Syria - What should we do if anything?

[spooky lynx 73]

Oh... Somebody give me a medic aid... Not again this "ZOMG free press exists!!!!!11".:butbut: I'm tired to explain why 'free press' is a fiction like Frankenstein. Not sure if it's just fat trollin' or total ignorance.

Edited December 24, 2012 by Spooky Lynx

[scrim 1]

I'm sad to disappoint you, but a free press does exist. Not really in Russia, I'll grant you that, but in the Western and some Eastern countries. You obviously have access to the Internet, so you ought to have access to the free press. Would you care for some suggestions about what papers to read Lynx? I'd be glad to be of assistance.

[eble 3]

Maybe it's old age or my time away from the UK, but you do realise in time that all media outlets have messages to tell, the BBC have been very one sided throughout this conflict.

Not saying too much but, since a few of the Air bases were overrun suddenly we started seeing cluster bombs all over the news?

I try to got my news from several news sites and read between the lines, without direct access it's insane to trust one source or sources from one country.

[spooky lynx 73]

Okay let me explain once again why free press is a myth. Every media outlet has an owner. So at first it writes about things that at least will not harm the owner's interests. Also media owners often have other activities and business in other economy branches. In other words they belong to exact businessmen, medium- or big-class, and they write about things that good for its owner at first. And what is good for media outlet owners does not equal good for other people and resemble real truth. It's owner's (and his friends') interests at first and truth at second.

BTW, can you explain the phrase "free press"? Free from what or from who, I wonder? From state control?

P.S. I don't even say that every article passes through editor in every outlet. So everything you read is corrected at least once by some person.

[[frl]myke 14]

@Spooky Lynx

Please don't confuse "free press" with "biased press". What you describe is biased press and you're surely right on what you say. That's why people should always countercheck with other available sources. If several sources which aren't related to each other and maybe even usually stand on different sides but all report the same thing, it is more than likely that it is true. I agree so far as you should never trust a single source only.

Free press on the other side, is meant that the press can even write articles against the own gouvernement without fearing to be imprisoned for simply telling the truth there. Surely they are also tied to the law so they simply can't name a Senator as a "a$$hole" but the surely may point out what he did wrong in their opinion. But there it can be biased again.

[spooky lynx 73]

If some media outlet writes something against the government then it just belongs to other camp. That does not mean it is truly free. You may be not imprisoned but fired by your employer and not find any good place to work because of his/her ties with other businessmen or officials if things you wrote about harmed his/her interests. And I doubt what is worse - jail or the revenge of your former boss, especially if he/she has wide ties around. So for me 'free press' sounds like 'pure democracy/socialism/communism' - utopy that never been anywhere, just definition from the dictionary.

[scrim 1]

Not saying too much but, since a few of the Air bases were overrun suddenly we started seeing cluster bombs all over the news?

Well, cluster bombs detonate quite a bit up in the air, so the FSA wouldd probably not be behind that. Detonating them on the ground would probably just lead to a lot of UXOs, and it would be easy for real experts to point it out as foul play. And let's not forget that the FSA is more guerilla than a regular force, so blowing up bombs every now and then in the middle of built up areas would hardly win them the approval of the locals, which would be a hard blow to them.

Lynx: Freedom of press indicates how freely the press in a country can work, i.e. to which extent they can investigate and publish articles without the interference of the state, or as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights would put it: "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference, and impart information and ideas through any media regardless of frontiers".

Since freedom of press exists in all Western countries, and either completely or partially in all Eastern European countries except for Belarus and Russia, as is demonstrated in this link. Whilst free press might be biased, it will hardly ever present made up articles/articles heavily influenced by governments to present a certain picture, which is why you can trust what is written by them with just a small pinch of salt. Since a truth full press is very highly valued in most of the mentioned countries, and many fact checking NGOs exist, any paper that would start making up stories about let's say Syria, would in a short time be called out and thus their sales would plummet. The free press can thus be relied upon not to be making up stories about Syria.

