I asked a Journalist onto Why The Western MSM isn't Covering the Western Coalition.

I asked a Journalist onto Why The Western MSM isn't Covering the Western Coalition.

Q:why western news outlets have suddenly stopped covering air strikes being carried by west?

A: I have no idea - perhaps they are not hitting very much now?

A interesting response according to the Journalist the Western Coalition arent hitting in Syria very much as opposed before when Russia intervened to stop ISIS.

So now the question why have the Western Coalition stopped bombing in Syria? S400s? waiting to attack Assad forces?

a reply to: TaleDawn

So now the question why have the Western Coalition stopped bombing in Syria?

According to Russia, they haven't.
www.reuters.com...

according to Turkey....the Russians are bombing everything.....
hospitals....civilians and baby seals and kittens......a reply to: Phage

a reply to: tri-lobe-1

Turkey and Saudi Arabia, is a "shame" in the hat of western nations. Saudi Arabia, isn't any better than ISIS ... and Turkey, has always two faced, and really not an ally to Europe. That the west uphold these nations, as they do ... is in reality a proof, that what we're being told ... is a pack of lies.

Think about it, all the worlds armies are in the middle-east, to battle a rogue group called ISIS, that number some 30 thousand guys and boys ... if that didn't really get you to ask questions, than your brain ain't much good. And that the Russians are bombing "all" (the opposition to Syrian government) is probably correct, they've made quite clear that in their eyes ... there ain't no "moderate" rebels. And they use the word ISIS, merely because it's a western rhetoric ...

Mainstream media has become all but spent in its re-writting of history to explain the contradictions within the occurrence of a "new indeterminate alliance" and resolving how that alliance has always been so, with an audiences ability too accept it.

a reply to: TaleDawn

Its such a sad situation today because if Western governments had 'clean hands' and had not been exposed as deliberately getting rid of people who stood in the way of things like:
the petro$ e.g. Gaddafi,

lying to us about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq,

finding Bin Laden in Pakistan in stead of Afghanistan where they had sent troops and wasted so much public money, not to even touch the death of so many people of both sides,

we might have had some degree of faith in what they way.

We also have the situation where the coalition stood by for years whilst Daesh and other nasty thugs got so much media attention yet a lot of sup pies but not enough bullets actually in them, that of course the Russians came in.

To Western public's eyes, Russia stepped in because the USA and Western governments were simply creating the situation purely for a mass migration of the syrian people who had been living in misery in camps in certain parts of that country and elsewhere for quite some time.

We have also seen the situation with the persecuted Yazidi and heard terrible accounts of how they were left.

It seems that the Russians did the decent thing and, worse are getting results. As they assure the world they were not in Aleppo when the bombing took place of the hospitals should we believe them? We know the USA bombed a hospital quite recently in Afghanistan and we know the Saudi's with British help are busy bombing schools and hospitals in Yemen (gone quiet recently in the media)

one has to ask, who do you believe?

Saudi Arabia, isn't any better than ISIS ... and Turkey, has always two faced, and really not an ally to Europe. That the west uphold these nations, as they do ... is in reality a proof, that what we're being told ... is a pack of lies.

a reply to: bjarneorn

Exactly! This is why I would never support sending troops to fight a war in the Middle East.

a reply to: WeRpeons

On Twitter i saw a funny and pretty sure correct depiction of ISIS. The meme goes like this.

Saudi Arabia:White ISIS
ISIS:Black ISIS.

The meme cartoon wanted to refer that ISIS is basically the same as Saudis the difference? their color. No offense meant.

They're not covering it because the western coalition is not doing anything useful to end the war. They are just bumbling around somewhere in the background pretending to bring interested in stopping ISIS. The thing is that they have absolutely no plan what to do after that, because they want to illegally remove Assad. Like they did Hussein and Gadafi. And we all know how well that went for the people on the street of those countries...

The only coalition serious about ending this most awful of wars is the Russian / Iranian / Hezbollah / Assad govt one. They are taking back the country bit by bit.

If the USA and it's mates had not have insisted on absolutely blocking the Russian peace plan in the UN, things would be turning out much better.

a reply to: TaleDawn

Perhaps because, just like everything else, when a story stops getting attention or when a situation becomes the norm they move on to other things?

Of course, this only makes sense for those who don't believe the evil MSM is controlled by the big bag gubmint and the Lizard people/NWO/Illuminati...

a reply to: TaleDawn

Well...
NATO can't really bomb Daesh - since the SAA is gaining the upper hand.
Can't bomb McCain's buddies from the Islamic-front either - since they are the only "opposition" left. And they're losing.

The only ones in NATO currently using German reconnaissance intel are the TSK... for artillery shelling of Kurdish forces/villages in the northern-border region of Syria. Exactly what should not have happened.


*I guess none of the above is good material for a heroic story about the war of terror.

a reply to: Shiloh7

originally posted by: Shiloh7
It seems that the Russians did the decent thing and, worse are getting results.

You're right about us (Westeners) not having a clean slate, and it is true - the Russians are getting results. That doesn't mean what Russia does in Syria is any more "decent" though...

They've learned from our (and their own) mistakes in the ME. They might have learned a thing or two from the IDF.
One could argue that they're making progress because they're doing the indecent things.

Still, the ongoing deterioration of ROE from all sides in this conflict is not to endorse!

a reply to: TaleDawn

Really? I guess I didn't hear that the Netherlands has begun flights in Syria on the radio yesterday. My bad.

a reply to: TaleDawn

I asked a Journalist onto Why The Western MSM isn't Covering the Western Coalition.

They are too busy trying to figure out what Trump is going to say next.

Happens every time we have elections...the world stops until we elect a new president.

originally posted by: TaleDawn
I asked a Journalist onto Why The Western MSM isn't Covering the Western Coalition.

Q:why western news outlets have suddenly stopped covering air strikes being carried by west?

A: I have no idea - perhaps they are not hitting very much now?

A interesting response according to the Journalist the Western Coalition arent hitting in Syria very much as opposed before when Russia intervened to stop ISIS.

So now the question why have the Western Coalition stopped bombing in Syria? S400s? waiting to attack Assad forces?

The key word from your interaction with the journalist is 'perhaps'. He never made a conclusive statement.

It does appear that the US has reduced the quantity of airstrikes on ISIS targets in Syria, but it doesn't mean they've stopped completely. Just yesterday, the US coalition dropped pamphlets in Deir ez-Zor, warning civilians of imminent airstrikes on ISIS forces. Carrying out such an operation will be a great boon to the Syrian Arab Army currently stationed in the city.

This war isn't so clear cut as it seems, and the USA isn't as one-sided as it seems. They're playing a difficult game, and while they support regime change, it currently appears they favour political transition over a military one.

a reply to: daaskapital

originally posted by: daaskapital
This war isn't so clear cut as it seems, and the USA isn't as one-sided as it seems. They're playing a difficult game, and while they support regime change, it currently appears they favour political transition over a military one.

It does indeed seem like the U.S. prefers a political transition, now that their military strategy fails.
That changed alot since last year, when Russia and Syria proposed to hold democratic elections and Obama rejected it.

Anyways, the U.S. would do good to finally explain their roadmap of a political solution to the conflict.

Experts of the region (aswell as Syrian refugees here in Europe) predict either a vote for a Syrian caliphate (an Islamic State), or affirmation for Assad (depending on wether refugees get to vote) - should elections take place now.

Will the U.S. even allow the Syrians to elect an Islamic State?
I take it anyone who (like Assad) denies the Qatari pipeline to cross Syria is off the table?

a reply to: daaskapital

The military doesnt favor regime change as i am sure we all know what would happen if Syria has a Regime Change as the one in Libya.

More Chaos over Chaos.