world

Syrian opposition says U.N. can't pick delegates to peace talks

16 Comments

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

© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2017.

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

16 Comments
Login to comment

@brbush Well, I guess it's back to bombing you into submission then.

Since September, 2015 Russian posters on this board and their fellow rightist supporters from the US and around the world have been saying that Russian military invention in Syria meant the end of the conflict. Are you now saying bombing Syria into submission (which sounds a lot like America's 'bomb 'em back to the stone age') is needed for a Russia victory (my word)? And might that victory have something to do with pipelines and naval ports.

If there are fewer Syrian people (bombed into submission would result in that), it would be much easier for Russia to get what it wants in Syria and also re-establish its once glorious empire or socialist republic, wouldn't it.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Russian posters on this board and their fellow rightist supporters from the US and around the world

Oh, the usual mainstream media trick - anyone who does not share the views of the Western propaganda machine should be branded "Russian, rightist, Putin's agent, bigot" and so on. Why it's so difficult for some to comprehend that absolutely ordinary people can welcome Russian actions in Syria to help this country not to repeat the fate of Libya?

bombing Syria into submission

You exaggerate too much. Not "Syria", but some pesky gangs of Saudi- and Qatar-funded headcutters.

it would be much easier for Russia to get what it wants in Syria

Well, Russians already got almost everything they wanted. In Autumn-2015 Syria was on the verge of disintegration. Now the country is much more stable and on the way to a peace settlement of the war. May be this the reason why the West is so disappointed.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

@Asakaze Oh, the usual mainstream media trick

Curious how my comment can connect me in any way with mainstream media. I wrote my comments as an individual, but my sense is people who write as representatives of an organization, perhaps an organization like Nashi, have trouble understanding the notion of 'individual'.

anyone who does not share the views of the Western propaganda machine should be branded "Russian, rightist, Putin's agent, bigot"

In all honesty, the only people I've heard use the expression 'mainstream media' and 'western propaganda machine' have been Russians and/or rightists.

Now the country is much more stable and on the way to a peace settlement

Russians and rightists have been saying that since September 2015. Seriously, you can't really believe Syria is stable. That sounds like something from a Russian mainstream propaganda machine paper.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

in all honesty, the only people I've heard use the expression 'mainstream media' and 'western propaganda machine' have been Russians and/or rightists.

Really PT?

Have you ever taken a university journalism course? We were using back in 1995. Granted it has taken on a whole new meaning with 6 big corps controlling 90% of what we read hear and see.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

@PTownsend

Curious how my comment can connect me in any way with mainstream media

As I've already said - the method (branding of those who do not share the MSM point of view)

have been Russians and/or rightists

Here we are! Now you see what I mean?

Seriously, you can't really believe Syria is stable

I did not say that Syria is stable. But it is in a much better shape then Libya (the handywork of Obama The Peace prize winner) and on the path to peace and recovery.

That sounds like something from a Russian mainstream propaganda machine paper

Read it often? I don't. But I read every day "Japan Times" and "Japan News" (ex-"Daily Yomiuri"), some Western papers. It seems their articles are written by the same author - same expressions, same ideas. That's how Western propaganda machine works.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Have you ever taken a university journalism course? We were using back in 1995.

Oh, the term is very real, and is descriptive of what it is.

But it's only recently that the right has tried to redefine it as 'left wing news', ignoring the fact that they get their news from right-wing MSM themselves. Which is why it's a stupid term.

And while there is no doubt there are some problems with the media, the fact is any valid news organization, MSM or not, is going to only report on verified sources, and will supply corrections/retractions when they discover that their news is/was wrong. Non-MSM sources rarely do any of this. They have no code of ethics under which they live, so they can post whatever they want, and never post corrections. While the MSM may have it's issues, getting your news and facts from sources like youtube vloggers is a fundamentally more flawed method of getting news than finding valid MSM organizations. The thing about the MSM is that if/when they get caught printing fake news and not retracting it, they will lose readership, which is the kiss of death.

Which is why the term MSM is a pejorative is absolutely ridiculous, and anyone using it as such shows that they don't have the level of critical thinking to recognize it as such. I try not to look down on such people, but when they start spreading their own fake news while decrying the 'MSM', it shows them of being lesser human beings.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

We were using back in 1995

I've never taken a journalism course. I'm fully aware that a limited number of corporations control media. Go back in US history to the days of Hearst.

No person able to reason even minimally, at least none I've ever met, has ever 100% bought what media reported. Everyone I know questions them and doesn't seem to feel they've been victimized and controlled by media. But I've never been to Russia so I don't know about Russians, a people who've never known a free press.

In the last year or so I've only heard MSM used by Russians and/or rightists. I think they use it to discredit sources reporting events differently from the way they want them presented. Interestingly, though, these same people when asked which media sources they trust rarely respond, with the exception of some who've plugged Russia Today.

Besides Russians and rightists, there is another group I've noticed use the term MSM and that is one made up of people with limited reasoning skills. They tend to be people who need an authoritarian figure to follow. They then just repeat what their dear leader says. They tend to believe fake news that comes from their leader (read Breitbart), and anything that doesn't fit their dear leader's opinions they then call fake news.

