comment by Cal Neva (U11544)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Number 1 unless we are number 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 (U15631)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Cal Neva (U11544)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Number 1 unless we are number 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 (U15631)
posted 47 seconds ago
comment by Cal Neva (U11544)
posted 38 seconds ago
comment by Number 1 unless we are number 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 (U15631)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Cal Neva (U11544)
posted 32 seconds ago
The BBC are pretty even handed in the way they feature politics.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Due to my background of Indian heritage, belonging to an arab community based religion with parents from Africa born and brought up in the west married an Indonesian. I can assure you that there have been plenty of times which BBC, ITV, Sky and many more have a complete and bias look into some of the areas. Take Syria or Iran for example, the west says something which is not entirely the whole truth according to the nation and their people. The reporters only show part of the issue from only one side distorting people's view. This is pure propaganda and it has not changed since Hitler days.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What propaganda have the BBC used?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If your not going to show the whole issue, and only take snippets to confirm your or the governments claim. That is propaganda.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Can you provide examples?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You might want to read the whole thing again, I explained with examples.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But there was no detail whatsoever.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Syria--

Firstly if in any western country there are rebels, bombing places and shooting people we would call them terrorist. Yet it is ok for the government to arm them. Secondly Syrian army have been protecting a lot of people, whether you like it or not, I know people who are Syrian and went back there when trouble broke, for family reasons and property whatever. They have stated that rebels have been terrorizing their villages and towns and that Assads army are actually protecting, which is completely different to what we get in the news.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Terrorists are only the Wests enemies... everyone else's terrorists have different descriptions.

Because the truth is terrorism itself isn't a bad thing, the French resistance were terrorists, along with Nelson Mandela.

But that narrative doesn't suit the western agenda.....

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

comment by Cal Neva (U11544)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Number 1 unless we are number 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 (U15631)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Cal Neva (U11544)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Number 1 unless we are number 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 (U15631)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Cal Neva (U11544)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Number 1 unless we are number 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 (U15631)
posted 47 seconds ago
comment by Cal Neva (U11544)
posted 38 seconds ago
comment by Number 1 unless we are number 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 (U15631)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Cal Neva (U11544)
posted 32 seconds ago
The BBC are pretty even handed in the way they feature politics.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Due to my background of Indian heritage, belonging to an arab community based religion with parents from Africa born and brought up in the west married an Indonesian. I can assure you that there have been plenty of times which BBC, ITV, Sky and many more have a complete and bias look into some of the areas. Take Syria or Iran for example, the west says something which is not entirely the whole truth according to the nation and their people. The reporters only show part of the issue from only one side distorting people's view. This is pure propaganda and it has not changed since Hitler days.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What propaganda have the BBC used?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If your not going to show the whole issue, and only take snippets to confirm your or the governments claim. That is propaganda.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Can you provide examples?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You might want to read the whole thing again, I explained with examples.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But there was no detail whatsoever.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Syria--

Firstly if in any western country there are rebels, bombing places and shooting people we would call them terrorist. Yet it is ok for the government to arm them. Secondly Syrian army have been protecting a lot of people, whether you like it or not, I know people who are Syrian and went back there when trouble broke, for family reasons and property whatever. They have stated that rebels have been terrorizing their villages and towns and that Assads army are actually protecting, which is completely different to what we get in the news.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Again I don't think the BBC has took sides in this conflict

Do you think Assad is a good leader?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok so when have you seen the BBC, state that the Rebels are being a nuisance and Assads army are helping the people.

Do I think if he is a good leader, I do not know to be fair, I think he is just ehh! neither good nor completely bad as the media in the western world make him out to be.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

comment by Cal Neva (U11544)
posted 14 seconds ago
He has run a police state just like his father did.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
and is that really a bad thing.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

At this point in time, the question isn't whether Assad is a good leader or not, but whether there are any better and actually feasible options out there.

Russia have this one in the bag, imo.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

comment by Cal Neva (U11544)
posted 12 seconds ago
comment by Number 1 unless we are number 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 (U15631)
posted 10 seconds ago
comment by Cal Neva (U11544)
posted 14 seconds ago
He has run a police state just like his father did.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
and is that really a bad thing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think you understand the definition. Try Amnesty International reports on Syria before this conflict started.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Firstly you states "Police state" which is totalitarian state run by the political police force, Secondly the Amnesty International reports on Syria state the following.

