical attack took place (there are many who argue whether or not it really happened but I will not dedicate time to that discussion) and its situation.

    Douma was until just days ago the last bastion of the rebels and it was under the control of a combination of FSA and jihadi-related groups like Jaysh al-Islam. At the time of the attack —7th April— the Syrian Army and allies had fully surrounded Douma and were already beginning to storm the city.

    The Syrian forces had the clear advantage and it was just a matter of time that this rebel bastion would also fall under the government´s forces control. Also the militants in Douma were cut off from the outside world and posed no immediate threat to the Syrian forces.

    All of this brings us to the question that why would Al-Assad want to gas his own people knowing the severe repercussions that it would have for him? Does it actually make any sense for the Syrian “regime” to carry out a highly controversial (and indiscriminate) attack against the very same people he is achieving military victory against?

    One could argue that the Syrian government wanted to make an example of the rebels left in Douma in order to scare their comrades in Idlib and Daraa into submission. This argument makes little sense since there are many, many more ways to intimidate the enemy than launching a chemical attack that would turn the whole world against you while you are on the verge of victory.

    So would there be any benefit for Al-Assad in launching a chemical attack on Douma in these circumstances? No. But then it begs the questions that, if the attack really did take place, then, who did it and what parties are to benefit the most from it?

    Sadly, these are questions that, at the very least, we haven´t seen a lot in the media and, even worse, among the many people that are commenting on the issue on the different social media networks.

    https://southfront.org/accusations-against-syria-a-logical-take-on-douma-chemical-attack-allegations/




    exactly ... it's why Peter Ford is more and more irritable in interviews ... people aren't thinking critically about this ...

    but ultimately what is most troubling to me is that people don't care enough to at least consider the possibility that the rhetoric is false ... i've posted numerous links and articles and no one is really countering any of this ... hopefully, as with Iraq - the truth will eventually come out and people will be more critical of the information they get and not just assume it's true because it's what they want to believe ...
    You stated that there were no international reporting coming from within Syria I sad Richard Engle has done some extensive reporting but you don’t believe it you say he’s not trustworthy I don’t agree with your assessment of him ....so that’s the crux of it and I’m not going to believe Assad is a good guy sorry but I ain’t swallowing that pill ...
    jesus greets me looks just like me ....
  • JC29856JC29856 Posts: 9,617
    edited April 14
    polaris_x said:
    JC29856 said:

    These past few days have been filled with accusations against Bashar Al-Assad´s government that blame it for the chemical attack that took place in Douma, near Damascus, the Syrian capital.

    There are a large number of articles and pieces representing different views about the incident and the parties that are to blame, which is why I will, in this short article, focus on the benefits and disadvantages of carrying out such an attack for Al-Assad and his allies.

    First, we need to have an understanding of the place where the chemical attack took place (there are many who argue whether or not it really happened but I will not dedicate time to that discussion) and its situation.

    Douma was until just days ago the last bastion of the rebels and it was under the control of a combination of FSA and jihadi-related groups like Jaysh al-Islam. At the time of the attack —7th April— the Syrian Army and allies had fully surrounded Douma and were already beginning to storm the city.

    The Syrian forces had the clear advantage and it was just a matter of time that this rebel bastion would also fall under the government´s forces control. Also the militants in Douma were cut off from the outside world and posed no immediate threat to the Syrian forces.

    All of this brings us to the question that why would Al-Assad want to gas his own people knowing the severe repercussions that it would have for him? Does it actually make any sense for the Syrian “regime” to carry out a highly controversial (and indiscriminate) attack against the very same people he is achieving military victory against?

    One could argue that the Syrian government wanted to make an example of the rebels left in Douma in order to scare their comrades in Idlib and Daraa into submission. This argument makes little sense since there are many, many more ways to intimidate the enemy than launching a chemical attack that would turn the whole world against you while you are on the verge of victory.

    So would there be any benefit for Al-Assad in launching a chemical attack on Douma in these circumstances? No. But then it begs the questions that, if the attack really did take place, then, who did it and what parties are to benefit the most from it?

    Sadly, these are questions that, at the very least, we haven´t seen a lot in the media and, even worse, among the many people that are commenting on the issue on the different social media networks.

    https://southfront.org/accusations-against-syria-a-logical-take-on-douma-chemical-attack-allegations/




    exactly ... it's why Peter Ford is more and more irritable in interviews ... people aren't thinking critically about this ...

    but ultimately what is most troubling to me is that people don't care enough to at least consider the possibility that the rhetoric is false ... i've posted numerous links and articles and no one is really countering any of this ... hopefully, as with Iraq - the truth will eventually come out and people will be more critical of the information they get and not just assume it's true because it's what they want to believe ...
    Whats most amazing to me is that people act like Iraq and Libya never happened!
    Do the "dictators" Saddam Hussein or Gaddafi ring any bells? You think Assad forgets what happened to those guys?
    For 20years the US has pushed for regime change all the way from W neocons and Project New Century to now with Bolton and Haley
    You've done a good job in this thread, props.
    “I used to spend a lot of time in this room...back when it was a shit hole and I was a shit head.”
    big·otˈbiɡət/ noun: a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.
    big·ot·ryˈbiɡətrē/ noun: intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.

  • polaris_xpolaris_x Posts: 13,551
    I say pull all American troops from Syria and let them deal with the situation let the good guy Assad bring peace to his own country let’s see how that goes ...
    that would be great because Assad with the help of the Russians are beginning to win this war ... the only way he would lose is if US/UK intervene ... which is what is happening ...
  • polaris_xpolaris_x Posts: 13,551
    OPCW in Damascus and ready to do their job!!

    https://twitter.com/OPCW

  • polaris_xpolaris_x Posts: 13,551
    anyone who read that Syria was blocking the OPCW can now see those were also lies
  • cincybearcatcincybearcat Posts: 9,939
    polaris_x said:
    his and his convoy's conclusions
    CONCLUSIONS

    What are our main findings?



    1. The resilience and perseverance of the Syrian people enduring sustained and intense suffering.

    2. The widespread existence of many initiatives by Government and local communities to address problems of war and poverty (e.g. Government and churches' initiatives to support IDPs and the provision of free health care).

    3. Many Reconciliation initiatives at local and Government levels with that have positive outcomes for whole communities - for example, in enabling cease fires. The Minister for Reconciliation told us that there are Reconciliation initiatives in 70 cities, towns and villages involving 4.5 million citizens.

    4. The devastating impact for all Syrian people of sanctions and the massive destruction and theft of the industrial infrastructure by armed groups.

    5. The group has heard the consistent cry of Christians and Muslims for their places of worship to be respected and preserved and for a sympathetic response and engagement from their counterparts in the West.

    6. The consistently positive working relations between Christians and Muslims in Government controlled areas in Syria.

    7. Important and significant people with genuine voices of peace and reform are being prevented from visiting the UK and engaging with the British government and people.

    8. The coverage by some media of the situation in Syria is not an accurate representation of many of the realities we have observed. ((For example, see the post on the Doctors Council in Aleppo).

    9. The acute polarisation inherent in protracted war has all but destroyed the existing movement to implement greater democracy within the country. The majority of the city's population are profoundly impacted by the refusal of the international community to engage with Government-held areas of the city.

    10. Many media narratives in the UK are refuted and disputed by the vast majority of people whom we have met.

    11. Many people whom we met believe that the partisanship of many Western media narratives with the exclusion of most moderate voices will lead to the destruction of civil society and its replacement by violence, terrorism and another failed State as well as increased terrorism in other countries, including the UK.

    12. Widespread concern was strongly conveyed over the UK's military support for Opposition forces which we are repeatedly told are not ' Moderate' but virtually indistinguishable from those fighting for the ideologies of ISIS and Al Nusra.

    13. People are deeply concerned that the fundamental principle of End User Accountability is not being applied to all military support by the UK with disastrous results.

    14. Without exception, every person we met believes that current UK and international policies of commitment to ‘Regime Change’ will destroy the pluralistic and diverse society which has existed for hundreds of years. They also passionately believe that Syrians should have the right to determine their own future and elect their own leadership.

