Anti-Russian propoganda?

[Anna B]

I'm absolutely amazed at how the language has changed with regards to the News coverage of the Syrian war since Russia got involved.

Suddenly we're hearing all about air strikes, civilian casualties, and schools and hospitals which have been bombed; facts that were singularly lacking in news coverage before Russia got involved.

 

The implication is that before, only Isis targets were being taken out and only terrorists dying because presumably our NATO bombs were more discerning.

 

I ask people to look at the footage of Syria, pre Russia, to see the devastation in the background. This level of general devastation could only have been achieved by serious indiscriminate bombing over several months, by Western bombers, as the Taliban / Al qeada / Isis / Daesh / or whatever their name is this week, doesn't have access to an air force, and ground strikes alone would not achieve it.

 

The massive exodus of refugees fleeing from Syria also began long before Russia got involved, and so did the bombing of civilians. The civilian casualties then were rarely mentioned.

 

Are they trying to blacken Putin's name by blaming him and upping the anti?

If so, a very, very dangerous strategy.

[MAC33]

David Cameron said the best way to stop the influx of Syrian refugees into Northern Eurore was to have peace in Syria.

 

That's why he bombed the place to buggery.....

 

For whatever reason the media are now pushing Russia as the bad guy.

 

Divide and conquer tactics likely.

[lottiecass]

Russian air stikes kill civilians,the us and allied air strikes kill civilians,the reporting taints Russia as being the bad guys.The thing about Russia is they didn't hesitate to shut of the oil going to turkey,people need to have a look at Putin on Russian tv,he comes across totally different,listen to him tell who is responsible for the Syrian war.

[tinfoilhat]

I'm absolutely amazed at how the language has changed with regards to the News coverage of the Syrian war since Russia got involved.

Suddenly we're hearing all about air strikes, civilian casualties, and schools and hospitals which have been bombed; facts that were singularly lacking in news coverage before Russia got involved.

 

The implication is that before, only Isis targets were being taken out and only terrorists dying because presumably our NATO bombs were more discerning.

 

I ask people to look at the footage of Syria, pre Russia, to see the devastation in the background. This level of general devastation could only have been achieved by serious indiscriminate bombing over several months, by Western bombers, as the Taliban / Al qeada / Isis / Daesh / or whatever their name is this week, doesn't have access to an air force, and ground strikes alone would not achieve it.

 

The massive exodus of refugees fleeing from Syria also began long before Russia got involved, and so did the bombing of civilians. The civilian casualties then were rarely mentioned.

 

Are they trying to blacken Putin's name by blaming him and upping the anti?

If so, a very, very dangerous strategy.

 

Our NATO bombs ARE more discerning. RAF brimstone are some of the most accurate around. When some does drop a clanger (Afghanistan hospital quite recently for example) it is reported. We spend lots of money and effort avoiding civilian casualties. Russia doesn't care a whole bunch about its own people - it won't mind the odd bomb going astray.

[999tigger]

I'm absolutely amazed at how the language has changed with regards to the News coverage of the Syrian war since Russia got involved.

Suddenly we're hearing all about air strikes, civilian casualties, and schools and hospitals which have been bombed; facts that were singularly lacking in news coverage before Russia got involved.

 

The implication is that before, only Isis targets were being taken out and only terrorists dying because presumably our NATO bombs were more discerning.

 

I ask people to look at the footage of Syria, pre Russia, to see the devastation in the background. This level of general devastation could only have been achieved by serious indiscriminate bombing over several months, by Western bombers, as the Taliban / Al qeada / Isis / Daesh / or whatever their name is this week, doesn't have access to an air force, and ground strikes alone would not achieve it.

 

The massive exodus of refugees fleeing from Syria also began long before Russia got involved, and so did the bombing of civilians. The civilian casualties then were rarely mentioned.

 

Are they trying to blacken Putin's name by blaming him and upping the anti?

If so, a very, very dangerous strategy.

 

1. Hard to talk about Russian casualties from bombing before they were bombing.

 

2. Nato was only attacking ISIS. They dont attack the Assad regime.

 

3. Nato does use advanced smart munitions, which arent fullproof, but they are accurate and expensive. Nato is operating under far more onerous rules of engagement. In contrast the Russians are using dumb weapons with no guidance, which means more casulaties okys they arent as sensitive to civilian casulaties.

 

4. You would have to be more discriminating, but the biggest inflicter of casualties in Syria is the Assad regime. Most of the devastation is to do with the fact theres a civil war and nothing to do with Nato.

 

5. The latest surge in migrants is coming from people fleeing Aleppo because of the fighting that's happening there. Assad regime supported by the Russians.

 

6. Cant see the need to blacken Putins name he's doing what he's doing. It's just politics.

 

So I disagree with every point you made.

Edited February 15, 2016 by 999tigger

[sutty27]

I'm absolutely amazed at how the language has changed with regards to the News coverage of the Syrian war since Russia got involved.

Suddenly we're hearing all about air strikes, civilian casualties, and schools and hospitals which have been bombed; facts that were singularly lacking in news coverage before Russia got involved.

 

The implication is that before, only Isis targets were being taken out and only terrorists dying because presumably our NATO bombs were more discerning.

 

I ask people to look at the footage of Syria, pre Russia, to see the devastation in the background. This level of general devastation could only have been achieved by serious indiscriminate bombing over several months, by Western bombers, as the Taliban / Al qeada / Isis / Daesh / or whatever their name is this week, doesn't have access to an air force, and ground strikes alone would not achieve it.

 

The massive exodus of refugees fleeing from Syria also began long before Russia got involved, and so did the bombing of civilians. The civilian casualties then were rarely mentioned.

 

Are they trying to blacken Putin's name by blaming him and upping the anti?

If so, a very, very dangerous strategy.

 

Assad had a ability to cause the destruction and you would be surprised at the damage caused by tanks and artillery bombardment.

[LeMaquis]

6. Cant see the need to blacken Putins name he's doing what he's doing. It's just politics.

 

Putin is deliberately bombing civilians to drive them into Turkey so that Europe will have an even bigger refugee crisis. I find it ironic that people in the UK who oppose refugees the most tend to sympathise with Putin the most.

[Anna B]

I a;so think that The West bitterly resents the fact that after only a few weeks participation, Putin has managed to get the key players round the negotiating table.

[samssong]

Putin is deliberately bombing civilians to drive them into Turkey so that Europe will have an even bigger refugee crisis. I find it ironic that people in the UK who oppose refugees the most tend to sympathise with Putin the most.

And Turkey those great lovers of piece and harmony are bombing?

[mafya]

Russia has outfoxed the West on Syria, of course they are going to paint him as the bad man.

Isis is the US and Saudis creation and Turkey is a double dealing snake.

The Turks are killing the Kurds when it's the Kurds who are fighting Isis yet no one is really complaining about that are they?

Russia has brought to light the hypocrasy of the west for all to see......