screamingwelp
New Member
[Original video removed, alternate copy used here:]
Last edited by a moderator:
it would be nice if the claim was stated in the OP.I am a bit confused by this thread. Was the video debunked? I just found a mirror and thought it was new info.
That is hardly a good excuse. Why not just translate what she actually said?
They are reporting supposedly rather than interpreting. That is for the people forced to pay television licenses to decide.
it would be nice if the claim was stated in the OP.
They explained why they didn't translate what she actually said.
I'm not sure it makes a difference. they made a decision. which I for one happen to agree with.Th
How do we know if that was the real reason or if it was just an excuse?
I'm not sure it makes a difference. they made a decision. which I for one happen to agree with.
Be sure to read the PGs. Improper threads end up in Rambles which limits its visibility on search sites.Of course it makes a difference. Something is not debunked if its just a statement rather than a proven fact..
Then again, I dont understand what their excuse was fully so I might be missing something.
It would be nice to here what she said in her language so I can ask somebody to translate it.
Why not just translate what she actually said?
They are reporting supposedly rather than interpreting
Just my pennys worth. The first video is the 29th August and the second is 30th September. RT is claiming the second video is to stir public opionion for military action. Given that military action was ruled out in a parliamentary vote on the 30th August why would the BBC alter footage a month later to garner sympathy for a decision already made?
The OP was improperly posted by the rules. It makes it hard to be objective about it.Be sure to read the PGs. Improper threads end up in Rambles which limits its visibility on search sites.
Under what parliamentary mechanism will that work?Just because they had to rule it out because of the public protested doesnt mean they would not try and effect public opinion so they could push for invasion again. True?
By OP do you mean Official Position or Opening Post?The OP was improperly posted by the rules. It makes it hard to be objective about it.
I admit not reading every single link and quote but what translation are you meaning? The doctor does speak english, it's not a dubbed in actors voice - or am I missing something? Sorry if I got the wrong impression.
By OP do you mean Official Position or Opening Post?
Well, original post. Yes.
The opening post IMO violates the PGsI admit not reading every single link and quote but what translation are you meaning? The doctor does speak english, it's not a dubbed in actors voice - or am I missing something? Sorry if I got the wrong impression.
It's fairly clear. In the first instance words were edited out for clarity because, by the time the piece was broadcast, the nature of the attack was known. In the second broadcast the "Panorama" editor left the original words intact, but the clip ended before she had finished speaking. This was explained in the next part of the programme, which RT chose not to mention. This is RT being mischievous coupled with a feeding frenzy of straw grasping conspiracy theorists. Of course, if we want to play a game of semantics "Napalm" IS a chemical weapon.Of course it makes a difference. Something is not debunked if its just a statement rather than a proven fact..
Then again, I dont understand what their excuse was fully so I might be missing something.
.
Yeah, it's a talk show of people with a heavy conspiracy bent using that 'incident' as a launching pad to make a bunch of claims about political manipulation of reality. It's very much an Alex Jones style show.but there is more than one claim in this video.
Yeah, it's a talk show of people with a heavy conspiracy bent using that 'incident' as a launching pad to make a bunch of claims about political manipulation of reality. It's very much an Alex Jones style show.
Only the first story was in the title so that was worth concentrating on. It's not really a clean 'debunked' but it is explained reasonably. It's obvious the talk show is really just using it as an excuse to launch a narrative about how the west is pushing for military intervention in Syria, and their motives for that should be questioned, as their message is way more heavy-handed and manipulative than the original BBC piece.
This was dealt with very quickly by Pete Tar who showed that the RT claim is bunk. Therefore the "acting" nonsense (seems to raise it's head every time these days) is irrelevant.Well we cant really bunk it or debunk it as the person who made the thread didnt really make any claims. There is apparent evidence that there was acting. Has that been addressed anywhere on this forum?
So now the claim is the actual people in the hospital are actors? Not just the BBC edited the words to closer reflect the reality of what was known about the attack in a video summary some time after the original?
This explains it, what's your problem with it?
So now the claim is the actual people in the hospital are actors? Not just the BBC edited the words to closer reflect the reality of what was known about the attack in a video summary some time after the original?[/EX]
It appears in the original airing as an 'incendiary device' and a month later, in another airing, it is changed to 'chemical weapons'.
So are you saying RT, are lying about when each version was aired?The exact opposite to what you both are claiming happened.
element and theSyrian Observatory for Human Rights
Doctor Rola, on whose sole claim the BBC sends the napalm/chemical weapons allegations round the world, is actually the daughter of Syrian rebel Mousa Al-Kurdi.
The exact opposite to what you both are claiming happened.
As for claims about dodgy acting and the doctor's nationality, I really couldn't give a crap, that kind of analysis is contemptible to me.
Acting and nationality are not debunkable - and raising them as an issue speaks to lack of facts to support a position - the arrogance lies not with the person who points that out.
I'm one person, that's my opinion. Someone else may have the stomach to trawl through it, I don't.So this is the extent of the debunking on this site - total arrogance.