Is the media lying to you about Syria?

I came across this on Facebook today and was impressed with the message – a view on the Syrian conflict which we just do not get from our mainstream media.

It is very refreshing – I believe there are just so many lies being promoted about the Syrian war. They are dangerous lies because that conflict has evolved from what was another US-promoted “regime change” (as in Iraq and Libya) to what has become an international conflict involving major world powers – including the USA and the Russian Federation.

The current Turkish shelling of Syria in an attempt to reverse the liberation  of border territory from the terrorist Daesh by the Syrian Army and the Kurds, together with speculative plans of Turkey, Saudi Arabia and its coalition partners to invade Syrian could even spark a world war.

Two points:

1: This is an audio – not a video – so you can listen to it in the background.

2: Please do not be put off by the source organisation. Sure the video comes from a channel which works with David Icke but we should not wear blinkers – listen to her story and judge it for yourself. A sensible person must get their information from a range of sources – and assess that information critically and intelligently.

Source: Interview: “I’m Back From Syria. The Media Is Lying To You!” The Richie Allen Show (RADIO) | In Gaza

Similar articles

9 responses to “Is the media lying to you about Syria?

  1. Yeah right, so everybody opposed Assad is a terrorist.

    I don’t share you enthusiasm fot this woman one bit, not that I put much faith in any other account we get to hear either.

    Like

  2. Sure the video comes from a channel which works with David Icke but we should not wear blinkers –

    Well, why not?
    If you are comfortable using RT and globalresearch as sources, why not throw in Icke while you are at it?
    Scopie’s Law simply doesn’t apply to you because…well…just because.
    (…)
    You really have changed. You would never have done this back in the old days. I’m not even shocked anymore. Just bitterly disappointed.

    (..walks off…)

    Like

  3. Welcome back, Cedric.

    We have been through this before. I have always said one must approach information sources – including reputable scientific journals – critically and intelligently. In fact, I have spent a lot of time analysing papers from credible journals because I believe they were poor science.

    The content of this audio impressed me because the journalist had spent time recently travelling in Syria and she presented observations which our media, which appears stuck in a regime change timewarp, never allows through their ideological filters.

    On Syria, we are in the middle of an information war, as well as a shooting war. You might be happy to accept stories from the “approved” or “official” media because it confirms your biases, but I am not. I think the current situation is too dangerous and the issue to vital to allow group thinking to prevail.

    Having got that out of the way – what do you think of the content of this journalist’s comments?

    Like

  4. Welcome back Cedric. Hoping you’ll be contributing regularly again (hoping a lot).

    Ken, isn’t it blindingly obvious this woman has an agenda? For example, she talks to Syrians in a few areas and conflates their views (even if we can believe her) to all Syrians. Bias simply drips off her, if you were really into discourse analysis you’d have a field day identifying it. She uses the word terrorist more times in this clip than G W Bush may have done over his career.

    Yes we’re not getting an unbiased view from most Western, sources but it doesn’t mean we should embrass any alternative merely because it self identifies as non-aligned.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Thanks for putting this up Ken

    Refreshing to see an alternative view to that provided by the mainstream media which censors views that don’t conform to its propaganda principles.
    The usual right-wing trolls will try to discredit and shut down anything that presents an alternative viewpoint.

    Like

  6. Yes, Richard, she does have an agenda (and you realise that because you listened to her)

    The point is everyone does on this issue.

    She, at least, reports what she saw on the ground – and yes I am smart enough not to accept her extension to the whole of Syria.

    The point is, as Sergei Lavrov said the other day, everyone on the ground in Syria has a questionable human rights record. But our propaganda is so one sided that at the moment they are reporting Al Nusra as if it is a respectable “opposition” (it isn’t and the UN recognises it as a terrorist group).

    We get reports of the current attempts at a cease-fire as if it applies to Russian bombing – when if fact it doesn’t. Bombing by the Russian Federation, US and its coalition is not covered because they are targeting the terrorist groups. But, of course, our media will say the ceasefire collapsed because of Russian bombing!

    As always one takes what one can from various sources. But I am a bit fed up that our media (and even Aljazeera) reports from outside Syria about what is happening inside Syria and does so in a way that strictly conforms to an agenda which is sympathetic to rebels who in many case are terrorist groups or allied with terrorist groups. That is why I try to balance it with media like RT and Press TV who do have reporters in the ground and are reporting from the midst of the fighting and from the liberated towns.

    In no way do I suggest embracing any source, Western or alternative.

    If we do get into an analysis of her reporting (which would be interesting) let’s not do it in isolation. We could also have a field day analysing the reporting from our own media – probably a more important issue because that is what is conditioning us.

    We are in the midst of an information war at the moment – and Syria, like Donbass, is right in the centre.

    However, many thanks for actually hearing her reports – and for being critical and sensible in your analysis of them. Unfortunately, most people are so conditioned that they voluntarily wear blinkers that prevents them hearing anything outside the official agenda. Voluntary, personal, censorship seems to be the most effective kind of censorship.

    Like

  7. Richard, let’s not fall into the black and white “regime change” trap with comments like “Yeah right, so everybody opposed Assad is a terrorist.” Or the equivalent Turkish stand that Russia and the Kurds are terrorists.

    The situation on the ground is obviously extremely complex – and the fact is that many elements of the original opposition defected to terrorist groups like Daesh and Al Nusra – if only because the pay was much higher. Interestingly, with the bombing cutting off supply lines and a market for stolen oil many people from those terrorist groups are coming back to the Syrian army or militia allied with it.

    The complexity enables a lot of treacherous double-dealing – with Turkey shelling the Syrian army and the Kurds who are liberating territory from Al Nusra. At the same time, the US and Russia cooperate with the Kurds and with elements of the so-called Free Syrian Army. And now Turkey and Saudi ASrabia are threatening to invade Syria – with their clear wish to overthrow the Syrian government you can see who they will be assisting.

    Like

  8. Ken
    Richard, let’s not fall into the black and white “regime change” trap with comments like “Yeah right, so everybody opposed Assad is a terrorist.

    Agreed, and that’s exactly what she appears to do. She talks about Government troops and (versus) terrorists. Just as the Bush regime did.

    Truth be told, I got so irritated at the simplistic dichotomy in her language I stopped listening about two thirds to three quarters of the way through, so maybe I missed things. But language and the labels used are important. As an apologist she is very naive, being so obvious quickly alerts critical listeners, to be more effective she ought to learn to be more sophisticated in her delivery. But maybe, like Fox News, critical listeners are not her target.

    I wouldn’t pretend to understand the political currents extant in the Syrian conflict and alarm bells go off loudly when listening to anybody who claims to. I think the USA’s greatest weakness is an arrogance on their part that they can accurately analyse such situations. Being a young nation they have little experience of currents that run back many, many centuries and they consistently get things wrong.

    I think we agree as to unreliability of much we get fed by our MSM news sources. I also appreciate AlJazeera, even RT (RT useful in regard to the Ukraine) and, like you, try to apply as much scepticism to these sources as I do to Fox and NATO propaganda.

    PS (I do know how to spell embrace, I must have had a touch of The Dumb this morning)

    Liked by 1 person

  9. I suggest you read this

    https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/06DAMASCUS5399_a.html

    Written by William roebuck , current ambassador to Bahrain.
    US has been purposefully trying to destabilise Syria for a long time.

    Clearly the agenda is about oil and oil pipelines. Not Isis.
    Note how Russian pretty much destroyed the income stream of Isis last month, and the US absolutely hates that. Hence the proxy way that turkey are mounting presently.

    Yep, the only way to solve this is buy an electric car

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply: please be polite to other commenters & no ad hominems.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s