Meanwhile, In Syria
Discussion
This is an interesting watch. I try to get my news from a few places and aim somewhere in the middle for what might really be true.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebE3GJfGhfA
Skip to about 15mins in.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebE3GJfGhfA
Skip to about 15mins in.
The MSM have been so focused on a simplistic narrative of Russia/Assad bad and Rebels/Al-Queda good that they have destroyed public trust in their message. I've watched public support on places like Cif (The Guardian) gradually switch from the rebels to the SAA and now it would be rare for the Guardian to even allow comments on the Syrian situation, because they know it will be full of people equating the rebels to jihadi's.
The irony here is that the propaganda has been very effective in shutting down debate to a simplistic good guys vs bad guys narrative, however it backfired because after years of being told how evil Al-Queda are people decided that the jihadi's are the bad guys. Wonder where they got that idea from?
The western propaganda has worked at cross purposes to itself. Think about how propaganda was used after 9/11 to falsely link Saddam to Al-Queda (because anyone linked to Al-Queda must be evil beyond evil so therefore it would be fine and dandy if we invaded Iraq). It was effective propaganda that some genius decided would be instantly forgotten as soon as Al-Queda rebranded to become Nusra Front? The moment that paper thin deception fell apart the western MSM was working against everything it had been telling us for the previous decade and a half.
The MSM is also working against itself because of a good vs evil narrative that serves to limit the debate so there's no grey areas. Online debate tends to follow this MSM trend and be limited to specific incidents or focus on working out who the good/bad guys are (see previous pages on this thread about bombing hospitals for further reference).
The tragedy here is that by limiting the information people have to use in their online debates the MSM has done a disservice to the many Syrians who at the outset of the civil war were protesting about food prices and political representation. Food prices were at the core of the Arab Spring yet when was the last time you read an article about grain harvests in the MENA? (Hint - there's not enough food to go round.)
Not even that bastion of feminism The Guardian has dared mention that high levels of misogyny (and therefore a high birth rate) combined with good health care and not enough food are likely to result in unrest and mass movement of people. Since we were neanderthals people have been fighting each other for scarce food stocks with the loser forced to migrate to wherever they can find a new food source, yet people are shocked that folk want to move from MENA to Europe?
This should be basic analysis that everyone knows but because our media is so limited in scope the drivers of the situation such as food, currency, resources, etc are omitted from the debate, meaning that people are forced in to a narrow band of radical positions, EG:
- Supporting Assad, Hezbollah and questionable Iranian militias because they're the ones fighting Al-Queda.
- Supporting rebels even though it's known that they support sharia law and want to ethnically cleanse non sunni's.
- Supporting Daesh because you're young, muslim, angry and able to see that the west has nothing to offer the the middle east other than 'peace through superior firepower'.
These are actually pretty damn radical positions to hold yet the first two are repeated again and again in newspaper comments sections. Why? Because the information required to understand the food crisis, the specific effects of global warming on the middle east, the importance of the petrodollar vs the Iranian oil bourse and other complex factors is 100% excluded from MSM debate, making a reasoned and moderate position impossible to hold.
Thankfully social media including forums like PH can mitigate some of the damage caused by the MSM going full propaganda on us, however the full costs of of this media failure have yet to be felt, because if we don't get to the bottom of why the Arab Spring happened then it will keep happening, the waves of refugees will keep coming until Italy is forced to go full Mussolini on us and the trouble will spread to Europe, all of which could be prevented with good public knowledge and some shipments of grain to MENA (possibly along with boxes of condoms and some feminist propaganda
).
The irony here is that the propaganda has been very effective in shutting down debate to a simplistic good guys vs bad guys narrative, however it backfired because after years of being told how evil Al-Queda are people decided that the jihadi's are the bad guys. Wonder where they got that idea from?
The western propaganda has worked at cross purposes to itself. Think about how propaganda was used after 9/11 to falsely link Saddam to Al-Queda (because anyone linked to Al-Queda must be evil beyond evil so therefore it would be fine and dandy if we invaded Iraq). It was effective propaganda that some genius decided would be instantly forgotten as soon as Al-Queda rebranded to become Nusra Front? The moment that paper thin deception fell apart the western MSM was working against everything it had been telling us for the previous decade and a half.
The MSM is also working against itself because of a good vs evil narrative that serves to limit the debate so there's no grey areas. Online debate tends to follow this MSM trend and be limited to specific incidents or focus on working out who the good/bad guys are (see previous pages on this thread about bombing hospitals for further reference).
The tragedy here is that by limiting the information people have to use in their online debates the MSM has done a disservice to the many Syrians who at the outset of the civil war were protesting about food prices and political representation. Food prices were at the core of the Arab Spring yet when was the last time you read an article about grain harvests in the MENA? (Hint - there's not enough food to go round.)
Not even that bastion of feminism The Guardian has dared mention that high levels of misogyny (and therefore a high birth rate) combined with good health care and not enough food are likely to result in unrest and mass movement of people. Since we were neanderthals people have been fighting each other for scarce food stocks with the loser forced to migrate to wherever they can find a new food source, yet people are shocked that folk want to move from MENA to Europe?
This should be basic analysis that everyone knows but because our media is so limited in scope the drivers of the situation such as food, currency, resources, etc are omitted from the debate, meaning that people are forced in to a narrow band of radical positions, EG:
- Supporting Assad, Hezbollah and questionable Iranian militias because they're the ones fighting Al-Queda.
- Supporting rebels even though it's known that they support sharia law and want to ethnically cleanse non sunni's.
- Supporting Daesh because you're young, muslim, angry and able to see that the west has nothing to offer the the middle east other than 'peace through superior firepower'.
These are actually pretty damn radical positions to hold yet the first two are repeated again and again in newspaper comments sections. Why? Because the information required to understand the food crisis, the specific effects of global warming on the middle east, the importance of the petrodollar vs the Iranian oil bourse and other complex factors is 100% excluded from MSM debate, making a reasoned and moderate position impossible to hold.
Thankfully social media including forums like PH can mitigate some of the damage caused by the MSM going full propaganda on us, however the full costs of of this media failure have yet to be felt, because if we don't get to the bottom of why the Arab Spring happened then it will keep happening, the waves of refugees will keep coming until Italy is forced to go full Mussolini on us and the trouble will spread to Europe, all of which could be prevented with good public knowledge and some shipments of grain to MENA (possibly along with boxes of condoms and some feminist propaganda
).Just over a year ago our MP's voted overwhelmingly to support a UN Security Council resolution to take action against ISIL in Syria and Iraq as they posed a direct threat to the United Kingdom.
How is it then that ISIL fighters crossed around 100 miles or barren rocky desert in convoys containing heavy weapons, tanks and troop carriers to again attack the free city of Palmyra this week? It's almost like they were allowed to do it by the coalition forces who are watching and patrolling the area by air.
Then we have the US State Department Spokesman refusing to say that ISIL taking over Palmyra was worse than Assad controlling the city (a Syrian city).
The whole country is FUBAR and I can't begin to imagine what kind of hell it has been for the ordinary people trapped in the middle of it all for years.
How is it then that ISIL fighters crossed around 100 miles or barren rocky desert in convoys containing heavy weapons, tanks and troop carriers to again attack the free city of Palmyra this week? It's almost like they were allowed to do it by the coalition forces who are watching and patrolling the area by air.
Then we have the US State Department Spokesman refusing to say that ISIL taking over Palmyra was worse than Assad controlling the city (a Syrian city).
The whole country is FUBAR and I can't begin to imagine what kind of hell it has been for the ordinary people trapped in the middle of it all for years.
Art0ir said:
discusdave said:
off topic a little but I've been wondering about this..
how come that the Israelis are more afraid of Iran and it's benevolent Shia Islam then it has of the the Saudi Wahabi/Takfiri.
How come that the so called ISIS and the other 31 flavors of jihadist's from the ME are attacking only secular independent Arab and Muslim countries, not under the control of Washington?
Shouldn't the principal enemy of Saudi Arabia and all those so called radical "Islamist" be the state of Israel?
Shouldn't their main objective be the liberation of Palestine from Israeli occupation?
Yet we have a Saudi regime declaring openly, that it would open it's airspace for the Israeli Air Force, to bomb and destroy another Muslim country, namely Iran??
Don't you find that to be very odd and absolutely bizarre policy, for someone that proclaims it self to be the protector and the cradle of Islam?
The power plays, backstabbing, low key support and general fhow come that the Israelis are more afraid of Iran and it's benevolent Shia Islam then it has of the the Saudi Wahabi/Takfiri.
How come that the so called ISIS and the other 31 flavors of jihadist's from the ME are attacking only secular independent Arab and Muslim countries, not under the control of Washington?
Shouldn't the principal enemy of Saudi Arabia and all those so called radical "Islamist" be the state of Israel?
Shouldn't their main objective be the liberation of Palestine from Israeli occupation?
Yet we have a Saudi regime declaring openly, that it would open it's airspace for the Israeli Air Force, to bomb and destroy another Muslim country, namely Iran??
Don't you find that to be very odd and absolutely bizarre policy, for someone that proclaims it self to be the protector and the cradle of Islam?
kery in the M.E. is nigh incomprehensible.They spent 1700 years butchering each other when it was mostly about what material your head touched when praying. Throw a Jewish state into the mix and the results are what we see.
Wahhabism in particular (KSA's state religion after Mohammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab and the House of Saud made a pact in the middle of the desert in the 18th century) sees Shia muslims as enemy number 1. Worse than even Christians or Jews.
The aim is to eliminate Shia Islam, them move onto the other Judeo-Christian religions.
Follow the massacres ISIS and "moderate" rebel forces have carried out the past few years in their back yards, mostly other Islamic sects.
Forget North Korea, Russia, Cuba, China... The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is the greatest threat to Western civilisation we face.
Countries don't have friends, just interests.
An army can only be only as large as the income it generates.
Follow the money.
<><><>
The facts that (1) USA has the largest military in the world by quite some margin and (2) The US Dollar is the world's reserve currency are related to each other. Reserve currency status is what pays for the USA's huge military (There's also some rather socialist economics going on regarding state sponsored industries, however republicans and right wingers might explode if I went in to that.)
The process works something like this:
Mohammed in Saudi wants to sell a tanker of oil to Stavros in Italy.
The oil is traded in USD.
Before Stavros can buy the oil he must exchange his EUR for USD.
The only source of USD is from the American federal reserve.
This means Stavros must put his EUR in to the American capital market before he can pay Mohammed for the oil.
An american bank now has Stavros's EUR.
Stavros has the bank's USD.
Mohammed recieves payment for the oil and now needs somewhere to put his newly acquired USD.
Where better to but those USD than in to an American or British bank?
End result - The USD boomeranged out of the American capital market only to return once the transaction was complete but now the American bank has Stavros's EUR as well as the USD.
The above is what pays for the US military and industrial complex which supports it.
<><><>
An understanding of the above is crucial for understanding what is going on in the world. Israel and even more so the Saudis would both be in a severe existential crisis if the petrodollar system were to break down because it would undermine their economy and undermine their ability to protect themselves from external threats in what is a pretty tough neighbourhood. (Their currency and armed forces are reliant on the survival of the petrodollar)
Israel and Saudi may not be friends but you can be sure they know what side their bread is buttered.
With the notable exception of Turkey all belligerents in recent middle eastern conflicts can be allocated to one of two economic systems, the petrodollar or the Iranian Oil Bourse. It's actually amazing how such a messy array of allegiances neatly resolves itself in to two clear cut sides once you understand how reserve currency works.
The Iranian Oil Bourse uses a basket of currencies including the Euro, Rouble and Yuan so if people use that rather than the petrodollar system then the benefits of reserve currency status which is currently paying for the USA military would transfer to Iran, the EU, Russia and China. Anyone want to hazard a guess why France and Germany didn't support the Iraq war?
I hope that helps. Seriously annoys me that this stuff isn't printed in newspapers, how the hell are we meant to have a meaningful conversation without this sort of knowledge - Oh, yeah, it's so us plebs can keep talking about humanitarian and religious 'reasons' for war.
War is economic.
The excuses for war are religious.
Blaster72 said:
How is it then that ISIL fighters crossed around 100 miles or barren rocky desert in convoys containing heavy weapons, tanks and troop carriers to again attack the free city of Palmyra this week? It's almost like they were allowed to do it by the coalition forces who are watching and patrolling the area by air.
Or directed to do it by coalition strategists watching and patrolling the area by air as a last ditch attempt to distract the SAA from retaking Eastern Aleppo.Edited by Driller on Tuesday 13th December 23:10
Driller said:
Or directed to do it by coalition strategists watching and patrolling the area by air as a last ditch attempt to distract the SAA from retaking Eastern Aleppo.
I've no idea what goes through coalition strategists minds but doubt they've got much control over ISIS and even less over RuAF. Russia has good air support in that area and really it's their look out. Not sure how far south coalition planes go but if I was an RAF pilot going that far south I'd want to be damn sure the guy driving the S400 was on his coffee break.Strategically it's quite a good play from ISIS but more opportunist than anything. The city is surrounded by hills so the actual fight is for the hills but the SAA left their worst militias in what should have been easily defendable positions... which didn't work out so well for SAA.
Palmyra is the other end of Syria from Al Bab and there's no way the militias are going to take it back. That means the SAA has to make a north/south choice and send one of its competent divisions, Hez or Tigers down south to deal with Palmyra, which in turn complicates logistics and ties up SAA forces.
That's my understanding from the 'clear as mud' situation, as always happy to be corrected if I've got anything wrong.
The last few posts have provided a better analysis of the situation than 99% of the traditional media.
I sometimes wish I could forward this thread to various politicians, with the instruction "do not open your mouth about Syria until you have read and understood this."
Some of the commentary by UK politicians on Syria, borders on the comically or criminally inept.
I sometimes wish I could forward this thread to various politicians, with the instruction "do not open your mouth about Syria until you have read and understood this."
Some of the commentary by UK politicians on Syria, borders on the comically or criminally inept.
Edited by QuantumTokoloshi on Wednesday 14th December 05:44
QuantumTokoloshi said:
The last few posts have provided a better analysis of the situation than 99% of the traditional media.
I sometimes wish I could forward this thread to various politicians, with the instruction "do not open your mouth about Syria until you have read and understood this."
Some of the commentary by UK politicians on Syria, borders on the comically or criminally inept
Did you see Bojo yesterday evening regarding the Syria NATO talks. The bare face lies are utterly shockingI sometimes wish I could forward this thread to various politicians, with the instruction "do not open your mouth about Syria until you have read and understood this."
Some of the commentary by UK politicians on Syria, borders on the comically or criminally inept
CarreraLightweightRacing said:
QuantumTokoloshi said:
The last few posts have provided a better analysis of the situation than 99% of the traditional media.
I sometimes wish I could forward this thread to various politicians, with the instruction "do not open your mouth about Syria until you have read and understood this."
Some of the commentary by UK politicians on Syria, borders on the comically or criminally inept
Did you see Bojo yesterday evening regarding the Syria NATO talks. The bare face lies are utterly shockingI sometimes wish I could forward this thread to various politicians, with the instruction "do not open your mouth about Syria until you have read and understood this."
Some of the commentary by UK politicians on Syria, borders on the comically or criminally inept
Eva Bartlett said some interesting things at the U.N about the lies from the media about the conflict.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=g1VNQGsiP8M
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=g1VNQGsiP8M
Edited by dudleybloke on Wednesday 14th December 13:09
dudleybloke said:
Eva Bartlett said some interesting things at the U.N about the lies from the media about the conflict.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=g1VNQGsiP8M
Was literally just about to post this, from another source here:https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=g1VNQGsiP8M
Edited by dudleybloke on Wednesday 14th December 13:09
https://www.facebook.com/MintpressNewsMPN/videos/1...
CarreraLightweightRacing said:
dudleybloke said:
Eva Bartlett said some interesting things at the U.N about the lies from the media about the conflict.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=g1VNQGsiP8M
Was literally just about to post this, from another source here:https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=g1VNQGsiP8M
Edited by dudleybloke on Wednesday 14th December 13:09
https://www.facebook.com/MintpressNewsMPN/videos/1...
No government ever wants to admit they're wrong, I think that much is certain.
We made the right decision when we voted against intervening in Syria back in 2013. It was Iraq all over - nobody had any vision for what the country would look like after Assad was unseated, and there was no guarantee that attacking Assad wouldn't have helped ISIS more than the rebels.
We then got stuck between the strategic reality of the situation (Assad was the only side who could win the fight) and our perception of the geopolitics (Our best mates in the middle east were anti-Assad). I'm pro-Iran and anti-Saudi Arabia, and I'm afraid that by sticking to our dogma and siding with the house of Saud may have set back our relationship with Iran by a generation.
Imagine for a moment what Syria would be like today if we had come to a deal with Assad whereby he agreed to free and fair elections in return for us throwing ISIS out of Syria. We would have avoided a lot of the killing of innocents, the chemical weapons, the barrel bombs, and would have gotten one over on Putin.
We made the right decision when we voted against intervening in Syria back in 2013. It was Iraq all over - nobody had any vision for what the country would look like after Assad was unseated, and there was no guarantee that attacking Assad wouldn't have helped ISIS more than the rebels.
We then got stuck between the strategic reality of the situation (Assad was the only side who could win the fight) and our perception of the geopolitics (Our best mates in the middle east were anti-Assad). I'm pro-Iran and anti-Saudi Arabia, and I'm afraid that by sticking to our dogma and siding with the house of Saud may have set back our relationship with Iran by a generation.
Imagine for a moment what Syria would be like today if we had come to a deal with Assad whereby he agreed to free and fair elections in return for us throwing ISIS out of Syria. We would have avoided a lot of the killing of innocents, the chemical weapons, the barrel bombs, and would have gotten one over on Putin.
America would never support ISIS, likewise the UK logistical support to all those moderate Islamic fundamentalists, who the MOD cannot even name.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-14/congressw...
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-14/congressw...
dudleybloke said:
Eva Bartlett said some interesting things at the U.N about the lies from the media about the conflict.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=g1VNQGsiP8M
She is very good.https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=g1VNQGsiP8M
Edited by dudleybloke on Wednesday 14th December 13:09
don4l said:
She is very good.
She is and she makes some very, very valid arguments. Sadly that presentation was totally devoid of any proof, evidence or witnesses to back up what she was saying - as sure as she ripped into the reporter who questioned her sources, she basically pointed out all the flaws in her own reporting, secondly there was hardly anyone in the audience and thirdly she quite often appears on RT reporting which is well known to be just a biased with it's reporting as the rest of the mainstream media.There is clearly some sort of agenda being driven by many governments and their media outputs and it seems to me to be almost criminal that the BBC can take a UN statement which has no credible basis and use it as news. Reporting in a way that is clearly biased towards painting the Russians, Iranians and Assad as the devil incarnate and the Syria Rebel groups as saintly victims.
It's not washing with everyone I speak to that takes an interest in the situation over there. I am careful to read too much into reports like that above also though and often wonder how a reporter like her can freely enter and leave these rebel areas without harm when reporting that the locals who have lived in that hell are dying just trying to find food or search for escape routes from the area.
We're awash with information but most of it can't be trusted as it's biased to one political view or another.
Are the rebels firing gas cylinder bombs onto government checkpoints set up to allow civilians to leave, is the Syrian regime dropping barrel bombs out of helicopters on rebel positions, are hospitals that are being bombed or shelled genuine hospitals or rebel positions, all questions that just can't be answered by viewing the situation from here.
I know it's making weapons manufacturers rich, funding all sorts of new and more terrifying weapons and being used as some sort of proxy war between religious and political groups. Assad seems to have stuck to his guns, partnered up with a willing and well armed group of allies and persevered despite interference and condemnation from all sorts of politicians abroad who can't even run their own country properly. A despot or not it seems his approach is the only one that is actually making gains and heading the country towards ending this was.
The Syrian war according to Nassim Taleb, someone who has skin in the game in Syria. Perhaps they can print some of these cheat cards for UK politicians.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-15/nassim-ta...
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-15/nassim-ta...
Edited by QuantumTokoloshi on Thursday 15th December 21:09
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff