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

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 

polaris_x said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

polaris_x said:

Halifax2TheMax 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 ... 

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 ...

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.

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.

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. 

my2hands said:

And from what I can see she also spreads horeshit pro North Korea propaganda (shocked!) 

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 ..