SYRIA thread

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Being anti Israeli isn't necessarily the same as having anti Israeli bias, and it doesn't have much to with Syrian civil war.

A connection to RT isn't proof of lies. Furthermore, a freelance journalist generally selling her stories to media agencies is the what freelance journalists do. I'm sure you'd find that connection to many other media organizations around the world.

Now, if you have a good story about how she is actually employed exclusively by RT, and sent to Syria with an agenda, all the while pretending to be a freelance journalist, that would actually be discrediting.

None of this discredits her exactly, but it speaks to her worldview - there is a certain anti-Western sentiment within the West. The most famous current example is Jeremy Coirbyn who in addition to having an anti-Israeli bias has vocally supported Russia Today as a n alternative preferable to the BBC. The BBC has, of course, exposed Corbyn lying on camera, sharing a platform with terrorist sympathisers and quite literally embracing anti-Semites.

Russia Today, on the other hand, is quite obviously the mouthpiece of the Kremlin and only reports accurately when it doesn't hurt their masters' political agenda.

If she's so pro-Arab and so well embedded why isn't she working for Al Jazeera? Possibly because she's too biased and prejudiced.

I also found this: http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forum...d.php?t=145637

Forum thread at Arm Chair General started by a now banned user, either she has an unashamed anti-Israeli bias or he set out to character assassinate her. Doesn't seem like she was famous enough for that, though. Interesting find none the less - have a skim.

Here's Eva Bartlett apparently responding to someone from Buzzfeed:

https://off-guardian.org/2016/12/16/...g-to-buzzfeed/

Whether Mr Dara actually contacted her or not I do not know, however by pre-empting his interview she's likely dissuaded him from publishing unless he wants to get into a flame war (not this is different to letting him publish and then responding to the article as-published.

Here she is for Russia Today on the UN: https://www.rt.com/op-edge/229215-un...ia-ambassador/

Of course, she might be lying, but, with her being rather forthcoming with exact dates, times, places it would be easy to pick her story apart. So far, she was supposedly caught lying about Al Quds hospital, while in fact, she didn't lie. Almost all western media reported that the hospital was attacked and damaged. When pressed now (in Husar's post) MSF said that a "building across the road from the hospital and another building even further away". Hospital wasn't damaged and continue operating.

You means this:

"On 27 April 2016, amidst the Syrian government-led coalition’s offensive on East Aleppo, Basel Aslan (Al Quds) hospital was attacked and severely damaged by two airstrikes. According to interviews with staff present at Al Quds hospital during the attack, at exactly 9.37pm, a building across from the hospital, identified as Ain Jalout school, was struck by an airstrike. Following the first strike, Al Quds medical staff retrieved the wounded to transfer them to the hospital for medical care. Soon after, the Al Quds staff residence, located a few buildings down from the hospital, was hit by a second strike."

Missiles cause widespread damage when they bit a building, the building itself becomes a grenade, hurling out concrete and rebar whilst the shockwave alone can know out Windows. Bartlett claimed the hospital was not attacked and that the Russians have footage of it being in "exactly" the same state as before the attack. She neglects to mentioned the crater of the road where the school used to be. Given her attitude to slack reporting in the Mainstream media being "lies" we could saying she is lying by omission.

Here's the footage: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/syria-ai...or-cease-fire/

Also - note the White Helmets in the video.

For me, attack on SOHR was actually more convincing. We actually don't really know anything about it. How many informants they have, who they are, where they are, how often do they send news, how they verify them etc... Being a journalist, she actually had training and experience to do that.

And after all those information reach UK, a single guy in Coventry decides what gets published.

There's some mileage in this, but plenty of people have met this "one man" and found him to be genuine, I understand people have watched him work. So it's not as though we know "nothing".

For me, that is the least important. Media tends to pick the photo that's easiest to empathize with. Even if it was the same girl, it's irrelevant. Certainly many children have suffered, no need to prove that each individual child suffered.

The claim is, in essence, that these are child actors - I posted a link explaining this in detail. Essentially, there are no White Helmets - it's all staged. Highly unlikely given the huge amounts of money invested, there are probably Europeans embedded with the White Helmets, ex forces. That's another thing Bartlett never mentions, you would think with all her talk of "Regime Change" etc. that she would mention the American, British and French forces embedded with opposition groups, we're pretty sure they're there (especially with the Kurds) but not a mention.

This is arguably true, and I have no problem thinking that the support for Assad is actually lower than elections show. At the same time, I'd also think it's higher than western politicians are trying to portray.

Given the protracted nature of the Civil War and the evidenced lack of morale among the armed forces I would hazard well under 50%.

On the topic of the Civil War - a list of Defectors: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Syrian_defectors

I definitely don't agree with this. She mentioned several times that she means all western corporate media. She also mentioned LA Times, NY Times, Washington Post and others. She mentioned Guardian and BBC specifically because she was talking about a concrete article, and had to say the source of the article, otherwise it wouldn't be a serious report.

The examples she gave were the Guardian, the BBC and the New York Times - then she got into specifics - but those three were the three emblematic examples of Western Media corruption.

Possibly, but in the case of Al Quds hospital, they were obviously correct.

Obviously not, because the school over the road would be a ruin and the hospital would have been somewhat damaged by that - even if it was just blown out windows.

[Sarmatian]

If she's so pro-Arab and so well embedded why isn't she working for Al Jazeera? Possibly because she's too biased and prejudiced.

There are many possible reasons and picking one that suits your narrative is unfair, at least.

I also found this: http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forum...d.php?t=145637

Forum thread at Arm Chair General started by a now banned user, either she has an unashamed anti-Israeli bias or he set out to character assassinate her. Doesn't seem like she was famous enough for that, though. Interesting find none the less - have a skim.

I wouldn't say it's either. They guy posted about his personal experience on a forum he frequents. I shared my experiences about a visit to a ruins of a Roman palace/fort in Serbia in the Monastery a few years back. That doesn't mean I have a special agenda, or that I'm paid by Tourist Organization of Serbia to promote possible sights in the country.

From what I've read of the discussion, she dislikes the acts of the Israeli government, but nothing in there that shows a bias.

Here's Eva Bartlett apparently responding to someone from Buzzfeed:

https://off-guardian.org/2016/12/16/...g-to-buzzfeed/

Whether Mr Dara actually contacted her or not I do not know, however by pre-empting his interview she's likely dissuaded him from publishing unless he wants to get into a flame war (not this is different to letting him publish and then responding to the article as-published.

I'm not familiar with journalist practice so intimately to gauge whether that was a breach of some protocol or not. In any case, it certainly didn't look like an interview, just a few questions by email.

Here she is for Russia Today on the UN: https://www.rt.com/op-edge/229215-un...ia-ambassador/

Again, writing an article for RT isn't proof that she is their propaganda mouthpiece, nor is an article published by RT automatically a hoax.

You means this:

"On 27 April 2016, amidst the Syrian government-led coalition’s offensive on East Aleppo, Basel Aslan (Al Quds) hospital was attacked and severely damaged by two airstrikes. According to interviews with staff present at Al Quds hospital during the attack, at exactly 9.37pm, a building across from the hospital, identified as Ain Jalout school, was struck by an airstrike. Following the first strike, Al Quds medical staff retrieved the wounded to transfer them to the hospital for medical care. Soon after, the Al Quds staff residence, located a few buildings down from the hospital, was hit by a second strike."

That would be fine and dandy if MSF didn't publish this about the strike two days after it happened (April 29th):

"The attack on Al Quds hospital has destroyed one of the last remaining places in Aleppo in which you could still find humanity." - That statement identifies hospital as the target of the attack and concludes that the hospital was destroyed.

On May 4th, they issued a following statement:

"The airstrikes first hit buildings neighboring the hospital, then the hospital itself as the wounded were transferred there." - this one concludes that at least two buildings were hit, before the hospital itself was hit.

And lastly, the bit you quoted:

"...a building across from the hospital, identified as Ain Jalout school, was struck by an airstrike. Following the first strike, Al Quds medical staff retrieved the wounded to transfer them to the hospital for medical care. Soon after, the Al Quds staff residence, located a few buildings down from the hospital, was hit by a second strike." - and this one says that only two buildings were hit, one across and one further away from the hospital, were hit.

I'm the only one seeing inconsistencies here?

Missiles cause widespread damage when they bit a building, the building itself becomes a grenade, hurling out concrete and rebar whilst the shockwave alone can know out Windows. Bartlett claimed the hospital was not attacked and that the Russians have footage of it being in "exactly" the same state as before the attack. She neglects to mentioned the crater of the road where the school used to be. Given her attitude to slack reporting in the Mainstream media being "lies" we could saying she is lying by omission.

Obfuscation. The narrative was and is that Russians/Syrian army are purposefully targeting hospitals and thus committing war crimes. Thus, the difference between a direct attack and collateral damage is huge.

To put it in perspective, Chinese government wouldn't have been nearly as angry with NATO in 1999, if the NATO bombed something a few buildings away from the Chinese embassy, resulting in shattered windows.

Here's the footage: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/syria-ai...or-cease-fire/

Also - note the White Helmets in the video.

I'm not overly familiar with White Helmets, so I won't make a case either way, but in her statement, she didn't deny their existence, just questioned whether they're doing what they're supposed to be doing, especially with a huge funding they have at their disposal.

There's some mileage in this, but plenty of people have met this "one man" and found him to be genuine, I understand people have watched him work. So it's not as though we know "nothing".

Possibly. But why should he be trusted? Merely because the organization has Human Rights in the title, or because it suits the current narrative?

Let's compare him with Eva Bartlett -

1) One person - check
2) network of contacts - check
3) possible bias - check
4) first hand knowledge - only Bartlett
5) journalist training and experience - only Bartlett

The claim is, in essence, that these are child actors - I posted a link explaining this in detail. Essentially, there are no White Helmets - it's all staged. Highly unlikely given the huge amounts of money invested, there are probably Europeans embedded with the White Helmets, ex forces. That's another thing Bartlett never mentions, you would think with all her talk of "Regime Change" etc. that she would mention the American, British and French forces embedded with opposition groups, we're pretty sure they're there (especially with the Kurds) but not a mention.

American, British and French Involved directly in fighting? I doubt that.

She mentioned support and training for rebels provided by western countries.

Given the protracted nature of the Civil War and the evidenced lack of morale among the armed forces I would hazard well under 50%.

Your guess is as good as mine.

The examples she gave were the Guardian, the BBC and the New York Times - then she got into specifics - but those three were the three emblematic examples of Western Media corruption.

I got a different understanding, but the two of you are native speakers, so I'll leave it at that.

[Crandar]

White Helmets is the medical service of the rebels. Many of them help civilians, some punch captives and others are so unbelievably stupid that they participate in the mannequin challenge.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zgl271A6LgQ

I feel sorry for the guy who thought of it, hoping to appeal to the western audience and instead giving a field day to Russia Today. No more paychecks from the Qatar National Bank, I guess. Truth is that some of them are as nice as the guys sent to the mukhabarat for interrogation by the Americans in Iraq. But yes, the west is totally concerned for human rights. Like really.
However I can't describe all of them collectively as fascists, that will be unjust.

Funny thing is that the jihadists and their twitter brigades use the same tactics to discredit the Red Crescent, because they help civilians bombed by them. How dare they, I say!
Not much hope for the public opinion though, when so many (even excluding the Saudi bots) believe that a 7-year old and her mother daily update their twitter status calling for WW3 and crying about genocidde.
Oh, the gullibility...

[Brenus]

Looks like the Rightist French Newspapers Le Figaro agreed with RT.
Probably paid by Putin as well.

http://www.lefigaro.fr/vox/monde/201...ralisateur.php

[Montmorency]

Looks like the Rightist French Newspapers Le Figaro agreed with RT.
Probably paid by Putin as well.

http://www.lefigaro.fr/vox/monde/201...ralisateur.php

Google Translate went a bit spotty toward the end, but her comments on political morality/ethics were the more promising part of the article.

I agree that Manicheanism toward the conflict serves very few political ends today other than inertia.

I raise that when she points out that IS is a scapegoat, she must also recognize that the same holds for every other concrete organization of Islamist violence, indeed short of the contemporary theme itself. A given organization is never the center of the question but rather a body which the state can directly defend itself against with its armed assemblage, and in this regard the task of "empty[ing] the jihadist abscess" runs only parallel to targeting whatever other groups fighting in Syria (and elsewhere) that the author dislikes.

It is false to suggest that the conflict is largely driven by foreign occupiers holding the Syrian people "hostage".

I reject the bromide that US-Russian cooperation can resolve either the Syrian conflict or conflicts of Islam at large, not least for the fact that these questions have very little to do with either cooperation or animosity between Russia and the US. The trend of this attitude is something you should have noticed, the fact that rightist organizations across Europe (except for those in Poland and the Baltic states, by the by) tend to look upon Putin with sympathy at the very least. This is so because, just as rightist groups despised Russia under a leftist regime, so they admire it as the seat of a rightist regime. Leaving aside questions of "fifth column" this has most to do with Russia being locked by (mind my choice of words now) one of the most successful rightist governments of modern history. I believe ideological resonance (across numerous principles) accounts for Euro right-wing attitudes toward Russia today than any specific instances of patronage, indoctrination, or other forms of compromise.

(One may take my thoughts further and compare rightist praise of Putin to, say, leftist praise of Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez with concomitant implications, but I wouldn't take that step - yet)

[Brenus]

I wanted just to underline that written media are changing a bit the narrative.
Google is awful at translation, unfortunately...
What she is saying is the media reading of the crisis is based on only 2 uniques sources, both of them nor reliable nor objective and news-agencies repeating eachothers.
She is saying that in Syria, the most urgent task of Europe and US was not to deal with Islamist Extremist but to bring Assad down, at what ever cost, and expel Russia from the region.
So, they legitimised islamic terrorists groups under the label of "rebels, forgetting about children enrolment in their ranks, massacres, tortures and extortions.
She said there is no more moderate opposition in Syria and we went from a Civil War in Syria to a war against Syria (invasion of turkish troops, and finances from Arabs Monarchies)
At no moment she said that IS was made a scapegoat. She said that the most of the opposition is like IS. And she finishes on the duty to go back to the "realpolitik" and need to respect borders as they are a good tools/frame for resolving crisis than moralism (that she qualifies as cynical) pretending working for democracy...
Acknowledgment of different interest by various parties....

[Montmorency]

I wanted just to underline that written media are changing a bit the narrative.
Google is awful at translation, unfortunately...
What she is saying is the media reading of the crisis is based on only 2 uniques sources, both of them nor reliable nor objective and news-agencies repeating eachothers.
She is saying that in Syria, the most urgent task of Europe and US was not to deal with Islamist Extremist but to bring Assad down, at what ever cost, and expel Russia from the region.
So, they legitimised islamic terrorists groups under the label of "rebels, forgetting about children enrolment in their ranks, massacres, tortures and extortions.
She said there is no more moderate opposition in Syria and we went from a Civil War in Syria to a war against Syria (invasion of turkish troops, and finances from Arabs Monarchies)
At no moment she said that IS was made a scapegoat. She said that the most of the opposition is like IS. And she finishes on the duty to go back to the "realpolitik" and need to respect borders as they are a good tools/frame for resolving crisis than moralism (that she qualifies as cynical) pretending working for democracy...
Acknowledgment of different interest by various parties....

The translation was enough to get all that.

As for "scapegoat":

pas seulement celle de Daech, bouc-émissaire spectaculaire

She calls it scapegoat by comparison to the other groups, to which I raised my complaint on her goal of countering the " l'abcès djihadiste" and "péril commun", namely that scapegoating the other evil awful groups is wrongfooted.

[Brenus]

She still not qualifies Daesh as scapegoat, she is saying it was an easy target to divert attention of the others similars movements with exactly the same methods and ideology. And these groups were the ones financed by Saudis and allies, including us.