he is not infallible and in the first link you posted, he is dead wrong. He claims the US does not seek regime change....As he likes to say, ‘the historical record shows otherwise’. The cables I mentioned earlier had only been in the public sphere for a few months at the time of that interview (2013). Obama openly stated that Assad must go, and Chomsky’s interview in the second link you posted contradicts the ‘us not seeking regime change’ claim from the first link. He discusses Russia’s offer to have Assad step aside in 2012, and the west would have none of it. Guess you missed that contradiction when cherry picking from the list of authors mentioned?
Btw - I guess I’m a Russian target. I don’t ‘follow’ Sarah Abdallah as a news source. She added me as a friend on fb years ago. I accepted because she relays information from other sources in Syria that you don’t see in the mainstream: images of Christians celebrating Easter, the mass street parties after Aleppo was liberated etc.... And because, well....she’s hot I have no illusions about her bias, and none about yours, either.
Btw - I guess I’m a Russian target. I don’t ‘follow’ Sarah Abdallah as a news source. She added me as a friend on fb years ago. I accepted because she relays information from other sources in Syria that you don’t see in the mainstream: images of Christians celebrating Easter, the mass street parties after Aleppo was liberated etc.... And because, well....she’s hot I have no illusions about her bias, and none about yours, either.
Fell for the classic honey trap... seems obvious from where I'm standing. I would say you were a target.
Obama resisted escalation and avoided going in "guns blazing." Obama knew it was a shit show and wanted no part of it. He reluctantly sent special forces and enforced a no fly zone. Yet that didn't deter Assad and the Russians from dropping barrel bombs of cholrine gas, not illegal to own but illegal to use as a weapon of war, from helicopters. Why do you think both Bibi and Putin were pissed at him? Because he resisted Israeli entreaties to go further but did enough to piss off Putin and his ally Assad. The West's moral dillema is always, do something and be criticized or do nothing and be criticized. Chemical weapons in the hands of ISIS would have been catastrophic and Assad needed to go. How he goes, or whether he goes, is what is up for debate, or should be. Honestly, I like to believe that Obama was one president that had morals and did what he could within the confines of a divided government and a system that eats it's own if they get 'too' progressive. That said, he was not able to completely walk back the already rolling plans he inherited. Damned if we do, damned if we don't is an exceptionalist concept. You're telling me that american ego is so fragile that people complaining about a lack of humanitarianism is some kind of big problem for your nation? Since when does 'the Great Satan' give a flying fuck when they are 'damned'? You will not for a second entertain the thought that maybe chemical weapons ARE in the hands of ISIS and that's what we are seeing?
Are you claiming that the reporting by Richard Engle, on the ground, as it unfolded, as well as that of other western, reputable journalists was a fabrication? I'd love to see the source of your "majority, non-local." And the "sectarian strife" you refer to was against Assad and his clan/sect.
Haven’t read it, or don’t recall it. I’ll check it out. i posted the source on the previous page. US government sources. Read it and let me know what you think. I also posted detailed info about the Libya-syria connections in the previous Syria thread here, look it up. The sectarian strife...do you know what you’re talking about here? Assad’s Ba’athist party is part of the Alawite Shi’a ‘sect’....he is a secular ruler. The rebels, even the supposed ‘moderates’, are wahhabi salafists....you know, the extreme Sunni ‘sect’ promoted by the Saudis and other gulf monarchies (and Israel, lately)? They want to destroy relations with Iran and set up a their caliphate, partially on Syrian land. These are the people you are portraying as democratic protestors.
My question was rhetorical. Some on here, despite where you land, think Assad is a nice guy. If Assad wanted to be a peaceful vision loving opthamologist, why didn't he stay in London? I have stated my position about Assad. In that region, armed to the teeth by foreign players and full of religious extremists, what chance does a secular ruler stand without some brutality? Not saying I support it, but let’s hear your alternatives. A lot of people admit overthrowing another Ba’athist ruler who maintained relative peace while being an asshole (Hussein), was a mistake as the country devolved into sectarian chaos and led to ISIS. Did we learn anything?
Why? If Assad/Putin didn't use them, why not allow unfettered access to the victims and sites? The UN/OPCW sources others have cited, and yet others have relied upon and then changed their mind and doubted them, have previously pointed to the Assad regime as being responsible for previous attacks. You don't think Putin had the guy poisoned with plumonium and wasn't responsible for the latest incident in Britain? Really? You doubt who is currently using chemical weapons in Syria?