Edited December 24, 2012 by scrim

[[frl]myke 14]

If some media outlet writes something against the government then it just belongs to other camp. That does not mean it is truly free. You may be not imprisoned but fired by your employer and not find any good place to work because of his/her ties with other businessmen or officials if things you wrote about harmed his/her interests. And I doubt what is worse - jail or the revenge of your former boss, especially if he/she has wide ties around. So for me 'free press' sounds like 'pure democracy/socialism/communism' - utopy that never been anywhere, just definition from the dictionary.

That might be true in Russia but surely not for the rest of the world. But there i understand that your opinion is biased because that's how it works in your country. Believe it or not, there is free press in almost all western countries. And if you chose the profession "Journalist", you're still free to chose your workplace at first and i doubt that any Journalist would work for a press that is completely opposite to the journalists opinion and views.

[spooky lynx 73]

Myke;2268232']That might be true in Russia but surely not for the rest of the world. But there i understand that your opinion is biased because that's how it works in your country. Believe it or not' date=' there is free press in almost all western countries. And if you chose the profession "Journalist", you're still free to chose your workplace at first and i doubt that any Journalist would work for a press that is completely opposite to the journalists opinion and views.[/quote']

Ah yes, so why there were so many cases of forcing journalists to apologise publicly or even leave their job after some politically incorrect words? Hey but it's their view, their opinion, why do they have to suffer after expressing it? Free press you say? Sure I don't believe in it as I don't believe in the existence of pure communism or democracy. People are not so different either in Russia or in EU or in US. And if you will pass the road of big boss he will make you sorry about it. The difference is just in the ways to do it. Here you can be beaten in the dark corner, there you can be firmly rejected for new workplace because of some reasons. I know many employers even check social media pages of those who apply to the job, so it's not hard to find a reason to reject.

[MAVEN 1]

I think most of you misunderstood the meaning of "free press".

Some may see it as literally free (take away, no need to pay) some may see it as "freedom of speech" yet others see it as falsely marketed free press.

What free press actually is - The journalists are free to roam the world and collect information, redactors are free to create articles, press agencies are free to have their own sources and publish, BUT, regardless of anything, every press has to have it's content pre-aproved, either by inner staff or fed/govt directly, where do you think press gets it's money from and delivers you the "free press" daily? Nothing is free, even free things. This applies to whole world, the difference between "free press" and "biased press" is that free press is advertised as free and unaltered while biased press is openly known to be heavily altered and people accept it as that.

An example of true free press is Wikileaks, and we all know that no government likes Wikileaks because information leaked via its channels is dangerous for stability of this world as masses don't know so many things about what's really going on, it's so easy to make lots of people do things for you with lots of lies and a pinch of truth on top of that.

Scrim. Your source is news, I got it. Keep reading, in fact I encourage you to do so, I've been trying to explain things to a wrong person ;)

Anyway, I'm going to leave this conversation as it's becoming pointless to argue about something and with someone who fiercely rejects to accept the truth, and on top of that breaking rules leads to penalties, something I never did on any other forum.

[max power 21]

Ah yes, so why there were so many cases of forcing journalists to apologise publicly or even leave their job after some politically incorrect words? Hey but it's their view, their opinion, why do they have to suffer after expressing it? Free press you say? Sure I don't believe in it as I don't believe in the existence of pure communism or democracy. People are not so different either in Russia or in EU or in US. And if you will pass the road of big boss he will make you sorry about it. The difference is just in the ways to do it. Here you can be beaten in the dark corner, there you can be firmly rejected for new workplace because of some reasons. I know many employers even check social media pages of those who apply to the job, so it's not hard to find a reason to reject.

I'm not sure I'm aware of an instance like this around where I live, but I would imagine that in those cases, their expression was found to be breaking libel laws.

[scrim 1]

Ah yes, so why there were so many cases of forcing journalists to apologise publicly or even leave their job after some politically incorrect words? Hey but it's their view, their opinion, why do they have to suffer after expressing it? Free press you say? Sure I don't believe in it as I don't believe in the existence of pure communism or democracy. People are not so different either in Russia or in EU or in US. And if you will pass the road of big boss he will make you sorry about it. The difference is just in the ways to do it. Here you can be beaten in the dark corner, there you can be firmly rejected for new workplace because of some reasons. I know many employers even check social media pages of those who apply to the job, so it's not hard to find a reason to reject.