    15. While almost all media coverage in the West focuses on the devastating effects of military offensives by Government forces, in just one day during our visit (September 5th) the following attacks by the armed Opposition inflicting indiscriminate death and injury included:

    Four car bombs at Homs with 12 killed and 30 injured; in Tartus 45 killed and 100 wounded; in the Damascus countryside, 3 killed and 12 wounded; in Hasaka, 6 killed and 20 wounded.

    This is only a part of the daily toll of death and injury inflicted by Opposition forces on civilians, such as the shelling of the University in Aleppo by 4 missiles on the day we were there.

    Already, we have been accused of spouting 'government propaganda'.  No. We travelled to Syria to listen to the voices of Syrian people and we have met hundreds from across the respective communities in the country. Personally, this is my fifth visit to the country since April 2014, and the messages remain consistent and widespread. What we are sharing is not 'government propaganda' at all, but the voices of ordinary Syrians. Anyone who thinks otherwise is showing their ignorance!

    I would repeat the cry of most Syrians we have met. Come and visit us and see the reality for yourselves. I have seriously wondered whether the enormous pressure put upon us by both government and Church figures NOT to visit Syria, is precisely because they do not want us to see and hear the truth, simply because it does not ally with the deliberate misrepresentation the international community is conveying to achieve their own agendas.

    I hope and pray that any ceasefire leads to a true and lasting peace. I also hope and pray that the international community will adjust their policies to consider the real needs and wishes of the Syrian people, and that we do not use the 'provision of aid' as a means of rearming militant factions to further prolong the war. The goal of everyone should be the restoration of peace; the rebuilding of the country; the respect of plurality and development of reform; and the reconciliation and healing of souls, which will be the most difficult task. Enough of fuelling war. Let us end the policy of violence, and truly seek the path of peace, and listen first to the voices of the people themselves.



                                    



    I remember Dennis Rodman having his same take after his visit to North Korea. 
    hippiemom = goodness
  • polaris_xpolaris_x Posts: 13,551
    polaris_x said:
    his and his convoy's conclusions
    CONCLUSIONS

    What are our main findings?



    1. The resilience and perseverance of the Syrian people enduring sustained and intense suffering.

    2. The widespread existence of many initiatives by Government and local communities to address problems of war and poverty (e.g. Government and churches' initiatives to support IDPs and the provision of free health care).

    3. Many Reconciliation initiatives at local and Government levels with that have positive outcomes for whole communities - for example, in enabling cease fires. The Minister for Reconciliation told us that there are Reconciliation initiatives in 70 cities, towns and villages involving 4.5 million citizens.

    4. The devastating impact for all Syrian people of sanctions and the massive destruction and theft of the industrial infrastructure by armed groups.

    5. The group has heard the consistent cry of Christians and Muslims for their places of worship to be respected and preserved and for a sympathetic response and engagement from their counterparts in the West.

    6. The consistently positive working relations between Christians and Muslims in Government controlled areas in Syria.

    7. Important and significant people with genuine voices of peace and reform are being prevented from visiting the UK and engaging with the British government and people.

    8. The coverage by some media of the situation in Syria is not an accurate representation of many of the realities we have observed. ((For example, see the post on the Doctors Council in Aleppo).

    9. The acute polarisation inherent in protracted war has all but destroyed the existing movement to implement greater democracy within the country. The majority of the city's population are profoundly impacted by the refusal of the international community to engage with Government-held areas of the city.

    10. Many media narratives in the UK are refuted and disputed by the vast majority of people whom we have met.

    11. Many people whom we met believe that the partisanship of many Western media narratives with the exclusion of most moderate voices will lead to the destruction of civil society and its replacement by violence, terrorism and another failed State as well as increased terrorism in other countries, including the UK.

    12. Widespread concern was strongly conveyed over the UK's military support for Opposition forces which we are repeatedly told are not ' Moderate' but virtually indistinguishable from those fighting for the ideologies of ISIS and Al Nusra.

    13. People are deeply concerned that the fundamental principle of End User Accountability is not being applied to all military support by the UK with disastrous results.

    14. Without exception, every person we met believes that current UK and international policies of commitment to ‘Regime Change’ will destroy the pluralistic and diverse society which has existed for hundreds of years. They also passionately believe that Syrians should have the right to determine their own future and elect their own leadership.

    15. While almost all media coverage in the West focuses on the devastating effects of military offensives by Government forces, in just one day during our visit (September 5th) the following attacks by the armed Opposition inflicting indiscriminate death and injury included:

    Four car bombs at Homs with 12 killed and 30 injured; in Tartus 45 killed and 100 wounded; in the Damascus countryside, 3 killed and 12 wounded; in Hasaka, 6 killed and 20 wounded.

    This is only a part of the daily toll of death and injury inflicted by Opposition forces on civilians, such as the shelling of the University in Aleppo by 4 missiles on the day we were there.

    Already, we have been accused of spouting 'government propaganda'.  No. We travelled to Syria to listen to the voices of Syrian people and we have met hundreds from across the respective communities in the country. Personally, this is my fifth visit to the country since April 2014, and the messages remain consistent and widespread. What we are sharing is not 'government propaganda' at all, but the voices of ordinary Syrians. Anyone who thinks otherwise is showing their ignorance!

    I would repeat the cry of most Syrians we have met. Come and visit us and see the reality for yourselves. I have seriously wondered whether the enormous pressure put upon us by both government and Church figures NOT to visit Syria, is precisely because they do not want us to see and hear the truth, simply because it does not ally with the deliberate misrepresentation the international community is conveying to achieve their own agendas.

    I hope and pray that any ceasefire leads to a true and lasting peace. I also hope and pray that the international community will adjust their policies to consider the real needs and wishes of the Syrian people, and that we do not use the 'provision of aid' as a means of rearming militant factions to further prolong the war. The goal of everyone should be the restoration of peace; the rebuilding of the country; the respect of plurality and development of reform; and the reconciliation and healing of souls, which will be the most difficult task. Enough of fuelling war. Let us end the policy of violence, and truly seek the path of peace, and listen first to the voices of the people themselves.



                                    



    I remember Dennis Rodman having his same take after his visit to North Korea. 
    you do not have all the facts about north korea ...
  • polaris_xpolaris_x Posts: 13,551
    polaris_x said:
    JC29856 said:

    These past few days have been filled with accusations against Bashar Al-Assad´s government that blame it for the chemical attack that took place in Douma, near Damascus, the Syrian capital.

    There are a large number of articles and pieces representing different views about the incident and the parties that are to blame, which is why I will, in this short article, focus on the benefits and disadvantages of carrying out such an attack for Al-Assad and his allies.

    First, we need to have an understanding of the place where the chemical attack took place (there are many who argue whether or not it really happened but I will not dedicate time to that discussion) and its situation.

    Douma was until just days ago the last bastion of the rebels and it was under the control of a combination of FSA and jihadi-related groups like Jaysh al-Islam. At the time of the attack —7th April— the Syrian Army and allies had fully surrounded Douma and were already beginning to storm the city.

    The Syrian forces had the clear advantage and it was just a matter of time that this rebel bastion would also fall under the government´s forces control. Also the militants in Douma were cut off from the outside world and posed no immediate threat to the Syrian forces.

    All of this brings us to the question that why would Al-Assad want to gas his own people knowing the severe repercussions that it would have for him? Does it actually make any sense for the Syrian “regime” to carry out a highly controversial (and indiscriminate) attack against the very same people he is achieving military victory against?

    One could argue that the Syrian government wanted to make an example of the rebels left in Douma in order to scare their comrades in Idlib and Daraa into submission. This argument makes little sense since there are many, many more ways to intimidate the enemy than launching a chemical attack that would turn the whole world against you while you are on the verge of victory.

    So would there be any benefit for Al-Assad in launching a chemical attack on Douma in these circumstances? No. But then it begs the questions that, if the attack really did take place, then, who did it and what parties are to benefit the most from it?

    Sadly, these are questions that, at the very least, we haven´t seen a lot in the media and, even worse, among the many people that are commenting on the issue on the different social media networks.

    https://southfront.org/accusations-against-syria-a-logical-take-on-douma-chemical-attack-allegations/




    exactly ... it's why Peter Ford is more and more irritable in interviews ... people aren't thinking critically about this ...

    but ultimately what is most troubling to me is that people don't care enough to at least consider the possibility that the rhetoric is false ... i've posted numerous links and articles and no one is really countering any of this ... hopefully, as with Iraq - the truth will eventually come out and people will be more critical of the information they get and not just assume it's true because it's what they want to believe ...
    You stated that there were no international reporting coming from within Syria I sad Richard Engle has done some extensive reporting but you don’t believe it you say he’s not trustworthy I don’t agree with your assessment of him ....so that’s the crux of it and I’m not going to believe Assad is a good guy sorry but I ain’t swallowing that pill ...
    again ... if he's using footage by the white helmets ... who also were responsible for the latest footage of the alleged chemical attack ... then it's not trustworthy ... granted I just watched what someone posted ... if I see the white helmets logo on the footage - i know that the news agency did not film nor produce the images ..

    still ... the crux of this is whether you want to believe the mainstream media ... a corporately owned entity that has already been shown to manipulate information ... see sinclair group ..

    you don't want to believe Assad is a good guy ... that's fine ... all i've ever asked int his thread is that people see all sides before passing judgement ... instead of just hearing the same things from one side ... a side that is known to have already lied about other countries in order to push the war agenda ...
  • polaris_xpolaris_x Posts: 13,551
    polaris_x said:
    his and his convoy's conclusions
    CONCLUSIONS

    What are our main findings?



    1. The resilience and perseverance of the Syrian people enduring sustained and intense suffering.

    2. The widespread existence of many initiatives by Government and local communities to address problems of war and poverty (e.g. Government and churches' initiatives to support IDPs and the provision of free health care).

    3. Many Reconciliation initiatives at local and Government levels with that have positive outcomes for whole communities - for example, in enabling cease fires. The Minister for Reconciliation told us that there are Reconciliation initiatives in 70 cities, towns and villages involving 4.5 million citizens.

    4. The devastating impact for all Syrian people of sanctions and the massive destruction and theft of the industrial infrastructure by armed groups.

    5. The group has heard the consistent cry of Christians and Muslims for their places of worship to be respected and preserved and for a sympathetic response and engagement from their counterparts in the West.

    6. The consistently positive working relations between Christians and Muslims in Government controlled areas in Syria.

    7. Important and significant people with genuine voices of peace and reform are being prevented from visiting the UK and engaging with the British government and people.

    8. The coverage by some media of the situation in Syria is not an accurate representation of many of the realities we have observed. ((For example, see the post on the Doctors Council in Aleppo).

    9. The acute polarisation inherent in protracted war has all but destroyed the existing movement to implement greater democracy within the country. The majority of the city's population are profoundly impacted by the refusal of the international community to engage with Government-held areas of the city.

    10. Many media narratives in the UK are refuted and disputed by the vast majority of people whom we have met.

    11. Many people whom we met believe that the partisanship of many Western media narratives with the exclusion of most moderate voices will lead to the destruction of civil society and its replacement by violence, terrorism and another failed State as well as increased terrorism in other countries, including the UK.

    12. Widespread concern was strongly conveyed over the UK's military support for Opposition forces which we are repeatedly told are not ' Moderate' but virtually indistinguishable from those fighting for the ideologies of ISIS and Al Nusra.

    13. People are deeply concerned that the fundamental principle of End User Accountability is not being applied to all military support by the UK with disastrous results.

    14. Without exception, every person we met believes that current UK and international policies of commitment to ‘Regime Change’ will destroy the pluralistic and diverse society which has existed for hundreds of years. They also passionately believe that Syrians should have the right to determine their own future and elect their own leadership.

