BBC Caught In Syria Massacre Propaganda Hoax
 

"The British media has been caught yet again with its pants down in the effort to sell a NATO-led attack on Syria, with the revelation that BBC News used a years-old photo of dead Iraqi children to depict victims of an alleged government assault on the town of Houla."

"In a report issued hours after the massacre, the BBC used a photo that was first published over nine years ago and taken in Al Mussayyib, Iraq. The image shows a child skipping over the dead bodies of hundreds of Iraqi children who have been transported from a mass grave to be identified."

BBC Caught In Syria Massacre Propaganda Hoax

BBC News uses 'Iraq photo to illustrate Syrian massacre'
http://world.topnewstoday.org/world/article/2368102/

Oops, BBC: Iraq photo to illustrate Houla massacre?
http://www.rt.com/news/bbc-iraq-syria-houla-400/

No way, they dont do that... my god and nobody will care later...

The BBC are about as bad as it gets on certain issues such as Climate Change and the European Union. They are under the control of the House of Rothschild so are always biased towards the Rothschild Agenda

Another example

BBC spent £350,000 on legal battle to keep report on its 'biased' Middle East coverage secret
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...sm-secret.html

Yet we in the UK are forced to pay for the BBC every damn year, whether we even watch it or not...

Not the first time they've been caught doing that.

Remember last year when they used images from an old Indian demonstration and pretended they were live from Lybia... :/

There are some pretty compelling 'real' pics and video as well....

You can not assume this did not happen because the BBC stuck up the wrong pic.

And they have Gestapo tactics to track down non-payers

Ahh yes...good point

You're right, there are definitely children dead, though all the signs are that it was the NATO Armed Rebels/Terrorists who killed them at close range to create a pretext for a NATO invasion

Assad is a great guy and has never murdered any of his people, right wehateporn?

He's defending his country against terrorists, he's doing what any other good leader would do. At the same time there are Western snipers there making sure the death toll is high at every protest, the blame is always placed on Assad, this sets things up nicely for the dreaded "Humanitarian Intervention".

wehateporn, which news sources do you trust? I wonder if you actually have one, or if it's whoever at the time just happens to be anti-BBC or anti-mainstream.

The Rothschild Agenda. Tin-foil hat time! :1orglaugh

There is only one problem with your argument - and its a biggie - NATO/UN are doing all they can to avoid going into Syria!

If they wanted to go in they would just do it - The same as they did with Libya.

But it worked well, like in Kosovo and many times before that.

They would already be in there now if it wasn't for China and Russia vetoing the UN resolution

Anger after Russia, China block U.N. action on Syria
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...80S08620120205

Ideally don't trust any news source, read them all, especially opposing sides, know the history, ask yourself "Who Benefits?"

Sounds like I was right then, you're usually always looking for anti-authority articles and trust whoever posts one. Anti-BBC, anti-Fox/CBS/ABC/MSNBC/etc... and they must be right.

The resolution was for stronger sanctions, nothing to do with armed intervention.

Just amazing... is this BBC? Or Fox?

Russia and China would have agreed if the resolution hadn't allowed for 'military intervention or regime change'

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012...-un-resolution
"Russia and China blocked the resolution because of what they perceived to be a potential violation of Syria's sovereignty, which could allow for military intervention or regime change."

As I said you have to read all sides and have a good understanding of the history.

Good point, the BBC are still well-respected, but they shouldn't be

AFAIK the resolution called for regime change and did not in any way call for military action.

It was drafted to condemn the Syrian regime.

As I said before, nobody is itching for a fight and they are not making shit up as a pretense for an attack.

Completely agree here....


.

This is what has always cracked me up about the Anti-Fox news people.... they tend to actually think that news agencies don't ALL have an agenda, shown by either editing stories, faking or ignoring evidence, or even simply ignoring stories altogether that don't follow their own world narrative.....



The CNN, MSNBC, BBC worshipers can be such suckers... (just like ANYONE that only gets their news from the source that matches their own personal slant and thinks that they have the "truth")



.:2 cents:

95% of mainstream news is complete HORSE SHIT.

I just about fell off my seat the other day when I read about the amendment that has been added to a new defense bill making it "legal" to target propaganda and psychological operations directly at US citizens!

..now they want to "legalize" what they've been doing over the course of decades!?!?!

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Maybe taking over Syria is part of the plan to go after Iran. The biggest problem for NATO if they want to invade Iran will be Hezbollah. If they take over Syria first, they practically take out Lebanon and Hezbollah with one blow.

I've been in porn too long.

I saw the thread title of "BBC Caught In Syria Massacre Propaganda Hoax"

And my first thought was: "What does a Big Black Cock have to do with Syria"?
lol

How does one change the regime in charge without military action?

I think they call them elections....

Yea, you're right... there's no such thing as conspiracies or agendas. Human beings never get together to conspire or have a plan... especially wealthy and powerful people...

Everyone put on your tin-foil hats now for even entertaining such a ridiculous idea!

The color red exists, but not everything is red...

Moahah no kidding... all these so-called "News Agencies" wouldn't tell the real story for fear of losing their White House passes and credentials...



That is truly an excellent and well documented (or rather, easily researched and verified) report on the subject, of which Syria is just one tiny facet.

You can watch the whole thing (it's not complete on YouTube) here: http://metanoia-films.org/the-power-principle/

:D

Obviously infowars and rense. lol

And when will you learn that:

1. ALL NEWS SOURCES are biased on pretty much EVERY SUBJECT, not just "western" media about "muslim" stories. (which is why you should get your information from as wide a selection as possible, INCLUDING those your don't agree with).

2. Jews, (00.25% of the population of the world), are really not to blame for everything, and "Zionist" simply means someone that believes there should be a Jewish state in the world.... (where we can protect ourselves from people that think like you do, actually...)



.:2 cents:

Just like the CBC in Canada, nobody watches that shit :321GFY

limey bastard 161 up, 169 down

A stuck up resident of the sewer known as England who lack any sense of humor and take themselves as seriously as the French when an American decides to make fun of them. usually caused by their lack of sunlight and tasteless, nauseating diet.
Fuck off if you cant take a joke, you miserable snaggletoothed limey bastard.

Zionism has become much more global and intricate than that...... why do you think there are so many Jews against Zionism?

I don't mean to offend, but you really don't know anything about how many oppose it or the reasons why. It's a very small number and they oppose it on the grounds of obscure interpretations of the torah. It has nothing to do with politics.


.

Really? All I've heard is the opposite, but maybe I'm just dumb and brainwashed. Got any credible links?

Have spent lots of time in Israel and I lived in south Africa during apartheid in the late 70s. There is no comparison. I'm on my iPhone and trying o watch a good movie at home but we can have this discussion another time. :)

where in the world did you get that out of what he said?

speaking of seeing shit that's not there..

I call a rogue reporter :pimp

I can tell who benefits from this one, bad publicity for BBC sure, and someone going to get fired.

But really it shows that for individual people or groups it's quite easy to affect media, which in turn affects general public, if they let "unverified" images and stories get there that easily.

There may be real conspiracys out there, but it isn't necessarily big corporations, BBC, government etc. itselves, even if those are used as a tool to try to pull off something.

Simple, at least to me.

1. If there are no unbiased or trustworthy news sources, it applies to all of those he uses as a trusting source of news or information.

2. However, contrary to #1 he has no trouble believing any news that is anti-authority or anti-mainstream.

He sees a conspiracy in almost everything, so he picks and chooses those sources that support his preconceived notions.

Agree, but it doesn't work if you only choose the anti-authority or conspiracy articles. There's nothing well-rounded or reasonable about that type of selection.

Does every conspiracy thread here have to be about Jews?