world

Syrian artillery, aircraft pound rebels in Aleppo

18 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2012.

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

18 Comments
Login to comment

Syria has been attacked by a now all too familiar propaganda campaign. The formula is as follows.

Dish out fake reports meant to demonize the target country's leadership. In Iraq, we saw the reports of Iraqi soldiers allegedly pulling babies out of incubators in Kuwaiti hospitals in 1990. Of course it was later admitted that the report was fake and the girl giving the testimony was the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador in Washington. In Syria we had the famed Damascus blogger who dispatched daily reports of "crackdowns" in Syria via Skype and the AP and Reuters then rehashed those reports as some kind of official news. The Damascus blogger was later exposed to be a staged operation.

Take the capital city of the target country and add the words "Butcher of" to make a new name people can use for the leader of the country. Ie, Butcher of Baghdad, Butcher of Tripoli and Butcher of Damascus.

Be sure to replace the word "government" with "regime" in every sentence when referring to the target country.

Apply the adjective "brutal" as much as possible, "brutal crackdown", "brutal regime", "brutal response".

Call up all your allied countries, offer them a stake in the riches of the target country and then pretend that there's some kind of international consensus of peaceful caring nations that want to attack the target country for humanitarian reasons.

Provide weapons and ammo to any and all disgruntled tribes and marginalized groups within the country and truck in as many mercenaries, Blackwater, French Foreign Legion and militant jihadists as you can and tell them to run amok in the country.

Apply the above formula and the following will happen

The mass mind of the typical disinterested Westerner will develop a vague image of some evil country that needs to be attacked for humanitarian reasons. The average Joe will be led to believe that his government is reluctantly intervening in the target country to save the children and bring democracy and peace, and as a bonus he gets to watch bombs go off like a light show on the evening news.

The community of political interested and active individuals will develop a thread in their mind of the "atrocities" of the target country and will become convinced that his or her government must do something to save the people, otherwise the brutal leader of the target country will kill all his citizens.

It's the same formula over and over again. Iraq was first, then Libya, now Syria and Iran is next.

Works every time. But luckily, this time around more people, and definitely the Russians and Chinese have clued in.

Do your research on Syria, it's nowhere near as bad as the Western press claims. It's a secular country, with an elected parliament, a Prime Minister (who is not Assad) and laws governing freedom of religion for Christians, Jews and even Atheists.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Wow great post by NeverSubmit. It is so true that the choice of words used paints the desired picture. Words like insurgent and terrorist as well. And this is coming from the invading nation.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

NeverSubmit

In Syria we had the famed Damascus blogger who dispatched daily reports of "crackdowns" in Syria via Skype and the AP and Reuters then rehashed those reports as some kind of official news. The Damascus blogger was later exposed to be a staged operation.

Gee, you are obsessed with this Damascus blogger, aren't you? It was exposed as fake well over a year ago, and was concerned mostly with talking about life as a homosexual in Syria, where homosexuality is illegal. Stop flogging a dead horse.

3.Be sure to replace the word "government" with "regime" in every sentence when referring to the target country

Governments are elected by the people, but as I have already pointed out to you, when you get a ballot paper with only one box to tick, it's not really an election, is it?

4.Apply the adjective "brutal" as much as possible, "brutal crackdown", "brutal regime", "brutal response".

I'd love you to answer this question, but strangely, you never do - Do you think this ISN'T happening in Syria?

.Call up all your allied countries, offer them a stake in the riches of the target country and then pretend that there's some kind of international consensus of peaceful caring nations that want to attack the target country for humanitarian reasons

Hyperbole.

6.Provide weapons and ammo to any and all disgruntled tribes and marginalized groups within the country and truck in as many mercenaries, Blackwater, French Foreign Legion and militant jihadists as you can and tell them to run amok in the country

Yawn. You've been caught out on this several times, and didn't offer any response.

1.The mass mind of the typical disinterested Westerner will develop a vague image of some evil country that needs to be attacked for humanitarian reasons

Again, do you dispute that the Syrian regime is killing Syrians?

Do your research on Syria, it's nowhere near as bad as the Western press claims. It's a secular country, with an elected parliament, a Prime Minister (who is not Assad) and laws governing freedom of religion for Christians, Jews and even Atheists.

I'm starting to think you may be from Assad's family. Again, only one party in Syria is legally allowed to hold office - The Arab Socialist Ba'ath party. No one else. You can't vote for anyone else in Syria. That's not an elected government, NeverSubmit. Do your research on Syria.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

I'd love you to answer this question, but strangely, you never do - Do you think this ISN'T happening in Syria?

Alright, a fair question. In response, there's no shortage of reports in the western media touting a heavy handed crackdown by the Syrian government, but they all fall under the following three categories;

From whereabouts unknown blogger like the Damascus blogger From the murky and questionable British group calling itself the SOHR. From unconfirmed activist reports.

None of the above are reliable sources.

There are media sources inside Syria, PressTV for instance has been reporting on site for months now. They have never noted anything that confirms the atrocities that the rebels keep claiming are occurring. Moreover, they note that Damascus and Aleppo are actually quite calm and peaceful when the rebels are not around.

Before tossing judging on the Syrians, I'll wait for hard evidence and I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. I most certainly won't condone an invasion or support an insurrection based solely on dubious and unsubstantiated claims.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

PressTV

Why do you find this media source reliable? Are you aware that Press TV is an Iranian government owned media? Why do you feel this is a better and more unbias source for information about the situation in Syria?

