[prog2djent]

(Original post by Highlander03)
. Arming them

Arm these guys? http://www.youtube.com/user/SyriaTruthNetworkEN/videos

Here's the stuff our media wont tell us about UN monitors

[Rhadamanthus]

(Original post by prog2djent)
Stability is the last thing the US and NATO want in Syria, and that's why they support these rebels.

Why on earth do you think NATO don't want stability in Syria? You really think that the USA wants instability in a major backer of international terrorism so close to a key US ally?

[prog2djent]

(Original post by Rhadamanthus)
Why on earth do you think NATO don't want stability in Syria? You really think that the USA wants instability in a major backer of international terrorism so close to a key US ally?

Assad is possibly the most Anti-Israel leader of any of the arabic nations, the rebels have no organisational power.

[Steevee]

I do have to say, there are a worrying amount of videos on the internet at the moment that are showing the FSA in a rather bad light.

The FSA are involved in a propaganda war at the moment, and are sending a lot of videos and pictures to news outlets claiming to show atrocities committed by the Syrian Government. But more than a few of these have been shown to be generic gore vids from the internet, and yet more don't make sense in the context the FSA is claiming they happened. Overall, I think the FSA are certainly not people we want to be supporting militarily. They certainly seem a lot shadier than the Libyan Rebels, who to be honest, were rather shady themselves.

[Aj12]

(Original post by Steevee)
I do have to say, there are a worrying amount of videos on the internet at the moment that are showing the FSA in a rather bad light.

The FSA are involved in a propaganda war at the moment, and are sending a lot of videos and pictures to news outlets claiming to show atrocities committed by the Syrian Government. But more than a few of these have been shown to be generic gore vids from the internet, and yet more don't make sense in the context the FSA is claiming they happened. Overall, I think the FSA are certainly not people we want to be supporting militarily. They certainly seem a lot shadier than the Libyan Rebels, who to be honest, were rather shady themselves.

Problem is the FSA aren't the only opposition, plenty of Syrians are clearly against Assad, just not willing to risk their lives or perhaps just not stupid enough to try direct combat, and they are catching hell for it.

[rawkus]

(Original post by Aj12)
Right or wrong in this situation I find it just as disturbing that the Syrian government has free fire zones in cities.

Something else I have noticed about this whole thing in Syria, those that claim that the BBC and Western media are just spouting propaganda seem to blindly accept what the Syrian Russian and Chinese media have to say with a completely blind faith when these countries have a far worse record than the West could match even if it tried.

Im currently trawling through conspiracy sites or alternate media or whatever you want to call it to try to find the explanations that are apparently being hidden by the Western media and they are massively lacking. So far it always seems to come back to the US running the world, the NWO and Israel/Zionism being behind it , with no one explaining who these "terrorists" in Syria are or how they got so well armed and trained apart from saying the US did it with no proof whatever.

It doesnt take a trip to infowars.co.uk to realise that there are many inconsistencies in the stories that we are being spun. Most people are well aware that RT news, like the Guardian, has its own editorial stances and pressure from "the top" to take a certain stance with a particular story. Nonetheless, that fact that two very different account are emerging shows that this is not as one dimensional as either side is making out. From the side of the coin that is rammed down our throats, I have been doing a little bit of reading on our friend Danny Dayem and he is far from the journalist-cum-freedom fighter that he is made out to be.

Just as the opposing view can be, in your eyes, discredited due to a lack of evidence, equally our side can be too. I mean I have heard on here people talk about the Russians arming the syrian Government with no supporting evidence. It seems either side is just as partial to taking news similar to their view point with less evidence.

[Aj12]

(Original post by rawkus)
It doesnt take a trip to infowars.co.uk to realise that there are many inconsistencies in the stories that we are being spun. Most people are well aware that RT news, like the Guardian, has its own editorial stances and pressure from "the top" to take a certain stance with a particular story. Nonetheless, that fact that two very different account are emerging shows that this is not as one dimensional as either side is making out. From the side of the coin that is rammed down our throats, I have been doing a little bit of reading on our friend Danny Dayem and he is far from the journalist-cum-freedom fighter that he is made out to be.

Just as the opposing view can be, in your eyes, discredited due to a lack of evidence, equally our side can be too. I mean I have heard on here people talk about the Russians arming the syrian Government with no supporting evidence. It seems either side is just as partial to taking news similar to their view point with less evidence.

On here sure things are being thrown around with no backing or sources whats so ever. But this is TSR and it happens in every debate no matter what it's about. Generally, and I use the term very loosely, the line given out by the Western media ( I really hate this term as well, since it seems to apply all media in the west gives the same line which really is not true at all.) has been better than what has been given out in other places by other sides, including Assad, the Russians, the Chinese ect. It has made more sense, is generally better sourced and at the very least includes throughout many articles on Syria that things are unverified. I find it far easier to believe the overall line.

[rawkus]

(Original post by Aj12)
On here sure things are being thrown around with no backing or sources whats so ever. But this is TSR and it happens in every debate no matter what it's about. Generally, and I use the term very loosely, the line given out by the Western media ( I really hate this term as well, since it seems to apply all media in the west gives the same line which really is not true at all.) has been better than what has been given out in other places by other sides, including Assad, the Russians, the Chinese ect. It has made more sense, is generally better sourced and at the very least includes throughout many articles on Syria that things are unverified. I find it far easier to believe the overall line.

no it isnt? Even when they do quote "activists" a lot of the articles we read acknowledge that the reports cannot verified. I was amazed actually that the article in the OP was published as it really doesnt for the narrative sold to us.

No, the "western media" is a term that, whilst indeed generalised, is used to reflect the fact that for stories like this, most of the major news outlets conform to the same narrative.

I don't really think it makes sense. I mean what is more realistic, a united front of freedom fighters who can do no wrong fighting a evil hitler-esque man who is killing anyone and everyone (quite hollywood don't you think?) or a rag bag bunch of disunited opposition that ranges from secular liberals to islamists all wanting the power that Assad has and whilst their cause may have started on more admirable grounds, they are slowly sinking into exactly the same stench of misinformation and abhorrent behaviour as the very "evil" they first took arms against?

[Aj12]

(Original post by rawkus)
no it isnt? Even when they do quote "activists" a lot of the articles we read acknowledge that the reports cannot verified. I was amazed actually that the article in the OP was published as it really doesnt for the narrative sold to us.

No, the "western media" is a term that, whilst indeed generalised, is used to reflect the fact that for stories like this, most of the major news outlets conform to the same narrative.

I don't really think it makes sense. I mean what is more realistic, a united front of freedom fighters who can do no wrong fighting a evil hitler-esque man who is killing anyone and everyone (quite hollywood don't you think?) or a rag bag bunch of disunited opposition that ranges from secular liberals to islamists all wanting the power that Assad has and whilst their cause may have started on more admirable grounds, they are slowly sinking into exactly the same stench of misinformation and abhorrent behaviour as the very "evil" they first took arms against?

The Guardian and a few other media sites both here and in the US have published a quite a few articles that paint the FSA in a negative light so I'm not really sure why you are surprised?

No one has said that they can do no wrong and no one has said that they are a united front.

Free Syria army accused of human rights abuses:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/midd...ed-abuses-live
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-17445148
http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/03/20/s...mitting-abuses
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/...315509611.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...82P0W220120326
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-17921390

A few of those links are covering the same story but even so the point is how wide the coverage of these alleged human rights abuses was.

Opposition fragmented
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today...00/9725157.stm
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...84B06C20120512
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...JIR_story.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18193504

Fragmented leadership and possibly being infiltrated by al Qaeda. Granted the media is clearly backing the FSA far more than it should be. But even so there is plenty out there that shows the FSA in a very different light.

I won't say yet that they have sunk to the same level as Assad, since this may well turn out to be a one off. And they aren't carrying out massacres like Assad's side are. Granted he's not the one ordering each of these but he created the situation for things like Houla to occur.

[prog2djent]

(Original post by Aj12)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18193504
.

Read all the articles, "The suicide attacks and beheadings so familiar from Iraq have not, yet, come to Syria" (from the article). What a crock of s***.

It doesn't matter what the guardian, WP, and HP say, its what themajor, most inluential, most widely read, and trusted news sources say, and that is the BBC and channel 4 in this country. So there may be a few (very few) articles that try and give a balance or at the very least criticise the opposition, but that's not we see on the TV, that's not what we see from the main newsrooms, what we hear on the radio, and what special TV programs commisioned by the BBC and channel 4 delegations say. Someone pointed out a guy called Danny Abdul Dayem. He is essentially the embodiment of western propoganda http://www.sott.net/articles/show/24...st-Danny-Dayem. This guy is the BBC and CNN's darling, these two organisations are basically the people that sway public opinion with regards to war, especially CNN in the affluent east coast. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-DCZxsrt9I The fact Paxman isn't being his cynical self really does hammer it home.

Oh yes, and on my first point in italics,






**** it have this http://www.youtube.com/results?searc....0.AbfjVhQLGGg

[prog2djent]

http://www.rt.com/news/syria-chemical-weapons-plot-532/ came accross this. I know its RT, but the source is dampress.

Again, rebels try a false flag operation, I have another thread on the rebels and how the pose as the army, or atleast try to spin it to Al Jazeera or other western sources that the military are killing the people.

[Dirac Delta Function]

(Original post by prog2djent)

**** it have this http://www.youtube.com/results?searc....0.AbfjVhQLGGg

I just randomly picked this one http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-JO-...ipcontrinter=1

He's beheading the guy because he is a "rafidhi", which is a derogatory term for Shia. This is a purely sectarian murder.


Salafis are trash, these ********s should not be supported under any circumstances, they are murdering for religious reasons.

[Aj12]

(Original post by prog2djent)
http://www.rt.com/news/syria-chemical-weapons-plot-532/ came accross this. I know its RT, but the source is dampress.

Again, rebels try a false flag operation, I have another thread on the rebels and how the pose as the army, or atleast try to spin it to Al Jazeera or other western sources that the military are killing the people.

Looks like a very pro Syrian government site, what makes you so sure what its saying is true especially claims like this.

[Organ]

(Original post by Dirac Delta Function)
I just randomly picked this one http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-JO-...ipcontrinter=1

He's beheading the guy because he is a "rafidhi", which is a derogatory term for Shia. This is a purely sectarian murder.


Salafis are trash, these ********s should not be supported under any circumstances, they are murdering for religious reasons.

Those Gulf ****ers are behind this. Looks like they want to destroy another country now that they have finished with Iraq.

[rawkus]

(Original post by Aj12)
The Guardian and a few other media sites both here and in the US have published a quite a few articles that paint the FSA in a negative light so I'm not really sure why you are surprised?

No one has said that they can do no wrong and no one has said that they are a united front.

Free Syria army accused of human rights abuses:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/midd...ed-abuses-live
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-17445148
http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/03/20/s...mitting-abuses
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/...315509611.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...82P0W220120326
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-17921390

A few of those links are covering the same story but even so the point is how wide the coverage of these alleged human rights abuses was.

Opposition fragmented
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today...00/9725157.stm
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...84B06C20120512
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...JIR_story.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18193504

Fragmented leadership and possibly being infiltrated by al Qaeda. Granted the media is clearly backing the FSA far more than it should be. But even so there is plenty out there that shows the FSA in a very different light.

I won't say yet that they have sunk to the same level as Assad, since this may well turn out to be a one off. And they aren't carrying out massacres like Assad's side are. Granted he's not the one ordering each of these but he created the situation for things like Houla to occur.

Fair play, as we saw with the mention of the channel 4 reporter and his expiriences, sometimes these outlets are wiling to briefly show some essence of the other side. Yet you know as well as I do that these stories remain rare and that when, like in the case of the articles you have, these stories are pointed out, they are more often then not to revert back to their narrative and say stuff like

But Radwan Ziadeh pointed out that the Assad regime had carried far greater abuses on a systematic and widespread scale.

which in effect is saying "well it sucks, but then again the other side is doing much worse so its not too bad".

Whilst I would not say that it is impossible that the Shabiha were behind Houla and Al-Quasiar, I am a little sceptical and therefore not going to agree with you. Do you not think that the timing of both is quite suspicious. Granted that Houla may have been a coincidence and, like you say, Assad was indirectly responsible. But considering the subsequent reaction you would have thought that he would have then tried harder to control them and not let it happen again before such a meeting was being convened by the international community?

[Aj12]

(Original post by rawkus)
Fair play, as we saw with the mention of the channel 4 reporter and his expiriences, sometimes these outlets are wiling to briefly show some essence of the other side. Yet you know as well as I do that these stories remain rare and that when, like in the case of the articles you have, these stories are pointed out, they are more often then not to revert back to their narrative and say stuff like which in effect is saying "well it sucks, but then again the other side is doing much worse so its not too bad".

Whilst I would not say that it is impossible that the Shabiha were behind Houla and Al-Quasiar, I am a little sceptical and therefore not going to agree with you. Do you not think that the timing of both is quite suspicious. Granted that Houla may have been a coincidence and, like you say, Assad was indirectly responsible. But considering the subsequent reaction you would have thought that he would have then tried harder to control them and not let it happen again before such a meeting was being convened by the international community?

I don't know. I don't have a clue the way Assad thinks. Maybe he can't control these militias and let something loose that he can't really control. He started off using brutality and then lost some of his control over how much was given out. At the same time I would't be too shocked if he did allow it to happen or on some level wanted it to. His family are known for their brutality and he has seen what happens to dictators who let up, they fall. He has Russian backing on the UN secruity council and he has Iranian money backing him so he hardly needs to fear the international community.

I don't think we are going to fully know what went on or what has gone on in Syria till after this is over.