|
Please guys, stay on topic.
This thread is about the situation in Iraq and Syria. |
On April 19 2018 06:06 Broetchenholer wrote:
Sure, but the BBC actually has reporters in it that, if they find a story unbelievable, can follow that and find out it's bullshit. Most western media simply goes after AP or reuters or whatever, but some create their own stories and if they get it wrong, they get called out for it.
The majority do, but you can find good reporting even in the nightmare land that is the US. NPR does a really go job reporting on Syria, while reminding people that it is a war zone and information is very hard to come by. They normally report on the latest US intelligence finding by calling an AP reporter in Syria to talk about the finding and its accuracy.
|
On April 18 2018 14:24 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2018 13:47 xDaunt wrote:On April 18 2018 12:58 Sermokala wrote:On April 18 2018 12:33 LegalLord wrote:
Probably easier to just stick it to Israel via Hezbollah really. Give them better rockets or something. The direct approach is too troublesome. How much of Hezbollah is left though? I remember reading some stories about how awfully they were suffering during the dark days of the regime. I can't imagine that they want to invite retaliation on what they have left. Actually, Hezbollah is probably at the apex of its power right now. They've been armed to the teeth by Iran, are battle-hardened, and have more support in Lebanon than they've ever had thanks to ISIS polarizing the region. Israel will still run them over (and the rest of Syria and Lebanon) if there's a war, but it will be very costly. I don't agree. They may have the arms and experience but it has had to come at the cost of a lot of manpower. A lot of that experience is against an army that wasn't in the same century of warfare that Isreal is at. ISIS didn't have active anti tank missile defenses and a legitimate airforce.
a legitimate air force is less than a century old though
|
On April 19 2018 07:38 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2018 14:24 Sermokala wrote:On April 18 2018 13:47 xDaunt wrote:On April 18 2018 12:58 Sermokala wrote:On April 18 2018 12:33 LegalLord wrote:
Probably easier to just stick it to Israel via Hezbollah really. Give them better rockets or something. The direct approach is too troublesome. How much of Hezbollah is left though? I remember reading some stories about how awfully they were suffering during the dark days of the regime. I can't imagine that they want to invite retaliation on what they have left. Actually, Hezbollah is probably at the apex of its power right now. They've been armed to the teeth by Iran, are battle-hardened, and have more support in Lebanon than they've ever had thanks to ISIS polarizing the region. Israel will still run them over (and the rest of Syria and Lebanon) if there's a war, but it will be very costly. I don't agree. They may have the arms and experience but it has had to come at the cost of a lot of manpower. A lot of that experience is against an army that wasn't in the same century of warfare that Isreal is at. ISIS didn't have active anti tank missile defenses and a legitimate airforce. a legitimate air force is less than a century old though
But the 21st century is a different century than the 20th.
|
so youd say in 2001 about an army outfitted in gear made in 1999 that its not even in the same century as this other army with brand new kicks?
|
I would. I'd at least know for sure that my 2001 army wasn't susceptible to Y2K.
|
might as well say they arent even in the same millennium then
|
If Israel and Hezbollah got into a war, Israel would have to invade Lebanon. While I have no doubt that Israel would easily destroy most of Hezbollah's infrastructure and key weapons in relatively short order, they'd still get badly bogged down in urban-guerrilla warfare. Furthermore, the Lebanese national army and the Lebanese population as a whole would very likely support Hezbollah as well given the new political ties that Hezbollah has developed (this is the big difference between now and 2006). It'd be a bloody mess.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
This is really more about minor scuffles to express disapproval than about seeking to start a larger war. The bombings that Israel may have done on the Iranian militias won't be enough to change the course of things in Syria, and both sides know that. But each can do enough to the other to be a pain in the ass, but either one would be horribly defeated if they started a larger conflict over it. I expect mere tit-for-tat token measures because anything more would be catastrophic for everyone involved.
|
if you say RT, Fox, Al Jazeera, all the Arabic, Iranian and Turkish media are state propaganda tools, what's left for true reporting? NYT? Or some freelancer twitter journalists in the region that has unknown funding sources?
we should stop calling everything propaganda and investigate the recordings, photos, videos and documents related to the incident they're reporting.
|
On April 19 2018 08:52 lastpuritan wrote:
if you say RT, Fox, Al Jazeera, all the Arabic, Iranian and Turkish media are state propaganda tools, what's left for true reporting? NYT? Or some freelancer twitter journalists in the region that has unknown funding sources?
we should stop calling everything propaganda and investigate the recordings, photos, videos and documents related to the incident they're reporting.
Who are you talking to?
|
Was not directly asking to a single user but Jockmcplop's post mainly.
|
It's interesting to see that you get warnings on this site simply for posting videos that goes against western mainstream media narrative.
And this is a video that shows what a bunch of syrians think, in the specific city that all of this was about. Is this not relevant? There are btw lots of videos out there from other sources, western, american, all of them independent media sources who tell the same story. They all claim that nothing happened. That video at the hospital emerged out of confusion after someone shouted "chemical attack". And the ppl are happy that Assad's army took over the city.
The mainstream media isn't even there. The only established media on site is russian media. The mainstream media of the rest of the world don't care about the truth.
Direct quote from the private message I got:
Please be careful when posting sources. A controversial link to a YT video does not equal a credible source.
Thanks in advance for your cooperation,
Seeker
|
On April 19 2018 14:58 L1ghtning wrote:It's interesting to see that you get warnings on this site simply for posting videos that goes against western mainstream media narrative. And this is a video that shows what a bunch of syrians think, in the specific city that all of this was about. Is this not relevant? There are btw lots of videos out there from other sources, western, american, all of them independent media sources who tell the same story. They all claim that nothing happened. That video at the hospital emerged out of confusion after someone shouted "chemical attack". And the ppl are happy that Assad's army took over the city. The mainstream media isn't even there. The only established media on site is russian media. The mainstream media of the rest of the world don't care about the truth. Direct quote from the private message I got: Show nested quote +Please be careful when posting sources. A controversial link to a YT video does not equal a credible source.
Thanks in advance for your cooperation,
Seeker
That's the wester world.
User was warned for this post
|
On April 19 2018 14:58 L1ghtning wrote:It's interesting to see that you get warnings on this site simply for posting videos that goes against western mainstream media narrative. And this is a video that shows what a bunch of syrians think, in the specific city that all of this was about. Is this not relevant? There are btw lots of videos out there from other sources, western, american, all of them independent media sources who tell the same story. They all claim that nothing happened. That video at the hospital emerged out of confusion after someone shouted "chemical attack". And the ppl are happy that Assad's army took over the city. The mainstream media isn't even there. The only established media on site is russian media. The mainstream media of the rest of the world don't care about the truth. Direct quote from the private message I got: Show nested quote +Please be careful when posting sources. A controversial link to a YT video does not equal a credible source.
Thanks in advance for your cooperation,
Seeker
Moderation issues aside (take it to website feedback), I just want to set the record straight on openly available evidence that there was a chemical attack. It's not one random video of people yelling "chemical attack". Someone already posted bellingcat's compilation, but clearly you didn't look at it, so here goes again:
https://www.bellingcat.com/news/mena/2018/04/11/open-source-survey-alleged-chemical-attacks-douma-7th-april-2018/
Summarizing:
- 6 separate videos of victims of an attack and its location
- Yellow cannisters similar to ones the opcw linked to previous chemical attacks
- Evidence of helicopters en route between a Syrian airbase and the location of the videos of the attack.
And he's not "Western media"...
|
On April 19 2018 16:09 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2018 14:58 L1ghtning wrote:It's interesting to see that you get warnings on this site simply for posting videos that goes against western mainstream media narrative. And this is a video that shows what a bunch of syrians think, in the specific city that all of this was about. Is this not relevant? There are btw lots of videos out there from other sources, western, american, all of them independent media sources who tell the same story. They all claim that nothing happened. That video at the hospital emerged out of confusion after someone shouted "chemical attack". And the ppl are happy that Assad's army took over the city. The mainstream media isn't even there. The only established media on site is russian media. The mainstream media of the rest of the world don't care about the truth. Direct quote from the private message I got: Please be careful when posting sources. A controversial link to a YT video does not equal a credible source.
Thanks in advance for your cooperation,
Seeker Moderation issues aside (take it to website feedback), I just want to set the record straight on openly available evidence that there was a chemical attack. It's not one random video of people yelling "chemical attack". Someone already posted bellingcat's compilation, but clearly you didn't look at it, so here goes again: https://www.bellingcat.com/news/mena/2018/04/11/open-source-survey-alleged-chemical-attacks-douma-7th-april-2018/Summarizing: - 6 separate videos of victims of an attack and its location - Yellow cannisters similar to ones the opcw linked to previous chemical attacks - Evidence of helicopters en route between a Syrian airbase and the location of the videos of the attack. And he's not "Western media"...
You don't think I've read that already?
I'm not trying to get the warning reversed. I don't care. I'm pointing out the mod stuff, because I want to be transparent about what went on here in terms of reporting and modding. Let's leave it at that, and let the readers make up their own minds about it.
|
On April 19 2018 17:09 L1ghtning wrote:You don't think I've read that already?
Do you intend to contest anything which is said there?
|
there are gaping holes in that story and i'm fairly sure that arguing on it, would get one banned eventually.
on the other side, the people in that russian video looked genuinely happy/relieved.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On April 19 2018 19:14 xM(Z wrote:
there are gaping holes in that story and i'm fairly sure that arguing on it, would get one banned eventually.
Do you intend to contest anything in particular? I'm fairly confident that anybody confining themselves to reasonable arguments won't be modactioned, whether they oppose the "mainstream media" view or not.
|
On April 19 2018 08:52 lastpuritan wrote:
if you say RT, Fox, Al Jazeera, all the Arabic, Iranian and Turkish media are state propaganda tools, what's left for true reporting? NYT? Or some freelancer twitter journalists in the region that has unknown funding sources?
we should stop calling everything propaganda and investigate the recordings, photos, videos and documents related to the incident they're reporting.
I wasn't calling them all state propaganda tools. My language was careful.
I would say tthat RT is mostly a state propaganda tool. It has some independence but very little.
Western news outlets are able to say what they want, but rely on governments to be their main source of information, and tend to report what they are told to report. This doesn't mean that they are state propaganda tools, it means that they are reliant on the goodwill of their governments to keep giving them information, so they have to be very careful how they approach reporting from government sources.
With most stories this is fine, but there are some areas of reporting where we are relying on government sources without being able to get other reliable sources. In these cases, such as the Syria situation, I personally wouldn't trust what the media is reporting, because you are trusting the source implicitly, which happens to be the PR department of a government which is trying to get something done.
Would you trust facebook as a source on the facebook data leaks if it was the only source the media was using?
|
On April 19 2018 20:58 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2018 19:14 xM(Z wrote:
there are gaping holes in that story and i'm fairly sure that arguing on it, would get one banned eventually. Do you intend to contest anything in particular? I'm fairly confident that anybody confining themselves to reasonable arguments won't be modactioned, whether they oppose the "mainstream media" view or not.
The term “main stream media” is so intentionally broad and vague, but somehow doesn’t include RT.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
