Russia says intensified air campaign is pounding ISIL targets in Syria

[manarak]

Understood. But I don't listen to Putin nor read RT. Just like I don't read VOA or listen to many US politicians.

Well, you should consider doing it from time to time to have the chance of seeing things from another perspective.

Some events just don't make sense when listening to the Western US version of the story.

I just watched the video and have to say it's interesting.

Of course everything has to be taken with a grain of salt - but sometimes listening to all sides allows to piece together a story that is lekely closer to the truth than what the media from all allegiances tell us.

When Russia poopoos in Ukraine, pieces of truth are likely coming from US-propaganda affiliated media (with a spin to suit their political needs), and when the US poopoos some other place, Russian media will report some truth and spin it too.

The real shocker is how Western journos don't actually do their jobs.

Most pickup the pieces they are fed by agencies (hey, no need to find new ideas and facts, hooray, we finish early, meet you at the pub) and then publish whatever they get, almost no questions asked.

I can also imagine reporting the "wrong thing" can be a quick career ender, so instead of complex geopolitics which most readers wouldn't understand or care about anyway, journos prefer to report on human tragedies which don't carry a big risk for the journo and might at most graze the core issues.

Journalism I perceive as inadequate is actually one of my pet peeves.

Edited November 22, 2015 by manarak

[rijit]

Pound like you're using a mortar and passel, grind them into dust!

Shame France has only limited resources compared to Russia. Like to see more French bombs exploding on the heads of terrorists.

France has lots of resources if they want:
Stop the boycott of Russia
Work together
Help Assad
That can be done in a 5 min speech and would shake everything up.

Meanwhile the world forgets what Russia are doing elsewhere and Russia flood more troops into the Ukraine.

Sent from my GT-I9000 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Edited November 22, 2015 by Scott

[rijit]

Understood. But I don't listen to Putin nor read RT. Just like I don't read VOA or listen to many US politicians.

Well, you should consider doing it from time to time to have the chance of seeing things from another perspective.

Some events just don't make sense when listening to the Western US version of the story.

I just watched the video and have to say it's interesting.

Of course everything has to be taken with a grain of salt - but sometimes listening to all sides allows to piece together a story that is lekely closer to the truth than what the media from all allegiances tell us.

When Russia poopoos in Ukraine, pieces of truth are likely coming from US-propaganda affiliated media (with a spin to suit their political needs), and when the US poopoos some other place, Russian media will report some truth and spin it too.

The real shocker is how Western journos don't actually do their jobs.

Most pickup the pieces they are fed by agencies (hey, no need to find new ideas and facts, hooray, we finish early, meet you at the pub) and then publish whatever they get, almost no questions asked.

I can also imagine reporting the "wrong thing" can be a quick career ender, so instead of complex geopolitics which most readers wouldn't understand or care about anyway, journos prefer to report on human tragedies which don't carry a big risk for the journo and might at most graze the core issues.

Journalism I perceive as inadequate is actually one of my pet peeves.

Jeez you putin propaganda workers

really talk so much shit its embarrassing .

Sent from my GT-I9000 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[manarak]

Understood. But I don't listen to Putin nor read RT. Just like I don't read VOA or listen to many US politicians.

Well, you should consider doing it from time to time to have the chance of seeing things from another perspective.

Some events just don't make sense when listening to the Western US version of the story.

I just watched the video and have to say it's interesting.

Of course everything has to be taken with a grain of salt - but sometimes listening to all sides allows to piece together a story that is lekely closer to the truth than what the media from all allegiances tell us.

When Russia poopoos in Ukraine, pieces of truth are likely coming from US-propaganda affiliated media (with a spin to suit their political needs), and when the US poopoos some other place, Russian media will report some truth and spin it too.

The real shocker is how Western journos don't actually do their jobs.

Most pickup the pieces they are fed by agencies (hey, no need to find new ideas and facts, hooray, we finish early, meet you at the pub) and then publish whatever they get, almost no questions asked.

I can also imagine reporting the "wrong thing" can be a quick career ender, so instead of complex geopolitics which most readers wouldn't understand or care about anyway, journos prefer to report on human tragedies which don't carry a big risk for the journo and might at most graze the core issues.

Journalism I perceive as inadequate is actually one of my pet peeves.

Jeez you putin propaganda workers

really talk so much shit its embarrassing .

Sent from my GT-I9000 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Okay, then you explain the reasons of what happens in Syria.

[rijit]

Understood. But I don't listen to Putin nor read RT. Just like I don't read VOA or listen to many US politicians.

Well, you should consider doing it from time to time to have the chance of seeing things from another perspective.

Some events just don't make sense when listening to the Western US version of the story.

I just watched the video and have to say it's interesting.

Of course everything has to be taken with a grain of salt - but sometimes listening to all sides allows to piece together a story that is lekely closer to the truth than what the media from all allegiances tell us.

When Russia poopoos in Ukraine, pieces of truth are likely coming from US-propaganda affiliated media (with a spin to suit their political needs), and when the US poopoos some other place, Russian media will report some truth and spin it too.

The real shocker is how Western journos don't actually do their jobs.

Most pickup the pieces they are fed by agencies (hey, no need to find new ideas and facts, hooray, we finish early, meet you at the pub) and then publish whatever they get, almost no questions asked.

I can also imagine reporting the "wrong thing" can be a quick career ender, so instead of complex geopolitics which most readers wouldn't understand or care about anyway, journos prefer to report on human tragedies which don't carry a big risk for the journo and might at most graze the core issues.

Journalism I perceive as inadequate is actually one of my pet peeves.

Jeez you putin propaganda workers

really talk so much shit its embarrassing .

Sent from my GT-I9000 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Okay, then you explain the reasons of what happens in Syria.

basically

These boards are 'interests' to many and i for one object when you and your kind use them for political propaganda purposes

Sent from my GT-I9000 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[simple1]

http://ftmdaily.com/what-jerry-thinks/whysyria/

Thank you for posting that link, that really explains a lot.

I had already spent some time several months ago trying to figure out why Assad got on the US' shitlist and couldn't find a good reason.

I think I even posted here about it.

EDIT: I found my posts - I wasn't that far off:

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/763483-us-gulf-allies-blame-each-other-for-rise-of-islamic-state/?view=findpost&p=8463881

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/763485-protecting-the-petrodollar-america-gears-up-for-a-long-war/?view=findpost&p=8477633

Now I can see how Saudi, American and Israel's crucial strategic interests were stacked up against Assad.

He probably took the wrong turn when he decided to try to make some money for his country (and enabling Iran to make money as well) when he went for the Iranian pipeline against the order he received from the US.

Although saying this happened because of big US oil, energy, gas interests would be a misrepresentation as well.

The US's and Israel's goal was more probably to maintain Iran's isolation and bar it from making money by selling its gas.

I looks like the US caused the war in Syria, it's not a far stretch to suspect ISIS was started and funded as a tool to overthrow Assad, at least I don't dismiss the idea.

We have differing opinions, Assad commenced the Civil War, his release of jihadists from jail to justify his position didn't help.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/former-prisoners-fight-in-syrian-insurgency-a-927158.html

As to the Civil War, always think The Atlantic hits the right spot

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/17/world/middleeast/us-strikes-syria-oil.html?_r=1

The links you posted don't show that Assad started the civil war. Wikipedia says the following about the course of events:

The protests started on 15 March 2011, when protesters marched in the capital of Damascus, demanding democratic reforms and the release of political prisoners. The security forces retaliated by opening fire on the protesters,^%5B141%5D and according to witnesses who spoke to the BBC, the government forces detained six of them.^%5B142%5D The protest was triggered by the arrest of a boy and his friends by the government for writing the graffiti, "The people want the fall of the regime", in the city of Daraa.^{%5B141%5D%5B143%5D} Louai al-Hussein, an analyst and writer wrote that "Syria is now on the map of countries in the region with an uprising".^%5B143%5D On 20th, the protesters burned down a <a data-ipb="nomediaparse" data-cke-saved-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ba" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ba" ath_party_(syrian-dominated_faction)"="">Ba'ath Party headquarters and "other buildings". The ensuing clashes claimed the lives of seven police officers%5B144%5D and 15 protesters.^%5B145%5D Ten days later in a speech, President Bashar al-Assad blamed "foreign conspirators" pushing Israeli propaganda for the protests.

The question if these events were orchestrated and then of who organized these events remains completely open, the only certain thing is that Assad didn't get that ball rolling.

As a general observation, nothing allows to rule out an organized uprising instigated by foreign agents, similar to what happened in Romania (the massacre of Timisoara).

My opinion is that the "Arab spring" wasn't an accident.

The timing in Syria is certainly troubling.

Regarding the islamist prisoners, once the ball is rolling, I guess they use everything they can to get their way, Middle Eastern countries aren't generally known for playing very nice.

It's funny that the Spiegel journos try to pin "leading a war by proxies" only on Assad.

In general, I find this passage of the Spiegel article very interesting:

It contains a lot of allegations, I don't know how many are backed by facts or if the Spiegel bothered to verify.

It begins by very conveniently making Assad our enemy, because it is said that he trains Jihadists and sent some against US troops in Irak in 2003.

One thing I wonder about is: "why?"

Why go shit in the US' boots in Irak?

The answer cannot be because Assad hates the US or because Assad is a religious extremist. He's a rational person who doesn't do stuff without some benefit for him.

The other thing is how much of all this we can believe.

Once the "wag the dog" machinery is at full speed, the bullshit is everywhere.

Post removed to enable reply.

If you do not consider Assad forces killing of peaceful demonstrators at the beginning of the Arab Spring as the commencement of the Civil War we are in disagreement. Free Syrian Army was originally composed of members of the Syrian military who opposed Assad's methods for suppressing the demonstrations. Of course this does not take into account the thousands who suffered extreme torture at the hands of the Assad dictatorship, including children.

Why go shit in the US boots in Iraq?

Being a Baathist dictatorship, Syria was against Gulf War 11.

[craigt3365]

Well, you should consider doing it from time to time to have the chance of seeing things from another perspective.

Some events just don't make sense when listening to the Western US version of the story.

I just watched the video and have to say it's interesting.

Of course everything has to be taken with a grain of salt - but sometimes listening to all sides allows to piece together a story that is lekely closer to the truth than what the media from all allegiances tell us.

When Russia poopoos in Ukraine, pieces of truth are likely coming from US-propaganda affiliated media (with a spin to suit their political needs), and when the US poopoos some other place, Russian media will report some truth and spin it too.

The real shocker is how Western journos don't actually do their jobs.

Most pickup the pieces they are fed by agencies (hey, no need to find new ideas and facts, hooray, we finish early, meet you at the pub) and then publish whatever they get, almost no questions asked.

I can also imagine reporting the "wrong thing" can be a quick career ender, so instead of complex geopolitics which most readers wouldn't understand or care about anyway, journos prefer to report on human tragedies which don't carry a big risk for the journo and might at most graze the core issues.

Journalism I perceive as inadequate is actually one of my pet peeves.

As for RT, it's purely a mouth piece for the government and rarely tells the truth. Even the locals in Russia don't believe it. Kinda like here right now. The media is tightly controlled. So I never listen to RT. I've tried, but if you watch the intros on the TV, it's all about how the west hates Russia. Absolute BS and pure propaganda. Worth reading:

http://ajr.org/2014/07/23/putin-lies-videotape-russians-listen-state-television/

In other words, Russians know that the state-run First Channel is not even attempting to give them some sort of balanced account of the news. Rather, the function of central television is to create and manipulate an imagined Russian state that is effective and powerful in the world.

Russians literally laugh at the idea of objectivity or even balance in the news, as I found out when I did focus groups with television viewers there several years ago. Media outlets are mouthpieces for powerful interests, some of them state and some of them industry, but ultimately all tied to one another in the web of Russian corruption. At least state television doesn’t rub your nose in all the problems of the former Soviet Union and the struggling Russian state, they said. At least state television gives you a little hope for your country and your future.

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/russia-cant-sell-its-syria-propaganda--analysts/536932.html

Russia's propaganda machine has always been aimed first and foremost at the Russian audience, Svanidze said, and the methods it is now using were designed and tested during the Ukrainian conflict.

"We are fighting for all the good in the world against the U.S., which represents all the bad in the world — that's how an average Russian sees the situation," he said.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/09/17/putin-s-propaganda-tv-lies-about-ratings.html

From 2005 to 2013, the Russian government spent 61.6 billion rubles—about $2 billion—on RT despite one of the current documents calling it “essentially an internet media company.”

Saying news stories coming from a variety of sources are all US propaganda is ridiculous. And saying how Western journalists don't do their job is a slap in the face to the thousands who do, and actually risk their lives to get the news out.

Is it always unbiased? Unfortunately, everybody has a bias and sees things through their own "lens". It's a fact of life. It's also a fact of life we seek out news that fits what we want to hear. I try to read the news from multiple sources. Ones that aren't controlled by a government.

[manarak]

Jeez you putin propaganda workers

really talk so much shit its embarrassing .

Sent from my GT-I9000 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Okay, then you explain the reasons of what happens in Syria.

basically

These boards are 'interests' to many and i for one object when you and your kind use them for political propaganda purposes

Sent from my GT-I9000 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

well, your kind just gobbles any story coming out of the Western media and considers it the truth, despite a long list of munipulations and lies in the past.

I am just saying we should not accept everything as the truth and also consider other news sources, I never pretended that RT was reliable.

[manarak]

If you do not consider Assad forces killing of peaceful demonstrators at the beginning of the Arab Spring as the commencement of the Civil War we are in disagreement. Free Syrian Army was originally composed of members of the Syrian military who opposed Assad's methods for suppressing the demonstrations. Of course this does not take into account the thousands who suffered extreme torture at the hands of the Assad dictatorship, including children.

Why go shit in the US boots in Iraq?

Being a Baathist dictatorship, Syria was against Gulf War 11.

This is the official story. It might very well be the truth and in this case, the uprising occured "naturally" and Assad turned it into a civil war.

BUT: we really don't know if that story is the truth or will remain the truth - maybe once the dust has settled down in Syria, some people will talk about how they "liberated" Syria by tipping a tense situation over the edge or maybe someone will write memoirs in 30 years from now describing how the uprising had been organized by foreign agents and the army supplied with fake orders.

I simply keep an open mind for that kind of scenario, because of the many times I and the rest of the people have already been lied to.

Regarding attacking the US in Irak, I still don't buy it, there had to be some kind of benefit for Assad for him to do it. Find a real motive please.

[manarak]

As for RT, it's purely a mouth piece for the government and rarely tells the truth. Even the locals in Russia don't believe it. Kinda like here right now. The media is tightly controlled. So I never listen to RT. I've tried, but if you watch the intros on the TV, it's all about how the west hates Russia. Absolute BS and pure propaganda. Worth reading:

Saying news stories coming from a variety of sources are all US propaganda is ridiculous. And saying how Western journalists don't do their job is a slap in the face to the thousands who do, and actually risk their lives to get the news out.

Is it always unbiased? Unfortunately, everybody has a bias and sees things through their own "lens". It's a fact of life. It's also a fact of life we seek out news that fits what we want to hear. I try to read the news from multiple sources. Ones that aren't controlled by a government.

I agree with what you say, and yes, RT is a mouth piece - yet the video linked in this thread isn't a piece they made, it is a speech by Putin in response to a question of a Western journalist.

Alone this fact makes it in my opinion worthy of at least being heard one time before refuting his individual claims with facts and arguments instead of saying it's all bullshit without even knowing what he exactly said.

Second, I didn't say everything is US propaganda, I implied many news stories conform to the US version and media just publish without checking the story. Irak's WMD will remain the most blatant example in recent history.

Some journalists risk their lives to get the news out, yes. My respect to them.

But I also have the feeling that more journalist lives are risked to get strong images from the frontlines which will sell well and advance a career rather than for getting to the bottom of a story.

But many just sit around desks and repeat stories from other "approved" sources, and many don't report straight.

You say it's natural that news are biaised - yet the journos like to keep repeating how they neutral.

Sometimes it looks like they are actively avoiding asking the questions everyone is interested in, or as if the editor of the news would filter out this reporting.

Therefore, I would welcome more diversity in journalism, with news organisations which are overtly leftist, rightist, green, pro-muslim, pro-immigration or whatever, so the news can be seen from different sides instead.

[craigt3365]

Understood, but Putin is a dictator known for not telling the truth. And the media in his country are allowed to criticize him or his actions. Unlike in the West where politicians are fair game for criticism. Remember Putin telling the world there were no Russian troops in Crimea? Then Ukraine. Right....Sorry, but it's not worth my time to listen to him.

Major media outlets don't just publish stories without checking the facts. Some just reprint articles from others, but to say many are not factual is wrong. Yes, the WMD was a terrible mistake. Can't blame the media for that. It was a probably the worst intelligence failure we've ever known. All the media did was report what government officials told them. Kinda hard to go into Iraq at that time and verify what was real or not. LOL

[Thorgal]

If you do not consider Assad forces killing of peaceful demonstrators at the beginning of the Arab Spring as the commencement of the Civil War we are in disagreement. Free Syrian Army was originally composed of members of the Syrian military who opposed Assad's methods for suppressing the demonstrations. Of course this does not take into account the thousands who suffered extreme torture at the hands of the Assad dictatorship, including children.

Why go shit in the US boots in Iraq?

Being a Baathist dictatorship, Syria was against Gulf War 11.

This is the official story. It might very well be the truth and in this case, the uprising occured "naturally" and Assad turned it into a civil war.

BUT: we really don't know if that story is the truth or will remain the truth - maybe once the dust has settled down in Syria, some people will talk about how they "liberated" Syria by tipping a tense situation over the edge or maybe someone will write memoirs in 30 years from now describing how the uprising had been organized by foreign agents and the army supplied with fake orders.

I simply keep an open mind for that kind of scenario, because of the many times I and the rest of the people have already been lied to.

Regarding attacking the US in Irak, I still don't buy it, there had to be some kind of benefit for Assad for him to do it. Find a real motive please.

Syria under Assads and Iraq under Saddam were from Ba'ath political ideology. It's surely not an ethnic-religious political party.

In short : Ba'ath is an Arab nationalist movement with greater pan-Arabic initiative. It became non-popular and almost neutralised due to the majority opposition within the lobby of the Arab League. Let's not forget that Syria is banned from the AL since...the beginning of the Syrian civil war...

Assad Sr. provided for instance political assistance to Saddam during Gulf War 1 for the invasion of Kuwait. There was no benefit in fact for Assad. It was based on common political linkage.

Did Syria attack US boots in Iraq ? Please provide link...

Edited November 23, 2015 by Thorgal

[manarak]

If you do not consider Assad forces killing of peaceful demonstrators at the beginning of the Arab Spring as the commencement of the Civil War we are in disagreement. Free Syrian Army was originally composed of members of the Syrian military who opposed Assad's methods for suppressing the demonstrations. Of course this does not take into account the thousands who suffered extreme torture at the hands of the Assad dictatorship, including children.

Why go shit in the US boots in Iraq?

Being a Baathist dictatorship, Syria was against Gulf War 11.

This is the official story. It might very well be the truth and in this case, the uprising occured "naturally" and Assad turned it into a civil war.

BUT: we really don't know if that story is the truth or will remain the truth - maybe once the dust has settled down in Syria, some people will talk about how they "liberated" Syria by tipping a tense situation over the edge or maybe someone will write memoirs in 30 years from now describing how the uprising had been organized by foreign agents and the army supplied with fake orders.

I simply keep an open mind for that kind of scenario, because of the many times I and the rest of the people have already been lied to.

Regarding attacking the US in Irak, I still don't buy it, there had to be some kind of benefit for Assad for him to do it. Find a real motive please.

Syria under Assads and Iraq under Saddam were from Ba'ath political ideology. It's surely not an ethnic-religious political party.

In short : Ba'ath is an Arab nationalist movement with greater pan-Arabic initiative. It became non-popular and almost neutralised due to the majority opposition within the lobby of the Arab League. Let's not forget that Syria is banned from the AL since...the beginning of the Syrian civil war...

Assad Sr. provided for instance political assistance to Saddam during Gulf War 1 for the invasion of Kuwait. There was no benefit in fact for Assad. It was based on common political linkage.

Did Syria attack US boots in Iraq ? Please provide link...

The AL would also be in opposition to the Iran gas pipeline. The timing of these events is troubling.

[simple1]

If you do not consider Assad forces killing of peaceful demonstrators at the beginning of the Arab Spring as the commencement of the Civil War we are in disagreement. Free Syrian Army was originally composed of members of the Syrian military who opposed Assad's methods for suppressing the demonstrations. Of course this does not take into account the thousands who suffered extreme torture at the hands of the Assad dictatorship, including children.

Why go shit in the US boots in Iraq?

Being a Baathist dictatorship, Syria was against Gulf War 11.

This is the official story. It might very well be the truth and in this case, the uprising occured "naturally" and Assad turned it into a civil war.

BUT: we really don't know if that story is the truth or will remain the truth - maybe once the dust has settled down in Syria, some people will talk about how they "liberated" Syria by tipping a tense situation over the edge or maybe someone will write memoirs in 30 years from now describing how the uprising had been organized by foreign agents and the army supplied with fake orders.

I simply keep an open mind for that kind of scenario, because of the many times I and the rest of the people have already been lied to.

Regarding attacking the US in Irak, I still don't buy it, there had to be some kind of benefit for Assad for him to do it. Find a real motive please.

Not going backwards and forwards until content is agreed based upon your personal interpretation. However, one last response to you in this topic..

From a Syrian perspective, of the precedent that would be established, the forcible overthrow of a secular Arab dictatorship for failing to acquiesce to US policy goals, Assad had little choice but to oppose the US Administration.

if you really are interested in the topic, have a read of "Inheriting Syria; Bashar’s Trail by Fire" by Flynt Lawrence Leverett

[TheCruncher]

Understood, but Putin is a dictator known for not telling the truth. And the media in his country are allowed to criticize him or his actions. Unlike in the West where politicians are fair game for criticism. Remember Putin telling the world there were no Russian troops in Crimea? Then Ukraine. Right....Sorry, but it's not worth my time to listen to him.

Major media outlets don't just publish stories without checking the facts. Some just reprint articles from others, but to say many are not factual is wrong. Yes, the WMD was a terrible mistake. Can't blame the media for that. It was a probably the worst intelligence failure we've ever known. All the media did was report what government officials told them. Kinda hard to go into Iraq at that time and verify what was real or not. LOL

Kinda hard to go into Iraq at that time and verify what was real or not. LOL

Really? I recall that Iraq allowed inspectors at that time.

[craigt3365]

One of my issues with russia is that putin and his cronies have 'lied ' so much i find anything they say hard to believe.

Sent from my GT-I9000 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Nobody lies more than Uncle Scam

Not even North Korea? Troll post....

[craigt3365]

Understood, but Putin is a dictator known for not telling the truth. And the media in his country are allowed to criticize him or his actions. Unlike in the West where politicians are fair game for criticism. Remember Putin telling the world there were no Russian troops in Crimea? Then Ukraine. Right....Sorry, but it's not worth my time to listen to him.

Major media outlets don't just publish stories without checking the facts. Some just reprint articles from others, but to say many are not factual is wrong. Yes, the WMD was a terrible mistake. Can't blame the media for that. It was a probably the worst intelligence failure we've ever known. All the media did was report what government officials told them. Kinda hard to go into Iraq at that time and verify what was real or not. LOL

Kinda hard to go into Iraq at that time and verify what was real or not. LOL

Really? I recall that Iraq allowed inspectors at that time.

Really?

http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2002_10/iraqspecialoct02

Baghdad agreed to these conditions but for eight years deceived, obstructed, and threatened international inspectors sent to dismantle and verify the destruction of its banned programs. This systematic Iraqi effort to conceal and obscure the true extent of its weapons of mass destruction programs began almost immediately, when Baghdad lied about the status of its programs in its initial declarations and obstructed an inspection team. Iraq continued to harass, hinder, and frustrate inspectors until late 1998, when the inspectors withdrew from Iraq just hours before the United States and the United Kingdom launched three days of military strikes against Iraq for its noncooperation. Since that time, Iraq has permitted only limited inspections of declared nuclear sites but has not yet allowed the return of intrusive inspections to verify that it has lived up to its commitment to get rid of its prohibited weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missile programs.

[Rancid]

Anyone with any sense of curiosity as opposed to just lapping up whatever the MSM spits out should have found who is really running ISIS by now.

I wonder though if there is another bigger game going on, sort of a good cop-bad cop scenario being run with Russia. Will be interesting to see who ends up aligning with who as time goes by, regardless healthy for armament manufacturers.

[Thorgal]

If you do not consider Assad forces killing of peaceful demonstrators at the beginning of the Arab Spring as the commencement of the Civil War we are in disagreement. Free Syrian Army was originally composed of members of the Syrian military who opposed Assad's methods for suppressing the demonstrations. Of course this does not take into account the thousands who suffered extreme torture at the hands of the Assad dictatorship, including children.

Why go shit in the US boots in Iraq?

Being a Baathist dictatorship, Syria was against Gulf War 11.

This is the official story. It might very well be the truth and in this case, the uprising occured "naturally" and Assad turned it into a civil war.

BUT: we really don't know if that story is the truth or will remain the truth - maybe once the dust has settled down in Syria, some people will talk about how they "liberated" Syria by tipping a tense situation over the edge or maybe someone will write memoirs in 30 years from now describing how the uprising had been organized by foreign agents and the army supplied with fake orders.

I simply keep an open mind for that kind of scenario, because of the many times I and the rest of the people have already been lied to.

Regarding attacking the US in Irak, I still don't buy it, there had to be some kind of benefit for Assad for him to do it. Find a real motive please.

Syria under Assads and Iraq under Saddam were from Ba'ath political ideology. It's surely not an ethnic-religious political party.

In short : Ba'ath is an Arab nationalist movement with greater pan-Arabic initiative. It became non-popular and almost neutralised due to the majority opposition within the lobby of the Arab League. Let's not forget that Syria is banned from the AL since...the beginning of the Syrian civil war...

Assad Sr. provided for instance political assistance to Saddam during Gulf War 1 for the invasion of Kuwait. There was no benefit in fact for Assad. It was based on common political linkage.

Did Syria attack US boots in Iraq ? Please provide link...

The AL would also be in opposition to the Iran gas pipeline. The timing of these events is troubling.

Syria doesn't has economic ties with Israel and US.

Between 2000 and 2007, a Norwegian oil drilling company was awarded a contract to make tests on Syrian soil.

The results were positive and huge quantities of crude were estimated. The Norwegian company was bought in that period by a US-Canadian oil trust.

To say also that the strategic towns/cities around these wells were captured by Islamist Jihadi's in early stage of Syrian civil war.

Let's not forget that the Golan heights under Israeli occupation revealed the same oil rich reserves.

A lot of coincidences are troubling.

I would rather not concentrate on the future pipelines in Syria to connect the ME or Russia with Europe. The conflict of interests is much deeper.

Edited November 23, 2015 by Thorgal

[craigt3365]

Anyone with any sense of curiosity as opposed to just lapping up whatever the MSM spits out should have found who is really running ISIS by now.

I wonder though if there is another bigger game going on, sort of a good cop-bad cop scenario being run with Russia. Will be interesting to see who ends up aligning with who as time goes by, regardless healthy for armament manufacturers.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Mainstream_media

Criticism

As previously mentioned, mainstream media is treated like a magic scapegoat by critics as a source of sensationalism, repressing free speech by avoiding discussing controversial issues (wingnuts sometimes associate this with political correctness), and "dumbing down" the presentation of information^[3] and of oversimplifying issues. Critics also accuse MSM of glorifying sex and violence and blame it for the hypercommercialization/consumerism of society.

To conspiracy theorists, the mainstream media is a no go, because they're government-paid shills.

[NeverSure]

Sooooo... Is Russia's intensified air campaign pounding ISIL targets in Syria?

[derator01]

Please stick to the topic.

[Scott]

If you do not consider Assad forces killing of peaceful demonstrators at the beginning of the Arab Spring as the commencement of the Civil War we are in disagreement. Free Syrian Army was originally composed of members of the Syrian military who opposed Assad's methods for suppressing the demonstrations. Of course this does not take into account the thousands who suffered extreme torture at the hands of the Assad dictatorship, including children.

Why go shit in the US boots in Iraq?

Being a Baathist dictatorship, Syria was against Gulf War 11.

This is the official story. It might very well be the truth and in this case, the uprising occured "naturally" and Assad turned it into a civil war.

BUT: we really don't know if that story is the truth or will remain the truth - maybe once the dust has settled down in Syria, some people will talk about how they "liberated" Syria by tipping a tense situation over the edge or maybe someone will write memoirs in 30 years from now describing how the uprising had been organized by foreign agents and the army supplied with fake orders.

I simply keep an open mind for that kind of scenario, because of the many times I and the rest of the people have already been lied to.

Regarding attacking the US in Irak, I still don't buy it, there had to be some kind of benefit for Assad for him to do it. Find a real motive please.

Syria under Assads and Iraq under Saddam were from Ba'ath political ideology. It's surely not an ethnic-religious political party.

In short : Ba'ath is an Arab nationalist movement with greater pan-Arabic initiative. It became non-popular and almost neutralised due to the majority opposition within the lobby of the Arab League. Let's not forget that Syria is banned from the AL since...the beginning of the Syrian civil war...

Assad Sr. provided for instance political assistance to Saddam during Gulf War 1 for the invasion of Kuwait. There was no benefit in fact for Assad. It was based on common political linkage.

Did Syria attack US boots in Iraq ? Please provide link...

The relationship between the Assad's and Iraq has been a contentious one. At the time I was there, there was no border crossing between Iraq and Syria. To get from one country to the other, you took a row boat across the river (Northern Iraq). Assad provided material and logistical support for the Kurds to fight Saddam. He also provided support for the two Kurdish factions to fight one another.

I never could get a clear reason as to why, but bits and pieces were explained by various people in the Syrian gov't. Part of it was because he believed the Syrian version of the Baathist party was the right one and the Iraqi one was not.

To the best of my knowledge he did not provide troops or actual fighting but he has a fairly long history of aiding and abetting conflicts between various factions.

[thaimat]

Understood, but Putin is a dictator known for not telling the truth. And the media in his country are allowed to criticize him or his actions. Unlike in the West where politicians are fair game for criticism. Remember Putin telling the world there were no Russian troops in Crimea? Then Ukraine. Right....Sorry, but it's not worth my time to listen to him.

Major media outlets don't just publish stories without checking the facts. Some just reprint articles from others, but to say many are not factual is wrong. Yes, the WMD was a terrible mistake. Can't blame the media for that. It was a probably the worst intelligence failure we've ever known. All the media did was report what government officials told them. Kinda hard to go into Iraq at that time and verify what was real or not. LOL

Balderdash. There was plenty of sources available to the media, had it been looking, that the WMD claim was without any evidence. CIA, MI6, and German and French Intelligence sources were on record at that time saying that Iraq had no WMDs. The Joe Wilson report to the White House, that Iraq never bought yellowcake uranium was leaked to the public as well, which Germany publicly reiterated. The aluminum tubes supposedly bought for centrifuges for making plutonium, but we're in fact a conventional sized rocket tube, were available in Jordan for any journalist's inspection. It's a huge list of lies that MSM never investigated, by choice, not because the facts were not verifiable. MSM simply never bothered to do any investigative reporting, the worst and most complicit, of course, being NY Times, Judith Miller. Your statement "All the media did was report what government officials told them" pretty much sums up MSM's total failure in their duty as the fourth estate, and their complicity in the Iraq war, IMO.