BBC Caught In Syria Massacre Propaganda Hoax, page 5

Pages: << 2 3 4 5 6 7 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 80 times

reply posted on 29-5-2012 @ 07:45 AM by Kluute

reply to post by seenavv

Greeat find! The BBC are at it again, thanks

flagged

reply posted on 29-5-2012 @ 08:12 AM by trustnothing

The BBC (and other parts of the British media) are run by British Intelligence, here are a couple of names that might interest you, Sir John Scarlett, Baroness Park.

I personally now think they are so slow to publish news half the time as they are waiting on their liasons/leaders providing approval. They also heavily censor comments on their articles, I know this from experience.

edit on 29-5-2012 by trustnothing because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 29-5-2012 @ 08:16 AM by dowot

reply to post by seenavv

What are you on about?

There has been an atrocity carried out with children beeing killed.

This has been confirmed by local reports.

Now everyone may have been lying, but at least the BBC has the power to bring whatever out into the open so people can make up their own minds.

The photo, clearly states that it has not been confirmed as true, so if it is an old picture, that is clearly the fault of whoever included it with the report and was not the BBC's responsibility.

OK Rant over. Of course all reporting has a slant to it, but in general the BBC does bring affairs, that others will hide, to the fore and give the viewer/reader the option to believe or dispute.

reply posted on 29-5-2012 @ 08:30 AM by Spinoza73

reply to post by dowot

Great post, exactly the points I was trying to formulate in my mediocre English. Of course one can be suspicious about media, motives, etc, but refuting every authority will leave you empty handed and paranoid. The BBC isn't FOX-news. The UN concluded most of women and children were executed and it's a bloody, bloody shame Assad is still in power.

reply posted on 29-5-2012 @ 09:17 AM by Awoke

reply to post by seenavv

Think its about time for a Investigation on the BBC, but the general public are to busy with x-factor, BGT, soaps, the newest popstar etc, to even realise they are being brainwashed and lied too.

reply posted on 29-5-2012 @ 09:26 AM by Indigo5

Originally posted by seenavv

BBC Caught In Syria Massacre Propaganda Hoax

If it was Propaganda...why did the BBC Website state when they posted it that the image "Could not be independantly verified"...?

Secondly...You do realize that even the Syrian Government has acknowledged the Massacre, though they blame it on "Terrorists"...

There is a plethora of other confirmed images and interviews by several different news agencies on the ground at the site of the massacre.

There is a "Propaganda" campaign...a rather poorly constructed one...by the Syrian Government.

edit on 29-5-2012 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 29-5-2012 @ 09:33 AM by NullVoid

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by seenavv

BBC Caught In Syria Massacre Propaganda Hoax

If it was Propaganda...why did the BBC Website state when they posted it that the image "Could not be independantly verified"...?

Secondly...You do realize that even the Syrian Government has acknowledged the Massacre, though they blame it on "Terrorists"...

There is a plethora of other confirmed images and interviews by several different news agencies on the ground at the site of the massacre.

There is a "Propaganda" campaign...a rather poorly constructed one...by the Syrian Government.
edit on 29-5-2012 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)

and this massacre IS supported by mass media, just look at how many news coming out from Syria ?
we are blinded by controlled mass media to support the government cause, whatever it is, its not good..

reply posted on 29-5-2012 @ 09:34 AM by Albastion

Originally posted by Indigo5

If it was Propaganda...why did the BBC Website state when they posted it that the image "Could not be independently verified"...?

It also said "Photo from Informant" and the article had interviews from informants... this means that many of their interviews cannot be independently verified either. This doesn't necessarily imply that the BBC is deliberately propagandizing, but it implies that someone was using the BBC to spread their own propaganda.

reply posted on 29-5-2012 @ 09:35 AM by kman420

Anyone who beleived that story to begin with should do us all a favor and put a shotgun in there mouth, becasue there are nothing but a waste of human skin and brain cells.

Just look at the fisrt photos they had, no blood, fully intact bodies, From an artillary strike? lol, No. How dumb do they think we are lol

reply posted on 29-5-2012 @ 09:57 AM by Fadi15

First of all. am a Syrian, I witnessed the change in cities from a peaceful economically active places to ghost towns. terrorist, extremist, gangs spread.
It didn't take long thou. one day you could be out to work the next you are afraid to take the garbage out!
yes in Syria story more than just a foreign propaganda and Iran Israel issue.

will be back to talk more.

reply posted on 29-5-2012 @ 10:47 AM by Seede

The point I get from this article is not so much that BBC got caught again in deception but why did they post this in the first place? It seems that the world wants Syria's head on a platter. Why? What if I had the means to show a picture of the millions of dead children who are butchered in the civilized nations of this world in the abortion clinics and their hospitals? No one seems to care about that.

Why so much Syria? And why children? There is a reason for this and the people are not focusing on that reason. Certainly any murder is bad and I am not denigrating that fact but there are far worse in this world than Syria. The Middle Eastern countries want a united Arab community and they can not get it till they get rid of Assad of Syria. That is the reason for all of this Syrian thing that is so headlined.

Syria is over 70% Sunni and is controlled by the Alawites who are about 12%. Assad is Alawite and does not want to lose his power to a Caliphate. A Caliphite would usher in Shari'a law which would be controlled by the Sunnis. So in all reality Assad is fighting for his life. When we are told that these poor people only want a democracy and that is the reason for this Arab Spring revolution, we are being told a lie. Mother Clinton and her DC gang are not telling you the truth. The truth is that for some reason these politicians want a Caliphate in a unified Middle East.

Iran is about 90% Shi'ite and will never be under the Caliphate and wants the bomb as their safety net, Iran knows that when Shari'a law becomes the law of the land they then will be slaughtered by the entire Arab gang. This is one reason that Iran keeps our attention on them and Israel. Nothing but delay tactic to get time to get the bomb. Once they have the bomb they then become a force to be dealt with by both Israel and the Caliphate. Meanwhile they ally themselves with Assad to keep the Caliphate from happening. Its actually a game of deadly checkers.

The reason the western civilization is involved is nothing more than what it always has been. Energy to grease the wheels of industry. Plain and simple. The environmentalists and world globalists work hand in hand to bring this about so that they will control one great united Arab entity instead of the tribal mess that we have now.

Now back to the Syrian revolution. They must depose Assad by hook or crook. They must get sympathy to excuse the assault on Syria and what better way to get their world sympathy? Of course it would be children. The left hand can slaughter a million of their own kids a year and the the right hand show a hundred from Syria who are killed in their own revolution. This is what BBC and our own news syndicate did not want you to see. They lie and kill whatever is necessary. That's their job.

reply posted on 29-5-2012 @ 10:52 AM by jimmyx

Originally posted by QQXXw
reply to post by definity

Unfortunately the BBC gets a lot of respect and little missteps like this are not going to change anybodies opinions. There have been plenty of documented cases of Western media either outright using actors or unrelated footage and nobody seems to care.
edit on 28-5-2012 by QQXXw because: (no reason given)

it's NOT that nobody seems to care, it's what is done about it. action is needed, not words. the BBC continues to do it because it is allowed to.

reply posted on 29-5-2012 @ 10:53 AM by Indigo5

Originally posted by Albastion

Originally posted by Indigo5

If it was Propaganda...why did the BBC Website state when they posted it that the image "Could not be independently verified"...?

It also said "Photo from Informant" and the article had interviews from informants...

No it di not say "Photo from informant"...The photo said very clearly, the first sentence under the picture "can not be independantly verified"...please don't make stuff up, go to the OP link and click on the Photo.

reply posted on 29-5-2012 @ 10:54 AM by NullVoid

reply to post by Seede

You know what I'm afraid most and uneasy about Syria war ?

Its eerily similar to the said prophecy.

I hate living at the end of the world!!!!!!

edit on 29-5-2012 by NullVoid because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 29-5-2012 @ 11:09 AM by PsykoOps

Originally posted by bjarneorn

Originally posted by PsykoOps
They don't have magical way of knowing where every image on earth has been taken. What a load of bs. from infowars.

Now, you are being an idiot ...

It makes perfect sense ... the BBC knows of a massacre, that includes Children. It uses the most horrifying, and emonising image it can get its hands on. For the purpose of getting the publics attention, and rounding them up emotionally for the decisions that are to come.

So you're actually claiming that BBC employes a top secret group of psychics to check viewer submissions? And I'm being an idiot?

reply posted on 29-5-2012 @ 11:59 AM by flice

Originally posted by Aim64C
reply to post by Asktheanimals

The picture you post is a simple one. News agencies will often green-screen a "live" scene's background (to make it seem as though their reporter is there). It makes sense from a logistical standpoint... why pay legions of reporters to sit around within an hours' distance from likely news locations when you can simply use some footage (from perhaps a few hours ago) to make it appear as though they are present there?

That said - the OP's issue is a much more damaging act of deception. It's become typical for the media to use images that garner attention from the viewers as opposed to using actual images from the scene. The reasoning behind it is simple - and dangerous; particularly in instances like this.

The BBC may have received a report of what they describe as a massacre - but lacking images of it - use a picture they believe will "illustrate the idea." I see it often in poorly written articles about technology or other such areas where sub-humans are put in charge of writing articles that make them feel intellectually relevant for a brief period. Not that 80% of the population is intellectually relevant enough to catch the farce (which is why they remain employed, unfortunately). Anyway - they decide to supplement their article with something that grabs attention and is "related" as opposed to documented.

This is the result.

Which makes one have to question the legitimacy of the reports of violence in Syria, to begin with - or at least, to the extent that it is reported by various news agencies.

Let me tell you how it works since I used to work at one of the biggest news papers in Denmark.

AP, AFP, Reuters, POL foto etc. have contracts with a vast amont of photographers. Once they buy a photo it becomes part of their even more vast database of photographs and movie clips from all over the world.

This material is neatly catalogued one photo at a time, including dates, contents, where it was taken and thebname of the photographer.
There is no way this can happen by accident. A conscient choice to use a specific photo for an article HAS to be made by the editor.

In other words.... This could very well be propaganda with intent to mislead people.

reply posted on 29-5-2012 @ 12:09 PM by SyphonX

The people in this thread "excusing" the BBC for their "error" are usually the types that trawl the entirety of ATS, knocking into threads accusing people of having "faulty sources". "Your thread is pointless, your source is bunk. Try again.".. etc. Adding nothing of value to the discussion and debating semantics whenever challenged.

When it comes to something like the BBC.. oh why golly gosh theys made a mistake folks, big deals. The beebs doesn't need to provide credible sources, theys the BEEBS, har har, gosh.