1 ( +7 / -6 )

Syria has been attacked by a now all too familiar propaganda campaign. The formula is as follows:

Start with a theory about the PNAC and blackwater operation;

Change the theory every 5 minutes;

Mention the Syrian blogger, never even acknowledge the 120 French troops;

Say the media is biased and can't be trusted, then give sources from the same media;

Say the UN is lying, then use information from the UN.

Tell people there is no way to know what is happening in Syria, then tell people what is happening in Syria;

Demand proof from others, ignore any calls for sources that people ask of you;

Pretty much sums it up.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Before tossing judging on the Syrians, I'll wait for hard evidence and I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. I most certainly won't condone an invasion or support an insurrection based solely on dubious and unsubstantiated claims.

I'm still waiting for your evidence NeverSubmit, so when will you show proof and some serious reliable resources. We don't want to listen to regurgitated, propagated talking points, if I really want that, I'll go to Assad myself.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

Why do you find this media source reliable? (referring to PressTV)

That's a reasonable question to ask. I view all media with skepticism. Although a notable difference between PressTV and the AP is that PressTV actually has reporters in Syria and they are reporting first hand. AP reporters only rehash blogs, or "activist" reports via Skype. I can't accept unconfirmed third person reports as credible sources of information.

PressTV is indeed owned by the Iranian government. Ben do you know who owns the AP or Reuters?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

@NeverSubmit

AP reporters only rehash blogs, or "activist" reports via Skype. I can't accept unconfirmed third person reports as credible sources of information.

But we have to accept your rehashed unconfirmed sources and rely on them as valuable and valid???

0 ( +4 / -4 )

NeverSubmit: PressTV is indeed owned by the Iranian government.

Utterly classic.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

NeverSubmitJUL. 27, 2012 - 07:42PM JST

There is no uprising among Syrians themselves.

That was just over a week ago.

This kind of Denial needs an award, one of our contributors has worked hard at providing news from an alternate reality. And on the odd occasion where there has been a link in some feeble attempt at substantiation, however, we've had some decent comedy supplied instead.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

NeverSubmit:

"I can't accept unconfirmed third person reports as credible sources of information."

Surely this rule applies only to the information that doesn't fit your strange conspiracy theory?

After all, the only time you even attempted to offer us a titbit in regards to your repeated Blackwater nonsense was from a Hezbollah mouthpiece.

Isn't that what you call a double-standard?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

NeverSubmit

Alright, a fair question. In response, there's no shortage of reports in the western media touting a heavy handed crackdown by the Syrian government, but they all fall under the following three categories; 1.From whereabouts unknown blogger like the Damascus blogger 2.From the murky and questionable British group calling itself the SOHR. 3.From unconfirmed activist reports.

None of the above are reliable sources

.

What about, say, this chap;

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-19042700

or, say, this chap;

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2012/08/20128419540111719.html

What do you make of their reports?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Tamarama, thanks for the articles, I read both.

I don't see any evidence of widespread atrocities by the Syrian government at all. Can you point out which sentences you're referring to?

There are a lot of sentences referring to shooting, and bombs and killing but it never says by whom. I see a lot of "claims", "according to", "based on unconfirmed reports by so and so" "via Skype".

The first article is written by a BBC reporter who is apparently in Aleppo, but I can't find any reference to a war crime committed by the Syrian army that he personally witnessed and can verify. He's just rehashing the vague stories he was told by rebel soldiers.

The second story from Al Jazeera, refers to battles between the Syrian army and Jihadist rebels, but where is anything about attacks on civilians by the army? In fact, if you read the whole article you'll note that the rebel army is openly admitting to suicide bomb tactics, which of course are indiscriminate.

I suggest you be more careful about forming ideas as you read. A good writer can weave an image in your mind that alludes to a fallacy even though he's not directly lying. Don't fall for the fallacy. Read carefully.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Never, is it safe to say that all your information is vetted by the Mullahs in Iran before being deemed "fit for consumption"? Because if that's a requirement for all of the information you've been giving....heh.....

And what ever happened to the 120 afrench soldiers? If you keep ignoring the posts does it mean you never gave the information?

4 ( +4 / -0 )

SuperLib - from March, the information is widely available from a variety of sources.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_8xmeNxsPc

PressTV is no doubt vetted by the authorities in Iran, as are all news agencies. Do you think the AP and/or BBC aren't vetted by their respective controlling interests?

My view is that all news sources are inherently biased and managed, it's up to the reader to critically analyze information and maintain a healthy skepticism about what's being said.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Some posters work very hard to deny any western involvement in the conflict. However, other sources consider the outside involvement as something evident. One such source, a serious one, is the following (unfortunately it requires subscription):

http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/the-battle-in-aleppo-is-the-battle-for-syria.premium-1.456137

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

"I can't accept unconfirmed third person reports as credible sources of information."

Surely this rule applies only to the information that doesn't fit your strange conspiracy theory?

After all, the only time you even attempted to offer us a titbit in regards to your repeated Blackwater nonsense was from a Hezbollah mouthpiece.

Isn't that what you call a double-standard?

When was there ever a time you believed NS and his sources (or lack of to be more specific). I am still hoping that NS will have the guts to show us some real backed up source instead of like you say, Blackwater nonsense He knows what the truth is deep down, you know it and I know it, but as to why he acts like a shell piece and makes excuses for Assad regime is beyond me.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites