What is foolish? Blind faith in a regime, yes. I look at matters with eyes open though.
ISIL, ISIS, Daesh discussion thread.
- Thread starter RoboCod
- Start date
What is foolish? Blind faith in a regime, yes. I look at matters with eyes open though.
I don't think either of those scenarios is any more right - one just has a nicer outward appearance the other a more raw brutal truth.
EDIT: Very complicated situation though - there were those repressed under Assad who I have absolutely no sympathy for.
Last edited:
No, I don't either in the broadest stroke of the brush. Assad must go. The problem is ensuring a safe transition. ISIS must not be entrenched or enter into a nation state as head of millions. While Assads barbarity has its limits, theirs knows none. While Assad assures some sections of society protection (some minorities), ISIS cut their heads asunder.
I know that if faced with that consequence i would rather be in Government held territory than the damocles sword infested areas of ISIS.
It is complex but my view has always been: ISIS destroyed quickly and cleanly then Assad leaves in an orderly way.
i think that makes it all 3 parties involved* to have bombed a hospital now isn't it?
*well the three bombing from the air i genuinely don't know if ISIS has bombed any hospitals of late
thats what i mean
Russia did one a while back iirc , the Americans have done at least one, now Assad has done one.
All have bombed indiscriminate targets at least once. I just think that this one must constitute a war crime because of it likely being done by Syria. What about holding the other nations: US, France and Russia on charges of war crimes for doing exactly the same?
This is war.
This is war.
Anyone watched the videos from the "bombed hospital"? - seems they forgot to tell the actors to stay in character all the time the cameras are rolling. One of them a guy switches from laughing to holding his head when he realises the camera is turning towards him and in another someone who moments before was on a stretcher with their legs apparently all smashed up gets up and walks off in the background.
Video please. Even the Russians have admitted that the hospital was really bombed, so I don't know where you're coming from with this conspiracy theorist stuff.
Can't link to them due to the site they are on - google search "Keep your eyes on the "injured" guy on the right" and you should find links to both of them.
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 7,613
I've seen the first one you mentioned. Guy has a big grin on his face as the camera pans across and then realises he's in shot and starts acting like he's hurt.
OK, the video is here.
There's a few reasons why I have trouble believing it's fake.
Firstly: if the video is fake, who exactly is it supposed to be helping? It was released by Al Jazeera, an anti-American, pro-Palestinian media corporation owned by the Qatari government, which was kicked out of Egypt for claiming that the Egyptian President (Abdel Fattah Saeed Hussein Khalil el-Sisi) is a secret Zionist with Jewish roots. So if the video is fake, what is its purpose and which side of the conflict is it allegedly assisting? It doesn't help the West. It doesn't help Syria. It doesn't help Russia.
Secondly: the guy on the right has his hand on his head, but there's no evidence that he's (a) genuinely injured, or (b) even pretending to be injured. If he wants people to think he's injured, why isn't he sitting with the injured people receiving treatment? As far as I can see he's just leaning against the wall with his hand on his head in a resting position, as people do often do. If anything, he looks bored.
Thirdly: his hand was on his head before the camera panned across. If this is supposed to be part of an injury act, why is he still smiling? Surely if he's just prepared his pose for the camera his face should be ready too. But it's not. He's not even looking at the camera; he genuinely doesn't expect it to be on him. This militates against any suggestion that he was posing in a way that's supposed to simulate injury.
Fourthly: he quickly wipes the smile off his face as the camera pans across, but there's nothing in the video that explains why he was smiling in the first place. Could it be fatigue? Black humour? Nerves? Good old fashioned insensitivity? Whatever the case, he knows it's inappropriate and hastily changes his expression. This is not evidence of a fake injury, as even some Redditors have pointed out.
Fifthly: with all the genuine carnage and grief sloshing around Syria right now, why would anyone waste time and energy faking footage of injuries when you can find real ones on any street corner? It doesn't make any sense.
I'm not seriously saying there is any conspiracy - I don't even know if the videos are actually from/related to the hospital in that instance or if someone has reposted videos from another event, etc. just found it well not exactly amusing but it is kind of funny that the footage so far has instances of people appearing to be injured one moment and uninjured the next.
Safety and/or to fit a narration? there were instances in Egypt where the press was seen posing scenes in back alleys well away from any trouble.
Its not atypical if you've seen scenes from something like the walking dead being shot to have a lot of extras peripheral to the camera who may or may not be in shot and/or sometimes aren't as well organised as those within the intended shooting space - usually if someone was obviously not in character they'd either just reshoot, digitally edit or cut that bit, etc. if it was some kind of conspiracy they'd probably look closer at stuff like that but if its a posed press shot then its more probable that it was missed in editing.
Safety and/or to fit a narration? there were instances in Egypt where the press was seen posing scenes in back alleys well away from any trouble.
Its not atypical if you've seen scenes from something like the walking dead being shot to have a lot of extras peripheral to the camera who may or may not be in shot and/or sometimes aren't as well organised as those within the intended shooting space - usually if someone was obviously not in character they'd either just reshoot, digitally edit or cut that bit, etc. if it was some kind of conspiracy they'd probably look closer at stuff like that but if its a posed press shot then its more probable that it was missed in editing.
Last edited:
I haven't seen any evidence of that yet.
But this video has been filmed in an unsafe place, as you can see here:
There's nothing to suggest the scene has been manipulated to fit a narration. Also, in this clip the guy in the blue top (the alleged fake injury bloke) looks more like a member of staff to me than a patient.
The English clip above has a clear editing cut at ~0.55, but it's not clear to me where the 7 second clip on ******** is supposed to fit in. And again: if this is all faked, who exactly is it supposed to be helping? I can't see how it would help anyone involved in the conflict.
Can you give some examples?
Journalist Vanessa Beeley talks about the situation in Aleppo. She also touches upon the hijacking of the Syrian civil defense force.
"Campaign of dehumanisation by the Western media of the people of Syria. Those in West Aleppo being described as Assad supporters. These people are not necessarily Assad supporters the difference is they don't believe in killing Syria to improve Syria"
Those are the people who get slaughtered if the insurgents get the support they need from the US/UK, horrific scenes of war on our TV sets help them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8mA0h7dCKI
"Campaign of dehumanisation by the Western media of the people of Syria. Those in West Aleppo being described as Assad supporters. These people are not necessarily Assad supporters the difference is they don't believe in killing Syria to improve Syria"
Those are the people who get slaughtered if the insurgents get the support they need from the US/UK, horrific scenes of war on our TV sets help them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8mA0h7dCKI
The problem with many of these sort of things is you don't actually know if "the people" wanted change or not. Was it a majority or just a vocal minority? The reality is we really don't know. Considering most of the military were still intact And most of the populated centres were still in government control you could argue that it was a minority, much like the war in Libya.
It's why we try and have democratic elections, that way you can count the vote and see who wins. Otherwise what's to stop another country deciding that the 2011 riots in London and other cities was actually the will of the people? If they gained access to weaponry and had the backing of outside entities those riots could easily have turned into a fairly major conflict depending on how dedicated they were. You wouldn't argue that "the people" wanted our government out though would you?
Last edited:
Ah I see, so killing people in West Aleppo bad, killing people in East Aleppo (which is happening right now) good? Got it!
Great summary, i'll file that in the bin.
These people are stuck in Eastern Aleppo in the middle of a war and are effectively human shields.
Last edited: