japie said...

doggie said...

petermac33 said...

Another example of propaganda.

www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/9293620/BBC-News-uses-Iraq-photo-to-illustrate-Syrian-massacre.html

This is getting more common in todays media, its a shame really

Exactly, well said Doggie.

Did some kids have their throats cut? Did Syrian soldiers do it?

You would not have a clue. We cannot even trust what our own prime minister says, never mind attribute blame to something that purportedly took place on the other side of the globe.

If anything the internet and the media make it harder to get the right info so who or what do you/we believe?!?

Classic, BBC caught out yet again. Oh when will the UN do anything?

www.prisonplanet.com/bbc-caught-in-syria-massacre-propaganda-hoax.html

petermac33 said...

The BBC were caught telling porky pies before with Jane Standley reporting building
7 had collapsed when it had not. Did this wake anyone up on the seabreeze forum?

Reputable organisation like the BBC would never lie,would they?


Rarely do we find men who willingly engage in hard, solid thinking. There is an almost universal quest for easy answers and half-baked solutions. Nothing pains some people more than having to think.

- Martin Luther King, Jr.

She wasn't telling a porky, she was telling the truth in advance.

petermac33 said...

The BBC were caught telling porky pies before with Jane Standley reporting building
7 had collapsed when it had not. Did this wake anyone up on the seabreeze forum?

Reputable organisation like the BBC would never lie,would they?


Rarely do we find men who willingly engage in hard, solid thinking. There is an almost universal quest for easy answers and half-baked solutions. Nothing pains some people more than having to think.

- Martin Luther King, Jr.

or

The hardest work in the world is thinking. That is why so few people do it.

There are massive implications to just sending in troops to a sovereign nation - not the least being who cleans up the mess afterwards.

Just look at recent history
- Iraq - America went in with the army - couldn't exactly call it a peaceful and safe nation able to govern itself
- Afghanistan - same thing
- Libya - still massive issues, just now the oppressed are the oppressors.

The only situation I can think of in recent years where outside intervention has resulted in a functional state (albeit several years later) is the Balkans, where the approach was slow and late and minimal (and yes loads and loads of civilians died)

Problem with jumping in is that you create a power vacuum, that needs to get filled - either with UN supported puppets like in Iraq / Afghanistan, or by whoever is left who can garner the most power.

It sucks, something should be done blah blah blah, but possibly the most appropriate thing long term is force a country to sort its own **** out.

log man said...
Right wing comedy....Ha!

That's not comedy loggy. That's a documentary!

"He will be a wild ass of a man, His hand will be against every man, And every mans hand will be against him; And he will live to the east of all his brothers."

Guess when this was written? And who was it written about?
About 4000 years ago. Gen 16.12
It has been true ever since.
It was the description given to Ishmael, first son of Abraham , generally recognised by Jews and Muslims as the forefather of the people of Assyria down to Egypt.
Ancient Assyria encompasses modern day Syria and Iraq.

It would be hard to find a better description to describe the consistent fate and characteristics of these people than this ancient assessment. Their entire history has been one of conflict and division. They have always been a thorn in someone's side and if there was no-one else available then they have been a thorn in their own side. At this point in time they are a thorn in their own side . "His hand will be against every man, And every mans hand will be against him".

For the UN or the West to get dragged into this conflict would be a serious mistake. There is no right side and no wrong side, only opposing sides. To give assistance to either side would only result in being aligned with some equally bad government when the fighting is over, and then all the trouble from then on would be all our fault. It would have to be because it couldn't possibly be theirs, so it must be ours. After all, we are the infidels.

The west is reluctant to get dragged into this because although they have no affection for al Assad, they know for a certainty that whoever/whatever replaces him will be no better.

And the UN can't do anything, not because they are clowns but because the Russians say NO and in the UN, they have the power of veto.. If they so NO then the answer is NO.
That's the way it is.

Back to the topic, I was reading somewhere that Syria is different in that the big boss belongs to a clique (tribe?) that rules the whole place, representing about 10%. That they have already arranged to block the dictator from leaving, since they'd all be lynched if they gave up power. Therefore he's fighting to the end against his own citizens, even more so than in Libya and the others.

I'm too lazy to back it up on the Internet...

cisco said...

petermac33 said...


To me,that is evidence that the box in the corner of the room is the most powerful and succcessful mind control invention they have ever created.

That is a well known fact but not known by those whose minds have been controlled by it.

My TV is lucky to be switched on once per week. There is plenty of audio and visual entertainment freely available on the net. There are hundreds if not thousands of studio produced movies on You Tube now.

TV + YouTube = same thing

doggie said...
TV + YouTube = same thing

Not in my opinion.

TV, except for ABC and SBS, is mostly mindless crap and when they do have something that is stimulating or popular, they jam it full of adds.

You Tube and other media sites have what you might want to watch, whenever you want to watch it and you can mostly bomb the adds out.

There is more on You Tube than conspiracy videos.

Yeah, well I said that many times as it was happening and got a sore butt from all the red thumbs being poked at me each time.

I hope one of those red thumbs wasn't yours mr panda.

Beaglebuddy said...

Yes they should arm the opposition, then when they get the upper hand pull the support.
The goal should be to keep them killing each other, possibly draw Iran into the melee, this way they will be too busy killing each other to get organized to attack the west.
Much like Iran and Iraq in the 80's.
Russia and Iran can arm the Syrian regime while the West arms the rebels, a proxy war drawn out as long as possible.
The mass exodus of refugees will also distract the neighboring terrorist countries.

Are you Mi 5 or 6? too bloody smart for CIA

Nuke Em!

Lets trigger this Nuclear War started that we have been on the brink of for years.

Set the guidance systems of the rockets to random and turn the little red key.

Bring on the Nuclear Fall out...

Decimate the virus of this planet known as the human race...

And the surviving specimens of humans who tweeted "oh sh!t" before hiding underground can now bow down as the mutant subordinates of Cats who rose to status of global leaders.

tmurray said...

If the UN and the US seriously wanted world peace blanket air the blanket air strikes on munitions companies / factories would achieve it far better than local interventions.

Not just peace but Liberty or some version thereof.
You could have complete peace with a subjugated populace and a totalitarian one world government, oh yeah, that's what the UN (and Obama) want.

Beaglebuddy said...

tmurray said...

If the UN and the US seriously wanted world peace blanket air the blanket air strikes on munitions companies / factories would achieve it far better than local interventions.

Not just peace but Liberty or some version thereof.
You could have complete peace with a subjugated populace and a totalitarian one world government, oh yeah, that's what the UN (and Obama) want.

From what others have posted, that is the goal of the Islam extremists. In preaching that the quoran teaches of peace, you can read into it that the peace occurs after the war when all the infidels have been converted or slaughtered. (this is what I have read from Internet pages so judgement on its validity may be dodgy...)

Is that the sort of peace you mean?