That's about work place behaviour and racism, freedom of press doesn't mean you can write whatever you want and be legally entitled to be kept on the job.

Maven: No, that's insanely wrong. No free press has to get its articles OK'd by a government. The fact that you believe that demonstrates your lacking knowledge of the concept of freedom of press. Yes, of course papers employ people to dubble check articles before they're released. Would you want to start a newspaper that goes great only to see it crumble because an employe who didn't get a raise decided to mess up an article, or because another one resorted to illegal methods to gain insider knowledge.

I can't say I feel heart broken upon hearing that someone who does not know what a free press is thinks I'm wrong to go to news sources to find out what goes on in the world.

[Jastreb 69]

There is no such thing called freedom of speech. What do you think whats the editors job? Keep dreaming.

Plus the fact that media is widely used by western forces in fabricating "news", so they can present to sheep like you that what they do is good, and what "enemy" does is wrong.

The moment you realise that you'll be one step closer to freedom of thought, then you can work on speech.

Cheers.

[spooky lynx 73]

There is no such thing called freedom of speech. What do you think whats the editors job? Keep dreaming.

This.

[scrim 1]

There is no such thing called freedom of speech. What do you think whats the editors job? Keep dreaming.

Do you belong to the tin foil crowd, or the one that hasn't grown up with a free press and thus assumes that the same applies to the rest of the world just because?

If you don't even know what the editor does on a newspaper, or how exactly his presence does nothing to interfere with the freedom of press, then you simply know very little of the free press. And knowing very little of it, I'd say you'd better get informed on what it really is, how it works, etc. before you claim that they fabricate stories.

[Jastreb 69]

Do you belong to the tin foil crowd, or the one that hasn't grown up with a free press and thus assumes that the same applies to the rest of the world just because?

If you don't even know what the editor does on a newspaper, or how exactly his presence does nothing to interfere with the freedom of press, then you simply know very little of the free press. And knowing very little of it, I'd say you'd better get informed on what it really is, how it works, etc. before you claim that they fabricate stories.

Country where I was born but sadly dont exist anymore was more free than you ever will be, even it was socialist/communist ruled. To go in depth about this matter will lead this topic to wrong way, which we dont want to do, but Ill just say that there will always be people like you and people like me.

You believe them? Then be it, but I have the right not to.

Cheers.

[batto 17]

Saudi Arabia and Quatar aren't really democracies, but they have not gone apeshit (or should we call it "go Assad"?) on their populations, which just might be why they aren't about to be overthrown due to a civil war. Here's the thing about regimes around the world: Most countries aren't democracies, so you can't really just go ahead and say "no, we're only going to deal with democracies, and shut down our embassies in countries that aren't", because the world would pretty much stop, and spreading democracy would be limited to invasions. When the regimes we deal with go Assad on their own population, we have a tendency of imposing embargos, cutting relations, supporting the opposition and at times even launching military interventions, all of which tend to be opposed by two certain permanent members of the UN Security Council, namely the two countries that do not have a very good history regarding democracy even at home.

Yes, everyone does dirty things, but even dirt has very different shades, and the Western world rarely ventures into the same shades of dirt that is commonly inhabited by the East, or more specifically, Russia. I'm not "ashaming" myself, because I'm not the one of us who are lying. Your very limited support by others here on the forums when it comes to these topics should indicate that you might not be a very good or unbiased analysist.

How do you sleep when you justify dictatorships where dictator didn't go "apeshit"?

Does "Assad went apeshit" mean that Assad ordered Syrian forces that sometimes fucks up (as US forces do in middle east, I'm not justifying it) to fight foreign sponsored armed militants who scream Allahu Akbar almost constantly on _every_ single video they make and who caused maybe more civilian causalities sometimes only for their Fox News propaganda material?

Does "Kim Jong-un didn't go apeshit" mean that North Korean people are satisfied with the regime because if they weren't it'd be easy for them to acquire weapons, fight state forces and make Kim Jong-un "go apeshit"? My point is that in other dictatorships, those you justify and not care about, such revolution that would make dictator "go apeshit" cannot happen because regime has too much control and there'd be no foreign support for rebels.

Edited December 25, 2012 by batto

[scrim 1]

Massive: Yeah, Yugoslavia was a ruled by a horrible dictator who mixed a deadly coctail of ethnicities that had a history of not getting along. You were not born in a free country, no matter what the regime at the time said about it, and I live in a free country, despite what the regime said about the West.

Batto: Where ever did I say that it justifies their rule? I didn't, so stop responding to imaginary sentences.

No, Assad's forces don't "sometimes fuck up". Saying that is just as bad as saying that the SS "fucked up sometimes" in regards to their massacres. And no, no Coalition/ISAF/NATO forces have ever come close to doing what Assad's forces have done in just a few months. The fact that a bunch of idiotic jihadists have turned up is something that Assad and them are guilty for. They for turning up, and Assad for provocing such outrage in the region.

The reason that the Western world can justify its relationships with regimes who don't go apeshit is because A, most countries in the world aren't democratic, and isolating yourself from everyone who isn't just doesn't work, which is why ties haven't been cut with Saudi Arabia, China, Quatar, Russia, etc. And B, keeping your ties with those countries brings a more peaceful influence towards the regimes, as they are faced with either responding to demonstrations relatively well, or loose support, backing, trade agreements, etc. with us if they do decide to cross the line, like Ghaddafi and Assad did. And C, it can help present the opportunity of democracy in the country, or even the region, which brings us to D, if we have ties with them, we can do our best to ease their transition into democracy and build a more solid base for it.

North Korea is one of the countries the Western world does not have ties with, because that country has gone above and beyond in terms of apeshit against both the population and against other countries. It is also such a militarized country, it even has nuclear weapons, that attempts at destabilising the regime there would simply be irresponsible and cause more damage than good.

Edited December 25, 2012 by scrim

[batto 17]

Batto: Where ever did I say that it justifies their rule? I didn't, so stop responding to imaginary sentences.

You've just justified it again in your 2nd paragraph.

No, Assad's forces don't "sometimes fuck up". Saying that is just as bad as saying that the SS "fucked up sometimes" in regards to their massacres. And no, no Coalition/ISAF/NATO forces have ever come close to doing what Assad's forces have done in just a few months.

Are you seriously implying that Syrian forces target civilians just for [what]?

Here is one quote from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_in_the_War_in_Afghanistan_(2001–present):

Professor Marc W. Herold of the University of New Hampshire estimated that in the 20-month period between October 7, 2001 and June 3, 2003, at least 3,100 to 3,600 civilians were directly killed by U.S.-led forces.

There's more, check it out. Add civilian causalities from drone attacks in Pakistan. Where are your numbers of Assad's massacres?

The fact that a bunch of idiotic jihadists have turned up is something that Assad and them are guilty for. They for turning up, and Assad for provocing such outrage in the region.

Sorry, I don't understand what you've just said.

The reason that the Western world can justify its relationships with regimes who don't go apeshit is because A, most countries in the world aren't democratic, and isolating yourself from everyone who isn't just doesn't work, which is why ties haven't been cut with Saudi Arabia, China, Quatar, Russia, etc. And B, keeping your ties with those countries brings a more peaceful influence towards the regimes, as they are faced with either responding to demonstrations relatively well, or loose support, backing, trade agreements, etc. with us if they do decide to cross the line, like Ghaddafi and Assad did. And C, it can help present the opportunity of democracy in the country, or even the region, which brings us to D, if we have ties with them, we can do our best to ease their transition into democracy and build a more solid base for it.

Why your free country doesn't apply same strategy with Syria (eg. first help them to get rid of FSA to establish peace)?

North Korea is one of the countries the Western world does not have ties with, because that country has gone above and beyond in terms of apeshit against both the population and against other countries. It is also such a militarized country, it even has nuclear weapons, that attempts at destabilising the regime there would simply be irresponsible and cause more damage than good.

Still, I'd rather bomb the sh*t out of North Korea regime as I've much more sympathy with people not brainwashed by religion.

Edited December 25, 2012 by batto

[Amra 10]

I trust that you are familiar with the concept of irony? I'd rather pay you than have you spam more random films in this thread. First it was something from Syrian state television or whatever, and then you attempted to draw some strange conclusion about the very complex situation in Syria by posting a film depicting nothing else than common football hooligans.

What would you say if it were taxi drivers for example? Does the fact that they like football makes them no-syrians or what? As for media, I once watched CNN and reporter asked wounded civilians who did that. They answered him - FSA. That guy said then - civilians are mistaken for sure. FSA fights for freedom, it's only Assad's "regime" who eats children. As for spaming you'd better remember the so called "freedom of speech" and cool down because I have my opinions as you do. Better focus on a content dispute.

On topic - interesting news channel on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/user/newsanna/videos?flow=grid&view=0. A lot of videos with recorded crimes of FSA: sniper attacks on medic vehicles with wounded, armories with weapons and drugs, mass-graves of civilians killed by FSA and other. Might be a painful sight so be carefull.

Edited December 25, 2012 by Amra
On topic - news

[scrim 1]

Batto: No. I justify the ties with them. I clearly stated that it does not justify the regime, how on Earth could you miss that?

Attacking civilian targets is a method of putting down uprisings in that has been essentially the only way the Middle Eastern countries have resorted to since their various independences started around half a century ago. It's a matter of terrorising the population into stop supporting the uprising, and it is globally speaking the most used method of putting down uprisings.

Oh yes, the unbiased, undoubtedly truthful Wikipedia, with its many quotes. Even if that particular quote would actually be true, it'd mean that US forces in Afghanistan still have behaveed better than Assad's. That qoute spans a 20 month time period, in which 3600 civilians are claimed to have been killed. The uprising in Syria has gone on for around 21 months now, and at least 30,000 civilians have been recorded as dead, with the real numbers most likely much higher.

Why the Western countries don't apply the same strategy with Syria? Excuse me, did you just ask that and read what I wrote? Assad has gone apeshit on his population. When regimes go apeshit on their population, Western countries cut ties and stop working with the country in question. Is that clear enough?

Amra: Is it that hard to read what I wrote? Seriously, explaining why the actions of a few football hooligans is completely irrelevant to something even remotely complicated should never be neccesary. Just the fact that it's a few persons should be enough of an explanation.

Go ask the moderators if freedom of speech applies to these forums. Go ahead, I won't stop you. Considering your language, it's rather ironic that you're telling me to "cool down".

Edited December 25, 2012 by scrim

[batto 17]

No. I justify the ties with them. I clearly stated that it does not justify the regime, how on Earth could you miss that?

By justifying ties with them you justify them.

Attacking civilian targets is a method of putting down uprisings in that has been essentially the only way the Middle Eastern countries have resorted to since their various independences started around half a century ago. It's a matter of terrorising the population into stop supporting the uprising, and it is globally speaking the most used method of putting down uprisings.

Bullshit. Civilian causalities are always where rebels are.

Oh yes, the unbiased, undoubtedly truthful Wikipedia, with its many quotes.

Hahaha. I unfortunately expected this. There's really no point talking with you (Hint: Wikipedia contains references compared to your non-existent sources).

Even if that particular quote would actually be true, it'd mean that US forces in Afghanistan still have behaveed better than Assad's. That qoute spans a 20 month time period, in which 3600 civilians are claimed to have been killed. The uprising in Syria has gone on for around 21 months now, and at least 30,000 civilians have been recorded as dead, with the real numbers most likely much higher.

No. This number estimates is all deaths in Syria civil war that is it includes civilians, rebels, Syrian forces, police, ...

Why the Western countries don't apply the same strategy with Syria? Excuse me, did you just ask that and read what I wrote? Assad has gone apeshit on his population. When regimes go apeshit on their population, Western countries cut ties and stop working with the country in question. Is that clear enough?

