The most IRRESPONSIBLE reporting I have ever seen

a reply to: markosity1973

More Russia is the worlds savior on ATS. Its really getting old

Russia is Assads savior

a reply to: markosity1973

Why because he doesn't rally behind Russian propaganda? He doesn't take sides as he claimed in his post making him not a shill or did you miss that part?

Russia has an agenda and its not to just take out ISIS

originally posted by: markosity1973
MSM lies to us people - be aware!

Says the one who is found of quoting and linkng to RussiaToday. RT is MSM aswell,why do you eat up everything they say yet you slander all of western media ? I am behind Russia 100% in what they are doing in Syria. But lets cut the crap, Russian media is just as biased as any western outlet. Thats how MSM operates across the globe.

a reply to: markosity1973

also, he didn't call for anything in that report. just more rhetoric to spew in support of Russia. Crime against humanity? get a grip

so because he stated a fact that if the rebels don't receive help or unite they'll lose and this is somehow him claiming support for the rebels?

sounds like you're spewing your own blend of opinionated propaganda

a reply to: ErrorErrorError

Russia is immune to propaganda. they only state the truth in every situation.

originally posted by: ErrorErrorError

originally posted by: markosity1973
MSM lies to us people - be aware!

Says the one who is found of quoting and linkng to RussiaToday. RT is MSM aswell,why do you eat up everything they say yet you slander all of western media ? I am behind Russia 100% in what they are doing in Syria. But lets cut the crap, Russian media is just as biased as any western outlet. Thats how MSM operates across the globe.

I quote from many sources. I am being critical of the BBC here because it is a highly trusted msm source.

As for RT, I watch or read the content before posting it. I've said this several times before about RT and I will say it again for your benefit; Even the devil tells the truth sometimes. (Not that I am equating RT with the devil here) RT can and does tell the truth and present some quality journalism. You just have to filter through it to sort the obvious and usually anti american propaganda out.

Obviously the US has totally screwed up in the region but I can't get on board with all this cheerleading for Putin and the Russians. Assad is ruthless and not all the rebels opposing him are "SOBs."

a reply to: InnerPeace2012

I have read and watched the videos on that. Pretty frightening isn't it?

originally posted by: markosity1973

originally posted by: ErrorErrorError

originally posted by: markosity1973
MSM lies to us people - be aware!

Says the one who is found of quoting and linkng to RussiaToday. RT is MSM aswell,why do you eat up everything they say yet you slander all of western media ? I am behind Russia 100% in what they are doing in Syria. But lets cut the crap, Russian media is just as biased as any western outlet. Thats how MSM operates across the globe.

I quote from many sources. I am being critical of the BBC here because it is a highly trusted msm source.

As for RT, I watch or read the content before posting it. I've said this several times before about RT and I will say it again for your benefit; Even the devil tells the truth sometimes. (Not that I am equating RT with the devil here) RT can and does tell the truth and present some quality journalism. You just have to filter through it to sort the obvious and usually anti american propaganda out.

Even the devil tells the truth sometimes you say-one can say the same about western msm,cant you ? RT uses anti american propaganda,so how can you tell when they arent using propaganda? Western msm is run by corporations,RT is run by the state,same # with different spin on it.

a reply to: markosity1973

If you search the internet, you will see that the film shootage they took, comes from jihadists in Syria. In the "original" footage, those who are shooting the film scream "alah akbhar" continuously in the background, while they film the Russian helikopters attack. And what he isn't telling as well, is that attack took place almost a week ago ... or last monday.

So, it proves beyond doubt ... that "jiahidsts" are the creation of the west. And if you look at how the Islamic States has been able to advance, over these past years. You will also see, that the so called "rebels" are merely a front for Islamic State. Once they have one ground, ISIS comes in and takes over ... and since the west has been watching that take place for the past years, it can't be stated that it's a suprise to them either.

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.

Wrong.

Originally "news" reporting were flyers on the streets, and they were spread around by government opponents. That meant communists back in those days. Since then, the government has taken over the news. Sure, in Russia and China the company who reports is "owned" by the government. In the US, it's owned by a privateer, whose only purpose is to make money ... and where does his money come from? The poor dodger on the street? Hell no ... it comes from those who make the policy in the country, and the government has STRICT laws on who can and can't report news. For reasons of "NATIONAL SECURITY".

So, independent news my butt.

originally posted by: ErrorErrorError

Even the devil tells the truth sometimes you say-one can say the same about western msm,cant you ? RT uses anti american propaganda,so how can you tell when they arent using propaganda? Western msm is run by corporations,RT is run by the state,same # with different spin on it.

Ahem *Cough*

The BBC is also State owned and run

The BBC is established under a Royal Charter[8] and operates under its Agreement with the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport.[9] Its work is funded principally by an annual television licence fee[10] which is charged to all British households, companies, and organisations using any type of equipment to receive or record live television broadcasts.[11] The fee is set by the British Government, agreed by Parliament,[12] and used to fund the BBC's extensive radio, TV, and online services covering the nations and regions of the UK. From 1 April 2014 it also funds the BBC World Service, launched in 1932, which provides comprehensive TV, radio, and online services in Arabic, and Persian, and broadcasts in 28 languages.

en.wikipedia.org...

SBS (Australia ) and ABC (Australia) are state owned

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

TVNZ (New Zealand) is state owned

en.wikipedia.org...

CBC (Canada) is state owned

en.wikipedia.org...

Need I go on?

Whatever your beef with RT and it being State owned is, I don't get it. As you can see plenty of nations own and run media channels.

It's easy to tell propaganda from the truth BTW. Propaganda either twists or omits parts of the whole truth to lead one to a certain point of view that suits a predetermined agenda.

The truth on the other hand can sometimes be confusing, uncomfortable and confronting. But you know it's the truth because everywhere you look you hear the same story repeated over and over.

originally posted by: markosity1973

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'

I remember seeing CNN and other major outlets publishing the URL address and name of a recruitment page for the Kurdish YPG while reporting on their fighting with ISIS.

While the YPG is a secular group not considered a terrorist organisation by most governments, it is still a very irresponsible act for major news outlets to publish a recruitment page front and centre. Visiting the page no more than 5 minutes after the segment would show dozens of people asking to join. Joining foreign militias in foreign wars is an illegal act in many countries.

putin is not intervening because he cares about the syrian people or because he is assads old college buddy, he is intervening because there is something in it for him...oil. its all about money, us and russian foreign policy is all bout money and their own best interests.

guess where the ISIS troops flee to once they have been defeated...

hint: "refugees welcome!"

It's always more pleasant when Putin has the opportunity to express his own point of view directly to those who are trying to accuse him.

a reply to: conspiracy nut

Syria barely has oil.
And the Russians are self-sufficient in oil resources with their national production.

originally posted by: daaskapital

originally posted by: markosity1973

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'

I remember seeing CNN and other major outlets publishing the URL address and name of a recruitment page for the Kurdish YPG while reporting on their fighting with ISIS.

While the YPG is a secular group not considered a terrorist organisation by most governments, it is still a very irresponsible act for major news outlets to publish a recruitment page front and centre. Visiting the page no more than 5 minutes after the segment would show dozens of people asking to join. Joining foreign militias in foreign wars is an illegal act in many countries.

Yes it is and any reporter including this BBC twat should be fired on the spot and the article retracted over suggesting more action is needed. They are there to tell us what is going on, not to ask for more bombs and jihadists.

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.

a reply to: markosity1973

Yeah, you and me both. I think there are a lot of people who are saying the same thing.

a reply to: markosity1973

Crime against Humanity?

LOL any reason people ignore the other facts on the ground? I posted this in another thread dealing with the same issue -

* - RT - Russia will veto no fly one - 2013
* - BBC - Russia and China veto UN move to refer Syria to ICC - 2014
* - Russia blocks a UN Security Council statement condemning the Syrian government's increasing military offensive on the city of Aleppo.
* - UN - Complete list of UN vetos from the mid 1940's to present

* - Reuters - Factbox: U.N. Security Council action on the Syrian conflict - Feb2014

VETO ONE - October 4, 2011 Link

Russia and China blocked a European-drafted U.N. Security Council resolution condemning Syria and hinting it could face sanctions if its bloody crackdown on protesters continues. The draft resolution received nine votes in favor and four abstentions from Brazil, India, Lebanon and South Africa.

VETO TWO - February 4, 2012 - Link

Russia and China vetoed a Western- and Arab-driven draft resolution endorsing an Arab League plan for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to hand power to a deputy to make way for a transition towards democracy. The remaining 13 members of the council voted in favor of the draft resolution.

Russia complained that the draft resolution was an improper and biased attempt at "regime change" in Syria.

VETO THREE - July 19, 2012 - Link

Russia and China vetoed a Western-backed resolution that threatened Syrian authorities with sanctions if they did not halt the violence. The resolution - to extend for 45 days a U.N. mission in Syria observing a failed ceasefire - received 11 votes in favor, while South Africa and Pakistan abstained.

ADOPTED ONE - April 14, 2012 - Link
The U.N. Security Council unanimously agreed to deploy an advance team of up to 30 unarmed observers to monitor a brief, fragile ceasefire.

Before agreeing to support what was originally a U.S.-drafted text, Russia had demanded the U.S. and European delegations dilute it so that it would not "demand" that Syria comply with the resolution. The approved resolution uses softer language so that it "calls upon" Syria to implement it.

ADOPTED TWO - April 21, 2012 - Link

The U.N. Security Council unanimously adopted a resolution that authorized an initial deployment of up to 300 unarmed military observers to Syria for three months.

The Russia-European drafted resolution said that deployment of the U.N. observer mission would be "subject to assessment by the Secretary-General (Ban Ki-moon) of relevant developments on the ground, including the cessation of violence."

It also noted that the cessation of violence by the government and opposition is "clearly incomplete" and warned that the Security Council could consider "further steps" in the event of non-compliance with its terms.

ADOPTED THREE - July 20, 2012 - Link

The U.N. Security Council voted unanimously to extend the monitoring mission in Syria for a final 30 days.

ADOPTED FOUR - September 28, 2013 - Link

The U.N. Security Council unanimously adopted a resolution that demanded the eradication of Syria's chemical weapons but did not threaten automatic punitive action against Assad's government if it does not comply.

The vote by the Security Council capped weeks of intense diplomacy between Russia and the United States. It was based on a deal between the two countries reached in Geneva earlier in September following an August 21 sarin nerve gas attack on a Damascus suburb that killed hundreds.

The resolution does not authorize automatic punitive action in the form of military strikes or sanctions if Syria does not comply. At Russia's insistence, the resolution makes clear a second council decision would be needed for that. Russia has made clear, however, it would not support the use of force against Assad's government, a close ally.

Yup.. Russia is doing all they can to protect Assad while lining up Syrian citizens against a wall for Assad to shoot.