Latest - Western forces prepare for Military strikes in Syria, strike just hours away

Jonny7

donegal__road wrote: »

Reporters Without Borders are funded primarily by the US state budget through USAID.. other funders include National Endowment for Democracy, who are sponsored by Bush neo-cons such as Otto Reich. You could hardly call RWB un-biased now, could you?

financial ties between French-based NGO Reporters Without Borders and US Government/CIA front organizations

Deeper down the rabbit hole we go.

Voltairenet are basically a group of activists (douchebags) who went to Libya to report the "real truth" - the reality is a lot of them spent most of the time holed up in the Rixos hotel pretending the CIA was out to kill them.

Thierry Meyssens is a loon of the highest order.

As for their opinion on "reporters without borders", it'll be conspiracy theory type stuff. It's an NGO which focuses as much on the US as it does anywhere else.

Like another poster said, spread your news sources across reputable outlets.

bmaxi

Jonny7 wrote: »

Deeper down the rabbit hole we go.

Voltairenet are basically a group of activists (douchebags) who went to Libya to report the "real truth" - the reality is a lot of them spent most of the time holed up in the Rixos hotel pretending the CIA was out to kill them.

Thierry Meyssens is a loon of the highest order.

As for their opinion on "reporters without borders", it'll be conspiracy theory type stuff. It's an NGO which focuses as much on the US as it does anywhere else.

Like another poster said, spread your news sources across reputable outlets.

But what are reputable sources? Before the advent of FTA satellite TV we were dependent on Western media, now we have RT, Al Jazeera, Press Tv etc. To say that these are not reputable sources is to form a biased opinion, I certainly wouldn't say all western media is a reputable source.

realweirdo

bmaxi wrote: »

But what are reputable sources? Before the advent of FTA satellite TV we were dependent on Western media, now we have RT, Al Jazeera, Press Tv etc. To say that these are not reputable sources is to form a biased opinion, I certainly wouldn't say all western media is a reputable source.

To give an example of Press TV methods.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/9028435/Britain-bans-Irans-Press-TV-from-airwaves.html

All western media is certainly not reputable. Some are good, while others such as FOX News are idiologically motivated.

However FOX News have been massive critics of Obama and by extension the US government. Is there any equivalent in Iran, Russia or China, ie a station which is ideologically opposed to these governments and allowed the freedom to say what it wants?

Eggy Baby!

Just regarding RT- I'd like to repost one of my posts from a much earlier thread that I feel, personally, sums RT up:

Sometimes media is just impartial to suffering. For example, there is a massive civil war in the Congo that has been going on for ages and left millions dead, millions maimed and lots more impoverished and starving. It continues to rage every day, yet there is no media coverage. The last media I saw on it was Ross Kemp's hour-long documentary there and that was a year ago. Whereas crap like Clint Eastwood's speech to the chair is analysed, spoofed and reported on incessantly for days.

Car bombings in Iraq that kill dozens get tiny bite-sized stories. These things were reported on all the time during the Iraq War, as the insurgents were the "enemy" and it was chic to report on their atrocities. Now there is very little reporting on it, presumably because there is little appetite for stories on Iraq any more after the withdrawal.

A more recent example is the Pussy Riot case. Over here they became the poster girls of the Russian opposition movement, whereas in Russia you couldn't locate their actual fan-base with an electron microscope. Same with "opposition figures" like Gorbachev, Kasparov and Nemtsov. The Guardian in particular was being spammed with stories and editorials about them, because there is an anti-Putin appetite over here these days since the protests began.

So usually there is an agenda here, maybe not a political one but certainly papers are trying to sell copies, or their websites are trying to get hits, and that's why they reports on some stuff but ignore other things.

Whereas RT caters to a different consumer base, and this is reflected accordingly in its stories.

Jonny7

bmaxi wrote: »

But what are reputable sources? Before the advent of FTA satellite TV we were dependent on Western media, now we have RT, Al Jazeera, Press Tv etc. To say that these are not reputable sources is to form a biased opinion, I certainly wouldn't say all western media is a reputable source.

Disclaimer - this is just my opinion over the past 10 odd years

Avoid any English speaking Russian or Iranian sources.

Middle Eastern is a mixed bag. I used to follow Al Jazeera a lot - they were quite anti-US/Israel, their offices were targeted twice, they've lost reporters and cameramen in some very dicey incidents. Since the Arab spring they seem to have matured and can out good solid content. Al Arabiya is decent.

European media is grand when you stick to the main outlets - Der Spiegl, El Pais, Le Monde, etc. Euronews is fine. Scandinavian media pretty much tops the charts in any press freedom index.

Irish and British media is generally alright for international stories if you avoid the tabloids (and Sky News) UK has left and right broadsheets- I try to read both.

US media - CNN is awful, FOX is awful, I don't watch MSNBC. Washington Post is decent, Huffington post is also decent.

Lastly internet news. Website authors often give themselves "newsy" sounding names, blast out huge volumes of blogs/stories/articles - little or no regard for their authenticity, typically for hits (businessinsider.com, examiner.com) or to represent more extreme political views. A lot of it is self styled "alternative" news but there's no rules, so they go with whatever their audience wants, again with an unhealthy dose of sensationalist blogs and editorials.

clairefontaine

Jonny7 wrote: »

Disclaimer - this is just my opinion over the past 10 odd years

Avoid any English speaking Russian or Iranian sources.

Middle Eastern is a mixed bag. I used to follow Al Jazeera a lot - they were quite anti-US/Israel, their offices were targeted twice, they've lost reporters and cameramen in some very dicey incidents. Since the Arab spring they seem to have matured and can out good solid content. Al Arabiya is decent.

European media is grand when you stick to the main outlets - Der Spiegl, El Pais, Le Monde, etc. Euronews is fine. Scandinavian media pretty much tops the charts in any press freedom index.

Irish and British media is generally alright for international stories if you avoid the tabloids (and Sky News) UK has left and right broadsheets- I try to read both.

US media - CNN is awful, FOX is awful, I don't watch MSNBC. Washington Post is decent, Huffington post is also decent.

Lastly internet news. Website authors often give themselves "newsy" sounding names, blast out huge volumes of blogs/stories/articles - little or no regard for their authenticity, typically for hits (businessinsider.com, examiner.com) or to represent more extreme political views. A lot of it is self styled "alternative" news but there's no rules, so they go with whatever their audience wants, again with an unhealthy dose of sensationalist blogs and editorials.

To know what's really going on in the US you watch cspan. Atlantic Monthly is good too.

Eggy Baby!

Avoid any English speaking Russian or Iranian sources.

I would disagree with the English speaking Russian sources here as I believe it's important to get a Russian viewpoint on things. RT obviously airs stories with the intention of getting "hits" from conspiratorial, fringe and left-wing (particularly European left-wing) groups. Like all media stations, it airs the stories it wants to.

It can be an important perspective, though. Like I said earlier, Sky News aired John Kerry's speech at Geneva whereas they didn't air Lavrov's speech. RT aired both and did so without it's usual bias.

Let's just face it. All news stations have bias because what they air and how they air it will always offend somebody. RT isn't garbage. I don't watch it regularly, and it would be wrong to get one's news solely from RT, but it provides a fuller perspective on things.

Jonny7

RT is as bad as, if not worse than Fox. I've yet to find any article or report on RT that is in any way critical of Putin or the Kremlin. Activists with microphones become war correspondents, debate shows are one-sided affairs and the channel is a lucrative podium/soapbox for anyone disgruntled with the US or Israel, no matter how loopy.

What's sad is it's a reflection on the nations press - whom are absolutely terrified to the point of self-censorship. There are still hundreds of incidents of sackings, intimidation, beatings and worse on editors, journalists and staff - it's the most dangerous place for a reporter in Europe by a long shot.

donegal__road

clairefontaine wrote: »

To know what's really going on in the US you watch cspan. Atlantic Monthly is good too.

Democracy Now is decent, from what I have seen of it..

realweirdo

Here is an average debate on Crosstalk on RT which is probably their equivalent of Meet the Press.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSHH6YFLaXs

It's just three guests all bashing America and America foreign policy...the host also anti american...so that makes four. How can anyone seriously call that a balanced debate? For example in Ireland there are rules around having balanced debates on TV.

In the Crosstalk debate, not a single criticism of Syria, Russia, China, Iran or Hezbollah who have played the biggest part in the destruction of Syria.
RT is just so anti American, they just don't do balance, its a Kremlin mouthpiece and you have to take everything they broadcast with a pinch of salt as long as they are a kremlin mouthpiece.

donegal__road

realweirdo wrote: »

Here is an average debate on Crosstalk on RT which is probably their equivalent of Meet the Press.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSHH6YFLaXs

It's just three guests all bashing America and America foreign policy...
Not a single criticism of Syria, Russia, China, Iran or Hezbollah who have played the biggest part in the destruction of Syria.
RT is just so anti American, they just don't do balance.

the way American news channels do?

Fair enough, there is no direct criticism of Putin on RT... but if you are familiar with the Irish state broadcaster, RTE, there is little or no direct criticism of the Irish government either. Anti government protests that have been held across the country recently, have been either played down or ignored.
Any news story involving the Taoiseach (Prime Minister) shows him in a positive light. etc. On politics.ie discussion forum, RTE is known as Pravda.


by the way, I just see some of what you posted...

Syria, Russia, China, Iran or Hezbollah who have played the biggest part in the destruction of Syria.

..... your joking, right?


*grabs coat, bye y'all





.

realweirdo

donegal__road wrote: »

..... your joking, right?

Russia supplied Assad with every last tank, every last scud, every last mig, helicopter, AK-47, bullet, morter and artillary piece and has resupplied him over and over again despite knowing he has massacred tens of thousands of his own people. All those weapons have been used to flatten large parts of Syria.
Likewise Iran sent advisors, and Hezbollah sent thousands of men. China and Russia have been the main obstructions to any possible resolution of this conflict either at the UNSC or elsewhere and have been buying time so Assad can finish the job. But through their actions they have also brought AQ into the fight in Syria, complicating the situation further. Between them, they have destroyed Syria, so I'm sure you are very proud of what your friends have done.

WakeUp

bmaxi wrote: »

But what are reputable sources? Before the advent of FTA satellite TV we were dependent on Western media, now we have RT, Al Jazeera, Press Tv etc. To say that these are not reputable sources is to form a biased opinion, I certainly wouldn't say all western media is a reputable source.

I dont think there is such a thing as non bias news, the source of its information is its bias. Media exectutives and editors sit around a table and decide what the news is for the day everyday. Some stories are told some are left out. Political and economical factors come into play. If you want to be truly unbiased you need to get your news from as many conflicting sources as possible and take a look at everything being said. What is being said and the source is important not the presenter on a television screen reading a written script be it Western media or somewhere else. Selective coverage and bias narratives cant really be avoided which is why I read as many sources/angles as possible to try and get the overall picture of whatever it is I want to find out about and look into it more myself.

Al Jazeera is owned by Qatar they had their political independence called into question.
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/sep/30/al-jazeera-independence-questioned-qatar

RTs first editor said part of the channels remit was to "reflect Russias opinion of the world"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_%28TV_network%29

Just two examples no such thing as a totally unbiased news source I dont think

donegal__road

this speech is from over a year ago. I am interested to know what realweirdo and Jonny7 have to say on what Ron Paul says here..

bumper234

Jonny7 wrote: »

RT is as bad as, if not worse than Fox. I've yet to find any article or report on RT that is in any way critical of Putin or the Kremlin. Activists with microphones become war correspondents, debate shows are one-sided affairs and the channel is a lucrative podium/soapbox for anyone disgruntled with the US or Israel, no matter how loopy.

What's sad is it's a reflection on the nations press - whom are absolutely terrified to the point of self-censorship. There are still hundreds of incidents of sackings, intimidation, beatings and worse on editors, journalists and staff - it's the most dangerous place for a reporter in Europe by a long shot.

How the hell are we supposed to take your world view on journalism and politics seriously when you don't even know that Russia is not part of Europe. :eek:

Seaneh

bumper234 wrote: »

Russia is not part of Europe. :eek:

The most populated part of it is. Most of the land mass is in Asia, but most of that is sparsly inhabited, almost all the major cities are in Europe.

bumper234

Seaneh wrote: »

The most populated part of it is. Most of the land mass is in Asia, but most of that is sparsly inhabited, almost all the major cities are in Europe.

When did Russia join Europe?

Tony EH

From the Urals and caucasus, westward is considered Europe. Eastwards is considered Asia. Russia actually comprises over 40% of what's considered Europe.

brimal

Russia is also a member of the European Federation of Journalists - largest organisation of journalists in Europe

bmaxi

WakeUp wrote: »

I dont think there is such a thing as non bias news, the source of its information is its bias. Media exectutives and editors sit around a table and decide what the news is for the day everyday. Some stories are told some are left out. Political and economical factors come into play. If you want to be truly unbiased you need to get your news from as many conflicting sources as possible and take a look at everything being said. What is being said and the source is important not the presenter on a television screen reading a written script be it Western media or somewhere else. Selective coverage and bias narratives cant really be avoided which is why I read as many sources/angles as possible to try and get the overall picture of whatever it is I want to find out about and look into it more myself.

Al Jazeera is owned by Qatar they had their political independence called into question.
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/sep/30/al-jazeera-independence-questioned-qatar

RTs first editor said part of the channels remit was to "reflect Russias opinion of the world"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_%28TV_network%29

Just two examples no such thing as a totally unbiased news source I dont think

This was actually the point I was making. I've no doubt that Al Jazeera, RT and Press TV will put their own slant on what they report but in the West we were inclined to take every position taken by the press as the correct one. Western media is no more immune to political manipulation than anywhere else.
If you remember back to the Iraq war and the WMD, this point, and with it the saturation of the media making Iraq out to be the cradle of evil in the world, was given as justification for invasion. Where are these WMD that the war was supposedly fought over? The truth is, just like the hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraquis killed since the invasion, they don't exist.
We in the West however, without the benefit of the alternative viewpoint provided by RT et al, swallowed it hook, line and sinker, there was hardly a dissenting voice as the coalition forces bludgeoned their way through the country. Things are different now, the alternative view is there, whether true or not, and Uncle Sam is not getting it all his own way.

Jonny7

bumper234 wrote: »

How the hell are we supposed to take your world view on journalism and politics seriously when you don't even know that Russia is not part of Europe. :eek:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe

It's often included in stats with Europe for this reason.

Suff

I would suggest reading the following article by Adrian Salbuchi; a political analyst, author, speaker and radio/TV commentator in Argentina. RT published the article, which outlines some interesting pointers on why USA are trying to take out Assad.

I happen to agree with him, the conflict in Syria has surpassed 'selling' a freedom and democracy package to yet another ME state. It's far more complicated... and thankfully people are becoming more aware now.

Why the US, EU and Israel hate Syria.
Link

Note; Try to read it with an open mind before you throw it into the conspiracies theory bin.

Jonny7

Suff wrote: »

I would suggest reading the following article by Adrian Salbuchi; a political analyst, author, speaker and radio/TV commentator in Argentina. RT published the article, which outlines some interesting pointers on why USA are trying to take out Assad.

I happen to agree with him, the conflict in Syria has surpassed 'selling' a freedom and democracy package to yet another ME state. It's far more complicated... and thankfully people are becoming more aware now.

Why the US, EU and Israel hate Syria.
Link

Note; Try to read it with an open mind before you throw it into the conspiracies theory bin.

The reason the US/EU/Israel "hate" Syria..

The Rothschilds can't control the banking.
The "global mega-bankers" can't siphon money out of the country via the IMF.
Monsanto (which is "trying to control the world") is affected because Syria banned GMO's
Syria is well informed about the NWO - New World Order
Syria has "massive" oil and gas reserves
Syria opposes Zionism and Israel

I'm just going to quote number 7

7) Syria is one of the last secular Muslim states in the Middle East, whilst Zionist Jewish supremacists - in line with born-again-Israel-First-Bu****e ‘Christian’ kooks in the West - need for everybody to align to the will of their dark demiurge god which has its own ‘chosen people’.

The Global Power Elite’s implicit order is clear: everybody must believe in Israeli superiority, whilst our young Syrian friend aptly points out that Syria, like Saddam’s Iraq, Gaddafi’s Libya and Iran just could not be convinced of that.

and quote number 8

8) Syria proudly maintains and protects its political and cultural national identity – she stresses how Syria “holds on to its uniqueness,” whilst respecting the uniqueness of others. The standardized coming world government simply abhors anybody standing up to its imposed standardization of thought, behavior and ‘values’, where the West’s global megabrands, shopping malls, and fashion & style dictatorships “makes every place look pretty much the same, which leads to a very boring world.”

This is typical fare on Russia Today.

Suff

Jonny7 wrote: »

This is typical fare on Russia Today.

So you decided to ridicule RT rather than discuss the points ...

Rascasse

Suff wrote: »

Note; Try to read it with an open mind before you throw it into the conspiracies theory bin.

Yeah, right. Googled the guys name and what a surprise, another conspiracy theory nut. Everything is the fault of the NWO and Israel, perfect for RT.

Jonny7

Suff wrote: »

So you decided to ridicule RT rather than discuss the points ...

I outlined the points that were made and said it was typical for Russia Today. The points speak for themselves.

Suff

Rascasse wrote: »

Yeah, right. Googled the guys name and what a surprise, another conspiracy theory nut. Everything is the fault of the NWO and Israel, perfect for RT.

Yes, USA (NWO) and Israel has a lot to answer for ... you cannot state that NWO doesn't exist.

Scofflaw

CT forum is the place for CT. Please save it for there.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Suff

Regardless of who and where it was published (actually it was SyrianGirl who composed the 8 points), some of the points are interesting and shouldn't be dismissed under the tattered banner of conspiracy theories.

I happen to fully agree with points 5 and 6.

5 - Syria has large Gas and Oil reserves, this is documented by the US Energy Information Administration (EIA) they have published a number of studies on the levant region. Syria has 20.50 billion barrels proved reserves in 2013, noting that the entire levant region has 20.51 billion barrels (Israel has 0.01). As for production, in 2011 Syria produced 277.93 billion cubic feet compared to Israel's 91.82.

Significant reserves wouldn't you agree? Link

Here's the EIA page with detailed analysis on Syria's reserves. link


6 - Syria in state of war with Israel, this doesn't need further clarifications, clearly Israel is the only benefactor from destroying Syria which ultimately would result in the removal of Hizbollah.

alastair

Suff wrote: »

Regardless of who and where it was published (actually it was SyrianGirl who composed the 8 points), some of the points are interesting and shouldn't be dismissed under the tattered banner of conspiracy theories.

I happen to fully agree with points 5 and 6.

5 - Syria has large Gas and Oil reserves, this is documented by the US Energy Information Administration (EIA) they have published a number of studies on the levant region. Syria has 20.50 billion barrels proved reserves in 2013, noting that the entire levant region has 20.51 billion barrels (Israel has 0.01). As for production, in 2011 Syria produced 277.93 billion cubic feet compared to Israel's 91.82.

Significant reserves wouldn't you agree? Link

Here's the EIA page with detailed analysis on Syria's reserves. link


6 - Syria in state of war with Israel, this doesn't need further clarifications, clearly Israel is the only benefactor from destroying Syria which ultimately would result in the removal of Hizbollah.

5. Syria has significant reserves compared to Israel, which as none. That's true. But so what?

6. No-one is going to 'destroy Syria'. There's civil war currently underway, and one bunch or the other will come out on top. None of them intend dissolving the state. Benefactor doesn't mean what you seem to believe it does. You're searching for 'beneficiary'.

donegal__road

donegal__road wrote: »

Date of speech: June 19, 2012

Ron Paul:

Plans, rumors, and war propaganda for attacking Syria and deposing Assad have been around for many months.

This past week however, it was reported that the Pentagon indeed has finalized plans to do just that. In my opinion, all the evidence to justify this attack is bogus. It is no more credible than the pretext given for the 2003 invasion of Iraq or the 2011 attack on Libya.

How would we tolerate Russia in Mexico demanding a humanitarian solution to the violence on the U.S.-Mexican border? We would consider that a legitimate concern for us. But, for us to be engaged in Syria, where the Russian have a legal naval base, is equivalent to the Russians being in our backyard in Mexico.

We must abandon our military effort to promote and secure an American empire.....Besides, we’re broke, we can’t afford it, and worst of all, we’re fulfilling the strategy laid out by Osama bin Laden whose goal had always been to bog us down in the Middle East and bring on our bankruptcy here at home.

realweirdo

bmaxi wrote: »

This was actually the point I was making. I've no doubt that Al Jazeera, RT and Press TV will put their own slant on what they report but in the West we were inclined to take every position taken by the press as the correct one. Western media is no more immune to political manipulation than anywhere else.
If you remember back to the Iraq war and the WMD, this point, and with it the saturation of the media making Iraq out to be the cradle of evil in the world, was given as justification for invasion. Where are these WMD that the war was supposedly fought over? The truth is, just like the hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraquis killed since the invasion, they don't exist.
We in the West however, without the benefit of the alternative viewpoint provided by RT et al, swallowed it hook, line and sinker, there was hardly a dissenting voice as the coalition forces bludgeoned their way through the country. Things are different now, the alternative view is there, whether true or not, and Uncle Sam is not getting it all his own way.

There are strict rules in the UK about impartiality, OFCOM sets the rules and all stations must follow them

http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/broadcasting/broadcast-codes/broadcast-code/

See the section on impartiality.

FOX News, RT and so on I don't believe are subject to these rules.

It's complete bullsh*t to say the BBC are pro war for example - these stations report the news and its usually people who put their own slant on them - example, left wingers always accuse the BBC of being a right wing capitalistic part of the establishment - that's a given, we wouldn't expect them to say anything else, its the usual knee-jerk reaction from left wingers.
Right wingers will at the same time say the BBC is full of leftie communists promoting a soclialist view of the world and will swear its the truth, as will the left wingers.

However, OFCOM set the rules and occassionally but not often find against these stations over impartiality.

Jonny7

bmaxi wrote: »

If you remember back to the Iraq war and the WMD, this point, and with it the saturation of the media making Iraq out to be the cradle of evil in the world, was given as justification for invasion.

It wasn't like this at all, certainly not outside the US. Most European newspapers were openly and heavily critical of the build up and decision to go to war. The French and German governments were strongly opposed to that war.

Reporters report the news, if Bush said aliens were invading - that's what they would have to report

The analysis and editorials were very telling in that they examined everything.

From BBC's newsnight, to C4's dispatches, PM question time, Politics show - UK media was in full debate mode over the issue. Polls consistently showed large amount of people opposed to the war - and the marches were ****ing huge to say the least, million of people across the world.

And that's when we all secretly presumed there were WMD's... we still had a strong trust in US intelligence despite the heavy cynicism over the war. When the weeks/months/years went by - and that faded - it became clear the extent of the exaggeration/oversight/damned lies that took place.

czx

donegal__road wrote: »

Date of speech: June 19, 2012

Ron Paul:

do you vote sinn fein?

Suff

George Galloway presents a very interesting program on current War on Syria ... broadcasted by the Lebanese News TV Al Mayadeen.

With political guests from USA, France, Greece and Turkey.

Link

The program has 5 parts, which you'll find below part 1.

Jonny7

Galloway is an angry man who hates the establishment and takes every opportunity to bash his favorite targets

For this reason he has a lucrative circuit, especially on foreign government controlled stations

It's a bit like speaking on North Korean TV about how awful human rights in China are

Suff

I don't agree ... you cannot simply follow one source or a particular media channel, since each have a political agenda of their own (CNN, FoxNews, Aljazeera and SkyNews) To form some sort of an understanding to a very complex topic, you'll need to listen to all sides to make up your own.

Something to add to your information ... Al Mayadeen is a privately funded news channel, not controlled by the lebanese government. Few groups (mainly Al Jazeera and the Saudi government) have accused it of being funded by Assad and the Iranian government - without submitting any proof or sources to back such an accusation. Which is funny, considering that Al Jazeera is funded and controlled by the Qatar royal family, the same goes for Al Arabia, who's privately funded by the Saudi royal family.

Anyway, forget Galloway, watch the discussion for yourself to make your own mind on it. After watching it, I think the guests have made a lot of excellent and valid points throughout, Within part 3:

At 10:11 - The Media's role in preparing for the war

At 13:17 - What's the plan after the strike? If the US did launch a war on Syria

Link



The program in its self is not a pro-assad, but rather an anti-war panel.



It's one thing to close the shutters, convincing yourself its sunny outside, and another to step outside.

Suff

Excellent points in Part 4,

At 11:10 - The destruction of the United Nations law.
At 13: 30 - The US Israeli relationship.

Link

Jonny7

Suff wrote: »

you cannot simply follow one source or a particular media channel, since each have a political agenda of their own (CNN, FoxNews, Aljazeera and SkyNews) To form some sort of an understanding to a very complex topic, you'll need to listen to all sides to make up your own.

Might want to take some of that advice on board yourself there.

Tony EH

Jonny7 wrote: »

Galloway is an angry man who hates the establishment and takes every opportunity to bash his favorite targets

For this reason he has a lucrative circuit, especially on foreign government controlled stations

It's a bit like speaking on North Korean TV about how awful human rights in China are

You know, every time you post something like this, it's the internet equivalent of an ostrich sticking its head in the sand...and it really doesn't do your "side" any favours.

I wouldn't be a big fan of Galloway, by any stretch, but why don't you watch the material that's been presented to you and try to discuss THAT, instead of just...well...sticking your head in the sand?

Jonny7

Tony EH wrote: »

You know, every time you post something like this, it's the internet equivalent of an ostrich sticking its head in the sand...and it really doesn't do your "side" any favours.

Not everyone knows who Galloway is.

For the first time conspiracy theorist or someone who seeks to implicate the US/Israel in everything - he seems like he makes great sense, I used to be a heavy supporter

The video? maybe it's a great point not about the US/Israel .. but I'd rather not waste my time.. call it long experience

That said I'd love if he got London Mayor

cyberhog

Poll finds only 36% of people believe Assad’s government was behind the August chemical attack.

The poll, conducted in 15, mostly European countries, ... found that only about a third of respondents held Syria’s government accountable for using chemical weapons despite Western efforts to blame Assad for an Aug. 21 sarin gas attack.

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2013/Oct-10/234152-poll-finds-low-western-support-for-military-intervention.ashx#axzz2hIPAj4VI

Good to know that most people were not fooled by the West's propaganda.

SamHarris

bmaxi wrote: »

in the West we were inclined to take every position taken by the press as the correct one.

It's worse than this, and very different.

A good deal of the people I know will be very questioning, to the point of outright dismissing, media reports from outlets they disagree with. Then find news outlets they agree with and agree with it unquestioningly. Usually here, for people in my age group this means laughing at the fools who believe Fox news, then (unfortunately without irony) telling me about the fantastic angle RT has taken on the issue.

The root issue is how deductive people are when it comes to news stories that impact their politics. That is to say they hear of a news story, instantly form an opinion on who is to blame and why it is happening, then go out to find media that agrees with or supports their position. Instead the more logical method would be inductive. That is to say people get as much facts about a story as one can, better yet from multiple sources, then (keeping in mind automatic biases that you will come to any story with) forming an opinion as solidly based in the available information as possible.

Unfortunately the polarization of media has made this even easier to do the former and the opinions even more asinine (British print media now pretty much completely caters to people of a given political persuasion and coddles their opinions and sense of superiority unmercifully). At least in the States, with regard to cable news, people are by and large aware of the phenomena, to the point where it's become something of a running joke pretty much everywhere.

SamHarris

cyberhog wrote: »

Poll finds only 36% of people believe Assad’s government was behind the August chemical attack.



http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2013/Oct-10/234152-poll-finds-low-western-support-for-military-intervention.ashx#axzz2hIPAj4VI

Good to know that most people were not fooled by the West's propaganda.

That poll was kind of strangely asked - it allowed people to answer that both were responsible. It's almost certainly true that non-government forces used chemical weapons at other locations at different times, but it's impossible for "both" to have been directly responsible for their use at that given time in place. But then I guess that depends on what they mean by "responsible".

nacho libre

SamHarris wrote: »

It's worse than this, and very different.

A good deal of the people I know will be very questioning, to the point of outright dismissing, media reports from outlets they disagree with. Then find news outlets they agree with and agree with it unquestioningly. Usually here, for people in my age group this means laughing at the fools who believe Fox news, then (unfortunately without irony) telling me about the fantastic angle RT has taken on the issue.

RT do have some interesting viewpoints and valid criticisms of the US, that other media outlets won't or are unwilling to broach. That said I tend to agree their constant portrayal of everything that's wrong in the world as the USA's fault is blatant propaganda that gets tiring to listen to. I've yet to hear a single criticism of Russian policy on that station- perhaps the newscasters are afraid they'll be jailed.

SamHarris

nacho libre wrote: »

RT do have some interesting viewpoints and valid criticisms of the US, that other media outlets won't or are unwilling to broach. That said I tend to agree their constant portrayal of everything that's wrong in the world as the USA's fault is blatant propaganda that gets tiring to listen to. I've yet to hear a single criticism of Russian policy on that station- perhaps the newscasters are afraid they'll be jailed.

I don't watch it enough to pass judgment on it's entire program, and I'm by no means saying people should not watch it (with a critical eye as in all things).

However, for me at least, I find it more useful as a tool to see what the message the Russian government would like to put out there is. The same for nearly all of the very politically motivated publications (nearly all at this point)- better for finding out what it's core readership want to hear and how they will see things than as a reliable, cogent source for analysis.

As a general rule if I can guess the editorial position a publication will take on an issue, knowing only the vague outline of a story, it's almost certainly more a political mouthpiece than a hard nosed analysis. Having said that I do appreciate when they bring forward newstories that don't grab mainstream attention, regardless of their reasons.

cyberhog

RobitTV wrote: »

An intense round of diplomacy on the crisis has also been continuing, with Mr Cameron and French president Francois Hollande warning that the 'crime must not be swept under the carpet'.

Well that's pretty much what has happened, isn't it?. Cameron and Hollande are no longer insisting that Assad "gassed his own people". They just couldn't keep up the pretense any longer after Russia thwarted their plans to attack. Western powers were only ever looking for an excuse to intervene they never really cared about the victims and they've probably known all along that the rebels are the most likely perpertrators of that henious attack.



Even the Intelligence community had its fair share of skeptics and a number of analysts' threatened a mass resignation over the evidence presented against Assad that they felt "was subject to interpretation and possibly even fabricated."

Some believed the complete absence of U.S. satellite intelligence on the extensive preparations that the government would have needed to make in order to mix its binary chemical system and deliver it on target was particularly disturbing. These concerns were reinforced by subsequent UN reports suggesting that the rebels might have access to their own chemical weapons.

...

Israel ... provided what was reported to be interceptions of telephone conversations implicating the Syrian army in the attack, but it was widely believed that the information might have been fabricated by Tel Aviv, meaning that bad intelligence was being used to confirm other suspect information, a phenomenon known to analysts as “circular reporting.”

...

Other intelligence cited in passing by the White House on the trajectories and telemetry of rockets that may have been used in the attack was also somewhat conjectural and involved weapons that were not, in fact, in the Syrian arsenal, suggesting that they were actually fired by the rebels.

...

With all evidence considered, the intelligence community found itself with numerous skeptics in the ranks, leading to sharp exchanges with the Director of Central Intelligence John Brennan and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper. A number of analysts threatened to resign as a group if their strong dissent was not noted in any report released to the public, forcing both Brennan and Clapper to back down.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/quitting-over-syria/

alastair

cyberhog wrote: »

Cameron and Hollande are no longer insisting that Assad "gassed his own people". They just couldn't keep up the pretense any longer after Russia thwarted their plans to attack.

Eh? Both leaders are still quite clear that it was Assad's forces responsible for that chemical attack. Nothing has changed in that regard, and the UN investigation lends credence to that assertion. The Russian compromise plan to destroy Assad's chemical weapons is the reason military intervention hasn't happened - not any belief that Assad is blameless.

donegal__road

alastair wrote: »

Eh? Both leaders are still quite clear that it was Assad's forces responsible for that chemical attack. Nothing has changed in that regard, and the UN investigation lends credence to that assertion. The Russian compromise plan to destroy Assad's chemical weapons is the reason military intervention hasn't happened - not any belief that Assad is blameless.

based on what though?

Jonny7

donegal__road wrote: »

based on what though?

The two munitions appears to have been fired from pro-government held territory into Ghouta (rebel held)
The UN and Human Rights Watch used plotted data to determine where the munitions were fired from and both point to a Syrian military complex
One was an M14 artillery rocket (the rebels are not known to have these kind of large weapons) and the other a 330 mm rocket
One of the munitions contained over 50 litres of Sarin gas, known to be in the Syrian stockpile, it was also fired during low temps to insure the gas "hugged" the ground (many people were sheltering underground to escape the shelling)
The area the rockets struck was shelled heavily afterwards, the initial UN inspectors had difficulty reaching the area as they were attacked by snipers
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/17/world/europe/syria-united-nations.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0