9 ms·

Take a step back and you'll realize just how feverish the US media propaganda machine is right now re: Syria. Every day we have new pictures of bloodied/dead S

Take a step back and you'll realize just how feverish the US media propaganda machine is right now re: Syria. Every day we have new pictures of bloodied/dead Syrian children, articles describing the horrors of war and frantic warnings of a genocide that could happen any day now. Now ask yourself: Why did you hear practically nothing about Syria for the past 4 years? Moreover, is anyone under the illusion that war isn't horrible? Did you think it was only strong, burly men getting killed before you saw that video of the kid in the ambulance? I'm not trying to take away from this story, but I also see it for what it is: manipulative propaganda being pushed by a country that has a proxy war to win. Finally, ask yourself this: Do you think all of the guns, bombs and technology we've provided to "freedom fighters" in Syria were only used to kill strong, burly men?

mhermher 10y ago
It's because SAA completed the encirclement of E Aleppo. You can pinpoint it to that event, just a few months ago. That is when all the hysteria started. To be fair, that encirclement is the worst thing to happen to the rebels in the entirety of the war. If they lose there, they have basically lost the war. It's happening, it will just trickle very slowly for the next few years. That is all unless there is stronger Western intervention (particularly by the US). The media campaign on Aleppo is just the war drums beating subtly to hopefully get the public behind a future intervention. Especially under a future Clinton admin. The coverage has been a disgrace though, hardly even acknowledging that the rebels in E Aleppo are overwhelmingly jihadists, fighting for an exclusionary Sunni theocracy.
- M_Grey 10y ago
  Most of the coverage I've seen has been pretty neutral on the "rebels", choosing to focus instead on the immense collateral damage to noncombatants.
  - apsec112 10y ago
    Only the pro-rebel noncombatants. Now that rebel-held east Aleppo is surrounded, there are articles every day about how terrible it is and how many people are suffering. But when loyalist-held west Aleppo - which has at least four times the population - was surrounded in fall 2013, not a peep from anyone.
    - M_Grey 10y ago
      I think that probably depends on your sources of information.
  - mhermher 10y ago
    It's a disguise of neutrality. They don't talk about the rebels or who they are or what they do, but miss no chance to vilify the Syrian and Russian governments. You see how it's not neutrail at all? The revolution is grossly misrepresented in mainstream Western media. The pro democracy protests of 2011 are very long gone. It''s become foreign powers using jihadis to topple Assad long ago. The coverage has lagged several years now and refuses to acknowledge the facts on the ground. The only reason there has been a response and coverage of ISIS is because of terrorist attacks in the west. As far as what is happening in Syria, ISIS is not particularly worse than most of the rebels in Idlib and Aleppo.
    - M_Grey 10y ago
      Pretty much anytime I see coverage (to be fair I'm watching BBC, reading things other than CNN or the like) it makes it clear that there are no good guys here, just various forms of victims and victimizers. If there's one steady factor I've noted across all sources though, it's the inability or lack of willingness to connect this incredible surge in violence and instability across North Africa and the Middle East to climate change and drought. The "Arab Spring" was just part of that; people who couldn't work, couldn't feed themselves or their families. It was always going to go downhill, but people love their narratives of hope.
nostromo 10y ago
The timing is very strange. It seems highly unlikely that Obama would initiate any new actions before the election as it would likely sink his preferred candidate. That makes me think that the CIA is pushing for more intervention after the election. I think this also explains why Hillary is taking every opportunity to resurrect Russia as America's boogyman, given that they're on the opposing side in Syria.
- jbooth 10y ago
  I'd say Russia being widely suspected of hacking her and all of her friends to help her opponent is a sufficient explanation for her to talk about.. them doing that..
  - cloakandswagger 10y ago
    Don't be gullible. They have no proof that Russia performed those hacks (I assume because you're on HN you understand that it is impossible to trace those attacks, and that identity is easily spoofed on the internet).
    - jbooth 10y ago
      There's a circumstantial case, and more importantly, Hillary very likely believes it. Even if she doesn't? The domestic political angle is a much better reason to bring it up in the debates than some 9-dimensional plan to invade Syria. It's an election.
      - secstate 10y ago
        The plan isn't 9-dimensional, and it's never "an election." The next leader of what is, at least for now, still one of the powerful nations in the world is about change. Only a fool wouldn't take advantage of having a rapt audience for three national debates to hammer "Russia bad" down our throughs if their hopeful foreign policy hopes to nail down our oil security for the next 50 to 100 years. What if Russia is not the evil empire?
Fluid_Mechanics 10y ago
What a lovely comment to see on HN regarding the genocidal suppression of a popular revolt. I suppose it's very tempting to falsely equivocate both sides when you have a tendency to distrust your own government.
- mhermher 10y ago
  This is ridiculous hyperbole. The only people engaging in genocidal activities are the Sunni rebels who have massacred villages of non-Sunnis. No action taken by the government was ever targetted a specific ethicity or religion. That is why it is still supported by every cut of Syrian society. Sunnis, shias, druze, christians, kurds, etc. Have you ever considered that the coverage you have consumed may be misrepresenting the war in order to push an agenda?
- popmystack 10y ago
  Yeah, the completely disingenuous rhetoric around these topics on HN is extremely grating for me, personally.
- apsec112 10y ago
  The major rebel forces in Syria are not a "popular revolt". They are professional, foreign-backed hardline Islamic extremists (which is why they could hold out for five years against Assad, Iran, and Hezbollah). "The alliance was formed in March 2015 under the supervision and coordination of Saudi cleric Dr Abdullah al-Muhaysini. It consists of Islamist rebel factions mainly active in the Idlib Governorate, with some factions active in the Hama and Latakia Governorates. In the course of the following months, it seized most of Idlib province. It is actively supported by Saudi Arabia and Turkey. In an October 2015 publication, the Washington D.C.-based Institute for the Study of War considered Jaish al-Fatah as one of the "powerbrokers" in Idlib, Hama, Daraa and Quneitra provinces, though not in Damascus province, being primarily "anti-regime" and "anti-Hezbollah" but not necessarily "anti-ISIS". At its founding, Jaish al-Fatah contained seven members, three of them—al-Nusra, Ahrar al-Sham, and Jund al-Aqsa—were directly connected to al-Qaeda or have a similar ideology. With Ahrar al-Sham being the largest group, al-Nusra and Ahrar al-Sham together were reported to represent 90 percent of the troops." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_of_Conquest https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_of_Conquest Discussion on Al Jazeera Arabic, "Should We Kill All Alawites?". (Alawites are the largest group in Syria backing the Assad government.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULtNYSUqYHw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULtNYSUqYHw
vacri 10y ago
> Moreover, is anyone under the illusion that war isn't horrible? Did you think it was only strong, burly men getting killed before you saw that video of the kid in the ambulance? Plenty of people in our cushy western societies are unaware of the realities of war. You want proof? Have a look at how much people have complained about the 5000-odd US military dead in Iraq over a period of greater than a decade. That's 10% of the dead in Vietnam in a similar, and there were single days with more dead soldiers in WWI and the US Civil War. It's a lot easier to be hawkish when someone else has to deal with the consequences of your opinion.
rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
Check out Adam Curtis' newest documentary, HyperNormalization. Among many, many, fascinating topics, Curtis details the fluctuating celebration and denouncement of Col. Qaddafi of Libya by western powers and media as a means to distract from the more complicated issues that were actually linked instead to Syria, such as the Lockerbie bombing. Syria, for decades, has both been a distraction and a distractive force in great power politics. We're only really paying attention now because, as Thomas L. Friedman put it: "Libya implodes, Syria explodes.
mikeash 10y ago
I've been hearing about horrible conditions in Syria just about nonstop since the war began. I don't think I'm hearing any more about it now, but if I am, it's probably because there's a big election coming up and this is an important issue for it.
ocschwar 10y ago
Take a step back and you might notice the following: One side in the war is methodically bombing bread queues and hospitals. Our media is reporting that one side in the war is methodically bombing bread queues and hospitals. I'd say the former is connected tightly to the latter.
- meira 10y ago
  Take another step back: One side is defending its territorial integrity with help of Russia. Another side are terrorists receiving support of US/NATO. Why shouldn't former totally obliterate the latter? Because of their big bully ally? At least don't make it looks like human rights defense, this is all propaganda.
  - girvo 10y ago
    Bombing civilians is never okay, though; it's not okay when the government does it, it's not okay when the rebels do it. It should be roundly condemned regardless of the perpetrator, and brushing it off as "defending territorial integrity" shows your _own_ bias, in my opinion. There are no "good guys" and there's a fucked messy situation there and I personally only have sympathy for the completely innocent people caught in the crossfire. Anyone doing the firing I have none for.
    - meira 10y ago
      If the people you call civilians are terrorists loaded with heavy guns gave by western "allies", I think it is ok to bomb them. I think it is not okay for a foreign country inadvertently bomb neither side, though.
  - ocschwar 10y ago
    One side, as a consistent modus operandi, seeks and destroys bread queues and hospitals. Don't try to paper that over.
- cloakandswagger 10y ago
  You are very impressionable I see. The only lens you have to view this war through is the one you're allowed to see, and you believe it! I guess the world really is that black and white then. Just like your movies.
tajen 10y ago
I often hear of US propaganda going through newspapers and Hollywood movies. From the outside, the effect is obvious. But internally, does anyone knows how it works? Does the CIA sponsor moviemakers if they show things this way or that way? Does someone blackmail journalists into following a line? Who decides what is the story to develop? What's in it for a journalist or a scenarist when they have to sway from depicting the situation neutrally and when they have to add a twist that may discredit them if discovered? Is it marketing which demonstrates that some topics are currently popular, therefore they all align on the same topic? Do they receive money from private interests who need to push war, do they receive blackmail, career advancement or are the journalists and scenarists simply endoctrined into those topics?
- wry_discontent 10y ago
  Read a book called Manufacturing Consent, it covers the media propaganda machine pretty well. Granted, it's of the Cold War era, but the principles are the same.
tzs 10y ago
> Now ask yourself: Why did you hear practically nothing about Syria for the past 4 years? The fighting in Syria and the associated problems has been regularly and frequently covered in US mainstream media since it started, shortly after the Arab Spring events in the region.

mhermher 10y ago

It's because SAA completed the encirclement of E Aleppo. You can pinpoint it to that event, just a few months ago. That is when all the hysteria started. To be fair, that encirclement is the worst thing to happen to the rebels in the entirety of the war. If they lose there, they have basically lost the war. It's happening, it will just trickle very slowly for the next few years. That is all unless there is stronger Western intervention (particularly by the US). The media campaign on Aleppo is just the war drums beating subtly to hopefully get the public behind a future intervention. Especially under a future Clinton admin. The coverage has been a disgrace though, hardly even acknowledging that the rebels in E Aleppo are overwhelmingly jihadists, fighting for an exclusionary Sunni theocracy.

M_Grey 10y ago
Most of the coverage I've seen has been pretty neutral on the "rebels", choosing to focus instead on the immense collateral damage to noncombatants.
- apsec112 10y ago
  Only the pro-rebel noncombatants. Now that rebel-held east Aleppo is surrounded, there are articles every day about how terrible it is and how many people are suffering. But when loyalist-held west Aleppo - which has at least four times the population - was surrounded in fall 2013, not a peep from anyone.
  - M_Grey 10y ago
    I think that probably depends on your sources of information.
- mhermher 10y ago
  It's a disguise of neutrality. They don't talk about the rebels or who they are or what they do, but miss no chance to vilify the Syrian and Russian governments. You see how it's not neutrail at all? The revolution is grossly misrepresented in mainstream Western media. The pro democracy protests of 2011 are very long gone. It''s become foreign powers using jihadis to topple Assad long ago. The coverage has lagged several years now and refuses to acknowledge the facts on the ground. The only reason there has been a response and coverage of ISIS is because of terrorist attacks in the west. As far as what is happening in Syria, ISIS is not particularly worse than most of the rebels in Idlib and Aleppo.
  - M_Grey 10y ago
    Pretty much anytime I see coverage (to be fair I'm watching BBC, reading things other than CNN or the like) it makes it clear that there are no good guys here, just various forms of victims and victimizers. If there's one steady factor I've noted across all sources though, it's the inability or lack of willingness to connect this incredible surge in violence and instability across North Africa and the Middle East to climate change and drought. The "Arab Spring" was just part of that; people who couldn't work, couldn't feed themselves or their families. It was always going to go downhill, but people love their narratives of hope.

nostromo 10y ago

The timing is very strange. It seems highly unlikely that Obama would initiate any new actions before the election as it would likely sink his preferred candidate. That makes me think that the CIA is pushing for more intervention after the election. I think this also explains why Hillary is taking every opportunity to resurrect Russia as America's boogyman, given that they're on the opposing side in Syria.

jbooth 10y ago
I'd say Russia being widely suspected of hacking her and all of her friends to help her opponent is a sufficient explanation for her to talk about.. them doing that..
- cloakandswagger 10y ago
  Don't be gullible. They have no proof that Russia performed those hacks (I assume because you're on HN you understand that it is impossible to trace those attacks, and that identity is easily spoofed on the internet).
  - jbooth 10y ago
    There's a circumstantial case, and more importantly, Hillary very likely believes it. Even if she doesn't? The domestic political angle is a much better reason to bring it up in the debates than some 9-dimensional plan to invade Syria. It's an election.
    - secstate 10y ago
      The plan isn't 9-dimensional, and it's never "an election." The next leader of what is, at least for now, still one of the powerful nations in the world is about change. Only a fool wouldn't take advantage of having a rapt audience for three national debates to hammer "Russia bad" down our throughs if their hopeful foreign policy hopes to nail down our oil security for the next 50 to 100 years. What if Russia is not the evil empire?

Fluid_Mechanics 10y ago

What a lovely comment to see on HN regarding the genocidal suppression of a popular revolt. I suppose it's very tempting to falsely equivocate both sides when you have a tendency to distrust your own government.

mhermher 10y ago
This is ridiculous hyperbole. The only people engaging in genocidal activities are the Sunni rebels who have massacred villages of non-Sunnis. No action taken by the government was ever targetted a specific ethicity or religion. That is why it is still supported by every cut of Syrian society. Sunnis, shias, druze, christians, kurds, etc. Have you ever considered that the coverage you have consumed may be misrepresenting the war in order to push an agenda?
popmystack 10y ago
Yeah, the completely disingenuous rhetoric around these topics on HN is extremely grating for me, personally.
apsec112 10y ago
The major rebel forces in Syria are not a "popular revolt". They are professional, foreign-backed hardline Islamic extremists (which is why they could hold out for five years against Assad, Iran, and Hezbollah). "The alliance was formed in March 2015 under the supervision and coordination of Saudi cleric Dr Abdullah al-Muhaysini. It consists of Islamist rebel factions mainly active in the Idlib Governorate, with some factions active in the Hama and Latakia Governorates. In the course of the following months, it seized most of Idlib province. It is actively supported by Saudi Arabia and Turkey. In an October 2015 publication, the Washington D.C.-based Institute for the Study of War considered Jaish al-Fatah as one of the "powerbrokers" in Idlib, Hama, Daraa and Quneitra provinces, though not in Damascus province, being primarily "anti-regime" and "anti-Hezbollah" but not necessarily "anti-ISIS". At its founding, Jaish al-Fatah contained seven members, three of them—al-Nusra, Ahrar al-Sham, and Jund al-Aqsa—were directly connected to al-Qaeda or have a similar ideology. With Ahrar al-Sham being the largest group, al-Nusra and Ahrar al-Sham together were reported to represent 90 percent of the troops." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_of_Conquest https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_of_Conquest Discussion on Al Jazeera Arabic, "Should We Kill All Alawites?". (Alawites are the largest group in Syria backing the Assad government.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULtNYSUqYHw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULtNYSUqYHw

vacri 10y ago

> Moreover, is anyone under the illusion that war isn't horrible? Did you think it was only strong, burly men getting killed before you saw that video of the kid in the ambulance? Plenty of people in our cushy western societies are unaware of the realities of war. You want proof? Have a look at how much people have complained about the 5000-odd US military dead in Iraq over a period of greater than a decade. That's 10% of the dead in Vietnam in a similar, and there were single days with more dead soldiers in WWI and the US Civil War. It's a lot easier to be hawkish when someone else has to deal with the consequences of your opinion.

rm_-rf_slash 10y ago

Check out Adam Curtis' newest documentary, HyperNormalization. Among many, many, fascinating topics, Curtis details the fluctuating celebration and denouncement of Col. Qaddafi of Libya by western powers and media as a means to distract from the more complicated issues that were actually linked instead to Syria, such as the Lockerbie bombing. Syria, for decades, has both been a distraction and a distractive force in great power politics. We're only really paying attention now because, as Thomas L. Friedman put it: "Libya implodes, Syria explodes.

mikeash 10y ago

I've been hearing about horrible conditions in Syria just about nonstop since the war began. I don't think I'm hearing any more about it now, but if I am, it's probably because there's a big election coming up and this is an important issue for it.

ocschwar 10y ago

Take a step back and you might notice the following: One side in the war is methodically bombing bread queues and hospitals. Our media is reporting that one side in the war is methodically bombing bread queues and hospitals. I'd say the former is connected tightly to the latter.

meira 10y ago
Take another step back: One side is defending its territorial integrity with help of Russia. Another side are terrorists receiving support of US/NATO. Why shouldn't former totally obliterate the latter? Because of their big bully ally? At least don't make it looks like human rights defense, this is all propaganda.
- girvo 10y ago
  Bombing civilians is never okay, though; it's not okay when the government does it, it's not okay when the rebels do it. It should be roundly condemned regardless of the perpetrator, and brushing it off as "defending territorial integrity" shows your _own_ bias, in my opinion. There are no "good guys" and there's a fucked messy situation there and I personally only have sympathy for the completely innocent people caught in the crossfire. Anyone doing the firing I have none for.
  - meira 10y ago
    If the people you call civilians are terrorists loaded with heavy guns gave by western "allies", I think it is ok to bomb them. I think it is not okay for a foreign country inadvertently bomb neither side, though.
- ocschwar 10y ago
  One side, as a consistent modus operandi, seeks and destroys bread queues and hospitals. Don't try to paper that over.
cloakandswagger 10y ago
You are very impressionable I see. The only lens you have to view this war through is the one you're allowed to see, and you believe it! I guess the world really is that black and white then. Just like your movies.

tajen 10y ago

I often hear of US propaganda going through newspapers and Hollywood movies. From the outside, the effect is obvious. But internally, does anyone knows how it works? Does the CIA sponsor moviemakers if they show things this way or that way? Does someone blackmail journalists into following a line? Who decides what is the story to develop? What's in it for a journalist or a scenarist when they have to sway from depicting the situation neutrally and when they have to add a twist that may discredit them if discovered? Is it marketing which demonstrates that some topics are currently popular, therefore they all align on the same topic? Do they receive money from private interests who need to push war, do they receive blackmail, career advancement or are the journalists and scenarists simply endoctrined into those topics?

wry_discontent 10y ago
Read a book called Manufacturing Consent, it covers the media propaganda machine pretty well. Granted, it's of the Cold War era, but the principles are the same.

tzs 10y ago

> Now ask yourself: Why did you hear practically nothing about Syria for the past 4 years? The fighting in Syria and the associated problems has been regularly and frequently covered in US mainstream media since it started, shortly after the Arab Spring events in the region.