Proved nothing about who actually did it.And the videos from the medical workers showing people suffering from said attack?
People are still viewing him in the frame of being a highly competent and rational leader for some reason. He's done shit like this before and likely just didn't think of the potential consequences if it was him.All things considered, it really is strange for Assad to keep doing this, when he can only gain negatives from it. Moreover, he hardly takes a shit without asking Putin first, and that is something unlikely to be approved by the latter.
That's a one off situation though. A vast majority of mainstream reporting is spot on. The only times people don't like it is when it doesn't suit their desired end state. Then they go searching for propaganda to do just that.Nah, let us believe the guys in Jaysh al-Islam instead. After all, we never doubt Islamist terrorists here in the West, do we?
I also believed MSM when they reported on the WMD's in Iraq btw. Look how that turned out.
MSM reporting is also highly biased. How long didn't they harp on about the courageous rebels in Syria? It was only when ISIS took it a bit too far that they dared to call the vast majority of groups operating there for what they truly are, terrorists.That's a one off situation though. A vast majority of mainstream reporting is spot on. The only times people don't like it is when it doesn't suit their desired end state. Then they go searching for propaganda to do just that.
Kind of like Putin, right? Isn't it convenient that all leaders that get in the way of western domination lose all sense or logic to their actions. Must be quite a coincidence.People are still viewing him in the frame of being a highly competent and rational leader for some reason. He's done shit like this before and likely just didn't think of the potential consequences if it was him.
I think you are conflating many news organizations as speaking with one voice when they are many disperate organizations who have reporters covering stories in far flung areas of the world. They don't have nefarious Dr. Evil style meetings where they plot to give the public one narrative; and although not perfect they are lightyears ahead of the sort of fringe propaganda blogs who have no resources or experience to do proper journalism.MSM reporting is also highly biased. How long didn't they harp on about the courageous rebels in Syria? It was only when ISIS took it a bit too far that they dared to call the vast majority of groups operating there for what they truly are, terrorists.
Seen any critical reports from MSM on the bombing of Libya btw? It was all claps and hoorahs when we did it, they've shut up now though.
And neither does Assad and Putin act like some dimwitted cartoon style evil dictators that just one day decide to gas Ghouta, and then coincidentally only strike women and children.They don't have nefarious Dr. Evil style meetings where they plot to give the public one narrative
How many reporters do you reckon are actually on the ground? What news outlets in your opinion are reporting on their own sources? Would be helpful if you could give some examples as I have no idea.I think you are conflating many news organizations as speaking with one voice when they are many disperate organizations who have reporters covering stories in far flung areas of the world. They don't have nefarious Dr. Evil style meetings where they plot to give the public one narrative; and although not perfect they are lightyears ahead of the sort of fringe propaganda blogs who have no resources or experience to do proper journalism.
Hence why I mentioned consulting with Putin. Who may be a lot of things , but irrational he is not. He can't go over his head stirring shit up, because he can be very easily replaced, while Russia is so firmly entrenched in Syria.People are still viewing him in the frame of being a highly competent and rational leader for some reason. He's done shit like this before and likely just didn't think of the potential consequences if it was him.
There's no cost benefit for him. He simply does it. He's done it for at least 5 years with the knowledge that Obama's previous warnings were feckless and within the past year with the knowledge that Putin has his back. When you don't think there are repercussions you have no incentive to change your behavior.And neither does Assad and Putin act like some dimwitted cartoon style evil dictators that just one day decide to gas Ghouta, and then coincidentally only strike women and children.
I am quite perplexed by the absolute will to defy all logic, put all strategic thinking away, not even consider cost\benefit or the potential for reprecussions as long as it is Assad doing it.
Do you think he just woke up one day on the verge of victory in Ghouta and decided feck it, let us just roll the dice here and risk a guaranteed loss by getting the West to intervene.
And even if Assad was that stupid, you just know Putin isn't. Don't get me wrong, if they tactically had something to gain from it they would probably gladly gas the whole country, but they simply have nothing to gain and all to lose.
Not true at all. No mainstream media asking question about Israel shooting a boy in the back and the killing of a journalist.That's a one off situation though. A vast majority of mainstream reporting is spot on. The only times people don't like it is when it doesn't suit their desired end state. Then they go searching for propaganda to do just that.
In my experience in Iraq, the major outlets had bureaus either in country or individual journalists roaming the country to gather information. In certain instances, they employed stringers to go into particularly dangerous areas to do still/video photography and gather information from the locals.How many actual reporters do you reckon are on the ground? What news outlets in your opinion are reporting on their own sources? Would be helpful if you could give some examples as I have no idea.
You can always pluck out one off examples. If you look at a vast majority of the reporting by mainstream news sources - literally hundreds of thousands, if not millions of reports over many years they are generally spot on.Not true at all. No mainstream media asking question about Israel shooting a boy in the back and the killing of a journalist.
Bombing and starving millions of men, women and children in Yemen. The 17,000 airstrikes in Yemen over the last few years, with 30+% civilian targets and the full backing of the US and UK gov, barely gets a whiff.
What chemical attack? Who told you it's a chemical attack? White Helmets? Created by 1 man in U.K.
Funded by NATO.
Fully comprmised by Al Nusra terrorist group and ally of ISIS.
Brought in by Obama regime+CIA and UK as rebels to oust Assad.
MSM is all about Russia and Assad. Proven liars. Luckily, most of the people not buying it.
What are the major outlets? Are you talking about the whole of the west with reporters writing for media in french, spanish, english and german?In my experience in Iraq, the major outlets had bureaus either in country or individual journalists roaming the country to gather information. In certain instances, they employed stringers to go into particularly dangerous areas to do still/video photography and gather information from the locals.
That was in Iraq under American protection though, no Western journalist would dare venture into Ghouta. They are all just repeating eachother, and reporting what people just as biased and with just as many vetted interests as Assad spouts.In my experience in Iraq, the major outlets had bureaus either in country or individual journalists roaming the country to gather information. In certain instances, they employed stringers to go into particularly dangerous areas to do still/video photography and gather information from the locals.
It obviously depends on the security situation on the ground. When i was there it was everything to the Beeb to the NY Times to CNN. Generally outlets with international bureaus who have the money and resources to plant journalists on the ground in conflict zones.What are the major outlets? Are you talking about the whole of the west with reporters writing for media in french, spanish, english and german?
They can still use Syrian stringers to get into most areas. If they can't get directly into an area they can have the stringer located on the outskirts to ferret out information from their own sources.That was in Iraq under American protection though, no Western journalist would dare venture into Ghouta. They are all just repeating eachother, and reporting what people just as biased and with just as many vetted interests as Assad spouts.
The last time it happened the UN wanted to send in people to investigate but Russia vetoed to block any investigations. Make of that what you will.Why can't this international chemical weapon organization not enter the scene? If it wasn't Assad then he'd have all the incentives to let them have look. Same goes for the other guys. Only way they wouldn't be able to enter by that theory is if the perpetuator is also in charge of the ground it took place. Personally it just seems wrong to claim to 'know' who it was since the information available is pretty scarce so what we are dealing it is assumptions based on indications.
That’s not the argument I’m making about what Lavrov said though, is it?Proved nothing about who actually did it.
I don't care what he said, they are as trustworthy as the terrorists in Ghouta.That’s not the argument I’m making about what Lavrov said though, is it?
My conviction is that it happened. Not only are the Russians saying it wasn’t Assad, they’re going all the way to say it didn’t happen at all. That’s quite the leap considering the video evidence, leading me to have suspicion about why they’d make that leap.I don't care what he said, they are as trustworthy as the terrorists in Ghouta.
Which is sort of the point here, neither side is trustworthy. The absolute conviction of some people in this thread based on the reports of some terrorists is something I find very strange.
They were controlling 90% of Eastern Ghouta and had Jaysh al-Islam surrounded, didn't they? In fact, quite a few rebels had already left for Idlib by that time, too.
It's really hard piecing together what's been happening there since the offensive started from all the conflicting sources. From what I gather the opposition narrative is that the regime has been using low-intensity chlorine attacks from the beginning of the offensive, as it has in other cases throughout the conflict. The BBC and other outlets reported these claims in January and February. The claim seems to be that this time the attack hit a particularly enclosed building with little chance of escape and thus the casualty rate is much higher. I know nothing about chemical weapons, but have seen it said that the use of chlorine has not been declared a 'red line' by Western governments.He had Jaysh al-Islam by the scruff of the neck quite a while ago, and they started to negotiate a surrender with Russia before this claimed attack happened.
