The situation in Syria

This forum is for sharing random thoughts and discussions on anything that comes to mind and heart.

Re: The situation in Syria

Postby TrueAndMagneticNorth » Sat Nov 17, 2018 7:42 am

Hi All,

Back in September I posted some information on the mainly Christian town of Mhardeh, not far from the jihadist-dominated Idlib province in north-western Syria. Here is a link to another article about the town, and its uncertain future as the war (currently) looks to be winding down.

Oops, I'm not able to post the link from my end. If you're interested, it's an article in the LA Times, November 16 2018, titled, 'With peace on the horizon in Syria, this Christian city grapples with its decision to back the government.'

All the best.
User avatar
TrueAndMagneticNorth
Males
 
Posts: 514
Location: Germany
Marital Status: Married

Re: The situation in Syria

Postby Real » Sat Nov 17, 2018 4:32 pm

Thanks.

GBU

Real *Computer*
User avatar
Real
Males
 
Posts: 36
Location: Ky, Lake
Marital Status: Divorced

Re: The situation in Syria

Postby TrueAndMagneticNorth » Mon Nov 26, 2018 2:39 am

Hi All,

I wish to point out some more deception from the mainstream media. They are minor examples, but it is critical for people to remain vigilant against media distortions and manipulations. Exhibit one: a Syrian 'activist' was recently shot dead in rebel-controlled Idlib, north-west Syria. He was a long-term critic of Assad, but also was vocal in his criticisms of jihadist groups such as al-queda and ISIS.

Please note, there has been no suggestion that his murderers were pro-Assad elements. Not only are Assad's forces absent from that area, they have not even been accused. It is a virtual certainty that he was killed by the rebels. Below is a link to an article, CBS, titled, 'Radio Host who mocked Assad shot dead along with his colleague in Syria.'

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/raed-fares ... -in-syria/

Just by reading the title, the idea is subtly put forward that Assad did it. Hardcore propaganda done in a subtle way, even though the same article, within the text, partially admits that the finger has been pointed at jihadist groups. Other articles have been as bad, while others yet were more honest, in admitting from the outset that the victim was critical of both Assad and the jihadists. However, those people not particularly in tune with what's happening in Syria will likely just read the headline, which feeds into the programming of 'Assad bad, rebels good.'

The second exhibit: Do you know that there is evidence that another gas attack has just been carried out in Syria? The chances are you may not have heard about it. And why? Because it's not being widely reported, and even the coverage given to it is rather dismissive. And why? Because, if it really happened, it is the work of western-backed rebels.

Contrast this with the global reaction on those times Assad was blamed. There was synchronized condemnation of him across the world, before there was any chance that even a shred of evidence could prove he was guilty. Furthermore, as already documented in this forum, there is abundant evidence that western-backed rebels have carried out at least some of those chemical attacks themselves, which the western government-media complex then pinned on Assad, ie. 'False flag' attacks.

In the latest incident, mortar shells containing chlorine were apparently fired onto government-held Aleppo, injuring about 100, 2 of them critically, mainly due to the affects of the toxins. Technically, if the western-backed rebels are capable of carrying out False flag attacks with mainstream media support, then Assad and his forces could also be capable of doing such a thing. Yes, technically, but there is no evidence or motive, nothing to gain, and the rebels have a track record in this regard. Is this watertight proof? No, but if I had to bet my life on who I think did it, and find out the indisputable truth tomorrow, I think I'd sleep pretty well.

Anyway, when it has been Assad accused of gas attacks, as mentioned, he has been declared guilty by the international media without evidence, or a trial. Now, though, that it is almost certain the rebels did it (and it doesn't appear to be a False flag event) the media is very coy: Time Magazine says it's an '...alleged poison attack', NYT says it's an '...apparent chemical attack', RTE (Ireland) says it's a '...suspected gas attack', ABC News speaks of a '...suspected poison gas attack', while The Guardian speaks of '...claims of a gas attack'.

Yes, to be circumspect before you have proof is a good thing. What's alarming is the selective outrage, and the contrast with those times when Assad was accused, in which he and his government were fully demonized by most of the world without any evidence. Yet now, there is this muted reporting when the rebels are accused, there is no-one pretending to be outraged, calling on the west to bomb the rebels, etc, and the story will be out of the news within a day or so.

Remember this, I am not defending Assad because I think he is 'good'. As I've said before, it is completely irrelevant if a person, organisation or nation is good, bad or indifferent. If the New World Order decides that you need to be taken down, it will move to take you down, whether you are good, bad or indifferent.

That's all. God bless you. Have a good week.
User avatar
TrueAndMagneticNorth
Males
 
Posts: 514
Location: Germany
Marital Status: Married

Re: The situation in Syria

Postby TrueAndMagneticNorth » Sun Dec 09, 2018 5:29 am

Hi All,

Here is a little follow-up to the last post, about the chemical attack which was almost certainly carried out by western-backed rebels and jihadists.

As mentioned, it didn't get much coverage, as gas attacks are only helpful to the west if it gives western nations another excuse to bomb Syria.

However, let's not forget that there is also an information war going on, better described as a propaganda war. The US and UK have taken note of this gas accident, and blamed Assad for it, essentially accusing him of carrying out a false flag operation, citing 'credible information' to support their theory, but not saying what the info actually is.

This is a classic example of something I have been notici