On October 06 2011 22:30 HellRoxYa wrote: Yeah man, Syrian national news is way more trustworthy. I'm sure they're fair and balanced. Are you going to poop all over this thread too?
Why I am not surprised that you come and try to protect the lie?
Yes, Ministries of Foreign Affairs of Syria and Russia is way more trustworthy than combo of Israeli Haaretrz + Irani Fars (lie of any of these source results a lie)
HellRoxYam, you are bad at doing your job . Team up with zalz and come back with some facts and logic. For example, please come with the official Turkish position on the claims.
And your assaults on my personality are not effective and they just show your low level.
There were no attacks on you. Are you completely delusional?
Look, official Syrian sources are, for quite obvious reasons, filled with propaganda. Just like I stated in the Libya thread, just because an article may have a grain of truth in it, or have facts contained therein, does not mean the entire article is accurate.
It's also quite fucking hilairous how you call it the lie. What lie? For the record I'm not protecting anything, and I'm not saying Isreali sources are reliable. What I am saying is that official Syrian sourcesare not reliable.
On October 06 2011 22:30 HellRoxYa wrote: Yeah man, Syrian national news is way more trustworthy. I'm sure they're fair and balanced. Are you going to poop all over this thread too?
Two weeks ago, once respected charity Amnesty International, claimed that it had “uncovered evidence” of an 18-year-old girl in Syria named Zainab al-Hosni, whose mutilated body was body had been decapitated and the arms and skin removed. Before long this story spread like wild fire, circulating throughout the multi billion dollar global mainstream media empire.
Yesterday, the real bombshell dropped. It’s official: Zainab al-Hosni was back from the dead, and being interviewed on Syrian TV, stating, “I came to the police station to tell the truth. That’s what I say to those lying channels – I’m now still alive, not dead”.
Edit: This is why I compare stories from various outlets. I edited this post simply because the source was infowars. The same story is also up on several major-media outlets as well.
Apart from the obvious slant of "news" which come out of Info Wars you are indeed correct about this. I did a quick search for more reliable sources instead. This Huffington Post article contains a very interesting quote:
The statement went on to say: "If the body was not that of Zainab al-Hosni, then clearly the Syrian authorities need to disclose whose it was, the cause and circumstances of the death, and why Zainab al-Hosni's family were informed that she was the victim."
They just have a dead body to explain. Mistaken identities happen (her family thought she was dead, as was repeated by her on her "I'm alive" video on Syrian state TV, and her being mistaken for another victim then makes a lot of sense).
And let's remember that whoever appeared on TV might still be someone else. Independant verification is almost impossible in Syria right now as no foreign journalists are allowed. (Gee, what might they be hiding?)
Two weeks ago, once respected charity Amnesty International, claimed that it had “uncovered evidence” of an 18-year-old girl in Syria named Zainab al-Hosni, whose mutilated body was body had been decapitated and the arms and skin removed.
I laughed at the bolded part by the way. They're still highly respected. InfoWars gonna disinfowar.
Your more reliable source is the HuffPo?. Don't freak out! I have about 10 news sites I hit everyday. Looking thru my favorites are all the major bias networks, and all the minor biased alternative sources. For Example CNN, BBC, Fox, MSNBC, Al-Jazeerah, Globe(canada) and ect. (Major Network, biased)
Infowars.com, Salon, Reason, LewRockwell, The Nation. National Review, Raw Story (Slanted views, but nonetheless inportant for comparisons sake.)
Even some prominent bloggers can be worthwhile. Marcy Wheeler for example has made a name for herself.
EDIT: Shame on me, I forgot AntiWar.com and Scott Horton.
On October 08 2011 00:08 BioNova wrote: Your more reliable source is the HuffPo?. Don't freak out! I have a about 10 news sites i hit everyday. Looking thru my favorites are all the major bias networks, and all the minor biased alternative sources. For Example CNN, BBC, Fox, MSNBC, Al-Jazeerah, Globe(canada) and ect. (Major Network, biased)
Infowars.com, Salon, Reason, LewRockwell, The Nation. National Review, Raw Story (Slanted views, but nonetheless inportant for comparisons sake.)
