Thread: Syria

Never seen such an extreme propaganda war as in the case of Syria!
The killings of the rebels are reported as killings of the government....
The creepy thing is that LOTS of people obviously support the current government, or the other side would have won over a year ago. Whole cities and ethnic groups, no doubt about it.

Kudos to Russia for staying impartial and not jumping on the propaganda bandwagon.

The UK is not a bit better than the US in this particular situation. Compare the old Beeb, with RT. One of them is lying, and I'd say that in this particular case it is actually the beeb. I swear not to pay my licence fee when I am back in the UK! I refuse to support their angled reporting and propaganda war. The BBC is impartial up to a point, but when the government has a clear agenda, they step in line which is what's happened here....

And the agenda of the US, UK and their European fan club couldn't be more clear.

They've found a new formula it seems, for how to take down a regime they don't like, without even going to war. This is Libya take 2, only this regime is not particularly bad and there were only a very small group of rebels when this started out. Now, through the media war and covert actions and stirring up of the situation by the SAS, CIA and lord knows who else... it's a civil war.

Arm some rebels and start a God-awful propaganda war that is out of all proportions, including blatant lies and horrendous exaggerations.

I wonder which regime is next?

Originally Posted by Hanna

I wonder which regime is next?

Iran, obviously. They are trynig to perform this thrick with Russia constantly, but it doesn't work for for now. I wonder for how long?

Originally Posted by Basil77

Iran, obviously. They are trynig to perform this thrick with Russia constantly, but it doesn't work for for now. I wonder for how long?

No one really knows. They have threatened Iran for almost seven years. And no one expected the attack on Lybia.

Originally Posted by Hanna

Never seen such an extreme propaganda war as in the case of Syria!
The killings of the rebels are reported as killings of the government....
The creepy thing is that LOTS of people obviously support the current government, or the other side would have won over a year ago. Whole cities and ethnic groups, no doubt about it.

The same was against Iraq in 1990-91 and in 2002-2003, against Serbs during the whole decade from 1991 to 1999 and in many other cases. Unfortunately, it's a norm, not an exception. The goal of media is not to inform the people, but to change their mind in a necessary way.

Kudos to Russia for staying impartial and not jumping on the propaganda bandwagon.

Russia is not completely impartial. It sells weapon to the Syrian government and it blocks all the resolutions against Syria in the UN. The media cover of the events is rather pregovernmental too.

Originally Posted by Marcus

The same was against Iraq in 1990-91 and in 2002-2003, against Serbs during the whole decade from 1991 to 1999 and in many other cases. Unfortunately, it's a norm, not an exception. The goal of media is not to inform the people, but to change their mind in a necessary way.

Russia is not completely impartial. It sells weapon to the Syrian government and it blocks all the resolutions against Syria in the UN. The media cover of the events is rather pregovernmental too.

Yes, you are probably right, but in the case of the Serbs, I simply did not see it. It was just at the time when new human rights abuses by socialist governments were "discovered" practically every week. I was totally fed up and disillusioned with all of it and just ignored any news to do with Eastern Europe... The other problem was that I had not been aware that Yugoslavia consisted of so many different countries. It was pretty confusing unless you had the time and interest to get up to speed on the background, which I did not at the time. But previously nobody every talked about separate nations there, just of Yugoslavians, the Adriatic coast etc. When media started to talk about "ethnic cleansing" and concentration camps, they did not leave much room for sympathising with the Serbs even though they they were Christians, Slavs etc, etc.
Back in the 1990s there was no access to alternative news sources like we can find online today.

Iraq - Yes, I remember that I did not believe that Iraqi soldiers had yanked Kuwait babies out of incubators out of sheer spite, or that surrendering Iraqis in the second Gulf War had asked the Americans for a Big Mac when surrendering... The propaganda onslaught was pretty all encompassing and there was no access to anything else.

I agree that RT is NOT a neutral source of news. I like it anyway, but it is obvious that they have a few agendas going on, like a small paypack on the UK for all the diplomatic troubles recently..... Gleeful reporting on the problems with the Euro and immigration in Western Europe.... An obsession with "Neo Nazis" in the Baltic... But there is a lot of substance behind the majority of their claims on these matters, even though it irritates me!

So you really think that Russia is secretly supporting the current regime despite their claims to the contrary? If I hear that some Russian special commandos are there and stirring up trouble I'll be just as annoyed as I feel with the UK/US about their involvement. If Russia is meddling they should stay out of it! Holding up existing contracts and obligation is not meddling though. They could not have anticipated this when they agreed to service helicopters or set up the Russian naval port there. But it seems to me that Russia is making an effort to try to stay out of it even though it had friendly relations with Syria in the past.

Originally Posted by Basil77

Iran, obviously. They are trynig to perform this thrick with Russia constantly, but it doesn't work for for now. I wonder for how long?

Yes, I guess Russia is a bit vulnerable to that..... First the Soviet states fell away for better or worse, and then there was troubles in the "outskirts" of Russia proper and the Chechen war....
Even the UK is not immune, with the Scots and sometimes Northern Ireland sometimes talking seriously of going their own way.

Since Russia has basically never shown the slightest bit of aggression towards my country, and since I largely like the people and the culture, I really want to see Russia as a confident country with internal stability.... I guess to some extent Russia can "buy" the loyalty of the outer regions with oil money...
And why not try some nationalistic campaigns....
It seems like lunacy for parts of Russia to break away... Isn't most of the country supported out of Moscow and the central regions anyway? Thy couldn't even extract their oil and transport their gas with out central help, could they? Do people see this as a risk, I mean the Russian Federation breaking up in a similar way to the USSR?


And in case anyone was in any doubt about what I have been saying...

Britain’s former Special Air Service (SAS) commandos are reportedly training armed opposition groups fighting against the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, reports say.

The Daily Mail and Sunday Express have revealed that the mercenaries have set up training camps in Iraq and on the Syrian border for the armed rebels.

British army sources, speaking on condition of anonymity, have said the militants are receiving instructions in military tactics, weapons handling and communications systems.

Groups of 50 militants at a time are being trained by two Mideast-based private security firms which employ former SAS personnel.

More than 300 rebel forces have completed the commando training program, and are said to account for a number of the opposition’s combatant units fighting Syrian security forces in Damascus.

Britain has also placed more than 600 troops on standby over the unrest in Syria.

UK Foreign Secretary William Hague says London should be acting outside the UN Security Council and step up its support for militant groups in Syria.

Originally Posted by Hanna

I wonder which regime is next?

No denying, one of the remaining rogue states.* The “social disposition” is absolutely straightforward, there’s the open society and its enemies (Sir Karl Raimund Popper). The enemies, aka rogues, want to destroy the open society by hook or by crook and forcefully impose their evil will on “openers” and other human animals. It’s social darwinism after all.

*Rogue state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by diogen_

No denying, one of the remaining rogue states.* The “social disposition” is absolutely straightforward, there’s the open society and its enemies (Sir Karl Raimund Popper). The enemies, aka rogues, want to destroy the open society by hook or by crook and forcefully impose their evil will on “openers” and other human animals. It’s social darwinism after all.

*Rogue state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Wikipedia article you are referring to, starts with the sentence

"Rogue state is a controversial term"

@Diogen
Did you notice the word "controversial" and the subsequent explanation of reservations of various groups about the phrase?

The term is a perfect example of propaganda. Everyone who doesn't see the world like yourself, is "mad", "rogue" or something similar...
You repeat it over and over for a few years until it becomes the truth.
After that, you've got the perfect excuse for going after your enemy with the blessing of the population who is "aware" (like yourself) of how "bad" the enemy is.

Goebbels wrote a book about how to execute this type of propaganda, and successfully used this technique to convince the Germans that the Jews were freaks, and to turn their back as they were sent off to forced labour or death.

You can't be serious coming to a forum full of Russians and making statements like this.
During the Cold War, all of the Eastern bloc countries, in particular the USSR were "Rogue" according the the US worldview. Cuba, North Korea among others are still viewed in this way by the USA, according to Wiki. So I take it you would have been quite happy to see an attack against their country leading to thousands or millions dead Russian, just because your own nation was governed according to a different ideology than theirs?

I'd recommend this book for you Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower

(Haven't read it myself, but it's linked to from the Wikipedia article you yourself quoted. )

@Hanna

Analyze the consequences. There are two possible outcomes.

1. Imperialism wins rogues. Life will be essentially like now i.e. more or less normal without global wars and social experiments. Proof: nothing has changed to the worse after some rogue states stopped being rogue and become “normal”.