Did YOU read what I wrote? Syrian forces fights FSA, they don't terrorize Syria. What TV station brainwashes you FFS? =/

When regimes go apeshit on their population, Western countries cut ties and stop working with the country in question. Is that clear enough?

You forgot to add that in case of Syria western countries escalate conflict by supporting rebels.

Consider this my last reply to you.

On topic - interesting news channel on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/user/newsanna...ow=grid&view=0. A lot of videos with recorded crimes of FSA: sniper attacks on medic vehicles with wounded, armories with weapons and drugs, mass-graves of civilians killed by FSA and other. Might be a painful sight so be carefull.

http://liveleak.com contains lots of FSA videos. You must just get used to constant "Allahu Akbar" in every video.

[Tonci87 163]

Country where I was born but sadly dont exist anymore was more free than you ever will be, even it was socialist/communist ruled. To go in depth about this matter will lead this topic to wrong way, which we dont want to do, but Ill just say that there will always be people like you and people like me.

You believe them? Then be it, but I have the right not to.

Cheers.

A country were you have been beaten up by the police for singing croatian songs in a bar doesn´t sound like a "free" country.

Yeah, stuff like that actually happened on a daily basis.

A country that sends its State Security Service to other countrys to kill people doesn´t sound that free

List of international kills the world knows about, there may be many more

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Security_Administration

Never say that Yugoslavia was a free country!

Maybe it was kind of free for serbians, but the other nationalities had to suffer greatly.

[scrim 1]

Amra: You're breaking my heart, how can I find this a subject worth debating without you? And aren't you one to speak regarding insults? I believe it was you as you said yourself who got cautioned for insults.

Batto: I'm just gonna go ahead and guess that you live in Russia, correct?

Yes, the civilian casualties tend to occur where the rebels are. That is because the Syrian military sends shells and bombs towards towns controlled by the rebels. Seriously, if you're going to make those goals on yourself I understand why you can't keep posting replies. Or do you mean that the rebels have gotten control of fighter jets, and are using those to bomb themselves to kill civilians?

No, of course you don't justify regimes by having diplomatic ties with them, and I explained why. If you insist on not understanding that, your loss.

Yes, Wikipedia contains references. Here's the thing, anyone can be a reference, which is why only a fool would go there to get an understanding of what's happening in the world. But if you insist it's a good place to gather information, go ahead and read their article on the Syrian civil war. Here's a hint, it agrees with me quite a lot, and not so much with you at all.

And no, that number does not reflect all casualties in the Syrian conflict. I took a look at the over all casualty numbers, and subtracted the ones from the combatant sides. The over all numbers are much higher, both in regards to recorded casualties on all sides and in regards to unrecorded civilian deaths, as is customary.

Yes, I read what you wrote, and it's ridiculous. There's pretty much only three news sources you can go to for that sort of "information": The tin foil hat news, RT, or another news source from a country that hasn't heard of freedom of press, or democracy.

Ah, I see that you have joined Amra in his Youtube links debating. I wonder if anyone on Earth can upload almost anything they want on Youtube? Maybe the Syrian regime and state media aren't the only ones from Syria who can do that?

Your tactic is rather obvious: Claim that nonsense is true, and link to worthless source for backup. If worthless source if accepted by the other party, great (!), endless source material that can support anything I say. If other party says it's a worthless source, simply say "why I've never! I can't debate with someone who can't accept my source, good bye!"

[oxmox 73]

and at least 30,000 civilians have been recorded as dead, with the real numbers most likely much higher.

The informations about death tolls in Syria are vague and often the infos are not from independent sources i.e. Syrian Observatory For Human Rights. But of course the death toll will raise the longer the war will take. The danger of "revenge" is high aswell if the Islamists/rebels would get into power.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Syrian_civil_war

----

Syrian activists' reports that chemical weapons had been used against rebels.

Israel says: "We have seen reports from the opposition. It is not the first time. The opposition has an interest in drawing in international military intervention," Vice Prime Minister Moshe Yaalon said on Army Radio.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/25/us-syria-crisis-israel-idUSBRE8BO02W20121225

Edited December 25, 2012 by oxmox