Anti-Syrian Propaganda Thread.

studiorat

Brown Bomber wrote: »

The New York Times says:


The apparent Reality:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NY2bbmhjhVE

From the same NYT article :

Despite the appearance of damage from earlier shelling, the nature of the attack, captured on the video, that brought down the minaret could not be independently verified. It was not known how closely together the different portions of the edited video were recorded.

Why would bomber deliberately leave something like that out? My guess is to intentionally mislead people again.

Brown Bomber

studiorat wrote: »

From the same NYT article :

That I linked too :rolleyes:

studiorat wrote: »

Why would bomber deliberately leave something like that out? My guess is to intentionally mislead people again.

Guess again. I didn't leave anything out by linking to the article. Unlike you and your possible plagiarism in the link below. Perhaps you could clear up any confusion with a response in the thread?
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=81431592&postcount=24
It really doesn't look good as it stands and leaves you in a great, big, ol' glass house throwing stones when it comes to "intentionally misleading people".

studiorat

Brown Bomber wrote: »

It really doesn't look good as it stands and leaves you in a great, big, ol' glass house throwing stones when it comes to "intentionally misleading people".

Stop trying to derail the thread. As usual you'd rather argue semantics (badly I might add) or accuse people of what? Plagiarizing a question?

You made the assertion that your pals in Hezbollah were "strong" :rolleyes: Yet you still are unable to explain why "Hezbollah failed miserably to protect Lebanon from the F-16s of the Israeli Air Force and the kilotons of bombs they dumped on our houses and infrastructure."

Then when your finished that. Perhaps you would like to explain why you are deliberately misleading people. You posted "what the NYT says" and posted your "apparent reality", what you left out was the fact that the NYT gave both sides, saying the story was unverifiable.

If it wasn't your usual pompous self-aggrandizing posting, what exactly was the point of the post?

Brown Bomber

studiorat wrote: »

Stop trying to derail the thread.

Quite clearly I am responding to your derailment. That of your weak attempt at a smear.

studiorat wrote: »

As usual you'd rather argue semantics (badly I might add) or accuse people of what? Plagiarizing a question?

It would be a remarkable coincidence if you weren't in fact a plagiarist based on the evidence, but I am willing to listen to an explanation.

studiorat wrote: »

You made the assertion that your pals in Hezbollah were "strong" :rolleyes: Yet you still are unable to explain why "Hezbollah failed miserably to protect Lebanon from the F-16s of the Israeli Air Force and the kilotons of bombs they dumped on our houses and infrastructure."

Because "strong" encompasses far more than simply the numbers of SAM's or an airforce.

studiorat wrote: »

Then when your finished that. Perhaps you would like to explain why you are deliberately misleading

People in ethically precarious positions shoudn't accuse others of same especially when the accusation is as laughably piss-poor as your's is. With the cloud of plagiarism hanging over your head this clearly applies to you.

studiorat wrote: »

You posted "what the NYT says" and posted your "apparent reality", what you left out was the fact that the NYT gave both sides, saying the story was unverifiable.

I assume you know how links work? I repeat, I did not leave anything out of the article by virtue of linking to it. Any pretense of otherwise is absolutely ridiculous.

studiorat wrote: »

If it wasn't your usual pompous self-aggrandizing posting, what exactly was the point of the post?

Ask questions civilly if you want a response.

studiorat

Brown Bomber wrote: »

People in ethically precarious positions shoudn't accuse others of same especially when the accusation is as laughably piss-poor as your's is. With the cloud of plagiarism hanging over your head this clearly applies to you.

The "cloud of plagarism", that's pretty special. I've read some stupid adages before but that takes the biscuit. Please tell me you didn't make that up yourself.

I think you should get over yourself Bomber, this is a forum read by maybe 50 people. No one gives a **** about "plagarism", it's not the Times :rolleyes:. We don't all use the forum to play pretend journalist.

So anyway, if the NYT did say that the videos were un-verifiable what was the point of your post in the first place?

Jaafa

The bombing of a ''bakery'' that supposedly killed 50-100+ people according to the rebels and made big news lately was staged.

Furthermore in a report on the bombing by reuters (the link eludes me atm, I'll keep trying to find it) they said despite the rebels claiming 80+ people had been killed, the rebels only provided the names of 22, all of them happened to be male.

Jonny7

Jaafa wrote: »

The bombing of a ''bakery'' that supposedly killed 50-100+ people according to the rebels and made big news lately was staged.

Furthermore in a report on the bombing by reuters (the link eludes me atm, I'll keep trying to find it) they said despite the rebels claiming 80+ people had been killed, the rebels only provided the names of 22, all of them happened to be male.

Is this the article?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/24/us-syria-crisis-idUSBRE8AJ1FK20121224

Dozens of people were killed and many more wounded in a Syrian government air strike that hit a bakery where a crowd was queuing for bread on Sunday, activists said.

If confirmed, the attack on Halfaya in central Syria, which was seized by rebels last week, would be one of the deadliest air strikes of Syria's civil war.

Where is the article that confirms the strike and the exact toll?

Jaafa

Jonny7 wrote: »

Is this the article?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/24/us-syria-crisis-idUSBRE8AJ1FK20121224



Where is the article that confirms the strike and the exact toll?

It was actually this BBC article.

They put the number of dead at more than 90, but the BBC's Jim Muir in neighbouring Lebanon says they named or otherwise identified only 23 of them - all men.

The only ''confirmation'' as such that I've seen is the video, which as pointed out above has it's issues.

Jonny7

Jaafa wrote: »

It was actually this BBC article.

Does it fall under anti-Syrian propaganda? if so, how so?

Brown Bomber

IDF Linked "Israel News Agency" reported Assad's assasination courtesy of the Iranians.
http://www.israelnewsagency.com/basharassadsyriaassassinationdeadiranrussiaarmyusisraelidfnatoturkeyalawitesobamanetanyahu48032413.html

Wasn't long before fake photos were being released

fake but graphic. It's Assad's head photoshopped onto Gadaffi's corpse.

http://beforeitsnews.com/blogging-citizen-journalism/2013/03/unverified-picture-of-assads-dead-body-2446452.html

Jonny7

Brown Bomber wrote: »

IDF Linked "Israel News Agency" reported Assad's assasination courtesy of the Iranians.
http://www.israelnewsagency.com/basharassadsyriaassassinationdeadiranrussiaarmyusisraelidfnatoturkeyalawitesobamanetanyahu48032413.html

As far as I can tell, that's a blog run by one person. Worse than my old geocities website, and that's saying something

Wasn't long before fake photos were being released

fake but graphic. It's Assad's head photoshopped onto Gadaffi's corpse.

http://beforeitsnews.com/blogging-citizen-journalism/2013/03/unverified-picture-of-assads-dead-body-2446452.html

Looks like some kid made it and sent it to that conspiracy theory site.