Western media lies about Syria exposed (Canadian journalist Eva Bartlett)
Comments
-
All the US has done in that region is destabilize it...the us is not a beacon for good in this worldGive Peas A Chance…0
-
I tend to agree with that... but i think it's naive and incorrect to just put it all on "evil" America... didnt your liberal PM just support the strikes? but that's not what I've been debating... you also haven't heard me support any missile strikes, American action, or American intervention at all... thats a much broader conversation that i'm not typing and reading on my Phone lol... but my instinct would almost always be NO to all of the aboveMeltdown99 said:All the US has done in that region is destabilize it...0 -
-
so ... literally a person from the state department who's mandate is to determine foreign policy taking a job at Amnesty doesn't phase you one bit!??? ... I guess Scott Pruitt taking over the EPA is also good in your eyes? ... the head of a drug company working for the FDA? ... all legit things?my2hands said:
Oh. My. God.polaris_x said:
A woman with an interest, a degree, and career in political science and geopolitics took a job at Amnesty International. Holy shit, this is the smoking gun!
Taking a better job in the field you are interested in and work in does not make you evil or some global conspirator. That's called having a career.
And she was only there for a year? LOL
0 -
exactly ... you clearly don't appear to be taking any sides here which is good ...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.
every time i ask people who are against assad here a rational question - no one wants to answer:
why launch a chemical attack just before winning a war?
why not wait one more day for the OPCW?
no one has any rational explanations here and have avoided the question since page 1
0 -
-
I have no use for Trudeau...of course he backing the us ... doesn’t mean I do.my2hands said:
I tend to agree with that... but i think it's naive and incorrect to just put it all on "evil" America... didnt your liberal PM just support the strikes? but that's not what I've been debating... you also haven't heard me support any missile strikes, American action, or American intervention at all... thats a much broader conversation that i'm not typing and reading on my Phone lol... but my instinct would almost always be NO to all of the aboveMeltdown99 said:All the US has done in that region is destabilize it...Give Peas A Chance…0 -
If it comforts you I’ll also put the UK in the mix with America. I have no use for the UK either.Give Peas A Chance…0
-
ya ... not 100% certain but pretty sure I said fuck trudeau somewhere on this forum ... probably in the canadian politics thread ...Meltdown99 said:
I have no use for Trudeau...of course he backing the us ... doesn’t mean I do.my2hands said:
I tend to agree with that... but i think it's naive and incorrect to just put it all on "evil" America... didnt your liberal PM just support the strikes? but that's not what I've been debating... you also haven't heard me support any missile strikes, American action, or American intervention at all... thats a much broader conversation that i'm not typing and reading on my Phone lol... but my instinct would almost always be NO to all of the aboveMeltdown99 said:All the US has done in that region is destabilize it...
we are complicit as is the CBC and all mainstream media outlets in Canada
0 -
Meltdown99 said:All the US has done in that region is destabilize it...the us is not a beacon for good in this world
Correct.
And regarding the Trudeau comments... he's developing as a weakling. As much hope as I had for him... I'm losing faith in him. The campaign slogan against him was 'he's just not ready'. The slogan might have been true."My brain's a good brain!"0 -
I think this tweet sums up much about the situation:
"My brain's a good brain!"0 -
It's spot on. Trump's strategy is basically blow some shit up to look tough while wagging the dog, do nothing to actually improve the situation, and then prevent as many refugees as possible from entering the United States.Thirty Bills Unpaid said:I think this tweet sums up much about the situation:
___________________________________________
"...I changed by not changing at all..."0 -
Strawman. Nobody is arguing that.Meltdown99 said:All the US has done in that region is destabilize it...the us is not a beacon for good in this world0 -
I answered your first question.polaris_x said:
exactly ... you clearly don't appear to be taking any sides here which is good ...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.
every time i ask people who are against assad here a rational question - no one wants to answer:
why launch a chemical attack just before winning a war?
why not wait one more day for the OPCW?
no one has any rational explanations here and have avoided the question since page 10 -
Occam's Razor most definitely applies. We can still logically look to see who stands to gain from what action.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.
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.0 -
These past few days have been filled with accusations against Bashar Al-Assad´s government that blame it for the chemical attack that took place in Douma, near Damascus, the Syrian capital.
There are a large number of articles and pieces representing different views about the incident and the parties that are to blame, which is why I will, in this short article, focus on the benefits and disadvantages of carrying out such an attack for Al-Assad and his allies.
First, we need to have an understanding of the place where the chemical attack took place (there are many who argue whether or not it really happened but I will not dedicate time to that discussion) and its situation.
Douma was until just days ago the last bastion of the rebels and it was under the control of a combination of FSA and jihadi-related groups like Jaysh al-Islam. At the time of the attack —7th April— the Syrian Army and allies had fully surrounded Douma and were already beginning to storm the city.
The Syrian forces had the clear advantage and it was just a matter of time that this rebel bastion would also fall under the government´s forces control. Also the militants in Douma were cut off from the outside world and posed no immediate threat to the Syrian forces.
All of this brings us to the question that why would Al-Assad want to gas his own people knowing the severe repercussions that it would have for him? Does it actually make any sense for the Syrian “regime” to carry out a highly controversial (and indiscriminate) attack against the very same people he is achieving military victory against?
One could argue that the Syrian government wanted to make an example of the rebels left in Douma in order to scare their comrades in Idlib and Daraa into submission. This argument makes little sense since there are many, many more ways to intimidate the enemy than launching a chemical attack that would turn the whole world against you while you are on the verge of victory.
So would there be any benefit for Al-Assad in launching a chemical attack on Douma in these circumstances? No. But then it begs the questions that, if the attack really did take place, then, who did it and what parties are to benefit the most from it?
Sadly, these are questions that, at the very least, we haven´t seen a lot in the media and, even worse, among the many people that are commenting on the issue on the different social media networks.
0 -
The only logical answer is: Assad has a perverted fetish for it. Other than that there is no rational answer.polaris_x said:
exactly ... you clearly don't appear to be taking any sides here which is good ...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.
every time i ask people who are against assad here a rational question - no one wants to answer:
why launch a chemical attack just before winning a war?
why not wait one more day for the OPCW?
no one has any rational explanations here and have avoided the question since page 1
https://www.alternet.org/world/inside-shadowy-pr-firm-thats-driving-western-opinion-towards-regime-change-syriaInside the Shadowy PR Firm That’s Lobbying for Regime Change in Syria
Posing as a non-political solidarity organization, the Syria Campaign leverages local partners and media contacts to push the U.S. into toppling another Middle Eastern government.
Post edited by JC29856 on0 -
^^^^And now for Russia's unfiltered opinion......0
-
I say pull all American troops from Syria and let them deal with the situation let the good guy Assad bring peace to his own country let’s see how that goes ...jesus greets me looks just like me ....0
-
exactly ... it's why Peter Ford is more and more irritable in interviews ... people aren't thinking critically about this ...JC29856 said:These past few days have been filled with accusations against Bashar Al-Assad´s government that blame it for the chemical attack that took place in Douma, near Damascus, the Syrian capital.
There are a large number of articles and pieces representing different views about the incident and the parties that are to blame, which is why I will, in this short article, focus on the benefits and disadvantages of carrying out such an attack for Al-Assad and his allies.
First, we need to have an understanding of the place where the chemical attack took place (there are many who argue whether or not it really happened but I will not dedicate time to that discussion) and its situation.
Douma was until just days ago the last bastion of the rebels and it was under the control of a combination of FSA and jihadi-related groups like Jaysh al-Islam. At the time of the attack —7th April— the Syrian Army and allies had fully surrounded Douma and were already beginning to storm the city.
The Syrian forces had the clear advantage and it was just a matter of time that this rebel bastion would also fall under the government´s forces control. Also the militants in Douma were cut off from the outside world and posed no immediate threat to the Syrian forces.
All of this brings us to the question that why would Al-Assad want to gas his own people knowing the severe repercussions that it would have for him? Does it actually make any sense for the Syrian “regime” to carry out a highly controversial (and indiscriminate) attack against the very same people he is achieving military victory against?
One could argue that the Syrian government wanted to make an example of the rebels left in Douma in order to scare their comrades in Idlib and Daraa into submission. This argument makes little sense since there are many, many more ways to intimidate the enemy than launching a chemical attack that would turn the whole world against you while you are on the verge of victory.
So would there be any benefit for Al-Assad in launching a chemical attack on Douma in these circumstances? No. But then it begs the questions that, if the attack really did take place, then, who did it and what parties are to benefit the most from it?
Sadly, these are questions that, at the very least, we haven´t seen a lot in the media and, even worse, among the many people that are commenting on the issue on the different social media networks.
but ultimately what is most troubling to me is that people don't care enough to at least consider the possibility that the rhetoric is false ... i've posted numerous links and articles and no one is really countering any of this ... hopefully, as with Iraq - the truth will eventually come out and people will be more critical of the information they get and not just assume it's true because it's what they want to believe ...
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.8K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110K The Porch
- 274 Vitalogy
- 35K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.1K Flea Market
- 39.1K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.7K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help