More Media Blackouts

jackiebaron

The media in the US have been very reluctant to broadcast anything that might not shed a favourable light on the government's intentions or that might cause the public to question the fantasy world view that they're spoon fed via the state propaganda stations such as Fox, CNN etc. True images of war are covered up, as is footage of coffins returning. The aftermath of US bombings of civilian targets is never shown. Precious little coverage of anything truthful (if that truth is uncomfortable) sees the light of day.
The Wall St demonstrations were hidden from view until only very recently.

Now it seems that the US media are trying to cover up the unrest in Saudi Arabia (although not Syria).

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/saudi-police-open-fire-on-civilians-as-protests-gain-momentum-2365614.html

It doesn't take a genius to tell you that the unrest in Syria is CIA orchestrated (just like Libya). However Bahrain and Saudi Arabia are US stooges and the unrest there is most definitely authentic and indigenous.

If the house of Saud fell, it would be a world changer.


I particularly like this line from the article:

"The US, as the main ally of Saudi Arabia, is likely to be alarmed by the spread of pro-democracy protests to the Kingdom and particularly to that part of it which contains the largest oil reserves in the world."

So the US invades oil rich countries like Iraq and Libya to spread democracy (particularly if those countries tend to do their own thing) but the US is alarmed at democracy "breaking out" in dictatorship that allow US corporations access to their oil.

Anyone who believes this "spreading freedom" or "preventing a humanitarian disaster" horse manure needs to have their head tested.

studiorat

This :

jackiebaron wrote: »

Now it seems that the US media are trying to cover up the unrest in Saudi Arabia (although not Syria).

Is not mentioned or even alluded to in this :

jackiebaron wrote: »

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/saudi-police-open-fire-on-civilians-as-protests-gain-momentum-2365614.html

Meanwhile...

(CNN) -- Security forces in eastern Saudi Arabia clashed with armed people provoked by a "foreign country," the Saudi Press Agency said Tuesday, citing an official source at the Interior Ministry.
The incident occurred Monday night in Awamiyya, in the Qatif region of Eastern province, where many Shiites in the predominantly Sunni country live. At least 14 people were wounded.

Fox 12 :

Saudi police clashed with protesters in the country's Shiite-dominated eastern region in a new ripple of unrest in the oil-rich kingdom, residents and security officials said Tuesday.

Police moved in on Monday to break up a second day of small protests against the arrests of the fathers of two fugitive dissidents, firing in the air and beating marchers with clubs, residents said.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4579160/saudi-police-open-fire-during-protest/

Jonny7

jackiebaron wrote: »

.
It doesn't take a genius to tell you that the unrest in Syria is CIA orchestrated (just like Libya). However Bahrain and Saudi Arabia are US stooges and the unrest there is most definitely authentic and indigenous.

Can you back any of this up? Without resorting to crazy youtube videos or lying preachers

Monty Burnz

If the Syrians manage to overthrow the brutal Assad regime, I can't see that as a bad thing. CIA may or may not be involved - sometimes people get fed up themselves without any need for the CIA.

jackiebaron

Jonny7 wrote: »

Can you back any of this up? Without resorting to crazy youtube videos or lying preachers

British Special Forces caught red-handed in Libya as their government denied "boots on the ground". ...And before you yap about British SAS operatives "not" being CIA, are you really going to expect anyone to believe that British, or French or Italian or Dutch or Australian or Canadian commandos would be farting around in an operation that the US is involved in and they would KNOW about such subterfuge??

jackiebaron

Monty Burnz wrote: »

If the Syrians manage to overthrow the brutal Assad regime, I can't see that as a bad thing. CIA may or may not be involved - sometimes people get fed up themselves without any need for the CIA.

I was in Damascus last Summer. It didn't seem very brutal to me. In fact it was drowsy and tranquil and beautiful. But then again I'm from North Dublin, so perhaps it was a Shangri-La compared to the hellzone that is Fingal.

jackiebaron

Monty Burnz wrote: »

If the Syrians manage to overthrow the brutal Assad regime, I can't see that as a bad thing. CIA may or may not be involved - sometimes people get fed up themselves without any need for the CIA.

Monty,

I'd like to ask just a few questions, with reference to your aforementioned desire. You state that you would like to see the "brutal Assad regime" usurped or overthrown.

Now, my questions are these:

(i) What features of that regime do you feel are unacceptable and warrant outside interference?

(ii) Having outlined these complaints, what would be your solution or at the very least, alternative?

(iii) Are you certain that the citizens of Syria share your enthusiasm for imposing upon them a system of collective governance that you yourself see beneficial for them?

(iv) Have you discussed any of the aforementoned issues with the people of Syria?

(v) If you have, what were their views, as insiders, as opposed to your's, an outsider?

(vi) Why ... and please speak freely and provide as much information as possible....do you think that the abolition of the Assad would be "a good thing"? Why exactly do you feel that it would be a "good" thing?

(Please try to refrain from words like "I think..." or "so and so would have happened")

I patiently await your reply

Jonny7

jackiebaron wrote: »

British Special Forces caught red-handed in Libya as their government denied "boots on the ground". ...And before you yap about British SAS operatives "not" being CIA, are you really going to expect anyone to believe that British, or French or Italian or Dutch or Australian or Canadian commandos would be farting around in an operation that the US is involved in and they would KNOW about such subterfuge??

Thats it? thats all the "evidence" you need that the CIA have manufactured unrest in a completely different country?

The Outside Agency

Monty Burnz wrote: »

If the Syrians manage to overthrow the brutal Assad regime, I can't see that as a bad thing. CIA may or may not be involved - sometimes people get fed up themselves without any need for the CIA.

The Enterprise cooperates with despotic regimes all over the world.
Look at Chevron in Burma where indigenous people are used as slaves on the oil fields...don't see CNN or any other garbage news channel complaining, do you? don't see any UN resolutions being forced through by the US, do you?

Call me cynical but it's pretty obvious US wants to go to war with Syria eventually attacking Iran.

Remember, the US/UK once controlled Iran and most of the persian gulf -- for oil of course.

Jonny7

nivekd wrote: »

The Enterprise cooperates with despotic regimes all over the world.
Look at Chevron in Burma where indigenous people are used as slaves on the oil fields...don't see CNN or any other garbage news channel complaining, do you? don't see any UN resolutions being forced through by the US, do you?

Call me cynical but it's pretty obvious US wants to go to war with Syria eventually attacking Iran.

Remember, the US/UK once controlled Iran and most of the persian gulf -- for oil of course.

The US forces UN resolutions? how?

Why would the US want to "go to war" with Syria in order to then "go to war" with Iran? whilst at the same time being bogged down in Afghanistan and still in Iraq.

studiorat

nivekd wrote: »

T

Call me cynical but it's pretty obvious US wants to go to war with Syria eventually attacking Iran.

OK you're cynical.

Would you like to explain perhaps what advantage the US going to war with Syria would have in the event of them attacking Iran?

The Outside Agency

Jonny7 wrote:

The US forces UN resolutions? how?

Why would the US want to "go to war" with Syria in order to then "go to war" with Iran? whilst at the same time being bogged down in Afghanistan and still in Iraq.

Well, not a full scale invasion.. but something similar to what we saw in Libya.

Air strikes and cruise missile attacks on military infrastructure in Syria to "protect civilians" while also arming "rebels"

The UN resolution drafted did not rule out outside military intervention which is why China and Russia vetoed.

Their concern is ultimately Iran could become destabalized where they both have invested a lot of money in energy like gas and oil.

Look what happened in Libya? Also a lot of gas / oil there too which will now fall into hands of mainly european/US companies.

Syria doesn't have anything to offer US/UK financially but strategically it would isolate Ahmadinejad in Iran if Assad was toppled.

US has built many bases in Iraq and Afghanistan, there is no plan for a withdrawal in my lifetime.

The only thing preventing Iran being attacked so far is the interest of China, Russia and India in it's energy reserves (which is all US/UK are interested in anyway)

studiorat

jackiebaron wrote: »

Monty,

(i) What features of that regime do you feel are unacceptable and warrant outside interference?

The country being ruled by the same family for 40 years by a father and son team would be a start. 20,000 people, mostly civilians were murdered by the same regime in one go, the biggest slaughter by an Arab country of it's own people. A whole city wiped out as it happens. And still they are in government.

Why would anybody want these people be allowed get away with that?

