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 -
Sir Smoke aLot

Update on weapons smuggling to isis

Recommended Posts

Sir Smoke aLot

Link to article, there are 3 parts with a lot of documentation, part 1, part 2, part 3.

After tracing shipments of weapons to armed groups in Syria investigation lead by this journalist is still going on.

I was quite interested about her since she had a lot of problems with police. As i know it journalist is not required to disclose his source? She was imprisoned and demanded to expose her sources, maybe that has strengthen her resolve and now we might be getting a lot more information. I find it disgusting that weapons from my country too are sold there and used by isis, among other groups. It's all consistent with reports from other respected independent journalists, especially about Syria. Venessa Beley and Eva Barlet have done great deal of honest work, different than artificial journalists who even ''sniffed nerve gas after alleged Assad attack'' :D It's very easy to pick sources these days.

It was also weird to see how, over the years, Saudi lead coalition had no intention to tackle al qaida and isis in Yemen, groups which have grown since and they even manage to get weapons so it's really pointing out that Saudi siege is friendly towards allowing isis to reequip.

First report did not make any change regardless of strong message it sent, report was buried under thousands of sensationalist articles. This one seems to end the same i guess and truth today is dismissed simply by accusations like ''Russian trolling''.

I find Russian military fan site, SouthFront, to be more serious journalism than majority of big players lol, what a shame this all is.

Thoughts? 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
bmk1245
5 minutes ago, Sir Smoke aLot said:

Link to article, there are 3 parts with a lot of documentation, part 1, part 2, part 3.

After tracing shipments of weapons to armed groups in Syria investigation lead by this journalist is still going on.

I was quite interested about her since she had a lot of problems with police. As i know it journalist is not required to disclose his source? She was imprisoned and demanded to expose her sources, maybe that has strengthen her resolve and now we might be getting a lot more information. I find it disgusting that weapons from my country too are sold there and used by isis, among other groups. It's all consistent with reports from other respected independent journalists, especially about Syria. Venessa Beley and Eva Barlet have done great deal of honest work, different than artificial journalists who even ''sniffed nerve gas after alleged Assad attack'' :D It's very easy to pick sources these days.

It was also weird to see how, over the years, Saudi lead coalition had no intention to tackle al qaida and isis in Yemen, groups which have grown since and they even manage to get weapons so it's really pointing out that Saudi siege is friendly towards allowing isis to reequip.

First report did not make any change regardless of strong message it sent, report was buried under thousands of sensationalist articles. This one seems to end the same i guess and truth today is dismissed simply by accusations like ''Russian trolling''.

I find Russian military fan site, SouthFront, to be more serious journalism than majority of big players lol, what a shame this all is.

Thoughts? 

"SouthFront, to be more serious journalism" REALLY? Kremlin propaganda site, nothing more. Enough to see their attempts to white wash russians on MH17 case.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Smoke aLot
2 minutes ago, bmk1245 said:

"SouthFront, to be more serious journalism" REALLY? Kremlin propaganda site, nothing more. Enough to see their attempts to white wash russians on MH17 case.

When compared to, precisely as stated above :

 

One video from Kremlin propaganda. 

And one larger story from comedian who is also more serious journalist than many MSM :

 

What is amusing is how you only attack that comparison but rest of the post is not interesting to you.

I hope that it is more clear now but i already have stated this, precisely in OP.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bmk1245
3 minutes ago, Sir Smoke aLot said:

When compared to, precisely as stated above :

 

One video from Kremlin propaganda. 

And one larger story from comedian who is also more serious journalist than many MSM :

 

What is amusing is how you only attack that comparison but rest of the post is not interesting to you.

I hope that it is more clear now but i already have stated this, precisely in OP.

 

So, stupid journalists doing stupid things, gimme a break...

You should dig deeper into that SouthFront. Yeah, I do attack your sources, the way you'd attack me over quoting good ol' Goebbels.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Smoke aLot
1 minute ago, bmk1245 said:

So, stupid journalists doing stupid things, gimme a break...

You should dig deeper into that SouthFront. Yeah, I do attack your sources, the way you'd attack me over quoting good ol' Goebbels.

Who said that SF is my source? If you read clearly you would have realized what i told but i will explain, again, below. And no i did not attack you i just pointed out that i have already said what i think of :

1. South Front : by saying this in the OP ''I find Russian military fan site'', they are mostly promoting Russian weaponry and trying to portrait it as better than US - so they are mostly Russian military fan site which is also filled with propaganda. SF is not source for any of their articles either and story in this topic is taken directly from twitter account as i follow this lady for long time now.

2. ''Venessa Beley and Eva Barlet have done great deal of honest work, different than artificial journalists who even ''sniffed nerve gas after alleged Assad attack'''' in which i implied ''sniffing part'' but that is just one example of not only biased reporting but of lies.

in above video ''sources on the ground'' is argument from MSM journalist. Eva IS/WAS on the ground. Syrian organization for human rights, which is cited by every MSM is actually office in London with one employee (at least it had one employee for long time not sure of situation now but it's still cited for every news in MSM).

I usually do not like to explain my self but you simply overlooked what i told here, is it clear now? And no, to dismiss agenda reporting by saying ''stupid journalist'' when consequence could have been NATO attack on Syria... Well that is very irresponsible to say the least.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bmk1245
3 minutes ago, Sir Smoke aLot said:

[...]

I usually do not like to explain my self but you simply overlooked what i told here, is it clear now? And no, to dismiss agenda reporting by saying ''stupid journalist'' when consequence could have been NATO attack on Syria... Well that is very irresponsible to say the least.

 

Was the sole report from journalist ended up in "could have been NATO attack on Syria"?

I do have some questions to said journalists (lets keep skinnig alive for the future), nonetheless, aggregating info from various sources gives you some approximate view.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Smoke aLot
13 minutes ago, bmk1245 said:

Was the sole report from journalist ended up in "could have been NATO attack on Syria"?

Actually it did result in Trump sending many Tomahawk's. Pressure was very high back then but as time passed by and also after authorities inspected the sites it was clear that Syrian army was not responsible. Political rhetoric was in line with reporting from CNN and affiliates, which are many.

For me it's enough that such reporting could have resulted in greater problems and would leave Syria in the state in which Libya is now. There are many examples.

13 minutes ago, bmk1245 said:

I do have some questions to said journalists (lets keep skinnig alive for the future), nonetheless, aggregating info from various sources gives you some approximate view.

I agree but it's not only about sources, it's really hard to say who is not part of some agenda as everything is interlinked in one way or the other.

Most important thing behind understanding world politics is not in reading articles, far from that. Knowledge about world around us, about politics, also lie in understanding of history and in knowing it, even geography especially when it comes to Middle East. So, without prior knowledge of history and old relations one can not understand much. 

When learning about history here i would argue that we need many sources and that is where trouble starts. Articles are easy to see through after good research in subject of history especially if we research stuff which we do not like to hear.

[edit] anyhow it is interesting how isis manages to get weapons and to grow it's territory all while they are encircled by Saudi ''freedom fighters''. isis/alqaida had very small influence back in 2015.

Edited by Sir Smoke aLot
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bmk1245
1 minute ago, Sir Smoke aLot said:

Actually it did result in Trump sending many Tomahawk's. [...]

Before we go further, please post the proof for that.

BTW, do you have US intelligence over this issue? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Smoke aLot
11 minutes ago, bmk1245 said:

Before we go further, please post the proof for that.

BTW, do you have US intelligence over this issue? 

First link from google search.

What do you mean by US intelligence? The fact that they never disclose that information out of ''security concerns''? How can i show you that which doesn't exist as public data? Let's be serious.

[edit] while it was relevant answer i have to update, using first link is rarely good option :D 

This is what resulted from alleged SAA gas attack on Douma :

1. link to Wiki there is decent chronology of events in there

2. suggestion about inspections of the site, link and quote from the article :

''

The US, Britain, and France all seem to anticipate the OPCW probe not going their way. Each made claims over the course of the last week that Syrians and Russians were “tampering” with the site. They also claimed the Russians were responsible for the delays to the OPCW.

That was never true. The OPCW confirmed that the only obstacle to visiting Douma over the past week was the UNDSS. Experts are also dismissing the tampering claims, saying there is no reason to think that evidence even could be removed if a chemical attack at any of the sites happened.''

Of course you can pick any other source to check this story but all there was against Syrian Army were accusations and assumptions. That attack has resulted in death of 9 civilians.

Right now we have similar situation around Iran, after Houti attack on Saudi oil installations. Trump has said that he only waits ''for confirmation from Saudis'' and he will launch attack. Based on what? Pattern is the same, medias are tools in hands of politicians and there is no evidence presented.

Edited by Sir Smoke aLot
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bmk1245
1 hour ago, Sir Smoke aLot said:

First link from google search.

[...]

Heh, you won't get easy scape. Again "Was the sole report from journalist ended up in "could have been NATO attack on Syria"?"

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Smoke aLot
1 hour ago, bmk1245 said:

Heh, you won't get easy scape. Again "Was the sole report from journalist ended up in "could have been NATO attack on Syria"?"

Reports did lead to strike on Syria on quite a few occasions which i have shown here beyond any doubt. Of course that it wasn't because of one single report but because of whole media machinery of which that particular report is part of

Nowadays there is growing trend of media reports (of very questionable nature) which find way into political rhetoric, or other way around. Results are usually striking. But on the other hand, when it doesn't suit one particular political agenda, reports get buried.

That's why we had shows like 'poison vials', 'allegations of WMD's', 'babies thrown out of incubators and bayoneted' and so on... Every single media reshaping of public opinion has resulted in massive loss of lives in affected countries, some of which can not return to normality for decades.

Feel free to ignore that, i can not. This is the time where information, true or false, can make influence or even decide the outcome of many debated policies and even wars.

[edit] then there was this 0:30 

 

Edited by Sir Smoke aLot
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bmk1245
12 minutes ago, Sir Smoke aLot said:

Reports did lead to strike on Syria on quite a few occasions which i have shown here beyond any doubt. Of course that it wasn't because of one single report but because of whole media machinery of which that particular report is part of

Nowadays there is growing trend of media reports (of very questionable nature) which find way into political rhetoric, or other way around. Results are usually striking. But on the other hand, when it doesn't suit one particular political agenda, reports get buried.

That's why we had shows like 'poison vials', 'allegations of WMD's', 'babies thrown out of incubators and bayoneted' and so on... Every single media reshaping of public opinion has resulted in massive loss of lives in affected countries, some of which can not return to normality for decades.

Feel free to ignore that, i can not. This is the time where information, true or false, can make influence or even decide the outcome of many debated policies and even wars.

[edit] then there was this 0:30 

 

Thing is, whether strikes were due to media reports, or media reports were due to strikes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Sir Smoke aLot
2 minutes ago, bmk1245 said:

Thing is, whether strikes were due to media reports, or media reports were due to strikes?

First there were reports then there were strikes, something which is easily confirmed by following timeline of events. Was that the only reason behind it, no, greater political regime change game is the reason.

What i can say for sure is that all those reports were used as reason for the attacks. Reports were later proven false but damage was done regardless and it can not be repaired. What about White Helmets? On who's payroll they were and they even got Oscar.

What's worse, leading figures from that group were captured on photo in some of the most disturbing cases of extremism, like beheading of Palestinian 7 yo and parading people in cages. Those realities did not stop media support.

It's crazy situation. Kevin Spacey almost gets destroyed with false accusation of sexual abuse but documented cases of torture and murders do not prevent extremists in getting awards. There is a large problem with media manipulation over many aspects of life, not only war. Something is of great interest while other things are not, especially those of political opponents.

That is reason why civilians murdered by Syrian army are described as civilian victims. But those civilians killed by extremists were labeled as 'government supporters'. Something which was proven without any doubt by Venessa Beley. It's disgusting.

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bmk1245

"First there were reports then there were strikes, something which is easily confirmed by following timeline of events" evidence, please. I know, I'm schmuck who likes to split hairs. Please, continue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
5 hours ago, Sir Smoke aLot said:

Most important thing behind understanding world politics is not in reading articles, far from that. Knowledge about world around us, about politics, also lie in understanding of history and in knowing it, even geography especially when it comes to Middle East. So, without prior knowledge of history and old relations one can not understand much. 

I agree.  Since we all bring different levels of understanding of the histories and root causes, we make assumptions sometimes that are unfounded.  Bias slips in and communication is lost, usually.  I find it difficult to believe that you cannot see what is at the heart of this conflict, however.  All of the political posturing of various nations and their support for these entities can be traced back to using the Sunni/Shia conflict to advance their own plans in the region.  It's disgusting that America and other western nations have supported groups that have been guilty of such atrocities as the use of chemical weapons or the slaughter of prisoners or civilians.  It has been done by BOTH sides in these conflicts because of the desire to control resources or to interfere in the strengthening of their enemies.  No one has clean hands.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Black Red Devil
7 hours ago, and then said:

I agree.  Since we all bring different levels of understanding of the histories and root causes, we make assumptions sometimes that are unfounded.  Bias slips in and communication is lost, usually.  I find it difficult to believe that you cannot see what is at the heart of this conflict, however.  All of the political posturing of various nations and their support for these entities can be traced back to using the Sunni/Shia conflict to advance their own plans in the region.  It's disgusting that America and other western nations have supported groups that have been guilty of such atrocities as the use of chemical weapons or the slaughter of prisoners or civilians.  It has been done by BOTH sides in these conflicts because of the desire to control resources or to interfere in the strengthening of their enemies.  No one has clean hands.

:o :huh: .... :yes:....:unsure2:

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Smoke aLot
16 hours ago, and then said:

I agree.  Since we all bring different levels of understanding of the histories and root causes, we make assumptions sometimes that are unfounded.  Bias slips in and communication is lost, usually.  I find it difficult to believe that you cannot see what is at the heart of this conflict, however.  All of the political posturing of various nations and their support for these entities can be traced back to using the Sunni/Shia conflict to advance their own plans in the region.  It's disgusting that America and other western nations have supported groups that have been guilty of such atrocities as the use of chemical weapons or the slaughter of prisoners or civilians.  It has been done by BOTH sides in these conflicts because of the desire to control resources or to interfere in the strengthening of their enemies.  No one has clean hands.

That's why i said this after that quoted part : ''When learning about history here i would argue that we need many sources and that is where trouble starts. Articles are easy to see through after good research in subject of history especially if we research stuff which we do not like to hear.''

I agree that clean hands are hard to find but some hands are cleaner than others :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Phaeton80
On 9/16/2019 at 8:24 PM, and then said:

I agree.  Since we all bring different levels of understanding of the histories and root causes, we make assumptions sometimes that are unfounded.  Bias slips in and communication is lost, usually.  I find it difficult to believe that you cannot see what is at the heart of this conflict, however.  All of the political posturing of various nations and their support for these entities can be traced back to using the Sunni/Shia conflict to advance their own plans in the region.  It's disgusting that America and other western nations have supported groups that have been guilty of such atrocities as the use of chemical weapons or the slaughter of prisoners or civilians.  It has been done by BOTH sides in these conflicts because of the desire to control resources or to interfere in the strengthening of their enemies.  No one has clean hands.


Main Western players used these groups, some of those Western nations used chemical weapons, and did mass slaughter civilians by way of military air- or ground assaults.. at a scale of which no Sunni / Shia extremist group can even remotely compare. Question also arises, how strong would these ISIS / AQ groups (and the damage they inflict) be, if not for the direct support, and indirect cultivation for terrorist groups (counterproductiveness 'War on Terror') coming from thesame Western players?

Ofcourse no one has clean hands in this, but 'the other side' didnt start a whole sequence of wars of agression based on deceit during the last 20 odd years, using its good repore, public image of 'good guys' to its advantage.

History.. that essential reference point needed to understand present goings on.. Like how the present day ME was more or less created, from the use of Wahhabi extremists against the Ottoman Empire (recognize that somehow?), the creation of Saudi Arabia (ibn Sauds role against Ottomans), creation of petrodollar ties with SA, and drawing the borders during Sykes- Picot to institutionalise suboptimalisation (ie. better control o/t region) by Western geopolitical aspirations / statecraft.

No one has clean hands, but as a rule, empires have the absolute filthiest.

  • Like 1

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.