We need to integrate our resources to stop Islamic State which, everybody agrees, must be stopped and removed. Yet we need to look closely how it’s done, by whom and why, says media and legal analyst Lionel.
Western social media lashed out at Russia over air strikes in Syria claiming they had killed civilians.
RT: What do you make of this hysteria on social media about alleged civilian casualties from Russia's military action in Syria? And what's your reaction to the fact that some of these materials have been uploaded by the Western-backed Syrian opposition?
Lionel: First and foremost, social media is a riot, it is a crowd, it is a group of people who post a variety of things – good, bad, hateful, true, correct. Somewhere in the midst of that we collectively call social media. So first of all, there is no social media – it is an information riot. What I cannot believe is how venerated news organizations from around the world who pride themselves on checking sources, checking the basis, validating, authenticating issues, and statements, and claims that are of such international importance; how they are abnegating and completely turning their backs on their duty, and not understanding that today you don’t have to infiltrate media conglomerates like Operation Mockingbird we speak of here in this country. All you have to do is set up a phony twitter account, or phony blog, or a phony website, or a bias – whatever bias is - and have one person, one line producer refer to it – and that’s all, that’s it- no validation, no accreditation, no authentication.
READ MORE: That’s information warfare? Russia accused of killing civilians in Syria
RT: Some news channels have been stirring up fears over Russia's action in Syria. What kind of impact can these reports have on their audience? As you’re in the states you know what has been the reaction?
L: There are people that I know – both in the media and observers, who are spouting and repeating like myna birds Cold War rhetoric. I don’t understand something, maybe you can help me: when coalition forces – the ‘good guys’ – and that is a big term here... When the ‘good guys’ apply a coalition strike force against ISIS, we applaud that. When the ‘bad guys’ identify the same target, ostensibly, then they are flexing their muscles. When the ‘good guys’, whoever this is, depending upon where you are, are invited in, are asked to cooperate – you applaud it. When the ‘bad guys’ do it, you’re ‘invading the country’.
No, I don’t understand, and I think most can’t figure who exactly are the ‘good guys’, and who are the ‘bad guys’. Do we want to remove ISIS/ISIL? Yes. Does it matter who removes them? I don’t think so. Do you care how a cancer is removed – I don’t care however you do it…
The idea that Russia has a port in Tartus - most people don’t know that. Or that there has been a relationship with Syria throughout the years – many people don’t know this. There is a big difference between helping out a country per invitation and invading it, last time I checked my dictionary.
RT: Who gains from making allegations against Russia based on unverified videos? Is it more to it?
L: ... Yes, there is always something to this. Look, I don’t know how this happened but if you read the American press today, and if you read the social media – I am hearing this more than I’ve ever heard: “You know, I am no big fan of Putin but I’ve got to admit…” or “I am no fan of Assad…” or “I am no fan of…” What does that even mean? People have this again ‘good guy’ - ‘bad guy’ apodictic: ‘white hat - black hat’. Many people are speaking of Cold War rhetoric and a mindset that is dangerous. Right now more than ever in the spirit of the UN and in the spirit of cooperation - we need to integrate our resources to stop this terroristic cancer which, everybody agrees, must be ablated and removed. That is our goal.
READ MORE: Putin: Claims Russian jets killed civilians in Syria emerged before airstrikes started
Yet we are parsing how it is done, by whom it is done, why it is done, and we are having a story or stories that are provided for by unverified, invalidated, unauthenticated and, I am sorry, ‘news’ sources that some line producers said: “Well ,that will do”. Look, we live in an age of ‘the onion’: we are living in an age where our news parody looks so much like the real news that every single day we’re hearing: “This is a hoax”. And our own Facebook world for the past weeks we’ve been going through a hoax about privacy. We can’t tell the truth any more from fiction. And that is ok when you are talking about some silly Facebook posting. But this is life and death, this is the history of the war, this is the future. ISIS, and ISIL, and terrorism are something that I thought that we all agreed had to be ablated, and expurgated, and removed, and excised. And yet, through all of this nonsense we can’t even decide – do we want that removed or don’t we. And does it matter how this cancer is ablated, how it is removed. If you are a victim of a Stage IV melanoma- you don’t care. And dare I say the world is a victim of this terroristic cancer.
LISTEN MORE:
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.