Of course the thread is supposed to be about another media blackout. I see that's gone by the wayside already!

The Outside Agency

studiorat wrote: »

The country being ruled by the same family for 40 years by a father and son team would be a start. 20,000 people, mostly civilians were murdered by the same regime in one go, the biggest slaughter by an Arab country of it's own people. A whole city wiped out as it happens. And still they are in government.

Why would anybody want these people be allowed get away with that?

Nobody would cry tomorrow if Assad was removed from power but what benefit do the most critical opponents of Assad in the west stand to gain from his removal?

Syria is Iran's closest ally and Assad's removal would benefit those who ultimately want Ahmadinejad out of power.

I'm not supporting either by the way, just trying to look at it objectively.

humanji

Maybe not though. A regime change in Syria would bring about a new government type, which would most likely be Islamic based democracy of some sort (faux or real democracy). With it would come the greater chance of fanatical groups gaining power and using religious fervour to trick the masses, they could be an even worse group for the West to deal with.

At least Assad could be dealt with as he had ultimate power over the country.

Jonny7

nivekd wrote: »

Well, not a full scale invasion.. but something similar to what we saw in Libya.

Air strikes and cruise missile attacks on military infrastructure in Syria to "protect civilians" while also arming "rebels"

Thats just complete speculation. Maybe they'll invade.. *spins wheel* CLACK.. CLACK.. CLACK.. Norway (bonus it produces more oil than Libya)

The UN resolution drafted did not rule out outside military intervention which is why China and Russia vetoed.

Is that how the US "forces" resolutions? this makes no sense, Russia and China have just vetoed basic sanctions against Syria, were they somehow forced to not veto the much more serious resolution against Libya which would involve a no-fly zone?

Their concern is ultimately Iran could become destabalized where they both have invested a lot of money in energy like gas and oil.

What? Iran was seriously became destabilized in 2009, I don't remember the US or the international community being particularly "concerned" about the destabilization??

Look what happened in Libya? Also a lot of gas / oil there too which will now fall into hands of mainly european/US companies.

Remember Libya was doing business with the West so using your logic why not "invade" Saudi?

Syria doesn't have anything to offer US/UK financially but strategically it would isolate Ahmadinejad in Iran if Assad was toppled.

Its not a game of monopoly, why on earth would congress support a war with Syria just to get at Iran, it makes no sense.

US has built many bases in Iraq and Afghanistan, there is no plan for a withdrawal in my lifetime.

They want to be out of Afghanistan, every single military commander has hinted at this, its a hell-hole of a place. Its costing them a fortune. There are dozens of other "friendly" countries nearby they can have bases in that don't cost lives and billions of dollars.

The only thing preventing Iran being attacked so far is the interest of China, Russia and India in it's energy reserves (which is all US/UK are interested in anyway)

So that's the only thing? what about the Iranian military? the chance of all-out war in the middle east? the cost of another war? selling it to congress and a war-weary public? a bogged down military in two other countries? etc, etc, etc.

Or maybe just maybe you're just speculatiing all this because you have some beef with the US and they always have to be the bad guy

The Outside Agency

humanji wrote: »

At least Assad could be dealt with as he had ultimate power over the country.

Yes, but Ahmadinejad can't be "dealt with" or at least can't be persuaded to do what the west wants, that's why he's a target.

It makes no sense for US and EU companies to disengage from trading with Iran...both continents need cheap energy and Iran has a lot of it..this is something which a lot of people choose to overlook mainly because of the misinformation disseminated by western media groups..arguing about the lack of democracy and freedom.

When Chile had a democracy that didn't pander to the US/EU, what happened? CIA indirectly helped get Pinochet into power and many thousands who opposed him perished.

The only thing UN sanctions accomplished was to push Chinese, Russian and Indian companies closer to Iran for business and if US tomorrow attacked Iran, those countries would not be very happy, naturally.

I'm not convinced this "Iran problem" is about nuclear weapons, democracy or freedom of speech.

In my own view, it's entirely all about business.

Jeboa Safari

Don't think NATO has appetite to go into Syria, if the protesters were successful with NATO help we'd at least have a better chance of a new pro-western government taking over.
There's also the problem that if Assad does fall, the country could fall into civil war between the different factions, with his power and hold over the country gone