Latest - Western forces prepare for Military strikes in Syria, strike just hours away

donegal__road · 16-09-2013 11:29PM

realweirdo wrote: »

Here is an average debate on Crosstalk on RT which is probably their equivalent of Meet the Press.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSHH6YFLaXs

It's just three guests all bashing America and America foreign policy...
Not a single criticism of Syria, Russia, China, Iran or Hezbollah who have played the biggest part in the destruction of Syria.
RT is just so anti American, they just don't do balance.

the way American news channels do?

Fair enough, there is no direct criticism of Putin on RT... but if you are familiar with the Irish state broadcaster, RTE, there is little or no direct criticism of the Irish government either. Anti government protests that have been held across the country recently, have been either played down or ignored.
Any news story involving the Taoiseach (Prime Minister) shows him in a positive light. etc. On politics.ie discussion forum, RTE is known as Pravda.

by the way, I just see some of what you posted...

Syria, Russia, China, Iran or Hezbollah who have played the biggest part in the destruction of Syria.

..... your joking, right?

*grabs coat, bye y'all

.

realweirdo · 16-09-2013 11:34PM

donegal__road wrote: »

..... your joking, right?

Russia supplied Assad with every last tank, every last scud, every last mig, helicopter, AK-47, bullet, morter and artillary piece and has resupplied him over and over again despite knowing he has massacred tens of thousands of his own people. All those weapons have been used to flatten large parts of Syria.
Likewise Iran sent advisors, and Hezbollah sent thousands of men. China and Russia have been the main obstructions to any possible resolution of this conflict either at the UNSC or elsewhere and have been buying time so Assad can finish the job. But through their actions they have also brought AQ into the fight in Syria, complicating the situation further. Between them, they have destroyed Syria, so I'm sure you are very proud of what your friends have done.

WakeUp · 17-09-2013 12:18AM

bmaxi wrote: »

But what are reputable sources? Before the advent of FTA satellite TV we were dependent on Western media, now we have RT, Al Jazeera, Press Tv etc. To say that these are not reputable sources is to form a biased opinion, I certainly wouldn't say all western media is a reputable source.

I dont think there is such a thing as non bias news, the source of its information is its bias. Media exectutives and editors sit around a table and decide what the news is for the day everyday. Some stories are told some are left out. Political and economical factors come into play. If you want to be truly unbiased you need to get your news from as many conflicting sources as possible and take a look at everything being said. What is being said and the source is important not the presenter on a television screen reading a written script be it Western media or somewhere else. Selective coverage and bias narratives cant really be avoided which is why I read as many sources/angles as possible to try and get the overall picture of whatever it is I want to find out about and look into it more myself.

Al Jazeera is owned by Qatar they had their political independence called into question.
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/sep/30/al-jazeera-independence-questioned-qatar

RTs first editor said part of the channels remit was to "reflect Russias opinion of the world"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_%28TV_network%29

Just two examples no such thing as a totally unbiased news source I dont think

donegal__road · 17-09-2013 01:52AM

this speech is from over a year ago. I am interested to know what realweirdo and Jonny7 have to say on what Ron Paul says here..

bumper234 · 17-09-2013 07:10AM

Jonny7 wrote: »

RT is as bad as, if not worse than Fox. I've yet to find any article or report on RT that is in any way critical of Putin or the Kremlin. Activists with microphones become war correspondents, debate shows are one-sided affairs and the channel is a lucrative podium/soapbox for anyone disgruntled with the US or Israel, no matter how loopy.

What's sad is it's a reflection on the nations press - whom are absolutely terrified to the point of self-censorship. There are still hundreds of incidents of sackings, intimidation, beatings and worse on editors, journalists and staff - it's the most dangerous place for a reporter in Europe by a long shot.

How the hell are we supposed to take your world view on journalism and politics seriously when you don't even know that Russia is not part of Europe. :eek:

Seaneh · 17-09-2013 08:52AM

bumper234 wrote: »

Russia is not part of Europe. :eek:

The most populated part of it is. Most of the land mass is in Asia, but most of that is sparsly inhabited, almost all the major cities are in Europe.

bumper234 · 17-09-2013 08:58AM

Seaneh wrote: »

The most populated part of it is. Most of the land mass is in Asia, but most of that is sparsly inhabited, almost all the major cities are in Europe.

When did Russia join Europe?

Tony EH · 17-09-2013 09:07AM

From the Urals and caucasus, westward is considered Europe. Eastwards is considered Asia. Russia actually comprises over 40% of what's considered Europe.

brimal · 17-09-2013 09:15AM

Russia is also a member of the European Federation of Journalists - largest organisation of journalists in Europe

bmaxi · 17-09-2013 11:12AM

WakeUp wrote: »

I dont think there is such a thing as non bias news, the source of its information is its bias. Media exectutives and editors sit around a table and decide what the news is for the day everyday. Some stories are told some are left out. Political and economical factors come into play. If you want to be truly unbiased you need to get your news from as many conflicting sources as possible and take a look at everything being said. What is being said and the source is important not the presenter on a television screen reading a written script be it Western media or somewhere else. Selective coverage and bias narratives cant really be avoided which is why I read as many sources/angles as possible to try and get the overall picture of whatever it is I want to find out about and look into it more myself.

Al Jazeera is owned by Qatar they had their political independence called into question.
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/sep/30/al-jazeera-independence-questioned-qatar

RTs first editor said part of the channels remit was to "reflect Russias opinion of the world"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_%28TV_network%29

Just two examples no such thing as a totally unbiased news source I dont think

This was actually the point I was making. I've no doubt that Al Jazeera, RT and Press TV will put their own slant on what they report but in the West we were inclined to take every position taken by the press as the correct one. Western media is no more immune to political manipulation than anywhere else.
If you remember back to the Iraq war and the WMD, this point, and with it the saturation of the media making Iraq out to be the cradle of evil in the world, was given as justification for invasion. Where are these WMD that the war was supposedly fought over? The truth is, just like the hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraquis killed since the invasion, they don't exist.
We in the West however, without the benefit of the alternative viewpoint provided by RT et al, swallowed it hook, line and sinker, there was hardly a dissenting voice as the coalition forces bludgeoned their way through the country. Things are different now, the alternative view is there, whether true or not, and Uncle Sam is not getting it all his own way.

Jonny7 · 17-09-2013 12:08PM

bumper234 wrote: »

How the hell are we supposed to take your world view on journalism and politics seriously when you don't even know that Russia is not part of Europe. :eek:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe

It's often included in stats with Europe for this reason.

Suff · 17-09-2013 02:28PM

I would suggest reading the following article by Adrian Salbuchi; a political analyst, author, speaker and radio/TV commentator in Argentina. RT published the article, which outlines some interesting pointers on why USA are trying to take out Assad.

I happen to agree with him, the conflict in Syria has surpassed 'selling' a freedom and democracy package to yet another ME state. It's far more complicated... and thankfully people are becoming more aware now.

Why the US, EU and Israel hate Syria.
Link

Note; Try to read it with an open mind before you throw it into the conspiracies theory bin.

Jonny7 · 17-09-2013 02:35PM

Suff wrote: »

I would suggest reading the following article by Adrian Salbuchi; a political analyst, author, speaker and radio/TV commentator in Argentina. RT published the article, which outlines some interesting pointers on why USA are trying to take out Assad.

I happen to agree with him, the conflict in Syria has surpassed 'selling' a freedom and democracy package to yet another ME state. It's far more complicated... and thankfully people are becoming more aware now.

Why the US, EU and Israel hate Syria.
Link

Note; Try to read it with an open mind before you throw it into the conspiracies theory bin.

The reason the US/EU/Israel "hate" Syria..

The Rothschilds can't control the banking.
The "global mega-bankers" can't siphon money out of the country via the IMF.
Monsanto (which is "trying to control the world") is affected because Syria banned GMO's
Syria is well informed about the NWO - New World Order
Syria has "massive" oil and gas reserves
Syria opposes Zionism and Israel

I'm just going to quote number 7

7) Syria is one of the last secular Muslim states in the Middle East, whilst Zionist Jewish supremacists - in line with born-again-Israel-First-Bu****e ‘Christian’ kooks in the West - need for everybody to align to the will of their dark demiurge god which has its own ‘chosen people’.

The Global Power Elite’s implicit order is clear: everybody must believe in Israeli superiority, whilst our young Syrian friend aptly points out that Syria, like Saddam’s Iraq, Gaddafi’s Libya and Iran just could not be convinced of that.

and quote number 8

8) Syria proudly maintains and protects its political and cultural national identity – she stresses how Syria “holds on to its uniqueness,” whilst respecting the uniqueness of others. The standardized coming world government simply abhors anybody standing up to its imposed standardization of thought, behavior and ‘values’, where the West’s global megabrands, shopping malls, and fashion & style dictatorships “makes every place look pretty much the same, which leads to a very boring world.”

This is typical fare on Russia Today.

Suff · 17-09-2013 02:40PM

Jonny7 wrote: »

This is typical fare on Russia Today.

So you decided to ridicule RT rather than discuss the points ...

Rascasse · 17-09-2013 02:40PM

Suff wrote: »

Note; Try to read it with an open mind before you throw it into the conspiracies theory bin.

Yeah, right. Googled the guys name and what a surprise, another conspiracy theory nut. Everything is the fault of the NWO and Israel, perfect for RT.

Jonny7 · 17-09-2013 02:47PM

Suff wrote: »

So you decided to ridicule RT rather than discuss the points ...

I outlined the points that were made and said it was typical for Russia Today. The points speak for themselves.

Suff · 17-09-2013 02:49PM

Rascasse wrote: »

Yeah, right. Googled the guys name and what a surprise, another conspiracy theory nut. Everything is the fault of the NWO and Israel, perfect for RT.

Yes, USA (NWO) and Israel has a lot to answer for ... you cannot state that NWO doesn't exist.

Scofflaw · 17-09-2013 03:38PM

CT forum is the place for CT. Please save it for there.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Suff · 17-09-2013 03:50PM

Regardless of who and where it was published (actually it was SyrianGirl who composed the 8 points), some of the points are interesting and shouldn't be dismissed under the tattered banner of conspiracy theories.

I happen to fully agree with points 5 and 6.

5 - Syria has large Gas and Oil reserves, this is documented by the US Energy Information Administration (EIA) they have published a number of studies on the levant region. Syria has 20.50 billion barrels proved reserves in 2013, noting that the entire levant region has 20.51 billion barrels (Israel has 0.01). As for production, in 2011 Syria produced 277.93 billion cubic feet compared to Israel's 91.82.

Significant reserves wouldn't you agree? Link

Here's the EIA page with detailed analysis on Syria's reserves. link

6 - Syria in state of war with Israel, this doesn't need further clarifications, clearly Israel is the only benefactor from destroying Syria which ultimately would result in the removal of Hizbollah.

alastair · 17-09-2013 04:51PM

Suff wrote: »

Regardless of who and where it was published (actually it was SyrianGirl who composed the 8 points), some of the points are interesting and shouldn't be dismissed under the tattered banner of conspiracy theories.

I happen to fully agree with points 5 and 6.

5 - Syria has large Gas and Oil reserves, this is documented by the US Energy Information Administration (EIA) they have published a number of studies on the levant region. Syria has 20.50 billion barrels proved reserves in 2013, noting that the entire levant region has 20.51 billion barrels (Israel has 0.01). As for production, in 2011 Syria produced 277.93 billion cubic feet compared to Israel's 91.82.

Significant reserves wouldn't you agree? Link

Here's the EIA page with detailed analysis on Syria's reserves. link

6 - Syria in state of war with Israel, this doesn't need further clarifications, clearly Israel is the only benefactor from destroying Syria which ultimately would result in the removal of Hizbollah.

5. Syria has significant reserves compared to Israel, which as none. That's true. But so what?

6. No-one is going to 'destroy Syria'. There's civil war currently underway, and one bunch or the other will come out on top. None of them intend dissolving the state. Benefactor doesn't mean what you seem to believe it does. You're searching for 'beneficiary'.

donegal__road · 17-09-2013 05:22PM

donegal__road wrote: »

Date of speech: June 19, 2012

Ron Paul:

Plans, rumors, and war propaganda for attacking Syria and deposing Assad have been around for many months.

This past week however, it was reported that the Pentagon indeed has finalized plans to do just that. In my opinion, all the evidence to justify this attack is bogus. It is no more credible than the pretext given for the 2003 invasion of Iraq or the 2011 attack on Libya.

How would we tolerate Russia in Mexico demanding a humanitarian solution to the violence on the U.S.-Mexican border? We would consider that a legitimate concern for us. But, for us to be engaged in Syria, where the Russian have a legal naval base, is equivalent to the Russians being in our backyard in Mexico.

We must abandon our military effort to promote and secure an American empire.....Besides, we’re broke, we can’t afford it, and worst of all, we’re fulfilling the strategy laid out by Osama bin Laden whose goal had always been to bog us down in the Middle East and bring on our bankruptcy here at home.

realweirdo · 17-09-2013 08:13PM

bmaxi wrote: »

This was actually the point I was making. I've no doubt that Al Jazeera, RT and Press TV will put their own slant on what they report but in the West we were inclined to take every position taken by the press as the correct one. Western media is no more immune to political manipulation than anywhere else.
If you remember back to the Iraq war and the WMD, this point, and with it the saturation of the media making Iraq out to be the cradle of evil in the world, was given as justification for invasion. Where are these WMD that the war was supposedly fought over? The truth is, just like the hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraquis killed since the invasion, they don't exist.
We in the West however, without the benefit of the alternative viewpoint provided by RT et al, swallowed it hook, line and sinker, there was hardly a dissenting voice as the coalition forces bludgeoned their way through the country. Things are different now, the alternative view is there, whether true or not, and Uncle Sam is not getting it all his own way.

