all 12 comments

[–]FreakyFalangist 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Can't watch the video, but don't know who they're trying to fool if that's what he truly said.

The ongoing military presence in Syria is easily accessible public information.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Tanf_(U.S._military_base)

[–]weavilsatemyface[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The ongoing military presence in Syria is easily accessible public information.

Indeed. The US recently complained about their troops coming under fire from non-government Syrian forces.

The kindest interpretation of this is that UN officials, even when speaking officially in their capacity as high-ranking UN officials, are incompetent, ignorant of current events, clueless and out of touch.

[–]Site_rly_sux 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

First of all, the tweeter is absolutely spreading misinformation.

Syrian dictator Assad's friend-of-a-friend Donald Trump was stealing oil, and Brandon put an immediate stop to it. So that's a fake statement right away.

Next, coming to the video, which is a slickly edited and Chinese-subbed questioning by Chinese state employee and propagandist Edward/Dezhi Xu.

It's a piece of Chinese communist propaganda which you're spreading.

The UN official being questioned is the Deputy Spokesman for the Secretary-General.

The SecGen is in charge of debate scheduling, UN procedures to satisfy a vote, administration of the building and site....sort of like a speaker of the house.

It's not expected that a SecGen deputy spox would be able to speak on security matters or play whataboutism with a Chinese propagandist seeking to justify their upcoming invasion of Taiwan.

Overall, here's what we have:

A state propagandist caught a UN official short, by asking questions completely outside the official's remit and then editing their fluffing for a tiktok propaganda piece

Because OP is so low-Iq gamma male, he doesn't have the requisite testosterone levels to realise what a simp e-girl he has become for a state propaganda organ.

You're up there twirling in a skirt and blouse that the Chinese gave you. Are you a twink, op? Is that what's going on here? No offense, you can wear a skirt and blouse and suck Chicom dicks if that's what you want to do, it just didn't seem like you realised what a dicksucker you have become

[–]weavilsatemyface[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

spreading misinformation.

The new definition of "misinformation": anything true that I wish people wouldn't know.

Brandon put an immediate stop to it.

LOL. That's like Biden stopped the wall on the Mexican border, and freed the children from cages, right?

Meanwhile, back in reality: the US controls the north of Syria where most of the oil is, they control the "prohibited military zones", and they pull the strings on their Kurdish puppets actually doing the oil production and smuggling.

The UK government affiliated BBC wrote a whole article about "who benefits from Syria's oil" without once mentioning that the biggest beneficiary of all is the US, and failing to show the US presence on their map of Syria.

Even Radio Free Asia, a US-government funded propaganda outlet, has admitted that the US is "extracting" Syrian oil, (giving CNN as a credible source!). Being unable to lie with a straight face, they then try to weasel out of it by saying that claims of theft "lack sufficient context".

Context: just because the US and their puppets are taking Syria's oil without Syria's permission doesn't make it theft, because Fuck You.

It's not expected that a SecGen deputy spox would be able to speak on security matters

But the deputy did speak on them, in his official capacity as deputy. He falsely claimed that there was no evidence of any American presence in Syria, despite even the Americans complaining that their troops had come under fire from non-government Syrian forces.

At the very best, this demonstrates that UN officials are ignorant of what's actually going on in the world, and only know what their masters allow them to know. That's the kindest interpretation of this: the UN is ignorant, out of touch and clueless.

[–]Site_rly_sux 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Okay so you really do enjoy wearing makeup and a cute skirt to dance for the Chicom propaganda department. Interesting.

Huh maybe China should withdraw from Turkestan and Vietnam and Manchuria and their shitty nine dash line. Maybe if we want to talk about all the occupations going on, those topics might come up too. But they didn't because this is a crafted piece of Chicom propaganda which you're dicksucking for.

Hey maybe this asshole should have asked.the Spokesman why ruzzia is occupying Syria? Why is Iran occupying Syria and Lebanon?

ignorant of what's actually going on in the world, and only know what their masters allow them to know

He's ignorant about this one topic.

Your masters allowed you to know a lot less. Why didn't your masters allow you to question the Chinese occupation of turketsan or the Iranian occupation of Syria?

Since you're complaining about people not knowing more than their masters allow, perhaps you would turn that criticism on yourself

[–]weavilsatemyface[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

why ruzzia is occupying Syria? Why is Iran occupying Syria and Lebanon?

the Chinese occupation of turketsan

None of those three things are real, they are figments of your imagination.

Iran has no military forces in Syria or Lebanon, and Russia is in Syria at the invitation of the Syrian government.

And Turkenistan is not occupied by China. They are trade partners. China has two overseas military bases, both quite small, in Djibouti and Tajikistan.

[–]Site_rly_sux 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Weavil, sometimes your extreme dunning-kruger behaviour is so cringey.

You're just so sure you're right, that it's really cringe when you aren't

No, east Turkestan is absolutely occupied. Xinjiang literally means "new territories" in English. You could spend 5 seconds on Google checking, but your dunning-kruger problem doesn't let you.

Did you skip over the ongoing Chinese occupation of Vietnam and Manchuria that I wrote about? And their shitty nine dash line? Hey, I didn't mention - but the chicoms are occupying part of Bhutan too. I wonder whether the state propagandist in the video knows

Iran has no military forces in Syria or Lebanon

Oh, I see what you did there. You're going to insist that the IRGC is only PARAmilitary and so no Iranian military is in Syria...okay buddy retard

Actually the only American in Syria are the American Revolutionary Guards Corps, not the big green military machine, and therefore OP and the Chinese propagandist are totally wrong

[–]weavilsatemyface[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

east Turkestan is absolutely occupied. Xinjiang literally means "new territories" in English

It actually means "old land newly returned" (故土新歸).

You said "turketsan" (misspelling of Turkenistan) which is an independent country, not occupied by China.

Chinese control of parts of Xinjiang go back to 60 BCE and the Han dynysty, so over 2000 years. Xinjiang has been part of China since 1759 , which makes about a century older than modern Italy. If China is "occupying" Xinjiang, then Italy is occupying Venice, and Poland is occupying Małopolska.

ongoing Chinese occupation of Vietnam and Manchuria

Vietnam is not occupied by China. There are no Chinese military bases in Vietnam.

Manchuria has been part of China since 1371 when the Ming Dynasty took control. During the Qing dynasty that followed, the Manchus conquered Beijing, overthrew the Ming empire, and took control of China themselves, so we might just as well say that China is occupied by Manchuria. Today, Manchuria is populated by a majority of Han people.

the IRGC is only PARAmilitary and so no Iranian military is in Syria

Correct, the IRGC is not formally part of the Iranian state. Being independent of the government is an important diplomatic distance that all countries recognise. Even the USA distinguishes between official involvement and unofficial.

In any case, the IRGC can hardly be "occupying" Syria when they are allies of Syria and working closely with the Syrian government. The US propaganda that the IRGC is trying to reform Islamic State just demonstrates that the US doesn't even try to make their lies plausible. ISIS and Iran are bitter enemies.

the only American in Syria are the American Revolutionary Guards Corps, not the big green military machine

Quote: "CNN's Oren Liebermann reports on a rocket attack and a drone strike on facilities housing US troops in Syria ". Here is ABC reporting on a US military base in Syria.

That doesn't include the thousands of US "contractors" (mercenaries plus covert CIA assets), but I'm not counting them. I'm counting actual, literal, US soldiers, operating under the US flag, without permission of the internationally recognized Syrian government.

[–]weavilsatemyface[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

A state propagandist

Reality: a genuine journalist asking real questions that highlights American hypocrisy, instead of tossing out weak as piss soft-ball questions like "on a scale of Evil to Mega Evil, how evil is Russia really?"

It was a perfectly reasonable question that any actual journalist worth their salt could have asked. If it took a Chinese journalist to be free to ask about the legality of US occupation of north Syria, that's not a problem with China. That's a problem with the journalists of Europe who dare not ask that question.

caught a UN official short, by asking questions completely outside the official's remit

It is literally Farhan Haq's job to answer these sorts of questions and keep the Secretary-General well-informed about events around the world.

All the guy had to say was "No comment" or "I am not aware of the facts of the matter so I should not comment", or even be honest and say "as an American citizen, I think that it is simply brilliant that we are occupying north Syria, and fuck international law!" but instead he told the most ludicrous lie he could think of: there are no US forces in Syria.

Mind you, Haq is no stranger to putting his foot in it, with a history of making undiplomatic comments in his official capacity going back to at least 2010. He's been fucking up like this for over twelve years without being demoted. How does he keep his job? Either he is the greatest lay in the history of mankind, or his CIA handlers know where the bodies are buried.

This is how empires and nations fall. Incompetence and stupidity get rewarded, there are no consequences for failure, and the worst rise to positions of power and influence. The US has a puppet president with dementia, Ukraine has a coke-addled comedian, Germany has a petty tax cheat who dares not go against his American bosses, and the UN is full of incompetents like Haq.

[–]Site_rly_sux 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

A state propagandist

Check who he works for dipshit

Hint: it's a state propaganda agency

but instead he told the most ludicrous lie he could think

I agree he's a moron too, just like you. Neither you nor the UN guy come off looking good here

his CIA handlers

Lol you dipshit

You think the CIA runs the UN

Lol

Why the fuck does Venezuela exist.... Why do the houthis exist....we don't live in a world where the UN's strings are secretly being pulled by the CIA... consider... muscovy just took over rotating leadership of the security council while carrying out an aggressive war of annexation in opposition to the UN charter. How the fuck does the CIA pull the strings?

You're an idiot who thinks he knows everything. The worst of dunning-kruger

[–]weavilsatemyface[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Check who he works for dipshit

Are you talking about the journalist? He works for a news agency. You know, like the BBC, or the New York Times, only less biased and more honest.

Why the fuck does Venezuela exist.... Why do the houthis exist

Because the US is not all-powerful and doesn't always get its way. They got thrown out of Afghanistan, they are losing in Ukraine, China is destroying the petrodollar.

we don't live in a world where the UN's strings are secretly being pulled by the CIA

Oh you poor naive child, of course we do. Just as their strings are also being pulled by other powers, like Russia, Israel, the UK, China, and France, to mention just a few. Different strings, all pulling in different directions, with different strength.

The UN has no independent source of income, it is entirely dependent on fees from its members and a handful of NGOs. "He who pays the piper calls the tune." The USA is by far the biggest donor to the UN which is why they have by far the biggest influence on the UN.

When somebody as incompetent as Farhan Haq keeps his job for over a decade, despite repeatedly fucking up, somebody is pulling strings to keep him in that position. On thinking more carefully, probably the US State Department rather than the CIA.

How the fuck does the CIA pull the strings?

The same way influence is wielded in any bureaucratic organization: favours are traded, deals are done, you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours. "Jobs for the boys" (or the British version, "the old school tie") to make sure you have supporters in the right positions to support you. Money changes hands.

In the case of powerful government organizations like the State Department, and the CIA, they often know where the bodies are buried, figuratively or literally, and sometimes are willing and able to add a few extra.

You know, the usual ways that power has wielded influence throughout all of history: diplomacy, favours, bribery, blackmail, threats.

[–]Site_rly_sux 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Lol you think the CIA pull the strings at the UN but also can't prevent ruzzia from taking over the rotating chair of the security council....weird how they're all powerful but totally ineffective....

Edit - oh and your dodge about journalist/Chinese state media propagandists just shows that you're powered by stubborn childish denialism rather than any pattern of facts

Okay so what is the conspiracy which you have laid out here?

  • the American CIA have pulled strings to keep Haq in the job of gen sec spox

  • they need Haq in this role because Haq alone will bare-faced lie to this totally above-board honest Chinese reporter

  • the CIA have been pulling strings because the CIA have a massive need to not tell Chinese state media people about American boots in Syria

  • there's a massive demand within the CIA to deceive Chinese state media about Syria. So, the CIA have conspired to keep Haq in the job, because only he will bare-faced lie to the Chinese reporter

  • anyone with the internet can check if Americans are in Syria. But the Chinese don't have the normal internet. So the CIA correctly identified the need to lie to Chinese state reporters

  • having correctly identified the need to lie to Chinese state reporters, the CIA have put "their man" in the gen sec spox role, so that, should he ever be questioned about American boots in Syria, he can help us craft the Chinese-internet narrative that there are no Americans in Syria

Do you see how retarded you sound?

If you start out with the preconception that everything's a conspiracy, you don't actually have to do any mental work to craft the shape of the conspiracy.

When we actually lay out what you're theorising, it's totally ridiculous.

  1. Why did the CIA keep someone in a position who loses his shit under basic antagonistic questioning? He doesn't seem like someone who can keep secrets

  2. Why did the CIA need Haq to lie about something everyone can check with Google? Doesn't that draw more attention to Haq?

  3. How come the CIA runs the UN but America also fails to keep Putin out the UNSC, fail to pass votes on Syria, fails over and over, because of forces opposed to the CIA

  4. If you think there are UN forces opposed to the CIA, what makes you so sure you're not helping them with this post?