Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Brother_Spirit

Trump Freezes White Helmets Funding

22 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Brother_Spirit
Posted (edited)
Quote

Trump's Syria aid freeze hits 'White Helmets' rescue workers

The U.S. has suspended aid to the Syrian humanitarian group known as the White Helmets, the State Department confirmed to ABC News.

The money is part of a $200 million package of aid to Syria that was frozen in March and is still "under review," according to a State Department official. President Donald Trump has said he would like to withdraw the U.S. presence in Syria and have other countries pay for stabilizing and rebuilding the country after the fight against ISIS.

https://abcnews.go.com/International/trumps-syria-aid-freeze-hits-white-helmets-rescue/story?id=54944387

The timing is odd, now that the OPCW team have left Douma in Syria.

Did Trump realized that the White Helmets are not humanitarian heroes, but good actors?

Edited by Clockwork_Spirit
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
ChaosRose

From your own article:

The White Helmets are an all-volunteer emergency medical services group that responds to bombings and airstrikes in Syria to tend to the injured e buried in debris and collapsed buildings. They've often been seen in videos rescuing children as explosions continue. Their work has been funded in part by the U.S. – and they've been hailed for their heroism by the Trump administration.

The White Helmets rush into the chaotic scenes of bombings, often only to be targeted themselves by Syrian, Iranian, and Russian attacks. Russia has also smeared them in an ongoing disinformation campaign as "terrorists" or for "staging" chemical weapons attacks.

 

And you're helping them.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brother_Spirit
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, ChaosRose said:

 

And you're helping them.

 

1e011w.jpg

They are not helping themselves.

Edited by Clockwork_Spirit
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChaosRose

You're helping the bad guys do bad things.

That's not nice.

And I'm not drinking any of the kool-aid you're serving, so forget about it. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brother_Spirit
Posted (edited)
35 minutes ago, ChaosRose said:

You're helping the bad guys do bad things.

That's not nice.

And I'm not drinking any of the kool-aid you're serving, so forget about it. 

Do you agree with Trump that the funding should be removed?

Edited by Clockwork_Spirit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bee
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Clockwork_Spirit said:

The timing is odd, now that the OPCW team have left Douma in Syria.

Did Trump realized that the White Helmets are not humanitarian heroes, but good actors?

 

I think Trump has been boxed into, in essence, supporting the terrorists in Syria..... but hopefully he personally realizes or
is beginning to realize that the White Helmets are not as they seem..... from the article their funding is said to be hit
as part of the package of withdrawing aid to Syria... 

"The money is part of a $200 million package of aid to Syria that was frozen in March and is still "under review," according to a State Department official. President Donald Trump has said he would like to withdraw the U.S. presence in Syria and have other countries pay for stabilizing and rebuilding the country after the fight against ISIS."

It's shameful that the British Government also support terrorists group in Syria which include aid to the White Helmets - 

Citizens in countries like the UK don't understand that they (we) could be in the same position as the Syrian people one day...
and Islamic groups could be used to destabilize and destroy the kind of society that we have now... as part of the New World Order agenda...

so when I see Boris Johnson proudly talking about the millions of pounds that British Taxpayers send to the White Helmets I think...

"You idiot... you gullible fool...."
 

 

Edited by bee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bee

 

This is a good interview ---- the nitty gritty about the White Helmets starts at 19 mins...
 

Vanessa Beeley Exposes the White Helmets

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
Posted (edited)

She sounds very analytical and sensible.. until you actually hear what she is saying. 

Apparently the situation in Syria is all an "imperialist" plot organised by the Guardian Newspaper, which is apparently controlled by HSBC bank (and hence the Chinese), and... dunno.. Switzerland is involved somehow ? 

 I didn't know people still used the word "imperialist" any more. 

Vanessa is not a neutral journalist; she is a political activist. (pro Assad, pro Palestinian). That doesn't necessarily mean she is wrong , but one DOES have to question her objectivity. 

Edited by RoofGardener
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Phaeton80
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, RoofGardener said:

She sounds very analytical and sensible.. until you actually hear what she is saying. 

Apparently the situation in Syria is all an "imperialist" plot organised by the Guardian Newspaper, which is apparently controlled by HSBC bank (and hence the Chinese), and... dunno.. Switzerland is involved somehow ? 

 I didn't know people still used the word "imperialist" any more. 

Vanessa is not a neutral journalist; she is a political activist. (pro Assad, pro Palestinian). That doesn't necessarily mean she is wrong , but one DOES have to question her objectivity. 


Interesting you would immediately take note of any semblance of bias coming from this source, but completely ignore the raging - overly obvious - agressive bias coming from the mianstream media outlets, other side of the fence. Including but not limited to the massive character assassination attempts, hatchet jobs against anyone that doesnt fall in line, doesnt immediately support the official narrative.

Biased much?

I have also heard it stated, against thesame other side of the fence, that they are defending 'the bad guys', making it possible for the 'evil regime' to do 'bad things'. While there is a whole myriad of evidence, historical and actual, which would imply the direct opposite. In fact, it has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt - a very scarse phenomenon these days - that exactly this has indeed been the case. In an extremely similar scenario, with an extremely similar 'rationalization' / narrative.

How many times do we need to be deceived before we start asking critical questions about such narratives (because thats the only thing 'the other side' on this thread is guilty of), before we stop accepting our MSM attacking anyone as a Russian Stooge or Assad Apologist who does not blindly accept the official story? I'd pose the brunt of these official narrative supporters would not be so easy to get on board if they themselves were the victim of this deceit in the past - instead of watching these deceitful war(s) from the comfort of their armchairs like a Hollywood production.

Wasnt it Bush himself who so eloquently said: “There's an old saying in Tennessee.. I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee.. that says, fool me once, shame on.. shame on you. Fool me.. you can't get fooled again.”

 

Edited by Phaeton80
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
6 hours ago, Clockwork_Spirit said:

1e011w.jpg

They are not helping themselves.

Wait Alqaeda are good guys now. ISIS are the bad guys 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
7 hours ago, Phaeton80 said:


Interesting you would immediately take note of any semblance of bias coming from this source, but completely ignore the raging - overly obvious - agressive bias coming from the mianstream media outlets, other side of the fence. Including but not limited to the massive character assassination attempts, hatchet jobs against anyone that doesnt fall in line, doesnt immediately support the official narrative.

Biased much?

I have also heard it stated, against thesame other side of the fence, that they are defending 'the bad guys', making it possible for the 'evil regime' to do 'bad things'. While there is a whole myriad of evidence, historical and actual, which would imply the direct opposite. In fact, it has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt - a very scarse phenomenon these days - that exactly this has indeed been the case. In an extremely similar scenario, with an extremely similar 'rationalization' / narrative.

How many times do we need to be deceived before we start asking critical questions about such narratives (because thats the only thing 'the other side' on this thread is guilty of), before we stop accepting our MSM attacking anyone as a Russian Stooge or Assad Apologist who does not blindly accept the official story? I'd pose the brunt of these official narrative supporters would not be so easy to get on board if they themselves were the victim of this deceit in the past - instead of watching these deceitful war(s) from the comfort of their armchairs like a Hollywood production.

Wasnt it Bush himself who so eloquently said: “There's an old saying in Tennessee.. I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee.. that says, fool me once, shame on.. shame on you. Fool me.. you can't get fooled again.”

 

umm... I didn't ignore any bias from the mainstream media. I never commented on the mainstream media. I commented on Vanessa Beeley. 

Are you saying that my comments are in some way inaccurate ? If so, then I would be most interested to hear your point on that. (a topic that you did not address in your comment). 

One thing that intrigues me... could you advise me what you mean by ".. proven beyond any reasonable doubt" ? 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Phaeton80
4 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

umm... I didn't ignore any bias from the mainstream media. I never commented on the mainstream media. I commented on Vanessa Beeley. 

Are you saying that my comments are in some way inaccurate ? If so, then I would be most interested to hear your point on that. (a topic that you did not address in your comment). 

One thing that intrigues me... could you advise me what you mean by ".. proven beyond any reasonable doubt" ? 

 


Yes, thats what I said, you ignored the overly obvious bias coming from the MSM in regards to this subject, and decided to do the opposite with an excessively less overly obvious, stringent variant. Thats pretty much what ignoring means; not commenting on something while being aware of it.

What I mean with 'proven beyond reasonable doubt' is that we have been massaged into greenlighting / supporting a war in the relatively recent past in a frighteningly similar context, a frighteningly similar narrative, based on blatant lies. Which in turn resulted in hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians losing their lives, which would position us as those who defended 'the bad guys', making it possible for an 'evil regime' to do 'bad things'.. in that instance. Again; not talking about thousands, but hundreds of thousands. And not in defense of our country, but while waging a war of agression against another nation under the guise of Samaritanism. Which is exponentially worse, not only in sheer bodycount, but also in the specific context in which they lost their lives.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
3 minutes ago, Phaeton80 said:


Yes, thats what I said, you ignored the overly obvious bias coming from the MSM in regards to this subject, and decided to do the opposite with an excessively less overly obvious, stringent variant. Thats pretty much what ignoring means; not commenting on something while being aware of it.

What I mean with 'proven beyond reasonable doubt' is that we have been massaged into greenlighting / supporting a war in the relatively recent past in a frighteningly similar context, a frighteningly similar narrative, based on blatant lies. Which in turn resulted in hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians losing their lives, which would position us as those who defended 'the bad guys', making it possible for an 'evil regime' to do 'bad things'.. in that instance. Again; not talking about thousands, but hundreds of thousands. And not in defense of our country, but while waging a war of agression against another nation under the guise of Samaritanism. Which is exponentially worse, not only in sheer bodycount, but also in the specific context in which they lost their lives.

 

I didn't "ignore" anything: I was just commenting on the fact that Vanessa Beeley is not an impartial observer, but an activist. I was not seeking to make any comment on bias in the MSM, as that was not the subject of that particular post

What are you saying ? That nobody is allowed to comment on anything without also providing context to everything else in the universe ? Jeezz... some of these posts will have to get VERY long. :P 

On that basis, I must take you to task for your first sentence, in which you claim that there is bias coming from the MSM, WITHOUT giving this context by linking in the current weather conditions on Jupiter, and the decline in the Elephant Moth population of Papa New Guinea ? 

As for your second paragraph: I take it then that your use of the term "proven beyond reasonable doubt" doesn't actually LITERALLY mean that at all, but is just your way of saying "I believe this is true" ? 

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Phaeton80

Youll excuse me not responding to that, Im quite sure. I dont have the energy to respond to all your 'put in mouth' tactics, its tiresome, truely.

A good evening to you nonetheless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bee
Posted (edited)
14 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

She sounds very analytical and sensible.. until you actually hear what she is saying. 

Apparently the situation in Syria is all an "imperialist" plot organised by the Guardian Newspaper, which is apparently controlled by HSBC bank (and hence the Chinese), and... dunno.. Switzerland is involved somehow ?

 I didn't know people still used the word "imperialist" any more. 

Vanessa is not a neutral journalist; she is a political activist. (pro Assad, pro Palestinian). That doesn't necessarily mean she is wrong , but one DOES have to question her objectivity. 

 

allow me to simplify - re the bolded above -

this is a cheap shot and a deliberate misrepresentation of what she said -

using ridicule as a weapon -

perhaps bringing into question YOUR objectivity... ? :P

anyway - setting aside this tit for tat re Vanessa Beeley - she's not the only one putting the White Helmets under the microscope...
and finding them wanting - 

and there's the video where they were openly caught out faking a situation and tried to cover it up by calling it a Mannequin Challenge
then apologised (probably because their financial backers were furious )

     

Edited by bee
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw

Some of them have done bad things, most of them have done good things. With Turkey's backing, they won't be wanting for funds. They don't need the US and since Assad and the Rooskies don't like them, I wish them well. Everything else is just politics and propaganda.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
8 hours ago, bee said:

 

allow me to simplify - re the bolded above -

this is a cheap shot and a deliberate misrepresentation of what she said -

using ridicule as a weapon -

perhaps bringing into question YOUR objectivity... ? :P

anyway - setting aside this tit for tat re Vanessa Beeley - she's not the only one putting the White Helmets under the microscope...
and finding them wanting - 

and there's the video where they were openly caught out faking a situation and tried to cover it up by calling it a Mannequin Challenge
then apologised (probably because their financial backers were furious )

     

Using ridicule as a weapon ? Well @bee, did you watch the pertinent section of the video ? Did she, or did she not describe the situation in Syria as being part of an "imperialist" plot ? (several times). Did she, or did she not, accuse the Guardian newspaper of smearing the White Helmets at the behest of HSBC (and mentioning a Swiss connection ? ).

DID I use ridicule as a weapon, or did I merely point out the inherent ridicularity of some of her positions ? 

As for MY objectivity; I'm not REQUIRED to be objective. I'm a poster on a forum, not someone who claims to be a journalist.

In terms of the White Helmets, I might agree with you. But not on the grounds that Vanessa Beeley proposes. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bee
55 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

Using ridicule as a weapon ? Well @bee, did you watch the pertinent section of the video ? Did she, or did she not describe the situation in Syria as being part of an "imperialist" plot ? (several times). Did she, or did she not, accuse the Guardian newspaper of smearing the White Helmets at the behest of HSBC (and mentioning a Swiss connection ? ).

DID I use ridicule as a weapon, or did I merely point out the inherent ridicularity of some of her positions ? 

As for MY objectivity; I'm not REQUIRED to be objective. I'm a poster on a forum, not someone who claims to be a journalist.

In terms of the White Helmets, I might agree with you. But not on the grounds that Vanessa Beeley proposes. 

 

re bolded.... no she did not...

she talked about the Guardian writing a hit piece against herself and how they strongly supported and promoted the White Helmets -

and she mentioned about the funding of the Guardian.... referencing the Scot Trust Limited and then chucked in something about their 
connections to HSBC - although at that exact moment when HSBC was mentioned the video audio conveniently went wonky....  
(that was in the section starting around 13 mins)

She did use the word imperialist a couple of times and she was also described by the Guardian as '''anti Imperialist''' - I don't think she
ever used the words... Imperialist Plot....?.... although that was the general idea ....

I grant you that it isn't a word that is used much nowadays and does have a dated feel - but it fits the points she was making nevertheless...

 

imperialism
ɪmˈpɪərɪəlɪz(ə)m/
noun
 
  1. a policy of extending a country's power and influence through colonization, use of military force, or other means.
    "the struggle against imperialism"
    • historical
      rule by an emperor.
      "in Russia, imperialism had developed alongside a semi-feudal agrarian structure"

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
31 minutes ago, bee said:

 

re bolded.... no she did not...

she talked about the Guardian writing a hit piece against herself and how they strongly supported and promoted the White Helmets -

and she mentioned about the funding of the Guardian.... referencing the Scot Trust Limited and then chucked in something about their 
connections to HSBC - although at that exact moment when HSBC was mentioned the video audio conveniently went wonky....  
(that was in the section starting around 13 mins)

She did use the word imperialist a couple of times and she was also described by the Guardian as '''anti Imperialist''' - I don't think she
ever used the words... Imperialist Plot....?.... although that was the general idea ....

I grant you that it isn't a word that is used much nowadays and does have a dated feel - but it fits the points she was making nevertheless...

 

imperialism
ɪmˈpɪərɪəlɪz(ə)m/
noun
 
  1. a policy of extending a country's power and influence through colonization, use of military force, or other means.
    "the struggle against imperialism"
    • historical
      rule by an emperor.
      "in Russia, imperialism had developed alongside a semi-feudal agrarian structure"

 

 

Ooops - my apologies @bee - I mistype that - I meant to say "smearing Vanessa" (or at least, publishing an article rebutting her claims about the White Helmets), not "smearing the White Helmets". But I was correct to state that she implied influence by HSBC, and something about Switzerland ? (she seems to have a downer on Switzerland.. something to do with Reporters without Borders snubbing a speech she was going to give to the Swiss Press Club ?? )

I'm afraid that so far as I am concerned, anyone banging on about Western Imperialism is a candidate for a tinfoil helmet. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Captain Risky
On 5/5/2018 at 2:29 PM, Brother_Spirit said:

The timing is odd, now that the OPCW team have left Douma in Syria.

Did Trump realized that the White Helmets are not humanitarian heroes, but good actors?

yes, the timing is odd. no one just cuts funding to the group responsible for outing Russian and Syrian chemical attacks. just as i suspected the white helmets are stooges and Trump will not have his hand forced anymore. at least by these guy's. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Captain Risky
On 5/5/2018 at 3:12 PM, ChaosRose said:

You're helping the bad guys do bad things.

That's not nice.

And I'm not drinking any of the kool-aid you're serving, so forget about it. 

you're certainly cleaver than me if you can work out who are the good and bad guy's in the morally lacking Syrian quagmire.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HollyDolly

I don't even recall hearing about them. maybe they do good, maybe they don't. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.