Jump to content
  • Sign up for free and receive a month's subscription

    You are viewing this page as a guest. That means you are either a member who has not logged in, or you have not yet registered with us. Signing up for an account only takes a minute and it means you will no longer see this annoying box! It will also allow you to get involved with our friendly(ish!) community and take part in the discussions on our forums. And because we're feeling generous, if you sign up for a free account we will give you a month's free trial access to our subscriber only content with no obligation to commit. Register an account and then send a private message to @dave u and he'll hook you up with a subscription.

Recommended Posts

Most of the press don't like to stray from the narrow scope of discussion that they are permitted to dwell within. For many reasons. Whether it be the loss of access to the sources they require to do their jobs, the fact they will be marginalised or (more and more now) being stopped for hours every time they come back from assignments abroad and having their computers/cameras copied because they are "on a list".

How many times do you think Goldman were mentioned in mainstream talk of Greece's problems? How many times should it have been given the information available to supposedly informed journalists working on the issue? Why is this the case?

 

Don't expect it to improve any time soon. Fortunes are being spent to shape the voices you hear as "news" in the future by the likes of the Kochs. Happy days.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most of the press don't like to stray from the narrow scope of discussion that they are permitted to dwell within. For many reasons. Whether it be the loss of access to the sources they require to do their jobs, the fact they will be marginalised or (more and more now) being stopped for hours every time they come back from assignments abroad and having their computers/cameras copied because they are "on a list".

 

How many times do you think Goldman were mentioned in mainstream talk of Greece's problems? How many times should it have been given the information available to supposedly informed journalists working on the issue? Why is this the case?

 

Don't expect it to improve any time soon. Fortunes are being spent to shape the voices you hear as "news" in the future by the likes of the Kochs. Happy days.

 

The usual suspects.  You're talking about editorial pressure, I was alluding to how things were framed.  They never stray too far from One Thousand and One Nights. The texture and ambiguity of reality is lost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The usual suspects.  You're talking about editorial pressure, I was alluding to how things were framed.  They never stray too far from One Thousand and One Nights. The texture and ambiguity of reality is lost.

Not just editorial pressure, they are actually seemingly now going to paying foot-soldiers to put into the media. They'll have these objectives even before they get their first post.

 

I agree with your point though. Rare that the grey enters the discussion or that they are willing to play with the idea that good and bad are all about perspective. The media conversations are usually a strange, simplistic, false construct.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They're at it again already. What a bunch of fucking fraud cunts. Kerry and Lavrov sort out a deal, but it was clearly never going to be good enough for the UK, US and France axis of evil. Apparently they're already going on about the need for a new stronger UN resolution that should be backed with threats of force. Sad puppets, plotting evil schemes for the corporations. The world should be waking up to them soon at least, because they're clearly making things too obvious now. Hollande looks like yet more proof that "different" parties are two sides of the same coin too. He seems to be just as stupid as Sarkozy and to crave war and death just as much.

 

I hope we get an Edward Snowden type but one that deals with the middle-east manipulation instead of surveillance. Then again though, with the things that could be revealed there'd be the chances of a massive war from that too, so maybe not leaks on such a big scale. They need to have something that gives them a wake up call though, it's about time, because this fraud has been going on since the end of the Ottoman Empire.

 

At least we had a peaceful weekend though, right? What a joke this is. If they want less death in Syria they should pull out their Al-Qaeda forces, the fascist pricks.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This I think is one of them times that the image they have created of "world protectors" has worked against them. America went into the middle east for one reason to secure themselves some oilfields which they have done.

My guess is they really don't want to get involved in this but find themselves having to because of the persona they have created. They have found themselves being looked upon to do something about a situation in which they realise they have to be seen as doing something to stop what is happening in Syria.

They also realise they need to tread carefully as they don't want to cause a massive uprising in the middle east and bringing other nations into a possible war they don't want or need.

There talk of a strike against military bases etc in Syria is probably the safest option they can do and hopefully it wont cause to much of a backlash from other countries.

They have to be seen to be doing something and it s interesting they have made sure they have got there no ground troops will be going in , out into the media mainstream as early as they could.

It s a situation that has no benefit to them or one they wanted to be drawn into imo.

It s all going pretty much as I expected with America flexing there muscles and appearing to all watching wanting to stand up to Syria. The reality is like I said they have no reason to get involved as there is nothing for them to gain. They entered the middle east to get hold of oil fields which they have achieved.

There s no doubt in my mind that at some point further down the line they will turn there attentions back in the direction of the middle east , but for now they have what they first went there for the Iraqi oilfields.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not just editorial pressure, they are actually seemingly now going to paying foot-soldiers to put into the media. They'll have these objectives even before they get their first post.

What difference will it make? Whether someone is a slave to an ideology, a paycheck or nepotism it makes no difference; you will still need to triangulate your way to the truths.

 

I agree with your point though. Rare that the grey enters the discussion or that they are willing to play with the idea that good and bad are all about perspective. The media conversations are usually a strange, simplistic, false construct.

Mono-men.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Numero Veinticinco

I can't copy the entire article at the moment, but I guess this should be put somewhere in the thread.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24113553

 

The type of rocket and launcher makes a few of the random theories (like Galloway's, 'it was Israel, wait, no Saudi who provided the rebels with the weapons') look as stupid as they were in the beginning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The type of rocket and launcher makes a few of the random theories (like Galloway's, 'it was Israel, wait, no Saudi who provided the rebels with the weapons') look as stupid as they were in the beginning.

 

The thing is : where's the proof of the rocket type? Are we expected to just read a UN report and believe it? It also says variant, what types of variants are there of that type of rocket? I'm fucked if I'm blindly believing any of it. Will research into it later anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Numero Veinticinco

Are we expected to just read a UN report and believe it?

Other than hiring a panel of your own scientists, all of whom you trust implicitly, and conducting the research yourself, I don't think you're going to get a much more unbiased, credible source of information on this. If you don't want to accept what they say, that's fine. Jumping to the opposite conclusion - with no evidence at all - because you don't want to trust it, though, would be bonkers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Other than hiring a panel of your own scientists, all of whom you trust implicitly, and conducting the research yourself, I don't think you're going to get a much more unbiased, credible source of information on this. If you don't want to accept what they say, that's fine. Jumping to the opposite conclusion - with no evidence at all - because you don't want to trust it, though, would be bonkers.

 

I get what you mean, the least I'm doing though is staying 50/50. Just think there's still plenty of ways this could've been fixed to look like it was the Syrian Army.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Numero Veinticinco

I get what you mean, the least I'm doing though is staying 50/50. Just think there's still plenty of ways this could've been fixed to look like it was the Syrian Army.

They're specifically not saying it is the Syrian Army. However, they're not mugs. You know when you don't trust somebody and you want to get somebody in who you know will do a thoroughly independent and professional job? That's where the UN scientists come in.

 

Just because something could have happened, it doesn't mean it did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know when you don't trust somebody and you want to get somebody in who you know will do a thoroughly independent and professional job? That's where the UN scientists come in.

 

The UN scientists are probably ok, but as for the UN as a whole, it's basically a shambles.

 

What I'm getting at though is the idea that just because it was a certain type of weapon it doesn't have to mean it was the Syrian Army. It would usually seem to be the case, but when there's Turkey supplying rebel groups with all types of shit from the north, and western agencies in Jordan getting weapons flown in as they also train people to go into Syria and fight, it has to be questioned, and it will be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't copy the entire article at the moment, but I guess this should be put somewhere in the thread.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24113553

 

The type of rocket and launcher makes a few of the random theories (like Galloway's, 'it was Israel, wait, no Saudi who provided the rebels with the weapons') look as stupid as they were in the beginning.

 

I think most people believe Sarin gas( or some chemical agent) was used, i dont think that was really disputed.

More who was responsible, which i still dont think has been categorically proven.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Numero Veinticinco

The UN scientists are probably ok, but as for the UN as a whole, it's basically a shambles.

 

What I'm getting at though is the idea that just because it was a certain type of weapon it doesn't have to mean it was the Syrian Army. It would usually seem to be the case, but when there's Turkey supplying rebel groups with all types of shit from the north, and western agencies in Jordan getting weapons flown in as they also train people to go into Syria and fight, it has to be questioned, and it will be.

Not being funny, mate - I totally respect your right to hold whatever view you like - but to keep posting articles from blogs, with some really dodgy information, and drawing conclusions from them, but to be so skeptical of the UN report is a bit like trusting the woman down the hairdressers about your scan rather than your doctor. If you're believing Marge at supercuts it's because you want to. If you're not believing your doctor, it's because you don't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not being funny, mate - I totally respect your right to hold whatever view you like - but to keep posting articles from blogs, with some really dodgy information, and drawing conclusions from them, but to be so skeptical of the UN report is a bit like trusting the woman down the hairdressers about your scan rather than your doctor. If you're believing Marge at supercuts it's because you want to. If you're not believing your doctor, it's because you don't.

 

You might be getting me mixed up with someone else you were arguing with further back when it comes to dodgy blogs, I started linking what would usually be considered more reputable sources since you mentioned it a while back. (I've linked The Wall Street Journal, Forbes, Telegraph, and so on.)

