More on Syria

[canta_brian]

They are all pathetic but this one is my personal fave.

-the accusations are based on the testimonies of Assad's enemies.

Yep, for me, the lack of testimony from Assad's friends and family totally refutes the accusation.

[Donny osmond]

They are all pathetic but this one is my personal fave.

-the accusations are based on the testimonies of Assad's enemies.

Yep, for me, the lack of testimony from Assad's friends and family totally refutes the accusation.

[emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji23]

[Mellsblue]

They are all pathetic but this one is my personal fave.

-the accusations are based on the testimonies of Assad's enemies.

Yep, for me, the lack of testimony from Assad's friends and family totally refutes the accusation.

[emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji23]

I lol'd too.

[Sandydragon]

They are all pathetic but this one is my personal fave.

-the accusations are based on the testimonies of Assad's enemies.

Yep, for me, the lack of testimony from Assad's friends and family totally refutes the accusation.

Maybe we should ask his mum for an opinion, not those naughty journalists.

He's not a brutal dictator, he's just a naughty boy.

[rowan]

Surprise, surprise . . .

Amnesty International itself has openly admitted that the summation of the report was fabricated in the United Kingdom at Amnesty International’s office, using a process they call “forensic architecture,” in which the lack of actual, physical, photographic, and video evidence, is replaced by 3D animations and sound effects created by designers hired by Amnesty International.

Amnesty Hired Special Effects Experts to Fabricate “Evidence”

In a video produced by Amnesty International accompanying their report, titled, “Inside Saydnaya: Syria’s Torture Prison,” the narrator admits in its opening seconds that Amnesty International possesses no actual evidence regarding the prison.

There are almost no pictures of its exterior [except satellite images] and none from inside. And what happens within its walls is cloaked in secrecy, until now.

Viewers are initially led to believe evidence has emerged, exposing what took place within the prison’s walls, but the narrator continues by explaining:

We’ve devised a unique way of revealing what life is like inside a torture prison. And we’ve done it by talking to people who were there and have survived its horrors…

…and using their recollections and the testimony of others, we’ve build an interactive 3D model which can take you for the first time inside Saydnaya.

The narrator then explains:

In a unique collaboration, Amnesty International has teamed up with “Forensic Architecture” of Goldsmiths, University of London, to reconstruct both the sound and architecture of Saydnaya prison, and to do it using cutting-edge digital technology to create a model.

In other words, the summation of Amnesty International’s presentation was not accumulated from facts and evidence collected in Syria, but instead fabricated entirely in London using 3D models, animations, and audio software, based on the admittedly baseless accounts of alleged witnesses who claim to have been in or otherwise associated with the prison.


Eyal Weizman, director of “Forensic Architecture,” would admit that “memory” alone was the basis of both his collaboration with Amnesty International, and thus, the basis for Amnesty’s 48 page report:



http://www.globalresearch.ca/fake-news- ... uk/5573847

The accusations are not new, they were being reported last year, the year before that, and the year before that. Basically, since America and its cronies decided to wreck the country like they did Iraq and Libya. So it wasn't news at all, let alone headline news.

So I think we can all agree that:

- there is no actual evidence of torture chambers

- the accusations are based on the testimonies of Assad's enemies

- similar accusations were made again Saddam and Gaddafi

- similar accusations have been made against American allies Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey and Egypt, among others

- such accusations are neither reason nor justification for military intervention in another country

So which part do you disagree with?

No answer to that?

Bottom line is, America and its allies instigated this conflict and now they're trying to justify their latest war crimes with propaganda that has basically become a cliche.

[Donny osmond]

When all else fails just talk to yourself.

[rowan]

There is a distinct lack of appropriate gravitas in some of the above comments. Let's remember what we're discussing here:

Hundreds of Civilians Killed in US-led Air Strikes http://www.envirosagainstwar.org/know/r ... emid=18553

[rowan]

Just to let everyone know that is exactly the type of propaganda I've been talking about. In reality, the site where the photos were published quotes the Washington Post:

" US-led air strike in October in Kobani, Syria, during fighting between Syrian Kurds and Islamic State. More than 5,700 air strikes have been launched in the year-long US campaign. Chris Woods, of Airwars, said: 'You can't have an air war of this intensity without civilians getting killed or injured.' According to an Airways report, the US bombing campaign against Islamic State in Iraq and Syria has killed more than 450 civilians."

You are too fixated on trying to win arguments, attribute blame to the victims, and excuse the undeniable war-crimes of the aggressor. That's an imperialist mentality.

[WaspInWales]

So, believe western media when it suits you but decry it otherwise?

I'm not being funny, but half the time you try to convince us that the MSM is wrong but then you use a quote from an article from such a source as it supports your argument.

Talk about inconsistency.

Does this mean MSM may be more balanced that you try to convince us?

[Donny osmond]

Love yr work Cas, have a beer on me later

[rowan]

& from the Guardian in relation to those photos:

A leading human rights group alleges US airstrikes in northern Syria have killed 56 civilians, among them 11 children. The aerial bombing, termed a “massacre” by the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR), occurred near Manbij.

(August 3, 2015) -- The air campaign against Islamic State in Iraq and Syria has killed more than 450 civilians, according to a new report, even though the US-led coalition has so far acknowledged just two non-combatant deaths.

More than 5,700 air strikes have been launched in the campaign, which nears its first anniversary this Saturday, with its impact on civilians largely unknown.

Now Airwars, a project by a team of independent journalists, is publishing details of 52 strikes with what it believes are credible reports of at least 459 non-combatant deaths, including those of more than 100 children.

It says there is a "worrying gulf between public and coalition positions" on the campaign's toll on civilians.


But you're still fixated on apportioning blame to the victims, which is missing the point of the photos entirely.

[rowan]

& more from the Washington Post:

An Airstrike in Syria Killed
Entire Families Instead of ISIS Fighters
Max Bearak / The Washington Post

(July 21, 2016) -- The airstrikes at dawn on Tuesday pulverized entire families, including young children -- families that were fleeing Islamic State militants but were instead mistaken for being those very fighters. Depending on whom you ask, the number of bodies found in the rubble is 56, 85, 160 or 212. Pictures of the mangled bodies, covered in dust, are a testament to the carnage.

People who live near where the bombs fell -- about 10 miles north of Manbij in northern Syria -- said the only planes they'd seen since June were from a US-led coalition battling the Islamic State. The area is just a few miles north of the front line between the Islamic State and the coalition-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF). If Tuesday's airstrikes were indeed by coalition jets, and not Russian or Syrian government warplanes, this would easily be the highest civilian toll from any action by the coalition since it formed in 2014.

Faced with the likelihood of a grave error by the coalition, US officials responded cautiously, emphasizing the need to verify what had happened.

"If the information supporting the allegation is determined to be credible, we will then determine the next appropriate step," a statement from US Central Command said. The military also said that it had carried out 18 airstrikes on Tuesday around Manbij. That is a small chunk of the 450 strikes near the town since May and the 10,500 total since the campaign began.

"This has been the most precise air campaign in history, and we're going to make sure that it stays that way, but I don't have any further information on this," said Brett McGurk, special presidential envoy to the anti-Islamic State coalition. The US military has since announced that it is launching an investigation.

But the probability that it was a coalition airstrike makes this a huge deal, beyond the fact that dozens, if not hundreds, of civilians died. The dead and their kin are the same people whose hearts and minds the coalition hopes to win over. The deaths, and the perception that they were caused by the coalition, mean that that hope is probably lost. Liz Sly, one of The Washington Post's Middle East correspondents, reported that many fighters in the SDF were questioning whether they could remain in the force.

"People are now full of hatred for the SDF. We thought they were coming to finish ISIS, but it seems they are finishing us first," said Jassem al-Sayed, a politician from Manbij, speaking with Sly over the phone. ISIS is an alternative acronym for the Islamic State.

