Beware of Fake Syria Propaganda – Another Campaign Exposed!

DJW001
CANADIANS caused the Syrian civil war? Or is the "we" in that sentence referring to yourself as a Muslim? Please explain yourself.

I think the "we" referred to the Western powers, especially since the current Canadian gov is literally clinging to the skirt of the US administration when it comes to foreign politics.

reply to post by Corruption Exposed


Just a quick question. NO disrespect meant.

You use "The Independent" as your source.....why is it OK for people to accept that as a source when I constantly hear that we can not trust the MSN?

IS it because people here will be OK with the MSN if it fits their ideal? And ignore it if it does not?

Genuine question!!

Corruption Exposed
reply to post by DJW001

 

Be careful not to choke on it...

Your counter argument against DJW001 is not compelling at all. You fail to answer him directly except with a cookie. Childish!!!

DJW001 makes a VALID point. Your thread is misleading and kind of wrong!

DJW001
I agree there is nothing civil about that war. Assad was able to maintain his power through force. Where did I say it was all internal?

You called it a civil war. By definition, a civil war is (at least mostly) internal. So you defined it as "civil" and "internal", right from the start. This minimizes the presence of foreign nationals among the insurgent, including one of the main belligerents being overtly based in Iraq, and funding from other islamic nations.

DJW001
Where did I say the Russians are bad guys? They are coming to the aid of one side in the conflict, not "Syria."

Assad's side is effectively the Syrian state. It is Syria.

And about the Russians, you said they were giving material assistance to Assad, whom you identified as a "dictator" who "maintains his power through force". Doesn't this hint at a negative portrayal?

DJW001
So you think this photograph is being circulated by the rebels? Why?

Not necessarily by the rebels themselves, more likely by sympathizers. They found this picture, figured it would make a nice meme to promote their cause, inserted a false caption, made it circulate in that state, and bingo. Free publicity to drum up support. And it worked.

This thread is valuable in two ways:

First, it exposed yet another propaganda hoax.

Second, it served as an object lesson on why you never, ever feed the trolls.

I'm actually quite fascinated with the use of social media as a tool for war.

I know propaganda has been used since time began, but the subtle manipulations, in western media and beyond has given war a different dimension.

You don't just field soldiers, tanks, weapons, planes anymore.

You muster ad agencies, lawyers, PAC's, Lobbyists now also.

reply to post by projectbane


can we at least agree that DJ could have entered the thread with a simple "I believe the thread title is misleading" instead of pages of obtuse crapola that change the intended direction of the thread?

BelowLowAnnouncement
reply to post by projectbane

 

can we at least agree that DJ could have entered the thread with a simple "I believe the thread title is misleading" instead of pages of obtuse crapola that change the intended direction of the thread?

What is the intended direction of the thread? Corruption has never explained what it is!

reply to post by Cathcart



At the risk of further thread drift:

You called it a civil war. By definition, a civil war is (at least mostly) internal. So you defined it as "civil" and "internal", right from the start. This minimizes the presence of foreign nationals among the insurgent, including one of the main belligerents being overtly based in Iraq, and funding from other islamic nations.

I was trying to use the least controversial language possible. "Civil war" suggests a a struggle for control of a country. Assad's mishandling of the insurrection led to the insurgency. The correct term for the current conflict is "proxy war."

Assad's side is effectively the Syrian state. It is Syria.

Assad's side was the de facto government until they started losing territory and loyalty. Syria is not the government, but the people. There is little evidence that Assad has shown overmuch concern for the Syrian people.

And about the Russians, you said they were giving material assistance to Assad, whom you identified as a "dictator" who "maintains his power through force". Doesn't this hint at a negative portrayal?

Sorry, I should have said: "Hereditary Monarch Posing As An Elected Head Of State." Does that go down better with you?

In any event, the fact that Assad has allowed the situation to deteriorate into a proxy war means that none of the parties meeting in Geneva will have the ability to affect the situation on the ground. Again, tragic.

reply to post by DJW001

Where did I say the Russians are bad guys? They are coming to the aid of one side in the conflict, not "Syria."

"One side"? The government of Syria is not "Assad". You painted him the bad guy by calling him a dictator in your previous post which I'm afraid makes the Russkies the bad guys for supporting him and his "regime", right? At least they are aiding the legitimate authority, helping the "Syrians" defend their country.

The US has not interfered in the conflict until recently. I have stated many times elsewhere that it should not.

Yah, US out of everywhere…

Meddlesome Barbarians

reply to post by Cathcart


Well said.

reply to post by DJW001

Sorry, I should have said: "Hereditary Monarch Posing As An Elected Head Of State." Does that go down better with you?

Whatever, its still their sandpile and not up to anyone else to "fix" it for them. Whether the Syrians as a people choose to live under a boot heel or rise up on their own is up_to_them, not the US state department.

Even the idea of interference in other nations affairs is against the Constitution.

Free trade and good will with all, entangling alliances with none. Look where forgetting that has gotten us.

reply to post by intrptr

Meddlesome Barbarians

If only I were as objective as you are.

intrptr
reply to post by DJW001

 

Sorry, I should have said: "Hereditary Monarch Posing As An Elected Head Of State." Does that go down better with you?

Whatever, its still their sandpile and not up to anyone else to "fix" it for them. Whether the Syrians as a people choose to live under a boot heel or rise up on their own is up_to_them, not the US state department.

I agree. Too bad Saudi Arabia, Turkey and, especially, Iran feel that Syria is theirs to fix.

Even the idea of interference in other nations affairs is against the Constitution.

Have you actually read the Constitution? There's nothing about interfering with other nations in it.

Free trade and good will with all, entangling alliances with none. Look where forgetting that has gotten us.

Once again, not actually in the Constitution. Of course, this takes us way off the topic of the thread. Since you do not seem to have a problem expressing yourself, perhaps you could speculate why the OP found it necessary to "beware" (his word) this particular "campaign?" What do you suppose he fears would be the consequences if we actually believed that there were war orphans in Syria?

DJW001

intrptr
reply to post by DJW001

 

Sorry, I should have said: "Hereditary Monarch Posing As An Elected Head Of State." Does that go down better with you?

Whatever, its still their sandpile and not up to anyone else to "fix" it for them. Whether the Syrians as a people choose to live under a boot heel or rise up on their own is up_to_them, not the US state department.

I agree. Too bad Saudi Arabia, Turkey and, especially, Iran feel that Syria is theirs to fix.

Even the idea of interference in other nations affairs is against the Constitution.

Have you actually read the Constitution? There's nothing about interfering with other nations in it.

Free trade and good will with all, entangling alliances with none. Look where forgetting that has gotten us.

Once again, not actually in the Constitution. Of course, this takes us way off the topic of the thread. Since you do not seem to have a problem expressing yourself, perhaps you could speculate why the OP found it necessary to "beware" (his word) this particular "campaign?" What do you suppose he fears would be the consequences if we actually believed that there were war orphans in Syria?

With regards to your last paragraph I think the main problem with this is that it has been used as a means to manipulate people, especially the uninformed/semi-informed (after all, you can bet this page with the debunk won't be passed around on social media as much as the initial image).

Now holding this in mind, if it did happen to be posted (or rather, the pictures intent twisted) by someone sympathetic to the rebel cause, and I'm struggling to think of who else could benefit from this, then its clearly a propaganda piece aimed directly at the hearts of regular people. Possible reasons for this could be to increase public interest in intervention/sending rebels aid, and while some might not see this as a bad thing plenty of people have no trust for the rebels or their intention/origin. So that covers what there could be to "beware".

As for the "Campaign", while most of the propaganda pieces are likely NOT from the same sources, and likely not affiliated sources, that doesn't mean calling it a 'campaign' is too far out, they share an agenda and seemingly a common goal.

And this?

What do you suppose he fears would be the consequences if we actually believed that there were war orphans in Syria?

Please point out where OP said this, I believe you trying to liken this subtly nefarious sentence of your own making to the OP's statements and I plain don't see it.

In fact ... you even had an exchange with OP earlier in this thread where you asked him if this was his intention;

Are you trying to imply that there are no orphans in Syria, therefore this photograph is inherently misleading?

And you received a response;

No I am not trying to imply that there are no orphans in Syria, please point out where I have done so.

You didn't point out as requested where he said this and you have pretty much re-accused him of the same thing again, either point out where he has said this or stop regurgitating nonsense as though the OP is some sort of war-orphan-denier.

If we are to throw normal decorum of forum debate under the bus like you have done above (imo), your initial post in this thread accused OP of helping spread this propaganda so how can you, in turn, say that he fears people seeing orphans in Syria?

Now if you will excuse me, I have a dead horse that needs attending, and I have to fit in an hour of banging my head off a wall whilst listening to a damaged, skipping CD before I even get to that.

reply to post by BelowLowAnnouncement

You didn't point out as requested where he said this and you have pretty much re-accused him of the same thing again, either point out where he has said this or stop regurgitating nonsense as though the OP is some sort of war-orphan-denier.

If you were familiar with this particular poster's body of work, you would understand why I keep drawing attention to his denialism which, of course, he denies without actually refuting. His threads typically begin with an inflammatory post, the veracity of which he frequently refuses to aver. He posts things not because he believes or endorses them, but because he believes "they may be of interest." This position allows him to post material that is clearly false or even transparently hate mongering. Here are some classics:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

What is he really saying there? That Iran isn't planning a holocaust, or that the Holocaust never really happened? Hard to tell, isn't it?

Or this:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Note that he links to a site with an anti-vaccination agenda that provides no actual scientific evidence to back their claims. Corruption is a denialist in many areas, using ad hominem attacks and bullying to intimidate anyone who questions his sources or motives. Not only did he dodge answering a question by responding with a cookie, but he suggests "Don't choke on it," implying that he wants you to choke on it, implying that he would choke you if you ever met in person. I am constantly amazed that the Moderators tolerate this behavior, but then, the number of people who star and flag his posts suggests that he has a certain market appeal.

In other words, this thread is not about the re-purposed photo. It was a brilliant concept for an internet meme. After all, actual photographs of mutilated bodies are a turn off, and some social networking sites will not allow them. On the other hand, this "fake" picture is both poignant and a bit funny in an ironic way. If you are trying to spread public awareness of the situation is Syria to the OMG crowd, it serves its purpose well. I just find it confusing that the OP decided to spread this meme while simultaneously undermining it.

reply to post by Corruption Exposed


The sad part is that you probably cant go online and read some article or see something in the news or the tube without it being at the very least a bit of propaganda in some ways, and that goes for all groups, peoples and types involved. At the end of the day the bottom line is that everybody has an agenda.

reply to post by DJW001


It kinda seems like most of your problem is with the poster, not the content. Whilst you might have your reasons for doing so, being a more seasoned member, I'll continue to treat each thread individually as far as I can without being naive.

reply to post by DJW001


Thank you, I was about to come in here with my own take on this but you pretty much said what I was thinking.