I think the answer to access to the attack sites is similar to the answer re sarah’s interview. They have not shown complete impartiality, so why give them more ammo? That said, I haven’t researched this particular attack and the reactions by all players to enough depth to give an informed opinion on that. And yes, I have serious doubts about russia’s Involvement in the skripal case.
Then Sarah is lazy and its just another way to "discredit" the MSM, which all follows Putin's playbook. Is the BBC the only western news outlet? Members of Parliment, US Congress, Der Speigel are not looking for credible news? I hate to break it to you but propaganda and disinformation have been around for a long, long time and Putin is using it profioundly, see Election, US, 2016. And I'll add because Russia can't beat the West militarily and they have no interest in going nuclear either, they're resorting to social media disinformation campaigns, and efectively so, I might add.
Right, the social media boogeyman. But the US doesn’t use propaganda. fair.
By "mainstream," do you mean by viewership or accuracy of reporting? You need to read the IC assessment of Russia interfering with our election. It spells it all out, who works for who, how they gained in popularity and how its propaganda on a major, industrial scale. I guess that makes Faux News worth watching because the claim to be "Fair and Balanced" and the most watched news outlet on television? How many western journalists have been killed for critizing their government or publishing, speaking out or exposing their government for misdeeds? How many have been killeed, jailed or gone missing in Putin's Russia or Assad's Syria for the same? Who was Hitler's first hire? Again, the US and their allies are innocent? Where is he in-depth reporting on US ties to media? About CIA involvement in Hollywood? About news desk requests for compliance after 9/11. Gary Webb. Serena Shin. Michael Hastings. The Reprieve lawsuit. The kennedys. Half the fuckin media in Palestine. The trail of bodies following the Dixie mafia. You don’t think trump has ever had anyone offed? I am not standing up for Russia here. I’m interested in finding the truth, not picking sides
Do tell, what do you think my bias is? I'm intrigued
American exceptionalism, anti-Russian, by the sound of it. You have fallen for your own R2P honey pot, judging by your world police advocacy in the other thread. At least I own it
Do tell, what do you think my bias is? I'm intrigued
American exceptionalism, anti-Russian, by the sound of it. You have fallen for your own R2P honey pot, judging by your world police advocacy in the other thread. At least I own it
American exceptionalism, eh? You must not know me very well lol
That isn't world police advocacy, that's world police reality.
Same here. We need a name for this kind of thread reaction.
Maybe DTOS: Dizzying Thread Overload Syndrome.
"Hey man, how's that thread going that you started?"
"Uh, well, I dunno man, I've got the D-T-O-S."
Brian,
This is precisely what I was trying to say a few days ago on the topic of ‘the simplest and most obvious conclusion’ a la Occam’s Razor: it’s a hell of a lot more difficult to choose an elegant conclusion based on facts when there appears to be a conscious effort to complicate or obfuscate the way the facts are conveyed. Unfortunately, I don’t believe Russians are unique in playing that game.
'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
The absolutely great thing about this thread is the fact that there are exceptional people speaking to both sides of this very confusing issue.
The same people are normally very much in alignment on most topics presented here and it is fascinating to hear them debate this very unclear one.
Don't feel stupid not understanding where you should sit on this issue. Even Waters in that clip (not that Waters is the 'know all') expressed we needed to be patient until the facts are established.
I actually kinda dislike reading more 1-sided articles. I mean cmon this one is blatant. Not only is the aggression illegal but of course the missiles didnt hit the targets because the defense systems stopped them even though they are designed to hit missiles?
For once I'd like to read an article that didn't bash one side of the argument completely and praise the other side ridiculously.
Smear? Is that a conspiracy theorist word for the truth?
Here goes...
He writes/works for the "center for global research". Which is a pro-russia website from the Centre for Research on Globalization, which publishes conspiracy theories. Their founder Michael Chossudovsky has written that the 9/11 attacks were not committed by Islamic terrorists, and that the attacks were a pretext for war in the Middle East.
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,309
Same here. We need a name for this kind of thread reaction.
Maybe DTOS: Dizzying Thread Overload Syndrome.
"Hey man, how's that thread going that you started?"
"Uh, well, I dunno man, I've got the D-T-O-S."
Brian,
This is precisely what I was trying to say a few days ago on the topic of ‘the simplest and most obvious conclusion’ a la Occam’s Razor: it’s a hell of a lot more difficult to choose an elegant conclusion based on facts when there appears to be a conscious effort to complicate or obfuscate the way the facts are conveyed. Unfortunately, I don’t believe Russians are unique in playing that game.
The absolutely great thing about this thread is the fact that there are exceptional people speaking to both sides of this very confusing issue.
The same people are normally very much in alignment on most topics presented here and it is fascinating to hear them debate this very unclear one.
Don't feel stupid not understanding where you should sit on this issue. Even Waters in that clip (not that Waters is the 'know all') expressed we needed to be patient until the facts are established.
Well said, Ben and Thirty.
The "facts" on this issue are (to my way of thinking) somewhat similar to the "facts" about collusion in the 2016 election. I'm not saying there wasn't any collusion, but I don't believe we really know exactly what went on there. And there are other issues like this as well. Could this be intentional? Is this the proverbial "put someone in a circular room and tell them to sit in the corner?" It sure seems like it to me.
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Same here. We need a name for this kind of thread reaction.
Maybe DTOS: Dizzying Thread Overload Syndrome.
"Hey man, how's that thread going that you started?"
"Uh, well, I dunno man, I've got the D-T-O-S."
Brian,
This is precisely what I was trying to say a few days ago on the topic of ‘the simplest and most obvious conclusion’ a la Occam’s Razor: it’s a hell of a lot more difficult to choose an elegant conclusion based on facts when there appears to be a conscious effort to complicate or obfuscate the way the facts are conveyed. Unfortunately, I don’t believe Russians are unique in playing that game.
The absolutely great thing about this thread is the fact that there are exceptional people speaking to both sides of this very confusing issue.
The same people are normally very much in alignment on most topics presented here and it is fascinating to hear them debate this very unclear one.
Don't feel stupid not understanding where you should sit on this issue. Even Waters in that clip (not that Waters is the 'know all') expressed we needed to be patient until the facts are established.
Well said, Ben and Thirty.
The "facts" on this issue are (to my way of thinking) somewhat similar to the "facts" about collusion in the 2016 election. I'm not saying there wasn't any collusion, but I don't believe we really know exactly what went on there. And there are other issues like this as well. Could this be intentional? Is this the proverbial "put someone in a circular room and tell them to sit in the corner?" It sure seems like it to me.
Smear? Is that a conspiracy theorist word for the truth?
Here goes...
He writes/works for the "center for global research". Which is a pro-russia website from the Centre for Research on Globalization, which publishes conspiracy theories. Their founder Michael Chossudovsky has written that the 9/11 attacks were not committed by Islamic terrorists, and that the attacks were a pretext for war in the Middle East.
c'mon folks ... can anyone actually dispute any of the content!? ... if all it takes for people to dismiss reporting is to claim russian bias then it explains why it's been so easy to peddle this narrative ...
there is so much on the ground reporting on this and none of you guys care to actually read it because it doesn't suit what you want to believe!??
it's funny ... all the digging people are willing to do about some websites posted here - wish they would do the same amount of digging on the funding of organizations like human rights watch and the white helmets ...
Smear? Is that a conspiracy theorist word for the truth?
Here goes...
He writes/works for the "center for global research". Which is a pro-russia website from the Centre for Research on Globalization, which publishes conspiracy theories. Their founder Michael Chossudovsky has written that the 9/11 attacks were not committed by Islamic terrorists, and that the attacks were a pretext for war in the Middle East.
Your contributions to middle east topics on this board consist soley of discrediting anyone with a view that opposes Israel's. I've been around long enough to know where you're coming from. Bentley's last 10 posts on the topic....every single one of them an ad hominem. Do better.
1. "The truth, especially believable provable and reliable truth, is
always ignored by conspiracy theorists."
2. "The above link from global research Which is a pro-russia
website from the Centre for Research on Globalization, which
publishes conspiracy theories. Their founder Michael Chossudovsky has
written that the 9/11 attacks were not committed by Islamic terrorists,
and that the attacks were a pretext for war in the Middle East."
3. "Smear?
Is that a conspiracy theorist word for the truth?
Here goes...
He writes/works for the "center for global research". Which is a
pro-russia website from the Centre for Research on Globalization, which
publishes conspiracy theories. Their founder Michael Chossudovsky has
written that the 9/11 attacks were not committed by Islamic terrorists,
and that the attacks were a pretext for war in the Middle East."
4. "Not just a CIA plant also works for Israel, ISIS, Hamas, DNC, and
the Clinton Global initiative. "
5. "Thanks for posting the truth about Eva Bartlett.
However, the truth, along with believable, provable, and reliable
evidence is not understood or accepted by conspiracy theorists.
As is evidenced by all the people who still believe that President Obama is a
Muslim socialist from Kenya.
Along with the people who still believe that the jews control the world's
financial institutions and the weather.
And of course the oldie but goodie that the U.S. govt. was behind 9/11 and
Sandy Hook.
Thanks again"
6. "RT is as reliable and believable as infowars, newsmax, breitbart,
and foxnews"
7. "Same people who believe that....
9/11 was a govt plot
That the Jews run the world' financial institutions
That Newtown was an Obama govt plot
That the Jews control the weather
That Obama is coming to take your guns
That hillary runs a child sex ring out of the basement of a DC pizza parlor.
That President Obama is a Kenyan socialist muslim
And on and on and on"
8. "assad is a dictator who kills his own people
When you support assad in any way, shape, or form you support evil
When you support evil in any way, shape, or form you are evil as well.
Namaste'"
9. "As well as a special kind of evil to support a dictator who
would want to kill children."
10. "How anyone in their right mind could openly support a
dictator such as assad is beyond me. A dictator who doesn' think twice about
gassing his own people. Who doesn' think twice about killing innocent women and
children.
Global Research is a conglomerate. Chossudovsky is one
of the only authors who post articles exclusively for the site. He is a
sensationalist for sure. Has been promoting every nefarious act by the US
as a sure precursor to nuclear war. Still…he’s a Canadian
professor. As with Sarah Abdallah et al…where is the evidence of
‘paid Russian troll’? Is that the case or do you just disagree with them
and Russia Russia Russia is the path of least resistance for discrediting them?
All
GR articles cite their author and published origin. They post articles from all of the award-winning, respected journalists I mentioned previously. They post mainstream articles that fit their narrative. Anyone that can think critically understands the slant. Can you guys understand the slant of the NYT or CNN? Or is Fox News the only bullshit mainstream source, and all indy sources are unworthy of even bothering to read?
All of these stories and ‘Russian Troll’ smear campaigns in
western media recently cited stats and claims about authors that were 100%
sourced from US govt statements with zero investigation. So can we call
Huffpo, BBC, times, Sky News et al western propaganda or not? Al
Jazeera is Qatari and publishes solely western viewpoints on Syria, while
maintaining opposing positions on other middle east topics. Can they be
trusted?
This Russian propaganda/paid Russsian troll/Russian bot shit is
another example of history’s lessons being completely ignored.
Macarthyism alive and well. Can we start disputing the points made by
authors instead of the authors themselves, or the people sharing the articles?
Here is an article by, yes, moon of alabama about the smear
campaigns, for y’all to ignore:
Do tell, what do you think my bias is? I'm intrigued
American exceptionalism, anti-Russian, by the sound of it. You have fallen for your own R2P honey pot, judging by your world police advocacy in the other thread. At least I own it
American exceptionalism, eh? You must not know me very well lol
That isn't world police advocacy, that's world police reality.
You call Team America 'reality'...this is a perfect example of exceptionalism. It's reality to you, and a minority of americans as it pertains to Syria. Outside of the US....Team America is regarded as the greatest threat to world peace. So ya....duped. Own it.
Do tell, what do you think my bias is? I'm intrigued
American exceptionalism, anti-Russian, by the sound of it. You have fallen for your own R2P honey pot, judging by your world police advocacy in the other thread. At least I own it
American exceptionalism, eh? You must not know me very well lol
That isn't world police advocacy, that's world police reality.
You call Team America 'reality'...this is a perfect example of exceptionalism. It's reality to you, and a minority of americans as it pertains to Syria. Outside of the US....Team America is regarded as the greatest threat to world peace. So ya....duped. Own it.
Just for fun...
What do you think would happen if Team America pulled out of NATO and and closed up shop in Europe. And cut off funding that went to military expenditures in Europe
The current geopolitical framework was setup well before you or I came along... ask an East German about Team America... I was just born here... so I dont own shit, amigo.
America has 2,000 troops in Syria... and bombed empty facilities for about 20 minutes
And yet they are responsible for the situation in Syria and the atrocities committed... all the shit about cracking down on opposition... mass detaining... torture... rapes... killings... civilian attacks... chemical attacks... that's all either fake or America's fault? Meanwhile, Assad and Putin are righteous peacemakers... that is literally your narrative. As well as Polaris... i mean c'mon, give me a fucking break
You're anti-US bias is being used against you and blinding you to the obvious reality of the situation
Comments
I've actually heard that one before lol
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
he is not infallible and in the first link you posted, he is dead wrong. He claims the US does not seek regime change....As he likes to say, ‘the historical record shows otherwise’. The cables I mentioned earlier had only been in the public sphere for a few months at the time of that interview (2013). Obama openly stated that Assad must go, and Chomsky’s interview in the second link you posted contradicts the ‘us not seeking regime change’ claim from the first link. He discusses Russia’s offer to have Assad step aside in 2012, and the west would have none of it. Guess you missed that contradiction when cherry picking from the list of authors mentioned?
Btw - I guess I’m a Russian target. I don’t ‘follow’ Sarah Abdallah as a news source. She added me as a friend on fb years ago. I accepted because she relays information from other sources in Syria that you don’t see in the mainstream: images of Christians celebrating Easter, the mass street parties after Aleppo was liberated etc.... And because, well....she’s hot
Seen the news about Facebook lately?
Honestly, I like to believe that Obama was one president that had morals and did what he could within the confines of a divided government and a system that eats it's own if they get 'too' progressive. That said, he was not able to completely walk back the already rolling plans he inherited. Damned if we do, damned if we don't is an exceptionalist concept. You're telling me that american ego is so fragile that people complaining about a lack of humanitarianism is some kind of big problem for your nation? Since when does 'the Great Satan' give a flying fuck when they are 'damned'?
You will not for a second entertain the thought that maybe chemical weapons ARE in the hands of ISIS and that's what we are seeing?
Are you claiming that the reporting by Richard Engle, on the ground, as it unfolded, as well as that of other western, reputable journalists was a fabrication? I'd love to see the source of your "majority, non-local." And the "sectarian strife" you refer to was against Assad and his clan/sect.
Haven’t read it, or don’t recall it. I’ll check it out.
i posted the source on the previous page. US government sources. Read it and let me know what you think. I also posted detailed info about the Libya-syria connections in the previous Syria thread here, look it up.
The sectarian strife...do you know what you’re talking about here? Assad’s Ba’athist party is part of the Alawite Shi’a ‘sect’....he is a secular ruler. The rebels, even the supposed ‘moderates’, are wahhabi salafists....you know, the extreme Sunni ‘sect’ promoted by the Saudis and other gulf monarchies (and Israel, lately)? They want to destroy relations with Iran and set up a their caliphate, partially on Syrian land. These are the people you are portraying as democratic protestors.
My question was rhetorical. Some on here, despite where you land, think Assad is a nice guy. If Assad wanted to be a peaceful vision loving opthamologist, why didn't he stay in London?
I have stated my position about Assad. In that region, armed to the teeth by foreign players and full of religious extremists, what chance does a secular ruler stand without some brutality? Not saying I support it, but let’s hear your alternatives. A lot of people admit overthrowing another Ba’athist ruler who maintained relative peace while being an asshole (Hussein), was a mistake as the country devolved into sectarian chaos and led to ISIS. Did we learn anything?
Why? If Assad/Putin didn't use them, why not allow unfettered access to the victims and sites? The UN/OPCW sources others have cited, and yet others have relied upon and then changed their mind and doubted them, have previously pointed to the Assad regime as being responsible for previous attacks. You don't think Putin had the guy poisoned with plumonium and wasn't responsible for the latest incident in Britain? Really? You doubt who is currently using chemical weapons in Syria?
I think the answer to access to the attack sites is similar to the answer re sarah’s interview. They have not shown complete impartiality, so why give them more ammo? That said, I haven’t researched this particular attack and the reactions by all players to enough depth to give an informed opinion on that.
And yes, I have serious doubts about russia’s Involvement in the skripal case.
Then Sarah is lazy and its just another way to "discredit" the MSM, which all follows Putin's playbook. Is the BBC the only western news outlet? Members of Parliment, US Congress, Der Speigel are not looking for credible news? I hate to break it to you but propaganda and disinformation have been around for a long, long time and Putin is using it profioundly, see Election, US, 2016. And I'll add because Russia can't beat the West militarily and they have no interest in going nuclear either, they're resorting to social media disinformation campaigns, and efectively so, I might add.
Right, the social media boogeyman. But the US doesn’t use propaganda. fair.
By "mainstream," do you mean by viewership or accuracy of reporting? You need to read the IC assessment of Russia interfering with our election. It spells it all out, who works for who, how they gained in popularity and how its propaganda on a major, industrial scale. I guess that makes Faux News worth watching because the claim to be "Fair and Balanced" and the most watched news outlet on television? How many western journalists have been killed for critizing their government or publishing, speaking out or exposing their government for misdeeds? How many have been killeed, jailed or gone missing in Putin's Russia or Assad's Syria for the same? Who was Hitler's first hire?
Again, the US and their allies are innocent? Where is he in-depth reporting on US ties to media? About CIA involvement in Hollywood? About news desk requests for compliance after 9/11. Gary Webb. Serena Shin. Michael Hastings. The Reprieve lawsuit. The kennedys. Half the fuckin media in Palestine. The trail of bodies following the Dixie mafia. You don’t think trump has ever had anyone offed? I am not standing up for Russia here. I’m interested in finding the truth, not picking sides
no, you.
Same here. We need a name for this kind of thread reaction.
Maybe DTOS: Dizzying Thread Overload Syndrome.
"Hey man, how's that thread going that you started?"
"Uh, well, I dunno man, I've got the D-T-O-S."
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
That isn't world police advocacy, that's world police reality.
Want to talk about a real false flag? How bout the apartment bombings? That's whose narrative your aligning with
This is precisely what I was trying to say a few days ago on the topic of ‘the simplest and most obvious conclusion’ a la Occam’s Razor: it’s a hell of a lot more difficult to choose an elegant conclusion based on facts when there appears to be a conscious effort to complicate or obfuscate the way the facts are conveyed. Unfortunately, I don’t believe Russians are unique in playing that game.
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
The same people are normally very much in alignment on most topics presented here and it is fascinating to hear them debate this very unclear one.
Don't feel stupid not understanding where you should sit on this issue. Even Waters in that clip (not that Waters is the 'know all') expressed we needed to be patient until the facts are established.
http://stephenlendman.org/2018/04/true-targets-us-led-aggression-syria/#sthash.S0vucPOK.uxfs
For once I'd like to read an article that didn't bash one side of the argument completely and praise the other side ridiculously.
Is that a conspiracy theorist word for the truth?
Here goes...
He writes/works for the "center for global research". Which is a pro-russia website from the Centre for Research on Globalization, which publishes conspiracy theories. Their founder Michael Chossudovsky has written that the 9/11 attacks were not committed by Islamic terrorists, and that the attacks were a pretext for war in the Middle East.
Well said, Ben and Thirty.
The "facts" on this issue are (to my way of thinking) somewhat similar to the "facts" about collusion in the 2016 election. I'm not saying there wasn't any collusion, but I don't believe we really know exactly what went on there. And there are other issues like this as well. Could this be intentional? Is this the proverbial "put someone in a circular room and tell them to sit in the corner?" It sure seems like it to me.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
there is so much on the ground reporting on this and none of you guys care to actually read it because it doesn't suit what you want to believe!??
https://bsnews.info/dispatches-from-damascus-part-one/
https://www.facebook.com/ScottishIndependenceLiveEvents/videos/2110328012538197/?t=57
http://www.wpc-in.org/
it's funny ... all the digging people are willing to do about some websites posted here - wish they would do the same amount of digging on the funding of organizations like human rights watch and the white helmets ...
Your contributions to middle east topics on this board consist soley of discrediting anyone with a view that opposes Israel's. I've been around long enough to know where you're coming from. Bentley's last 10 posts on the topic....every single one of them an ad hominem. Do better.
1. "The truth, especially believable provable and reliable truth, is always ignored by conspiracy theorists."
2. "The above link from global research Which is a pro-russia website from the Centre for Research on Globalization, which publishes conspiracy theories. Their founder Michael Chossudovsky has written that the 9/11 attacks were not committed by Islamic terrorists, and that the attacks were a pretext for war in the Middle East."
3. "Smear?
Is that a conspiracy theorist word for the truth?
Here goes...
He writes/works for the "center for global research". Which is a pro-russia website from the Centre for Research on Globalization, which publishes conspiracy theories. Their founder Michael Chossudovsky has written that the 9/11 attacks were not committed by Islamic terrorists, and that the attacks were a pretext for war in the Middle East."
4. "Not just a CIA plant also works for Israel, ISIS, Hamas, DNC, and the Clinton Global initiative. "
5. "Thanks for posting the truth about Eva Bartlett.
However, the truth, along with believable, provable, and reliable evidence is not understood or accepted by conspiracy theorists.
As is evidenced by all the people who still believe that President Obama is a Muslim socialist from Kenya.
Along with the people who still believe that the jews control the world's financial institutions and the weather.
And of course the oldie but goodie that the U.S. govt. was behind 9/11 and Sandy Hook.
Thanks again"
6. "RT is as reliable and believable as infowars, newsmax, breitbart, and foxnews"
7. "Same people who believe that....
9/11 was a govt plot
That the Jews run the world' financial institutions
That Newtown was an Obama govt plot
That the Jews control the weather
That Obama is coming to take your guns
That hillary runs a child sex ring out of the basement of a DC pizza parlor.
That President Obama is a Kenyan socialist muslim
And on and on and on"
8. "assad is a dictator who kills his own people
When you support assad in any way, shape, or form you support evil
When you support evil in any way, shape, or form you are evil as well.
Namaste'"
9. "As well as a special kind of evil to support a dictator who would want to kill children."
10. "How anyone in their right mind could openly support a dictator such as assad is beyond me. A dictator who doesn' think twice about gassing his own people. Who doesn' think twice about killing innocent women and children.
^^^looked in the mirror lately?F$@#ing troll"
Global Research is a conglomerate. Chossudovsky is one of the only authors who post articles exclusively for the site. He is a sensationalist for sure. Has been promoting every nefarious act by the US as a sure precursor to nuclear war. Still…he’s a Canadian professor. As with Sarah Abdallah et al…where is the evidence of ‘paid Russian troll’? Is that the case or do you just disagree with them and Russia Russia Russia is the path of least resistance for discrediting them?
All GR articles cite their author and published origin. They post articles from all of the award-winning, respected journalists I mentioned previously. They post mainstream articles that fit their narrative. Anyone that can think critically understands the slant. Can you guys understand the slant of the NYT or CNN? Or is Fox News the only bullshit mainstream source, and all indy sources are unworthy of even bothering to read?
All of these stories and ‘Russian Troll’ smear campaigns in western media recently cited stats and claims about authors that were 100% sourced from US govt statements with zero investigation. So can we call Huffpo, BBC, times, Sky News et al western propaganda or not? Al Jazeera is Qatari and publishes solely western viewpoints on Syria, while maintaining opposing positions on other middle east topics. Can they be trusted?
This Russian propaganda/paid Russsian troll/Russian bot shit is another example of history’s lessons being completely ignored. Macarthyism alive and well. Can we start disputing the points made by authors instead of the authors themselves, or the people sharing the articles?
Here is an article by, yes, moon of alabama about the smear campaigns, for y’all to ignore:
http://www.moonofalabama.org/2018/04/the-media-war-on-truthful-reporting-and-legitimate-opinions-a-documentary.html
You call Team America 'reality'...this is a perfect example of exceptionalism. It's reality to you, and a minority of americans as it pertains to Syria. Outside of the US....Team America is regarded as the greatest threat to world peace. So ya....duped. Own it.
What do you think would happen if Team America pulled out of NATO and and closed up shop in Europe. And cut off funding that went to military expenditures in Europe
The current geopolitical framework was setup well before you or I came along... ask an East German about Team America... I was just born here... so I dont own shit, amigo.
And yet they are responsible for the situation in Syria and the atrocities committed... all the shit about cracking down on opposition... mass detaining... torture... rapes... killings... civilian attacks... chemical attacks... that's all either fake or America's fault? Meanwhile, Assad and Putin are righteous peacemakers... that is literally your narrative. As well as Polaris... i mean c'mon, give me a fucking break
You're anti-US bias is being used against you and blinding you to the obvious reality of the situation