ISIL, ISIS, Daesh discussion thread.

The firm reported to the CIA, the National Security Council and the Pentagon on the project with a mandate to portray Al-Qaeda in a negative light and track suspected sympathizers.
Click to expand...

Not really sure why they had to spend 540 million dollars to get someone to portray AQ to the western world in a negative light......surely they do that all by themselves for free? :confused:

A fool and their money...
 
Freakbro said:
Not really sure why they had to spend 540 million dollars to get someone to portray AQ to the western world in a negative light......surely they do that all by themselves for free? :confused:

A fool and their money...
Click to expand...

It's probably more for the Muslim world than us.
 
Its a pity the ceasefire has cratered. Had it held it could have allowed vital humanitarian aid to be brought in.

Meanwhile in Yemen...
 
Was never gonna happen - to many differences. Supposedly the US has been holding discussions with other partners about putting more military resources into Syria including potentially boots on the ground :S which would kind of force the issue with Russia one way or another - would be a bit of a game of brinkmanship which I don't think the US really has the stomach for even though Russia would likely blink first due to not having the logistics to back themselves up.

(This is the way they'd probably bring it in http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-37552749 - gives the US an excuse to act).
 
Last edited:
Rroff said:
Was never gonna happen - to many differences. Supposedly the US has been holding discussions with other partners about putting more military resources into Syria including potentially boots on the ground :S which would kind of force the issue with Russia one way or another - would be a bit of a game of brinkmanship which I don't think the US really has the stomach for even though Russia would likely blink first due to not having the logistics to back themselves up.

(This is the way they'd probably bring it in http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-37552749 - gives the US an excuse to act).
Click to expand...

The US already have boots on the ground, just not in a sizeable proportion yet. What do you mean by the Russian logistics? They currently have the ability to ship arms and troops freely. Look at their deployment of SAMs, aircraft and ships.
 
zoomee said:
And you think we can't do the same?

It's a PR game on all sides these wars.
Click to expand...

No I don't think we can. I think if our government told a media news outlet such as The Guardian, The Daily Fail, or the BBC to run an article that was favourable for British foreign policy, they'd tell the government to sod off.
 
scorza said:
No I don't think we can. I think if our government told a media news outlet such as The Guardian, The Daily Fail, or the BBC to run an article that was favourable for British foreign policy, they'd tell the government to sod off.
Click to expand...

.... Do you really, honestly believe that scorza?
 
RaohNS said:
.... Do you really, honestly believe that scorza?
Click to expand...

Yes - our press if far from perfect, and quite often gets things wrong, however the government spend more of their time hiding things from the media rather than telling them what to write.
 
RoboCod said:
The US already have boots on the ground, just not in a sizeable proportion yet. What do you mean by the Russian logistics? They currently have the ability to ship arms and troops freely. Look at their deployment of SAMs, aircraft and ships.
Click to expand...

If the US had a coalition willing to put serious military capabilities aimed at Syria in a game of brinkmanship the Russians simply couldn't match that logistically - they just couldn't divert that much away from other areas to Syria without compromising home defence capabilities, etc.

Almost wonder if the US is trying to do that to weaken Russia further - Ukraine would love that for instance if Russia had to pull resources from Crimea, etc.
 
Last edited:
RaohNS said:
... I expected better from you :p
Click to expand...

Look, I take everything I read in the media (lamestream or otherwise) with a pinch of salt. They all have their different agendas and biases, but I just don't see that they shill for our government. All the journalists have an over-inflated opinion of themselves and the way to be not taken seriously by their peers would be to be nice to any government - as former RT journos have no doubt found out to their cost.
 
scorza said:
Look, I take everything I read in the media (lamestream or otherwise) with a pinch of salt. They all have their different agendas and biases, but I just don't see that they shill for our government. All the journalists have an over-inflated opinion of themselves and the way to be not taken seriously by their peers would be to be nice to any government - as former RT journos have no doubt found out to their cost.
Click to expand...

What about BBC coverage of Corbyn? The #ToryElectionFraud? Their role in the Iraq war? Their refusal to cover tens of thousands who protested against the tories coming to power? Their coverage and clear bias with the EU (Remain)? No reporting (until 3days late) of the HSBC scandal?

The govt gives £200m+ per year to the PBC, he who pays the piper picks the tune. They just wouldn't give that kind of money with no strings attached.

They do exactly the same as the KCNA. Often its the "wacko" sites leaking information first. It still gets called crazy, but then when the MS run the same story (all be it days/weeks/months) later its no longer crazy.

Why not look into how uber got its contract? Why not start digging deeper with Red-Dead-Rebekah Brookes and the Murdoch press lies?

I agree far from perfect, but to expect any different is just naïve
 
Rroff said:
If the US had a coalition willing to put serious military capabilities aimed at Syria in a game of brinkmanship the Russians simply couldn't match that logistically - they just couldn't divert that much away from other areas to Syria without compromising home defence capabilities, etc.

Almost wonder if the US is trying to do that to weaken Russia further - Ukraine would love that for instance if Russia had to pull resources from Crimea, etc.
Click to expand...

I understand what you're saying now. It is a proxy war anyway, so your last paragraph is completely feasible ;)


scorza said:
Look, I take everything I read in the media (lamestream or otherwise) with a pinch of salt. They all have their different agendas and biases, but I just don't see that they shill for our government. All the journalists have an over-inflated opinion of themselves and the way to be not taken seriously by their peers would be to be nice to any government - as former RT journos have no doubt found out to their cost.
Click to expand...
.
Oh mate, they got you good! Don't you realise, you got double bluffed and what you believe is exactly what the corrupt western media intend to trick you into believing? Listen to RaohNS, he knows better. He is enlightened.
 
RaohNS said:
What about BBC coverage of Corbyn? The #ToryElectionFraud? Their role in the Iraq war? Their refusal to cover tens of thousands who protested against the tories coming to power? Their coverage and clear bias with the EU (Remain)? No reporting (until 3days late) of the HSBC scandal?

The govt gives £200m+ per year to the PBC, he who pays the piper picks the tune. They just wouldn't give that kind of money with no strings attached.

They do exactly the same as the KCNA. Often its the "wacko" sites leaking information first. It still gets called crazy, but then when the MS run the same story (all be it days/weeks/months) later its no longer crazy.

Why not look into how uber got its contract? Why not start digging deeper with Red-Dead-Rebekah Brookes and the Murdoch press lies?

I agree far from perfect, but to expect any different is just naïve
Click to expand...

Meanwhile, RT don't even acknowledge that a hospital in Aleppo was bombed, let alone by Assad forces. BBC much worse though.
 
RoboCod said:
The US already have boots on the ground, just not in a sizeable proportion yet. What do you mean by the Russian logistics? They currently have the ability to ship arms and troops freely. Look at their deployment of SAMs, aircraft and ships.
Click to expand...

Special forces units, dont usually count as boots on the ground.

What real purpose will invading yet another country do, we aren't there at the request of Syria, and actual forces would be a declaration of war.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom