What is your opinion of the news media?
in arriving at your views, have you read anything on this topic from official sources - not much. So?
Well, yet you know exactly what is happening and what should be done...
Your talking points are not well aligned with the facts but do align with the pro-kremlin misinformation about Syria. I would simply invite you to read reports on what is happening but here is a brief summary:
Syria has 4 major factions: Assad, ISIS, Islamic rebels and Western rebels (Kurds, etc.).
The western oriented rebels were backed by an international alliance spearheaded by USA; they are the best we come to "good guys" in Syria.
In 2015 Putin announced(!) the war in Syria was between ISIS and Assad and things were going really badly (in reality, it was going badly for Assad, less badly for the rebels who were fighting ISIS), and now it was time for an international alliance to form and defeat ISIS.
So he joined efforts with the international alliance and began bombing ISIS. Nah. Just kidding.
He began to bomb the shit out of the internationally backed rebels and other enemies of Assad under the pretext he was bombing ISIS. That was only in a few cases true as was confirmed by comparing claimed ISIS targets with what was actually bombed.
In addition to military targets, hospitals, bakeries, water treatment plants, grain silos, mosques, and cities were bombed. Russian cluster munition was used in Syria (that's a warcrime) and images surfaced of Russian fighter planes with said cluster munition attached. Might be a total coincidence.
In 2016 Putin announced, "mission accomplished". At this point, the Russian campaign had been successful in weakening the western-backed rebels and helping Assad but had not weakened ISIS significantly. By hitting civilian targets (water treatment plants, hospitals, etc) and complicated the conflict it had deepened the humanitarian crisis and created more refugees.
During this campaign and after the following propaganda points were repeated again and again:
- The choice is between ISIS and Assad
- There is no meaningful alternative
- Putin intervened because nothing was being done
- Putin has only aimed at ISIS/terrorist targets
- Putin has not used cluster munition
- Putin's bombing campaign significantly weakened ISIS
I invite you to read about the conflict before you repeat the above points.
The trouble with Syria is that it's unclear exactly who's side we should be on, who we should be fighting against and why.
We could also go with the torturers and the warcriminals...
yet you know exactly what is happening and what should be done - no, nobody knows exactly what's happening. That includes you. You may have read more sources than me but Russia isn't the only one to pump out propaganda.
Syria has 4 major factions: Assad, ISIS, Islamic rebels and Western rebels (Kurds, etc.) - yes, I already know this. You forgot to say that it's not only the Kurds who are supported by the West - some Islamist groups are, too.
The Kurds are only interested in defending their traditional lands, so they'll never rule all of Syria.
He [Putin] began to bomb the shit out of the internationally backed rebels - I don't think Putin has been doing much bombing of the Kurds. That means he's been mostly bombing non-ISIS Islamist groups, some of whom have been supported by the West.
The western oriented rebels were backed by an international alliance spearheaded by USA - this is where it starts to get murky.
Yes, the US and UK have supported the Kurds. But other countries that are part of Operation Resolve (e.g. Saudi, Qatar, Turkey) haven't done so. They've supported Islamist groups, so has the US.
Russian cluster munition was used in Syria (that's a warcrime) - the British carpet bombing of Dresden was also a war crime. So was an international alliance-backed Islamist group's beheading of a 12 year old boy. What's your point?
LUHE: Russias lies in its propaganda is well documented, heck, they lie deliberately and obviously as part of the strategy. I would challenge you to find similar examples in the representation from western sources.
I did not claim that Kurds were the only rebels backed by the west. They were part of the western-oriented and more moderate groups backed by the western alliance. Once more you are simplifying the situation to the Kremlin talking point: Assad or ISIS/Al-Queda.
I can't agree with the whataboutery about cluster munition and Dresden. Please keep it in mind when some brainless SJW drone bring up Dresden to draw a moral equivalence between the warcrimes of ISIS and the west: Either we agree warcrimes are bad on their own or we don't.
The news media now is first and foremost about entertainment and nothing more ,its about ratings.thats where the money is.
$$$$$$$ are what counts.
Russias lies in its propaganda is well documented - yes, it does. Given as other people/groups/countries also pump out propaganda, I don't think this is a reason not to try and work with Russia.
I did not claim that Kurds were the only rebels backed by the west - correct, you did not. You merely failed to mention that Islamist rebels are also backed by the international alliance spearheaded by the US. What you wrote implied that the West only backs 'good guys' in Syria. Unfortunately, it does not.
I can't agree with the whataboutery about cluster munition and Dresden - and no comment about the Nour al-Din al-Zenki Movement beheading the 12 year old boy?
I'll fill you in: Haraka Nour ad-Din az-Zenki are a Syrian terrorist group named after a local 12 century sheikh. Their aim is Sharia in Syria. They are funded by Turkey and Saudi. Last July in Aleppo, they beheaded a 12 year old boy in the back of a pickup truck. The boy was asked for his final wish. He pleaded to be shot, not slaughtered. They refused, taunting him that they were worse than ISIS.
They were also funded by the US. Can you agree with the 'whataboutery' between Russian cluster munition and this incident?
PS - me and Bohm have drifted off-topic over the last few days. Apologies, Min.
The west was justified in anything it did in WWII to win. However many were killed, it ultimately saved more lives and that's before you get to "which lives".
It's like complaining that a mugger got punched in the face. So what, who cares.
The poster Just Fine from 2 days ago, " Trump is not going to ban the media " .
Uh-huh. Just like he didn't ban the New York Times, CNN, and politico from his news conference yesterday ? https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/5759053122764800/begins. Perhaps you might want to re-think that statement ? peace out, Mr. Flipper
No need to rethink - Trump has not banned the media. He excluded a couple from his briefing. The vast majority were not excluded. Obama did the same thing to Fox News and I didn't hear anyone making an uproar back then.
The sky is not falling - Trump will not ban the media. The news media is still not owned or controlled by the government.
Edited to add: I think the media using the word ban to report this story is to trigger people into hysterics. Maybe Trump was just in no mood for their shit yesterday. Kind of how I am getting tired of the Chicken Littles, every move Trump makes, the sky is falling.