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

1679111214

Comments

  • polaris_xpolaris_x Posts: 13,551
    my2hands said:
    Here is a little tidbit on Eva Bartlett and some of her claims...

    https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-eva-bartletts-claims-about-syrian-children


    And of course, she writes a blog for the state funded Russian media outlet Russia Today (RT)!!!! Bwahahahaha

    From what I can tell she isn't even a fucking journalist... this is who you're hitching your wagon too? Give me a fucking break, all your bullshit conspiracy theories are coming from an RT blogger? Infowars started the bullshit White Helmets nonsense well... not to mention these weak ass conspiracies fall apart with just minimal research

    You are sucking down fake news and propaganda... its warping you... open your eyes 
    she is an independent journalist that contributes to RT ... so is sameera khan ... look her up ... i've provided many other sources ... again, all of which you choose not to read/listen and comment on ...

    i mean ... if I've pinned a lot of this on the mainstream media - how is posting a smear piece from the mainstream media going to change anything ... your comments on here are like the comments this reporter is getting ...

    https://twitter.com/PearsonSharp

    just a lot of anger and not thought ... no objectivity ... you've got your back up so far that you haven't even registered my primary message in all of this ...

    I keep replying to you in hopes that others reading this thread will understand ... that I ultimately know its hard for people to think the mainstream media and their govt's would like to them despite the overwhelming evidence ... all I hope for is that people don't take everything they read as factual but to see that there is another side ... and to think about things critically ... i've been researching Syria for over a year now .. probably closer to 2 ... i've read scientific reports from MIT professors, Syrian journalists and from a multitude of other sources ... i've come to my own conclusions based on all i've read from all these sources ...

    the hard part with you is that you don't listen or read what i've posted ... your first reaction to seeing eva bartlett is to google her and see the smear campaign the msm has done against her ... you could have listened to her words and tried to dispute it but nope - just gonna fire from the hip ...

  • polaris_xpolaris_x Posts: 13,551
    my2hands said:
    this is horrible ... like literally every one of the so called myths can actually be proven to be true ... just because some guy writes it isn't and doesn't actually prove it but rather just says ... you can fact check it doesn't mean he's telling the truth ... like c'mon ... start with the white helmets ... check out the proof people have posted about how they are terrorists ... it's not hard ... just requires you to have an open mind ...

    and really bana's twitter account is so easily debunked ... i mean they killed her in a tweet and then made up the silliest of excuses of how they made a mistake ... really, these guys aren't super genius ... it's not hard to debunked both those propaganda tools ...

    a great example recently is the white helmets showed a picture of a barrel bomb that came through a roof ... the guys actually laid a bomb on a bed not realizing that if a bomb of that magnitude actually went through the roof and landed on a bed - the bed would be dsstroyed!! ... haha ... like just horrible fake shit here ... these guys are terrorists .. they aren't super smart ...
  • Halifax2TheMaxHalifax2TheMax Posts: 12,406
    polaris_x said:
    polaris_x said:
    polaris_x said:
    benjs said:
    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.
    blowing up a chemical weapons factory is about as intelligent as blowing up a nuclear missile ... if the americans did indeed blow up a chemical weapons store - then it unleashed toxic chemicals that would not only impact civilians but american soldiers and neighbouring countries ...

    based on people actually visiting the bomb sites today - it's clear they weren't chemical weapons stores ...

    so what is it? ... this is a no-win situation for the US ...
    You need to better understand the production, storage, delivery, destruction and types of arms used before you pass judgement on whether it makes sense. Do you know how many US troops are in Syria and where they’re located? So how dangerous was it for them? Also, what’s the west’s Ultimate end game, from the both sides, not blinded by mainstream media, critical thinking perspective?
    all the news outlets are calling the strikes on chemical weapons stores or production facilities ... not sure how bombing that would be considered safe for nearby people ...
    Like I said, you need to understand the capability of weapons systems. Less time on Yoitube, more time on war machination. And you didn’t answer my question.
    sorry what question was that? ... how many troops are in syria? ... reports are not clear as some have said that us troops occupy about 1/3 of syria now ... I know they've been part of the so called ooalition in raqqa from the get go so they will be in the north for sure ...

    so, why don't you educate me on weapons systems and tell me how bombing what was declared to be chemical weapons production facilities would be safe for the people around there ... 
    what’s the west’s Ultimate end game in Syria, from an independent, both sides, non western media biased view?
    09/15/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/29/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield, MA; 08/18/08, O2 London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL;

    "If you're looking down on someone, it better be to extend them a hand to lift them up."

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • polaris_xpolaris_x Posts: 13,551
    here is what I was referring to in terms of the bomb on the bed ...

    https://southfront.org/there-are-some-problems-with-gas-cylinders-videos-used-by-white-helmets-as-evidence-of-douma-attack/

    i mean ... c'mon now ..

  • my2handsmy2hands Posts: 13,780
    She's a blogger for RT... let that soak in... Assad the peacemaker 

    Bwahahahaha 
  • polaris_xpolaris_x Posts: 13,551
    polaris_x said:
    polaris_x said:
    polaris_x said:
    benjs said:
    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.
    blowing up a chemical weapons factory is about as intelligent as blowing up a nuclear missile ... if the americans did indeed blow up a chemical weapons store - then it unleashed toxic chemicals that would not only impact civilians but american soldiers and neighbouring countries ...

    based on people actually visiting the bomb sites today - it's clear they weren't chemical weapons stores ...

    so what is it? ... this is a no-win situation for the US ...
    You need to better understand the production, storage, delivery, destruction and types of arms used before you pass judgement on whether it makes sense. Do you know how many US troops are in Syria and where they’re located? So how dangerous was it for them? Also, what’s the west’s Ultimate end game, from the both sides, not blinded by mainstream media, critical thinking perspective?
    all the news outlets are calling the strikes on chemical weapons stores or production facilities ... not sure how bombing that would be considered safe for nearby people ...
    Like I said, you need to understand the capability of weapons systems. Less time on Yoitube, more time on war machination. And you didn’t answer my question.
    sorry what question was that? ... how many troops are in syria? ... reports are not clear as some have said that us troops occupy about 1/3 of syria now ... I know they've been part of the so called ooalition in raqqa from the get go so they will be in the north for sure ...

    so, why don't you educate me on weapons systems and tell me how bombing what was declared to be chemical weapons production facilities would be safe for the people around there ... 
    what’s the west’s Ultimate end game in Syria, from an independent, both sides, non western media biased view?
    i would speculate the following:

    * war profiteering
    * next country on the list (afghanistan, iraq and libya first) - all on a list that was leaked a long time ago
    * help israel secure the golan heights
    * help turkey annex parts of syria
    * access to pipelines
    * oil
    * imperialistic goals

  • drakeheuer14drakeheuer14 Posts: 1,599
    polaris_x said:
    my2hands said:
    Here is a little tidbit on Eva Bartlett and some of her claims...

    https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-eva-bartletts-claims-about-syrian-children


    And of course, she writes a blog for the state funded Russian media outlet Russia Today (RT)!!!! Bwahahahaha

    From what I can tell she isn't even a fucking journalist... this is who you're hitching your wagon too? Give me a fucking break, all your bullshit conspiracy theories are coming from an RT blogger? Infowars started the bullshit White Helmets nonsense well... not to mention these weak ass conspiracies fall apart with just minimal research

    You are sucking down fake news and propaganda... its warping you... open your eyes 
    she is an independent journalist that contributes to RT ... so is sameera khan ... look her up ... i've provided many other sources ... again, all of which you choose not to read/listen and comment on ...

    i mean ... if I've pinned a lot of this on the mainstream media - how is posting a smear piece from the mainstream media going to change anything ... your comments on here are like the comments this reporter is getting ...

    https://twitter.com/PearsonSharp

    just a lot of anger and not thought ... no objectivity ... you've got your back up so far that you haven't even registered my primary message in all of this ...

    I keep replying to you in hopes that others reading this thread will understand ... that I ultimately know its hard for people to think the mainstream media and their govt's would like to them despite the overwhelming evidence ... all I hope for is that people don't take everything they read as factual but to see that there is another side ... and to think about things critically ... i've been researching Syria for over a year now .. probably closer to 2 ... i've read scientific reports from MIT professors, Syrian journalists and from a multitude of other sources ... i've come to my own conclusions based on all i've read from all these sources ...

    the hard part with you is that you don't listen or read what i've posted ... your first reaction to seeing eva bartlett is to google her and see the smear campaign the msm has done against her ... you could have listened to her words and tried to dispute it but nope - just gonna fire from the hip ...

    Oh enlightened one, teach us your ways! 
    Pittsburgh 2013
    Cincinnati 2014
    Greenville 2016
    (Raleigh 2016)
    Columbia 2016
  • polaris_xpolaris_x Posts: 13,551
    polaris_x said:
    my2hands said:
    Here is a little tidbit on Eva Bartlett and some of her claims...

    https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-eva-bartletts-claims-about-syrian-children


    And of course, she writes a blog for the state funded Russian media outlet Russia Today (RT)!!!! Bwahahahaha

    From what I can tell she isn't even a fucking journalist... this is who you're hitching your wagon too? Give me a fucking break, all your bullshit conspiracy theories are coming from an RT blogger? Infowars started the bullshit White Helmets nonsense well... not to mention these weak ass conspiracies fall apart with just minimal research

    You are sucking down fake news and propaganda... its warping you... open your eyes 
    she is an independent journalist that contributes to RT ... so is sameera khan ... look her up ... i've provided many other sources ... again, all of which you choose not to read/listen and comment on ...

    i mean ... if I've pinned a lot of this on the mainstream media - how is posting a smear piece from the mainstream media going to change anything ... your comments on here are like the comments this reporter is getting ...

    https://twitter.com/PearsonSharp

    just a lot of anger and not thought ... no objectivity ... you've got your back up so far that you haven't even registered my primary message in all of this ...

    I keep replying to you in hopes that others reading this thread will understand ... that I ultimately know its hard for people to think the mainstream media and their govt's would like to them despite the overwhelming evidence ... all I hope for is that people don't take everything they read as factual but to see that there is another side ... and to think about things critically ... i've been researching Syria for over a year now .. probably closer to 2 ... i've read scientific reports from MIT professors, Syrian journalists and from a multitude of other sources ... i've come to my own conclusions based on all i've read from all these sources ...

    the hard part with you is that you don't listen or read what i've posted ... your first reaction to seeing eva bartlett is to google her and see the smear campaign the msm has done against her ... you could have listened to her words and tried to dispute it but nope - just gonna fire from the hip ...

    Oh enlightened one, teach us your ways! 
    i dunno if this is sarcasm or facetiousness ... probably but ...

    I would also add that if the primary counter argument someone makes is that something is a conspiracy theory - then they are simply just demeaning an argument without actually countering anything with facts or sources ...

    there is a lot at stake here in Syria ...

    * international law - launching unilateral strikes without UN approval is horrible for justice especially considering no actual proof was given about the alleged chemical attack
    * sovereignty - what rights do we have to invade a sovereign country? ... imagine a country bombed the US because americans were killing black people for no reason?
    * the rise of terrorism and extremists - everywhere the US/UK have "liberated" (afhganistan, iraq and libya) are overrun with extremists controlling swaths of territory ... this is not hard to see ... giving them yet another country will only give rise to these factions ..
    * human lives - for 7 years Syria has been fighting a war against these terrorists ... all the talk of moderate rebels is not true ... it's not hard to see that ISIS, Al Nusra front, Al Qaeda and others ...
    * truth - imagine for a second that the information being put forth by the msm was false and co-ordinated ... what does that mean in an era of facebook and fake news? .. what does it mean about everything we ingest from these corporately owned entities ... it just takes but one brick for the house to fall ..
  • mcgruff10mcgruff10 New JerseyPosts: 13,737
    Does this count as evidence?  https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2018/04/14/french-report-lays-out-evidence-assad-forces-conducted-chemical-attack-civilians/517187002/

    French analysts examined photos taken in two locations that depicted the following symptoms consistent with a chemical attack:

    • Suffocation or breathing difficulties,
    • Mentions of a strong chlorine odor and presence of green smoke in the areas affected,
    • Extreme salivation and secretions from the mouth and nose
    • Cyanosis, or blue coloration of the skin due to poor oxygen flow.
    • Burns to the skin and cornea.

    "No deaths from mechanical injuries were visible," the report said. "All of these symptoms are characteristic of a chemical weapons attack, particularly choking agents and organophosphorus agents or hydrocyanic acid."

    France's conclusions were supported by Trump administration officials Saturday afternoon who determined that both chlorine and sarin, a highly toxic nerve agent, were used on the civilians by the forces under Assad in the April 7 attack.

    Their findings were based on first-hand accounts of military helicopters releasing barrel bombs, evidence of features and markings of the bombs consistent with those Syrian forces used in previous attacks, and photos and videos of victims exhibiting the effects of chemical exposure such as foaming at the mouth, said the officials who requested anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly.

    I'll ride the wave where it takes me......
  • BentleyspopBentleyspop Craft Beer Brewery, ColoradoPosts: 4,603
    my2hands said:
    She's a blogger for RT... let that soak in... Assad the peacemaker 

    Bwahahahaha 
    RT is as reliable and believable as infowars, newsmax, breitbart, and foxnews
  • polaris_xpolaris_x Posts: 13,551
    mcgruff10 said:
    Does this count as evidence?  https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2018/04/14/french-report-lays-out-evidence-assad-forces-conducted-chemical-attack-civilians/517187002/

    French analysts examined photos taken in two locations that depicted the following symptoms consistent with a chemical attack:

    • Suffocation or breathing difficulties,
    • Mentions of a strong chlorine odor and presence of green smoke in the areas affected,
    • Extreme salivation and secretions from the mouth and nose
    • Cyanosis, or blue coloration of the skin due to poor oxygen flow.
    • Burns to the skin and cornea.

