[mafribe]

   2 minutes with Wikipedia:

Wikipedia is not a credible source in such matters. Many of the claims are clearly dubious, e.g. "Bahraini security forces [...] arrested a number of suspects linked to Iran's Revolutionary Guards" Oh yes, Bahraini security forces, that fountain of truth, and model of just democracy.

[berntb]

>> Wikipedia is not a credible source in such matters. Many of the claims are clearly dubious

So....

Are you claiming that the content of Wikipedia is a USA conspiracy or a Jewish one? Or both?

(Edit: I really have seen people make those conspiracy claims, it is not totally a joke. They also didn't have any references, unlike wikipedia.)

[mafribe]

Neither the Bahraini security forces nor Wikipedia is a credible source. As a Wikipedia editor I've seen enough edit wars.

It is also well documented that all sides in the middle eastern conflicts invest heavily in propaganda. Here is but one example: The U.S. military payed over $540 millions to the British public relation firm Bell Pottinger [2] to create 'al-Qaeda' videos [2]. $540M buys you a lot of willing propagandeers. Are you being paid, or are you working for free?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Pottinger

[2] http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/10/01/pentagon-pa...

[berntb]

So you argue against references in a Wikipedia article -- with a reference to Wikipedia(!). You link to something else in a neighboring country, that basically claim that propaganda is done in an active war?

You can literally argue that the Earth is flat like that, using a reference to My Little Pony.

Your position needs that all the news are a conspiracy -- e.g. that the Gulf countries are lying about being threatened by Iran and just wasting tens of billions of dollars in weapon buys for no reason.

Extraordinary claims needs extraordinary support, you don't even have a coherent conspiracy theory -- just claims that anything that contradicts the Iranian priests could maybe be a plant.

Enough.

[mafribe]

You still have not explained why anyone should trust the Bahraini security forces.

Some Wikipedia articles are more trustworthy than others. I certainly trust the Wikipedia articles I have written. The Bell Pottinger article was presumably launched by Bell Pottinger itself, so it's probably the most positive spin on Bell Pottinger. The Iranian article was probably launched by a PR agency paid to make Iran look bad.

That's the reality of mass media: essentially all articles of consequence are paid for by somebody. Yes, that makes it difficult to see what the truth is. Such is life. One still needs to try.

And now tell me why the Bahraini security forces are a trustworthy source of information.

[berntb]

So you argue: Iran don't do terror.

For that to be true, you claim there is a conspiracy that control all the news and Wikipedia. (And e.g. that the Gulf countries pay tens of billions of dollars for defense -- just to make Iran look aggressive!)

I assume that the terror stamping of Quds force is part of the conspiracy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quds_Force

All this without any references. Of course.

[Edit: All the dictatorships on the planet insist that all the bad news about torture, oppression and terror are just a conspiracy by USA and western media. These are done for no other reason than that we hate the juntas for being good people.

As a Westerner, I don't understand how I have time to sleep; all of us must be working 80+ hours a week on all these conspiracies! :-) ]

[acqq]

> all of us must be working 80+ hours a week on all these conspiracies

This is of course not true, but the various forms of propaganda are actually organized and financed, just an example of some very recent title presented here:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12622216

And there are other possibilities of distorting the truth, this one caught:

http://www.mrctv.org/blog/video-wh-censors-reference-islamis...

If you wonder why it is deleted, it's because White House decided that it won't allow any material originating from them to contain such terms, but when editing got the media attention avoided to admit they do this. What's the origin of that? I wish I have something better, the only public source I can find is Obama's 2009 speech:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-presiden...

Obama: "I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear."

It was of course never the part of his responsibilities, as the US is not there to service any specific religion.