Even some prominent bloggers can be worthwhile. Marcy Wheeler for example has made a name for herself.
EDIT: Shame on me, I forgot AntiWar.com and Scott Horton.
That's the source I cared to quote, hardly the only source. That said, what's up with disregarding the actual content of my post? Are you trying to look cool by stating what sites you visit or have favourited?
On October 08 2011 00:08 BioNova wrote: Your more reliable source is the HuffPo?. Don't freak out! I have a about 10 news sites i hit everyday. Looking thru my favorites are all the major bias networks, and all the minor biased alternative sources. For Example CNN, BBC, Fox, MSNBC, Al-Jazeerah, Globe(canada) and ect. (Major Network, biased)
Infowars.com, Salon, Reason, LewRockwell, The Nation. National Review, Raw Story (Slanted views, but nonetheless inportant for comparisons sake.)
Even some prominent bloggers can be worthwhile. Marcy Wheeler for example has made a name for herself.
EDIT: Shame on me, I forgot AntiWar.com and Scott Horton.
That's the source I cared to quote, hardly the only source. That said, what's up with disregarding the actual content of my post? Are you trying to look cool by stating what sites you visit or have favourited?
Sorry for the stupid edit. Point is, no matter where the story comes from, it rarely is sans 'slant'
Even if it's just the reporter harping a talking point offhand after the story. I picked Infowars intentionally for this reason. Alex jones doesn't own me. Neither does CNN. I want info to decide.
On October 07 2011 23:38 HellRoxYa wrote: It's also quite fucking hilairous how you call it the lie. What lie? For the record I'm not protecting anything, and I'm not saying Isreali sources are reliable. What I am saying is that official Syrian sourcesare not reliable.
Syrian propaganda is nothing compared to the western propaganda. And this a good example of demonizing Syrian government. You actually said that Israeli newspaper is more reliable then official statement of Syria and Russia. Then, where is the logic to take the words back once said? Such strong words do not come at random. And it was stupid to say them, it was exactly what USA wants, to have ground for invasion. I read an article in antiwar site(e.g. anti US), stating that Assad made a big mistake with such claim. Good thing it turned to be a lie.
It became obvious right after official statement that the words are lie, yet you had to come and try to doubt it.
On October 07 2011 23:38 HellRoxYa wrote: It's also quite fucking hilairous how you call it the lie. What lie? For the record I'm not protecting anything, and I'm not saying Isreali sources are reliable. What I am saying is that official Syrian sourcesare not reliable.
Syrian propaganda is nothing compared to the western propaganda. And this a good example of demonizing Syrian government. You actually said that Israeli newspaper is more reliable then official statement of Syria and Russia. Then, where is the logic to take the words back once said? Such strong words do not come at random. And it was stupid to say them, it was exactly what USA wants, to have ground for invasion. I read an article in antiwar site(e.g. anti US), stating that Assad made a big mistake with such claim. Good thing it turned to be a lie.
It became obvious right after official statement that the words are lie, yet you had to come and try to doubt it.
I am actually quite surprised that the United States has not invaded Syria (or Venezuela) already. The American Empire, Israel, and AIPAC wouldn't have it any other way.
Quite an interesting development in Syria. Syria has become the scapegoat (because of its enmity towards Israel) for Israel's brutal and murderous foreign policies. Syria, however, was the last remaining supporter of the Palestinians. The Muslim world has turned their back on Palestine to gain, rather, peace and trade agreements with the United States and Israel. Yes, Syria suffers under a harsh totalitarian regime, but the timing of the protests are peculiar. Who will gain the most from this development? Simply, like always, the United States and Israel will. I foresee another "holy war," led by the United States under the facade of protecting Israel and the Syrian people, in order to obtain natural resources. Venezuela better be wary as well. U.S. military bases in Colombia suggests that the United States will be on the hunt shortly.
sry Geyzer but you sound like some Propaganda official.
Fact is that Assad and even his Dad are and were brutal Dictators who killed hundres of people in the past and in this revolt. The Syrian national news agencies are not trustworthy when it comes to reporting about the situation in the country. Everything we get here is biased news which dont have to reflect the reality 100% but there is no denying that Assad is killing his own people.
On October 07 2011 23:38 HellRoxYa wrote: It's also quite fucking hilairous how you call it the lie. What lie? For the record I'm not protecting anything, and I'm not saying Isreali sources are reliable. What I am saying is that official Syrian sourcesare not reliable.
Syrian propaganda is nothing compared to the western propaganda. And this a good example of demonizing Syrian government. You actually said that Israeli newspaper is more reliable then official statement of Syria and Russia. Then, where is the logic to take the words back once said? Such strong words do not come at random. And it was stupid to say them, it was exactly what USA wants, to have ground for invasion. I read an article in antiwar site(e.g. anti US), stating that Assad made a big mistake with such claim. Good thing it turned to be a lie.
It became obvious right after official statement that the words are lie, yet you had to come and try to doubt it.
I never discussed Israeli sources. I denounced Syrian state news. Whether or not Israeli news is more reliable or not I cannot say because I don't consume it so I have nothing to base my opinion on. It's also quite irrelevant.
I'm still not sure what "the lie" is, by the way. Also not exactly on the clear about what I'm doubting, unless of course you mean Syrian state news.
Is this thread seriously going to go to shit like the Libya thread for the exact same reason (and person)?
Who will gain the most from this development? Simply, like always, the United States and Israel will. I foresee another "holy war," led by the United States under the facade of protecting Israel and the Syrian people, in order to obtain natural resources. Venezuela better be wary as well. U.S. military bases in Colombia suggests that the United States will be on the hunt shortly.
Right, because Syria is so well known for its wealth of natural resources.
Who will gain the most from this development? Simply, like always, the United States and Israel will. I foresee another "holy war," led by the United States under the facade of protecting Israel and the Syrian people, in order to obtain natural resources. Venezuela better be wary as well. U.S. military bases in Colombia suggests that the United States will be on the hunt shortly.
Right, because Syria is so well known for its wealth of natural resources.
You'd be a shitty prophet.
In 2010 Syria produced 401,000 bbl/day and exported about 263,000 bbl/day.
Syria also has other natural resources, but (and I am not surprised) you are missing the major point of contention from my post. The United States has continuously supported Israel (its what 53rd or 54th state?) and all of its belligerent foreign policy. Then again, I wouldn't be surprised if you blindly supported Israeli terror in the name of patriotism. A clear pattern has been set by the United States in terms of its foreign policy. As a historian, this pattern is very easy to see. Any possible oil exploitation (even if a dwindling supply) would be welcomed. This often occurs when economic hit-men fail to infiltrate a certain country. Even if there was absolutely zero oil reserves an invasion would still be likely. Especially when you investigate Israeli-Syrian relations and U.S.-Israeli relations over the past 20 years. America will either provide more money to Israel or invade with a humanitarian disguise, but news flash, American exceptionalism does not exist.
dude get real.. the oil argument is getting old so fast, and Syria doesnt even produce that MUCH oil. libya was producing 1m a day, and that was 2%! of the world output. Syria is producing a FIFTH of that.
Run that through your head, and see if the oil argument makes sense.
Ok, ANSWER this: Why doesnt the Syrian government allow foreign press or foreign independent body to come in? Because they are the "rats" and "servants" of the foreign governments?
It is unbelievable how people continue to turn a blind eye to Israeli terror and murder towards the Palestinians. Syria is the last remaining "ally" of Palestine. America will do anything to support its 53rd state. That includes bullying, which has been prevalent in the past. And, yet again, Syria has more to offer in terms of natural resources then oil...
