Why ISIS is rich (oil only small part of why)

LOL...well you know, proof.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

. Showing a video clip which you purport to be from a Russian aircraft isn't evidence PBS showed it and misrepresented it as an American attack.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Are you seriously that dense?

In order to prove your claim you need to prove PBS aired and misrepresented Russian video. You have been making a lot of excuses. First you said Americans hadn't released video of its bombing runs. And you were shown it had. The US Defense department has released a lot of videos showing US and allied attacks on ISIS positions.

So now you want people to believe that Russian state controlled media is getting its information from an obscure blogger who likes to dress up like Hitler - OK.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So what remains IYO unproven? That the first video is from PBS? That the other two videos are from Минобороны России, the Russian department of defense? Here I simply believe the claims from youtube, if you have doubt, present evidence for this.

That it is a misrepresentation, if one shows, without giving information about the source, videos from a Russian military action, while at the same time talking about US actions of the same type - namely, bombing oil trucks? You have really strange criteria for adequate behavior of media.

I have written "The US has not provided such video proofs of their claims", but this was a possible, plausible answer to your question "Why on Earth would PBS use Russian air strike footage and misrepresent it?". There may be other explanations, like PBS was too stupid to find some really existing US videos of this. Another, more important point is that the claim was that the US has destroyed IS oil trucks. It was not that it has, during the last year, somewhere attacked something. I was not shown a US defense department video which shows USAF destroying IS oil trucks. I was given only a link to some US defense department site, which, possibly, contains some videos of the US attacking something.

So, show your video evidence of the USAF attack on IS oil trucks. The video itself, not some site which you claim contains it somewhere.

Reasonable journalists get their information wherever they find it, what makes the difference is that they check it. In this case, it was easy to check, because MoA has given links to the relevant videos, and the point of the information was easy to check.

Instead, for example, you continue to use information which has been already discredited. Namely the claim that this guy on the photo is the owner of moonofalabama. Your evidence for this was a dubious blog of somebody who clearly wanted to discredit MoA and has used a photo defamation which has almost certainly nothing to do with him, given that it was, if we believe http://www.haaretz.com/jewish/new-german-agency-set-up-to-combat-neo-nazi-propaganda-1.409091 taken 2004 near Berlin, Germany, while whois gives some american address for the owner of MoA.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Actually, no, you have been caught in yet another lie. Below are the video links you referenced, and not one of them references PBS...oops. What you have repeatedly done in reference specious material and sources. You have yet to prove PBS misrepresented anything. What you have done is repeatedly make unfounded allegations.


the usage of the Russian videos at 2:22,
the Russian video of hitting the oil storage sites,
the Russian video of hitting the tankers.

What you have done is demonstrate a humongous lack of critical thinking skills and you have done so repeatedly.

And where is your evidence PBS is stupid? PBS has been around for a very long time, and so has the Pentagon Press Office. The Pentagon Press Office isn't by any means a national secret. The Pentagon conducts weekly, and sometimes daily, press briefings. And the claim was, your claim, that PBS misrepresented Russian video as American. It wasn't about any ISIS oil trucks.

Why? I haven't made any claims with respect to a USAF attack on ISIS oil trucks. You're obfuscating.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015...oil-idUSKCN0T70LC20151118#1gfeF7sJRtB5v9ry.97

Just because you don't like reality, just because reality doesn't comport with your beliefs, it doesn't mean reality isn't real nor does it make it discredited.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The fact is, you are now trying to get people to believe the Russian state controlled sources its information from an obscure and specious blogger who likes to dress up like Hitler. It ain't working.

Reasonable, credible journalists don't use sources which are not credible as you have repeatedly done.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yeah and not one mention on that "fact" sheet about the ISIS fighters who sheltered in Syria with Assad's assistance during the US occupation of Iraq, nor about the oil, gas, water and electricity Assad still purchases from them. I remember reading one recent drunken editorial rant on rt.com that complained about how ISIS "only" shares a paltry 50% of the electricity it generates in Aleppo province, or something along these lines, and that ISIS stinginess is the reason for shortages in regime-held areas.

Ah to hell with all that Joe, it's easier if I just blame you for taking away my jerb and all the millions I was going to earn, and then I'll never have to scratch my noggin over anything ever again.

 

??????

The first video is from PBS, namely PBS newshour. You can see it all the time in the lower left corner. It was published on youtube in a channel named "PBS NewsHour". Claimed to be published 19. Nov. So maybe this channel is a fake, and publishes faked videos not from PBS, but by Russian state media? Let's look at the PBS website, pbs.org, to see. And what we see here is at 38:58 in http://www.pbs.org/newshour/episode/pbs-newshour-full-episode-nov-19-2015/ the same Russian video used. So, this is not fake, this is PBS itself. Or do you want to suggest that the website pbs.org is a fake?

So, telling us "for the first time, the US is attacking oil delivery trucks", and showing at the same time a video of Russians hitting IS oil trucks, is not misrepresenting?

I don't need any. You have asked a question: "Why on Earth would PBS use Russian air strike footage and misrepresent it?" I'm not obliged to know an answer, I can propose some more or less plausible guesses. Feel free to think about other explanations, like the FSB has paid the journalists to do this to discredit in this way American media. The answer know those guys of PBS who have done this, ask them.

PBS has shown, as supported by an explicit link to the misrepresentation itself on their youtube channel, as well as on their own website, Russian video sequences about Russian airforce hitting IS oil trucks in their report, saying at the same time "for the first time, the US is attacking oil delivery trucks".

Credible journalists use all information, from whatever sources, which can be checked independently. In this particular case, this is possible and easy, because the links to all the relevant evidence was provided: The video where PBS makes the misrepresentation, and the Russian original videos used in this misrepresentation.

On the other hand, the information you use to discredit MoA is something one has to believe. Nor for the name of MoA given by your dubious blogger, nor for the photo representing MoA you have provided anything except the claim of your dubious blogger, who clearly hates MoA. Whois gives another name for the MoA owner, for the photo I have found information about the place and time the photo was made, 2004 near Berlin, but this gives no name, and in no way suggests he is an american blogger.

 

Well you see, this is where critical thinking skills become important. In that PBS clip, it showed the bombing of an oil storage facility and some oil trucks. It didn't say it was US footage or Russian footage. YOUR assertion what that PBS misrepresented the video clip as American. Even with all of this fluff, you have yet to show how PBS misrepresented even an iota of its coverage. Facts do matter, except in Mother Russia.

I'm telling you, you have no evidence. I'm telling you, you are doing what you always do. You are making shit up again.

You are not obliged to back up your assertions with evidence and reason?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

NO it hasn't. The only misrepresentation going on here is with you and your fellow Russian comrades and an obscure blogger who likes to dress up like Hitler.

Credible journalists use credible information and credible sources. They don't bother themselves with sources which are not credible, else nothing would ever be reported. And credible journalists work for agencies which allow the truth to be told, and that isn't Russian state owned and controlled media you so love.

Except none of that is true..."dem" damn facts again. If it were easy, you would have done so by now.

The fact is you have not and cannot prove your case. You cannot prove the video clips and you cannot prove PBS misrepresented anything much less find a motive as to why PBS would misrepresent a video clip.

 

So, it is clear now that joepistole is unable or simply unwilling to accept the obvious evidence that PBS has misused Russian videos, by showing Russian airstrikes on IS oil trucks, and claiming at the same time "for the first time, the US is attacking oil delivery trucks".

I have tried a long time, for many postings now, there is no more chance that he has simply misunderstood something. This was something new for me, I have never seen somebody who has denied evidence in such a rigorous and stupid way.

 

No what is clear is that you have been proven a liar and as a result have resorted to the kind of chest beating which is so reminiscent of apes and a few backward human cultures. Chest beating isn't a substitute for fact and reason. It's apparent that you and your Russian cohorts feel bluster is a suitable remedy for your weaknesses. I have news for you, it isn't. It will just get you into more trouble and you certainly don't need any more trouble.

You and your fellow Russians need to ask yourselves why you have so few friends in the world, and why no one but consumers of Russian state owned and controlled media believe all this Russian propaganda you so love to promulgate.

 

eh ok... Schmelzer & joepistole;
A little test:
Was the Russian fighter plane shot down by Turkey recently in Syrian air space or Turkish air space?
Currently as expected Russia is saying that it was in Syrian air space yet the USA and Nato are claiming it was in Turkish air space.

Who do we believe?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-24/turkey-shoots-down-jet-near-syrian-border/6970776

"Turkish fighter jets have shot down a Russian warplane near the Syrian border, with conflicting claims over whether the downed aircraft violated Turkish airspace.

The two pilots ejected by parachute before the jet exploded and crashed into a ball of flames in northern Syria.

Both pilots were shot dead as they descended, according to a commander with a Turkmen brigade which fights against the Syrian Armed Forces. Turkmen are Syrians of Turkish descent.

Turkey's military said two Turkish F-16s were involved in shooting down the plane, after issuing 10 warnings in five minutes."

Question/note: Why would the Turkmen murder the pilots as they descended when taking them prisoner would seem to net a better outcome. Evidence of air space intrusion or destruction of evidence?

 

Turkey knows that Russia has no intention of bombing Turkey.
ergo
The Turkish shooting of the Russian plane was an unprovoked attack.
Kinda what we've come to expect from NATO members?

 

but what would possibly the point behind taking out the Russian fighter, knowing that it risks a major confrontation?
The 10 warnings in 5 minutes and responses from the Russian plane should be recorded somewhere I might add..

 

Well I am sure it has been. Turkey has already released the radar plot showing the path taken by Russia's airplane inside Turkish airspace. You may question Turkey's actions but Turkey certainly had every right to defend its airspace in any manner it saw fit. Russia had no right to violate Turkey's territorial integrity. It really is that simple. Russia has agressively defended its airspace. It shouldn't be surprised when other do the same. I seem to remember Russia (i.e. The Union of Soviet States) shooting down civilian airliners who accidentally strayed within Russian airspace and doing so without warning.

Additionally, this wasn't the first time Russia has violated Turkey's airspace. Just a few day earlier Russian jets had harassed Turkish fighters inside Turkish airspace. Today's incident was just another in a long series of Russian aggression. This time it didn't end well for Mother Russia. This time Mother Russia got her nose bloodied. Today Turkey sent a message to Mother Russia and Mother Putin, they have had enough.


"Ankara (AFP) - Turkey's F-16 jets were harassed and put on radar lock by an unidentified MIG-29 aircraft on the Syrian border, after Russian fighter planes violated Turkish airspace at the weekend, the Turkish military said on Tuesday.

"Eight Turkish F-16 jets carried out reconnaissance flights over the Turkish-Syrian border (on Monday) and during this mission our jets were held on radar lock by an unidentified MIG-29 plane for a total of four minutes and 30 seconds," the army said in a statement.

Radar lock-on enables missile systems to automatically follow a target.

In a separate incident, the same Turkish jets were also "harassed by missile systems deployed in Syria for a total of four minutes and 15 seconds," the army added." http://news.yahoo.com/mig-29-harassed-turkish-jets-syrian-border-monday-004933267.html

If this had been just a single isolated incident it would be one thing. But it wasn't. Russian aircraft have been routinely invading Turkish airspace since their arrival in Syria. And we cannot ignore the fact that since Russia's invasion, occupation and annexation of portions of Ukraine, Russian aircraft have routinely violated the airspace of many NATO nations.

 

I think that what is most worrisome and may prove to be a deciding factor is the apparent "fact" that the two pilots were shot at and killed as they descended using parachutes.
This act in itself is incredibly nasty IMO. (if proven to be true... that is)

 

I agree, it was uncalled for, it was nasty. But Turkey wasn't responsible for that shooting.

 

Violating a nation's airspace is in and of itself a provocation. The Turkish attacked certainly wasn't unprovoked. Russia has downed civilian aircraft for accidentally strawing into Russian airspace. And this wasn't the first incident or the first time Russia has been warned by other NATO nations and Turkey in particular. Russia has been repeatedly warned. Yet Russia has routinely invaded not only Turkish airspace, but the airspace of many NATO nations. Today Turkey gave Russia a very firm warning and Putin got his nose bloodied. Maybe Putin will stop invading the airspace of other nations. But Putin doesn't impress me as a fast learner.

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/wh...-small-part-of-why.153117/page-2#post-3342590

 

It was probably rash action by some near-by dumb soliders - Clearly the pilots were much more valuable alive as "bargaining chips" and all the higher ups are now mad at the stupid quick acting soldiers.

BTW, I don't want to enter the Jopistole / Schmelzel dispute, but just note that CNN of Brazil did quote Obama (in news conferene with French president) as saying the US plans to increase the attacks on ISIS and START hitting their oil tankers too, to do more economic damage.

 

The US has been hitting ISIS oil facilities since the attack on France. Prior to that attack, the US strategy had been to save those facilities for a post ISIS government. At this point, we don't know if the folks who shot Russia's pilots were regular troops or a band of rogues. There are something like 27 different groups fighting against each other in Syria. Assad has really screwed it up. That's why the US wants Assad out. The US doesn't believe Assad can govern. Assad and his father have ruled Syria for a very long time. But Syria fell apart under juniors rule.

What is needed is someone who can united Syria and that clearly isn't Assad. But Russia wants Assad, something it clearly cannot have. I think the only reason Russia wants Assad is to keep its sole foreign naval facility - not that Russia needs such a facility. Because it doesn't.

 

I am waiting to see what Schmelzer has to offer about Russian Media reports of this incident. Just for the sake of comparison if anything...

 

Your source says: "US-led coalition spokesman Colonel Steve Warren has said that it was not yet clear which side the plane was on when shot. ... A US official who spoke on condition of anonymity, said that preliminary reports showed the Russian jet entered the airspace for a matter of seconds."

I think this is a clear enough confirmation that the plane was shot over Syrian territory. The only question is if it had, really, violated Turkish airspace or not. But, if we believe the anonymous US official (which are well-known to give the information which the CIA wants to be believed, and are in no way "leaks" or so), and even the Turkish radar picture, which describes a violation of the border which corresponds to a few seconds, then what is the sense of these claimed warnings?

"Turkey's military said two Turkish F-16s were involved in shooting down the plane, after issuing 10 warnings in five minutes."
"However, the colonel confirmed that Turkey warned the Russian jet 10 times before shooting it down, but failed to get a response."

So there is certainly, even if one believes the Turkish radar picture, no border violation over a period of 5 minutes. My hypothesis is that these warnings have been simply a standardized ritual behavior, based on an unilateral decision of Turkey long ago to consider several km of Syrian airspace their own, and having the right to shoot down everything in this domain. This has been explained to Turkey long ago that they have no such right, but they may, nonetheless, have issued such warnings on a regular basis whenever a Russian airplane has reached this domain near the border. So, it was an irrelevant and unjustified warning, which has been ignored by daily routine. But this is, of course, only my own hypothesis.

I have also seen a claim from the Russian side that the Turkish jet which has shot the Russian plane has then violated the Syrian airspace himself.

These "turkmens" are, AFAIK, in reality terrorists of the worst sort, many of them Chechen fighters, hardcore IS. At least they have done horrible mass murders in Alewite villages in that region. If they would not have shot them in the air, but taken them alive, we would probably see a video of headcutting or so. For shooting the pilots in the air there is a simple explanation: Else, they would have had a good chance to get away. The region is forest, mountains, the Syrian troops are not far away, no big villages nearby, some 1000 of fighters over a region of some 100 km^2, with most of them in fights with the enemy, is not really much to find somebody who tries to run away only a few km in a forest.

 

I think your comments are quite reasonable however it depends on where exactly the Russian jet was attacked and then what happened subsequently.

Attacked in Turkish Air space and crashed in Syrian territory... is my guess..

However don't you think that this whole incident is incredibly ridiculous!

For Turkey to have such a "zero tolerance" for Russian Aircraft in action near their borders is absurd. ( to begin with IMO)
If the plane had been in banned space for say ( example) many minutes demonstrating malicious intent and refused to respond then perhaps Turkish action may be somehow justified...

I guess it is just an indication of the severity of tensions in the region leading to such gross over reactions etc. Or alternatively a serious indication of Turkish priorities regarding the Turkmen.

I agree that the Turkman probably wanted to make sure that the pilots of a plane that had been bombing them were dealt with.

* News has since come in that a botched Russian rescue attempt, apparently encouraged by Turkey, failed with the loss of one soldier and helicopter on the ground. The surviving rescue crew being saved by Syrian special forces.

What a bloody mess! If you don't mind me venting...