|
Please guys, stay on topic.
This thread is about the situation in Iraq and Syria. |
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
You said it yourself, the only media there is russian state media. Together with russian state officials,like, the military. And surprisingly, the story you hear about the incident, now that russia is there, is that russia (and Assad) did nothing wrong and in fact, everyone is really happy they are there now. So, basically, there was no chemical attack, and there was no fighting in the city that killed anyone, the city was just freed from terrible terrorist and nobody died, cause everyone is happy  If they had anybody in that newsfeed that was the slightest bit critical towards the people that sieged them for months and then begrudgingly said, that he had not experienced any chemical attack, that would be a well crafted lie. But no, EVERYTHING IS AWESOME! Russia rules!
|
In 2016, I was treated in a psychiatric unit for PTSD after a career spent covering conflict and tragedy. Last July, I was back in Ward 17. It was time to face up to my moral injury and the event that drove me into mental hell.
MELBOURNE, Australia – As the start of the memorial service neared, I hurriedly texted an Indonesian friend. “Is it OK for me to stand on a Muslim prayer mat?” I asked.
I’d spent 10 days preparing for this ritual. It was really 10 years. I wanted to get everything right.
I was about to ask Reuters photographer Namir Noor-Eldeen and driver Saeed Chmagh, both Iraqis, to forgive me for what I saw as my complicity in their deaths.
I was the Iraq bureau chief for Reuters when Namir, 22, and Saeed, 40, were shot dead by a U.S. Apache helicopter on the streets of Baghdad on July 12, 2007, along with 10 other people. The attack grabbed global attention when WikiLeaks released classified U.S. military footage of the incident in 2010. The video, titled “Collateral Murder,” was viewed millions of times.
www.reuters.com
An article of a Reuters journalist dealing with PTSD after losing 2 colleagues in Iraq. Thought it's a good article and wanted to share it here.
|
Well, that warning was absurd but it's no surprise for TL mods. Not the first time their warnings make me curious about their political views.
|
TLADT24920 Posts
|
Love that video, everything looks so clean and calm, almost as if there was no war going on that Russia was participating. Complete normality there, except of course when terrorists come in and fake chemical attacks :D If they at least tried a somewhat believable story but that is just ridiculous. It doesn't even show the content it claims is fake for comparison. And of course the father does all the talking, i am sure the poor boy was completely shocked from getting cookies and dates and being wet for the whole time between being filmed and his father coming in. He can just remember one sentence and then has to wait for his father tell the story from second hand But i guess if you want to believe, this is real evidence of rebels faking that thing and the west being completely stupid and fallign for it.
|
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. i only intended to caution other posters about starting an argument on that based on my 10+years of General, but obviously communist-era-like snitches know better, so whatever.
anyone that would actually care about that dude would look into him/his site/history/whatever. he is the known as the Youtube and Google Earth guy(the irony here: youtube vids agreeing with the russians are all fake while videos agreeing with the western narative are all true(as parroted in website feedback thread) and that report had broken chains of custody/evidence to be taken as proof by anyone with ... a brain.
as for me, screw arguing on that, i don't care about that dude 'cause i know better; there is a history of fake reports coming out of Syria(Ex: https://bbcpanoramasavingsyriaschildren.wordpress.com/ (but not limited to)) and as far as mr. bellingcat goes, he lost his own complaint against RT: Fairness and Privacy cases
Not Upheld
Complaint by Mr Eliot Higgins
RT News, RT, 28 September 2016
Summary
Ofcom has not upheld this complaint made by Mr Eliot Higgins of unjust or unfair treatment
in the programme as broadcast.
The programme included a report on the findings of the Dutch-led criminal investigation into
the cause of the MH17 passenger jet crash in Ukraine. This included various reports about
the crash, including a report on Mr Higgins and his investigations, and the controversies
surrounding the various investigations into the cause of the crash.
Ofcom found that:
• Material facts had not been presented, disregarded or omitted in a way that was unfair
to Mr Higgins.
• The material in the programme did not amount to allegations of wrongdoing or
incompetence, or other significant allegations, about Mr Higgins. Therefore, it was not
necessary for the broadcaster to have provided Mr Higgins with an appropriate and
timely opportunity to respond. let that shit sink it: he lost to RT in a case of injustice and (un)fairness.
that day, the western shills cashed in: market speculations+new deals on/with the armament industry and the oil industry won some assholes hundreds of millions to billions $ and these pen warriors are going to war for humanitarian issues ...
seriously, in what world do they live in?
|
|
|
If we, as honorable and morally superior western nations with our propaganda-free media (whites rule, amirite?), want to stop Assad from gassing the rebels who keep their own families and other families as hostages, we should offer our own lives rather than firing missiles into the hellhole that we helped create in support of our Israeli and Saudi masters. We should enter those buildings ourselves and ask the rebels to leave peacefully. And we just have to hope really hard they won't shoot us or blow themselves and their families up while we try to determine whether they're moderate or not like those other thousands of rebels who relocated when given an offer.
Of course, we may just choose to flatten the building with conventional weapons like how the US handled Iraq, thereby saving all the innocent people inside! Right...?
|
On April 17 2018 22:29 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2018 21:29 L1ghtning wrote:On April 17 2018 20:08 Aquanim wrote:On April 17 2018 20:04 L1ghtning wrote:
So if Lavrov says that it was a false flag involving a british agent, you would accept that story as the truth if he claims to have proof?
Oh wait, wrong team. I wouldn't rule it out as impossible but it seems very unlikely for a number of reasons. The Assad regime using chemical weapons doesn't seem particularly unlikely. You bet that I'm accusing the US and their goons for acting without any real evidence. As long as they haven't provided any evidence, they have no evidence. And France has provided "evidence" btw. I don't know if that is all they have, but that paper was pretty pathetic as evidence. So you are insisting that the US and its allies must either give up information which might compromise their ability to prevent chemical weapon attacks in the future, or tolerate actual chemical weapon attacks in the present? That seems pretty absurd. You're granting USA the privilege to attack, maybe even invade any country in the world, on any claim, and we in the rest of the world just has to listen and believe to them when they say that they have evidence of whatever wrongdoing, despite them refusing to share it. I'm speechless that there are ppl out there with views like this. Not at all. I have confidence that if the US, UK and France were wrong or deliberately misleading in this instance, it will come out and there will be consequences. Until that time, I put more weight on their claims than those of Russia and Assad. The US in particular may not have as good a track record in similar situations as I would like, but in terms of veracity they still beat the pants off some tin-pot dictator.
Is that so? Which of the conflicts the US either entered or provoked since WW2 have been veritable cases of humanitarianism and which haven't? I can't even be bothered to start a list, knowing the vast majority of the cases being attacks on sovereign nations with little to none proof behind their justification for it. Almost all of them were to either deter the own public from internal issues or to gain a direct profit (resources, territory). Same goes for the UK and France, but for them it's mostly the former and of course jacking off their voters to the sound of long-gone empires. German actually has a nice word for that kind of behaviour: Großmannssucht.
|
It's really sad when you realize that DNA mapping has basically proven that everybody is one big family...
|
that is demonstrably a lie but it's not the time nor the place now but there, i think you need to be proven that everybody is one big 7billion dollar bill then you'll get some peace; maybe.
|
|
|
iranians were targeted so i'm guessing yes.
also Trump, while appearing to be against the Iranian nuclear deal, he is just trying to add a 'stay out of Syria' clause for Iran; no military bases, no weapon depots etc.
if Israel and Iran fail to agree on things there(Israel needs to make peace with the Palestinian Authority), it'll be war, a world-wide-war, and it'll have nothing to do with future humanitarian reasons(which are expected to conveniently (re)appear when a situation will require it).
|
So apparently Netanyahu is about to give a speech in which he is going to make the case that Iran is still developing nuclear weapons.
EDIT: He's doing it right now.
|
He's like the last person to ask on this matter? Except the even more extreme parts of the istaeli parlament whichs cock he sucks.
|
|
|
(1) Wrong thread?
(2) Seems like trumped up nonsense? They found a whole bunch of archives showing Iran is interested in knowledge of building nuclear weapons. I thought that was kind of a public secret? As long as they don't have the enriched uranium or even the centrifuges capable of creating it, they can't do much with that knowledge. And they are under the strictest of strict scrutiny with the world watching and making sure that that latter is indeed the case.
|
All I can think about is Netanyahu guaranteeing the US people that ousting Sadam would be great for the region.
Can't trust him at all.
|
On May 01 2018 05:46 Acrofales wrote:
(1) Wrong thread?
(2) Seems like trumped up nonsense? They found a whole bunch of archives showing Iran is interested in knowledge of building nuclear weapons. I thought that was kind of a public secret? As long as they don't have the enriched uranium or even the centrifuges capable of creating it, they can't do much with that knowledge. And they are under the strictest of strict scrutiny with the world watching and making sure that that latter is indeed the case.
Iran has troops is Syria as far as people can tell. They are assisting Assad.
On May 01 2018 06:22 GreenHorizons wrote:All I can think about is Netanyahu guaranteeing the US people that ousting Sadam would be great for the region. Can't trust him at all.
He puts most US warhawks to shame.
|
On May 01 2018 05:46 Acrofales wrote:
(1) Wrong thread?
(2) Seems like trumped up nonsense? They found a whole bunch of archives showing Iran is interested in knowledge of building nuclear weapons. I thought that was kind of a public secret? As long as they don't have the enriched uranium or even the centrifuges capable of creating it, they can't do much with that knowledge. And they are under the strictest of strict scrutiny with the world watching and making sure that that latter is indeed the case.
No country involved in nuclear weapons research should be be believed unless it fully declares ALL sites, allows for verification that those really are ALL its sites, and allows full inspection of those sites.
Iran has done none of those things. It shouldn't be trusted. Iran lied and lied and lied and lied for years about how it most definitely did not in any way have a nuclear weapons or nuclear research programs, until defectors smuggled proof out of the country ~15 years ago. Today there are over a dozen sites in Iran that are suspected of being involved in research that Iran does not allow inspectors into, because Iran says they are military bases that are most definitely not involved in nukes and we'll just have to take their word for it because any inspections of those sites would obviously be nothing more than attempts to spy on Iranian conventional military capabilities by the "Zionists" and America.
Only 3 countries have ever fully cooperated with nonproliferation programs targeting their nuclear weapons stockpiles or programs: Ukraine, South Africa and Libya. The rest - India, Pakistan, Israel, Iran, Iraq, Syria, North Korea - either lied and lied and lied and kept on lying (Iran, Iraq, Syria), or refused to say one way or the other (Israel), or basically said we don't give a damn what you think about it, we're doing what we want (Pakistan, India, North Korea).
There is no reason to trust any country that, when accused of attempting to build or otherwise acquire its own nukes, says in response that it definitely does not want nuclear weapons and does not have a nuclear weapons program but resists and puts qualifications on an inspections regime.
Unless they do what those first 3 countries did: allow full inspections of any site the IAEA wants to inspect, without qualifications or restrictions, they shouldn't be believed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