Libya and Syria has one thing in common - external powers want to gain control over the country. Why? The discussion is open. It may be a step to attacking the bigger enemy, Iran.
and present it as it was filmed in Libya. The next step - they could make these video directly in Hollywood. The funny thing is that many of you are still going to believe it.
We have one lie after another from the "western" (I count Israel as a part of western forces) part, after Libyan, were Gaddafi fled many times, his sons were killed and captured many times, civil war was presented as a popular uprising etc. still somebody like HellRoxYa comes and say that Syrian and Russian information is less reliable then western.
It is a pity that they closed Libyan thread, I have very interesting information from Russian military, who helped Gaddafi forces to fight NATO. It explains many things.
Technically, as nation bashing is refrained. It's a hard topic to disscuss uprisings. Syria, Russia, Isreal, U.S. all taking a few rib shots in this thread. Policy and propaganda are the core of this story. I've made the rounds this morning and the most interesting thing i read was a opinion by Ray McGovern on his belief Isreal will attack Syria before the next American Election. It's just his opinion, but I found it interesting.
On October 08 2011 17:50 GeyzeR wrote: Libya and Syria has one thing in common - external powers want to gain control over the country. Why? The discussion is open. It may be a step to attacking the bigger enemy, Iran.
We have one lie after another from the "western" (I count Israel as a part of western forces) part, after Libyan, were Gaddafi fled many times, his sons were killed and captured many times, civil war was presented as a popular uprising etc. still somebody like HellRoxYa comes and say that Syrian and Russian information is less reliable then western.
It is a pity that they closed Libyan thread, I have very interesting information from Russian military, who helped Gaddafi forces to fight NATO. It explains many things.
That's because they are less reliable. Contrary to what you seem to believe, "western" media doesn't make shit up. That video from the telegraph, for example, is an obvious mistake. How do I know? It has tacked on footage from Libyan rebels afterwards which would give credit to it being the same tape (ie. from Libya), which would make it appear legitimate to the telegraph. How do I know no.2? There's no reason to fake footage like that. We already know NATO has active operations in Libya, unless you're claiming that's a lie aswell and that this footage is faked so that the lie comes alive? I mean you've been making similar claims the whole time.
While I'm responding to this thread, I really enjoyed your posts ~Lowkey~. Important conciderations and there's no doubt America has an agenda here, but they've always had one.
Oh and GeyzeR, I'm still wondering what the lie is.
As I am reading this, I am noticing that this is increasingly descending into a "US and Israel vs the World" sort. This may certainly be about US foreign policy, but it's also about Syria.
Assad wasn't really a fierce enemy of Israel. He wasn't pro Israel either. If anything Israel should be concerned over Turkey. That said, the West certainly has something in mind with the ''help'' they are trying to provide to Syrian people, however there is no denying that people wanted more freedom and what they got is mass civilian killing. Assad's father killed 20,000 civilians in Hama in 1982. The junior one is capable of doing the exact same thing, with Russia and China on his side.
And don't derail this thread with false information just like the Libyan one was.
On October 08 2011 22:10 HellRoxYa wrote: Contrary to what you seem to believe, "western" media doesn't make shit up.
What?? Here you have another forged "Fox news", just for example.
While this example contains many of obvious blunders, the contemporary videos may be perfect and not possible to identify the hoax.
On October 08 2011 22:10 HellRoxYa wrote: That video from the telegraph, for example, is an obvious mistake.
I do not see the reason why they did it either. But this one is made the news "Nato helicopters engaged in attack on Sirte", not like it was with indians on the Green Square, when it was just an illustration. There are several levels the news passes before it makes to the reader. You need several people that did the mistake. The news is removed from Telegraph.
Oh and GeyzeR, I'm still wondering what the lie is.
This is the lie: "Assad: Syria will shower Tel Aviv with rockets if attacked by foreign powers Iranian news agency quotes remarks made by Syrian president during August meeting with Turkish FM; Assad: It will take Damascus 6 hours to mobilize against Israel."