    15. While almost all media coverage in the West focuses on the devastating effects of military offensives by Government forces, in just one day during our visit (September 5th) the following attacks by the armed Opposition inflicting indiscriminate death and injury included:

    Four car bombs at Homs with 12 killed and 30 injured; in Tartus 45 killed and 100 wounded; in the Damascus countryside, 3 killed and 12 wounded; in Hasaka, 6 killed and 20 wounded.

    This is only a part of the daily toll of death and injury inflicted by Opposition forces on civilians, such as the shelling of the University in Aleppo by 4 missiles on the day we were there.

    Already, we have been accused of spouting 'government propaganda'.  No. We travelled to Syria to listen to the voices of Syrian people and we have met hundreds from across the respective communities in the country. Personally, this is my fifth visit to the country since April 2014, and the messages remain consistent and widespread. What we are sharing is not 'government propaganda' at all, but the voices of ordinary Syrians. Anyone who thinks otherwise is showing their ignorance!

    I would repeat the cry of most Syrians we have met. Come and visit us and see the reality for yourselves. I have seriously wondered whether the enormous pressure put upon us by both government and Church figures NOT to visit Syria, is precisely because they do not want us to see and hear the truth, simply because it does not ally with the deliberate misrepresentation the international community is conveying to achieve their own agendas.

    I hope and pray that any ceasefire leads to a true and lasting peace. I also hope and pray that the international community will adjust their policies to consider the real needs and wishes of the Syrian people, and that we do not use the 'provision of aid' as a means of rearming militant factions to further prolong the war. The goal of everyone should be the restoration of peace; the rebuilding of the country; the respect of plurality and development of reform; and the reconciliation and healing of souls, which will be the most difficult task. Enough of fuelling war. Let us end the policy of violence, and truly seek the path of peace, and listen first to the voices of the people themselves.



                                    



    I remember Dennis Rodman having his same take after his visit to North Korea. 
    i will however at least acknowledge that you read something ...
  • benjsbenjs Toronto, ONPosts: 7,228
    dignin said:
    benjs said:
    The mainstream media, American government, Russian government, Syrian government, and Daesh, all have vested interests in pushing their agendas. All of them have acted in disingenuous ways and have shown efforts to complicate the way situations would be perceived in their immediate pasts. Because of this, Occam's Razor can't guide a course of action because all players can be presumed to be consciously complicating, confusing, and conflating the reality.

    Depending on who's correct in their published position, bombing campaigns will have different outcomes. I would really love to hear one single rational explanation for how external parties' bombings of Syria will amount to improvements to the livelihoods of Syrians, how it is determined whose position is correct, and what risks reside if source information is proven invalid after the fact (meaning the wrong source is assumed correct). If these cannot be reasonably expressed, what right do any external parties have to be the global police force?

    I've read, and it really feels like in the battle for Syria's future, everything except Syrians get considered.
    Occam's Razor most definitely applies. We can still logically look to see who stands to gain from what action.

    And if bombing facilities stops the use of chemical weapons then it surely is worth it. Not saying that is what is actually happening but turning a blind eye to atrocities against civilians is not the answer. We should have learned that lesson from WWII.

    As a qualifier, I marched against the war in Iraq and the people comparing this situation to that situation have a poor memory.
    dignin - you're right about Occam's Razor. I guess what I'm trying to say is that since most or all involved parties seem to have a precedence for misleading the public and hiding true motives (to the best of their abilities) and actually pursuing to make situations seem more complicated than they are, with false or partial information how do we in the public actually make valid opinions about what should be done?

    I would never advocate turning a blind eye to atrocities (though there are a wealth of situations that could be defined as 'atrocities' that America either participates in making them worse, or staying uninvolved - Gaza and Yemen are two that immediately come to mind). As for the bombing - I agree, so long as the facilities are actually proven to house chemical weapons beyond reasonable doubt., but I do believe in apprehension before military actions, and pivoting those first steps towards acquiring substantial evidence first. Given that this represents foreign intervention - I feel that's the least owed to Americans and Syrians alike.
    '05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2

    EV
    Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
145791015
Sign In or Register to comment.