Russia and Iran start ‘ethnic cleansing’ Syrians

I have posted the link of the PBS report, the links to the two videos which have been used in this report, given the times where they were used, so that everybody can compare them, the origin of the videos were from Russia, from the Russian attacks on oil trucks, and what was said in the report was not at all about Russian attacks, but American attacks.

This was, of course, an obvious misrepresentation only for me. for you this was probably an adequate representation. But because of such strange standards you are not worth to proof anything to you.

Ok, let's see how to prove such things. Let's say, for the sake of the argument, that you have claimed that you like to rape and kill small children. Is this a lie? If it is, prove it. You should be able to prove it to be a lie, not? If you can't, it follows that it isn't a lie, not?

If you think that, once I have made such a claim, I should be able to prove it with a quote, and it is not your job to prove that this is a lie, fine. Then you have learned a first elementary lesson about something known to be as the "burden of proof". Now start to apply this knowledge to your own claim "You were asked to produce evidence to support your claim that Assad hasn't killed 7 times more of his people". I have answered that I have not claimed that Assad hasn't killed 7 times more of his people, thus, you have lied. Now it is your job to proof, with a quote, that I have written "Assad hasn't killed 7 times more of his people".

All this shows your elementary inability to understand the meaning of a proof, the concept of the burden of proof, and all what is related with supporting claims with evidence. It seems, you think that to cry "you have to prove this!!!!!111!!!" is sufficient to win all discussions. It is not.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Uh - no. Again, do the math. If you are too lazy to do so, then accept whatever propaganda you are fed, and be happy in your role as sheep.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yeah, you have posted many links, none of them relevant. You have been repeatedly asked to post evidence which supports your assertion that PBS misrepresented a video clip it showed and you have been repeatedly unable to do so. You referenced a video clip played by PBS in which PBS made no representation as to its source. The video clip you referenced may have been an American video clip, it could have been a Russian video clip. PBS didn't represent its source. Your Russian sources might have misrepresented the video clip, something you seem have ignored. In any case, PBS didn't represent the video as American or Russian. So your assertion that it did, is clearly not true.

And everything which is inconsistent with Russian state owned and controlled media releases is a misrepresentation in your view. That isn't new.

'

Ok, that's more doublespeak. Here is the bottom line, you have made many assertions and you have yet to be able to prove even one, and you summarily dismiss all evidence which disproves your assertions as NATO propaganda because you cannot disprove that evidence. That isn't honest. But it is what you do as an advocate for the Russian state.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If you would have presented a reasonable argument, I may be would have started to do some math. But given that your argument was worth only a lol, I see no reason to doubt claims about technical parameters of weapons. The point is that such parameters are what possible customers care about, and these customers not only read advertisements, but examine the correctness of such claims. So, the probability that such claims will be false is not very big.

 

You don't need to; I did it for you. Feel free to try to disprove that math.

You see no reason to think for yourself, and would rather accept propaganda. Your choice.

 

Some information about the agreement in Homs. There was only one neighbourhood of Homs, Al Waer, which was essentially encircled by the Syrian troops. The agreement was that that those who wanted to leave Homs to Idlib are allowed to go to Idlib, with light weapons and families, who wants to remain in Homs has to give away his weapons and can stay in Homs. Around 300 rebels wanted to go to Idlib, with them 470 civilians (mostly family members). 2200 decided to stay.

The first busses have left Al Waer to Idlib today, some will follow tomorrow, and Homs is now completely controlled by the government. Let's hope similar solutions will be found for many other places as well.

It was physically nonsense. It would have been reasonable for a feather falling down - in this case, a difference in velocity of the wind would translate into a similar difference in velocity of the feather. But certainly not for something as heavy as a bomb. The force by the wind depends on the form, roughly the area hit by the wind, and not on the mass. Gravity, the other relevant force, depends on the mass. For constant density, the area increases with the radius as square, the mass, like the volume, like a cube, thus, the wind becomes more irrelevant with the size of the object. Compare powder with sand or gravel, and you will see the difference that wind has much more influence on small pieces, and for normal stones the influence of wind is already minimal. A bomb is much larger and heavier, thus, much less influenced by wind. Your math did not even mention these things, so it was completely off.

As I have explained already many times, to distinguish propaganda from reliable information you have to think yourself, and to think a lot. In my last post, I have given an example for such a consideration. The point was that it is much less probable that purely technical information is distorted. An example that reliability does not only depend on the source, but also about the content, in particular also if he has an interest to distort the content, and how easy such a distortion can be revealed. So, even if I read sources which are suspect as propaganda sources (in times of war, this is every source), I think all the time.

Live for joepistole is much easier, he believes NATO propaganda sources without thinking about them. (This guy has not been able to prove that I have written "Assad hasn't killed 7 times more of his people", thus, has been proven again to be a liar.)

 

Except you haven't and any fool with half a brain could figure that out. What you have consistently done is to ignore good credible evidence in favor of Russian state propaganda. What you have done consistently is to be dishonest.

Oh, so you didn't write this, "So, first, that Assad kills 7 times more Syrians than ISIS is not a fact, but a claim from media highly suspect of propaganda, and I support Assad only as least evil, which is nothing reasonable people are proud of".

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I suggest you go back and read your prior post. The only liar here is you comrade.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

As has been pointed out to you ad nauseam, you have no credible evidence to support your assertions. You summarily label, without evidence, anything which isn't consistent with your Russian state owned and controlled media sources as NATO propaganda even though you cannot prove the evidence is flawed or even remotely connected to NATO. And you take for gospel and preach anything the Russian state owned and controlled media says.

 

Oh, you don't understand that there is a difference between non-acceptance of a propaganda claim as a fact and the position that this claim is wrong?

The relation between civilians killed by Assad troops and those killed by Daesh is simply unknown. If some propagandist claims it is 7, this does not make it a fact that it is 7. All we know is some propagandist has made a claim that it is 7. So, if I reject the claim that this is fact, I do not make a claim about the relation. Nor that it is 0, nor that it is 1, or 2, or 1/2, and also not that it is not 7. The relation remains unknown. Does it mean that it is necessarily false? Of course not. It may be true, by accident, or because the propaganda source has, this time, copypasted the number from a reliable source. So, it may be true, but it is not a fact, we don't know if it is true.

And, therefore, I do not have to prove anything. I don't believe your propaganda source that this relation is 7, that's all. This is not an assertion, it is an expression of disbelief.

What I identify as propaganda I reject as propaganda. And if the propaganda is in agreement with the usual position of the NATO propaganda sources, I name it NATO propaganda source, without caring about who owns it. Because formal ownership does not matter - what matters is the content. And, no, I do not have to prove that something is a NATO propaganda source. I reject it as unreliable, point. It is my private evaluation of the reliability of the source. You are known to have a different one, you believe only NATO propaganda sources, and reject everything else, naming it "Russian state owned".

There is, btw, an important difference. Being a NATO propaganda source means distributing NATO propaganda, which is simply a subjective characterization of the content. Your claims about Russian state ownership is a statement about something objective, and it is usually a lie. What I consider more or less reliable about a particular question I quote. Almost everything I have quoted here was not from Russian state owned media, because they are not my favored sources.

 

Well, except you went far beyond just non-acceptance. You were very declarative when you wrote, "So, first, that Assad kills 7 times more Syrians than ISIS is not a fact,". You didn't write you didn't except it. You didn't write, it was your opinion or belief. You very clearly wrote is was not a fact. You are now changing your story.

Yes, you summarily and without evidence reject everything which isn't consistent with Russian state owned and controlled media sources and you go even further, you claim it's NATO propaganda. And as repeated ad nauseam to you, you cannot disprove the evidence nor can you prove any connection to NATO.

And you do mimic whatever line the Russian state owned and controlled media tells you. That's a fact, and your posts very clearly demonstrate that fact. And you go even further by referencing and believing without question some really silly stuff published by other state controlled media sources.

 

A classic fallacy, that wind does not affect heavy objects. Ask a supertanker captain if he can disregard the wind. The fallacy arises because heavy objects are not moved around in wind WHEN THEY ARE ON A SOLID SURFACE. Their weight generates enough friction to keep them stationary. That is not true in freefall.

Here is a very simple example. In 2006, a 400 way skydiving world record was set. The weight of the formation was roughly 84,000 pounds. However, it presented a very small cross section to the wind, since it was a flat RW formation; it was shaped like a disk. The spotter did his best to choose an exit spot based on winds and aircraft throw to get everyone back to the landing area. However, when the winds changed (and that wasn't always known ahead of time) so did the location that the formation arrived at when everyone opened their parachutes.

Same principle applies. Wind moves things, even things that weigh 84,000 pounds and are shaped like flat disks.

Correct. Which is why the feather might move kilometers in the wind; the bomb, only hundreds of meters.

Exactly. And you have to do the math.

Read any Apollo denier site, or 9/11 conspiracy site. The science is regularly distorted.

The facts are simple. Russia is using dumb bombs because that's what they have. Their claims that they are just as accurate as GBU's are pure fantasy; political rhetoric they are using to 1) hide the deficits in their military technology and 2) deflect criticism that they are taking care not to target civilians. They are taking as much care as a cop who fires a shotgun into a crowd to kill a thief. (But hey - he's using a REALLY REALLY accurate shotgun, and he's a great shot, so it's not irresponsible at all.)

 

This may be an issue about the meaning of "fact". As far as I understand the meaning of this word, a fact is something true, and, moreover, known beyond a reasonable doubt by all participants, nothing worth to be discussed at all. But this may be a false friend of the German word "Fakt".

Is there some reasonable guy who can tell me if I have simply misinterpreted the meaning of the word "fact"?

Anyway, in this case I have to correct my statement, adding something like "So, first, that Assad kills 7 times more Syrians than ISIS is not an established, accepted fact, but a dubious claim from media highly suspect of propaganda". But up to now I continue to think that the meaning of my sentence is clear, at least if one does not cut the part of the sentence where I explain what it is.

Nice try, but I have not said that the wind does not affect heavy objects.

Any reference to these hundreds of meters for bombs only by the wind (and not by inaccuracy of human action with WW II technique)?

BTW, the final accuracy, given by different sources differently, was usually something around 4 m, with a range from 2-7 m AFAIR. Once it has to take into account the weather, it already follows that the wind has to give more than these 7 m. Given that one can measure the wind speed at the plane directly (comparing GPS with speed of the air) and that wind speed at the high is much more constant, it is hard to estimate the accuracy of wind speed they can have even without weather prediction. But if they have, say, a 90% accuracy, then what the wind does could be 10 times the accuracy, thus, up to 70 m. Not that far away from your hundreds claim.

Sometimes this is helpful. Sometimes only a loss of time.

The deniers don't have to sell anything to customers who depend on the accuracy of the claimed facts. At best, they sell some books, but those who buy them are not that much harmed if some technical data are wrong. They anyway have a nice fantasy story.

This is already a mixture of pure propaganda and distortion, as indicated already by using joepistoles beloved "facts" word. A very efficient rule: If somebody claims that he is honest, he is liar. The variant for this forum: If somebody names his claims facts, they are propaganda.

That Russia has bombs which are quite accurate can be seen on the published videos. That they have modern systems which allow to use dumb bombs in a much more accurate way seems also without question, given that this system has a name, which is СВП-24, is presented openly in the net, with the aim to sell it. And they sell it. So, its existence is hardly a fantasy. You may question the accuracy which can be reached in this way, but what you have presented up to now was not impressive. Those who buy such things test them, so that to lie would be unreasonable.

 

Well guys, these arguments are obviously going to keep going around in circles, and that's exactly the way Mother Russia wants it. Putin and his sympathizers have no qualms about pissing on your leg and telling you that it's just rain. Now that Russia's dropping bombs on Syrian bakeries, water treatment plants and hospitals, apparently wind doesn't move things around anymore, didn'tcha know? If Russia hits 2 terrorists and then another 2, and RT/Al Manar/IRNA say 5 terrorists were killed, then it simply shows us how outdated and ineffective our CIA-taught mathematical systems have become.

We have all the facts in front of us, the question is when the West gets its head out of its ass and recognizes Putin for what he is and responds appropriately. No more Russian vacations in nice countries far from the shitholes they create and destroy closer to home, no more Coca Cola pouring from Russian taps (even if it's healthier than the local water, the point of sanctions is to make people pay a price for supporting, complying with and personally being savage douchebags).