Meanwhile, In Syria
Discussion
QuantumTokoloshi said:
Some interesting developments over the weekend, the often referenced and wonderfully independent "Syrian observatory for human rights", turns out to be no more than a paid shrill for the UK government, £194 000 worth of tax money paid. Propaganda is certainly more profitable than a corner shop. I wonder if some of the vitriol reserved for state sponsored propaganda, like RT or BBC, will be directed to this beacon of journalistic comedy, sorry vigour.
Rami Abdel Rahman (the "director" of SOHR) also does a great BOGOF offer on Kitkats and crisps at his cornershop, when not following and breaking investigative journalist stories from his media head office, also known as his spare bedroom.
Great!Rami Abdel Rahman (the "director" of SOHR) also does a great BOGOF offer on Kitkats and crisps at his cornershop, when not following and breaking investigative journalist stories from his media head office, also known as his spare bedroom.
Nasty snobbery at the fact that the man runs a corner shop.
Comparing a contribution f£194,000 to the budget of RT.
Describing the BBC as "state-sponsored propaganda!.
The word is "shill", not "shrill".
You have no credibility.
Zod said:
QuantumTokoloshi said:
Some interesting developments over the weekend, the often referenced and wonderfully independent "Syrian observatory for human rights", turns out to be no more than a paid shrill for the UK government, £194 000 worth of tax money paid. Propaganda is certainly more profitable than a corner shop. I wonder if some of the vitriol reserved for state sponsored propaganda, like RT or BBC, will be directed to this beacon of journalistic comedy, sorry vigour.
Rami Abdel Rahman (the "director" of SOHR) also does a great BOGOF offer on Kitkats and crisps at his cornershop, when not following and breaking investigative journalist stories from his media head office, also known as his spare bedroom.
Great!Rami Abdel Rahman (the "director" of SOHR) also does a great BOGOF offer on Kitkats and crisps at his cornershop, when not following and breaking investigative journalist stories from his media head office, also known as his spare bedroom.
Nasty snobbery at the fact that the man runs a corner shop.
Comparing a contribution f£194,000 to the budget of RT.
Describing the BBC as "state-sponsored propaganda!.
The word is "shill", not "shrill".
You have no credibility.
Zod said:
Great!
Nasty snobbery at the fact that the man runs a corner shop.
Comparing a contribution f£194,000 to the budget of RT.
Describing the BBC as "state-sponsored propaganda!.
The word is "shill", not "shrill".
You have no credibility.
It’s not « nasty snobbery ». If he was supposed to be doing any other really important professional activity that needed a huge amount of resources to be done properly, you’d say the same.Nasty snobbery at the fact that the man runs a corner shop.
Comparing a contribution f£194,000 to the budget of RT.
Describing the BBC as "state-sponsored propaganda!.
The word is "shill", not "shrill".
You have no credibility.
Would you not find it weird if a neurosurgeon or a general in the army ran a corner shop?
Driller said:
Zod said:
Great!
Nasty snobbery at the fact that the man runs a corner shop.
Comparing a contribution f£194,000 to the budget of RT.
Describing the BBC as "state-sponsored propaganda!.
The word is "shill", not "shrill".
You have no credibility.
It’s not « nasty snobbery ». If he was supposed to be doing any other really important professional activity that needed a huge amount of resources to be done properly, you’d say the same.Nasty snobbery at the fact that the man runs a corner shop.
Comparing a contribution f£194,000 to the budget of RT.
Describing the BBC as "state-sponsored propaganda!.
The word is "shill", not "shrill".
You have no credibility.
Would you not find it weird if a neurosurgeon or a general in the army ran a corner shop?
Zod said:
Driller said:
Zod said:
Great!
Nasty snobbery at the fact that the man runs a corner shop.
Comparing a contribution f£194,000 to the budget of RT.
Describing the BBC as "state-sponsored propaganda!.
The word is "shill", not "shrill".
You have no credibility.
It’s not « nasty snobbery ». If he was supposed to be doing any other really important professional activity that needed a huge amount of resources to be done properly, you’d say the same.Nasty snobbery at the fact that the man runs a corner shop.
Comparing a contribution f£194,000 to the budget of RT.
Describing the BBC as "state-sponsored propaganda!.
The word is "shill", not "shrill".
You have no credibility.
Would you not find it weird if a neurosurgeon or a general in the army ran a corner shop?
How can one not question the legitimacy of such an organisation supposedly doing such important and profound work, which to be done properly would take enormous time and resources, when the guy runs a shop at the same time?
On the contrary, I think that comparing it to any other specialist and demanding job such as a surgeon or general is very reasonable.
The fact fact that he is an “immigrant” has nothing to do with it.
Edited by Driller on Monday 14th May 13:24
I have to say that yours and QT's is a truly pitiful attempt to denigrate the man. I don't know him and don't spend much time looking at his work, but that you call the BBC government propaganda and attack the man for earning a living says it all. He came here with nothing, promotes a cause and had not other means to pay for it than to work and get grants.
Zod said:
Driller said:
Zod said:
Great!
Nasty snobbery at the fact that the man runs a corner shop.
Comparing a contribution f£194,000 to the budget of RT.
Describing the BBC as "state-sponsored propaganda!.
The word is "shill", not "shrill".
You have no credibility.
It’s not « nasty snobbery ». If he was supposed to be doing any other really important professional activity that needed a huge amount of resources to be done properly, you’d say the same.Nasty snobbery at the fact that the man runs a corner shop.
Comparing a contribution f£194,000 to the budget of RT.
Describing the BBC as "state-sponsored propaganda!.
The word is "shill", not "shrill".
You have no credibility.
Would you not find it weird if a neurosurgeon or a general in the army ran a corner shop?
The BBC, who regularly quotes his "stories" as fact, as they do not have sufficient journalists to cover the story adequately it seems, so they use the Coventry spare room based "journalist". Luckily for them, the stories are also independently verified, by the local Coventry Taxi / news desk or is it Laundrette / 24 News bureau? All very confusing.
Coventry is clearly a hot bed of international journalistic entrepreneurship.
The BBC is so impartial, that it would rigorously investigate claims of WMDs, 45 minute claims etc. Phew ! Lucky we have that, in this age of digital propaganda.
Edited by QuantumTokoloshi on Monday 14th May 14:41
QuantumTokoloshi said:
Zod said:
Oh, no! How dare he report without being a trained journalist!
True, easier to make it up, saves on all those pesky expenses. Remember, he is only trying to make a living.Zod said:
I have to say that yours and QT's is a truly pitiful attempt to denigrate the man.
Oi, I am not trying to "denigrate" anyone thank you very much so go and tar someone else with that brush. I'm talking about the credibility of The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights which is run by one bloke who, as I just found out today, runs a shop. It's preposterous and literally as farcical as:"whatever happened to the Popular Front of Judea Reg?"
"He's over there".
QuantumTokoloshi said:
So he is a part-time journalist, with no journalistic background, experience or credentials, a mere 3000 miles away from the story, and paid £200K by the UK government, as a journalist. It sounds like a really good deal. Nothing suspicious about that, at all. Perfectly normal behaviour.
The BBC, who regularly quotes his "stories" as fact, as they do not have sufficient journalists to cover the story adequately it seems, so they use the Coventry spare room based "journalist". Luckily for them, the stories are also independently verified, by the local Coventry Taxi / news desk or is it Laundrette / 24 News bureau? All very confusing.
Coventry is clearly a hot bed of international journalistic entrepreneurship.
The BBC is so impartial, that it would rigorously investigate claims of WMDs, 45 minute claims etc. Phew ! Lucky we have that, in this age of digital propaganda.
QT,The BBC, who regularly quotes his "stories" as fact, as they do not have sufficient journalists to cover the story adequately it seems, so they use the Coventry spare room based "journalist". Luckily for them, the stories are also independently verified, by the local Coventry Taxi / news desk or is it Laundrette / 24 News bureau? All very confusing.
Coventry is clearly a hot bed of international journalistic entrepreneurship.
The BBC is so impartial, that it would rigorously investigate claims of WMDs, 45 minute claims etc. Phew ! Lucky we have that, in this age of digital propaganda.
Edited by QuantumTokoloshi on Monday 14th May 14:41
Do you have a source link to that 194K?
The BBC do have sufficient 'investigative' journalists however I doubt they'd get a visa and if they did it would be rather tricky don't you think to leave areas controlled by the Americans or Kurds?
So what's the point?
SOHR has posted some questionable articles in the recent past however I think he has the edge over RT or PRESS TV in telling the truth.
Phil
Liokault said:
QuantumTokoloshi said:
Zod said:
Oh, no! How dare he report without being a trained journalist!
True, easier to make it up, saves on all those pesky expenses. Remember, he is only trying to make a living.Liokault said:
Would you have a similar issue if he was pro Assad? I think not. He would suddenly be a great source of un impeachable information, then be offered a slot on RT.
There you are wrong. RT is not the news service trumpeting him as the "voice of Syria". The BBC is.The is is the same "journalist" who trumpets white helmets propaganda as Allah's honest truth. He who writes the cheques, makes the rules in this game or should that be, makes the story.
As pointed out above and derided for, RT is state propaganda broadcaster, just like the BBC, to be listened to with the B.S. detector turned up to 11.
People like Ray Mc Govern, Scott Ritter, Bill Binney, Craig Murray, Ron Paul, even Wikileaks or Chelsea Manning, tended to be better sources .
Edited by QuantumTokoloshi on Tuesday 15th May 08:41
Transmitter Man said:
QuantumTokoloshi said:
So he is a part-time journalist, with no journalistic background, experience or credentials, a mere 3000 miles away from the story, and paid £200K by the UK government, as a journalist. It sounds like a really good deal. Nothing suspicious about that, at all. Perfectly normal behaviour.
The BBC, who regularly quotes his "stories" as fact, as they do not have sufficient journalists to cover the story adequately it seems, so they use the Coventry spare room based "journalist". Luckily for them, the stories are also independently verified, by the local Coventry Taxi / news desk or is it Laundrette / 24 News bureau? All very confusing.
Coventry is clearly a hot bed of international journalistic entrepreneurship.
The BBC is so impartial, that it would rigorously investigate claims of WMDs, 45 minute claims etc. Phew ! Lucky we have that, in this age of digital propaganda.
QT,The BBC, who regularly quotes his "stories" as fact, as they do not have sufficient journalists to cover the story adequately it seems, so they use the Coventry spare room based "journalist". Luckily for them, the stories are also independently verified, by the local Coventry Taxi / news desk or is it Laundrette / 24 News bureau? All very confusing.
Coventry is clearly a hot bed of international journalistic entrepreneurship.
The BBC is so impartial, that it would rigorously investigate claims of WMDs, 45 minute claims etc. Phew ! Lucky we have that, in this age of digital propaganda.
Edited by QuantumTokoloshi on Monday 14th May 14:41
Do you have a source link to that 194K?
The BBC do have sufficient 'investigative' journalists however I doubt they'd get a visa and if they did it would be rather tricky don't you think to leave areas controlled by the Americans or Kurds?
So what's the point?
SOHR has posted some questionable articles in the recent past however I think he has the edge over RT or PRESS TV in telling the truth.
Phil
Does the BBC not have Arabic speakers or contacts in Syria? He is further away from Syria than all the BBC Middle Eastern reporters, yet is a major reference.
Does the BBC not have access to Twitter and YouTube? His major sources.
Or perhaps this person perform another task for the Foreign Office? Besides fresh milk and bread in the morning, for £200K. Every little hybrid warfare helps.
http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2018/05/wha...
OPCW confirms use of chlorine in February attack.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-441393...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-441393...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff