Syria, Russia present witnesses of 'staged' gas attack at OPCW - Polidicks

the OPCW delayed entering Douma was probably because the Syrian army and engineering units are still discovering the tunnels and disarming mines to this day, but they've already cleared most of the buildings so there isn't really a risk, our official news channels keep saying that the OPCW themselves refused to go there and stayed in Damascus, but regardless of that the delays are most likely caused by the UN in addition to security concerns, but they definitely weren't denied by the government, that's western propaganda. keep in mind they were invited by the Syrian government in the first place as soon as the accusations happened, and delays started before they even reached Syria and stayed in Beirut.

i said "lets always look in context" before screaming. two people in here came to complain about original article even though both in OP and posts to follow other sources included to verify. you can stick your rating system wherever you like, only way to make sure news are real is to compare multiple sources rather than quickly glance at site that is dedicated to give them gold medals. Just like it happened with BBC article that is claiming that Russia did nto allow OPCW to visit site for two weeks. Rating might be high but guess what? the bbc spoke shit.

No. A bad news source is bad. If the news is accurate, other and more credible sources will report it.

yay, someone actually got it through.

Apparently reuters, guardian and other news provided on first page are "a bunch of propagandized state-backed sources" for him. This is quite ironical.

All of those you linked dispute the claims of your primary source. You're too full of yourself to have read and compared what you posted in your primary to what you backed it up with. Source one: Britain and France are denouncing as a stunt and an "obscene masquerade" a move by Russia to produce Syrian witnesses who Russia says were filmed in "staged videos" in the aftermath of a reported chemical weapons attack. Source two: "This obscene masquerade does not come as a surprise from the Syrian government, which has massacred and gassed its own people for the last seven years," said France's ambassador to the Netherlands, Philippe Lalliot. Source three: The development is seen as an effort by Russia to discredit widespread reports of an April 7 suspected chemical weapon attack in the town of Douma near the Syrian capital, Damascus, which killed more than 40 people. The West has blamed the attack on President Bashar Assad's government. Syria and Russia deny the claims.

Wow, alot of bad reading here, if you'd actually was capable of reading you'd notice that original "claim" was about - witnesses visiting OPCW, what you just tried to stick into your reply highlights nothign but reactions to that event. After that, there was argument about BBC article that again, covered same eventm yet allowed itself to write that "OPCW was able to visit site only now, cause russia prevented them for two weeks". Soo what again those dispute?

Not necesarily. Just generally, what if a biased source is outright lying or is ommiting vital information? These things happen. Garbage it, garbage out. You cant trust which part is real and which is fake, so even if something seems plausible to you as an expert, it could very well be just made up. Not to mention, even experts are wrong sometimes, and most people arent experts.

No, the original claims was "Syria, Russia present witnesses of 'staged' gas attack at OPCW". There's no confirmation in any of those sources that said witnesses have been independently verified or been found to be credible. No outside or independent sourcing that confirms what they witnessed occurred.

it does not take an expert to make article comparison on his own, something that firgof yet incapable of though.

I've proven myself quite capable and you're proving yourself quite duplicitous. Comparing bad information from two bad sources and saying 'this is the truth' does not make it the truth or even close to the truth. As WhyNott stated: GIGO. None of your sources confirm the claims your primary source assert - therefore the comparison to be made is 'there's no evidence to believe that this reporting isn't propaganda'.

you do realise that right now, you are compaining about headline, used for event that was covered by multiple sources and basically try to shift attention from your fuck up? This won't work.

You realize that you're attempting to project your own failures on to me and that that won't work?

Then you get other trusted sources and see if they claim the same.

the BBC has their fair share of bullshit, but in general their news are much better than other western news sources, you can somewhat rely on their news for things that the UK was not involved in (not this situation) RT also says quite some bullshit, usually baseless claims, but in Syria's case you gotta remember they have actual reporters that are legally there, when they provide any case of proof, it's generally good to read their news and compare it to what others said, you never want to hear one side, if you want to take them as the russian face of propaganda and never believe them, that's fine, but you'll need to do the same to CNN, because they're far, far worse than RT. CNN's news are heavily opinionated, and when they report outright lies, they never confess to it or correct it, you kinda feel they're reporting what they want to be true, and treat the side with side they're against with disgust that it's actually sickening to watch their news. the Syrian sources are somewhat reliable in what they report, I won't say they're not biased, their bias comes from stuff that they don't report. my personal recommendation is checking a mix of BBC and sky news, but in those 7 years I've come to a conclusion that there isn't a single news source that isn't biased, your best bet is to read all sides, don't believe anything without proof and don't jump to conclusions, but for myself I'll only believe the people I know, whenever something happened I just call people I know there and ask what happened, and watch our local news whenever they're documenting something such as weapons found and investigation as they got people that are actually there.

That's not how any of that works. Prove that CNN is an actual arm of the US government.

I obviously can not prove that CNN is a US government tool, but I know that media in the end is a business, I rarely read CNN, but the event that mostly comes to mind are their reporting of everything that happened in homs in 2012, memory is a bit fuzzy, keep in mind I was like 13 at the time, what I most remember is there was an attack on a fuel line in homs, and CNN reported that the Syrian army did it, the syrian army attacked a fuel line going from their resources to their refineries, I tried searching but I can not find any english sources about it, the report was called something like 72 hours under fire, where they showed short footage from a camera that's in a building showing the smoke coming out of the fuel line, and about a week later a 12 hour recording of that same footage was leaked, showing that the camera was pointed at that fuel line and recording multiple hours before the attack happened. I'm not too sure about the allegation that CNN reporters cooperated with the terrorists to attack that fuel line, but it makes sense that whoever planted the camera either knew about or did the attack. again I can't find the sources for this, but there's an article in arabic that you can translate (again, I'm not agreeing with the allegations, but just to get some context on what I'm talking about), maybe you could help finding the original source or the original CNN broadcast http://www.dampress.net/?page=show_det&category_id=&id=18879

You mean this CNN story I found in 2 seconds using google and "syria homs gas line attack 2012"? https://www.cnn.com/2012/01/03/world/meast/syria-unrest/index.html

A news outlet doesn't have to be state run to be in the pockets of parties or individual politicians, these people network like crazy and have friends in these places for good reasons.

In other words, you have no evidence but will still assert that your view is the objective truth?

I couldn't find that article but no that's not what I'm thinking about, it was a broadcast on their channel where they showed part of the video and all I did not claim they cooperated with terrorists, there's no proof of that, literally all I said is that it is mentioned in the article and it isn't the reason I'm mentioning the article because I'm not claiming that myself maybe they do retract false articles, I guess i'm being too harsh on that one as they aren't really doing any worse than other western news sources, of reporting something, being proved wrong, and forgetting about it, so I guess I stand corrected. however, here is CNN on the rating thing you all seem to like https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/260169/d6d65794-3e12-4287-ad11-af88941e33a3/Screenshot-2018-4-27 CNN - Media Bias Fact Check.png seems like it's worse than RT?

So instead of maybe being in the pocket of someone, we should post sources that are literally from the government it's self. Especially ones that were caught lying or pushing bullshit stories. Your reasoning is ass, same with the other shill. If a news agency has shit fact checking then you'd have a point, like fox news. But just because you don't like it doesnt mean it can be used as a source.

From same website: Overall, we rate CNN left biased based on story selection that often favors the left. We rate them Mixed for factual reporting due to misinformation and failed fact checks from guests and pundits. However, CNN’s straight news reporting would earn a High rating for factual reporting. (5/16/2016) Updated (4/27/2018) Let's compare that with RT News. Notes: RT, originally Russia Today, is a television network funded by the Russian government. It operates cable and satellite television channels directed to audiences outside of Russia as well as providing Internet content in various languages, including Russian. It has right of center coverage of the USA. They are highly biased in favor of Russia and occasionally runs Pro-state conspiracy stories. The Columbia Journalism Review calls RT “The Kremlin’s propaganda outlet.” They also have a pants on fire claim from Politifact. Although coverage is typically right of center when covering USA news they also do promote pro-Russian propaganda. (5/18/2016) Updated (3/30/2018) So CNN has some biased story selection and tries to favor the left side of the political spectrum. If we look only to their guests and pundits, they are not a reliable source. Their actual news reporting however has a high rate of factual reporting. RT, however, runs pro-state conspiracy stories and are a known propaganda outlet. In what way does that make CNN 'worse' than RT News?

It's just kari being kari and doing his regular "RUSSIA NUMBA 1!!!" "PUTIN DID NOTHING WRONG"