There are strict rules in the UK about impartiality, OFCOM sets the rules and all stations must follow them

http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/broadcasting/broadcast-codes/broadcast-code/

See the section on impartiality.

FOX News, RT and so on I don't believe are subject to these rules.

It's complete bullsh*t to say the BBC are pro war for example - these stations report the news and its usually people who put their own slant on them - example, left wingers always accuse the BBC of being a right wing capitalistic part of the establishment - that's a given, we wouldn't expect them to say anything else, its the usual knee-jerk reaction from left wingers.
Right wingers will at the same time say the BBC is full of leftie communists promoting a soclialist view of the world and will swear its the truth, as will the left wingers.

However, OFCOM set the rules and occassionally but not often find against these stations over impartiality.

Jonny7 · 17-09-2013 08:27PM

bmaxi wrote: »

If you remember back to the Iraq war and the WMD, this point, and with it the saturation of the media making Iraq out to be the cradle of evil in the world, was given as justification for invasion.

It wasn't like this at all, certainly not outside the US. Most European newspapers were openly and heavily critical of the build up and decision to go to war. The French and German governments were strongly opposed to that war.

Reporters report the news, if Bush said aliens were invading - that's what they would have to report

The analysis and editorials were very telling in that they examined everything.

From BBC's newsnight, to C4's dispatches, PM question time, Politics show - UK media was in full debate mode over the issue. Polls consistently showed large amount of people opposed to the war - and the marches were ****ing huge to say the least, million of people across the world.

And that's when we all secretly presumed there were WMD's... we still had a strong trust in US intelligence despite the heavy cynicism over the war. When the weeks/months/years went by - and that faded - it became clear the extent of the exaggeration/oversight/damned lies that took place.

czx · 29-09-2013 04:05AM

donegal__road wrote: »

Date of speech: June 19, 2012

Ron Paul:

do you vote sinn fein?

Suff · 29-09-2013 10:47AM

George Galloway presents a very interesting program on current War on Syria ... broadcasted by the Lebanese News TV Al Mayadeen.

With political guests from USA, France, Greece and Turkey.

Link

The program has 5 parts, which you'll find below part 1.

Jonny7 · 29-09-2013 11:12AM

Galloway is an angry man who hates the establishment and takes every opportunity to bash his favorite targets

For this reason he has a lucrative circuit, especially on foreign government controlled stations

It's a bit like speaking on North Korean TV about how awful human rights in China are

Suff · 29-09-2013 11:44AM

I don't agree ... you cannot simply follow one source or a particular media channel, since each have a political agenda of their own (CNN, FoxNews, Aljazeera and SkyNews) To form some sort of an understanding to a very complex topic, you'll need to listen to all sides to make up your own.

Something to add to your information ... Al Mayadeen is a privately funded news channel, not controlled by the lebanese government. Few groups (mainly Al Jazeera and the Saudi government) have accused it of being funded by Assad and the Iranian government - without submitting any proof or sources to back such an accusation. Which is funny, considering that Al Jazeera is funded and controlled by the Qatar royal family, the same goes for Al Arabia, who's privately funded by the Saudi royal family.

Anyway, forget Galloway, watch the discussion for yourself to make your own mind on it. After watching it, I think the guests have made a lot of excellent and valid points throughout, Within part 3:

At 10:11 - The Media's role in preparing for the war

At 13:17 - What's the plan after the strike? If the US did launch a war on Syria

Link

The program in its self is not a pro-assad, but rather an anti-war panel.

It's one thing to close the shutters, convincing yourself its sunny outside, and another to step outside.

Suff · 29-09-2013 12:04PM

Excellent points in Part 4,

At 11:10 - The destruction of the United Nations law.
At 13: 30 - The US Israeli relationship.

Link

Jonny7 · 29-09-2013 06:32PM

Suff wrote: »

you cannot simply follow one source or a particular media channel, since each have a political agenda of their own (CNN, FoxNews, Aljazeera and SkyNews) To form some sort of an understanding to a very complex topic, you'll need to listen to all sides to make up your own.

Might want to take some of that advice on board yourself there.

Tony EH · 29-09-2013 08:06PM

Jonny7 wrote: »

Galloway is an angry man who hates the establishment and takes every opportunity to bash his favorite targets

For this reason he has a lucrative circuit, especially on foreign government controlled stations

It's a bit like speaking on North Korean TV about how awful human rights in China are

You know, every time you post something like this, it's the internet equivalent of an ostrich sticking its head in the sand...and it really doesn't do your "side" any favours.

I wouldn't be a big fan of Galloway, by any stretch, but why don't you watch the material that's been presented to you and try to discuss THAT, instead of just...well...sticking your head in the sand?

Latest - Western forces prepare for Military strikes in Syria, strike just hours away

Comments