Citat:
Ursprungligen postat av
arbetet
Är du dum i huvudet på riktigt? De redovisar exakta siffror men sätter fel etiketter på dem som 800 regeringssoldater döda och 600 civila utan att specificera att i de civila räknas "rebellerna" in. Jag har också sagt att det är mycket anmärkningsvärt att de på sista tiden faktiskt t.o.m. rapporterat saker som går emot det som sägs i MSM som att det inte har varit någon kemattack utan att offren har drabbats av rökgasförgiftning, samma som SAA säger. Man redovisar också ett stort antal nerskjutna kryssningsmissiler trots att Tripartitets uppgifter har varit att alla har träffat sina mål. Till detta har jag dock ingen förklaring alls så alla spekulationer är välkomna.
Nej, det är du som är dum i huvudet på riktigt! Du har nu hitta ny information på nätet och ändrat åsikt. Sluta upprepa dig, jag har läst vad du skrev först. När du tror på en jävla konspirationsteori då blir allt komplicerat. SOHR har egna informatörer och MSM har egna, därför kan det hända att det blir motsatsen.
Citat:
Ursprungligen postat av
arbetet
Här är lite omdömen om SOHR som jag hittade på nätet:
SOHR is not a pure propaganda operation like the White Helmets are. It is relatively truthful in its reporting of events and casualties in Syria. The total casualty count of the war SOHR gives is likely too high due to some estimates it uses in its bottom numbers. But an early check of its detailed accounts showed that its reports from incidents on the ground were mostly correct.
SOHR's numbers have been quoted by about every news outlet in the world, usually in pro-rebel propaganda pieces. But it is not the observatory that turns the information it collects into propaganda. The media do that when they quote SOHR without the necessary caveats or when they disregard it where its information contradicts the official story. The examples below show that this is now often the case.
One of the first descriptions of the one man who allegedly runs SOHR is in a Reuters portrait from late 2011:
With only a few hours sleep, a phone glued to his ear and another two ringing, the fast-talking director of arguably Syria’s most high-profile human rights group is a very busy man.
“Are there clashes? How did he die? Ah, he was shot,” said Rami Abdulrahman into a phone, the talk of gunfire and death incongruous with his two bedroom terraced home in Coventry, from where he runs the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights.
When he isn’t fielding calls from international media, Abdulrahman is a few minutes down the road at his clothes shop, which he runs with his wife.
The idea that one man alone could keep track of all casualties in Syria, or stay in contact with so many local contacts on the ground, never made sense. It is simply too much work for one man who also runs a shop and cares for a family. It was obvious that there was more behind it.
SOHR's main function was to keep a current casualty count of the war in Syria. The Reuters piece noted:
According to the observatory’s latest figures, 3,441 civilians and 1,280 security forces have been killed.
The overall number in the casualty count SOHR gave did make sense. The categorization of the numbers did not. The numbers led casual readers assume that only one side of the war in Syria was armed. The numbers could not explained how the security forces were killed. It took a while before people woke up to that mismatch and asked SOHR. It willingly answered the question. But only few reports, like this one from June 2012, used the answer and explained the mismatch to their readers:
Those killed since March last year comprised 9,862 civilians, 3,470 soldiers and 783 army deserters, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said.
The Britain-based watchdog counts rebel fighters who are not deserters from the army as civilians.
This was a technical correct but crude mislabeling of killed "civilians", most of which were in fact anti-government fighters. But SOHR did not hide its dubious categorization. Anyone who asked was provided with the caveat above. But only few journalist asked despite the obvious mismatch in the casualty numbers and even fewer put the caveat into print. You will hardly find it in any current news piece that uses SOHR numbers.
Patrick Lang, a trained military spy and former Middle East chief of the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency, asserted several times that the "Syrian Observatory for Human Rights" is run by MI6, Britain's foreign intelligence service.
Peter Hitchens recently reported that SOHR is at least partially financed by the British Foreign Office:
Talking of war, and Syria, many of you may have noticed frequent references in the media to a body called the ‘Syrian Observatory for Human Rights’, often quoted as if it is an impartial source of information about that complicated conflict, in which the British government clearly takes sides. The ‘Observatory’ says on its website that it is ‘not associated or linked to any political body.’
To which I reply: Is Boris Johnson’s Foreign Office not a political body? Because the FO just confirmed to me that ‘the UK funded a project worth £194,769.60 to provide the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights with communications equipment and cameras.’ That’s quite a lot, isn’t it? I love the precision of that 60p. Your taxes, impartially, at work.
MI6 is subordinated to the British Foreign Office. The paltry sum of £195,000 pounds was surely not the only money Rami Abdulrahman received for more than seven years of daily work. There must be a rather large organization behind the dozens of news items and tweets the observatory puts out each and every day.
The SOHR reports often contain valuable information.
Källan till dina senaste åsikter om SOHR
http://www.moonofalabama.org/2018/05/sohr.html Bra forum! Men du måste skilja på sanning och konspirationsteorier.
Kan inte vara lätt att skilja på civila och rebeller när bomben har fallit över dem. han raporterar det info som kommer till honom. Men du vänder kappan efter vinden, jag citerar dig igen: "
SOHR är en liten propagandanisse som have been sent to Coventry* på riktigt. Riktigt skrattretande att du använder honom som källa. Inte trovärdiga någonstans."