Cover up? Syrian father accuses US of bombing home, killing 6 children

a reply to: Op3nM1nd3d

Really? why do you think NATO intervened in Libya and wanted to intervene in Syria?
Because we don't care for the Syrian people?

Sorry, those that do not care for Syrian people cheer for IS/ISIS, al qaeda, hamas, al shabaab, taliban, boko haram, al nusra and so on.
Many of them have joined the slaughter fest in Syria and Iraq, killing christians, yazidis, kurds, shiites, news reporters, people who went to the region in order to help and provide medical attention in refugee camps.
Besides the slaughtering and mass killing, people were enslaved, womens raped, they proudly filled the internet with the most gruesome ways to murder people.
The islamic population did not care, in fact Russia and China neither, they successfully blocked an intervention to stop this madness.
Well until August, then Putin started his intervention in Syria.
And if Russia does it, it is good because i hear no outcry about it.
The US however... especially if Israel farts, then the streets are filled with protesters.

originally posted by: earthling42
a reply to: kloejen

I have a feeling that your sarcasm meter is broke!

No sarcasm involved.

So no proof? - thought so...

a reply to: kloejen

No sarcasm involved.

Yes there is, my reaction was sarcastic but you seem to miss it.

a reply to: earthling42

Of course they care it`s just that they were so afraid to say anything because they would be next in line. I think people in Russia and China and US and Western countries do care also but question is do the elites who rule the countries care? I think for them it`s more what they can gain not how many are going to die out there. On the other hand of course they want to protect their own because who are they going to brainwash if we are all dead? They need to present their intervention in way that people agree with their actions and it seems to be working because you are a prime example of that. West is the good guys and the rest are the villains...but in fact all are the monsters.

a reply to: Op3nM1nd3d

If you mean muslims with 'they', than the answer is no they didn't care and still don't care, the caliphate 'Islamic State' is after all 'pure islam'.
The slaughtering is simply permitted since all those people were considered 'non-muslim' and it is an effort to strike fear into the hearts of pagans.... so behead, burn, drown and put the sick videos online for everyone to watch.

This is what i find so funny on ATS, so many members talk about brainwashing, yet they themselves are of course enlightened knowers yada yada yada...

a reply to: earthling42

You obviously don`t know anything about Islam to be equating IS with it. So you think all those who follow Islam are ok with the slaughtering that has been happening for a while now? Just for the record those are radicalists and are just using own interpretation of religion as an excuse for their horrific acts.

The leaf that you are smoking must have clouded your mind. So everything for you is funny...I do not doubt that. If you conducted a proper research instead of abusing your herb and watching news, you would know what this is all about.

a reply to: earthling42

Daesh is about as Islamic as the Lords Resistance Army is Christian.

Neither Syria's Assad or Libya's Ghadaffi were murdering their citizens by the thousands. Libya had the highest standard of living (in Africa) prior to NATO liberating them into the anarchist warlord driven hellhole that people like yourself believe they should be grateful for, or at least your opinions and statements give us this impression.

Perhaps lets start with some actual investigative journalism to find out how the Syria problem started, rather than rely on the press releases provided by the hostile nation's actually using lies to destroy whole nations since the end of WW2.

The following text is the introductory chapter of Professor Tim Anderson’s forthcoming book entitled The Dirty War on Syria

Although every war makes ample use of lies and deception, the dirty war on Syria has relied on a level of mass disinformation not seen in living memory. The British-Australian journalist Philip Knightley pointed out that war propaganda typically involves ‘a depressingly predictable pattern’ of demonising the enemy leader, then demonising the enemy people through atrocity stories, real or imagined (Knightley 2001). Accordingly, a mild-mannered eye doctor called Bashar al Assad became the new evil in the world and, according to consistent western media reports, the Syrian Army did nothing but kill civilians for more than four years. To this day, many imagine the Syrian conflict is a ‘civil war’, a ‘popular revolt’ or some sort of internal sectarian conflict. These myths are, in many respects, a substantial achievement for the big powers which have driven a series of ‘regime change’ operations in the Middle East region, all on false pretexts, over the past 15 years.

This book is a careful academic work, but also a strong defence of the right of the Syrian people to determine their own society and political system. That position is consistent with international law and human rights principles, but may irritate western sensibilities, accustomed as we are to an assumed prerogative to intervene. At times I have to be blunt, to cut through the double-speak. In Syria the big powers have sought to hide their hand, using proxy armies while demonising the Syrian Government and Army, accusing them of constant atrocities; then pretending to rescue the Syrian people from their own government. Far fewer western people opposed the war on Syria than opposed the invasion of Iraq, because they were deceived about its true nature.

In 2011 I had only a basic understanding of Syria and its history. However I was deeply suspicious when reading of the violence that erupted in the southern border town of Daraa. I knew that such violence (sniping at police and civilians, the use of semi-automatic weapons) does not spring spontaneously from street demonstrations. And I was deeply suspicious of the big powers. All my life I had been told lies about the pretexts for war. I decided to research the Syrian conflict, reading hundreds of books and articles, watching many videos and speaking to as many Syrians as I could. I wrote dozens of articles and visited Syria twice, during the conflict. This book is a result of that research.

Alan Kuperman, drawing mainly on North American sources, demonstrates the following points. First, Gaddafi’s crackdown on the mostly Islamist insurrection in eastern Libya was ‘much less lethal’ than had been suggested. Indeed there was evidence that he had had ‘refrained from indiscriminate violence’. The Islamists were themselves armed from the beginning. From later US estimates, of the almost one thousand casualties in the first seven weeks, about three percent were women and children (Kuperman 2015). Second, when government forces were about to regain the east of the country, NATO intervened, claiming this was to avert an impending massacre. Ten thousand people died after the NATO intervention, compared to one thousand before. Gaddafi had pledged no reprisals in Benghazi and ‘no evidence or reason’ came out to support the claim that he planned mass killings (Kuperman 2015). The damage was done. NATO handed over the country to squabbling groups of Islamists and western aligned ‘liberals’. A relatively independent state was overthrown, but Libya was destroyed. Four years on there is no functioning government and violence persists; and that war of aggression against Libya went unpunished.

Two days before NATO bombed Libya another armed Islamist insurrection broke out in Daraa, Syria’s southernmost city. Yet because this insurrection was linked to the demonstrations of a political reform movement, its nature was disguised. Many did not see that those who were providing the guns – Qatar and Saudi Arabia – were also running fake news stories in their respective media channels, Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya. There were other reasons for the durable myths of this war. Many western audiences, liberals and leftists as well as the more conservative, seemed to like the idea of their own role as the saviours of a foreign people, speaking out strongly about a country of which they knew little, but joining what seemed to be a ‘good fight’ against this new ‘dictator’. With a mission and their proud self-image western audiences apparently forgot the lies of previous wars, and of their own colonial legacies.

I would go so far as to say that, in the Dirty War on Syria, western culture in general abandoned its better traditions: of reason, the maintenance of ethical principle and the search for independent evidence at times of conflict; in favour of its worst traditions: the ‘imperial prerogative’ for intervention, backed by deep racial prejudice and poor reflection on the histories of their own cultures. That weakness was reinforced by a ferocious campaign of war propaganda. After the demonisation of Syrian leader Bashar al Assad began, a virtual information blockade was constructed against anything which might undermine the wartime storyline. Very few sensible western perspectives on Syria emerged after 2011, as critical voices were effectively blacklisted.

I apologize for such large quotes but if I dont post it noone will bother to actually read the truth. I think many people should let this quote specifically drive the point home

Many western audiences, liberals and leftists as well as the more conservative, seemed to like the idea of their own role as the saviours of a foreign people, speaking out strongly about a country of which they knew little, but joining what seemed to be a ‘good fight’ against this new ‘dictator’. With a mission and their proud self-image western audiences apparently forgot the lies of previous wars, and of their own colonial legacies.

Real journalism in the 21st century now is relegated to people who do actual research have to write books because the administration only allows what they order to be broadcast en masse.

Dont forget that many news outlets, even from broadly different spectrum will report the same story in every part of the country using virtually the EXACT SAME WORDS

a reply to: AmericanRealist

Globalrecearch.ca is not a credible site, it is just like the site of loud mouth jones, infowars, twisted half truths.

a reply to: Op3nM1nd3d

The koran is the embodiment of the word of god, the verses have a literal meaning and are absolute, meaning, there is no room for interpretation, the verses are not meant to be interpreted.
IS as well as other groups elsewhere say that they follow the 'pure islam'.
And so far, many muslims have supported them, many muslims have traveled to Syria to fight for the 'Islamic State' and its caliph, which is of course the successorship of Muhammad.

So, the question is, who is wrong? they? or you?

a reply to: earthling42

ok earthling clearly it scares you to hear anything that contradicts your opinion on the absolute truth so I am just going to state, that you are not a credible source of anything , so just dont bother. Everything you say is nothing but twisted half truths. You have more in common with Alex Jones and infowars than GA.

Dr Tim Anderson is a Senior Lecturer in Political Economy at the University of Sydney. He researches and writes on development, rights and self-determination in Latin America, the Asia-Pacific and the Middle East. He has published many dozens of chapters and articles in a range of academic books and journals.

That man alone has more credibility than a clone army of you and alex ones combined.

originally posted by: earthling42
a reply to: Op3nM1nd3d

The koran is the embodiment of the word of god, the verses have a literal meaning and are absolute, meaning, there is no room for interpretation, the verses are not meant to be interpreted.
IS as well as other groups elsewhere say that they follow the 'pure islam'.
And so far, many muslims have supported them, many muslims have traveled to Syria to fight for the 'Islamic State' and its caliph, which is of course the successorship of Muhammad.

So, the question is, who is wrong? they? or you?

If you could just please quote specifically which verses you refer to that would be helpful in making a rebuttal. Thank you for your participation.

a reply to: AmericanRealist





Hmm ok

1) i just pointed out to you that globalresearch.ca is not credible as a source.
2) i'm not scared of a different opinion.
3) absolute truth, come on.... there is no such thing as absolute truth.
4) i don't pretend to be a source.
5) everything i say is based on what i see and hear, not presented as being truth, i'm not a news source.
6) It is not very strong to become personal and to come with insults.

a reply to: earthling42

Yup please refer to the verses they are using but more importantly to the tasfir if you even know what that is...

Well I dont see how it is not credible. Most of the articles are written by professors and professionals in their respective fields, with very accurate and detailed sourcing of their information. Or it is not credible because it is Canadian and not for profit and does not only repeats whatever the white house press release orders to be broadcast as truth to be repeated word for word across hundreds of national affiliates??