Well one reason would be that they're from the Eastern Ghouta, it's been their base since they first emerged and it's where they have drawn their recruits from. They're not a foreign jihadi group, they've lasted so long in this area because it's their home. Their impact in other parts of Syria since the war began has been minimal.And why should Jaysh al-Islam give a feck if Assad gasses some of their human shields? It is them holding the people of Ghouta hostage, not Assad.
At this stage, seven years into the conflict, this is tiresome. Just who exactly is referring to the opposition in these terms anymore? It's years since pretty much anybody had a good word to say about them. Media coverage of the conflict has definitely been skewed against the regime from the start no doubt. And certainly the FSA and associated groups received a good bit of fawning coverage in the first few years. Since the Islamist groups seized control of the opposition the tendency has been to overlook or mention-in-passing the unsavoury aspects of the more 'mainstream' groups like Ahrar al-Sham and JAI, but to the extent that journalists have actually investigated what they stand for, the coverage has been largely negative. I find it far more common these days to encounter Assad cultists who harp on about his supposed 'secularism' and his potential for democratic reform.everyone's favourite peace loving heroic rebels were controlling it.
This is just one in a long string of attacks by Assad that build a strong circumstantial case. So unless some one is looking for a polaroid of Assad himself loading chemicals into a barrel bomb, standard circumstantial evidence is going to be pretty compelling.I don't care what he said, they are as trustworthy as the terrorists in Ghouta.
Which is sort of the point here, neither side is trustworthy. The absolute conviction of some people in this thread based on the reports of some terrorists is something I find very strange.
Kind of share the same point.I don't care what he said, they are as trustworthy as the terrorists in Ghouta.
Which is sort of the point here, neither side is trustworthy. The absolute conviction of some people in this thread based on the reports of some terrorists is something I find very strange.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
It already has been.If USA and Israel get stuck in with Iran and Russia propping up Assad, this could be the next grand proxy war after Lebanon and Yemen.
Those images look real enough to me although I have tried to avoid looking at a lot of them. Admittedly we don’t know who released the chemicals yet so it’s impossible to lay the blame anywhere at the moment. Unfortunately Russia and Syria are unlikely to admit to it even if they had carried it out and Russia’s track record for lying makes any statement from them completely and utterly pointless.Russia says Syria gas attack reports 'fabricated'.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-ghouta-russia/russia-says-syria-gas-attack-reports-fabricated-idUSKBN1HF0AL
Yes, good idea, the Russians should encourage this. After all, they seem very fond of joint investigations.If they want a quick end to this controversy, simply let a WHO + UN team of doctors and WMD expert deploy at ground zero.
Lol, you're still in 2011.If USA and Israel get stuck in with Iran and Russia propping up Assad, this could be the next grand proxy war after Lebanon and Yemen.
Neither of them have a presence in Douma currently. The question is if Jaysh al-Islam have/had them.It's been confirmed that ISIS and Nusra have access to CW. It's a clusterfeck and as much as I'd like to believe the attack was bus Assad, it's impossible to verify.
Well so far it's been foreplay.Lol, you're still in 2011.
Yep...or else a 400 pound guy on his bed. So many choices.It's been confirmed that ISIS and Nusra have access to CW. It's a clusterfeck and as much as I'd like to believe the attack was bus Assad, it's impossible to verify.
Omar al-Bashir = SudanIs Bashir even in control of the army?
I've heard some say it's his brother.
The BBC and unsurprisingly Al Jazeera didn't even mention the fact that Christmas was celebrated and that a Christmas tree was lit in public in Aleppo under Assad's rule. Al Jazeera not reporting that news is unsurprising as it is owned by the Qatar government, but the Beeb not reporting it was pathetic. If you depended on the Beeb for news on the Syrian conflict, you would think that anyone opposed to Assad in Syria is a heroic, gallant fighter. Awful journalism. The less said about NYT, CNN, WP the better.He had Jaysh al-Islam by the scruff of the neck quite a while ago, and they started to negotiate a surrender with Russia before this claimed attack happened.
And why should Jaysh al-Islam give a feck if Assad gasses some of their human shields? It is them holding the people of Ghouta hostage, not Assad.
Look at the difference in Aleppo from when the 'rebels' controlled it and now that Assad controls it. They celebrated christmas there in December, even uttering the word Santa Claus would have gotten you beheaded when everyone's favourite peace loving heroic rebels were controlling it.
