ISIS in Iraq and Syria
- Thread starter Suli
- Start date
Still doesn't make sense. Media outlets are either owned by a government as they are in most authoritarian states or by companies in Democratic states. There isn't really any way around that.
OK. Never mind. Some might see the link. Some might not.
Oh for the sake of actual feck, DAVID ICKE????
I din't even notice that the tweet I used was in response to one from him. It's irrelevant.Oh for the sake of actual feck, DAVID ICKE????
It's parroting back the usual antisemitic crap Icke lives off, so not that irrelevant.
Is he antisemitic? I didn't know. Or care. Forget Icke. This has nothing to do with him - or with antisemitism. It has to do with a US company owned by powerful hawks and MSM moguls doing Oil exploration in the Golan Heights in Syrian land illegally occupied by Israel. At root is has to do with insatiable lust for power driven by greed with no thought at all for humanity.
Last edited:
Yes, jews running the media is a very old antisemitic trope.
Is it? You got a thing about jews, media and anti-semitism? Maybe start a thread about it and take your agenda there with you. I won't be joining in.
I was posting about Syria, the US, hawks and MSM moguls, and pointing out a link to what's going on in the Golan Heights.
Some not very subtle terrorists here:
Good that they're making it easier for our security forces.
Good that they're making it easier for our security forces.
Aleppo battle: Rebels burn Syria evacuation buses.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-38358177
Several buses en route to evacuate the sick and injured from two government-held villages in Syria's Idlib province have been burned by rebels. The convoy was travelling to Foah and Kefraya, besieged by rebel fighters. Pro-government forces are demanding people be allowed to leave the mainly Shia villages in order for the evacuation of east Aleppo to continue. Thousands of people are waiting to leave in desperate conditions, reports say.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-38358177
Several buses en route to evacuate the sick and injured from two government-held villages in Syria's Idlib province have been burned by rebels. The convoy was travelling to Foah and Kefraya, besieged by rebel fighters. Pro-government forces are demanding people be allowed to leave the mainly Shia villages in order for the evacuation of east Aleppo to continue. Thousands of people are waiting to leave in desperate conditions, reports say.
You posted the tweet ffs
If you don't want to be called out on posting antisemitic memes sent to David Icke, don't post them.And that is disgusting.
That's not a "leaked" video. They published these videos themselves.
On the other hand, Reuters reports:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-idUSKBN1451JG
Yeah, it's very unclear who did it, conflicting reports indeed, with only "Assad's state media accusing the 'terrorists'", and 'pro-government forces' could very well be the ones who did it, deep inside the "rebels" territory in Idlib.
"credible media".
By the way, normally these kind of incidents are totally ignored by the MSM, and they're only forced to report on it now because it's tied to Al-Nusra and co's evacuation from Aleppo, which is the only thing they care about in Syria.
Are you saying that's an ISIS flag?
It's black with squiggly writing...
It may not be an ISIS flag but it's still a shahada flag, most commonly adopted by Islamist groups such as Al Nusra, The Taliban and The Caucasian emirate.
Why you'd take on of those to a protest in a western democracy is beyond me. Hardly a outstanding endorsement of democratic values.
Change the color from black to green and they'd be like...we love Saudi Arabia habibi
Waving a Saudi flag is hardly any better tbh
wash your mouth out you filthy wh0re.Waving a Saudi flag is hardly any better tbh
That's western ally KSA!
You can't equate the shahada with extremist ideology KaosWaving a Saudi flag is hardly any better tbh
not about us equating....it's the perception
I understand the perception but let's not tar an actual believer as a terrorist based solely on a flag. He probably looks like a salafist but not making distinctions just means that the perception becomes for pervasive.
Go stand on a street corner and shout Allahu Akbar - and watch the reaction...something as benign as that will immediately have ppl panicking and you arrested/shot.
*This doesn't apply if you live in 'Londonistan'
**I agree with what you're saying btw
You're right it wouldn't be fair to. Nevertheless, the black flag + Shahada combo is commonly adopted by extremists, so you can't ignore the perception either. It should at the very least garner suspicion.
I they are going to divide Syria then about a Christian as well?
It's not about Shahada, nor about perception. That was the official flag of Al-Nusra front.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Nusra_Front
So as you can clearly see, we're not talking here about the Shahada itself or what's actually written on it, but rather the actual flag they were raising.
But your post has got me thinking, would you be saying the same thing if let's say somebody raised a banner with "Ya Hussein" written on it? Just curious.
It's not about Shahada, nor about perception. That was the official flag of Al-Nusra front.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Nusra_Front
So as you can clearly see, we're not talking here about the Shahada itself or what's actually written on it, but rather the actual flag they were raising.
But your post has got me thinking, would you be saying the same thing if let's say somebody raised a banner with "Ya Hussein" written on it? Just curious.
In fairness it's impossible to see if the flag at that protest (in the picture I've seen above) says 'Jabhat al-Nusra' on it. But given the context it probably doesn't matter much.
You try too hard Danny. I'm 100% non sectarian mate.It's not about Shahada, nor about perception. That was the official flag of Al-Nusra front.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Nusra_Front
So as you can clearly see, we're not talking here about the Shahada itself or what's actually written on it, but rather the actual flag they were raising.
But your post has got me thinking, would you be saying the same thing if let's say somebody raised a banner with "Ya Hussein" written on it? Just curious.
They were raising both versions of Al-Nusra's flag. The old one (before July 2016):
and the new one:
I think it's very obvious what they were supporting.
I'm not talking about a hypothetical scenario. It's a topic that actually came up in the discussion earlier.
I know you're not sectarian mate, but you did fall easily for non-sense sectarian propaganda earlier (which disappointed me at the time), so I'm seriously interested to know where you stand on this one.
I will respect your decision though if you don't want to answer my question.
Last edited:
Ignore David fecking Icke. The point of my tweet, as you well know, was to point out that Reuters is owned by someone with a vested interest in oil exploration in illegally occupied Syrian territory End of.You posted the tweet ffs
And that is disgusting.
I haven't seen this mentioned anywhere else. In the absence of corroborating reports/evidence it is to be taken with large amount of salt, but hugely significant if true...
Ongoing violence with missile exchanges between Assad's oppressed people
I apologise for posting the full text of this article in the Boston Globe, but think it is an important piece that might not be freely accessible to all for ever. It's already old, but, sadly, just as relevant today as it was in February.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion...ublic-syria/8YB75otYirPzUCnlwaVtcK/story.html
bostonglobe.com
The media are misleading the public on Syria
By Stephen Kinzer February 18, 2016
Coverage of the Syrian war will be remembered as one of the most shameful episodes in the history of the American press. Reporting about carnage in the ancient city of Aleppo is the latest reason why.
For three years, violent militants have run Aleppo. Their rule began with a wave of repression. They posted notices warning residents: “Don’t send your children to school. If you do, we will get the backpack and you will get the coffin.” Then they destroyed factories, hoping that unemployed workers would have no recourse other than to become fighters. They trucked looted machinery to Turkey and sold it.
Advertisement
This month, people in Aleppo have finally seen glimmers of hope. The Syrian army and its allies have been pushing militants out of the city. Last week they reclaimed the main power plant. Regular electricity may soon be restored. The militants’ hold on the city could be ending.
Militants, true to form, are wreaking havoc as they are pushed out of the city by Russian and Syrian Army forces. “Turkish-Saudi backed ‘moderate rebels’ showered the residential neighborhoods of Aleppo with unguided rockets and gas jars,” one Aleppo resident wrote on social media. The Beirut-based analyst Marwa Osma asked, “The Syrian Arab Army, which is led by President Bashar Assad, is the only force on the ground, along with their allies, who are fighting ISIS — so you want to weaken the only system that is fighting ISIS?”
Get This Week in Opinion in your inbox:
Globe Opinion's must-reads, delivered to you every Sunday.
This does not fit with Washington’s narrative. As a result, much of the American press is reporting the opposite of what is actually happening. Many news reports suggest that Aleppo has been a “liberated zone” for three years but is now being pulled back into misery.
Americans are being told that the virtuous course in Syria is to fight the Assad regime and its Russian and Iranian partners. We are supposed to hope that a righteous coalition of Americans, Turks, Saudis, Kurds, and the “moderate opposition” will win.
This is convoluted nonsense, but Americans cannot be blamed for believing it. We have almost no real information about the combatants, their goals, or their tactics. Much blame for this lies with our media.
Advertisement
Under intense financial pressure, most American newspapers, magazines, and broadcast networks have drastically reduced their corps of foreign correspondents. Much important news about the world now comes from reporters based in Washington. In that environment, access and credibility depend on acceptance of official paradigms. Reporters who cover Syria check with the Pentagon, the State Department, the White House, and think tank “experts.” After a spin on that soiled carousel, they feel they have covered all sides of the story. This form of stenography produces the pabulum that passes for news about Syria.
Astonishingly brave correspondents in the war zone, including Americans, seek to counteract Washington-based reporting. At great risk to their own safety, these reporters are pushing to find the truth about the Syrian war. Their reporting often illuminates the darkness of groupthink. Yet for many consumers of news, their voices are lost in the cacophony. Reporting from the ground is often overwhelmed by the Washington consensus.
Washington-based reporters tell us that one potent force in Syria, al-Nusra, is made up of “rebels” or “moderates,” not that it is the local al-Qaeda franchise. Saudi Arabia is portrayed as aiding freedom fighters when in fact it is a prime sponsor of ISIS. Turkey has for years been running a “rat line” for foreign fighters wanting to join terror groups in Syria, but because the United States wants to stay on Turkey’s good side, we hear little about it. Nor are we often reminded that although we want to support the secular and battle-hardened Kurds, Turkey wants to kill them. Everything Russia and Iran do in Syria is described as negative and destabilizing, simply because it is they who are doing it — and because that is the official line in Washington.
Inevitably, this kind of disinformation has bled into the American presidential campaign. At the recent debate in Milwaukee, Hillary Clinton claimed that United Nations peace efforts in Syria were based on “an agreement I negotiated in June of 2012 in Geneva.” The precise opposite is true. In 2012 Secretary of State Clinton joined Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Israel in a successful effort to kill Kofi Annan’s UN peace plan because it would have accommodated Iran and kept Assad in power, at least temporarily. No one on the Milwaukee stage knew enough to challenge her.
Politicians may be forgiven for distorting their past actions. Governments may also be excused for promoting whatever narrative they believe best suits them. Journalism, however, is supposed to remain apart from the power elite and its inbred mendacity. In this crisis it has failed miserably.
Americans are said to be ignorant of the world. We are, but so are people in other countries. If people in Bhutan or Bolivia misunderstand Syria, however, that has no real effect. Our ignorance is more dangerous, because we act on it. The United States has the power to decree the death of nations. It can do so with popular support because many Americans — and many journalists — are content with the official story. In Syria, it is: “Fight Assad, Russia, and Iran! Join with our Turkish, Saudi, and Kurdish friends to support peace!” This is appallingly distant from reality. It is also likely to prolong the war and condemn more Syrians to suffering and death.
Stephen Kinzer is a senior fellow at the Watson Institute for International Studies at Brown University. Follow him on Twitter @stephenkinzer.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion...ublic-syria/8YB75otYirPzUCnlwaVtcK/story.html
bostonglobe.com
The media are misleading the public on Syria
By Stephen Kinzer February 18, 2016
Coverage of the Syrian war will be remembered as one of the most shameful episodes in the history of the American press. Reporting about carnage in the ancient city of Aleppo is the latest reason why.
For three years, violent militants have run Aleppo. Their rule began with a wave of repression. They posted notices warning residents: “Don’t send your children to school. If you do, we will get the backpack and you will get the coffin.” Then they destroyed factories, hoping that unemployed workers would have no recourse other than to become fighters. They trucked looted machinery to Turkey and sold it.
Advertisement
This month, people in Aleppo have finally seen glimmers of hope. The Syrian army and its allies have been pushing militants out of the city. Last week they reclaimed the main power plant. Regular electricity may soon be restored. The militants’ hold on the city could be ending.
Militants, true to form, are wreaking havoc as they are pushed out of the city by Russian and Syrian Army forces. “Turkish-Saudi backed ‘moderate rebels’ showered the residential neighborhoods of Aleppo with unguided rockets and gas jars,” one Aleppo resident wrote on social media. The Beirut-based analyst Marwa Osma asked, “The Syrian Arab Army, which is led by President Bashar Assad, is the only force on the ground, along with their allies, who are fighting ISIS — so you want to weaken the only system that is fighting ISIS?”
Get This Week in Opinion in your inbox:
Globe Opinion's must-reads, delivered to you every Sunday.
