More on Syria

[Sandydragon]

Sounds like just the sort of fellow who would spill the beans

So, since your only recourse now is to just dismiss the credibility of all sources, including Pulitzer Prize-winner and legendary journalist Seymour Hersh, how would you go about dismissing this fellow:

Wesley Clark has been awarded numerous honors, awards, and knighthoods over the course of his military and civilian career. Notable military awards include the Defense Distinguished Service Medal with four oak leaf clusters, the Legion of Merit with three oak leaf clusters, the Silver Star, and the Bronze Star with an oak leaf cluster.[146] Internationally Clark has received numerous civilian honors such as the Grand Cross of the Order of Merit of the Federal Republic of Germany and military honors such as the Grand Cross of the Medal of Military Merit from Portugal and knighthoods.[147] Clark has been awarded some honors as a civilian, such as the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2000.[148] The people of Gjakova, Kosovo, named a street after him for his role in helping their city and country.[149][150] The city of Madison in Alabama has also named a boulevard after Clark.[151][152] Municipal approval has been granted for the construction of a new street to be named "General Clark Court" in Virginia Beach, Virginia.[153] He has also been appointed a Fellow at the Burkle Center for International Relations at UCLA. He is a member of the guiding coalition of the Project on National Security Reform. In 2013, General Clark was awarded the Hanno R. Ellenbogen Citizenship Award by the Prague Society for International Cooperation.[154]

Or this fellow:


John Pilger

Selected Awards
1966: Descriptive Writer of the Year
1967: Reporter of the Year
1967: Journalist of the Year
1970: International Reporter of the Year
1974: News Reporter of the Year
1977: Campaigning Journalist of the Year
1979: Journalist of the Year
1979-80: UN Media Peace Prize, Australia
1980-81: UN Media Peace Prize, Gold Medal, Australia
1979: TV Times Readers' Award
1990: The George Foster Peabody Award, USA
1991: American Television Academy Award ('Emmy')
1991: British Academy of Film and Television Arts - The Richard Dimbleby Award
1990: Reporters San Frontiers Award, France
1995: International de Television Geneve Award
2001: The Monismanien Prize (Sweden)
2003: The Sophie Prize for Human Rights (Norway)
2003: EMMA Media Personality of the Year
2004: Royal Television Society Best Documentary, 'Stealing a Nation'
2008: Best Documentary, One World Awards, 'The War On Democracy'
2009: Sydney Peace Prize
2011: Grierson Trustees' Award

This the same Clark who was sacked from his post as SACEUR amd decided to try for the Democratic tickets in the 04 presidential election? Of course he might try and muddy the waters against the republicans a bit. Equally, how does he just get told To pSecret information at random in the Pentagon? Later, when questioned by another interviewer, Clark was far less precise and a bit reluctant. So either 'they got to him' which I find a bit odd given that he must have known that by spilling TS information he would be in trouble, or it was all bull shit in the first place.

EVen Pulitzer winning journalists get desperate for stories and perhaps believe their sources a bit too much when it suits their agenda. The fact he names no sources makes it very difficult to cross examine his evidence.

[Sandydragon]

Rowan, you seem to be stuck with sources who agree with your viewpoint. You are in an echo chamber. And for the record Ive spent plenty of time in the ME, and still have contacts there. Eastern Europe too, so I have a reasonable handle on how things actually are on the ground.

[rowan]

Rowan, you seem to be stuck with sources who agree with your viewpoint.

No, that's yourself you're talking about there, Sandy. I live in the region, remember. You've dismissed one of the journalism industry's greatest war reporters because his viewpoint does not support yours. But all you're going on there is hearsay, and how would you attempt to discredit former US general Wesley Clark & Aussie journalism legend John Pilger, when they tell us the same thing? & I could go on with that list, too.

Or does that only apply if it conforms to your agenda.

Agendas? Very ironic

P.S. Peep that RT logo in the corner of the video

RT, yes, & I'm not more a fan of theirs than I am of the Gaurdian, but it was Pilger being interviewed, not the staff of the web-site.

[rowan]

Interesting article on media propaganda relating to the Syrian conflict:

When we at Media Lens have even highlighted the US-UK role in arming, funding and fighting the Syrian war, and have discussed the extent of US-UK media propaganda – while holding not even the tiniest candle for Assad – we have been crudely denounced as 'pro-Assad useful idiots', as 'just another leftist groupuscle shilling for tyrants' that 'defends repression by President Assad'.

Other commentators have suffered similar abuse for merely pointing out, as Patrick Cockburn recently noted in the London Review of Books, that 'fabricated news and one-sided reporting have taken over the news agenda [on Syria] to a degree probably not seen since the First World War'.

Nothing could be easier, then, than to imagine the corporate media lining up to roast Boris Johnson for what simply had to be, from their perspective, the ultimate example of someone who 'defends repression by President Assad': actually suggesting that the media's great hate figure might contest elections and even remain in power.

http://www.medialens.org/index.php/aler ... syria.html

[Donny osmond]

Filthy anti-Syrian uk/us backed terrorists get what they deserve...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-38885901

[rowan]

It was inevitable that, having destroyed another Middle Eastern country, leading to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of children, women and men, the US and its cabal - including Britain - would enter the standard post-war crimes propaganda phase. We've heard all this before, of course - in Afghanistan, in Iraq and in Libya; as if, even were it true, the US and its cabal were not guilty of even worse violations; and as if this were justification for destruction of an entire nation regardless, while Saudi Arabia and Israel remain the West's closest allies.

London-based Amnesty international is indeed funded and run by not only governments, but also immense corporate-financier interests, and is not only absolutely entwined with political ideology and economic interests, it is an essential tool used for perpetuating just such interests.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/amnesty-in ... anda/32444

[Donny osmond]

It was inevitable that, having destroyed another Middle Eastern country, leading to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of children, women and men, the US and its cabal - including Britain - would enter the standard post-war crimes propaganda phase. We've heard all this before, of course - in Afghanistan, in Iraq and in Libya; as if, even were it true, the US and its cabal were not guilty of even worse violations; and as if this were justification for destruction of an entire nation regardless, while Saudi Arabia and Israel remain the West's closest allies.

London-based Amnesty international is indeed funded and run by not only governments, but also immense corporate-financier interests, and is not only absolutely entwined with political ideology and economic interests, it is an essential tool used for perpetuating just such interests.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/amnesty-in ... anda/32444

I'm not sure but I think I remember someone on one thread or other hereabouts making a point about a source being considered worthy of taking seriously based on that sources history of being reliable.

Oh it was you with your justification of using Pilger et al as reliable fonts of knowledge! Sorry.

So is your argument that we can and should ignore Amnesty International now? Because I'm pretty sure they have a record as reliable as anyone in reporting and highlighting crimes against humanity. I wonder if Pilger uses them?

...

Just back from a quick look at Pilgers website and yes,
he is happy to use figures from Amnesty International regarding warzone casualties and civilian deaths.

So either he is a brazen liar to knowingly use figures from a such a corrupt organization, or.....

[rowan]

It was inevitable that, having destroyed another Middle Eastern country, leading to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of children, women and men, the US and its cabal - including Britain - would enter the standard post-war crimes propaganda phase. We've heard all this before, of course - in Afghanistan, in Iraq and in Libya; as if, even were it true, the US and its cabal were not guilty of even worse violations; and as if this were justification for destruction of an entire nation regardless, while Saudi Arabia and Israel remain the West's closest allies.

London-based Amnesty international is indeed funded and run by not only governments, but also immense corporate-financier interests, and is not only absolutely entwined with political ideology and economic interests, it is an essential tool used for perpetuating just such interests.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/amnesty-in ... anda/32444

I'm not sure but I think I remember someone on one thread or other hereabouts making a point about a source being considered worthy of taking seriously based on that sources history of being reliable.
Oh it was you with your justification of using Pilger et al as reliable fonts of knowledge! Sorry.

So is your argument that we can and should ignore Amnesty International now? Because I'm pretty sure they have a record as reliable as anyone in reporting and highlighting crimes against humanity. I wonder if Pilger uses them?

Just back from a quick look at Pilgers website and yes,
he is happy to use figures from Amnesty International regarding warzone casualties and civilian deaths.
So either he is a brazen liar to knowingly use figures from a such a corrupt organization, or.....

Regarding your first paragraph - yes, Donny, sources are considered worthy on the basis of their track record. No doubt you have some other criterion, such as political agenda, but sane people look at the track record to determine reliability.

Regarding your second paragraph, no, that wasn't my point at all. My point was that the standard post-war crimes propaganda phase was inevitable, and that the verity of the accusation was in fact irrelevant in the broader context of this conflict. The US has Guantanamo Bay, it has admitted to torture, and it has the highest prison rates in the world, by far, with Native & African Americans its primary victims. What they claim to have uncovered here might as easily have been uncovered in Saudi, Israel, Egypt or Turkey, but that's not going to happen because they are closely allies to the US. So the purpose here is obviously to demonize the elected leader of a nation the US and its cabal have just tried (unsuccessfully) to add to the list of nations they have destroyed in the Middle East. But don't let the estimated 10 million deaths or so trouble your conscience.

Regarding your third paragraph - it may be that unreliable sources do sometimes print the facts, providing it doesn't conflict with their political agenda, especially in terms of basic stats. So I'm not quite sure how this leads you directly to the assumption one of the world's most respected journalists is a blatant liar for occasionally referencing them. I mean, you just referenced one of the biggest propaganda agencies in the world yourself. Does that make you a brazen liar?...

[rowan]

Good article on the use of propaganda in the Syrian conflict here:

Discussing western reporting of the Syrian war, veteran Middle East correspondent Patrick Cockburn recently noted "fabricated news and one-sided reporting have taken over the news agenda to a degree probably not seen since the First World War".

Professor Piers Robinson, Chair in Politics, Society and Political Journalism at the University of Sheffield, concurs, arguing "We must now seriously entertain the possibility that the war in Syria has involved similar, if not greater, levels of manipulation and propaganda than that which occurred in the case of the 2003 Iraq War".

An incredibly complex and confusing conflict with hundreds of opposition groups and multiple external actors often keen to hide many of their actions, how can journalists and the public get an accurate understanding of what is happening in Syria?

As governments routinely use their public statements to deceive the public, traditionally leaked government documents have been seen as the gold standard of journalistic sources - a unique opportunity to see what those in power are really thinking and doing behind closed doors.

"Policy-makers are usually frank about their real goals in the secret record", notes British historian Mark Curtis in his book Unpeople: Britain's Secret Human Rights Abuses.

When it comes to Syria there have been a number of US government documents leaked about US policy in the region. However, though these disclosures were reported by the media at the time, they have been quickly forgotten and have not contributed to the dominant narrative that has built up about the conflict.

As Professor Peter Kuznick noted about the American history he highlighted in The Untold History of the United States documentary series he co-wrote with director Oliver Stone, "the truth is that many of our 'secrets' have been hidden on the front page of The New York Times."

Though these disclosures were reported by the media at the time, they have been quickly forgotten. For example, liberal journalists and commentators have repeatedly stated the US has, as Paul Mason wrote in the Guardian last year, "stood aloof from the Syrian conflict". The leaked audio recording of a meeting between President Obama's second Secretary of State John Kerry, and Syrian opposition figures last year shows the opposite to be true.

Challenged about the level of US support to the insurgency, Kerry turns to his aide and says: "I think we've been putting an extraordinary amount of arms in, haven't we?" The aide agrees, noting "the armed groups in Syria get a lot of support".

Amazingly, before noting the US had sent an "extraordinary amount of arms" to the rebels, Kerry tells the activists "we can always throw a lot of weapons in but I don't think they are going to be good for you" because "everyone ups the ante" leading to "you all [getting] destroyed".

This explanation of the logic of escalation is repeated later in the meeting by Kerry's aide, who notes "when you pump more weapons into a situation like Syria it doesn't end well for Syrians because there is always somebody else willing to pump more weapons in for the other side".

In summary, the leaked information wholly contradicts the popular picture of western benevolent intentions let down by President Obama's ineffective leadership.

A classified 2012 Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) report, published by the right-wing watchdog Judicial Watch, provides important context to Kerry's remarks. In the heavily redacted document the DIA - the intelligence arm of the US Department of Defense - notes "the Salafist, the Muslim Brotherhood, and AQI (al-Qaida in Iraq) are the major forces driving the insurgency in Syria" and "The West, Gulf countries and Turkey support the opposition".

Speaking at a 2013 Jewish United Fund Advance & Major Gifts Dinner - the transcript of which was published by Wikileaks - former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton confirmed that US ally Saudi Arabia "and others are shipping large amounts of weapons - and pretty indiscriminately - not at all targeted toward the people that we think would be the more moderate, least likely, to cause problems in the future".

It gets worse. Discussing the crisis, the DIA report notes "There is the possibility of [the opposition] establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist Principality in Eastern Syria… and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime."

Read More: Barack Obama: 'The too little too late' president
This appalling revelation was seemingly confirmed by General Michael T Flynn, the Director of the DIA from 2012-14 (and now National Security Advisor to President Trump), in a 2015 interview with Al-Jazeera's Mehdi Hasan - and also, it seems, by Kerry when he told the Syrian activists:

"The reason Russia came in [to the conflict] is because ISIL [the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant] was getting stronger. Daesh [another name for ISIL] was threatening the possibility of going to Damascus and so forth... And we know that this was growing. We were watching. We saw that Daesh was growing in strength. And we thought Assad was threatened. We thought, however, we could probably manage - you know, that Assad might then negotiate, but instead of negotiating he got Putin to support him."

In summary, the leaked information wholly contradicts the popular picture of western benevolent intentions let down by President Obama's ineffective leadership and inaction.

Instead the evidence shows the US has been sending an "extraordinary amount" of weapons to the armed insurgents in Syria in the full knowledge that Salafists, the Muslim Brotherhood, and al-Qaeda in Iraq were the "major forces" driving the insurgency. They did this understanding that sending in weapons would escalate the fighting and not "end well for Syrians".

The disclosures have disappeared down the memory hole. Furthermore, the US has long known that its regional ally Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states have been supporting extremists in Syria. And, most shocking of all if true, both Kerry and the DIA report seem to show the US allowed forerunners to IS to expand and threaten the Syrian government as this corresponded with the US's geo-strategic objectives.

More broadly, by highlighting how the US welcomed the growth of IS in Syria, the leaks fatally undermine the entire rationale of the "War on Terror" the West has supposedly been fighting since 2001. These are, in short, bombshells that should be front page news, with lengthy investigative follow ups and hundreds of op-eds outraged at the lies and hypocrisy of western governments.

Instead, the disclosures have disappeared down the memory hole, with the huge gap between the importance of the revelations and the lack of coverage indicating a frighteningly efficient propaganda system.

It is worth noting however, that as an observer and newsreader - rather than seasoned expert - there may well be important context or information of which I am unaware, which provides a different take on the leaked material. This would lessen its importance and, therefore, justify the media having largely ignored it.

Of course, the best way of confirming the accuracy and importance of the leaks is for the media to do its job and thoroughly investigate the disclosures, to devote significant resources and manpower to the story, and to ask awkward and searching questions of established power.

I'm not holding my breath.


https://www.alaraby.co.uk/english/comme ... s-on-syria

[canta_brian]

Filthy anti-Syrian uk/us backed terrorists get what they deserve...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-38885901

Just thought I would bump this. The original has been buried by another vast technicolour yawn of waffle as usual.

[morepork]

Didn't Obama win the Pulitzer prize?

BOOM BOOM

[rowan]

Good article on the use of propaganda in the Syrian conflict here:

Discussing western reporting of the Syrian war, veteran Middle East correspondent Patrick Cockburn recently noted "fabricated news and one-sided reporting have taken over the news agenda to a degree probably not seen since the First World War".

Professor Piers Robinson, Chair in Politics, Society and Political Journalism at the University of Sheffield, concurs, arguing "We must now seriously entertain the possibility that the war in Syria has involved similar, if not greater, levels of manipulation and propaganda than that which occurred in the case of the 2003 Iraq War".

An incredibly complex and confusing conflict with hundreds of opposition groups and multiple external actors often keen to hide many of their actions, how can journalists and the public get an accurate understanding of what is happening in Syria?

As governments routinely use their public statements to deceive the public, traditionally leaked government documents have been seen as the gold standard of journalistic sources - a unique opportunity to see what those in power are really thinking and doing behind closed doors.

"Policy-makers are usually frank about their real goals in the secret record", notes British historian Mark Curtis in his book Unpeople: Britain's Secret Human Rights Abuses.

When it comes to Syria there have been a number of US government documents leaked about US policy in the region. However, though these disclosures were reported by the media at the time, they have been quickly forgotten and have not contributed to the dominant narrative that has built up about the conflict.

As Professor Peter Kuznick noted about the American history he highlighted in The Untold History of the United States documentary series he co-wrote with director Oliver Stone, "the truth is that many of our 'secrets' have been hidden on the front page of The New York Times."

Though these disclosures were reported by the media at the time, they have been quickly forgotten. For example, liberal journalists and commentators have repeatedly stated the US has, as Paul Mason wrote in the Guardian last year, "stood aloof from the Syrian conflict". The leaked audio recording of a meeting between President Obama's second Secretary of State John Kerry, and Syrian opposition figures last year shows the opposite to be true.

Challenged about the level of US support to the insurgency, Kerry turns to his aide and says: "I think we've been putting an extraordinary amount of arms in, haven't we?" The aide agrees, noting "the armed groups in Syria get a lot of support".

Amazingly, before noting the US had sent an "extraordinary amount of arms" to the rebels, Kerry tells the activists "we can always throw a lot of weapons in but I don't think they are going to be good for you" because "everyone ups the ante" leading to "you all [getting] destroyed".

This explanation of the logic of escalation is repeated later in the meeting by Kerry's aide, who notes "when you pump more weapons into a situation like Syria it doesn't end well for Syrians because there is always somebody else willing to pump more weapons in for the other side".

In summary, the leaked information wholly contradicts the popular picture of western benevolent intentions let down by President Obama's ineffective leadership.

A classified 2012 Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) report, published by the right-wing watchdog Judicial Watch, provides important context to Kerry's remarks. In the heavily redacted document the DIA - the intelligence arm of the US Department of Defense - notes "the Salafist, the Muslim Brotherhood, and AQI (al-Qaida in Iraq) are the major forces driving the insurgency in Syria" and "The West, Gulf countries and Turkey support the opposition".

Speaking at a 2013 Jewish United Fund Advance & Major Gifts Dinner - the transcript of which was published by Wikileaks - former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton confirmed that US ally Saudi Arabia "and others are shipping large amounts of weapons - and pretty indiscriminately - not at all targeted toward the people that we think would be the more moderate, least likely, to cause problems in the future".

It gets worse. Discussing the crisis, the DIA report notes "There is the possibility of [the opposition] establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist Principality in Eastern Syria… and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime."

Read More: Barack Obama: 'The too little too late' president
This appalling revelation was seemingly confirmed by General Michael T Flynn, the Director of the DIA from 2012-14 (and now National Security Advisor to President Trump), in a 2015 interview with Al-Jazeera's Mehdi Hasan - and also, it seems, by Kerry when he told the Syrian activists:

"The reason Russia came in [to the conflict] is because ISIL [the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant] was getting stronger. Daesh [another name for ISIL] was threatening the possibility of going to Damascus and so forth... And we know that this was growing. We were watching. We saw that Daesh was growing in strength. And we thought Assad was threatened. We thought, however, we could probably manage - you know, that Assad might then negotiate, but instead of negotiating he got Putin to support him."

In summary, the leaked information wholly contradicts the popular picture of western benevolent intentions let down by President Obama's ineffective leadership and inaction.

Instead the evidence shows the US has been sending an "extraordinary amount" of weapons to the armed insurgents in Syria in the full knowledge that Salafists, the Muslim Brotherhood, and al-Qaeda in Iraq were the "major forces" driving the insurgency. They did this understanding that sending in weapons would escalate the fighting and not "end well for Syrians".

The disclosures have disappeared down the memory hole. Furthermore, the US has long known that its regional ally Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states have been supporting extremists in Syria. And, most shocking of all if true, both Kerry and the DIA report seem to show the US allowed forerunners to IS to expand and threaten the Syrian government as this corresponded with the US's geo-strategic objectives.

More broadly, by highlighting how the US welcomed the growth of IS in Syria, the leaks fatally undermine the entire rationale of the "War on Terror" the West has supposedly been fighting since 2001. These are, in short, bombshells that should be front page news, with lengthy investigative follow ups and hundreds of op-eds outraged at the lies and hypocrisy of western governments.

Instead, the disclosures have disappeared down the memory hole, with the huge gap between the importance of the revelations and the lack of coverage indicating a frighteningly efficient propaganda system.

It is worth noting however, that as an observer and newsreader - rather than seasoned expert - there may well be important context or information of which I am unaware, which provides a different take on the leaked material. This would lessen its importance and, therefore, justify the media having largely ignored it.

Of course, the best way of confirming the accuracy and importance of the leaks is for the media to do its job and thoroughly investigate the disclosures, to devote significant resources and manpower to the story, and to ask awkward and searching questions of established power.

I'm not holding my breath.


https://www.alaraby.co.uk/english/comme ... s-on-syria

& I'm still trying to figure out how anyone could be so gormless as to believe this




turned into this:

[Donny osmond]

It was inevitable that, having destroyed another Middle Eastern country, leading to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of children, women and men, the US and its cabal - including Britain - would enter the standard post-war crimes propaganda phase. We've heard all this before, of course - in Afghanistan, in Iraq and in Libya; as if, even were it true, the US and its cabal were not guilty of even worse violations; and as if this were justification for destruction of an entire nation regardless, while Saudi Arabia and Israel remain the West's closest allies.

London-based Amnesty international is indeed funded and run by not only governments, but also immense corporate-financier interests, and is not only absolutely entwined with political ideology and economic interests, it is an essential tool used for perpetuating just such interests.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/amnesty-in ... anda/32444

I'm not sure but I think I remember someone on one thread or other hereabouts making a point about a source being considered worthy of taking seriously based on that sources history of being reliable.
Oh it was you with your justification of using Pilger et al as reliable fonts of knowledge! Sorry.

So is your argument that we can and should ignore Amnesty International now? Because I'm pretty sure they have a record as reliable as anyone in reporting and highlighting crimes against humanity. I wonder if Pilger uses them?

Just back from a quick look at Pilgers website and yes,
he is happy to use figures from Amnesty International regarding warzone casualties and civilian deaths.
So either he is a brazen liar to knowingly use figures from a such a corrupt organization, or.....

Regarding your first paragraph - yes, Donny, sources are considered worthy on the basis of their track record. No doubt you have some other criterion, such as political agenda, but sane people look at the track record to determine reliability.

Regarding your second paragraph, no, that wasn't my point at all. My point was that the standard post-war crimes propaganda phase was inevitable, and that the verity of the accusation was in fact irrelevant in the broader context of this conflict. The US has Guantanamo Bay, it has admitted to torture, and it has the highest prison rates in the world, by far, with Native & African Americans its primary victims. What they claim to have uncovered here might as easily have been uncovered in Saudi, Israel, Egypt or Turkey, but that's not going to happen because they are closely allies to the US. So the purpose here is obviously to demonize the elected leader of a nation the US and its cabal have just tried (unsuccessfully) to add to the list of nations they have destroyed in the Middle East. But don't let the estimated 10 million deaths or so trouble your conscience.

Regarding your third paragraph - it may be that unreliable sources do sometimes print the facts, providing it doesn't conflict with their political agenda, especially in terms of basic stats. So I'm not quite sure how this leads you directly to the assumption one of the world's most respected journalists is a blatant liar for occasionally referencing them. I mean, you just referenced one of the biggest propaganda agencies in the world yourself. Does that make you a brazen liar?...

Ah to watch a keyboard warrior tie himself in knots. It's why we're here. Ciao bella, 'til next time.

[Sandydragon]

The US hasn't murdered 13000 people at Guantanamo. Yet I recall when amnesty highlighted the issues there, there were plenty of people who were happy to take a shot at America. Now, suddenly, amnesty international are just another propaganda outlet.

You can't have it both ways.

Only using information that support their argument and accusing those who disagree of lying. This is sounding familiar.

[rowan]

The US hasn't murdered 13000 people at Guantanamo. Yet I recall when amnesty highlighted the issues there, there were plenty of people who were happy to take a shot at America. Now, suddenly, amnesty international are just another propaganda outlet.

You can't have it both ways.

Only using information that support their argument and accusing those who disagree of lying. This is sounding familiar.

Remember these:

Saddam Hussein had a secret torture room built in the basement of the Iraqi mission to the United Nations in New York's Upper East Side, it has been reported.

Inside Gaddafi's torture chamber: The bloodstained cells inside a former primary school used to brutalise his enemies!!!


Standard post-invasion propaganda. So its not suddenly at all. It's the result of decades of watching American wars and observing how the propaganda industry spins it. I'm not dismissing this, though I'm certainly not embracing it as gospel either - as you evidently are. Amnesty's a London-based organization with a poor track record, and Britain was one of the main perpetrators of the war (as usual), as we've seen. What's really suspicious is that this story breaks now, when we know full-well worse things are happening in countries allied to the US. & how much attention are the same media outlets who carried this story giving to the hundreds of thousands of deaths NATO and its allies caused by starting this conflict.

[rowan]

Excellent article on media coverage of the conflict here - with a mountain of links in the footnotes:

Meanwhile, according to the kinds of observer that regard Eva Bartlett with respect – and according also to the copious footage showing it – the majority of the population of eastern Aleppo, reunited with the western part, celebrated their liberation, welcoming the Syrian army, and the Russians that followed with their sappers to clear buildings of mines and booby-traps left behind by the ‘moderate rebels’.

As the liberated city has started to rebuild and function again, the Western media have gone silent. Channel 4 no longer talks much about Aleppo. But if the news bandwagon may have moved on, real lives have been lost or changed forever as a result of a war that was unjustified and unnecessary. The rest of us must try and learn from such awful chains of events as led to the unspeakable carnage and displacement in Syria.

Most of us know nothing about Syria except what we can glean from the media – either mainstream news outlets or independent investigators on social media. We are not in a position to check facts as such. Yet we can assess the credibility of testimony, even if only by ascertaining whether it is internally consistent rather than self-contradictory.

https://timhayward.wordpress.com/2017/0 ... el-4-news/

[rowan]

The network may be dubious and the interviewer nauseatingly self-righteous, but this is straight from the horse's mouth:

[Vengeful Glutton]

The US hasn't murdered 13000 people at Guantanamo. Yet I recall when amnesty highlighted the issues there, there were plenty of people who were happy to take a shot at America. Now, suddenly, amnesty international are just another propaganda outlet.

You can't have it both ways.

Only using information that support their argument and accusing those who disagree of lying. This is sounding familiar.

It's rather strange that this news broke shortly after Trump was elected.

Could the democrats be attempting to push Trump into their position with regard to Syria?

[rowan]

Covering their heinies, for sure. America played a significant role in that war and it was another disaster. A humanitarian disaster, I mean. These wars are not disasters for America itself, but rather highly profitable and geostrategically advantageous. But they didn't get quite what they came for this time and are very bitter toward messiuers Putin, Assad & Rouhani for stopping them.

So out comes the standard post invasion TORTURE CHAMBERS DISCOVERED! headlines, so that they can pretend they're the good ol' boys fighting the Nazis all over again. Strange how little interest the US mainstream media showed in the mass graves the terrorists left behind in Aleppo, however. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 96066.html

[Vengeful Glutton]

Covering their heinies, for sure. America played a significant role in that war and it was another disaster. A humanitarian disaster, I mean. These wars are not disasters for America itself, but rather highly profitable and geostrategically advantageous. But they didn't get quite what they came for this time and are very bitter toward messiuers Putin, Assad & Rouhani for stopping them.

So out comes the standard post invasion TORTURE CHAMBERS DISCOVERED! headlines, so that they can pretend they're the good ol' boys fighting the Nazis all over again. Strange how little interest the US mainstream media showed in the mass graves the terrorists left behind in Aleppo, however. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 96066.html

Trump sees ISIL as the enemy.

I'd imagine there are certain lobby groups in congress (the lads who want to build an oil pipeline through Syria) who wouldn't like that.

TBH, if the 13,000 were ISIL prisoners, I wouldn't blame Assad for hanging them. What's he going to do, release them? Nope. Stick them in a prison? Whose going to guard them?

This ain't tiddly winks.

[rowan]

My view on foreign policy is it doesn't matter who's in office - Trump, Obama, Bush - no difference. There hasn't been since WWII really. They tweak a few things and make it look like change is on the way, but the bottom line is America is an empire in every sense of the word, with military personnel in 130 countries and 900 bases around the world (outside of the US). & what do empires do? They invade and take over foreign countries, they control their resources and impose their own ideology. Those who resist are demonized and destroyed. That's all we're seeing. The rest is a smokescreen.

[Vengeful Glutton]

My view on foreign policy is it doesn't matter who's in office - Trump, Obama, Bush - no difference. There hasn't been since WWII really. They tweak a few things and make it look like change is on the way, but the bottom line is America is an empire in every sense of the word, with military personnel in 130 countries and 900 bases around the world (outside of the US). & what do empires do? They invade and take over foreign countries, they control their resources and impose their own ideology. Those who resist are demonized and destroyed. That's all we're seeing. The rest is a smokescreen.

I think the seppo American and New American Century ideologies have failed. Failed miserably. The country's been a mess since 'Nam.

You may be right of course. Trump may continue the trend. I think he will too, but it'll be pared back as he concentrates on re-invigorating the US economy, and more importantly regaining the average schmuck's belief in American democratic ideals.

It's hard to believe, but amongst the industrialised nations, America has the highest rates of poverty.

[canta_brian]

And in the meantime the bombs keep falling.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-38919426

The Turks support the rebels. The Russians support Assad. Everyone is against IS (although they don't exist apparently). It's not really surprising that the bombs fall on the wrong people.

[Stones of granite]

There s a potential for a key event in the Syrian war. The Syria, Hezbollah, Iran, Russia alliance on one hand, and the Turks and allied militias on the other are besieging an IS held city call al-Bab. This will lead to either cooperation between them, or open conflict between them. The Russian Airforce has already killed 3 Turkish soldiers and injured a dozen more, although both sides are playing it down.
If the ISIS holders of al-Bab are mercenaries, they should give up fairly easily, what kind of mercenary dies for a cause.

[rowan]

And in the meantime the bombs keep falling.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-38919426

The Turks support the rebels. The Russians support Assad. Everyone is against IS (although they don't exist apparently). It's not really surprising that the bombs fall on the wrong people.

Although you are deliberately ignoring it, the point I made was that there are Jihadists and mercenaries in Syria who the West refers to as ISIS, but they do not refer to themselves as ISIS, they are not a major organization or franchise, they are not the same people fighting for control of Libya in the wake of Gaddafi's assassination, and they are most certainly not involved in lone wolf terrorist attacks on Europe or North America. But I guess you also believed the Nayirah testimony, Bush's WOMD claims and that Gaddafi was planning a genocide of his own people as well

El-Bab was originally a Shi'ite city but was captured by Sunni Arabs many centuries ago. I wouldn't be surprised if there is a struggle between Sunni and Shia rebels/terrorists at the heart of it all, probably with Kurdish support for the latter, which Turkey would obviously oppose. Indeed, it might be fairly difficult to distinguish between the Turks and Sunni rebels if they are fighting side by side.

& btw, unlike Russia, the Turks were not invited into Syria and are therefore operating there illegally. I was talking to some locals about this incident last night and their view basically came down to "What the hell are we doing in Syria? Why are we having problems with the Greeks again? What is our president thinking??"