The leaders who attract the benighted have always been with us, but it's a little disconcerting they have gained so much power by using terms like MSM and fake news. Or 'the sinking of the Maine'.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Not "Syria", but some pesky gangs of Saudi- and Qatar-funded headcutters.

Yes, we spotted the deliberate confusing of two utterly different groups in conflict with each other. Nice try, though.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

@PTownsend

I don't know about Russians.... I've only heard MSM used by Russians

You don't know, but you are sure, great. How do you know posters on this board are Russian? Did they show you their passports? Your phrase about "limited reasoning skills" explains a lot now.

@theeastisred

Yes, we spotted the deliberate confusing of two utterly different groups in conflict with each other. Nice try, though.

Yes, gangs that cut throats from left to right and gangs that cut throats from right to left. Very big difference, I see.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

the Saudi-backed High Negotiations Committee

One of my biggest problems with this conflict and the West's insistence on involving itself in it is the 'opposition groups' often mentioned in the news such as in this very article. Who are the Saudi-backed High Negotiations Committee exactly? Personally, once I started looking into them , I wondered even more why the West would even consider backing these groups. Saudi Arabia? Is the West taking lessons on revolutions from them? Saudi Arabia allows for no dissent in their own country. It is a country that has spawned terrorists that have cause destruction and death in other countries. I can't see anything that is worthy of the backing a Saudi-backed High Negotiations Committee. The High Negotiations Committee has such extremist groups such as Ahrar al-Sham and Jaysh al-Islam.

Yes, Assad is horrible. However, are these groups better? I didn't see how such groups were better in Libya and I can't see how they are any better in Syria. These two countries are all the worse for US and Western involvement, not better.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

I was referring to your deliberate confusing of anti-Assad rebels with ISIS. As if you didn't know.

Because in fact there is no much difference between "moderate rebels", "less moderate rebels" and ISIS. About three or four years ago, well before the advent of ISIS, I saw a video on youtube of a "moderate rebel" eating the heart of dead government soldier. For me all these gangs, whatever the name, are just different piles of the same s...t. Just killers (as if you didn't know).

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Welcome to the fiction factory.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

But it's only recently that the right has tried to redefine it as 'left wing news',

Who has done that? Nobody I know of or read. Could you expand on this. IMO, the MSM refers to corporate control of the news, and how most of them lean left of center on most things political. Is Hillary left of center? Domestically maybe, internationally definitely not, but that's how the MSM represented her. Yes it also includes FOX which I don't watch or follow.

So what is your knowledge of professional journalists who are not part of the MSM, who do have a code of ethics and who do try their best to keep the facts straight. Here's a link to one I often visit. Tell me what you think.

http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2017/02/wrath-of-euphrates-phase-iii-ttg.html

While the MSM may have it's issues, getting your news and facts from sources like youtube vloggers is a fundamentally more flawed

I agree

Which is why the term MSM is a pejorative is absolutely ridiculous, and anyone using it as such shows that they don't have the level of critical thinking to recognize it as such.

All I can say is that your definition and mine are different. One only needs to look at the last election to see how the MSM distorted the candidates favorably or unfavorably. It is corporate for profit news and should be judged that way since they are now so large and command such a large percentage of what we see, hear and read. Anyone who doesn't question their motives and accepts what they say has no critical thinking skills.

is going to only report on verified sources

I guess we're not on the same page here. It's how they frame the news, how they use their sources. How many people out their still think that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad really said "wipe Israel off the map", and how many still think Assad used chemical weapons. These are the tools of the MSM right up to today to start wars, get people to take sides, while they collect the revenue.

but when they start spreading their own fake news while decrying the 'MSM', it shows them of being lesser human beings.

I don't even know what that means. Any examples?

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Who has done that? Nobody I know of or read.

To be fair, you've been fairly consistent in decrying the MSM as all large-scale media. But most of the right are not using it this way. They are using MSM to mean left-wing news, and don't count Breitbart and Fox news in this, even though they are most definitely MSM. Examples are when they talk about how the MSM supported Obama - Fox News and Breitbart most definitely did not support Obama. When they say something like this, they are using MSM to mean left-wing news.

Here's a link to one I often visit. Tell me what you think.

I took a short look, and I'll take a look some more. That said, my first impression is that the subject of the given news is not one that interests me much. That's not a criticism of the news itself, just that I gravitate towards some news topics more than others, and it doesn't appear that that site is of subjects that interest me that much.

One only needs to look at the last election to see how the MSM distorted the candidates favorably or unfavorably.

This I can agree with. I checked out both Fox and CNN a few times, and both were heavily biased in opposite directions.

t is corporate for profit news and should be judged that way since they are now so large and command such a large percentage of what we see, hear and read. Anyone who doesn't question their motives and accepts what they say has no critical thinking skills.

I'll agree with this as well, and to be honest, news based on prophet is a large part of what plagues society as far as I'm concerned.

That said, I don't take that to mean that what they say is patently false, rather that it pushes them to publish news that is more likely to create profit. For a major news corporation, getting caught publishing patently false news is a business killer. They have financial motivation to not do so, and to ensure that their information is based on actual sources. That doesn't mean there is no bias, but it does mean that it's usually based on truth.

I don't even know what that means. Any examples?

Look at S****no's posting history. A whack of crazy youtube posts.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

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