    "No deaths from mechanical injuries were visible," the report said. "All of these symptoms are characteristic of a chemical weapons attack, particularly choking agents and organophosphorus agents or hydrocyanic acid."

    France's conclusions were supported by Trump administration officials Saturday afternoon who determined that both chlorine and sarin, a highly toxic nerve agent, were used on the civilians by the forces under Assad in the April 7 attack.

    Their findings were based on first-hand accounts of military helicopters releasing barrel bombs, evidence of features and markings of the bombs consistent with those Syrian forces used in previous attacks, and photos and videos of victims exhibiting the effects of chemical exposure such as foaming at the mouth, said the officials who requested anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly.

    no ... because their source for this is social media postings from terrorists groups ...

    please note this ... assad was accused last year about another sarin attack of which mattis said recently that the US still has no proof of that attack ... if you recall - trump launched a few missiles that did minimal damage last year ...
  • mcgruff10mcgruff10 New JerseyPosts: 13,737
    polaris_x said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    Does this count as evidence?  https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2018/04/14/french-report-lays-out-evidence-assad-forces-conducted-chemical-attack-civilians/517187002/

    French analysts examined photos taken in two locations that depicted the following symptoms consistent with a chemical attack:

    • Suffocation or breathing difficulties,
    • Mentions of a strong chlorine odor and presence of green smoke in the areas affected,
    • Extreme salivation and secretions from the mouth and nose
    • Cyanosis, or blue coloration of the skin due to poor oxygen flow.
    • Burns to the skin and cornea.

    "No deaths from mechanical injuries were visible," the report said. "All of these symptoms are characteristic of a chemical weapons attack, particularly choking agents and organophosphorus agents or hydrocyanic acid."

    France's conclusions were supported by Trump administration officials Saturday afternoon who determined that both chlorine and sarin, a highly toxic nerve agent, were used on the civilians by the forces under Assad in the April 7 attack.

    Their findings were based on first-hand accounts of military helicopters releasing barrel bombs, evidence of features and markings of the bombs consistent with those Syrian forces used in previous attacks, and photos and videos of victims exhibiting the effects of chemical exposure such as foaming at the mouth, said the officials who requested anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly.

    no ... because their source for this is social media postings from terrorists groups ...

    please note this ... assad was accused last year about another sarin attack of which mattis said recently that the US still has no proof of that attack ... if you recall - trump launched a few missiles that did minimal damage last year ...
    so are you saying he has never used chemical weapons (2013) or hasn’t used them in the past year?  I am genuinely interested. 
    I'll ride the wave where it takes me......
  • polaris_xpolaris_x Posts: 13,551
    mcgruff10 said:
    polaris_x said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    Does this count as evidence?  https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2018/04/14/french-report-lays-out-evidence-assad-forces-conducted-chemical-attack-civilians/517187002/

    French analysts examined photos taken in two locations that depicted the following symptoms consistent with a chemical attack:

    • Suffocation or breathing difficulties,
    • Mentions of a strong chlorine odor and presence of green smoke in the areas affected,
    • Extreme salivation and secretions from the mouth and nose
    • Cyanosis, or blue coloration of the skin due to poor oxygen flow.
    • Burns to the skin and cornea.

    "No deaths from mechanical injuries were visible," the report said. "All of these symptoms are characteristic of a chemical weapons attack, particularly choking agents and organophosphorus agents or hydrocyanic acid."

    France's conclusions were supported by Trump administration officials Saturday afternoon who determined that both chlorine and sarin, a highly toxic nerve agent, were used on the civilians by the forces under Assad in the April 7 attack.

    Their findings were based on first-hand accounts of military helicopters releasing barrel bombs, evidence of features and markings of the bombs consistent with those Syrian forces used in previous attacks, and photos and videos of victims exhibiting the effects of chemical exposure such as foaming at the mouth, said the officials who requested anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly.

    no ... because their source for this is social media postings from terrorists groups ...

    please note this ... assad was accused last year about another sarin attack of which mattis said recently that the US still has no proof of that attack ... if you recall - trump launched a few missiles that did minimal damage last year ...
    so are you saying he has never used chemical weapons (2013) or hasn’t used them in the past year?  I am genuinely interested. 
    no ... Syria agreed as part of a tripartite agreement to dismantle all chemical weapons ... the OPCW confirms that ... they continue to inspect Syria with the latest being in November of last year ... no chemical weapons ... as others have pointed out there are elements in the latest report that some might point to that says maybe they still have chemical weapons ...

    the claim of sarin gas use in Ghouta last year has been debunked ... general mattis recently admitted the US still does not have proof that a chemical attack was initiated by Assad ... please go through this thread as it relates to the logic of assad using chemical weapons, the timing of these attacks always occurring when trump says he's pulling out and when the so called rebels are about to lose ... also, look at the evidence that is provided ... often videos of rescuers showing dead children and what not ... expert analysis of those videos always show shocking inconsistencies ... and horrible inaccuracies ... see the video I posted showing the supposed chemical attack bomb that apparently fell through a roof ... broke a hole and then landed on a bed without damaging the bed!! ... the proof gov'ts refer to are all these social media posts that are horribly poor in production they are easily debunked ...
  • dignindignin Posts: 5,899
    Fucking Russian propaganda bullshit. Just stop the nonsense, this is the same shit that helped get Trump elected.

    Polaris, your sources are shit. Please, nobody buy into any of this.
  • my2handsmy2hands Posts: 13,780
    my2hands said:
    She's a blogger for RT... let that soak in... Assad the peacemaker 

    Bwahahahaha 
    RT is as reliable and believable as infowars, newsmax, breitbart, and foxnews
    It's even worse because its Russian state run media... Essentially Putins personal "news" organization 

    And she's a paid blogger for them... 

    Anything she says is garbage, she's on the payroll FFS! lol
  • my2handsmy2hands Posts: 13,780
    And from what I can see she also spreads horeshit pro North Korea propaganda (shocked!) 
  • mcgruff10mcgruff10 New JerseyPosts: 13,737
    edited April 15
    my2hands said:
    And from what I can see she also spreads horeshit pro North Korea propaganda (shocked!) 
    There is nothing pro about The North Korean government. They could be the most brain washed country in history. 
    I'll ride the wave where it takes me......
  • my2handsmy2hands Posts: 13,780
    edited April 15
    polaris_x said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    polaris_x said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    Does this count as evidence?  https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2018/04/14/french-report-lays-out-evidence-assad-forces-conducted-chemical-attack-civilians/517187002/

    French analysts examined photos taken in two locations that depicted the following symptoms consistent with a chemical attack:

    • Suffocation or breathing difficulties,
    • Mentions of a strong chlorine odor and presence of green smoke in the areas affected,
    • Extreme salivation and secretions from the mouth and nose
    • Cyanosis, or blue coloration of the skin due to poor oxygen flow.
    • Burns to the skin and cornea.

    "No deaths from mechanical injuries were visible," the report said. "All of these symptoms are characteristic of a chemical weapons attack, particularly choking agents and organophosphorus agents or hydrocyanic acid."

    France's conclusions were supported by Trump administration officials Saturday afternoon who determined that both chlorine and sarin, a highly toxic nerve agent, were used on the civilians by the forces under Assad in the April 7 attack.

    Their findings were based on first-hand accounts of military helicopters releasing barrel bombs, evidence of features and markings of the bombs consistent with those Syrian forces used in previous attacks, and photos and videos of victims exhibiting the effects of chemical exposure such as foaming at the mouth, said the officials who requested anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly.

    no ... because their source for this is social media postings from terrorists groups ...

    please note this ... assad was accused last year about another sarin attack of which mattis said recently that the US still has no proof of that attack ... if you recall - trump launched a few missiles that did minimal damage last year ...
    so are you saying he has never used chemical weapons (2013) or hasn’t used them in the past year?  I am genuinely interested. 
    no ... Syria agreed as part of a tripartite agreement to dismantle all chemical weapons ... the OPCW confirms that ... they continue to inspect Syria with the latest being in November of last year ... no chemical weapons ... as others have pointed out there are elements in the latest report that some might point to that says maybe they still have chemical weapons ...

    the claim of sarin gas use in Ghouta last year has been debunked ... general mattis recently admitted the US still does not have proof that a chemical attack was initiated by Assad ... please go through this thread as it relates to the logic of assad using chemical weapons, the timing of these attacks always occurring when trump says he's pulling out and when the so called rebels are about to lose ... also, look at the evidence that is provided ... often videos of rescuers showing dead children and what not ... expert analysis of those videos always show shocking inconsistencies ... and horrible inaccuracies ... see the video I posted showing the supposed chemical attack bomb that apparently fell through a roof ... broke a hole and then landed on a bed without damaging the bed!! ... the proof gov'ts refer to are all these social media posts that are horribly poor in production they are easily debunked ...
    OPCW confirmed the 2013 "Red Line" Sarin Gas attack and attributed it directly to the Syrian government and Assad The Peacemaker... henceforth the agreement to the so called destruction and removal of said capabilities... 

    Or is that bullshit too?
  • cincybearcatcincybearcat Posts: 8,994
    polaris_x said:
    here is what I was referring to in terms of the bomb on the bed ...

    https://southfront.org/there-are-some-problems-with-gas-cylinders-videos-used-by-white-helmets-as-evidence-of-douma-attack/

    i mean ... c'mon now ..

    So I can’t understand what he is saying, but let me ask you a question, is it possible someone moved the bomb to the bed so it was in a good place to video?  I mean, they didn’t just have to leave it in the spot it landed, right?  How much they weigh I wonder....
    hippiemom = goodness
  • cincybearcatcincybearcat Posts: 8,994
    my2hands said:
    my2hands said:
    She's a blogger for RT... let that soak in... Assad the peacemaker 

    Bwahahahaha 
    RT is as reliable and believable as infowars, newsmax, breitbart, and foxnews
    It's even worse because its Russian state run media... Essentially Putins personal "news" organization 

    And she's a paid blogger for them... 

    Anything she says is garbage, she's on the payroll FFS! lol
    Yeah kinda a red flag being she’s paid by Putin.
    hippiemom = goodness
  • polaris_xpolaris_x Posts: 13,551
    dignin said:
    Fucking Russian propaganda bullshit. Just stop the nonsense, this is the same shit that helped get Trump elected.

    Polaris, your sources are shit. Please, nobody buy into any of this.
    ok ... i wasn't able to make inroads with you ... understandable ... for everyone else ... just know this ... everything I posted is well reasoned thought ... if all you have is to deride the source then it's clear you lack the capacity to critically think about the subject ... it is why no one here has been able to objectively discredit any of the sources ... if hitler told you your house was burning - would you ignore him because you think he's a liar or would you at least check? ... it's funny you bring up trump because that's who's side your on ... the sides who want to wage war ... take comfort in knowing that the people you support want to make syria into libya and iraq ...

    also know this ... the consequence of regime change is iraq and libya all over again ... ask anyone there if they think their lives are better ... the countries that have lied over and over again to wage war on sovereign countries is who these people support ...
  • polaris_xpolaris_x Posts: 13,551
    my2hands said:
    my2hands said:
    She's a blogger for RT... let that soak in... Assad the peacemaker 

    Bwahahahaha 
    RT is as reliable and believable as infowars, newsmax, breitbart, and foxnews
    It's even worse because its Russian state run media... Essentially Putins personal "news" organization 

    And she's a paid blogger for them... 

    Anything she says is garbage, she's on the payroll FFS! lol
    Yeah kinda a red flag being she’s paid by Putin.
    she is not paid by putin ... she raises money through donations ... what should be a red flag to you is that the countries that have historically beaten the drums for war are doing it again ... countries who have proven to have lied in order to push a war agenda ... check out pearson sharp's twitter ... this guy is reporting for a Conservative news network ... no one would ever say his network is colluding with russia ... he is actually in damascus now ... pearson is a second amendment guy ... my sources are from all over the political spectrum ...

    https://twitter.com/PearsonSharp

  • polaris_xpolaris_x Posts: 13,551
    my2hands said:
    polaris_x said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    polaris_x said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    Does this count as evidence?  https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2018/04/14/french-report-lays-out-evidence-assad-forces-conducted-chemical-attack-civilians/517187002/

    French analysts examined photos taken in two locations that depicted the following symptoms consistent with a chemical attack:

    • Suffocation or breathing difficulties,
    • Mentions of a strong chlorine odor and presence of green smoke in the areas affected,
    • Extreme salivation and secretions from the mouth and nose
    • Cyanosis, or blue coloration of the skin due to poor oxygen flow.
    • Burns to the skin and cornea.

    "No deaths from mechanical injuries were visible," the report said. "All of these symptoms are characteristic of a chemical weapons attack, particularly choking agents and organophosphorus agents or hydrocyanic acid."

    France's conclusions were supported by Trump administration officials Saturday afternoon who determined that both chlorine and sarin, a highly toxic nerve agent, were used on the civilians by the forces under Assad in the April 7 attack.

    Their findings were based on first-hand accounts of military helicopters releasing barrel bombs, evidence of features and markings of the bombs consistent with those Syrian forces used in previous attacks, and photos and videos of victims exhibiting the effects of chemical exposure such as foaming at the mouth, said the officials who requested anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly.

    no ... because their source for this is social media postings from terrorists groups ...

    please note this ... assad was accused last year about another sarin attack of which mattis said recently that the US still has no proof of that attack ... if you recall - trump launched a few missiles that did minimal damage last year ...
    so are you saying he has never used chemical weapons (2013) or hasn’t used them in the past year?  I am genuinely interested. 
    no ... Syria agreed as part of a tripartite agreement to dismantle all chemical weapons ... the OPCW confirms that ... they continue to inspect Syria with the latest being in November of last year ... no chemical weapons ... as others have pointed out there are elements in the latest report that some might point to that says maybe they still have chemical weapons ...

    the claim of sarin gas use in Ghouta last year has been debunked ... general mattis recently admitted the US still does not have proof that a chemical attack was initiated by Assad ... please go through this thread as it relates to the logic of assad using chemical weapons, the timing of these attacks always occurring when trump says he's pulling out and when the so called rebels are about to lose ... also, look at the evidence that is provided ... often videos of rescuers showing dead children and what not ... expert analysis of those videos always show shocking inconsistencies ... and horrible inaccuracies ... see the video I posted showing the supposed chemical attack bomb that apparently fell through a roof ... broke a hole and then landed on a bed without damaging the bed!! ... the proof gov'ts refer to are all these social media posts that are horribly poor in production they are easily debunked ...
    OPCW confirmed the 2013 "Red Line" Sarin Gas attack and attributed it directly to the Syrian government and Assad The Peacemaker... henceforth the agreement to the so called destruction and removal of said capabilities... 

    Or is that bullshit too?
    when and where? ... here is a summary of all OPCW reports as it relates to Syria ... please show me where the OPCW confirms that the Syrian gov't used sarin on its public ...

    https://www.opcw.org/special-sections/syria/the-fact-finding-mission/

  • polaris_xpolaris_x Posts: 13,551
    eva bartlett addressing the smear campaign against her ... love how she mentions all the same tactics used here .... haha

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=HvuAKGIE300

  • polaris_xpolaris_x Posts: 13,551
    someone on here who disagrees with me is opposed to israel's occupation of palestine ... as an FYI to that person - Eva Barlett also reported from Gaza where she lived for several years ... she continues to report on the palestinian plight as well ...
  • polaris_xpolaris_x Posts: 13,551
    people held in "rebel" held areas are being starved ... they are being killed to be used in staged videos ... imagine for a minute that I'm actually right ... is it not in humanity's interest to find out the facts? ...
  • JC29856JC29856 Posts: 9,163
    polaris_x said:
    polaris_x said:
    polaris_x said:
    polaris_x said:
    benjs said:
    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.
    blowing up a chemical weapons factory is about as intelligent as blowing up a nuclear missile ... if the americans did indeed blow up a chemical weapons store - then it unleashed toxic chemicals that would not only impact civilians but american soldiers and neighbouring countries ...

    based on people actually visiting the bomb sites today - it's clear they weren't chemical weapons stores ...

    so what is it? ... this is a no-win situation for the US ...
    You need to better understand the production, storage, delivery, destruction and types of arms used before you pass judgement on whether it makes sense. Do you know how many US troops are in Syria and where they’re located? So how dangerous was it for them? Also, what’s the west’s Ultimate end game, from the both sides, not blinded by mainstream media, critical thinking perspective?
    all the news outlets are calling the strikes on chemical weapons stores or production facilities ... not sure how bombing that would be considered safe for nearby people ...
    Like I said, you need to understand the capability of weapons systems. Less time on Yoitube, more time on war machination. And you didn’t answer my question.
    sorry what question was that? ... how many troops are in syria? ... reports are not clear as some have said that us troops occupy about 1/3 of syria now ... I know they've been part of the so called ooalition in raqqa from the get go so they will be in the north for sure ...

    so, why don't you educate me on weapons systems and tell me how bombing what was declared to be chemical weapons production facilities would be safe for the people around there ... 
    what’s the west’s Ultimate end game in Syria, from an independent, both sides, non western media biased view?
    i would speculate the following:

    * war profiteering
    * next country on the list (afghanistan, iraq and libya first) - all on a list that was leaked a long time ago
    * help israel secure the golan heights
    * help turkey annex parts of syria
    * access to pipelines
    * oil
    * imperialistic goals

    polaris
    good answers, good answers!
    one more question about western medias portrayal of world leaders. you seem to know a bit about Syria so Im assuming you have a decent worldview of that region.
    not to get too off topic but generally in your opinion, which "regime" would you say has been/is more "brutal" Syria or Saudi Arabia? 
    “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.

  • my2handsmy2hands Posts: 13,780

    https://pulsemedia.org/2016/12/15/russia-today-and-the-post-truth-virus/

    Russia Today and the post-truth virus

    A video is circulating of a woman revealing “the truth” on Syria that is being withheld from us by “the mainstream media”. The woman is introduced as an “independent Canadian journalist”. She is said to be speaking  “at the UN”. The date is December 9, 2016. The video has become viral.

    Eva Bartlett, the woman in the video, writes for various conspiracy sites including SOTT.net, The Duran, MintPress and Globalresearch.ca. But more recently she has emerged as a contributor to Russia Today. And though her wordpress blog is called “In Gaza”, and though she has a past in Palestine solidarity work, unlike the people of Gaza, she is a strong supporter of Assad and she uses language to describe Assad’s opponents that is a virtual echo of the language Israeli propagandists use against Gazans.


    Bartlett was recently a guest of the Assad regime, attending a regime sponsored PR conference and going on a tour of regime-controlled areas herded no doubt by the ubiquitous minders (the regime only issues visas to trusted journalists and no visitor is allowed to travel without a regime minder). On her return, the regime mission at the UN organised a press conference for her and three members of the pro-regime US “Peace Council” (The organisation has the same relationship to peace as Kentucky Fried Chicken has to chicken). In the press conference they all repeated the claims usually made by the regime’s official media SANA and by Russia Today: all rebels are terrorists; there is no siege; civilians are being held hostage; the regime is a “liberator” etc.

    So a conspiracy theorist with a blog who briefly visited Syria as a guest of the regime is declaring that everything you know about Syria is wrong. That you have been misled by everyone in the “MSM” from the New York Times to Der Spiegel, from the Guardian to the Telegraph, from CNN to Channel 4, from ABC to BBC, from CBS to CBC; that human rights organisations like Physicians for Human Rights, Medicins Sans Frontiers, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch; that international agencies like the UN and ICRC—they are all part of a vast conspiracy to malign Bashar al Assad. And the truth is only revealed on “alternative” media like the Kremlin’s own Russia Today! (watched by 70 million people a week according to its own claims)

    In normal times something like this would provoke derision and dismay—or at least the person would be asked to provide verifiable facts instead of anecdotes (virtually everything she said is verifiably false as Snopes and Channel 4 [video] have both confirmed). But these are not normal times. Supporters of the regime, admirers of Putin, and sectarian propagandists have latched on to this video. Kremlin broadcaster Russia Today has promoted the video heavily. And, in the game of Chinese whispers, the story has morphed into “a UN press conference”.

    There is of course a deep racism at play here. Besides great international journalists like Christoph Reuter, Janine di Giovanni, and Martin Chulov, there are also many excellent Syrian reporters on the ground. But we are supposed to dismiss them because the truths that eluded all of them were vouchsafed to a Canadian blogger with a column on Russia Today!

    What is happening in Syria is not a mystery. The facts are crystal clear. They are corroborated by multiple independent organisations. People who deny these facts only do so because of a will to disbelieve. It’s willed ignorance in the service of an ideology. This ignorance has been reinforced by Kremlin’s premier disinformation service: Russia Today. The broadcaster has rebranded itself “RT” to conceal its origins and agenda. It has even spawned a neutral-sounding viral video outlet like “In the Now“. Their aim is to sow doubt, feed cynicism, and confound knowledge. They are pressing a narrative—Kremlin’s narrative. And as the major perpetrator of violence in Syria, Kremlin has every intention to muddy the waters. (And no Russia Today is not “just like the BBC”. Have you ever seen a Russian government official questioned on Russia Today the way Tony Blair is questioned on the BBC by Jeremy Paxman; let alone the way Jon Snow on Channel 4 questions David Cameron?)


  • my2handsmy2hands Posts: 13,780

    continued...

    So next time someone shares a stupid video like this, hit them with facts. If they want to challenge them, then they should bring something more substantial than rambling nonsense from a conspiracy nut.

    There is an old joke. A wife returns home to find her husband in bed with another woman.

    “What are you doing in bed with another woman?” she screams.

    “What woman?” the husband replies.

    “The woman I just saw in bed with you,” says the wife.

    “Who are you going to believe,” the husband replies, “Me or your lying eyes?”

    There is no doubt that the Western media has often failed in its coverage. Its reporting on Gaza and the journalism leading up to the Iraq war was abysmal. But western media isn’t devoted to obfuscating truth with the kind of single-minded determination that Russia Today is. It is deeply ironic that many people’s often justified disdain for western journalists has led the into the embrace of a channel that has no commitment to truth at all. And it becomes most pernicious when pro-Kremlin propaganda is dressed up as criticism of “the mainstream media”, “the establishment”, or “Washington”. As I wrote elsewhere:

    There are few things more commonplace than an Oedipal disdain for one’s own government. In this solipsistic worldview, one need not have to understand the dynamics of a foreign crisis; they can be deduced remotely. If you hate your own government then, by virtue of being in its bad books, a Putin or an Assad becomes an ally.

    Conversely, if people elsewhere are rising up against their far more repressive states, their cause is tainted because of a sympathetic word they might have received from your government. And all the images of agony do not add up to a tear of sorrow as long as they are relayed by a hated “mainstream media”. Indeed, victims are reproached for eroding ideological certainties by intruding into our consciousness through their spectacular suffering.


  • my2handsmy2hands Posts: 13,780

    if you go to the link of the story you can see her wearing a cute little "I Love Bashar" bracelet during her government guided (controlled) visit to Syria, and also a picture of her wearing a pin with Assad, Putin, and the chief of Hezbollah

Sign In or Register to comment.