[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.

[berntb]

mafribe already had (another) link to the first case. I answered by noting that I have never contradicted that propaganda for the combatants is done in an active war.

And for the second "point" -- political correctness is part of a giant conspiracy theory for lying about all the Iranian terror support?!

:-)

[acqq]

Of course not, it's just an example of how the political decisions once made and applied distort the whole public perception of some issues for years to come.

The claim of "Iran funding terrorism" is in fact due to its recent (as in decades) support of Sunni Hammas, which is the most direct threat to Israel, and which started as a Muslim Brotherhood offshoot financed also by the Saudis.

Fascinatingly, Islamic Hammas was also once seen by Israel as the "potentially better" than less religious PLO and Israel even indirectly supported it, almost like the "moderate" Islamic rebels are still supported by the US.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB123275572295011847

Time and again it turns out that every "Islamic" group will eventually turn against the West. Those that support them don't understand the basic tenets of the religion behind.

[berntb]

>> The claim of "Iran funding terrorism" is in fact due to its recent (as in decades) support of Sunni Hammas

Uh, not only Hamas. There are lots of other cases.

You even commented on where I gave this link to the terror stamped Quds force: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quds_Force

I posted this link previously too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_state-sponsored_terro...

And so on.

(I have no clue about Islam in itself, but there were peaceful and modern Muslims in Yugoslavia. That is at least one modern example. It might also be noted that the upper classes in Iran seem to be about as West oriented as the Scots or the Irish.)

[acqq]

> not only Hamas

I agree with that, I'm surely not the one who's considering Iran harmless. But I consider Saudis not less dangerous. It's just that the Saudis confront less directly with Israel and are "official" allies of the US.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/07/18/what-we-know-about-saudi...

Regarding the Muslims in the former Yugoslavia, I guess you refer to the Muslims currently in Bosnia and Herzegovina, then these "peaceful and modern Muslims" were by necessity "peaceful" during the peaceful periods there as they were a minority since 1878 when Austria got the control over Bosnia. Even in B&H they were under 50% until the last polls. So a lot of them simply grew up secular and didn't care about the Islam books, it's not that the Islam books were different. It seems that the leader of Muslims in the last war was actually advocating for the Islamic state ans Sharia there:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Declaration

And his government gave the passport to Osama bin Laden too, and brought the Islamic fighters just like in Afghanistan or Syria.