"Syria’s internal armed conflict, which began after anti-government protests in 2011, raged throughout the year. Government forces and their allies, including Lebanese Hizbullah and Iranian fighters, controlled the centre of the capital Damascus and much of western Syria, while an array of non-state armed groups controlled or contested other areas, sometimes fighting each other. They included groups primarily fighting government forces, such as those affiliated to the Free Syrian Army and others including Ahrar al-Sham; Jabhat al-Nusra, the Syrian branch of al-Qa’ida; IS; and forces of the Autonomous Administration established in predominantly Kurdish enclaves of northern Syria."

Like I said earlier, if this was a western country we would be calling the rebels Terrorist.

Tbf, he said before this conflict started.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

"Like I said earlier, if this was a western country we would be calling the rebels Terrorist."

But, yes, that's exactly what Assad calls them I believe. It's a cliche for a reason, one man's terrorist....etc.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

comment by Cal Neva (U11544)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Number 1 unless we are number 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 (U15631)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Cal Neva (U11544)
posted 12 seconds ago
comment by Number 1 unless we are number 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 (U15631)
posted 10 seconds ago
comment by Cal Neva (U11544)
posted 14 seconds ago
He has run a police state just like his father did.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
and is that really a bad thing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think you understand the definition. Try Amnesty International reports on Syria before this conflict started.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Firstly you states "Police state" which is totalitarian state run by the political police force, Secondly the Amnesty International reports on Syria state the following.

"Syria’s internal armed conflict, which began after anti-government protests in 2011, raged throughout the year. Government forces and their allies, including Lebanese Hizbullah and Iranian fighters, controlled the centre of the capital Damascus and much of western Syria, while an array of non-state armed groups controlled or contested other areas, sometimes fighting each other. They included groups primarily fighting government forces, such as those affiliated to the Free Syrian Army and others including Ahrar al-Sham; Jabhat al-Nusra, the Syrian branch of al-Qa’ida; IS; and forces of the Autonomous Administration established in predominantly Kurdish enclaves of northern Syria."

Like I said earlier, if this was a western country we would be calling the rebels Terrorist.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That is why I said 'before this conflict started'. Had Syria been a free open society beforehand I would have seen your point. But it wasn't.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The bit I picked up was the background of the war. I do not know how to attach images otherwise look at this link https://www.amnesty.org/en/countries/middle-east-and-north-africa/syria/report-syria/

That's about right now (ish) and the background to the situtation right now, not the background to the conflict.

With all due respect, you've either not read what you posted or you've not read the point you're answering.

comment by HenrysCat (U3608)
posted 19 seconds ago
That's about right now (ish) and the background to the situtation right now, not the background to the conflict.

With all due respect, you've either not read what you posted or you've not read the point you're answering.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I realise what I posted, my point I am trying to make is that no matter the state of the country beforehand, if you arm people who want change you will get what we call terrorist. This is exactly the same thing as the rebels. Are you now saying the tamil tigres were not rebels. Imagine if that happened in London. Remember those Tottenham Riots. Unfortunately to curb looting and issues, need force, but if we suddenly gave those people weapons and they started using it against the police force what would that make them. This is the point of view many Syrians have stated. Whether you like it or not.

But like always the media do not show that side of events, why because it does not conform to the western beliefs.

Who are you arguing with?

just piiiissses me off when only one side of the story is always told. By the way I am no way condoning some of the awful things Assad has done, but it's the people in the middle that get caught up.

The BBC have reported on the treatment of civilians by Syrian rebels though.

I personally get very irritated by the perception of the media people have despite the fact they don't even read it in the first place.

comment by Cal Neva (U11544)
posted 3 hours, 20 minutes ago
comment by Mourinho delenda est (U6426)
posted 13 seconds ago
Russia have this one in the bag, imo.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Now that Trump has been elected you're probably right.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Tbh, I think they did ever since they sent their planes in when Assad was teetering on th brink.

I don't think the U.S. expected Russia to defy it's will so openly. It was the States who blinked first.
Putin comes across as a bit of a murdering maniac, but Russia's foreign and military policy response to the States encroaching upon their area of influence in recent years has been excellent.




As for Assad, his rule in Syria is no less legitimate than el-Sisi's in Egypt. Funny how both the U.S. and our amnesic Western media seem to have totally forgotten the democratic gov't installed by the Arab Spring there was illegitimately overthrown there.
Obama said in the aftermath that the generals had all been very naughty boys, and that was more or less the last that was heard of the issue.

Onc again, our stance on who is fit to lead and which countries deserve to be 'liberated' stinks. Who'd have thunk, huh?

Hopefully Trump's fat mouth will be the one that finally brings US foreign policy out into the open.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator