Media Distorts Truth To Propagandize For NATO-Backed War On Syria

Media Distorts Truth To Propagandize For NATO-Backed War On Syria

www.infowars.com

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
April 26, 2011
Just like Libya, a civil war fought between a desperate regime and a western-backed force of Islamic militants is being misrepresented as a genocide against “pro-democracy” protesters in order to lay the groundwork for another contrived “humanitarian” war.
Despite the fact that western media is completely cut off from entering Syria and therefore unable to verify reports of hundreds of murders carried out by security forces loyal to Syrian president.

(visit the link for the full news article)

There is a video,also to see.evidence indicates that such atrocities are being wildly exaggerated, just as they were before the air strikes were launched on Libya. For instance, a clip used by numerous western media outlets to depict Syrians being beaten to death by Assad’s security forces turned out to be a video of Iraqis from the 1990′s.
In addition, Joshua Landis, Director of the Center for Middle East Studies and Associate Professor at the University of Oklahoma, documents how AFP, the Guardian and other media outlets completely misconstrued a video that purported to show Syrian soldiers being shot by Assad’s security forces as a punishment for refusing to gun down protesters,so what is the truth,media is always changing facts. Now,I,do believe something is going on there,but what?

www.infowars.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Im not surprised. The only thing that surprises me is how Americans fall for the same old game over and over and over again. The Libya propaganda was so bad I could not believe anyone with a functional brain could buy it. Horrible acting all the way around in their "reporting" of the air strikes, but..................many did fall for it.

Wake up America, your "humanitarian intervention" is actually "toppling legitimate governments supported by the majority of the people."

reply to post by venusstarlite


Great find, S=+F for you.

I can tell the war with Syria is coming........all the way back when Bush put it in the "axis of evil". Just as with Lybia, the MSM will keep reporting on it until the majority of the sheeple will want to "help those poor Syrian protesters" and then the Military Industrial complex will launch attacks.

Same as Iraq, Libya, Vietnam. They don't really change tactics that often, it's amazing how many people have not caught on

I don't understand why people are against the U.S using it's power and influence to try to change the world in a way that's most beneficial to us?

Isolationism causes greater problems than being active in the world. If we have a chance to influence a rebellion in a positive way for us than we should take advantage of it.

We could have prevented ww1 and ww2 if we hadn't had our heads buried in the sand and letting anyone do whatever they want in Europe.

Had we had the guts to send some troops to fortify Dien Bien Phu and back up the French we could have prevented Vietnam or at least let the French fight it.

Everyone complaining about our actions in the middle east are going to be the same one's whining when gas hits 15 bucks a gallon or something else grows out of control that we have to deal with later.

Originally posted by kro32
I don't understand why people are against the U.S using it's power and influence to try to change the world in a way that's most beneficial to us?

Short answer. Because allowing multinational companies with no real loyalty to the US to dictate the use of our military is not "beneficial to us." Our politicians are using our military to gain personal wealth and power for themselves at the expense of America and the peoples best interests.

We are just picking up the tab for someone elses wealth building strategy. We arent as a nation getting that oil, or minerals in the case of Afghanistan. Those contracts are going to corporations of many nationalies, and they arent paying taxes to reimburse America for the cost of these little economic wars.


If we were getting a direct cut of the spoils, I still wouldnt approve on moral grounds, but at least it would make sense for us economically. What is going on now is just rape of sovereign nations INCLUDING the US by multinational corporations and stupid and greedy politicians.


Edit to add,

And if you think letting a handful of greedy oil companies tie up the middle east into a nice tight little cartel is going to keep oil prices down here at home, you are sorely mistaken. Its better for us for there to be competition among the oil producing nations. Just watch.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander

Originally posted by kro32
I don't understand why people are against the U.S using it's power and influence to try to change the world in a way that's most beneficial to us?

Short answer. Because allowing multinational companies with no real loyalty to the US to dictate the use of our military is not "beneficial to us." Our politicians are using our military to gain personal wealth and power for themselves at the expense of America and the peoples best interests.

We are just picking up the tab for someone elses wealth building strategy. We arent as a nation getting that oil, or minerals in the case of Afghanistan. Those contracts are going to corporations of many nationalies, and they arent paying taxes to reimburse America for the cost of these little economic wars.

Edit to add,

And if you think letting a handful of greedy oil companies tie up the middle east into a nice tight little cartel is going to keep oil prices down here at home, you are sorely mistaken. Its better for us for their to be competition among the oil producing nations. Just watch.

If we were getting a direct cut of the spoils, I still wouldnt approve on moral grounds, but at least it would make sense for us economically. What is going on now is just rape of sovereign nations INCLUDING the US by multinational corporations and stupid and greedy politicians.

edit on 27-4-2011 by Illusionsaregrander because: (no reason given)

It's funny that everybody never looks at the obvious. It is possible that Obama did send them in there for what he claimed. Not everything in the world is a conspiracy you know.

Remember that Clinton went into the Balkans under the same pretense Obama is using now.

reply to post by kro32


You go ahead and name me some genuine humanitarian interventions and I will buy that.

Its economically driven. It always is. The majority of the Libyan people supported their government, and that should be clear even if you have no eye for bad propaganda by the sheer amount of time it is taking for this "popular uprising" coupled with Western military assistance to overthrow the government there.

Egypt fell like panties on prom night. The Libyan people had a very good standard of living for the region, and the idea that it was a popular uprising is really silly in light of the actual facts.

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander


Obama and Al Cia duh on the same side is the facts...



and if anyome thinks that is benefitial to man kind..
go look at some pix of fallujah DU fallout babies.

Originally posted by kro32
I don't understand why people are against the U.S using it's power and influence to try to change the world in a way that's most beneficial to us?

maybe you forgot what happened in iran in 1979??
maybe google: operation ajax
maybe google: blowback
maybe google: history of mujahideen
maybe google: operation cyclone

Critics of U.S. foreign policy consider Operation Cyclone to be substantially responsible for setting in motion the events that led to the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001. It is also probable that some Taliban presently fighting the U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan were in fact trained, equipped, or funded by the U.S. or its allies during the 1980s, at which time they were more commonly referred to as "freedom fighters"

america suffers from the classic folly of large empires of the past. mainly getting so involved in foreign entanglements that you fall apart from the simple fact that you cant afford perpetual intervention in world events and the consequences that follow. Its a never ending cycle. you intervene in a foreign countries affairs for "national interests" they retaliate with embargo's you retaliate with bombs, they retaliate with guerrilla tactics and terrorism, you respond with a war on terror and funding opposition groups and hundreds of billions even trillions of dollars spent. Is this path sustainable???

Can i ask why infowars.com is a credible site to link to?

reply to post by MallardDuck


In general, it's not in good taste to link to other conspiracy sites, but we have to gather information from everywhere. Do you think this is a story that FOX, NBC or CBS will pick up on? Probably not

I have noticed that infowars is very fear driven, but much like MSM there is good information in the article. This particular one I agree with, mostly because it has happened about 6-7 times in the past.

Have you read the article? If you want to talk about infowars being credible, start your own thread on it. This is a place for discussion on a different matter

I just had a Syrian friend over for dinner. Him and his wife just returned from a visit to his family in Syria. I asked them what the siutation was like there and how he felt about the possibility of NATO intervening.

For them, the situation for Syrians is dire, and they welcome the prospect. The people are seriously oppressed and the corruption is rampant. The people live in fear and do not have access to basic essentials for living (like food) though it is a country rich in resources.

I even asked, but with the possibility of so much damage and loss of life.....? He just shrugged and said, we are willing to face that. Some civilian life will be lost, but we cannot continue as it is. We're ready to face whatever risks and sacrifices there are to bring about a change! I hope to god they do it- damn China and Russia for stopping NATO! They just want to continue profitting off the current regime.

So I guess I am a bit skeptic on all the claims around here concerning the immorality of NATO considering attacks on Syria. They don't even care if ultimately, it is for their own interests- the important thing is that people be freed from that regime in the process.