2. Rouges win imperialists. In the case life will be a) similar to life under Communism or b)similar to life under Taliban. The latter was in Chechnya when it was de facto independent. Shariat law, human rights abuse, total censorship, drag traffic, killings of “ infidels”, religious oppression, absence of political freedom, corruption, clan system etc. Do you want to live under these conditions? I hardly believe so. As to the former scenario see the video:

Originally Posted by diogen_

@Hanna

Analyze the consequences. There are two possible outcomes.

1. Imperialism wins rogues. Life will be essentially like now i.e. more or less normal without global wars and social experiments. Proof: nothing has changed to the worse after some rogue states stopped being rogue and become “normal”.

2. Rouges win imperialists. In the case life will be a) similar to life under Communism or b)similar to life under Taliban. The latter was in Chechnya when it was de facto independent. Shariat law, human rights abuse, total censorship, drag traffic, killings of “ infidels”, religious oppression, absence of political freedom, corruption, clan system etc. Do you want to live under these conditions? I hardly believe so. As to the former scenario see the video:

What I would add to this is, there are people who don't want to live in rogue states themselves, but for some reason think those who already do should continue, and shouldn't be helped to turn their lives to the better. Neither of the Syrian regime supporters here would willingly move there and live under such a system.

@Hanna
Your previous message is a little bit emotional and with ad hominem arguments.

Communism proved to be economically inapt in every country where it was established in the past, including the USSR. It’s a fact. As to China I believe its current economic groth is due to market economy and not because of the former planning system, isn’t it? As for its political system, my guess it’s only a remnant of the past.

Originally Posted by diogen_

@Hanna
Your previous message is a little bit emotional and with ad hominem arguments.

Really? Can you give examples please?

Originally Posted by diogen_

@Hanna
Communism proved to be economically inapt in every country where it was established in the past, including the USSR. It’s a fact. As to China I believe its current economic groth is due to market economy and not because of the former planning system, isn’t it? As for its political system, my guess it’s only a remnant of the past.

Still China does much better than Russia economically. This is possibly because there was no large-scale privatization of key assets.

Originally Posted by Eric C.

What I would add to this is, there are people who don't want to live in rogue states themselves, but for some reason think those who already do should continue, and shouldn't be helped to turn their lives to the better. Neither of the Syrian regime supporters here would willingly move there and live under such a system.

Please tell me what's the problem with Syria so that you call it "rogue". I currently see only one argument why Syria is bad, that is because it supported Hesballah. Otherwise it is a quite typical state.
In 2008 Assad wanted to sign a peace treaty with Israel and open embassies, but the USA did not allow for that.

Originally Posted by Anixx

Please tell me what's the problem with Syria so that you call it "rogue". I currently see only one argument why Syria is bad, that is because it supported Hesballah. Otherwise it is a quite typical state.
In 2008 Assad wanted to sign a peace treaty with Israel and open embassies, but the USA did not allow for that.

Well, my guess is, killings of thousands of people by one man to keep the power he inherited from his dad make it a bit less "typical". What's yours?

Originally Posted by diogen_

Какая замечательная клюква. Ну и как положено, общечеловеки опять приписали Сталину "гибель одного человека - трагедия, гибель миллионов - статистика".

Originally Posted by BappaBa

Какая замечательная клюква. Ну и как положено, общечеловеки опять приписали Сталину "гибель одного человека - трагедия, гибель миллионов - статистика".

клюква ?!

Anyway - the more they create videos like this, the better they feel about the fact that they themselves are responsible for millions of death around the world - in conflicts that the US has no business being involved in at all. Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, Aghanistan, Pakistan (drone attacks), Libya (should have been left completely alone) and now Syria. +many more. Whatever Stalin was doing (which I understand is not a clearcut matter) he did in his own country - there are varying opinions and hard to no what is truth, propaganda or exaggeration.

I just think it's rather pathetic that so many people have to drag up Stalin, in discussions about modern politics. Stalin represents nobody but himself! He does not represent the USSR, Russia, modern Russian people or anything else. Sure, he lived in Moscow and called himself a Communist - but most educated people can recognise that that was just the beginning of his complex and rather self-serving ideological outlook.

Additionally: Hello!.......... it was 60 years ago! What does it matter? 60 years ago there was also segregation in the USA, colonialism oppression perpetrated by various European countries, imprisonment of gay people and sterilisation of gypsies in many present day European countries. Plus, according to many Russians here, Stalin actually accomplished some rather positive things in certain areas, and is appreciated by quite a few people. Either way - there is absolutely 0 connection between Stalin and the events in Syria.