The most IRRESPONSIBLE reporting I have ever seen

The BBC have posted this report on fighting in Aleppo. Russisn / Syrian / Iranian forces are fighting fiercely and re-taking much lost ground. People are fleeing, people are dying. Nothing particularly unusual there. The rebels are the sorts of SOBs who engage in urban warfare to use civilians as human shields.

HOWEVER

Right at the end of the news article the reporter straight faced says 'that if the rebels don't get reinforcements and more ammunition soon, they will lose this fight'

That, in my opinion equates to crimes against humanity. He has just called for more Jihadists to join the fight and cause more death and destruction. The Russian plan is the only one that will work. It is causing more death and destruction right now yes, but if the Jihadists were to make advances toward Assad held territory the same thing will happen on a much worse scale.

MSM lies to us people - be aware!

They are our creations ,thanks to my failed leader.

a reply to: markosity1973

This is one intervention I think Russia will come out smelling like a rose.

originally posted by: WeRpeons
a reply to: markosity1973

This is one intervention I think Russia will come out smelling like a rose.

Yeah, weird times huh.

I find myself speaking in support of Russian actions in Syria all the time. Yet before all of this, like most other people I viewed Putin with great suspicion based upon what MSM had been feeding me.

Check out this propaganda piece. The BBC calls Putin 'forceful', the reporter quotes most of what he says without actually showing it, then what they do show has no signs of forcefulness - just a straight talking man speaking the truth.

Don't you know? It used to that you become a reporter to report the news, occasionally to uncover a story no one knew about and break an exclusive.

But ever since Deep Throat, reporting has become all about changing the world. You don't report the news, you shape the world, and what you see every day is more like a soap opera than true news.

originally posted by: ketsuko
Don't you know? It used to that you become a reporter to report the news, occasionally to uncover a story no one knew about and break an exclusive.

But ever since Deep Throat, reporting has become all about changing the world. You don't report the news, you shape the world, and what you see every day is more like a soap opera than true news.

This is more subversive than that I fear. They are attempting to rally public opinion against Russia and Putin in order to fuel the flames of the war in Syria even more.

In fact I would go as far as to say, it is attempting to condition the public toward acceptance of direct confrontation with Russia.

The West has lost it's mind and gone mad I fear.

a reply to: markosity1973

No, it's not more subversive than that.

If the narrative is that we want conflict with Russia, then that's what they'll promote. It's all about manipulating language and the facts of the story.

I did some journo school, and I saw how it works. Everything from the choice of stories, to the ranking of facts, to the word choice ...

a reply to: markosity1973

Didnt you just make this post? saying how "the dead bodies in this village tell a story?" and the "villagers" who really said nothing, while RT [Russian State News] was passing blame around.

But here we have a video of a guy [and all the people in this video look normal, not shady like the other one [so called villagers] a normal guy is pulling his dead mother and his father from rubble, due to Russian airstrikes... but this is "bad reporting"?

My take is I really don't care what either side of the media is trying to spin. Russia and the US are fighting a proxy war in Syria. Both of them are to blame.

Just like they were both to blame during Vietnam.

But it's pretty clear the agenda you are pushing for Russia now with how your format your threads and what you take away from the different news sites. RT News is obviously gospel to some on this forum...

I find myself speaking in support of Russian actions in Syria all the time.

You don't say...

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: markosity1973

No, it's not more subversive than that.

If the narrative is that we want conflict with Russia, then that's what they'll promote. It's all about manipulating language and the facts of the story.

I did some journo school, and I saw how it works. Everything from the choice of stories, to the ranking of facts, to the word choice ...

Yes, that is what we are both saying.

They are manipulating facts and attempting to condition us against Russia. The only reason one does that is to get ready for the next phase - direct confrontation.

That is the subversive part. The journos are clearly being told to cover the war and make Russia / Iran / Assad look bad in order to support the UK govt narrative. In other words, war time propaganda.

Subjective reporting is just a myth in this entire situation.

a reply to: boncho

A) I'm not quoting RT here - it's BBC propaganda

B) You did not and still do not understand the premise of that thread. It was an RT piece showing the atrocities that the US and Saudi funded and armed rebels are committing. I openly invited people to share other information and asked for evidence of Assad committed atrocities.

C) Did I not say this in the opening post?

. People are fleeing, people are dying. Nothing particularly unusual there.

It's a war for crying out loud. People are going to die wherever weapons are being used. You criticise me in the other thread for using dead bodies to tell a story, yet you openly support it here, because the people interviewed 'don't look shady?'

Come on, give me a break.

Let me share a universal truth with you;

Anyone who loses loved ones to a bomb is going to blame the person who dropped it

You will find people who both love and hate Assad and his coalition, but I guarantee you will find even more behind those rebel held lines that hate their occupiers even more given the bloodthirsty atrocities they commit in the name of good ole Allah.

a reply to: markosity1973

They are manipulating facts and attempting to condition us against Russia. The only reason one does that is to get ready for the next phase - direct confrontation.

Explain how Russia can launch airstrikes in Syria without civilian casualties but when the US does it in Yemen, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, they have many?

The answer is they can't and they don't.

Here are casualties cause by pro-assad forces:

Physicians for Human Rights said it had documented 313 attacks on medical facilities and the deaths of 679 medical personnel in Syria since protests against the regime of Bashar al-Assad began in March 2011 until the end of August 2015. “Syrian government forces have been responsible for more than 90% of these attacks,” the organisation said. “Each of which constitutes a war crime.”

Here are casualties caused by the US in Afghanistan:

The latest attack comes less than two weeks after a US attack on a hospital in Kunduz, Afghanistan, which killed at least 22 people – 12 of them medical professionals and the rest patients. That attack was widely condemned and has forced an apology from senior US officials, as well as several international investigations.

www.theguardian.com...

What's the difference? Well, Im not pushing an agenda like the Russian's. So I have no problems saying that Al-Assad is killing people, Russia is killing people, and hey, the US is killing people too.

If you live in America and you are siding with Russia on this you are just betting against your own country. If you are from Russia and you are siding with Russia, well that makes sense at least.

Or you could just take a stance against all of them, and just not side with any of them.

We do know there is a combined effort between the western allies to promote instability in Syria for a government change.

And since Russia has come in to spoil the underground party, there is now a twisted western media propaganda campaign, this here being a classic example, of an open plea for support for the terrorist groups.

What I can take from this news, is confirmation that the Insurgent groups have already been weakened, close to defeat if you will.

a reply to: markosity1973

I'm not quoting RT here - it's BBC propaganda

haha, okay. So a clip from RT News that had no story and shows some dead bodies in a village claiming XYZ was "good reporting" but the same thing from BBC is propaganda? Get real man.

) You did not and still do not understand the premise of that thread. It was an RT piece showing the atrocities that the US and Saudi funded and armed rebels are committing. I openly invited people to share other information and asked for evidence of Assad committed atrocities.

Except there were no atrocities shown in that video. There was no story. There were a couple dead bodies and some dissolved homes and god knows who was actually responsible for what in there. The dead bodies could have been soldiers on either side, could have been soldiers killed by their own for all you know. [defectors and traitors among the ranks is bad there]

It's a war for crying out loud. People are going to die wherever weapons are being used. You criticise me in the other thread for using dead bodies to tell a story, yet you openly support it here, because the people interviewed 'don't look shady?'

I specifically stated neither is telling a story. Its two news agencies pushing an agenda there is no story. This is what I said:

My take is I really don't care what either side of the media is trying to spin. Russia and the US are fighting a proxy war in Syria. Both of them are to blame.

If you wanted to believe one though, the second done much better than the first, they have real people being pulled out of buildings, with witnesses, the others have no idea what happened or whats going on.

Keep spinning Russian propaganda news for them.

a reply to: boncho

You are living up to your shill master claim and derailing this thread. I will not reply to you further

In reposonse;

Civilian and overall casualties (2007)[edit]
More than 7,700 people were killed in 2007, including: 1,019 Afghan policemen;[41] 4,478 militants;[42] 1,980 civilians[43] and 232 foreign soldiers.[44]

With by far the most comprehensive research into Afghan civilian casualties,[45] Professor Marc W. Herold of the University of New Hampshire estimated in September 2007 that between 5,700 and 6,500 Afghan civilians had been killed so far in the war by US and NATO military forces.[46] He stressed that this was an "absolute minimum" and probably "a vast underestimate" because the figures do not include:

the dead among the tens of thousands of Afghans displaced during the initial military operation in 2001-2002, who ended up in refugee camps or elsewhere with little or no supplies for long periods;
civilian victims of U.S./NATO bombing in mountainous areas, which have few or no communications links or which the U.S./NATO forces "cordon off as part of news management";
and civilians that did not die immediately at the scene but died later of their injuries.

Yeah, that's right, the USA simply under reports how many civilians it kills. What we don't know, makes the military look good. Good ole 'need to know' army style commuication.

en.wikipedia.org...(2001–present)

a reply to: markosity1973

You're really missing the whole point of my post. If you can post that you realize that Russia's lies are the same thing. I never denied NATO is killing people over there, in fact I specifically stated so. Did you miss this source, and the quote I made saying the US bombed a hospital in Afghanistan?

The difference here is Im not trying to spin a pro-NATO, pro-US, pro-war agenda, but you are for Russia. You are claiming Russia is a big hero for rushing to Assad's aid, when Russia has geopolitical reasons for backing Syria, they want their hand in that region and that's why they are running airstrikes for Assad.

You can't point out collateral damage by US or NATO backed interests while simultaneously defending Russia and its actions in a war [and somehow claim that Russia doesn't have casualties in their airstrikes, even while they are being reported].

The difference here is I have no agenda. I don't give a # about any of them. Im pointing out they are all killing civilians for their political gains in their proxy war.

Me = No one is a hero.

You seem to think Russia is.

a reply to: boncho

My take is I really don't care what either side of the media is trying to spin. Russia and the US are fighting a proxy war in Syria. Both of them are to blame.

Just like they were both to blame during Vietnam.

US invaded Vietnam, Russia helped push them out.

In Syria US is trying to take over, this time by insurgency… and Russia is helping push them out.

In both cases the US is to blame.

a reply to: InnerPeace2012

And to think that Assad used to be our buddy just like Saddam and Qaddafi.Why the torture that the USA claims Assad did? We know for a fact he did because he was doing it for us. This is a very sad case of the US overstepping its boundaries and authority.

www.nytimes.com...

So yeah,we know all about what a bad man Assad is,after all,he was working FOR us.

a reply to: Dimithae

Yep, another classic case of US hypocrisy.

As far as I am concerned, there are legitimate reasons transit Assad from power. However, funding terrorist groups who kill innocent civilians simply for their faith or ethnicity in an attempt to destabilise Syria and do that is a crime against humanity.

Russia has come up with the only sensible plan so far. The USA could and should be talking with Putin to strategise on how to end the war then peacefully transit Assad's government from power by letting the people speak. And if they vote to keep him. Well, that is something the people of Syria have asked for and we have to accept it.

originally posted by: Dimithae
a reply to: InnerPeace2012

And to think that Assad used to be our buddy just like Saddam and Qaddafi.Why the torture that the USA claims Assad did? We know for a fact he did because he was doing it for us. This is a very sad case of the US overstepping its boundaries and authority.

www.nytimes.com...

So yeah,we know all about what a bad man Assad is,after all,he was working FOR us.

I think there is more to that "Assad bad man" notion. Click here : www.globalresearch.ca...