So guys, once rebels beat Assad to death, what do you think will happen?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by prog2djent
The BBC are the closest to a mouthpiece that we will ever get, in comparison to other media sources.
No the coverage hasn't been exlusively pro-rebel, but right from the get-go, from what I have been researching and following, in comparison to the Guardian or Indy, the BBC have been completely ignorant of anything that paints the rebels in a bad light, and will report what they can on how bad Assad is. The BBC may make a passing reference that most BBC zombies won't even notice, in relation to rebel war crimes and massacres (the Independent now acknowledges that Houla massacre, was a rebel opperation ... and the Guardian credits this), yet this is found in maybe 1 in 10 reports, on the TV or on the web.
Not related, but something that really, really annoys me about BBC, times and Daily Mail reporting (what the majority of people use as media sources) is when trying to balance and article, i.e, "the syrian government blamed 'terrorists' for the attack", always keen to put terrorist between markings, mocking almost. Or here is another common on, a BBC TV favourite, "Assad blamed so-called 'armed gangs' for the bombing".
No the coverage hasn't been exlusively pro-rebel, but right from the get-go, from what I have been researching and following, in comparison to the Guardian or Indy, the BBC have been completely ignorant of anything that paints the rebels in a bad light, and will report what they can on how bad Assad is. The BBC may make a passing reference that most BBC zombies won't even notice, in relation to rebel war crimes and massacres (the Independent now acknowledges that Houla massacre, was a rebel opperation ... and the Guardian credits this), yet this is found in maybe 1 in 10 reports, on the TV or on the web.
Not related, but something that really, really annoys me about BBC, times and Daily Mail reporting (what the majority of people use as media sources) is when trying to balance and article, i.e, "the syrian government blamed 'terrorists' for the attack", always keen to put terrorist between markings, mocking almost. Or here is another common on, a BBC TV favourite, "Assad blamed so-called 'armed gangs' for the bombing".
No government mouthpiece reports on every single negative piece of government news - the BBC does that. And does the name David Kelly ring a bell at all?
I've read BBC news reports on Syria almost daily - a rather large percentage of them highlighted incidents of the rebels killing civilians etc. The odd one mentioned how they believed some of the acts done by the rebels could constitute war crimes. I don't believe for a second you've been "carefully analysing" the media - you've been picking out stories here and there that back up your views...
Of course they phrase it as "terrorists" etc. Whether they are actually terrorists is up for debate - with the default position for most being "no they aren't"... It's not "mocking" the Syrian government, it's showing that the phrasing the government are using isn't necessarily correct...
Original post by Clessus
1. complains about the western media being "biased"
2.while at the same time quoting western media sources
3.and then goes on to quote Russia Today
1. complains about the western media being "biased"
2.while at the same time quoting western media sources
3.and then goes on to quote Russia Today
1. I try and insert the word "major" western, or "main" western media FYI. Its bloody well obvious that getting objective and balanced information on foreign policy and potential intervention related issue are going to be Centrist Newspapers or left of our very right wing government newspapers (guardian and independent, they aren't really left wing, just left of our governments, and their competition) over and above the BBC, Times and DM.
2. Clearly you aren't familiar with the concept of ..... "change", i.e, for the last half of 2011 and up until june-july 2012, just about all national media sources in the UK and US have been on one side, regardless of occasionally "balancing" it out. I viewed every national and major organisation as being pro-rebel and anti-assad, and those closest to the government mindset (again, BBC, Times and DM) being pro-intervention, and some rogue centre leftists, favouring humanitarian intervention, as opposed to economic and power related reasons dressed up as humanitarian intervention, which our right wing governments always pedal to us. That opinion of mine has changed. And the Guardian and Indy seem to be balanced now, the DM and times finally talking about the role of Jihad groups, and the BBC, though stating it is a debatable issue, are arguining in favour of intervention, and presenting the Syrian entity as requiring it.
3. Right, I'm sick of this, who.the.****.cares if it Russia today, anything related to foreign policy, then I am more likely (not siding with) to favour RT over the BBC, CNN or Fox. Our major media outlets heaviliy involved in the state and private corporatist business, are on one side, and Russia is on the other, duh. You cannot find any info from our major sources criticial of what we are doing, enough to make the public see the truth instead of just being a bit anti-war on ideological grounds, which most of us are. Though RT is not self-critical and is a propoganda and centre of lies for the Russian state, and pushing its foreign agenda to promote economic inteference, oil and energy, just like us, it does what we do to them, it is damn good at exposing our foreign policy and international business/military crimes, and vice versa.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by prog2djent
.
1. I try and insert the word "major" western, or "main" western media FYI. Its bloody well obvious that getting objective and balanced information on foreign policy and potential intervention related issue are going to be Centrist Newspapers or left of our very right wing government newspapers (guardian and independent, they aren't really left wing, just left of our governments, and their competition) over and above the BBC, Times and DM.
1. I try and insert the word "major" western, or "main" western media FYI. Its bloody well obvious that getting objective and balanced information on foreign policy and potential intervention related issue are going to be Centrist Newspapers or left of our very right wing government newspapers (guardian and independent, they aren't really left wing, just left of our governments, and their competition) over and above the BBC, Times and DM.
What are you talking about? You complain about the "major" western media being biased, and then cite the "major" western media which supports your position. What you are really saying is that these sources are 'biased' because they do not agree with you, and that they have become less biased because they have moved closer to your position. As for the Guardian not being left wing, I'm sorry, but any paper which employes neo-stalinists like Seamus Milne, flirts with atrocity denial and is a megaphone for frauds like David Gibbs and Richard 'Lenin' Seymour is in my view 'left-wing'. (I'm not saying that promoting charlatans is exclusive to the Left, the Right does it as well, but the two frauds mentioned above are left-wing frauds).
3. Right, I'm sick of this, who.the.****.cares if it Russia today, anything related to foreign policy, then I am more likely (not siding with) to favour RT over the BBC, CNN or Fox. Our major media outlets heaviliy involved in the state and private corporatist business, are on one side, and Russia is on the other, duh. You cannot find any info from our major sources criticial of what we are doing, enough to make the public see the truth instead of just being a bit anti-war on ideological grounds, which most of us are. Though RT is not self-critical and is a propoganda and centre of lies for the Russian state, and pushing its foreign agenda to promote economic inteference, oil and energy, just like us, it does what we do to them, it is damn good at exposing our foreign policy and international business/military crimes, and vice versa.
Russia Today is a propoganda channel. Citing it will get you laughed out of any serious discussion. The differance between the BBC and Russia Today is that Britain has a fairly free press, and it is more likely to go against the Government's line or expose the government's failings. The same cannot be said for Russia Today. Whatever the failings of the BBC (and they exist, I fully admit), they do not compare to the failings of Russia Today, which employes
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by callum9999
1. the BBC does that. And does the name David Kelly ring a bell at all?
2. you've been picking out stories here and there that back up your views...
Of course they phrase it as "terrorists" etc. Whether they are actually terrorists is up for debate - with the default position for most being "no they aren't"... It's not "mocking" the Syrian government, it's showing that the phrasing the government are using isn't necessarily correct...
1. the BBC does that. And does the name David Kelly ring a bell at all?
2. you've been picking out stories here and there that back up your views...
Of course they phrase it as "terrorists" etc. Whether they are actually terrorists is up for debate - with the default position for most being "no they aren't"... It's not "mocking" the Syrian government, it's showing that the phrasing the government are using isn't necessarily correct...
1. I think I said "closest to".
2. Pretty much daily, since March, I have been reading about this whole thing daily, even if minimal, and often I will have whole days researching this, I literally have hundreds of sources in a bloated file on my documents list, and have about 4 threads already typed that I haven't made yet.
Do you know what my views even are? The bottom line? That we shouldn't intervene in Syria, and we shouldn't be intervening anywhere, or be occupying anywhere, I think this is power/money/energy related issue at the top (Gulf States/Israel/US/NATO vs Russia/China) and then thos in italics vs Iran as a subsidiary, then below that, those in italics vs other states opposed to Israel with a sizeable threat, Syria included, along with anyother nation in that area that hasn't signed the Israeli peace treaty, any area with shared oil with Russia and China, or any area supporting groups oppose to Israel.
Then at the bottom, it is a religious issue, Sunni vs everything.
Original post by Clessus
1. and then cite the "major" western media which supports your position. What you are really saying is that these sources are 'biased' because they do not agree with you
2. As for the Guardian not being left wing
3. The same cannot be said for Russia Today. Whatever the failings of the BBC (and they exist, I fully admit), they do not compare to the failings of Russia Today, which employesjournalists clowns like Nebojsa Malic, promotes conspiricy theories and genocide denial.
1. and then cite the "major" western media which supports your position. What you are really saying is that these sources are 'biased' because they do not agree with you
2. As for the Guardian not being left wing
3. The same cannot be said for Russia Today. Whatever the failings of the BBC (and they exist, I fully admit), they do not compare to the failings of Russia Today, which employes
Completely unrelated, but your avatar is really annoying me and my posts may be unfailry against you beacuse the guy looks like Paul Krugman hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaah
1. The guardian is certainly not what I would call a major source, with regards to anything national or just very important, the BBC, then Times, the DM are far and above the Guardian. The majority, vast, majority, turn to those over the Guardian.
2. The Guardian is a pro capitalist paper, though social democratic, which automatically put it on the right, and obivously, it is libertarian on socio-cultural issues and that strange land or left-wing authoritarianism with regards to socio-economic issues. It is just, like I said, to the the left of the other national papers, aside from the Morning Star, which is the only leftist national paper, and no-one reads haha.
3. I think I said the only thing RT is good for is criticising and exposing our foreign policy. Stop with the ad hom arguments against institutions beacuse of who they employ and what they are about. The Truth can be found ... in anything. I would see PressTv as being more transparent with regards to our foreign affairs, as opposed to the BBC. For example, the BBC will argue the afghan intervention was about ousting the taliban and saving the oppressed women (which they are) but
, like I say, one of the arguments for internvetion the BBC use is humanitarian, and the other, was Bin Laden (who PressTv probably say didn't exist, something anti-western sources aren't good for, which is conspiracy) being there. But we all know that our governments don't care about a few hundred or thousand civilians being killed on our soil, they invaded Afghanistand because it was an opportunity for strategic positioning against Russia and towards Iran, Opium, and natural resources, as well as a middle finger against the Kremlin.
Original post by prog2djent
1. I think I said "closest to".
2. Pretty much daily, since March, I have been reading about this whole thing daily, even if minimal, and often I will have whole days researching this, I literally have hundreds of sources in a bloated file on my documents list, and have about 4 threads already typed that I haven't made yet.
Do you know what my views even are? The bottom line? That we shouldn't intervene in Syria, and we shouldn't be intervening anywhere, or be occupying anywhere, I think this is power/money/energy related issue at the top (Gulf States/Israel/US/NATO vs Russia/China) and then thos in italics vs Iran as a subsidiary, then below that, those in italics vs other states opposed to Israel with a sizeable threat, Syria included, along with anyother nation in that area that hasn't signed the Israeli peace treaty, any area with shared oil with Russia and China, or any area supporting groups oppose to Israel.
Then at the bottom, it is a religious issue, Sunni vs everything.
2. Pretty much daily, since March, I have been reading about this whole thing daily, even if minimal, and often I will have whole days researching this, I literally have hundreds of sources in a bloated file on my documents list, and have about 4 threads already typed that I haven't made yet.
Do you know what my views even are? The bottom line? That we shouldn't intervene in Syria, and we shouldn't be intervening anywhere, or be occupying anywhere, I think this is power/money/energy related issue at the top (Gulf States/Israel/US/NATO vs Russia/China) and then thos in italics vs Iran as a subsidiary, then below that, those in italics vs other states opposed to Israel with a sizeable threat, Syria included, along with anyother nation in that area that hasn't signed the Israeli peace treaty, any area with shared oil with Russia and China, or any area supporting groups oppose to Israel.
Then at the bottom, it is a religious issue, Sunni vs everything.
You did in your second post, but being "closest" to it is utterly irrelevant. Either it is or it isn't, IT ISN'T.
Really? I hope to God you're trying to become some sort of international political analyst! Though the size of your research doesn't mean a lot - if you are looking for something (which whether you choose to accept it or not, I believe you are, and nothing you say will change that), you can manipulate any amount of sources.
Everyone seems to think that. Maybe you have some evidence to back up that claim in your "bloated source document" but pretty much no-one else does. It all makes very little sense as well. America and the West would have been far better off grooming the existing dictators in the area instead of siding with the rebels in monetary, energy and security terms.
Original post by prog2djent
Completely unrelated, but your avatar is really annoying me and my posts may be unfailry against you beacuse the guy looks like Paul Krugman hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaah
hehe, he does a bit
, he's actually Stjepan Mesić. 1. The guardian is certainly not what I would call a major source, with regards to anything national or just very important, the BBC, then Times, the DM are far and above the Guardian. The majority, vast, majority, turn to those over the Guardian.
The Guardian is not the most popular source, but I would still consider it a major source. It is still considered a respectable and fairly mainstream newspaper. It is important to maintain a distinction between "popular" and "major". As a scholar of history, I would not even consider quoting an article from the Sun or the Daily Mail to support an assertion, but I may use a "high-brow" paper like the Guardian, the Telegraph, the Times, the Independent, the Washington Post etc.
2. The Guardian is a pro capitalist paper, though social democratic, which automatically put it on the right, and obivously, it is libertarian on socio-cultural issues and that strange land or left-wing authoritarianism with regards to socio-economic issues. It is just, like I said, to the the left of the other national papers, aside from the Morning Star, which is the only leftist national paper, and no-one reads haha.
It is perhaps not as left wing as the Morning Star, but the people who it employes and has writing for it would at the very least show that it is on the left of the political spectrum, especially on foreign issues.
3. I think I said the only thing RT is good for is criticising and exposing our foreign policy.
There are far better sources for criticising and exposing our foreign policy. Al Jazeera, for all its faults, is nowhere near as unreliable as Russia Today. Even the BBC has done it on occasion.
Stop with the ad hom arguments against institutions beacuse of who they employ and what they are about.
It is not ad-hom, the people Russia Today employes are a valid representation of its credibility. It employes frauds, idealogues, conspiricy theorists and engages in genocide denial.
I would see PressTv as being more transparent with regards to our foreign affairs
Press TV is a joke, even more so than Russia Today (they run Holocaust Denial stories).
As for the rest of your comment, I'm not going to get into a debate about the rights and wrongs of the war in Afghanistan, but I will say that the BBC has been quite critical of it on occasion, and is not afraid to report when the British/Americans kill civillians (unlike Russia Today in regards to Russia's conflicts, which are just as cynical and opertunistic as the West's, if not more so).
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by Clessus
left of the political spectrum, especially on foreign issues.
.
left of the political spectrum, especially on foreign issues.
.
Cut our everything else because I think everyting has been said now.
But I have kept this, I wouldn't say it is possible to be "left" on foreign policy, though it does fit on the libertarian-authoritarian axis, it is a unique issue.
Lots of anti-interventionists, a sizeable chunk, are right wing. You have the "crackpot right", like the John Birch Society, Constitutionalist Americans, and that sort. You have the old-republican right, people like Ron Paul, Barry Goldwater, a few congressmen. There are also right-voters, who oppose it on the ground of foreign intervention = government spending, no need to go further their. And then the smallest groups on the right, are those that are anti-intervention beacuse of ethical and social ideas. But then as we all know, the pro-interventionist right are either people that hate the groups/religion/ethnicity we are invading, and the cost doesn't matter, its worth it, these people are usually religious neo-cons, and then there is the business right, or rich, secular neo-conservatives who play on peoples fear of the foreign entity, and their supposed threat to us, and use it to gain in terms of power and $$$. Beyond that we are going into so many crossover groups who tie in with conspiracy nuts, anti-semites on the left and right, secular-humanists like Sam Harris, Dawkins who support the wars we are in.
Original post by Snagprophet
As long as we ban his whore of a wife from escaping here I'm fine to watch the ensuing deaths of them.
What the **** is wrong with you?
Original post by prog2djent
Now If I was a typical TSR southern snob like those on this thread, I would have called you out on grammar and spelling, and come back with some sort of pretentious response like "well I'm not replying to someone who can't even blah blah" something to do with grammar, but I will make of what you said as best I can.
1. So are the opposition. I've never actually said I don't think he is not killing people (though he doesn't really run the country, no president does).
2. And you are getting your news from where? Since you constantly mention one figure I would assume the BBC or it has been drilled into you by more socially related sources, since I am guessing you are a Sunni Muslim.
3. The deaths at the hands of the rebles in relation to deaths at war is actually higher. I think you should stop trying to divert attention from the fact the rebels are killing civilians and are the cause of sectarianism, by quoting figure from Assad's crimes. Do you have trouble admitting that your side can commit such acts? Is it denial or are you disingenuous?
4. If any were decapitated then that screams of rebel involvement as a flase flag, just like the "houla massacre". An opperation in which Sunni Islamists stormed an Alawi and Shia stronghold, killed them, and presented the death as being the government killing non-descript civilians.
5. Common sense? Most of the British population probably don't know the definition of Sectarianism, or understand the ethnic-religious composition of Syria, who opposes who etc etc, let alone different islamic sects. Its just watered down as "HURR DURR ASSAD EVIIIIILLLLL DICTATOR KILLING CIVILIANS DUURRR".
1. So are the opposition. I've never actually said I don't think he is not killing people (though he doesn't really run the country, no president does).
2. And you are getting your news from where? Since you constantly mention one figure I would assume the BBC or it has been drilled into you by more socially related sources, since I am guessing you are a Sunni Muslim.
3. The deaths at the hands of the rebles in relation to deaths at war is actually higher. I think you should stop trying to divert attention from the fact the rebels are killing civilians and are the cause of sectarianism, by quoting figure from Assad's crimes. Do you have trouble admitting that your side can commit such acts? Is it denial or are you disingenuous?
4. If any were decapitated then that screams of rebel involvement as a flase flag, just like the "houla massacre". An opperation in which Sunni Islamists stormed an Alawi and Shia stronghold, killed them, and presented the death as being the government killing non-descript civilians.
5. Common sense? Most of the British population probably don't know the definition of Sectarianism, or understand the ethnic-religious composition of Syria, who opposes who etc etc, let alone different islamic sects. Its just watered down as "HURR DURR ASSAD EVIIIIILLLLL DICTATOR KILLING CIVILIANS DUURRR".
YOU know what are truley wasting my time one minute you see i get my sources from blah blah and am western views and all that crap the next minute your saying am muslim.....lol. YOUR WRONG. Why dont you see am prob FSA. if anyone says the truth you dont look at what they are saying you look at who they are and blah blah...sunnni,,,mayba al-qadi? salafee? forgot to mention? YOUR LAUGH...honestly. YOu think bashar is good, well then good for you. I think otherwise...and your so stubborn you closing your eyes on everything. 40000 IS THE TRUTH???????dont you see what the point is? I cant elaborate anymore? whatever you are shia,sunni,al-qadi,terrorist. You open a thread and have no idea how to have a proper discussion because you have been brainwashed by bath party or wateva u call it...
Original post by Ama2007
YOU know what are truley wasting my time one minute you see i get my sources from blah blah and am western views and all that crap the next minute your saying am muslim.....lol. YOUR WRONG. Why dont you see am prob FSA. if anyone says the truth you dont look at what they are saying you look at who they are and blah blah...sunnni,,,mayba al-qadi? salafee? forgot to mention? YOUR LAUGH...honestly. YOu think bashar is good, well then good for you. I think otherwise...and your so stubborn you closing your eyes on everything. 40000 IS THE TRUTH???????dont you see what the point is? I cant elaborate anymore? whatever you are shia,sunni,al-qadi,terrorist. You open a thread and have no idea how to have a proper discussion because you have been brainwashed by bath party or wateva u call it...
Can't make any sense of this.
Original post by prog2djent
Can't make any sense of this.
Good. Its from syria state TV channel
. The usual.Very, very, very, very interesting and eye opening article here http://nsnbc.wordpress.com/2012/08/04/dispatch-from-damascus-manuel-ochsenreiter-about-the-situation-in-syria/
Gives an insight of the daily goings on and public attitudes a lil' bit.
Gives an insight of the daily goings on and public attitudes a lil' bit.
Original post by prog2djent
Very, very, very, very interesting and eye opening article here http://nsnbc.wordpress.com/2012/08/04/dispatch-from-damascus-manuel-ochsenreiter-about-the-situation-in-syria/
Gives an insight of the daily goings on and public attitudes a lil' bit.
Gives an insight of the daily goings on and public attitudes a lil' bit.
“I told my comrades to kill me before I fell into the hands of the enemy.”
I asked him why, and this was his disturbing answer –
“They torture us to death – they cut off our hands and cut our throats if they capture us alive.”
He assured me also that the rebels are not Syrians, but come from many countries, especially Libya, the Gulf States, Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan – jihadis and mercenaries who kill for petrodollars. Before I left the hospital, he showed me a picture of his two daughters and told me fervently that he was fighting for their freedom.
Same thing that has been reported from multiple independent sources.
It's pretty clear what these rebels are becoming (even if they didn't start out like this) - Salafi scum..well, Salafis are always scum, these guys are outright terrorists.
Original post by Dirac Delta Function
“I told my comrades to kill me before I fell into the hands of the enemy.”
I asked him why, and this was his disturbing answer –
“They torture us to death – they cut off our hands and cut our throats if they capture us alive.”
He assured me also that the rebels are not Syrians, but come from many countries, especially Libya, the Gulf States, Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan – jihadis and mercenaries who kill for petrodollars. Before I left the hospital, he showed me a picture of his two daughters and told me fervently that he was fighting for their freedom.
Same thing that has been reported from multiple independent sources.
It's pretty clear what these rebels are becoming (even if they didn't start out like this) - Salafi scum..well, Salafis are always scum, these guys are outright terrorists.
I asked him why, and this was his disturbing answer –
“They torture us to death – they cut off our hands and cut our throats if they capture us alive.”
He assured me also that the rebels are not Syrians, but come from many countries, especially Libya, the Gulf States, Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan – jihadis and mercenaries who kill for petrodollars. Before I left the hospital, he showed me a picture of his two daughters and told me fervently that he was fighting for their freedom.
Same thing that has been reported from multiple independent sources.
It's pretty clear what these rebels are becoming (even if they didn't start out like this) - Salafi scum..well, Salafis are always scum, these guys are outright terrorists.
NSNBC has described the ICTY as a 'show trial', has pushed the conspiricy theory that Germany was responsible for the break-up of Yugoslavia, has referred to the Bosnian resistance as "jihadist", referred to the Croatian resistance as "former National Socialists (Nazis)", referred to the KLA as "jihadist" (even more rediculious, as Kosova is the most pro-western country in the Balkans by far), described the Kosova war as a the "Serbian-Arabian conflict" (a disgustingly racist thing to say), mocked the uprisings which led to the collapse of communism across Eastern Europe, mocked the victims of Gadaffi's repression. cites Michel Chossudovsky is a reliable source, employes people who write for globalresearch.com.
So yeah, I would not take it too seriously as a source of information.
(edited 11 years ago)
lol.. I personally don't care about Syria.
It's not our conflict, or our concern. if Arabs want to oppress each other, well liberal values are not Arabic values, so it's their own prerogative.
The foreign policy of the UK should be national defence, not involving ourselves in conflicts that don't concern us.
It's not our conflict, or our concern. if Arabs want to oppress each other, well liberal values are not Arabic values, so it's their own prerogative.
The foreign policy of the UK should be national defence, not involving ourselves in conflicts that don't concern us.
Original post by Clessus
NSNBC has described the ICTY as a 'show trial', has pushed the conspiricy theory that Germany was responsible for the break-up of Yugoslavia, has referred to the Bosnian resistance as "jihadist", referred to the Croatian resistance as "former National Socialists (Nazis)", referred to the KLA as "jihadist" (even more rediculious, as Kosova is the most pro-western country in the Balkans by far), described the Kosova war as a the "Serbian-Arabian conflict" (a disgustingly racist thing to say), mocked the uprisings which led to the collapse of communism across Eastern Europe, mocked the victims of Gadaffi's repression. cites Michel Chossudovsky is a reliable source, employes people who write for globalresearch.com.
So yeah, I would not take it too seriously as a source of information.
So yeah, I would not take it too seriously as a source of information.
ok, what about the thousands of refugees pouring into Iraq telling how they were threatened for purely sectarian reasons? Are they all lying?
What about this http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19136630 that I started a thread on (which the mods seem to have pulled),
"At one point they even started sharpening knives for a beheading. It was pretty frightening."
The photographer said he entered Syria across the border with Turkey, using the same route and guide that he had earlier in the year.
But on this occasion he and his companions were detained after passing through a camp inhabited by Islamic jihadists who, he said, were not from Syria.
"They were from anywhere but Syria," he told the BBC.
"They were from Pakistan, Bangladesh, the UK and Chechnya. A real mix."
He said there were "between 10 and 15 young jihadists from the UK" who he described as being "a mixed bunch".
Or this
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/30/al-qaida-rebels-battle-syria
But these were not average members of the Free Syrian Army. Abu Khuder and his men fight for al-Qaida. They call themselves the ghuraba'a, or "strangers", after a famous jihadi poem celebrating Osama bin Laden's time with his followers in the Afghan mountains, and they are one of a number of jihadi organisations establishing a foothold in the east of the country now that the conflict in Syria has stretched well into its second bloody year.
"In the beginning there were very few. Now, mashallah, there are immigrants joining us and bringing their experience," he told the gathered people. "Men from Yemen, Saudi, Iraq and Jordan. Yemenis are the best in their religion and discipline and the Iraqis are the worst in everything – even in religion."
At this, one man in the room – an activist in his mid-30s who did not want to be named – said: "So what are you trying to do, Abu Khuder? Are you going to start cutting off hands and make us like Saudi? Is this why we are fighting a revolution?"
"[Al-Qaida's] goal is establishing an Islamic state and not a Syrian state," he replied. "Those who fear the organisation fear the implementation of Allah's jurisdiction. If you don't commit sins there is nothing to fear."
So thousands of refugees, some British blokes and the Guardian are all conspiring to discredit the "rebels"?
I've been following the ME pretty closely for the last 10 years, and it is no mystery to me who it would benefit to have Syria turned into another Salafi-infested terrorist sh it-hole.
Original post by Dirac Delta Function
ok, what about the thousands of refugees pouring into Iraq telling how they were threatened for purely sectarian reasons? Are they all lying?
What about this http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19136630 that I started a thread on (which the mods seem to have pulled),
"At one point they even started sharpening knives for a beheading. It was pretty frightening."
The photographer said he entered Syria across the border with Turkey, using the same route and guide that he had earlier in the year.
But on this occasion he and his companions were detained after passing through a camp inhabited by Islamic jihadists who, he said, were not from Syria.
"They were from anywhere but Syria," he told the BBC.
"They were from Pakistan, Bangladesh, the UK and Chechnya. A real mix."
He said there were "between 10 and 15 young jihadists from the UK" who he described as being "a mixed bunch".
Or this
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/30/al-qaida-rebels-battle-syria
But these were not average members of the Free Syrian Army. Abu Khuder and his men fight for al-Qaida. They call themselves the ghuraba'a, or "strangers", after a famous jihadi poem celebrating Osama bin Laden's time with his followers in the Afghan mountains, and they are one of a number of jihadi organisations establishing a foothold in the east of the country now that the conflict in Syria has stretched well into its second bloody year.
"In the beginning there were very few. Now, mashallah, there are immigrants joining us and bringing their experience," he told the gathered people. "Men from Yemen, Saudi, Iraq and Jordan. Yemenis are the best in their religion and discipline and the Iraqis are the worst in everything – even in religion."
At this, one man in the room – an activist in his mid-30s who did not want to be named – said: "So what are you trying to do, Abu Khuder? Are you going to start cutting off hands and make us like Saudi? Is this why we are fighting a revolution?"
"[Al-Qaida's] goal is establishing an Islamic state and not a Syrian state," he replied. "Those who fear the organisation fear the implementation of Allah's jurisdiction. If you don't commit sins there is nothing to fear."
So thousands of refugees, some British blokes and the Guardian are all conspiring to discredit the "rebels"?
I've been following the ME pretty closely for the last 10 years, and it is no mystery to me who it would benefit to have Syria turned into another Salafi-infested terrorist sh it-hole.
What about this http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19136630 that I started a thread on (which the mods seem to have pulled),
"At one point they even started sharpening knives for a beheading. It was pretty frightening."
The photographer said he entered Syria across the border with Turkey, using the same route and guide that he had earlier in the year.
But on this occasion he and his companions were detained after passing through a camp inhabited by Islamic jihadists who, he said, were not from Syria.
"They were from anywhere but Syria," he told the BBC.
"They were from Pakistan, Bangladesh, the UK and Chechnya. A real mix."
He said there were "between 10 and 15 young jihadists from the UK" who he described as being "a mixed bunch".
Or this
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/30/al-qaida-rebels-battle-syria
But these were not average members of the Free Syrian Army. Abu Khuder and his men fight for al-Qaida. They call themselves the ghuraba'a, or "strangers", after a famous jihadi poem celebrating Osama bin Laden's time with his followers in the Afghan mountains, and they are one of a number of jihadi organisations establishing a foothold in the east of the country now that the conflict in Syria has stretched well into its second bloody year.
"In the beginning there were very few. Now, mashallah, there are immigrants joining us and bringing their experience," he told the gathered people. "Men from Yemen, Saudi, Iraq and Jordan. Yemenis are the best in their religion and discipline and the Iraqis are the worst in everything – even in religion."
At this, one man in the room – an activist in his mid-30s who did not want to be named – said: "So what are you trying to do, Abu Khuder? Are you going to start cutting off hands and make us like Saudi? Is this why we are fighting a revolution?"
"[Al-Qaida's] goal is establishing an Islamic state and not a Syrian state," he replied. "Those who fear the organisation fear the implementation of Allah's jurisdiction. If you don't commit sins there is nothing to fear."
So thousands of refugees, some British blokes and the Guardian are all conspiring to discredit the "rebels"?
I've been following the ME pretty closely for the last 10 years, and it is no mystery to me who it would benefit to have Syria turned into another Salafi-infested terrorist sh it-hole.
Excuse me sir, but I have never denied that Islamic extremists are operating in Syria. (link may take a while to load fully)
I fail to see how any of your links discredit the FSA, as they all specifically say that they their association with the aforementioned Jihadist groups is extremely loose at best, and they do not share the same goals.
Please explain how it would help the West or Israel if Syria turned into an islamic extremist country.
I also stand by everything I said about NSNBC, as you have not challenged my contention that it is an unreliable source of information.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by Clessus
Excuse me sir, but I have never denied that Islamic extremists are operating in Syria. (link may take a while to load fully)
I fail to see how any of your links discredit the FSA, as they all specifically say that they their association with the aforementioned Jihadist groups is extremely loose at best, and they do not share the same goals.
Please explain how it would help the West or Israel if Syria turned into an islamic extremist country.
I also stand by everything I said about NSNBC, as you have not challenged my contention that it is an unreliable source of information.
I fail to see how any of your links discredit the FSA, as they all specifically say that they their association with the aforementioned Jihadist groups is extremely loose at best, and they do not share the same goals.
Please explain how it would help the West or Israel if Syria turned into an islamic extremist country.
I also stand by everything I said about NSNBC, as you have not challenged my contention that it is an unreliable source of information.
I do not care about NSNBC, the multitude of independent witness testimony and journalism is quite enough. And their association is not loose. If you read the link, you will see that the FSA are cooperating with al Qaeda and al Qaeda is subsuming their fighters. Even secular Syrians are taking Islamic garb to appeal to the Islamodicks because they are effective in winning government positions.
The Iraqi security forces monitoring the Syria-Iraq border crossing witnessed first hand the Islamodicks cutting the limbs off the Syrian border guards.
It's becoming patently clear that al Qaeda is taking an ever-increasing role in this war, and that they are funded and supplied by the Saudis and Qataris. These are not democratic people, they are Islamofascists who want to institute another Salafi hell-hole. Secular, democratic Syrians are outgunned by the Islamodicks and the outcome of this conflict is starting to look like a nightmare for them.
(edited 11 years ago)
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Deep and dark - HTDA, DEATH GRIPS, ALLFLAWS, EL-P
- Reincarnation is inevitable and infinite
- Did I deserve to nearly get into a fight with someone over something so petty?
- Kallisto's Sunday Question: Time Travel II
- American Lit context (OCR English Literature A Level)
- Reincarnation?
- Movie recommendations please
- trapped
- How do I deal with my horrid parents?
- Can someone pls give me feedback on my crime and punishment 16 mark q?
- Suffer with health anxiety
- History A level- themes in Religious conflict in the Church 1529-1570
- What is the difference between Grim Reaper and Satan?
- Will I get disqualified for this in ny GCSE?
- Bullying
- Does my crush like me or is he just curious
- Crazy things that have happened at your school
- TSR Tennis Society IV
- Has he truly lost feelings? He didn’t act like he had after ending it.
- How do I deal with my on and off step dad?
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