From the perspective of a Western onlooker, Tuesday's strikes are easy enough to write off as another grisly chapter in a grinding war. And for the US military, it is probably another internal investigation that will wear on until the public has largely forgotten which airstrikes and which civilians it is talking about. The average time between a strike and the release of a redacted Centcom investigative report is seven months, said Micah Zenko, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.

But in November, Centcom announced that it would stop publicly releasing the results of each and every investigation. But standards for how much is released had anyway been unclear. Centcom news releases, often published in bulk on Friday afternoons, usually list only a date, a location and an estimate of civilian damage, while the nitty-gritty of the investigation is redacted or simply unreleased.

In other words, it is possible but improbable that we will hear the final word from the US military on what happened Tuesday and whether the coalition bears any culpability.

The US military has no strategic imperative to kill Syrian civilians, so the probability of faulty intelligence being the cause is high. Being so close to the front line, it is entirely possible that civilians there were being used as human shields for the Islamic State, as they have been elsewhere.

But a prolonged investigation resulting in a redacted document would be tantamount to obfuscation. If the coalition isn't to blame, why isn't it rushing to absolve itself?

Is it possible that if the media paid more attention to such atrocities, there might be a greater sense of outrage and urgency? That something like this wouldn't seem so routine? Because it isn't, even if hundreds are being killed in Syria's civil war every day.

The Post has had one staff-written article on the airstrikes, which failed to make it to the top of the home page online. The New York Times and most others "ran a wire." Television stations ran an item in their tickers. But writing more than what has been written is tough. The strikes took place in a war zone. How do you get there to verify people's stories -- and make it out alive? And from below, fighter jets are hard to recognize.

The following video shows coalition forces bombing a location north of Manbij two weeks ago, right next to where Tuesday's bombing occurred. It gives a sense of what an airstrike looks like from the perspective of a pilot, or a drone.

Without an official answer from the coalition, it is almost impossible to verify who dropped the bombs, leaving reporters in a gray zone of speculation. And even if it turns out that the airstrikes were by Russian or Syrian forces, it's not like they would ever own up. Their airstrikes have killed many, many more civilians than those by the coalition. The haziness of the truth only contributes to a larger narrative bubble we see around the war in Syria -- one in which civilians are mostly death tolls or collateral damage.

That haze is probably one reason that, despite the unusually high death toll in this week's airstrikes and the high possibility of US culpability, neither candidate for the American presidency has issued a statement of condolence or concern.

The US military is usually very strict about avoiding civilian casualties. It turns down countless target requests from its partners in Syria and Iraq because it can't verify the situation on the ground. The White House's numbers on civilian deaths from drone strikes in counterterrorism operations are low. But, then again, few agree with those figures.

Last year, a London-based group of journalists published a study saying that in the coalition's first 12 months of airstrikes in Syria and Iraq, it killed 459 civilians in 57 incidents. The Pentagon admits only to 26 deaths. And egregious mistakes have led to US drones blowing up wedding processions in both Afghanistan and Yemen.

Each of these is a tragedy, and a setback for American objectives. Syrians and Americans alike deserve to know what happened.

Posted in accordance with Title 17, Section 107, US Code, for noncommercial, educational purposes.

& nobody invited the US there in the first place, rendering the entire tragic affair in violation of international law from the outset

[rowan]

You're still haplessly missing the point. It's not about apportioning blame. It's about treating the topic with the appropriate gravitas rather than simply trying to win an argument and directing childish spite at those who do not think as you do.

[rowan]

I was responding to your own claims. At the end of the day, the problem here is that I do not share the imperialist mentality of others on the board. Had you been around a century ago you would have been defending the crimes of the British Empire in Africa and Asia instead. It doesn't take a genius to see that exactly the same thing is going on with America today. They basically inherited the British Empire after WWII, and the entire process is a carbon copy. You seek to excuse and defend the actions of the imperial aggressor in far away foreign lands and lay the blame squarely upon the nations they destroy. This means buying into the propaganda they churn out entirely for the purpose, of course. The latest example of this has just been debunked entirely.

[rowan]

So what were you playing at when you tried to link the actions of the Syrian military in Aleppo and US-led airstrikes and started flailing when the source of said images turned out to be rather inconvenient for the agenda you're trying to push?

So you're still blaming the victim, in spite of the accompanying reports by the mainstream media you spend much of your time referencing yourself. Again, that's because you have an imperialist mentality - which is to say, might makes right; the viewpoint that it is permissable for America to be bombing countries all over the world without any kind of authority, while the nations they destroy have no right to defend themselves and will be blamed for the entire affair should they resist. America has no authority to be bombing Syria, and the reports show they have killed countless civilians, including children. This is mass murder on an horrific scale.

[WaspInWales]

& from the Guardian in relation to those photos:

A leading human rights group alleges US airstrikes in northern Syria have killed 56 civilians, among them 11 children. The aerial bombing, termed a “massacre” by the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR), occurred near Manbij.

(August 3, 2015) -- The air campaign against Islamic State in Iraq and Syria has killed more than 450 civilians, according to a new report, even though the US-led coalition has so far acknowledged just two non-combatant deaths.

More than 5,700 air strikes have been launched in the campaign, which nears its first anniversary this Saturday, with its impact on civilians largely unknown.

Now Airwars, a project by a team of independent journalists, is publishing details of 52 strikes with what it believes are credible reports of at least 459 non-combatant deaths, including those of more than 100 children.

It says there is a "worrying gulf between public and coalition positions" on the campaign's toll on civilians.


But you're still fixated on apportioning blame to the victims, which is missing the point of the photos entirely.

The photos which you used to try and apport blame on the US.

Then you followed that up by using the Guardian and Washington Post to support your claims, even though these are MSM which is wrong is your eyes.

[rowan]

& from the Guardian in relation to those photos:

A leading human rights group alleges US airstrikes in northern Syria have killed 56 civilians, among them 11 children. The aerial bombing, termed a “massacre” by the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR), occurred near Manbij.

(August 3, 2015) -- The air campaign against Islamic State in Iraq and Syria has killed more than 450 civilians, according to a new report, even though the US-led coalition has so far acknowledged just two non-combatant deaths.

More than 5,700 air strikes have been launched in the campaign, which nears its first anniversary this Saturday, with its impact on civilians largely unknown.

Now Airwars, a project by a team of independent journalists, is publishing details of 52 strikes with what it believes are credible reports of at least 459 non-combatant deaths, including those of more than 100 children.

It says there is a "worrying gulf between public and coalition positions" on the campaign's toll on civilians.


But you're still fixated on apportioning blame to the victims, which is missing the point of the photos entirely.

The photos which you used to try and apport blame on the US.

Then you followed that up by using the Guardian and Washington Post to support your claims, even though these are MSM which is wrong is your eyes.

Only if you are assuming I wrote the headlines and articles accompanying the photos personally.

[rowan]

No, all you did was regurgitate them, and then argue against the word of the very people who took those photos in the first place in pursuit of an obvious agenda.

Which again misses the point and demonstrates your fixation with apportioning the blame to the victim. The truth is, you know very little about what is going on in Syria. You don't live in this region, you're not speaking with the locals nor reading their media in the local language on a day-to-date basis either. All you have is your mainstream media, a vital tool of the imperial aggressor as it continues to invade and subjugate, leading to millions of deaths, the entire destruction of nations and a refugee tidal wave mostly into Europe. All you have is your imperialist viewpoint, might makes right and the empire's victims are to blame.

[canta_brian]

No, all you did was regurgitate them, and then argue against the word of the very people who took those photos in the first place in pursuit of an obvious agenda.

Which again misses the point and demonstrates your fixation with apportioning the blame to the victim. The truth is, you know very little about what is going on in Syria. You don't live in this region, you're not speaking with the locals nor reading their media in the local language on a day-to-date basis either. All you have is your mainstream media, a vital tool of the imperial aggressor as it continues to invade and subjugate, leading to millions of deaths, the entire destruction of nations and a refugee tidal wave mostly into Europe. All you have is your imperialist viewpoint, might makes right and the empire's victims are to blame.

Have you received a diagnosis for whatever is causing your brain to misfire this badly?

Scroll back and take a look at who has been quoting mainstream media to promote their argument.

Just to help, when it says Rowan at the top of the post, that means it was you.

[Donny osmond]

No, all you did was regurgitate them, and then argue against the word of the very people who took those photos in the first place in pursuit of an obvious agenda.

Which again misses the point and demonstrates your fixation with apportioning the blame to the victim. The truth is, you know very little about what is going on in Syria. You don't live in this region, you're not speaking with the locals nor reading their media in the local language on a day-to-date basis either. All you have is your mainstream media, a vital tool of the imperial aggressor as it continues to invade and subjugate, leading to millions of deaths, the entire destruction of nations and a refugee tidal wave mostly into Europe. All you have is your imperialist viewpoint, might makes right and the empire's victims are to blame.

Well, we have amnesty international as well to be fair.

[rowan]

No, all you did was regurgitate them, and then argue against the word of the very people who took those photos in the first place in pursuit of an obvious agenda.

Which again misses the point and demonstrates your fixation with apportioning the blame to the victim. The truth is, you know very little about what is going on in Syria. You don't live in this region, you're not speaking with the locals nor reading their media in the local language on a day-to-date basis either. All you have is your mainstream media, a vital tool of the imperial aggressor as it continues to invade and subjugate, leading to millions of deaths, the entire destruction of nations and a refugee tidal wave mostly into Europe. All you have is your imperialist viewpoint, might makes right and the empire's victims are to blame.

Have you received a diagnosis for whatever is causing your brain to misfire this badly?

Scroll back and take a look at who has been quoting mainstream media to promote their argument.

Just to help, when it says Rowan at the top of the post, that means it was you.

Scroll back and you will see that I was merely responding to comments attempting to apportion blame to the victim rather than the aggressor, and that the MSM articles you refer to were on the web-page accompanying the photos. So when even the MSM is blaming those it normally serves, that should tell you something. But, once again, that wasn't the point of the photos. Cashead's manic laughter upon the thread should give you an idea of why I thought it necessary to remind people of the human tragedy involved.

[Donny osmond]

This is actually becoming an interesting study on how often one person can be publicly humiliated and still keep proclaiming their own veracity

[rowan]

This is actually becoming an interesting study on how often one person can be publicly humiliated and still keep proclaiming their own veracity

Then stop posting, Donny

http://www.globalresearch.ca/us-has-kil ... ii/5492051

[Donny osmond]

There may be many reasons for me to stop posting, but that sure as shit ain't one of them. [emoji6]

[canta_brian]

I believe that what Rowan is saying si that because amnesty weren't invited to film inside the prison by Assad the testimony of all the people they have spoken to must be false.

The testimony of the people who are evidently alive and well and telling us all about it was not the basis of the articles which grabbed the mainstream American and British media's headlines the other day. Those reports clearly implied torture chambers have been uncovered. That was a deception - blatant propaganda, as I told you.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Chossudovsky

Common conspiracy theories are frequently advanced, and stated as facts by authors including Chossudovsky himself on his website Global Research. A few examples are: The New World Order (conspiracy theory),[18][19] 9/11 conspiracy theories, such as the assertion that the attack on the Twin Towers was a False flag operation,[20][21] The HAARP conspiracy theory, that the installation is a "secret weapon used for weather modification, electromagnetic warfare",[22][23](Also included by Chossudovsky in one of his books.), Global warming conspiracy theory,[24][25] Charlie Hebdo shooting conspiracy theories,[26][27] and the FEMA camps conspiracy theory.[28][29]

I think I will stick with believing amnesty international over a bunch of Internet crackpots thanks.

Sorry to re-post my own....

Globalresearch again Rowan? Not the authoritative source I would have thought someone who claims to be a published journalist would keep quoting.