Do you understand what is gong to happen if NATO start its operation on Syria? Syria is much stronger then Libya, and it had enough time to prepare for the war. Tens, if not hundreds thousands will die. Including NATO soldiers this time. Just another country will be destroyed. You are all crazy who think that it is for Syrians own good. Russia, China, AU, Gaddafi suggested to find a peaceful solution in Libya, but NATO went to the end till the country become destroyed. China and Russia are seeking to avoid the war. Why USA and EU do not cooperate? I do not understand why is a war in Syria is necessary, please somebody explain.
There is no reason to use snipers against protesters. The protesters must see the treat and the direction where to go. The only result of the snipers work: dead body afterwards to accuse "bloody regime". What do you do with protesters as a dictator? There are several options, used also in the civilized countries. Then your agents find the most active protesters in the crowd and do a visit to them later. Snipers serve for nothing. Syrian forces already know about the problem and they started to check the roofs during protests.
If you read that snipers shoot protesters - that means that somebody wants the regime to be "bloody". What if nobody is killed, how do they apply sanctions, start intervention?
On October 08 2011 22:10 HellRoxYa wrote: That video from the telegraph, for example, is an obvious mistake.
I do not see the reason why they did it either. But this one is made the news "Nato helicopters engaged in attack on Sirte", not like it was with indians on the Green Square, when it was just an illustration. There are several levels the news passes before it makes to the reader. You need several people that did the mistake. The news is removed from Telegraph.
Oh shit they removed it? Really now? Might it be because they realized they made a mistake? Look, as per Occam's Razor, my go-to tool, the telegraph recieved a tape from a Libyan source. The tape came with a letter or recorded message which described what was seen, and from where. The footage looked genuine and independant verification was deemed either unecessary or more likely not possible. So they ran with what they believed was satisfactory confirmation of the tape being legitimate, even though it turned out not to be. It is good that someone recognized that this was stock footage and made the telegraph realize their mistake, and it's unfortunate that it happens. But Libya is a warzone (and Syria doesn't allow any journalists what so ever) which at times makes things difficult. It's all rather obvious, isn't it?
If they were to fake some footage they'd at least choose something of worth, wouldn't they? Or are you claiming that whoever runs this massive conspiracy news campaign of yours is a massive idiot? They can engineer the biggest conspiracy the world has ever seen yet still make the simplest, most retarded mistakes? Why would they even use public US military footage rather than buy/obtain underground/unreleased footage? None of this makes any sense to anyone who is used to critical thinking. That's really my major issue with you. It's not that you're trying to fight the good fight in your eyes, it's that you very rarely make logical assumptions, arguments or present logical evidence of anything you claim.
Oh and GeyzeR, I'm still wondering what the lie is.
This is the lie: "Assad: Syria will shower Tel Aviv with rockets if attacked by foreign powers Iranian news agency quotes remarks made by Syrian president during August meeting with Turkish FM; Assad: It will take Damascus 6 hours to mobilize against Israel."
I see, thank you for clearing that up. So Assad never said this?
On October 09 2011 03:42 GeyzeR wrote:Do you understand what is gong to happen if NATO start its operation on Syria? Syria is much stronger then Libya, and it had enough time to prepare for the war. Tens, if not hundreds thousands will die. Including NATO soldiers this time. Just another country will be destroyed. You are all crazy who think that it is for Syrians own good. Russia, China, AU, Gaddafi suggested to find a peaceful solution in Libya, but NATO went to the end till the country become destroyed. China and Russia are seeking to avoid the war. Why USA and EU do not cooperate? I do not understand why is a war in Syria is necessary, please somebody explain.
Has anyone been arguing for an invasion in this thread? And I'm sorry but as far as I'm aware NATO has done nothing concerning Syria.
Edit: I'll leave your second post/two videos for someone else.
EPT
