For the record, I do not trust the agenda of Wikileaks, while most of the information they provide 'appears' to be legit, I don't believe it is released for our good but instead for strategic reasons e.g creating a revolution in Tunisia. This then throws a spanner in the works for my trust of Russia Today, as they have a new show with Julian Assange. Pretty much there's no one source I 'trust', I have to think carefully about each specific piece of information and test if it would function logically with what we do already know.

I'm also against OWS, so no, there's no simple rule in place as to who I place my trust in. I often don't trust myself.

I think you might be a little too cautious or paranoid, but I appreciate you responding in a reasonable manner. I don't think it hurts to lean towards the skeptic side, you're just a lot further there than I am.

sounds like that WMD overused phrase :

' it is not because we do not find them that they do not have them ' ....

Before 9/11, I was quite different, around 5 years later I started to change, then after the 'Swine Flu Pandemic' I became extreme.

I now do have a negative world view, at least of the power structure. My RADAR will throw up false positives, and I've got to be aware of that, though the false positives will be more with speculative topics where there's not enough information available.

Though the attack on Syria is not running to schedule, it has been planned for many years, just as the attack on Libya was. After Syria, Lebanon will be destabilized too, then regime change brought about by whatever means are necessary.

"We're going to take out 7 countries in 5 years: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan & Iran.." GEN. WESLEY CLARK


"I knew why, because I had been through the Pentagon right after 9/11. About ten days after 9/11, I went through the Pentagon and I saw Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz. I went downstairs just to say hello to some of the people on the Joint Staff who used to work for me, and one of the generals called me in. He said, ?Sir, you?ve got to come in and talk to me a second.? I said, ?Well, you?re too busy.? He said, ?No, no.? He says, ?We?ve made the decision we?re going to war with Iraq.? This was on or about the 20th of September. I said, ?We?re going to war with Iraq? Why?? He said, ?I don?t know.? He said, ?I guess they don?t know what else to do.? So I said, ?Well, did they find some information connecting Saddam to al-Qaeda?? He said, ?No, no.? He says, ?There?s nothing new that way. They just made the decision to go to war with Iraq.? He said, ?I guess it?s like we don?t know what to do about terrorists, but we?ve got a good military and we can take down governments.? And he said, ?I guess if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem has to look like a nail.?

So I came back to see him a few weeks later, and by that time we were bombing in Afghanistan. I said, ?Are we still going to war with Iraq?? And he said, ?Oh, it?s worse than that.? He reached over on his desk. He picked up a piece of paper. And he said, ?I just got this down from upstairs? -- meaning the Secretary of Defense?s office -- ?today.? And he said, ?This is a memo that describes how we?re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.? I said, ?Is it classified?? He said, ?Yes, sir.? I said, ?Well, don?t show it to me.? And I saw him a year or so ago, and I said, ?You remember that?? He said, ?Sir, I didn?t show you that memo! I didn?t show it to you!?

dude this is a porn board. just fuck off.

why does GFY have to be associated with such fucking weird fuckers?

Maybe we should only allow ones who agree with you politically

I hope you realize you've just made a bit of a dick of yourself, you might still be able to edit those posts if you're quick

he posted three articles talking about the same thing, and you see this as trusting?

do you not find it disturbing that bbc would use pictures of western wars to infuriate western viewers of the evils of muslim nations?

if you were to be 'anti mainstream', whatever that's defined as, wouldn't you find it odd that there is a pattern of these 'fake pictures' or 'fake sets'?

My comments were on the topic of trusted news sources, and not the photo.

When I said anti-mainstream I mostly meant anti-mainstream media, ie. BBC, etc... No one who wants to be taken seriously should use Infowars as their source. Have you ever read through historical posts on Infowars.com to see if any of the dangers or conspiracies ever turned out to be true?

I don't know if you can trust the BBC's explanation or not, but it's at least plausible.

As to the story, do you believe it is real? Is the Reuters photo also fake?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18233934

I was reluctant to use Infowars as I know it's an easy target, but they had a good use of sources throughout their article, which anyone who reads it can check out

Children have been killed, but who by? Who benefits from this, certainly not Assad, it is ideal for those who want to bring about regime change, the event can be used to influence public opinion, pushing it towards military intervention in Syria, making it far easier to go ahead with.

Sure, the BBC article admits as much. "But at whose hands they died remains a matter of contention." It doesn't seem unusual that it was the shabiha, a pro-Assad militia. Who do your sources suspect it was?

The rebels in Libya (Al Qaeda) were led by a chap who had been living next to CIA HQ in Virginia for some years, he came over especially for the operation. Some of these 'rebels' then headed over to Syria to do a similar but tougher job of destabilizing the country, setting up a pretext for military intervention. For me it's the same people, controlled by the secret services (whether many of them are aware of it or not), who are now in Syria doing the same as they did in Libya. While the Western Media listens to this fake organization "Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR)" based in London, which is not at all what it seems to be, quite the opposite.

Russia questions credibility of Syrian Observatory for Human Rights
http://www.rt.com/news/syrian-observ...liability-223/

"As far as we know, this organization employs only two people (its head and secretary-translator). It is headed by Rami Abdulrahman, who has no training either in journalism or law or even a complete secondary education," Lukashevich said."

"The fact that representatives of the 'observatory' have been avoiding contact with our diplomats speaks for itself," the spokesman added. "We think that these facts allow one to judge how trustworthy the information provided by this structure is."

"Both sites report slightly different figures, none of which can be independently confirmed, leaving media outlets wondering how reliable their sources are. "

Fake News from Syria

Then we have the snipers who have been witnessed shooting at both sides during protests, when caught and unmasked this one doesn't look at all Syrian

Taking themselves seriously? America has to be the worst at that.

Lack of sunlight? possibly true.

Nauseating diet? you mean McDonalds and KFC are good for you? Your nearing 50% obese population is pretty nauseating by itself, nevermind the diet behind it.

What is more nauseating is your close minded bullshit.

And no I do not agree with the OP I think he's making some huge mistakes in nearly every thread he posts.

Pretty much none of that is true, thanks for participating though...

http://img713.imageshack.us/img713/3...ismsplashh.jpg

lol

with all do respect, the guy we're talking about seems to read a lot of sources, perhaps more so than you and i. how is it he's considered the 'anti-media/mainstream' one?

http://sheffield.indymedia.org.uk/im.../04/478502.jpg

Scandalous war progaganda. No Syrian revolution whatever exists.

Thanks Richard :thumbsup

My use of InfoWars as the first source has given some people the wrong impression. Crazy thing is, I rarely read that site, but I saw their article and noted the fact that it was well sourced

I'm not liking the new owners of that paper

we could post pictures of al qaida flags over bengahzis courthouse, but what news site would report that? other than, of course..

could we find three different links talking about the reality of that? what about three different links discussing our implication in their leader being stabbed in the rectum with a bayonnet being a direct reflection of our foreign policy?

i find it amusing and slightly panic-inducing that 'infowars' would come up in this link search.. a great deal.

Yea, because if it's on infowars it MUST be fake, right? Idiot...

sorry? .

Wehateporn you are fucking retarded. Nato snipers? Nato is also doing the shelling I guess. It's all a big conspiracy. It's really amazing that someone as stupid as you is even allowed onto the street.

I thought you said you must read ALL SIDES of a story. What other sides do you read?

They learned well from CNN

The shareholders determine what gets broadcasted. In the case of the BBC, the shareholder is the British government.

there is several reports of sas etc having camps set up in syria to 'aid' somebody, and i can only assume it's not government troops

which is an.. invasion..

A replay of Lybia :

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...tion-jets.html

Where were they when Crusaders bomb the shit out of Bagdad ???

We hate porn ur an idiot

Nato is also causing the massacres and shelling? To fight terrorists, right? Wow you people are amazingly stupid.

its independent of the british government as far as broadcasting goes.

He obviously has no idea how news works.

yep, and 'that we know of'

...

if nato funds and arms rebels, isn't that creating an atmosphere that would involve massacres and shelling?

As far as I know Nato hasn't armed anyone.... after all isn't that what a lot of people are asking them to do but they can't?