What Has Been Happening In Syria?

international | anti-war / imperialism | feature

Tuesday March 13, 2012 23:40

by Taking the blue pill

Dirty tricks again

For the past six months and longer once Libya had fallen to the NATO sponsored 'rebels', we have faced a continuous media onslaught about Syria with reports of protests, shootings, killings, attacks, bombing and so forth. The backdrop to the narrative is that this is part of the Arab Spring which started last year and it is a good thing overall. So many people are probably wondering what really has been happening, given that this is the same media that was cheer leading the Iraq war almost 10 years ago even though at least a million+ are now dead as a result. And yet somehow they want to imply that they are doing the right thing now. We should also recall that this is the same media that is promoting austerity and encouraging us to accept the blame for the mad years of the bubble and as a consequence we should pay up the €90 billion bailout and in the process see all the state services stripped to the bone. They are presenting the uncomplicated truth surely

Background to all the different players

So what has been happening? Its probably impossible to know exactly since so many things happen in so many places and there are different people with different perspectives and agendas telling the story. What is clear though is that we have a 'Western' view which largely consists of NATO, US govt, UK govt, France the ex-colnial power, various stooges of the West such as Gulf monarchies. We then have the regime in Syria, the opposition whoever they are. The people of Syria who may or may not be the opposition presented to us and then other powers like Russia and China.

In all the Arab countries, the people have for years been ruled by autocratic government and still are. In the 1950s most of these countries had vibrant Left wing movements and socialism was a receptive idea. In the interim fundamental religion has been nurtured and encouraged in order to redirect political energy into religious energy where it posed no threat to the status quo. Since many of these countries were oil exporters this state of affairs has calmed the waters while this oil was exploited and sold abroad. The people in practically every Arab country have suffered and remain quite poor and have many justifible grievances and it is into this mix that careful agitators have been able to stir up a storm and ride the wave of anger.

So lets go back and examine what has happened in Syria. The offical line if you've been watching the media is that it all started with protests just like the other countries, then there were shootings and attacks by government forces and this has become more brutal and the people have been bravely resisting and we are now at the point where "something" needs to be done but the evil Russians and Chinese have blocked that and Assad is crushing the opposition. If only NATO could just help. They are a force for good; bringing peace to Afghanistan and building schools and doing the same in Libya by bombing civilians to save civilians. Right? -No!

It is best when examining things to looks for the conflicts in consistency and the alternative viewpoints and see how they contradict each other and to follow the logic in terms of the natural agendas each of the different parties will have all the way up to the strategic level. First we should bear in mind that Syria is an ally of Iran and that Israel and the US have been threating to attack Iran on and off for the past 7 or 8 years. Israel with at least 200 nuclear weapons of its own says Iran is trying to build a nuclear bomb, yet despite the evidence and when you read past the gutter press headlines and get to the details of actual reports, there is little evidence. In an ideal military world, to attack Iran it would be very nice to have Syria on your side and even to use its airbases. We should remember that since Iran is evil then attacking it with massive bunker busting bombs and a campaign to bombs hundreds of military sites and presumably killing many people would be a good thing. On the other hand a Iranian terrorist killing one white Western person is extremely evil.

Another point to remember is that in Libya, China had a huge workforce of 30,000 building railways and oil infrastructure, since expelled and was also getting oil from Libya. This was a slap in the face for them. Russia was never happy about the no-fly zone but did not veto it because they were told it wouldn't be used for regime change. It was. Syria has Russia's only port on the Mediterrean and is much closer to Russia. If Syria falls, then Iran is surrounded and would likely soon fall via attacks by Israel & US and Russia's southern buffer would be gone, kind of like if Mexico fell to a pro-Russia power in the case of the US. Crucially if the Iranian regime fell then the bulk of the worlds oil reserves would be back in the hands of friendly puppet governments. And now that we are past the point of Peak Oil, control and access to the remaining bulk of the world reserves is the single most important strategic asset to hold. For China which has huge oil & gas deals and contracts with Iran, these would be null and void and given China's huge appetite for oil, it would now have to bargain on the terms of a Anglo-US-Zionist agenda. And why? Because if Iran fell, then the new government would be 'pro-democracy' which means pro Western -dominated by US, UK, France and Israel. If the government was not favourable to them, then obviously it wouldn't have fallen, it would be just a change of one evil power for another. These are just some of the geopolitical factors that backdrop the whole thing.

The previous few months - real reports from Syria as opposed to fake news

Now it is time to take a closer look at the reports from the ground. Back in Nov 2011, historian and investigative journalist Webster Tarpley went on a fact finding week long visit to Syria with a group of other journalists, visiting Hims (pronounced Homs), Banias, Damascus and numerous other places. On his interview on Russia Today [1] and again on Guns & Butter [2], he says they were invited by a Catholic group in Syria -a place where Christians have freedom to practice, because this group fears regime change that would bring in a fundamentalist Islamic regime that would usher in killings and intolerance.

He says he talked to average everyday Syrians of all ethnic groups, Christian, Alawite, Sunni, Shite, Druze and across the board say they are been shot at by snipers and that in Hims in particular (where all the inital Western media reports were focused on) the people complain that there are terrorists snipers that shoot at civilians -men, women and children, random killings, simply for the purpose of destablizing the country. He said I would not call it a civil war (as of Nov 2011) and what you are dealing with are death squads, terror commandos, the kind of thing that people remember from Argentina and Central America. This is a typical CIA method. [The CIA field operations handbook describes how to launch a terrorist campaign of killings, kidnappings and torture combined with propaganda to destablize a country. People should recall that the CIA launched the 'Phoenix' operation of assassinations during the Vietnam War where approximately 200,000 people were killed in these special operations. Indeed this same type of assassinations are ongoing in Afghanistan in the so called 'Night Time Raids'. Iraq also has US dead squads too and these will increase as they withdraw the troops further. These people are good at killing and are good at training people to do it.] Anyhow in the case it is a joint operation of CIA, MI6, Mossad and DGSE (France) and it was the locals who called in the army for their own protection. However instead these killings get reported as being carried out by the regime. He goes on further to say that prior to Nov 15th any reports from Hims you heard could not in fact originated from Hims because a group of 400 to 500 locals whom they met, said they (Tarpley et al) were the first journalists they had seen and were delighted to see them so that they could tell them what is happening. In fact their other main grievance is that they were looking for fuel oil for cooking, the shortage of which was caused by economic sanctions. His visit continued to the Sara hospital which we should remember was the "hotest" town in the hotest neighbourhood of the "civil war" and they find women doctors and women nurses -not exactly fundamentalist but actually quite liberal. And the death toll was 5 to 6 per day but has peaked up to 80 killed per day. And they (doctors/staff) say it was done by snipers on the roofs, dressed in black wearing hoods shooting at the people. They say they are foreign fighters. They shoot at 9' O clock in the morning when schools open and 3pm when schools ends and at 11pm when the cafes close. And they said they want the Syria army to come in and protect us and setup position and stop the snipers killing them. So who are these snipers.

So the accounts you hear from Al-Jazerra (based in Qatar), you have to ask yourself who is doing the killing? So they go on a visit to the home of a 20 year old taximan who was kidnapped and murdered. In the case of Latin America the killings were targetted to just communists or trade unionist but in Syria it is anyone. Basically most of the killers are mercenaries from places like Chechen, Libya, Iraq and other areas and armed, trained, guided, supported by CIA/MI6/Mossad. At the start of this campaign most of these killings were all taking place on the peripheral cities bording Turkey, Iraq, Jordan and so forth and only more recently have these penetrated further into the interior even though if you think about it in most 'real' revolutions the trouble starts in the capital and spreads out. This is the opposite.

Tarpley goes on to refer to a 'massacre' back in mid Apr 2011 in the city of Banias on the Mediterrean where he prefaces and says there were political demonstrations calling for reform back then and that is exactly the point when the death squads arrived and starting shooting into the crowds and thereby causing confusion and destablization. [Essentially this is how the Western powers ride the wave of legimate anger and protest, by instigating murder and mayhem, sowing confusion, generating the 'humanitarian situation' for the West to come in and bomb their way to peace in the form of puppet Neo-Liberal regimes that plunder the country and impoverish the people. Very effective.]. And it was then that these terrorists massacred about 10 non-combat troops outside of Banias where they came under fire from 200 or 300 shooters. The account came from a sergeant in the Syria army who happened to have both of his legs shot off. Tarpley then recounts a visit (Nov 17th) to Damascus military army to soldiers of civilian army (mostly 19 to 20 year olds) and the general case was 'we were on guard duty and then under attack, often from someone very close'. In some cases they were on patrol looking for these 'rebels' and were ambushed. In all cases these people were dressed in black and hooded. He identifies the main groups formenting this destablization is the Moslem Brotherhood (who we should recall did NOT initially join the protests in Egypt and continue to be the reactionary vanguard trying to stop Egyptians pressing further with deeper reforms. The MB are essentially right wing reactionaries and the core element has always been under the control of Western intelligence agencies but they would be plenty of overlap in influence from the Gulf monarchies that feel threatened by calls for greater freedom and change.) -who are paid by Saudi Arabia that bastion of freedom. They represent the most reactionary governments in the world essentially absolute monarchies like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, Kuwait, Oman, relics of fuedal barbarism, places where women have no rights, in fact no-one has any rights. The entire US policy is destory the progressive regimes and exalt the power of these reactionary fuedal monarchies. Anyone recall the USA sponsoring the opposition in Baharin where their 5th fleet is stationed? No, in fact we should recall the highly televised arrival of over 1,000 Saudi troops to help Bahrain put down the opposition.

Tarpley then went on to Damascus to investigate a report of a widely publisized in the Western media attack on Baath party headquarters in Damascus and portrayed by BBC as the start of the civil war, but Tarpley arrives and find minor damage, and nothing resembling what a rocket propelled grenade could do. However on the same day the attend a demonstration of approximately 50,000 people a short distance away who are there greeting the arrival of a Russian delegation because previously Russia had announced they were sending the Russian fleet and people were over-joyed, (some holding signs 'Thank You Russia') because they knew that this move had saved them from the plight of what happened in Libya where over 30,000 people have died AFTER NATO got involved and unleashed carnage and marauding fanatics armed by NATO and US went on a killing spree after Tripoli fell.

The Media

A note about the media is that the main outlets promoting the Western Syria narrative are Al Jazzera (Qatar), France24 (Syria was their colony), the BBC and of course all the US media. What they do is show media clips but often add the provisio that they can't be confirmed. The whole idea is that the death squads allow the likes of Al-Jazzera and the BBC to say the Syrian army killed 10 more people today. One example is a claim of 200,000 protesting in Hims, yet Tarpley is able to show these are recycled clips from elsewhere. Originally the media coverage was based on 'The Gay Girl in Damascus' blog and this was allegedly a women living in Damascus reporting on the repression. This turned out to be a fraud [3] written by an American acedamic writing out of Scotland and partially written by his American wife who is a employee America Friends Service Committee which is known as a CIA front going back to the Cold War. More recently we had now the Syrian Observatory of Human Rights operating out of London, presumably they get their scripts from Langley, Virgina. But note the trend here in the propaganda where we had the West weeping over womens rights as the excuse before starting their bombing campaign in Afghanistan back in 2001. And now in they are all concerned about Gays and Lesbians in Syria, even though the entire coverage of it was fabricated and outed to boot.

And while on the topic of the media, moving forward to Mon March 12th 2012, it was reported that a massacre took place of 49 women and children. The opposition are automatically blaming this on the government, when in fact the only people such killings serve is those wanting regime change in the opposition. It is well known that there are key tippings points in public opinion to push for certain things. In the first Gulf War, the bogus story about Iraqis trying babies out of incubators was one such tipping point. The story turned out to be bogus and the original account was in fact recorded by the Kuwaiti amabassador's daugther with the help of a New York PR firm to help sway public opinion to the war -which it did. The killings reported today are clearly carried out by the terrorists squads injected into the country by the Western intelligence agencies and are designed to be such a tipping point.

Alternative media source other than BBC, France 24, Al-Jazzera, RTE and all corporate associates:
10 Personnel Killed in Attack on Syrian Air Force Base http://news.antiwar.com/2011/11/25/10-personnel-killed-in-attack-on-syrian-air-force-base/

Russia: West Arming Syrian Rebels Warns of 'Drastic Measures' Over Meddling http://news.antiwar.com/2012/02/10/russia-west-arming-syrian-rebels/ In comments today to Russian media, Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov has accused unnamed Western states of secretly sending arms and advising the Syrian rebel factions, warning the move was fueling a crisis.

FALSE FLAG ALERT – Syrian Sources Warn: Al Jazeera to Claim 17 Children Killed by Assad Forces; Kids are Already Dead, Slain by Nato Death Squads to Induce Hysteria at Friday’s “Friends Of Syria” Conference in Tunisia http://tarpley.net/2012/02/23/syrian-sources-warn-al-jazeera-to-claim-17-children-killed-by-assad-forces/

“Free Syrian Army” Unleashes Suicide Bombing in Damascus; Madrid 2004 Bomber Belhadj of Al Qaeda Now Commands “FSA” from Iskanderun, Turkey; NATO Airlifting Libyan Terrorists and Weapons for Salvadoran Death Squad Option vs. Syria http://tarpley.net/2012/01/12/free-syrian-army-unleashes-suicide-bombing-in-damascus/

Stratfor Leaks: NATO Commandos in Illegal Special Ops in Syria http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article30734.htm

Sunday Times "Journalist" Paul Conroy is MI6 operative http://www.voltairenet.org/Journalist-Paul-Conroy-is-MI6

Mossad, CIA and Blackwater Operate in Syria - Report http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article30739.htm

Special Ops Forces Create “Visible and Dramatic Effects” http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article30746.htm

13 French Army Officers Captured in Syria – Report http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article30722.htm
The Bloody Road to Damascus The Triple Alliance’s War on a Sovereign State http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article30769.htm

In Syria, al Jazeera’s Credibility Implodes http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article30723.htm
.... “It seems that Syrian regime had agents among the rebels; or it seems that the Syrian regime obtained a trove of video footage from Baba Amru. They have been airing them non-stop. They are quite damning. They show the correspondent or witness (for CNN or from Aljazeera) before he is on the air: and the demeanor is drastically different from the demeanor on the air and they even show contrived sounds of explosions timed for broadcast time…

“PS This is really scandalous. It shows the footage prior to Aljazeera reports: they show fake bandages applied on a child and then a person is ordered to carry a camera in his hand to make it look like a mobile footage. It shows a child being fed what to say on Aljazeera.”

Later in the day:

“This is rather explosive. You know how low Aljazeera has sunk when Syrian regime TV stations have a field day with the shoddy journalism and fabrication procedures of Aljazeera. It seems that people inside Aljazeera have leaked raw footage and pre-air reports to someone in Syrian regime TV. I am not surprised of the leak at all: I am in contact from people inside Aljazeera who are disgusted by the propaganda work of the network in the last few months. … I know how those things work and they know that I know. The footage that are being shown show staging of events of calling a civilian an “officer” in the Syrian army, of faking injuries and feeding statements to people before airtime,.....

April Updates:
A Turkish Attempt to Carve Out a “Buffer Zone” for NATO Death Squads in Northern Syria Will Be a Giant Step Towards Regional War and a Trigger for Kurdish Rebellion in Turkey

State Department Hits New Low of Cynical Hypocrisy as Victoria Nuland Blames Syrian Government for the Violence Unleashed by NATO Death Squads

Obama’s Friday Afternoon Document Dump for this Week: US Begins Overt Aid to Syrian Death Squads After 13 Months of Covert Support

Love Bombs for Syria? – Syrian Girl on Intervention and Hypocrisy

Target of the Western new Neo Liberal regime -if they get their way

People should also be aware of the social safety net in Syria as opposed to the neo-liberal privatisation agenda promoted by the Anglo-French-US agenda, where there is a subsidized price of basic food stuffs. A kilo of very good bread is about 20 cents. No one goes to bed hungary in Syria. Medical care is free for all. The standard seem quite reasonable. Education is free at all levels. School uniform, school bus, school meal is free. Subsidies on the energy price, the basic telephone in country is free. Liability for basic insurance is free for say cars. To go higher does require more income but at least the basics are provided free for all. All this when in this country free travel for old-age pensioners is being TAKEN AWAY. [Recently the Irish Independent described this free travel as shameful!]
Make no mistake, if NATO get their way and bring peace with their bombs the new regime will be a neo-liberal one and all of the above will go. The worst thing for the present global capitalist system is to having living examples of alternative arrangements such as the above and it must go. This is exactly what happened in Libya where they had their own currency, had NO major debt, diverted a significant portion of the oil wealth the the benefit of the people. This is all gone and now the IMF are carving up Libya and privatising everything in sight.

Conclusion

The Western media covering what is happening in Syria is completely bogus. It has inverted almost everything and it is Western powers along with financial backing from the most backward and barbaric regimes in the Middle East and the Gulf that are instigating the destablization and carrying out most of the killings using death squads.

The Russia and Chinese veto has saved the day but not because they are necessarily nice but simply because it happened to align with their own strategic interests. And having presented the above, it does not follow that the Syrian regime are innocent. They are most likely not, but the guiding principle is that it makes absolutely no sense that countries like Saudi Arabia would be helping to bring freedom to any country let alone Syria.

For people who find this hard to swallow, they would do well to listen to the podcast below and read through some of the alternative news sources given above. The difficulity is that it can be hard to accept that you have been fooled by the mainstream media for so long and so thoroughly.

[1] Interview on Russia Today with Tarpley -http://tarpley.net/2011/11/21/report-from-syria-2/
[2] Guns and Butter interview on Syrian visit. http://www.kpfa.org/archive/id/76242

[3] http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/13/gay-girl-da...-blog - Blog purporting to have been written by Syrian lesbian was in fact the work of a middle-aged American man

Guns and Butter interview of Tarpley. NATO's assault on Syria

Guns and Butter interview of Tarpley. NATO's assault on Syria 10.27 Mb

save preference

Comments (25 of 25)

Jump To Comment:

good article thanks

by lefty

Tue Mar 13, 2012 00:02

Its good to get some of the other side to the relentless media propaganda on Syria.

Al jazeera is no longer trustworthy as it's paymasters in Qatar and have reined it in totally. There have been a series of resignations there lately based on their imbalanced "coverage" of Libya and Syria

I watched that awful documentary "how to start a revolution" recently and I'm really annoyed by it. It's a total propaganda piece about that CIA funded rabid anticommunist rat gene sharp. He's the guy whose books are behind the patterns emerging in the uprisings starting in Kosovo and moving to Iran then on across north Africa and now they are hoping his ideas will take root in Syria, with Iran being the big prize.

you might find the following links quite interesting in relation to all this:

http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2011/11/how-to-start-....html

http://www.scu.edu.au/research/cpsj/human_rights/AHRP20...l.pdf
(skip the first bit and read the submission on the Albert Einstien institute)

These links are a bit of an eye opener for anyone believing that the spate of "revolutions" happening across north africa are as innocent as they look.

please take the time to read and pass them on...

Webster Tarpley? Seriously?

by Jonah

Tue Mar 13, 2012 11:20

I think the article raises a number of good points, is very thoughtful in looking at the Syria situation in the context of the wider Middle East and US foreign policy intentions there, and is right to question some of the key narrative assumptions around the Arab Spring.

But to quote Webster Tarpley as a source? The same man who denies outright the existence of global warming, who propagates 9/11 conspiracy theories, whose connection to the real world could charitably be described as shaky?

Your own analysis is strong enough, using discredited and unreliable sources as back-up weakens your argument substantially.

Al-Jazeera employees resign over the channel’s biased coverage

by Turas

Tue Mar 13, 2012 11:23

"Many employees at Al-Jazeera news channel are resigning over the Qatari-based news network's biased coverage of events taking place in the Middle East. "
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/231366.html

Deaths

by Ex-Corkman

Wed Mar 14, 2012 15:41

Media reports now put deaths in Syria at 7,000 + but Human Rights Watch say it is 3,000.

Assad is recklessly endangering and killing civilians by shelling urban areas, this cannot be supported. But it should be realised that the rebels are fighting to establish an Islamic Dictatorship. Leaders of the Syrian National Council have publicly declared their intention of ethnically cleansing Alawis and Christians from Syria. I haven't heard any Western leaders cindemning this.

death toll...

by catholic worker

Wed Mar 14, 2012 18:57

I heard it was something like 8,000 lots of them being young children its awful.They purposefully set up land mines at the borders where people were trying to escape all the bloodshed really very cruel.

softly softly

by opus diablos - the regressive hypocrite party

Wed Mar 14, 2012 19:14

remember your sources are the ones gave us WMD and babies ripped from incubators to jusify previous invasions that have resulted in mayhem across the region from bug-splatted(dronespeak for remote assassination)Pakistan to chaotic Libya.

Turkey, Saudi. Jordan and Nato special forces are feeding arms for months, and money to draw Syrian army units onside for long-planned regime switch..we're in dirty territory, black-ops, false-flag and disinformation abound.

The Project for a New American Century(aka Pentagonia uber alles)is not shy about its intentions. They are overt and published, mainstream,....and rolling along towards Operation Peacock Throne Ressurection.

Disrupt, Contain, Extract.

Mission Accomplished...balkanised divisions for conquest.

untrustworthy media coverage

Wed Mar 14, 2012 20:55

al jazeera staff resignations over bias on syria coverage
http://rt.com/news/al-jazeera-loses-staff-335/

deliberately staged videos about syria?
http://rt.com/news/syria-information-wars-west-553/

no comment

Thu Mar 15, 2012 12:14

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=29660

arrest them

by 4hr_boner

Thu Mar 15, 2012 12:41

they should be put before a war tribunal

Sorry now but this is poorly argued.

by Dan Ó Clunaigh

Mon Mar 26, 2012 02:32

Sorry, but this is a pretty poorly written and very poorly argued, speculative article fuelled more by anti-US, Israel, UK, France (...) rhetoric than anything else. A critical view of the western media is fine but would you not cast the same critical eye over the 'alternative' media you cite with such enthusiasm? Life is not black and white, it's technicolor, let's try to be open.

- The argument that NATO would fuel an entire war in Syria in order to control its airbases for an attack on Iran is fairly poor: why bother when they already have Iran surrounded with bases in Turkey, Iraq, Afghanistan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan...?

- It seems you're arguing that the US has an interest in fundamentalist Islamist regimes including the Muslim Brotherhood controlling regimes like Egypt and Syria. What? While I agree that the Muslim Brotherhood could be seen as right-wing reactionaries, and their presence and popularity in Egypt is indeed worrying in the post-revolution context, I find it very hard to belive that the US *supports* them. The US supported Mubarak, and currently supports the Egyptian Military -- enemies of the Muslim brotherhood. Furthermore, the Muslim Brotherhood is not a violent movement: their methodology of controlling society is through the provision of social services paired with Islamist teachings and mass communication. And their discourse is far from friendly to the US. It makes no sense that the US would be supporting them in the Egyptian context (since they're already in bed with the military). If they are, they're doing it wrong, since Egypt is still quite firmly under military control.

- Way to make a sweeping observation about the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights and not back it up with anything whatsoever.

- Mass killings only serve those who want regime change? Brother, you need to see what happens to a society in which mass killings are carried out. In some people they inspire anger, solidarity, and an increased desire to overthrow the regime. In most, though, they just inspire overwhelming fear and trauma.

Did the massacre of 17,000 to 40,000 people in Hama in 1982 by Assad's father do the Muslim Brotherhood any good? Nope. Put an end to that revolt so it did. Have the mass killings carried out by the North Korean regime, or Colombian paramilitaries, or by the Russians in Chechnya led to the overthrow of those regimes? If only. Again, if the US is trying to overthrow the Syrian regime by killing hundreds and thousands of innocent people in order to gain support for an invasion, it's a crap methodology. They've overthrown regimes before in much simpler and more effective ways, haven't they?

- So Syria has a social safety net. So does Saudi Arabia. So does Sweden. Let me tell you, it's not at all the case that "nobody goes to bed hungary [sic]" in Syria: ask any imprisoned human rights defender in that country, where so many have undertaken hunger strikes in order to protest their detention.

- Oil production in Syria has halved since 1995, and companies like Shell and Total have been exploiting Syrian oil for decades. It doesn't appear to be the most lucrative or hard to access market. Certainly not enough to merit an invasion, when you think of what that's cost the US over the last 10 years.

- As a general comment, the structure of this article for me doesn't have any clear logical narrative.

- Caveat: I'm by no means supporting US policy in Syria or the middle east or anywhere. A friend of mine is locked up in Bahrain and may well die in prison one of these days as he is on hunger strike. Interestingly enough his job at one point was to provide protection and security to human rights defenders throughout the middle east, including Syria, and he had his work cut out for him by that bloody regime. I have no doubt that the US and other Western countries are up to all kinds of dirty tricks in Syria but your argument just doesn't make sense.

Instead of attacking the MSM Bahrain narrative, Let's attack this dissenting post about Syria.

by Lefty

Mon Mar 26, 2012 09:10

"Sorry, but this is a pretty poorly written and very poorly argued, speculative article fuelled more by anti-US, Israel, UK, France (...) rhetoric than anything else. "

Ok but if you don't bother backing up this sweeping statement then it's just empty mud slinging and does not constitute an argument?

"A critical view of the western media is fine but would you not cast the same critical eye over the 'alternative' media you cite with such enthusiasm? Life is not black and white, it's technicolor, let's try to be open."

You don't sound very open! Seems to me that pretty much all of the MSM are singing the same tune about Syria. This article is offering a welcome alternative view yet you want this one to parrot the same views as everyone else as well. Why should it? Why are you attacking the balance of this one article while ignoring the totally obvious bias of nearly all the rest of the media? you are just trying to frame the debate around the left being biased when it's clearly the MSM that is totally biased about Syria. How Orwellian!

"- The argument that NATO would fuel an entire war in Syria in order to control its airbases for an attack on Iran is fairly poor: why bother when they already have Iran surrounded with bases in Turkey, Iraq, Afghanistan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan...?"

Why don't you ask them?. Syria is a key Ally of Iran and controlling Syria further isolates Iran. Also Israel are pushing for this regime change and it's an election year in the US. AIPAC are a powerful political lobbying force in the US and that may have something to do with this too.

"- It seems you're arguing that the US has an interest in fundamentalist Islamist regimes including the Muslim Brotherhood controlling regimes like Egypt and Syria. What? While I agree that the Muslim Brotherhood could be seen as right-wing reactionaries, and their presence and popularity in Egypt is indeed worrying in the post-revolution context, I find it very hard to belive that the US *supports* them. "

Do you find it hard to understand how the US supports the extreme Muslim regimes in Saudis Arabia and Bahrain? The fact is the US has shown a preference for authoritarian regimes where the population is ruled with an iron hand and the flow of oil and military cooperation is reliable. They don't give a shit what happens to the people once they get what they want. No sign of sanctions or airstrikes on Saudi Arabia or Bahrain! The US planners know that the Muslim brotherhood will cooperate provided they get their stupid sharia values enshrined in law. Egypt is proof of this. Libya will likely also end up under sharia and the Muslim brotherhood. Syria is next. radical jihadists are working with the US to topple the awkward strongmen and replace them with stable iron fisted sharia governments. there is proof of this cooperation in Libya. witness the alqaeda head of the NTC in Bhenghazi and jihadists landing from NATO ships during the attack on tripoli. Etc etc

""The US supported Mubarak, and currently supports the Egyptian Military -- enemies of the Muslim brotherhood."

Not true. The Muslim brotherhood have cooperated with the military in Egypt in it's post Mubarak repression of the protesters which is on a larger scale than that instigated by Mubarak.

"Furthermore, the Muslim Brotherhood is not a violent movement: their methodology of controlling society is through the provision of social services paired with Islamist teachings and mass communication. And their discourse is far from friendly to the US. It makes no sense that the US would be supporting them in the Egyptian context (since they're already in bed with the military). If they are, they're doing it wrong, since Egypt is still quite firmly under military control."

If the Muslim brotherhood are cooperating with the Egyptian military and the US are cooperating with the Egyptian military then logic would seem to dictate that they are all working towards the same ends!

"- Mass killings only serve those who want regime change? Brother, you need to see what happens to a society in which mass killings are carried out. In some people they inspire anger, solidarity, and an increased desire to overthrow the regime. In most, though, they just inspire overwhelming fear and trauma. "

it often depends on who is being killed. if you exploit natural tribal or religious fault lines then you can destabilise a country. If you target leaders of a movement, you can kill a movement and chill dissent. it's not as simple as you are painting it.

Did the massacre of 17,000 to 40,000 people in Hama in 1982 by Assad's father do the Muslim Brotherhood any good? Nope. Put an end to that revolt so it did. Have the mass killings carried out by the North Korean regime, or Colombian paramilitaries, or by the Russians in Chechnya led to the overthrow of those regimes? If only.

Now now! Your bias against the usual suspects is showing through the cracks here! Russia, north Korea, farc. Only Chavez and china and Cuba left out here. I'm sure you could have weaved them in there too. And you call this article biased? ;-)

handler report: "misses opportunities to bad mouth chavez and others. must try harder!"

"Again, if the US is trying to overthrow the Syrian regime by killing hundreds and thousands of innocent people in order to gain support for an invasion, it's a crap methodology. They've overthrown regimes before in much simpler and more effective ways, haven't they? "

really? A crap methodology? You really need to read up on the Einstein institute and the work of rabid anti communist CIA shill gene sharp. the links are on my previous post. This is a really cheap way to reshape countries by fooling the populations into doing the dirty work of imperialism and corporatism. it's actually both effective clever and cheap compared to full blown invasions and the population pays you back for all the weapons with access to natural resources and strategic concessions afterwards. Open your eyes.

"- So Syria has a social safety net. So does Saudi Arabia. So does Sweden. Let me tell you, it's not at all the case that "nobody goes to bed hungary [sic]" in Syria: ask any imprisoned human rights defender in that country, where so many have undertaken hunger strikes in order to protest their detention."

seems to me that a hunger strike is a voluntary act. starvation is not.

"- Oil production in Syria has halved since 1995, and companies like Shell and Total have been exploiting Syrian oil for decades. It doesn't appear to be the most lucrative or hard to access market. Certainly not enough to merit an invasion, when you think of what that's cost the US over the last 10 years. "

like I said previously, Syria is a key ally of Iran. Iran is the real prize here. this is not really about getting Syrian oil but it's a nice bonus if they do.

"- As a general comment, the structure of this article for me doesn't have any clear logical narrative. "

I guess when you haven't much of an argument to offer, some literary criticism is in order! ;-)

"- Caveat: I'm by no means supporting US policy in Syria or the middle east or anywhere. A friend of mine is locked up in Bahrain and may well die in prison one of these days as he is on hunger strike. "

I find this bit somewhat hard to swallow considering you are coming on this site specifically attacking an alternative view article highlighting this bad behaviour and banging on about Syria,Russia,north Korea etc. Methinks a wolf posing as a house pet.

Bahrain? Oh yes, that's the dictatorship that is allowed to treat it's citizens like crap without a murmur from the US. And the one that is sold weapons by the UK and others specifically designed to help quell public dissent.

"Interestingly enough his job at one point was to provide protection and security to human rights defenders throughout the middle east, including Syria, and he had his work cut out for him by that bloody regime."

And no doubt even more so by Bahrain who imprisoned him. Of course no sanctions or airstrikes or weapons to dissenters there, although plenty of weapons to the ruling elite! however the media remains rather mute on Bahrain. I await your scathing article attacking the elite in Bahrain and their cosy relationships with the US and UK on this site. I'm sure your friend who is incarcerated in Bahrain would welcome it too.

" I have no doubt that the US and other Western countries are up to all kinds of dirty tricks in Syria but your argument just doesn't make sense."

And yet the rubbish spouted about Syria by the echo chambers of the MSM all singing a similar tune does? Hmmm! If you truly believe what you just said then explain why most of your efforts are geared towards discrediting an isolated article saying just that? Surely by your own logic you should be attacking the mainstream media and it's narrative that the US are only helping the people free themselves from an evil dictator instead. A narrative Which it appears both yourself by your own admission and the author consider a blatant lie.

OK let's critique one narrative and all fall smartly in line behind another then.

Tue Mar 27, 2012 06:05

dan.cloney at gmail dot com

Okay, relax man, let's not overreact.

"You don't sound very open! Seems to me that pretty much all of the MSM are singing the same tune about Syria. This article is offering a welcome alternative view yet you want this one to parrot the same views as everyone else as well. Why should it? Why are you attacking the balance of this one article while ignoring the totally obvious bias of nearly all the rest of the media? you are just trying to frame the debate around the left being biased when it's clearly the MSM that is totally biased about Syria. How Orwellian! "

Well yes, man, I think we have to apply the same criticism to the anti-mainstream narrative that we apply to the mainstream narrative. If I'm reading indymedia it's beacuse I'm already critical of the MSM, rather than sit around repeating ourselves and patting ourselves on the back I'd rather be self-reflexive rather than just accepting that because something is critical of the MSM, it has to be true or correct and can't be criticised. Frame it around the left being biased? It's not just the left that's biased. Everyone's biased. That's the problem.

"Why don't you ask them?. Syria is a key Ally of Iran and controlling Syria further isolates Iran. Also Israel are pushing for this regime change and it's an election year in the US. AIPAC are a powerful political lobbying force in the US and that may have something to do with this too. "

Good answer, I'll just grab the phone. Sorry but I'm not convinced: a war in Syria in order to facilitate a war with Iran... why not just a war with Iran? They didn't need a war with anyone to facilitate a war with Iraq, they just went and did it, didn't they?

"Do you find it hard to understand how the US supports the extreme Muslim regimes in Saudis Arabia and Bahrain? The fact is the US has shown a preference for authoritarian regimes where the population is ruled with an iron hand and the flow of oil and military cooperation is reliable. They don't give a shit what happens to the people once they get what they want. No sign of sanctions or airstrikes on Saudi Arabia or Bahrain! "

I agree with this. That wasn't my point, I think you misunderstood. But in the Egyptian case they obvioulsy favoured Mubarak over the Muslim Brotherhood, as they supported Ben Ali, (don't you remember their utterly shit reaction to the uprisings?) and as they continue to support Bouteflika in Algeria and the kings of Morocco and Jordan rather than the radical Islamist alternatives. That's been the axis of US policy in MENA countries over the last decades. They've preferred dictators like Ben Ali, Mubarrak, Bouteflika etc who follow something of a more Ataturk-based authoritarian model. Given, in different contexts, their attitude has swung according to their normal cold pragmatism -- support for the mujahadeen in Afghanistan.

"The US planners know that the Muslim brotherhood will cooperate provided they get their stupid sharia values enshrined in law. Egypt is proof of this. Libya will likely also end up under sharia and the Muslim brotherhood. Syria is next. radical jihadists are working with the US to topple the awkward strongmen and replace them with stable iron fisted sharia governments. there is proof of this cooperation in Libya. witness the alqaeda head of the NTC in Bhenghazi and jihadists landing from NATO ships during the attack on tripoli. Etc etc "

Ah right, and do the people who started these revolutions have no say in the whole thing? You think the people who overthrew the Mubarak regime are just going to lie down and take a brutal Islamist regime? I wouldn't underestimate them, nor the Syrians, nor the Tunisians. It's a different generation behind these revolutions and they're not islamists.

"If the Muslim brotherhood are cooperating with the Egyptian military and the US are cooperating with the Egyptian military then logic would seem to dictate that they are all working towards the same ends!"

Right, but you didn't deal with the point that the Muslim Brotherhood, as I said, is a non-violent movement since the time Hassan Al-Banna formed it, and this article seems to say that they're somehow behind the violence. Again, unless the MB has fundamentally changed its characteristics, this is very difficult for me to believe.

"Now now! Your bias against the usual suspects is showing through the cracks here! Russia, north Korea, farc. Only Chavez and china and Cuba left out here. I'm sure you could have weaved them in there too. And you call this article biased? ;-)"

Firstly, you didn't deal with my point. Have you nothing to say about the Hama massacre? Do you accept my point?

Now, on to the accusation that was always going to come, that I'm some kind of conservative or whatever. Disappointing but unfortunately typical of those on the left or right who just want to buy into a whole package of beliefs and allegiances without being self reflexive. I didn't mention FARC - they're not paramilitaries, they're guerrillas. The Colombian paramilitaries to which I referred are right-wing pro-government pro-neoliberal groups ('autodefensas') which were founded with the support of the US during the Cold War and remain in operation today (most notorious group being the 'aguilas negras'), regularly attacking and killing trade unionists or other progressive elements of civil society. They've killed much more than the FARC have. So maybe use wikipedia before you accuse people of only targeting left-wing human rights abusers.

Secondly, what, don't you actually know what's happening in North Korea? Or is it best to turn a blind eye for fear of actually agreeing with what some conservatives say? Does the fact that some conservatives lobby for human rights in DPRK mean that the people of that country don't deserve them? Yeah of course, some of them are less enthusiastic about human rights in countries that are US-friendly and strategic. But the same could be said of left and you know it: your comment is proof of it. If you're going to denounce HR abuses, denounce them on the right and the left.

"really? A crap methodology? You really need to read up on the Einstein institute and the work of rabid anti communist CIA shill gene sharp. the links are on my previous post. This is a really cheap way to reshape countries by fooling the populations into doing the dirty work of imperialism and corporatism. it's actually both effective clever and cheap compared to full blown invasions and the population pays you back for all the weapons with access to natural resources and strategic concessions afterwards. Open your eyes. "

Well, neither you nor I know really what's on their minds, but it seems it'd be a bit more pragmatically effective if the US would just ally themselves with friendly elements in the armed forces (who are still not radical Islamist, more westernised and thus more amenable to the imposition of neoliberal market models) and incite a coup, for example. They've done it a million times. Why support Islamists who are inherently in favour of social security nets (like Saudi Arabia) if what you're after is neoliberalism?

"seems to me that a hunger strike is a voluntary act. starvation is not."

Wow. Where's your solidarity now man? That's a bit cold isn't it? Might you have considered why they're on hunger strike? Or would you only have solidarity with them if they were tortured by the US or one of their allies? I think it's your true colours that are shining through here mate.

"I find this bit somewhat hard to swallow considering you are coming on this site specifically attacking an alternative view article highlighting this bad behaviour and banging on about Syria,Russia,north Korea etc. Methinks a wolf posing as a house pet. Bahrain? Oh yes, that's the dictatorship that is allowed to treat it's citizens like crap without a murmur from the US. And the one that is sold weapons by the UK and others specifically designed to help quell public dissent [...] And no doubt even more so by Bahrain who imprisoned him. Of course no sanctions or airstrikes or weapons to dissenters there, although plenty of weapons to the ruling elite! however the media remains rather mute on Bahrain. I await your scathing article attacking the elite in Bahrain and their cosy relationships with the US and UK on this site. I'm sure your friend who is incarcerated in Bahrain would welcome it too."

Right, so what are you accusing me of here? With the sacrifice my friend is making in Bahrain do you think I'm unaware of what the US and UK are doing in that country? Do you think that might have just flown over my head? No man, it's crystal bloody clear to me what's going on there, it's more than present in my day to day, since he could be made a martyr of any hour now.

And just because I'm sickened by what they've done to him, does that mean I should just fall in line behind any narrative that's critical of the US, just by virtue of it being critical of the US? Does it mean I should avoid criticising regimes just because they're also against the US? If and when my friend passes away the US and other western regimes will be largely responsible in my eyes. But his fight wasn't just for the people of Bahrain, it was for the people of Syria too; the women of Saudi Arabia and Iran, the hunger strikers of Palestine (by the way "methinks" you'd be less flippant about their hunger strikes than those of the Syrians...why?); the Western Saharans, and so on, and so forth. You should follow his daughter on twitter, @angryarabiya, she could teach you a thing or two about solidarity that goes beyond political ideology.

Brother after being lucky enough to learn from someone like him, whose dedication was to human dignity irrespective of ideology, sorry, I'm not going to fall into some kind of machiavellian cold-war mentality just to get along with all the other leftwingers out there at the expense of my fellow man and woman. I suggest you yourself open your eyes cause it seems that's exactly where you're at.

"And yet the rubbish spouted about Syria by the echo chambers of the MSM all singing a similar tune does? Hmmm! If you truly believe what you just said then explain why most of your efforts are geared towards discrediting an isolated article saying just that? Surely by your own logic you should be attacking the mainstream media and it's narrative that the US are only helping the people free themselves from an evil dictator instead. A narrative Which it appears both yourself by your own admission and the author consider a blatant lie"

As I said above, I wouldn't be reading indymedia if I weren't critical of the mainstream meadia already (unless I were a troll). To repeat myself again, does that mean we can't be critical within alternative circles? That, to me, sounds Orwellian.

Of course I don't dig on the US's narrative but, what, does that mean I should equally uncritically dig on the Russian one? Or Webster bloody Tarpley's one? I'm not going to do a disservice to the victims of Assad's regime, the dissidents, their families and sympathizers, and the human rights defenders who've dedicated their lives and often had them taken in the struggle for human rights in Syria by saying that they're just a bunch of sympathisers with US-backed islamists who are the 'bad guys' trying to overthrow poor Assad who gives everyone bread.

But whatever, if you want to keep seeing things in simple left-right dichotomies, keep playing that 'my enemy's enemy is my friend' logic and eat up whatever is sold to you as 'alternative' then that's your business.

in the interest of the self-reflexivity I'm banging on about...

by Dan Ó C

Tue Mar 27, 2012 16:56

.... a couple of things, since I feel like my second comment took us further off topic and the conversation could spiral off into the ether.

Looking at my first comment, I'll admit it indulges in some speculation, which is not a good way to argue and re-reading it, doesn't accurately reflect where I stand on the whole thing. It's a bit reactionary. But that's what I get for writing comments after a long day at work.

The one part of this article I perhaps agree with most is where it says:

"So what has been happening? Its probably impossible to know exactly since so many things happen in so many places and there are different people with different perspectives and agendas telling the story".

Unfortunately what the article does then is basically give us a review of Webster Tarpley's opinion and concludes that he's correct. In fairness I reserve the right to take issue with that.

Re: in the interest of the self-reflexivity I'm banging on about...

Tue Mar 27, 2012 17:39

The article was primarily written to jolt people out of the mainstream media narrative of the whole Syrian issue because it has been so consistently the same, one sided and in my opinion largely pure propaganda. A whole slew of links to other sources that weren't singing the tune of the MSM were provided in the central grey box in the hope people might go and read some of those assuming they were interested and begin to realize how fake the mainstream narrative has been and still is.

Regarding the argument against the Muslim Brotherhood, one should realize that for the imperial powers, whenever the main puppet is disposed that they always have a fallback position. In fact there are always multiple fallback positions. It is quite similar to the way the unions in most countries have been co-opted by the parent State. On the one hand they oppose them and try to reduce their influence, but they are used at the same time to stiffle any real movement arising from below.

So to go off topic in Egypt, recently the MB were making noises about shutting off the gas to Israel but this is just that -noise and is designed to encourage the man on the street to say these guys are on their side. But the MB are leaning towards a loan with the IMF. Remember it was food price increases that help trigger the whole thing and the MB are supposed to be for social programs, but they are obviously planning to let the IMF in by the back door. Afterall things had got really bad because Murbarack had let the IMF in before and they were imposing austerity and one of those forms was the removal of subsidies on the price of food.

In the case of Syria, the death squads and the random killings carried out by them were purely for Western consumption so that they case could be made to pump up public opinion to support UN sanctions and get to the exact same point that they did with Libya where "something" had to be done and a no-fly zone was imposed. Because of the utterly overwhelming power of the imperial countries with air-warfare -once they had achieved that, the game would have been over for Syria. Of course many many 1000s of people would have died in the bombing but that never seems to matter. I should re-state too that many of the killings were carried out by the death squads put in place by "foreign forces" and these people were not killed by the Syrians -the very opposite of what BBC, France24, CNN and Al-Jazzera wanted us to believe.

Unfortunately though we are all so conditioned to reflex black and white type reactions by the mainstream media, that an article like this seems to trigger a response implying that it is totally supportive of the Syrian regime and it is all good just because it is critical of the official MSM narrative.

Stuck in the middle with you

by An Geabhrog Fiáin

Tue Mar 27, 2012 23:29

Seems to me that those who are so vehemently though justifably opposed to the western media narrative are themselves very much stuck in the opposing narrative. There is an alternatve narrative and it is one where this is a genuine revolution from the bottom up. This is something that might be hard to swallow for those who only see the tentacles of the CIA, Nato, Mossad or a myriad other groups in this particular and in other uprisings and who have invested so much in building up that argument. While the west are scrambling to put together some sort of government in exile, there is evidence that those workers, communities and groups who are fighting against what is in fact a dictatorship, wish to have no truck western interference. Isn't it just a little condescending if not verging on arrogant elitism to deny the possibility that this is a genuine revolution. Isn't it also just a bit disingenuous for those who claim to be opposed to western imperialism to then come to the aid of opposing despots who are in fact just as oppressive. Yes, the Syrian regime has implemented such things as education for all, good health care, a secular system etc. but it is also a militaristic dictatorial system which if it were flying the flag of pro US Imperialist, Chile would be rightly condemnded by those same voices who defend it because it is not.

please read the links and then comment.

Wed Mar 28, 2012 03:17

Geabhroig, you obviously haven't read my links in the first comment about Gene sharp and the Albert Einstein institute.
I suggest you do so before commenting further on these so called "revolutions"
You might find them a bit of an eye opener!

...

by Abu Bakr - None

Thu Mar 29, 2012 20:11

You ignored the bit where I said your pal Mr Assad has been busy murdering peaceful protesters for about six to seven months (in which time the Free Syrian Army did not exist). It is entirely his fault - he had a window to do the noble thing, but instead he murdered and tortured the Syrian people to the point at which the FSA formed and the Gulf States became involved (the FSA half a year later and the Gulf States probably in the last month). The reality is, despite some rogue elements potentially creeping in, in recent months..the oppressed Syrian Sunnis have seen their opportunity for freedom, and Assad has brutally fought back. To apologise for this mass murderer makes you a very sick person.

He has some support from Alawites due to factional support - 'grassroot' Alawi, government workers, military, shabeeha and whoever owes their livelihood and bread to the Assad regime are all those who support the long-necked toothbrush dog, but who cares about these regime collaborators? 30,000 in the Hama massacre and 8,000 now. People are pissed from all the killing. And you still wonder why people hate the man? This isn't mentioning all those who have seen their children raped, homes destroyed, torture of civilians and so on. The protesting started on January 28, 2011. Unlike the Libyan revolution, there wasn't any early armed defense. People have been protesting for at least 6 months before deciding to defend themselves. They protested, got shot, had a funeral, got shot, protested and so on.

Even people who had nothing to do with the protests were arrested, tortured or killed. After almost 7 months of this disgusting unmitigated brutality against PEACEFUL PROTESTING, they finally decide to defend themselves. And the Syrian soldiers who saw the evil being committed deserted, and many were killed trying. The FSA wasn't even announced until the end of July. And when they defend themselves, they are called 'terrorists' and 'criminal gangs'..the same derogatory terms that are used for an opposition whenever a brutal dictator faces an uprising, from to Shah of Iran to Mubaruk to now Assad.

Those people on the so called left who do support Assad will have some explaining to do when all the human rights violations are discovered. I for one won't be taking any lectures ever again from anyone who falls into this category.

Assad's army is launching shells and rockets directly into a densely populated civilian area you absolute lunatic! Do you remember what your reaction was when the Israeli army did the same thing during Operation Cast Lead? Were you umming and ahhing over the nature of the people who were being shelled then?

Assad's regime is as "legitimate" as that of Suharto in Indonesia, Samosa in Nicaragua, or the Saudis of today. While I understand your distain for the Sunni uprising - it contains some nasty elements, as rebel groups always do - that doesn't mean they don't have valid reasons for hating a vile regime. I suspect you would understand this perfectly well if it was a US-backed regime facing an insurgency eh? People of Homs you will be avenged but not by foreigners who see you only as in or out of their sphere of influence but by the Arab masses and their sympathisers across the world amongst the oppressed everywhere.

I'm sick of sociopathic armchair "pro military intervention" internet trolls

Fri Mar 30, 2012 03:31

Firstly, this is the first time I have seen you post on this thread. Yet you are claiming you made points from another persons post. That makes me think you are probably just a troll.

Nobody has denied or condoned the shelling of Hama. Nobody is a "pal" of Assad. Thats just dirty and deliberate ad hominem smearing. Hardly surprising from a troll though

According to the Washington post "At least 10,000 people were killed in February 1982 during the three-week pounding of the city by government artillery and tanks ordered by Hafez al-Assad. Hafez al-Assad was moving to quash a stronghold of the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood". A horrible incident indeed.
washington post link

However while it's still awful, thats just 1/3 of what you and others are claiming. Major distortion of facts to deliberately misinform or get people annoyed. Standard troll behaviour too.

Nobody likes Assad much. It's disingenuous of you to say that. (but unsurprising from a troll) However neither do they like the proposed alternative of western bombing and sanctions and a generously armed fundamentalist militia driving the country into heavily armed chaos and civil war where many more will die over time, and a fundamentalist sharia law being imposed by the muslim brotherhood (y'know, those guys standing by while the army imprison those who led tahir square protests in Egypt) on the populace. Its the devil or the deep blue sea. There are no good choices here.

We all saw how it turned out in Libya and for that matter Iraq. How many dead in total in those countries?

In Syria, the borders are porus and the US, UK, Qatar, and rich fundamentalist wahaabi muslims from Saudi Arabia (y'know, that absolute bastion of benign rule and freedom!) are arming jihadists with the objective of turning the place into another Libya with Sharia law and in the process, weakening Iran.

Many on the left, while they don't like people such as Assad, have learned their lesson at this stage and realise that the western / Saudi backed military intervention alternative is usually much worse and that it is not done for any benign reasons such as helping people, but rather to further their own geopolitical and religious ends which will likely result in even more carnage down the line.

Ah here

Sun Apr 01, 2012 01:25

I'd like to clarify that Abu-Bakr is not me. I'm not pro-military intervention (I'm a pacifist) nor a troll.

feckin trolls!

Sun Apr 01, 2012 23:49

dan, I do realise AB is not you.

Meanwhile...

Mon Apr 02, 2012 06:20

Cool just wanted that to be clear. Meanwhile, in hijacked Egyptian revolution news, it seems they're not letting Bahraini human rights defender Maryam Alkhawaja into Egypt this morning (https://twitter.com/#!/MARYAMALKHAWAJA). http://blogs.aljazeera.com/liveblog/cairo-apr-2-2012-0752

and meanwhile..

Mon Apr 02, 2012 14:42

..back on location...

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=30001

the fog-machinery of mission-creepy neo-con war pumps on

more one sided coverage from RTE prime time

Fri Apr 13, 2012 19:31

A very one sided version of events from RTE prime time program tue 10/04/2012.

NATO/US death squads continue their murder in Syria and then blame Syrians

by T

Mon Apr 16, 2012 22:45

NATO/US death squads continue to operate in Syria and then these deaths are blamed on the Syrian government and use by the NATO and European governments -mainly UK & France (France are the former colonists in Syria) as an excuse for NATO to go in.

Turkey is of course being put under huge pressure by the US & UK to take an aggressive stance towards Syria.

See this latest video on RT.com which explains things in some detail.

Caption: Video Id: Q9U3Tf1ejLY Type: Youtube Video
Engdahl: CIA plays ugly role, trains Syrian rebels

Syria

by pat c

Mon Apr 16, 2012 22:52

More on "rebel" mercenaries here.
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/101699

Number of comments per page

Upcoming Events

New Events

Other Press

User Preferences

Feeds

Blog Feeds

Public Inquiry

Human Rights in Ireland

Lockdown Skeptics

Voltaire Network