USA is saving face in regards to Syria

Discussion in 'Politics' started by youreyes, Aug 1, 2012.

  1. youreyes amorphous ocean Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,830
    What a joke, USA newsmedia is launching a new campaign it seems on discrediting the Syrian rebels and making them the bad guys, all while not long ago the Syrian rebels were part of the "Syrian Friends" campaign set up by USA. CNN is showing an episode of "Syrian rebels are executing rivals". Why is this important? It shows that the rebels in Syria are loosing the war and USA that supported them needs a way to discredit them and switch the sides of the coin who is on the good side. This is beyond pathetic.

    http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/wor...yrian-rebels-executing-government-allies.html

     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    I think all it means is that they are reporting on what's going on.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. superstring01 Moderator

    Messages:
    12,110
    Or . . . ORRRRR, it shows a reality, a nuance that is germane to the overall narrative.

    That said, um. You said "USA newsmedia" and then focused exclusively on CNN. I wasn't aware that CNN was the sum total of the "USA Newsmedia". When that occurred, I must have been underground. I typically don't get any of my "newsmedia" from CNN, TV, Cable and whatnot. It's glitzed up and glammed up for the lowest common denominator in our society.

    I like your bit of synthesis though. May I ask on what grounds, what evidence you posess for knowing/predicting why CNN is acting in concert with the US government to alter the narrative so that the losing rebels (who, BTW, Americans don't give a damned about -- dead or alive, no politician will lose face because, in fact, we are only involved on a very covert basis) don't tarnish our "good name"? Just curious. Since you're a proof-driven person, I'm be interested in your resources to draw such connections.

    You are right, though, it's beyond pathetic: BOTH your little rant and the fact that all those Syrians are killing each other. It's sad and -- frankly -- that's why the USA should not do anything. This is something for the Mideast to solve on its own.

    ~String
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. youreyes amorphous ocean Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,830
    Foolish assumption. Behind every news headline is someone paying to push their agenda through. With the political issue such as this, it is quite obvious this message was relayed to the US public for the specific purpose of changing their mindset regarding the whole Syrian affair.

    http://www.thedailystar.net/newDesign/news-details.php?nid=167241

    this isn't just Iran, that the media is used as a weapon by USA, it is Syria just as well.
     
  8. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    Why would this change anything? They aren't killing civilians like Assad's soldiers are.
     
  9. RedStar The Comrade! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    462
    Thank you. I wish more Americans had this position.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-19084287

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dy847TmplE8

    "The "revolutionaries" are real bandits...they can shoot in the back, kill for no reason...rob houses..."

    Fast forward to 1:40 "Syrians want peace and love Assad"

    They actually are. That's why zero Christians and minorities support them.

    These "rebels" are a joke. Let's take a look: among them are Libyans and foreigners, ex-Blackwater mercs, receiving funding from Saudi Arabia and the USA, and collaborating with the Muslim Brotherhood

    Oh, yes, freedom!
     
  10. youreyes amorphous ocean Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,830
    Assad soldiers are killing the rebels who pose as "civilians". Meanwhile the rebels of Syria are killing all supporters of the Assad's rule. Or do you suppose that a regular civilian has no opinion in the matter of picking sides of either the rebels or the Syrian government? Because if a regular civilian choose to side with Assad, he gets executed. And the tactics they employ on government leaders are terrorism. Of course UN pro-Western powers would rather not blemish the reputation of these "Syrian friends", after all Syria has got the oil they need and Assad isn't being cooperative. What? WMDs in Syria? no thats not going to work. The Iraq had that tactic discredited.
     
  11. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    If it's a tactic against "government leaders" then it isn't terrorism by definition.
     
  12. youreyes amorphous ocean Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,830
    like I said previously, you would not be saying this had it been "a tactic against government leaders inside Washington D.C. White House".
     
  13. RedStar The Comrade! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    462
    Exactly. He's a fucking hypocrite who thinks he has the right to tell other people what to do or who to support. He is arrogant enough to assume he's on the "right side of history", apparently.
     
  14. superstring01 Moderator

    Messages:
    12,110
    Well, don't you?

    You obviously believe what you believe; you think it's right; you think it's just; you think it's appropriate. You believe that -- inevitably -- you are on the right side of history, don't you?

    ~String
     
  15. youreyes amorphous ocean Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,830
    Dear friends lets stay on topic and withheld from personal accusations. thank you.
     
  16. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    This is a US government definition:
    ... the term 'terrorism' means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents {wikipedia}

    Assad's henchmen are clearly not "noncombatants".
     
  17. youreyes amorphous ocean Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,830
    Plane crash into Pentagon during 9/11 is clearly not "noncombatant" either. I guess that attack on Pentagon was judicially correct, using that definition.

    http://americanhistory.about.com/od/terroris1/p/pentagon_sept11.htm
     
  18. RedStar The Comrade! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    462
    Sure, arguably we all do. But I don't presume to justify everything my country does (like spidergoat justifies imperialism) or think I can tell the Syrian people that they need to be on "the right side of history"

    The Syrian people need to solve this problem themselves. I can offer my opinion (that Assad is better than fundamentalists), but I don't think Russia should offer anybody arms or support, like spidergoat apparently thinks the USA should.
     
  19. superstring01 Moderator

    Messages:
    12,110
    Ahhh. Understood.

    Yeah. I agree with you there.

    I do, however, accept that there are larger political conerns that I may not be aware of. This may warrant selling arms to one party over the other. Though, I am typically not in favor of even that.

    ~String
     
  20. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    True. But I still advocate bringing those responsible to justice, since it was a horrendous crime.
     
  21. RedStar The Comrade! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    462
    The United States has always used wars for its own nefarious ends, and installed corrupt governments to further their business interests. There is no reason to suppose this is any different.

    In fact, if the USA supports something, you can be sure it's not something good. Usually. I don't trust Saudi Arabia and the USA working together on a "rebellion".

    Double standards and convenience. Of course.
     
  22. superstring01 Moderator

    Messages:
    12,110
    It would not have been terrorisom had an aircraft, full of civilians, many of them not even Americans, not been crashed into the building. Since AQ utilized a civilian craft full of civilians, it is subsequently terrorism on those grounds alone.

    That said, even the targeting of a military base/HQ can still be considered terrorism if certain conditions apply. I'm not qualified to splice the nuance of those conditions, so I will fall back on the fact that several hundred innocent people died when the plane was turned into a missile. That makes it terrorism.

    ~String
     
  23. Norsefire Salam Shalom Salom Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,529
    Just saw this thread.

    As an actual Syrian, I can pretty much tell you the fucking rebels are turning the country into shit.

    Law and order > so-called "democracy"

    I'm from the city of Latakia, and pretty much nobody supports the rebellion there, or in Damascus
     

Share This Page