This does not fit with Washington’s narrative. As a result, much of the American press is reporting the opposite of what is actually happening. Many news reports suggest that Aleppo has been a “liberated zone” for three years but is now being pulled back into misery.
Americans are being told that the virtuous course in Syria is to fight the Assad regime and its Russian and Iranian partners. We are supposed to hope that a righteous coalition of Americans, Turks, Saudis, Kurds, and the “moderate opposition” will win.
This is convoluted nonsense, but Americans cannot be blamed for believing it. We have almost no real information about the combatants, their goals, or their tactics. Much blame for this lies with our media.
Advertisement
Under intense financial pressure, most American newspapers, magazines, and broadcast networks have drastically reduced their corps of foreign correspondents. Much important news about the world now comes from reporters based in Washington. In that environment, access and credibility depend on acceptance of official paradigms. Reporters who cover Syria check with the Pentagon, the State Department, the White House, and think tank “experts.” After a spin on that soiled carousel, they feel they have covered all sides of the story. This form of stenography produces the pabulum that passes for news about Syria.
Astonishingly brave correspondents in the war zone, including Americans, seek to counteract Washington-based reporting. At great risk to their own safety, these reporters are pushing to find the truth about the Syrian war. Their reporting often illuminates the darkness of groupthink. Yet for many consumers of news, their voices are lost in the cacophony. Reporting from the ground is often overwhelmed by the Washington consensus.
Washington-based reporters tell us that one potent force in Syria, al-Nusra, is made up of “rebels” or “moderates,” not that it is the local al-Qaeda franchise. Saudi Arabia is portrayed as aiding freedom fighters when in fact it is a prime sponsor of ISIS. Turkey has for years been running a “rat line” for foreign fighters wanting to join terror groups in Syria, but because the United States wants to stay on Turkey’s good side, we hear little about it. Nor are we often reminded that although we want to support the secular and battle-hardened Kurds, Turkey wants to kill them. Everything Russia and Iran do in Syria is described as negative and destabilizing, simply because it is they who are doing it — and because that is the official line in Washington.
Inevitably, this kind of disinformation has bled into the American presidential campaign. At the recent debate in Milwaukee, Hillary Clinton claimed that United Nations peace efforts in Syria were based on “an agreement I negotiated in June of 2012 in Geneva.” The precise opposite is true. In 2012 Secretary of State Clinton joined Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Israel in a successful effort to kill Kofi Annan’s UN peace plan because it would have accommodated Iran and kept Assad in power, at least temporarily. No one on the Milwaukee stage knew enough to challenge her.
Politicians may be forgiven for distorting their past actions. Governments may also be excused for promoting whatever narrative they believe best suits them. Journalism, however, is supposed to remain apart from the power elite and its inbred mendacity. In this crisis it has failed miserably.
Americans are said to be ignorant of the world. We are, but so are people in other countries. If people in Bhutan or Bolivia misunderstand Syria, however, that has no real effect. Our ignorance is more dangerous, because we act on it. The United States has the power to decree the death of nations. It can do so with popular support because many Americans — and many journalists — are content with the official story. In Syria, it is: “Fight Assad, Russia, and Iran! Join with our Turkish, Saudi, and Kurdish friends to support peace!” This is appallingly distant from reality. It is also likely to prolong the war and condemn more Syrians to suffering and death.
Stephen Kinzer is a senior fellow at the Watson Institute for International Studies at Brown University. Follow him on Twitter @stephenkinzer.
Interesting article. Thanks for sharing. But it does seem ignore the fact that there was a genuine desire for regime change by the Syrian people that kicked this all off. The tragedy is that so many other dubious collectives have used that as an opportunity to pursue their own nasty agendas.
I think there's a whole thread worth of discussion potiential as to whether that desire for regime change would have been anything much without a deliberate strategy employed by the US government. I would also suggest that the numbers opposed to Assad were debateable and not as presented by MSM at the time. But - that's a long to-and-fro discussion all on its own.
As for the other "dubious collectives" (is that your own phraseology? immaginative!), and to supplement earlier posts...
I sincerely hope we don't see headlines regarding what these dubious collectives might get up to on our shores in the near (or any) future. Unlikely. They'll probably say jihadist fundamentalist terrorists - or worse.