The ISIS threat to Europe

[OutByEaster?]

16 hours ago, Awol said:

Sadly there won't be a settling down under Assad. Even if he clears the organised brigades of Jihadis from western Syria they will drop back down to guerilla and terrorist operations and make the country ungovernable. The same thing will happen with ISIS in Iraq. 

This mess has years left to run. 

Isn't that to some extent 'mission accomplished'?

If you consider our aims in the region to:

a.) remain on stable terms with those nations that we have an established and profitable relationship with; the established oligarchical societies of the various emirates. 

b.) prevent any situation where control of natural resources in other parts of the region fall into the hands of the people that live there - Iraq being the best example, where a corridor of protected oil and gas operations guarded by a mass of US military bases ensures control of the natural resource while the rest of the country looks like something out of a Mad Max film.

Other than setting fire to Iran, I think the region is pretty much just as we'd like it. (We being the very rich corporations and banks that run our society) a chaotic Syria, even one run by a man supported by the big Iran shaped fly in the ointment is to some extent just what we want isn't it?

[omariqy]

I would recommend following Live updates from Syria on facebook for updates on what is going on, on the ground in Syria. These are British and American people who have been over there for a few years now helping civilians. I think I may have mentioned it before on here.

[Awol]

8 hours ago, OutByEaster? said:

Isn't that to some extent 'mission accomplished'?

If you consider our aims in the region to:

a.) remain on stable terms with those nations that we have an established and profitable relationship with; the established oligarchical societies of the various emirates. 

b.) prevent any situation where control of natural resources in other parts of the region fall into the hands of the people that live there - Iraq being the best example, where a corridor of protected oil and gas operations guarded by a mass of US military bases ensures control of the natural resource while the rest of the country looks like something out of a Mad Max film.

Other than setting fire to Iran, I think the region is pretty much just as we'd like it. (We being the very rich corporations and banks that run our society) a chaotic Syria, even one run by a man supported by the big Iran shaped fly in the ointment is to some extent just what we want isn't it?

I'm not sure that's an entirely fair characterization - although clearly having some element of truth to it, in part. 

The West wanted Assad gone in the beginning because it would hurt the Iranians significantly to lose Syria as a regional ally, but that didn't extend to seeing him replaced by Jihadi death squads - although the Qataris and Saudis are quite happy with that outcome and have worked full tilt to achieve it.

The time for the West to get involved was during the first six months of the uprising when the opposition were moderate, democracy seeking Syrian nationalists trying to overthrow a brutal dictator.

We lost our collective bottle and our satanic allies - including NATO member Turkey - filled the vacuum, arming and promoting various jihadists groups including AQ (Al Nusra) and ISIS. 

From that point on it was in our interests for Assad to prevail, despite the fact he emptied Syrian jails of captured Jihadis to give substance to his claims that the opposition were terrorists, not the genuine Syrian rebels (mostly defecting regulars from the Syrian military) who formed the initial vanguard of the revolution.

Thst hasn't prevented the CIA, MI6, DGSE, Mossad et al. from trying to structure viable opposition forces, without ever doing enough to make them competitive against either the Jihadists or the Regime forces.

That was less an outcome of institutional incompetence than a symptom of political constraints. Obama, Cameron and Sarkozy/Hollande have been statistically remarkable in their ability to consistently make the wrong decisions in the region. 

The outcome is Allepo and the the slaughterhouse of broader Syria, where we either let civilians die horribly or we risk war with Russia and Iran to align ourselves with the kind of people who tortured and murdered concert goers in the Bataclan.

It's a god awful mess - with the sole consolation that the US bears far greater responsibility for it than we do. 

 

[Awol]

BTW, anyone seen the starving Yemeni Kids on Sky News? 

Our Saudi friends are doing that, with UK help. 

[TrentVilla]

 

47 minutes ago, Awol said:

BTW, anyone seen the starving Yemeni Kids on Sky News? 

Our Saudi friends are doing that, with UK help. 

Perhaps Boris had a point....

[snowychap]

1 hour ago, Awol said:

BTW, anyone seen the starving Yemeni Kids on Sky News? 

Our Saudi friends are doing that, with UK help. 

Yes. Very grim.

Mr Fallon was on the telly again on Sunday (about 7 minutes in - http://bbc.in/2hdgmFQ) to reinforce just how right they are in what they're doing.

'Right of Saudi to defend itself', being 'attacked by Huthi terrorists', 'Saudi leading the campaign/coalition to restore the legitimate government of Yemen'.

[Awol]

32 minutes ago, snowychap said:

'Right of Saudi to defend itself', being 'attacked by Huthi terrorists', 'Saudi leading the campaign/coalition to restore the legitimate government of Yemen'.

It's talk like this that lays bare the extent of the lies HMG is prepared to tell the British people in pursuit of immoral foreign policy aims - and they all do it.

The amazing thing is their assumption that we can't immediately see through it. Their monopoly on information is gone, all they have left now is crude attempts to restrict public access to it.

'Post-truth politics' isn't new and has been the norm since they had to start justifying their actions to the public at large, but it feeds the accelerating spiral of cynicism I think most of us feel towards the institutions that govern us. 

Small wonder the electorate at large are going feral in the privacy of the voting booth.

 

[Ikantcpell]

 

[villakram]

^^ required viewing!

[Chindie]

On 16/12/2016 at 12:36, Ikantcpell said:

 

More horseshit.

Snopes

Quote

Bartlett's claim that the child victim Aya, is "recycled" is the same type of charge levied by conspiracy theorists at parents of children who were killed in the 2012 Sandy Hook elementary school massacre. It is a claim also promoted by David Icke, who is best known for believing the world is controlled by Martian lizard people

That article also goes onto her absolute nonsense regarding the elections, amongst other things.

She's also about as independent as my head is from my neck. She's paid by Russia Today (a shock I know!) and has had work published on many conspiracy sites.

Less independent Canadian journalist, more Russian agenda shill.

[StefanAVFC]

1 hour ago, Chindie said:

More horseshit.

Snopes

That article also goes onto her absolute nonsense regarding the elections, amongst other things.

She's also about as independent as my head is from my neck. She's paid by Russia Today (a shock I know!) and has had work published on many conspiracy sites.

Less independent Canadian journalist, more Russian agenda shill.

Ahhh, but Chindie.

Snopes are a LIBERAL website with an ELITE agenda.

[StefanAVFC]

To add to Chindie's article, these paragraphs from this was particularly cutting.

Quote

Eva Bartlett, the woman in the video, writes for various conspiracy sites including SOTT.net, The Duran, MintPress and Globalresearch.ca. But more recently she has emerged as a contributor to Russia Today. And though her wordpress blog is called “In Gaza”, and though she has a past in Palestine solidarity work, unlike the people of Gaza, she is a strong supporter of Assad and she uses language to describe Assad’s opponents that is a virtual echo of the language Israeli propagandists use against Gazans.

Bartlett was recently a guest of the Assad regime, attending a regime sponsored PR conference and going on a tour of regime-controlled areas herded no doubt by the ubiquitous minders (the regime only issues visas to trusted journalists and no visitor is allowed to travel without a regime minder). On her return, the regime mission at the UN organised a press conference for her and three members of the pro-regime US “Peace Council” (The organisation has the same relationship to peace as Kentucky Fried Chicken has to chicken). In the press conference they all repeated the claims usually made by the regime’s official media SANA and by Russia Today: all rebels are terrorists; there is no siege; civilians are being held hostage; the regime is a “liberator” etc.

So a conspiracy theorist with a blog who briefly visited Syria as a guest of the regime is declaring that everything you know about Syria is wrong. That you have been misled by everyone in the “MSM” from the New York Times to Der Spiegel, from the Guardian to the Telegraph, from CNN to Channel 4, from ABC to BBC, from CBS to CBC; that human rights organisations like Physicians for Human Rights, Medicins Sans Frontiers, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch; that international agencies like the UN and ICRC—they are all part of a vast conspiracy to malign Bashar al Assad. And the truth is only revealed on “alternative” media like the Kremlin’s own Russia Today! (watched by 70 million people a week according to its own claims)

 

[StefanAVFC]

What that 'independent journalist' is saying is dangerous.

Channel 4 must be anti-Assad too? For posting these images. The little girl is another called Aya. Is she recycled? I know one guy who is Syrian and I asked his take on her rambings. He sent me this (i've bolded the stuff I found interesting)

Quote

Pretty much the same, though my opinion isn't really representative of the Syria population. Plenty in Syria would call her an empty Russian vessel, and some would hail her a hero for not dissenting to Assad's narrative. I think people like this are just anti-establishment to the point of a warping of reality, and they have little understanding of foreign policy but fill in the blanks with whoever dissents to the notion of "world order". 

Another thing to consider: who the **** gave her access to Syria? As far as the world is aware, this reporter is wholly uncredentialed. She has some credits in this conspiracy theory online rag that runs UFO stories as well as anti-left stories (calling itself "alternative news"). You have to understand that gaining access to Syria is really, really difficult for journalists. You're either given a 24 hour regime escort or you embed yourself with rebels who can protect you from ISIS by entering Aleppo through Turkey. In order to do so, you'd have to establish a rapport with these groups, plenty of whom are battle-hardy, impatient, and distrustful. Even dangerous. 

 

So note that she was given access to Aleppo very recently, likely around the time the regime took control of the city, only a few days ago. She was likely invited and allowed access to individuals entirely through the regime. Whether she's lying or being honest, the regime heavily attempts to control reporter movements in order frame a certain narrative. Access to interview subjects they can control, limiting access to certain parts of a city (early on this was about claiming that no significant infrastructural damage or civilian casualties had been accrued, and that the regime was only fighting small terror cells by way of excision. Images of neighborhoods reduced to rubble would've screwed that narrative; sometimes international monitors were shot at by unidentifiable assailants, mostly reporters were told that an area is off limits because it is dangerous). 

 

Experienced reporters understand this. But of course, it's very easy to be anti-establishment as an end in and of itself.

What a hack, and what's worse, is that people are eating up what she's saying and calling her respected and credible. 

Awful woman.

Edited December 17, 2016 by StefanAVFC

[villakram]

Regardless of her credentials, a lot of what she says has substance. In particular her point regarding the clear as day agenda of the west, and the smug reporter in the audience. Also, she got front line information (aka a scoop), where others have been unable to get any on the ground info. out, and this is crap reporting? What about all these DoD etc. sourced stories. Are they any different? Dismissing her information is foolish; however, treating it with suitable levels of skepticism is prudent.

I find it increasingly worrying that everyone working for a Russian (seems to apply to China too) state funded media outlet is spouting propaganda, but what of other countries state and otherwise funded media? 

[StefanAVFC]

Front line information based on access almost certainly provided by the regime. Almost everything she says is based on her 'front line experience'. Last 2 paragraphs written by my Syrian friend do a better job of explaining this than I do. Also the recycled children nonsense is 9/11 level bullshit.

Also I have serious grievances with her being billed as an independent journalist when she clearly isn't. She parades herself as a bastion of truth and impartiality when she isn't. That's stupid and dangerous.

Quote

So a conspiracy theorist with a blog who briefly visited Syria as a guest of the regime is declaring that everything you know about Syria is wrong. That you have been misled by everyone in the “MSM” from the New York Times to Der Spiegel, from the Guardian to the Telegraph, from CNN to Channel 4, from ABC to BBC, from CBS to CBC; that human rights organisations like Physicians for Human Rights, Medicins Sans Frontiers, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch; that international agencies like the UN and ICRC—they are all part of a vast conspiracy to malign Bashar al Assad. And the truth is only revealed on “alternative” media like the Kremlin’s own Russia Today! (watched by 70 million people a week according to its own claims)

I mean, come on.

Edited December 17, 2016 by StefanAVFC

[snowychap]

28 minutes ago, villakram said:

treating it with suitable levels of skepticism is prudent

Where have you (and the poster who posted the video) demonstrated this prudent skepticism?

Edited December 17, 2016 by snowychap

[blandy]

21 hours ago, villakram said:

I find it increasingly worrying that everyone working for a Russian (seems to apply to China too) state funded media outlet is spouting propaganda, but what of other countries state and otherwise funded media? 

There's a point here about "free press". It is fact that the media in Russia and Syria is not "free" to publish whatever they want - they are compelled to print only stories which are uncritical of their Governments and their Governments actions. That does make all that they publish untrue or inaccurate of course, but it does mean that it is incomplete.

With the west, there is no such constraint. In some cases the opposite applies - media is compelled to be "balanced" and to present different angles or views. In the west (as in Russia and China) different parts of the media may differ in outlook, or motive or views towards their Country's actions, but only in the west can strong criticism be made by their own nation's media. It is also acceptable for someone such as the reporter in that video to say what she said about the Western media and so on. Reverse the situation and have a Russian or Chinese reporter flip it to be about the Russian media and you have a prisoner, or worse. Ditto china.

Doesn't mean in this case some of what she says isn't partially perhaps credible, but we're lucky we get to hear all these differing views and to be able to make our own minds up. We're lucky there's no Great Firewall of China here, no journos locked up and murdered for reporting the truth about our leaders.

[villakram]

2 hours ago, snowychap said:

Where have you (and the poster who posted the video) demonstrated this prudent skepticism?

I read the other contributions and consider them to be valuable. I don't value an echo chamber. 

I value some of her work as similar things are reported elsewhere. Her previous is an obvious red flag and something I was not aware of, but one only has to look at some of the things said about Robert Fisk, for example, to understand how dismissing reporters leads to poorly informed positions. 

[villakram]

2 hours ago, StefanAVFC said:

Front line information based on access almost certainly provided by the regime. Almost everything she says is based on her 'front line experience'. Last 2 paragraphs written by my Syrian friend do a better job of explaining this than I do. Also the recycled children nonsense is 9/11 level bullshit.

Also I have serious grievances with her being billed as an independent journalist when she clearly isn't. She parades herself as a bastion of truth and impartiality when she isn't. That's stupid and dangerous.

I mean, come on.

How many of those organizations have questioned the fact the United States of America was allied with AQ in Syria only 11 years after 9/11? I don't remember Barack Obama ever answering that question or seeing any serious probing of this issue, but instead an endless stream of how the bad man Assad needed to be removed.

[snowychap]

36 minutes ago, villakram said:

I read the other contributions and consider them to be valuable. I don't value an echo chamber. 

I value some of her work as similar things are reported elsewhere. Her previous is an obvious red flag and something I was not aware of, but one only has to look at some of the things said about Robert Fisk, for example, to understand how dismissing reporters leads to poorly informed positions. 

Nowhere, then?