The ISIS threat to Europe

[villakram]

22 hours ago, snowychap said:

Nowhere, then?

then what?

[peterms]

So, I was interested to learn why we, the US and others are quite so keen to rescue al-Qaeda from Aleppo and deliver them, armed, to Idlib in order to continue their campaign of rape, murder and repression.  Then I read about the discovery among the population of East Aleppo, of a group of US, UK, Qatari, Saudi military advisers, who appear to be helping al-Qaeda in their campaign.  Unearthed as the safe space for AQ has diminished to nothing. Oops.

But AQ have burned the buses which were to rescue civilians from the counterparty villages which were to be evacuated at the same time, and have murdered the drivers.  That might affect rescuing the US, UK etc miltary advisers.  Oops.

Also interested to read this, not the kind of thing I imagine gets much prime time coverage in the US.

Quote

Coverage of the Syrian war will be remembered as one of the most shameful episodes in the history of the American press. Reporting about carnage in the ancient city of Aleppo is the latest reason why.

For three years, violent militants have run Aleppo. Their rule began with a wave of repression. They posted notices warning residents: “Don’t send your children to school. If you do, we will get the backpack and you will get the coffin.” Then they destroyed factories, hoping that unemployed workers would have no recourse other than to become fighters. They trucked looted machinery to Turkey and sold it.

This month, people in Aleppo have finally seen glimmers of hope. The Syrian army and its allies have been pushing militants out of the city. Last week they reclaimed the main power plant. Regular electricity may soon be restored. The militants’ hold on the city could be ending.

Militants, true to form, are wreaking havoc as they are pushed out of the city by Russian and Syrian Army forces. “Turkish-Saudi backed ‘moderate rebels’ showered the residential neighborhoods of Aleppo with unguided rockets and gas jars,” one Aleppo resident wrote on social media. The Beirut-based analyst Marwa Osma asked, “The Syrian Arab Army, which is led by President Bashar Assad, is the only force on the ground, along with their allies, who are fighting ISIS — so you want to weaken the only system that is fighting ISIS?”

This does not fit with Washington’s narrative. As a result, much of the American press is reporting the opposite of what is actually happening. Many news reports suggest that Aleppo has been a “liberated zone” for three years but is now being pulled back into misery.

Americans are being told that the virtuous course in Syria is to fight the Assad regime and its Russian and Iranian partners. We are supposed to hope that a righteous coalition of Americans, Turks, Saudis, Kurds, and the “moderate opposition” will win.

This is convoluted nonsense, but Americans cannot be blamed for believing it. We have almost no real information about the combatants, their goals, or their tactics. Much blame for this lies with our media.

Under intense financial pressure, most American newspapers, magazines, and broadcast networks have drastically reduced their corps of foreign correspondents. Much important news about the world now comes from reporters based in Washington. In that environment, access and credibility depend on acceptance of official paradigms. Reporters who cover Syria check with the Pentagon, the State Department, the White House, and think tank “experts.” After a spin on that soiled carousel, they feel they have covered all sides of the story. This form of stenography produces the pabulum that passes for news about Syria.

Astonishingly brave correspondents in the war zone, including Americans, seek to counteract Washington-based reporting. At great risk to their own safety, these reporters are pushing to find the truth about the Syrian war. Their reporting often illuminates the darkness of groupthink. Yet for many consumers of news, their voices are lost in the cacophony. Reporting from the ground is often overwhelmed by the Washington consensus.

Washington-based reporters tell us that one potent force in Syria, al-Nusra, is made up of “rebels” or “moderates,” not that it is the local al-Qaeda franchise. Saudi Arabia is portrayed as aiding freedom fighters when in fact it is a prime sponsor of ISIS. Turkey has for years been running a “rat line” for foreign fighters wanting to join terror groups in Syria, but because the United States wants to stay on Turkey’s good side, we hear little about it. Nor are we often reminded that although we want to support the secular and battle-hardened Kurds, Turkey wants to kill them. Everything Russia and Iran do in Syria is described as negative and destabilizing, simply because it is they who are doing it — and because that is the official line in Washington.

Inevitably, this kind of disinformation has bled into the American presidential campaign. At the recent debate in Milwaukee, Hillary Clinton claimed that United Nations peace efforts in Syria were based on “an agreement I negotiated in June of 2012 in Geneva.” The precise opposite is true. In 2012 Secretary of State Clinton joined Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Israel in a successful effort to kill Kofi Annan’s UN peace plan because it would have accommodated Iran and kept Assad in power, at least temporarily. No one on the Milwaukee stage knew enough to challenge her.

Politicians may be forgiven for distorting their past actions. Governments may also be excused for promoting whatever narrative they believe best suits them. Journalism, however, is supposed to remain apart from the power elite and its inbred mendacity. In this crisis it has failed miserably.

Americans are said to be ignorant of the world. We are, but so are people in other countries. If people in Bhutan or Bolivia misunderstand Syria, however, that has no real effect. Our ignorance is more dangerous, because we act on it. The United States has the power to decree the death of nations. It can do so with popular support because many Americans — and many journalists — are content with the official story. In Syria, it is: “Fight Assad, Russia, and Iran! Join with our Turkish, Saudi, and Kurdish friends to support peace!” This is appallingly distant from reality. It is also likely to prolong the war and condemn more Syrians to suffering and death.

 

Edited December 19, 2016 by blandy
fixed quote

[Awol]

7 minutes ago, peterms said:

So, I was interested to learn why we, the US and others are quite so keen to rescue al-Qaeda from Aleppo and deliver them, armed, to Idlib in order to continue their campaign of rape, murder and repression.  Then I read about the discovery among the population of East Aleppo, of a group of US, UK, Qatari, Saudi military advisers, who appear to be helping al-Qaeda in their campaign.  Unearthed as the safe space for AQ has diminished to nothing. Oops.

But AQ have burned the buses which were to rescue civilians from the counterparty villages which were to be evacuated at the same time, and have murdered the drivers.  That might affect rescuing the US, UK etc miltary advisers.  Oops.

Also interested to read this, not the kind of thing I imagine gets much prime time coverage in the US.

Doesn't seem possible to copy and paste anything from the article, but a quote from it says "the media are misleading the public on Syria".  It goes on to describe how.

While I don't doubt there are Brits in Aleppo, I suspect they are Jihadists & not representatives of HMG - who are to be found alongside the Kurdish YPG. Still we'll find out when the bodies turn up.

Nevertheless it's indisputable that our so called allies are in this up to their nuts with various Jihadi groups. As head of CIA David Petraeus openly called for America to back Al Nusra, the core Al Qaeda group in Syria.

The West has frankly lost the plot over the last 5 years. 

 

[peterms]

Yes, it seems the desire for control of oil and gas pipelines by firms favoured by our rulers  (but which bear no allegiance to, nor hold themselves accountable to, nor even pay much tax in, our country) has overcome all rationality and moral judgement.

It's not even a sensible strategy.  In the same way that miltary planners plan for how to have won the last war, it seems our strategists are planning for how to acquire more of last century's energy resources.

All this needs to change.

[peterms]

20 minutes ago, Awol said:

 Still we'll find out when the bodies turn up.

I seriously doubt that.  We're only now hearing publicly what has been told on the grapevine for a quarter of a century, that Thatchers aides had  children delivered to Tory conferences to be buggered by Cabinet Ministers.  I'm sure the "security" forces are a little better at covering their tracks.  Isn't it the first thing they learn?

[Awol]

6 hours ago, peterms said:

Yes, it seems the desire for control of oil and gas pipelines by firms favoured by our rulers  (but which bear no allegiance to, nor hold themselves accountable to, nor even pay much tax in, our country) has overcome all rationality and moral judgement.

It's not even a sensible strategy.  In the same way that miltary planners plan for how to have won the last war, it seems our strategists are planning for how to acquire more of last century's energy resources.

All this needs to change.

Disagree on the strategic concept, in my view this is and has always been about weakening Iran, at least for the western actors and Saudi.

The Qataris are moonbats and no one has adequately deciphered their strategy imo. Due to the lack of any rational foundation I suspect it's based primarily on religious motivations.

[Awol]

6 hours ago, peterms said:

  I'm sure the "security" forces are a little better at covering their tracks.  Isn't it the first thing they learn?

Were that the case then who is telling you that our people are in Aleppo working with AQ - and how do they know? 

[peterms]

3 hours ago, Awol said:

Were that the case then who is telling you that our people are in Aleppo working with AQ - and how do they know? 

Because some of them were discovered.  There's a story from a couple of days ago, which the mainstream hasn't covered.  The Veterans Today website reckon they have found some corroborating info, mentioned here.

Quote

[ Update 19:42 US EST: We have some confirmation on this from our own Syrian sources. The numbers are much higher than just the 14 names released by the Syrian MP via Facebook. That report of 14 officers might be a different group, as it had specific names.

My report has only the numbers and nationalities…and the news that they were not really “captured” but were allowed out as part of a deal between all parties involved. You see the Moroccans and Saudis are missing in these numbers.

No. of American officers is 22
British 16
French 21
Israeli 7
Turkish 62

The list of 14 names leaked by a Syrian MP are not the real names of those officers, they are cover names; it is standard practice to use a fake ID when serving in a secret op. This is a leak that MSM is ignoring, as they have about all stories of captured foreign officers in Syria. But then Syria has been quiet, also.

From what we can see so far, getting these foreign officers out was rolled into the ceasefire/evacuation deal to get the jihadis out in order to prevent further Syrian casualties and more damage; furthermore, Syria and Russia just wanted to get it over with. The Russians have already moved for a full and immediate ceasefire and the start of all-party political talks.

Russia is determined to get all the involved parties to the table and get those talks going, therefore they were not going to let the capture of some officers screw things up. We will see what the reaction is to getting the talks going. After that we will be watching closely to see if TOW and MANPAD missiles show up on the battlefield soon as part of a new terrorist offensive.

And finally, Trump will eventually weigh in and he is a wildcard for sure. …Gordon]

 

[ Editor’s Note: Well the doo doo has hit the fan if this is true. By that I mean we will be asking for confirmation from the Syrian Justice minister’s office. No one is carrying the story.

We were suspicious due to Kerry’s adamant stance that Aleppo had to have a ceasefire first to let aid in, and then the jihadis would be taken out. But that of course smelled of not only getting them resupplied, but also ex-filtrating some key personnel.

Sure, small groups could hide out in well-stocked and hidden underground hideaways for several weeks, to be gotten out later, but that still has a big element of risk to it. You can imagine the reward money that will be out on the street for these “stay behind” creatures.

It has already been reported that your usual market bombing suicide campaign is expected to be launched against free Aleppo to let everybody know “it ain’t over yet”. We could have still a rocky road ahead to ever getting back to normal times, where Aleppo could return to the thriving commercial and tourist city that it was… Jim W. Dean ]

 

[peterms]

4 hours ago, Awol said:

Disagree on the strategic concept, in my view this is and has always been about weakening Iran, at least for the western actors and Saudi.

Yes, that's certainly a big part of the motivation.  I don't mean there is only one motive.  Israel for example is stealing energy from the Golan Heights, but this is a side issue for them compared to weakening Iran.  For us, strategic control of energy is probably a bigger motivation, and weakening Iran is something that helps in that.

[peterms]

On 12/17/2016 at 18:07, 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.

As she explains to the reporter who questions her about what the "agencies on the ground" are saying, there are no agencies on the ground.  He doesn't appear able to name the ones he believes are there are witnessing things.

We all know that the business model of newspapers has been wrecked over the last few years.  We also know, if we stop to think about it, that the things which have suffered most from that have been the more difficult and expensive parts of journalism, especially investigative and foreign.

Add to that the danger of reporting from jihadi areas (Isis would kill reporters venturing there, and the AQ affiliates like al Nusra kidnap them), and it's easy to understand why journalists end up reporting from far away.  If you listen to the World Service, you will hear them acknowledge that the BBC reporters covering Aleppo are in fact in Lebanon.  Our own media quote as an authoritative source the "Syrian Observatory for Human Rights", which is some geezer in Coventry.

The result of all this is that journalists become heavily dependent on official sources for their news.  Sometimes that is remarked upon, as with the practice of "embedding" them in military units, to control completely what they see and where they go; usually, it is less obvious, and passes unremarked.

And yet people who express an alternative view based on different information, like the Canadian above, are dismissed airily as Russian shills.  I find that deeply disappointing.  It's just double standards, where acting as stenographers for our war machine is ok, and reflecting another view is shallow and corrupt.

Peter Oborne is good on this double standard, here.

Quote

 

It’s time to judge Assad’s Aleppo campaign by the standards that we set ourselves in Mosul

For the past few weeks, British newspapers have been informing their readers about two contrasting battles in the killing grounds of the Middle East. One is Mosul, in northern Iraq, where western reporters are accompanying an army of liberation as it frees a joyful population from terrorist control. The other concerns Aleppo, just a few hundred miles to the west. This, apparently, is the exact opposite. Here, a murderous dictator, hellbent on destruction, is waging war on his own people.

Both these narratives contain strong elements of truth. There is no question that President Assad and his Russian allies have committed war crimes, and we can all agree that Mosul will be far better off without Isis. Nevertheless, the situations in Mosul and Aleppo are fundamentally identical. In both cases, forces loyal to an internationally recognised government are attacking well-populated cities, with the aid of foreign air power. These cities are under the control of armed groups or terrorists, who are holding a proportion of their population hostage. 

In Mosul, fewer than 10,000 Isis fighters control about a million people. In eastern Aleppo, it is estimated that about 5,000 armed men, the majority linked to al–Qaeda, dominate a population of about 200,000. In each case the armed groups use the zones they occupy to attack government areas with rockets, mortars and other weapons.

So Prime Minister al-Abadi in Iraq and President Assad in Syria face the same dilemma. Should they do nothing for fear of killing civilians? Or do they take air action and eliminate the so-called rebels, but at terrible cost in innocent blood as they wage merciless war against ruthless insurgents?

In both cases, enormous bloodshed could be prevented if the terrorist groups let the civilian population leave. Last month the UN special envoy to Syria, Staffan de Mistura, pleaded with Jabhat Fateh al-Sham (formerly al-Qaeda, but now decoupled and rebranded) to do just that: ‘One thousand of you are deciding the destiny of 270,000 civilians.’ He pointedly used the word ‘hostage’ to describe the way these civilians were being held by the rebels and not by Assad. 

This episode highlighted the double standard about western reporting of these terrible problems. In Mosul, western reporters travelling with the invading Iraqi army publish pictures of joyful populations liberated from the jihadists. In Aleppo, the attempt to free the city from al-Qaeda control is portrayed as a remorseless attack on the civilian population.

Assad and his allies have carried out war crimes. But that is not the whole story. When I visited the government-held areas of Aleppo earlier this year, I met scores of people who had fled for their lives from al–Qaeda or Isis in the east of the city. They told me hideous stories of how these jihadists, very few of whom were Syrian, had enforced a brutal form of sharia law, abolished education in schools and forced women to wear burkas and stay at home.

In western Aleppo, I found a woman in a government building where she had come to collect her salary as a teacher (government employees in rebel-held areas are still paid by the regime, even though they are no longer allowed to work). She told me how she was preparing to return home to rejoin her husband and children. She had no doubt at all what fate awaited her: ‘The fighters are preparing ambushes with explosives. They are moving their wives and families out. They are keeping us as human shields.’

Western reports about the fighting in Mosul have made much of the liberated churches. Yet exactly the same narrative applies across Syria. Two years ago I joined Syrian government forces as they freed the eastern city of Maaloula (where Aramaic, the language of Christ, is still spoken). The famous monastery above the town had been dreadfully desecrated by al-Qaeda. In Aleppo, the Christian community has collapsed from 200,000 before the war to maybe 25,000 today. This is because Christians in Aleppo know that if the British and US-backed jihadists in the east win the war, they will be slaughtered.

A further double standard concerns the reporting of Russian and Syrian atrocities. Much has — rightly — been made of the so-called barrel bombs dropped on Aleppo by the Russians. Yet rebel commanders in eastern Aleppo use equally hideous weapons. Last April, fighters from Jaish al-Islam, backed by Saudi Arabia and considered moderate enough that American diplomats retain relations with them, admitted to using chemical weapons against the Kurds in Aleppo. This attack received almost no attention from the media, and failed to generate the faintest outrage in Britain.

Jaish al-Islam employ a so-called ‘hell cannon’ to fire gas canisters and shrapnel weighing up to 40 kilograms into civilian areas. These are every bit as murderous as the barrel bombs. Reports in the western press have suggested that hell cannons are examples of the engineering ingenuity of plucky rebels. Few journalists have dwelled on the fact that these improvised weapons have been deliberately used to kill hundreds of Aleppo civilians.

Yet another double standard applies to the destruction of hospitals. When I was in Aleppo, I interviewed Mohamad El-Hazouri, head of the department of health, at the Razi hospital. He told me that when rebel groups entered the city they put six of the 16 hospitals out of service, as well as 100 of the 201 health centres, and wiped out the ambulance service.

An Aleppo eye hospital, which had been one of the greatest treatment centres in northern Syria, had been turned into a jail for detainees by the rebels. He said that his workers went to great lengths to supply hospitals in the rebel areas. Often they were rebuffed.

There is a wider pattern at work here. When opponents of the West try to reclaim urban areas from terrorists, they are denounced. When our allies do the same — think of Israel in Gaza or the Saudis in Yemen — we defend them. We judge Assad by one set of rules, and ourselves and our own allies by another.

 

[blandy]

7 minutes ago, peterms said:

And yet people who express an alternative view based on different information, like the Canadian above, are dismissed airily as Russian shills.  I find that deeply disappointing.  It's just double standards, where acting as stenographers for our war machine is ok, and reflecting another view is shallow and corrupt.

Osborne condemns the Russian barrel bombing, as would anyone, well when I say anyone, I mean anyone except for the likes of the Canadian journo. Yes, it's right to expose flawed or limited journalism, or double standards. There has been articles in our media detailing exactly that, as your Oborne quote shows, and he was beaten to it by a couple of months by Patrick Cockburn in the indie 

Quote

Destruction in Aleppo by Russian air strikes is compared to the destruction of Grozny in Chechnya sixteen years ago, but, curiously, no analogy is made with Ramadi, a city of 350,000 on the Euphrates in Iraq, that was 80 per cent destroyed by US-led air strikes in 2015. Parallels go further: civilians trapped in East Aleppo are understandably terrified of what the Syrian Mukhabara secret police would do to them if they leave and try to pass through Syrian government checkpoints.

But I talked earlier this year to some truck drivers from Ramadi whom I found sleeping under a bridge in Kirkuk who explained that they could not even go back to the ruins of their homes because checkpoints on the road to the city were manned by a particularly violent Shia militia. They would certainly have to pay a large bribe and stood a good chance of being detained, tortured or murdered.

More on link. The Canadian though does appear to be highly biased in favour of Russia/Assad, rather than neutrally recounting facts.

[peterms]

20 minutes ago, blandy said:

Osborne condemns the Russian barrel bombing, as would anyone, well when I say anyone, I mean anyone except for the likes of the Canadian journo. Yes, it's right to expose flawed or limited journalism, or double standards. There has been articles in our media detailing exactly that, as your Oborne quote shows, and he was beaten to it by a couple of months by Patrick Cockburn in the indie 

More on link. The Canadian though does appear to be highly biased in favour of Russia/Assad, rather than neutrally recounting facts.

That's a good piece by Cockburn.  Looks like Oborne drew on it.

Cockburn points out, as she does, that our media are not neutrally recounting facts.  He also explains that opposition groups create false reports in order to generate support.  Of course we know this, most famously from the WMD saga years ago, where Iraqi groups were doing the same thing, with devastating effect, helping to make the case for the illegal war.

And yet when she says it, she is cast as a shill, while our media are assumed to be objective.  It's as though saying "she writes for RT" is enough to dismiss what she says, and accept the stuff she is debunking without looking at the evidence either way.

[blandy]

1 hour ago, peterms said:

Cockburn points out, as she does, that our media are not neutrally recounting facts.  He also explains that opposition groups create false reports in order to generate support.  Of course we know this, most famously from the WMD saga years ago, where Iraqi groups were doing the same thing, with devastating effect, helping to make the case for the illegal war.

And yet when she says it, she is cast as a shill, while our media are assumed to be objective.

There's two parts to it, surely? Firstly, She, Cockburn, Oborne etc. rightly point out that there are limits and in some cases, biases in some of "our" reporting. Not all of our reporting but some of it. On the other hand ALL of the Russian reporting is biased.

The second part is that she is a shill for the Russians, not for pointing out our media biases, which we know about, but for her own pro-russian bias and reporting.

She is one of the biased reporters she's complaining about, just that she's pro-russian, not pro western Gov't actions.

[villakram]

3 hours ago, blandy said:

There's two parts to it, surely? Firstly, She, Cockburn, Oborne etc. rightly point out that there are limits and in some cases, biases in some of "our" reporting. Not all of our reporting but some of it. On the other hand ALL of the Russian reporting is biased.

The second part is that she is a shill for the Russians, not for pointing out our media biases, which we know about, but for her own pro-russian bias and reporting.

She is one of the biased reporters she's complaining about, just that she's pro-russian, not pro western Gov't actions.

**ALL**  

that's a very dangerous position to take and implicitly publicly advocate.

[coda]

Russian ambassador shot in Turkey. Videos online...

[villakram]

2 minutes ago, coda said:

Russian ambassador shot in Turkey. Videos online...

https://twitter.com/GraniTweet/status/810893606416515073/video/1

the law of independent actors or something more nefarious

Edited December 19, 2016 by villakram
vid is safe for work, mostly aftermath and blathering from the assassin

[blandy]

1 hour ago, villakram said:

**ALL**  

that's a very dangerous position to take and implicitly publicly advocate.

I don't see why it's dangerous, kram. Russian media freedom is next to nil, it's one of the worst nations in the world for allowing independent reporting. Much of the media is state owned and controlled - especially TV and radio, and the press is subject to draconian laws, invented charges against anyone dissenting from the official line, blocked websites, blocked NGOs, oppression of journalists and such like. Propaganda is rife, disagreement with or reporting of information that shows up Putin in a bad light is likely to end up with a "visit" from the authorities and a spurious charge and unsafe conviction and prison sentence.

RSF rates it 148th out of 179 nations for media freedom.

[coda]

30 minutes ago, villakram said:

https://twitter.com/GraniTweet/status/810893606416515073/video/1

the law of independent actors or something more nefarious

Assassin was a Turkish police officer, apparently.

[villakram]

7 minutes ago, blandy said:

I don't see why it's dangerous, kram. Russian media freedom is next to nil, it's one of the worst nations in the world for allowing independent reporting. Much of the media is state owned and controlled - especially TV and radio, and the press is subject to draconian laws, invented charges against anyone dissenting from the official line, blocked websites, blocked NGOs, oppression of journalists and such like. Propaganda is rife, disagreement with or reporting of information that shows up Putin in a bad light is likely to end up with a "visit" from the authorities and a spurious charge and unsafe conviction and prison sentence.

RSF rates it 148th out of 179 nations for media freedom.

I'm not for a second pretending that the media in Russia is independent, but do remember that the British men in black turned up to a national newspaper not too long ago and threatened them with all sorts so that they would destroy evidence. We are simply lucky that they were smart enough to have multiple copies of the relevant source material. Now, this is clearly "less" than what is going on in Russia, but I see it as similarly odious. We are free to discuss baking shows and Rooney's drinking problem, yay (I'm exaggerating some for effect)! Yet, all of your communications are now monitored and in the case where your government breaks the law they simply pass retroactive laws to make things all above board. 

Blandy, I would really recommend that you watch RT sometimes. They really do have some generally excellent stuff on there that is up to the same standard of some of the things on the beeb world service for example. They have some unbiased factual shows, some biased shows, but simply from the Russian/Euroasian viewpoint (that seems fair, as Brits have differing views to Germans) and some which are complete and utter propaganda. So, it's in this sense that I think "ALL" is too general, though I suspect you didn't mean it in such a literal sense. Also, I think it is of critical importance that we put some effort into at least hearing their viewpoint or else those in our societies who wish for control, will control the narrative. 

[blandy]

2 minutes ago, villakram said:

I'm not for a second pretending that the media in Russia is independent, but do remember that the British men in black turned up to a national newspaper not too long ago and threatened them with all sorts so that they would destroy evidence. We are simply lucky that they were smart enough to have multiple copies of the relevant source material. Now, this is clearly "less" than what is going on in Russia, but I see it as similarly odious. We are free to discuss baking shows and Rooney's drinking problem, yay (I'm exaggerating some for effect)! Yet, all of your communications are now monitored and in the case where your government breaks the law they simply pass retroactive laws to make things all above board. 

Blandy, I would really recommend that you watch RT sometimes. They really do have some generally excellent stuff on there that is up to the same standard of some of the things on the beeb world service for example. They have some unbiased factual shows, some biased shows, but simply from the Russian/Euroasian viewpoint (that seems fair, as Brits have differing views to Germans) and some which are complete and utter propaganda. So, it's in this sense that I think "ALL" is too general, though I suspect you didn't mean it in such a literal sense. Also, I think it is of critical importance that we put some effort into at least hearing their viewpoint or else those in our societies who wish for control, will control the narrative. 

That's a different point, really and I agree with you on all of it. The point I made about all the Russian media being biased, was probably not put very well. I should have said there is no scope for the Russian media to write or broadcast anything critical of Putin's regime or its actions, whether state controlled media or "independent" media.

I have from time to time seen RT, and it's a mix, like you say, of reporting of events in the west, say, and often blatant propaganda. It's very different from the freer media of the West (in the UK anyway). It doesn't cover anything critical of Putin or Russia at all, whereas there is much time on our media covering the flaws and idiocy of our leaders and their actions.