this post was submitted on 23 Apr 2024
16 points (62.1% liked)
World News
32048 readers
1160 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
So this article is thin on details and lacking any mention of historical or political context. The only cited sources it has are "witnesses" (unidentified). It's pretty clearly designed to give the reader a simple impression lacking in nuance or understanding. And in fact, it is a copy of propaganda articles being pushed by the Chinese Foreign Ministry as described in this article by Radio Free Asia. And here is the media bias rating for RFA.
This is a propaganda piece, and it's a poorly written one that doesn't even attempt to back up its claims with any other sources or explain the broader context of the conflict in Syria. The funny bit is, it's stale propaganda from 15 months ago, though it seems to have been updated with a new picture of a single truck on a road somewhere.
Edit: So this is the original source (provided by a commenter below): US occupation continues plundering Syrian resources, 22 Apr 2024. And here is the same article: US occupation continues plundering more Syrian resources dated 14 Jan 2023. This is pretty transparent, right? Do you think they have different authors that copy each others' homework, or is it just one guy using different names?
Adding to the general comic value, there are lots of pictures of trucks on unidentified roads in unspecified locations, but in spite of all the finger-pointing at the "US occupation forces" there isn't a single US soldier or vehicle pictured anywhere.
This is extremely lazy propaganda.
Regardless of your opinion of RFA, it's the way this article is written that makes it propaganda. It makes a direct political attack, but it doesn't actually substantiate any of its claims. You are expected to believe what it tells you and not ask any questions. There are no corroborating sources, no cross references, and not even names of the witnesses they claim to have.
No matter what your political point of view is, you shouldn't believe anything presented in an article of this quality. It's an insult to your intelligence. It's not information, it's just opinion.
The source is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Arab_News_Agency
https://www.sana.sy/en/?p=329527
This article from SANA is the same. It cites nothing except "local sources" and it's even shorter. It's literally a copy of the Chinese Foreign Ministry talking points described by RFA.
Media Bias "Fact Checking" RFA is the funniest shit.
"Non-profit" without mentioning who founded it, and who funds it now.
There is an About link in the footer that is quite transparent about the founder, funding sources, methodology, etc.
I'm talking about RFA.
It looks like most outlets carrying this story are just re-reporting this one from SANA: https://sana.sy/en/?p=329527
And that seems a bit light on details. And the details it does have seem slanted, like painting the US presence as an occupation, a border crossing as an illegal settlement (I can't even find any other references to Mahmoudiya in Syria with a quick Google), and the photos just show pictures of random tanker trucks, nothing that would indicate location, direction, contents, or operator.
My sense is that the US is supporting a rebel faction in the Syrian civil war, and the ruling faction (Bashar al-Assad's) is trying to paint them as the bad guy, for something that may or may not be legitimate, and may or may not even be happening at all. There's not enough evidence here to draw any conclusions.
Explain to me how it is not. Do they have a UN mandate to be there? No? An invite from the sovereign government body of the land? Neither?
A territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. In this case, that area is under the control of the SDF.
Who funds and arms the SDF?
The US, for one. If this is supposed to be a gotcha, that makes it a puppet state at best, still not an occupation.
US literally has bases with US troops in Syria. It's an occupying force.
what definition of occupation does not include the deployment of the US military, which proceeded to build a dozen military bases in a territory of another country, which has continuously made filings to the UN about this occupation?
The US is supporting SDF, a primarily Kurdish group. This is no secret, they have been since 2015 against ISIL (you remember, the guys that were posting videos of beheading people on YouTube).
The Kurds have lived in this area for millennia. They have just as much right to the natural resources there as the Assad government, probably more.
This is a good, nuanced interpretation of this, thanks for doing the leg work and summarizing it succinctly.
The Syrian conflict is 13 years old. It's ridiculous to expect every article to give you the whole context every time, especially since anything anyone will write about said context will be extremely biased. This conflict had massive misinformation campaigns from all sides.
Evaluate the information for what it is, not for whether it gives you a lecture on the history of the conflict.
SANA is primarily a TV channel, and the articles are usually a summary / transcript of the TV reports. They show videos routinely of the trucks that are very clearly carrying oil through Al-ya'rabiya, which is a border crossing from Syria to Iraq that the US controls.
Please avoid citing MBFC as a valid source. See my comment above.