 

To get back to the point though, an M14 Artillery Rocket would've been launched from a Russian weapon, (unless it's possible to make different launchers, which I'd guess was possible.) That would usually make you think it would have to be the Syrian Army, so I can understand if most people want to say it was them, fair enough. Personally though, I'm still unsure. If this was a planned operation by western agencies I doubt they'd have used US weapons, would've kind of made them look stupid once the report came out.

 

Anyway, there's plenty of smart people around, if there's issues with this the truth will start coming out soon. If it actually was Assad, then he's clearly a nutcase, but I think he'd have to be a seriously bad one to launch that attack on the day UN inspectors arrive, and in a battle the Syrian Army were supposed to be doing well in. Also, when those inspectors arrived, if I remember this correctly, they were supposed to be inspecting a site where Assad had said the rebels had used chem weapons, but they abandoned that when the new attack happened and it's still not been checked.

 

And at the end of the day, as much as people might not like to read/hear it, just because it's the UN that's reported this, it doesn't mean it has to be 100% true. I won't be trusting them, that's for sure. They could come out and tell me the US, UK and France plotted all this and supplied the rebels with chem weapons tomorrow if they wanted, I still won't blindly trust them. They're too big of an authority that's in too much of a mess to be held up as some total standard of truth. If others want to do it, fair enough, but I wont be alone in choosing to do otherwise. If that means I get lumped in with conspiracy nuts, fine. I'm used to it anyway. But when the truth does come out about all of this, it'll be interesting, thats for sure.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And if it appears that I'm bitter about being wrong about all this, I'd say I'm more bugged because I just can't settle with the idea Assad would be so stupid, and I seriously don't trust the UK/US/French governments, or even the UN when it comes down to it. The lives of Syrians and the truth are what matter most though, and I hope people know that no matter how out there my posts might seem, I'm way more concerned about those two than trying to win an argument for the sake of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think most people believe Sarin gas( or some chemical agent) was used, i dont think that was really disputed.

More who was responsible, which i still dont think has been categorically proven.

Pretty much the crux of this whole issue for me. I know I keep banging on about it on this thread, but I am yet to see one clear, logical answer on a very simple question: where is the motive?

 

If you are a policeman investigating a crime, the first thing you need to establish before accusing someone is to find a motive. So, where is it?

 

That Assad bloke must be a total fucking loon to gas his own people, when he has his enemies on the run, knowing full well what a shitstorm this will cause. No sense in doing that whatsofuckingever! None!

 

What is he going to gain from this? Nothing! Apart from the usual suspects start sharpening their teeth and wanting to invade his country and pretty much fuck him and his government up good and proper, that is.

 

Anyway, there's plenty of smart people around, if there's issues with this the truth will start coming out soon. If it actually was Assad, then he's clearly a nutcase, but I think he'd have to be a seriously bad one to launch that attack on the day UN inspectors arrive, and in a battle the Syrian Army were supposed to be doing well in. Also, when those inspectors arrived, if I remember this correctly, they were supposed to be inspecting a site where Assad had said the rebels had used chem weapons, but they abandoned that when the new attack happened and it's still not been checked.

Pretty much agree with the bold part above.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Am still looking around, and I'm going to link a blog! But it doesn't matter because it can't be called simply linking a dodgy blog, because the blog itself is quoting from sources that include The Telegraph, Associated Press, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, Global Security Newswire, produced by National Journal Group, WND, Turkish State Media, and others. The Associated Press links are down, but the reports can be found on other sites which are marked as being written by AP, by simply copying and pasting parts of the quotes into google.

 

It basically shows how there's plenty of chance that the rebels could still have made these attacks : http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/09/yes-the-syrian-rebels-do-have-access-to-chemical-weapons.html

 

I'll copy one quote into here that made me think the most. Al-Qaeda fighters that were in Libya are currently in Syria according to plenty of sources as far as I know, so with that in mind :

 

 

 

Spread across the desert here off the Sirte-Waddan road sits one of the biggest threats to Western hopes for Libya: a massive, unguarded weapons depot that is being pillaged daily by anti-Gadhafi military units, hired work crews and any enterprising individual who has the right vehicle and chooses to make the trip.

In one of dozens of warehouses the size of a single-family home, Soviet-era guided missiles remain wrapped inside crates stacked to the 15-foot ceiling. In another, dusted with sand, are dozens of sealed cases labeled “warhead.” Artillery rounds designed to carry chemical weapons are stashed in the back of another. Rockets, antitank grenades and projectiles of all calibers are piled so high they defy counting….

 

 

That's from The Wall Street Journal : http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203405504576602201905770000.html

 

So it might help to keep an open mind, despite the UN report. It's ok them saying it leaves little doubt, but they seem to have short memories about Al-Qaeda and what they did in Libya, don't they? I don't think there's any way that you should simply trust the UN, because after all, those people making their comments about little doubt being left, could be completely corrupt. Or just plain stupid if they don't know about the weapons taken from Libya by Al-Qaeda, when they're dealing with this case and they're in high UN positions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's also a point where you have to question the media and what a decent source is, all of them should be questioned, no matter how good they seem to be. A growing number of people think that we're going to have to transition to alternative media eventually because so many outlets are manipulated. So at that point, what is or isn't a decent source will have to be regularly looked at.

 

There's some good points here. I don't know how many people like Global Research or not, but they do seem to have some good writers who put a lot of facts into their work. There's link to sources all over this extract, and plenty more interesting reading in the rest of the article :

 

 

 

Remarkably, the public at large has seemingly learned nothing from all of these documented historical manipulations. If anything, the media has become even bolder in its attempts to manipulate the public’s perceptions, perhaps emboldened by the fact that so few in the audience seem willing to question the picture that is being painted for them on the evening news.

 

Later that year, CNN aired footage of a bombed out Tskhinvali in South Ossetia, falsely labeling it as footage of Gori, which they said had been attacked by the Russians.

 

In 2009, the BBC showed a cropped image of a rally in Iran which they claimed was a crowd of protesters who assembled to show their opposition to the Iranian government. An uncropped version of the same photograph displayed on the LA Times’ website, however, revealed that the photo in fact came from a rally in support of Ahmedinejad.

 

In August of 2011, the BBC ran footage of what they claimed was a celebration in Tripoli’s Green Square. When sharp-eyed viewers noticed that the flags in the footage were in fact Indian flags, the BBC was forced to admit that they had “accidentally” broadcast footage from India instead of Tripoli.

 

Also that month, CNN reported on a story from the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights claiming that eight infants in incubators had died in a hospital in Hama when Syrian authorities cut off power in the area. Some news sites even carried pictures of the infants. The images were later admitted to have been taken in Egypt and no evidence has ever emerged to back up the accusations.

 

As breathtaking as all of these lies, manipulations and so-called “mistakes” are, they in and of themselves don’t represent the only functions of the media for the war machine. Now, the US government is taking the lead in becoming more and more directly involved with the shaping of the media message on war propaganda, and the general public is becoming even more ensnared in a false picture of the world through the Pentagon’s own lens.

 

In 2005, the Bush White House admitted to producing videos that were designed to look like news reports from legitimate independent journalists, and then feeding those reports to media outlets as prepackaged material ready to air on the evening news. When the Government Accountability Office ruled that these fake news reports in fact constituted illegal covert propaganda, the White House simply issued a memo declaring the practice to be legal.

 

In April 2008, the New York Times revealed a secret US Department of Defense program that was launched in 2002 and involved using retired military officers to implant Pentagon talking points in the media. The officers were presented as “independent analysts” on talk shows and news programs, although they had been specially briefed beforehand by the Pentagon. In December of 2011, the DoD’s own Inspector General released a report concluding that the program was in perfect compliance with government policies and regulations.

 

Earlier this year, it was revealed the the US government had contracted with HBGary Federal to develop software that create fake social media accounts in order to steer public opinion and promote propaganda on popular websites. The federal contract for the software sourced back to the MacDill Air Force Base in Florida.

 

As the vehicle through which information from the outside world is captured, sorted, edited and transmitted into our homes, the mass media has the huge responsibility of shaping and informing our understanding of events to which we don’t have first-hand access. This is an awesome responsibility in even the most ideal conditions, with diligent reporters guided by trustworthy editors doing their level best to report the most important news in the most straightforward way.

 

But in a media landscape where a handful of companies own virtually all of the print, radio and television media in each nation, the only recourse the public has is to turn away from the mainstream media altogether. And that is precisely what is happening.

 

 

http://www.globalresearch.ca/faking-it-how-the-media-manipulates-the-world-into-war/5336838

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Syrian rebels could've launched M14 artillery rockets. Here's a BM-14 launcher : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BM-14

 

Note the list of countries and you'll see Egypt. Then you simply note that the Muslim Brotherhood are all over the place in the middle-east, and could easily manage to get one of those things into Syria. That's just one of many examples of how they could've got one of those launchers too, there's plenty of other countries listed. Just because we've not seen images of rebels using those things, it doesn't mean that they don't have them.

 

That wiki page also links to a page that says the Taliban have those launchers. I'm sure that if the Taliban can manage it, some of the rebels in Syria could also manage it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...