• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

PROPAGANDA ALERT: BBC/Independent/AlJazeera Call Al Nusra 'Rebels'

HowardBThiname said:
Of course they have freedom of the Press. I didn't suggest otherwise. I only said that at one point in time, reporters were out to "get the real story" whereas now, they're more interested in developing the story along the lines the parent outlet wants.

There used to be integrity in the field. Now, there's a lot of yellow journalism.

I'm not saying they don't have a "right" to publish what they publish. I'm just questioning the fall from grace.
Click to expand...

Maybe I misread it, but your post seemed to suggest that the media were remiss in not using the officially-sanctioned terminology for the various groups, which to me are usually the least objective, most rhetorically-driven terms. I applaud the media for not kow-towing to governmental attempts at message management.
 
Andalublue said:
Maybe I misread it, but your post seemed to suggest that the media were remiss in not using the officially-sanctioned terminology for the various groups, which to me are usually the least objective, most rhetorically-driven terms. I applaud the media for not kow-towing to governmental attempts at message management.
Click to expand...

I think they were remiss for one reason. They're confusing the issue, and as a result, confusing readers/viewers.

The US has been supporting certain rebel factions (and sure, these guys are killers, too) but they were on our side. Al-Nusra is not one of those factions and has been involved in terrorist activities against the West. We have no agreement/alliance with them.

The articles cited in the OP, confuse al-Nusra with "rebel-held factions," and the implication is clear -- Russia is targeting the "rebels" not the "terrorists."

Given that Putin and Assad see both the "rebels" and what the West deems "terrorists" in the same light (all terrorists), it's easy to see that there's a fine line (from their POV) between the two.

Where the problem lies is in Obama's earlier claims that Putin was hitting some of the US-backed "rebels". Russia has denied that.

Then this story comes out that Russia once again hit "rebel-held" regions. That suggests that Putin is hitting the rebels we're funding, which would indicate a proxy war between the US and Russia. Only - that's not the truth. Al-Nusra is not one of the rebels we're funding. They're actually one of the groups the US also wants destroyed.

That's where the yellow journalism enters. Those specific media outlets are creating a story that doesn't jive with the facts.

Yes, they are free do so.

Is it respectable?

I don't think so.
 
HowardBThiname said:
I think they were remiss for one reason. They're confusing the issue, and as a result, confusing readers/viewers.

The US has been supporting certain rebel factions (and sure, these guys are killers, too) but they were on our side. Al-Nusra is not one of those factions and has been involved in terrorist activities against the West. We have no agreement/alliance with them.

The articles cited in the OP, confuse al-Nusra with "rebel-held factions," and the implication is clear -- Russia is targeting the "rebels" not the "terrorists."

Given that Putin and Assad see both the "rebels" and what the West deems "terrorists" in the same light (all terrorists), it's easy to see that there's a fine line (from their POV) between the two.

Where the problem lies is in Obama's earlier claims that Putin was hitting some of the US-backed "rebels". Russia has denied that.

Then this story comes out that Russia once again hit "rebel-held" regions. That suggests that Putin is hitting the rebels we're funding, which would indicate a proxy war between the US and Russia. Only - that's not the truth. Al-Nusra is not one of the rebels we're funding. They're actually one of the groups the US also wants destroyed.

That's where the yellow journalism enters. Those specific media outlets are creating a story that doesn't jive with the facts.

Yes, they are free do so.

Is it respectable?

I don't think so.
Click to expand...

No, I think the problem is that this is all about rhetorical semantics. What distinguishes a terrorist group from a rebel group, from an insurgent group, from an activist group, from a jihadi group? Can anyone assure anyone else that there are groups in Syria's civili war that are not committing atrocities? We've had reports of outrageous brutality involving just about every faction involved, have we not? As usual, it appears that the criteria for making any kind of distinction are either a numbers game ("We've counted 3x the number of outrages by Group X than by Group Y") or it's a simple, "My enemy's enemy is my friend". I'd suggest that the terrorist epithet is applicable to just about every faction involved.
 
Andalublue said:
No, I think the problem is that this is all about rhetorical semantics. What distinguishes a terrorist group from a rebel group, from an insurgent group, from an activist group, from a jihadi group? Can anyone assure anyone else that there are groups in Syria's civili war that are not committing atrocities? We've had reports of outrageous brutality involving just about every faction involved, have we not? As usual, it appears that the criteria for making any kind of distinction are either a numbers game ("We've counted 3x the number of outrages by Group X than by Group Y") or it's a simple, "My enemy's enemy is my friend". I'd suggest that the terrorist epithet is applicable to just about every faction involved.
Click to expand...

Not to mention that what the west is doing is actually state sponsored terror, since they have no permission of the government of said country to bomb the crap out of people.

Labels are important, but the problem is that the word terror and terrorism has been bastardised and exploited to such a degree that one has to question what it actually means these days.
 
HowardBThiname said:
Apples and oranges.

We have people in the US griping that our elections are "rigged," fraught with "hanging chad" scams, voter fraud and more. That doesn't give another nation the right to tell Obama to step down or they'll fund "rebels" to overthrow him.
Click to expand...
Your comparison is what is apples and oranges. Obama did not inherit the Presidency from his father, he does not run a secret police that imprisons and tortures dissidents, and American police have not been ordered to fire live ammunition at peaceful protesters during his tenure. Assad would never have held the 2014 election if there was even the slightest chance of him being defeated.
It doesn't really matter at this point in Syria. Obama is backing down in deference to Putin's plans. Assad can stay, but Obama never really had the right to demand that he step down in the first place. Had Obama not supported the failed Arab Spring revolts, he might have earned a legacy for himself. As it is - history will not remember him kindly.
Click to expand...

I doubt Putin cares too much about whether Assad personally keeps the throne. His goal is to maintain the naval base at Tartous, to maintain a friendly government in Syria, and (to a lesser extent) to crush the Chechen jihadists before they return to Russia. It makes zero sense from a practical perspective to maintain Assad in power when that is what drives the civil war in the first place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom