A loosely knit collection of Syrian rebel fighters set up positions on March 18, 2013, and fired several barrages of rockets at targets in the heart of Damascus, Bashar al-Assad’s capital. The attack was a brazen show of force by rebels under the banner of the Free Syrian Army, targeting the presidential palace, Damascus International Airport, and a government security compound. It sent a chilling message to the regime about its increasingly shaky hold on the country, two years after an uprising against its rule began.
Behind the attacks, the influence of a foreign power loomed. According to a top-secret National Security Agency document provided by whistleblower Edward Snowden, the March 2013 rocket attacks were directly ordered by a member of the Saudi royal family, Prince Salman bin Sultan, to help mark the second anniversary of the Syrian revolution. Salman had provided 120 tons of explosives and other weaponry to opposition forces, giving them instructions to “light up Damascus” and “flatten” the airport, the document, produced by U.S. government surveillance on Syrian opposition factions, shows.
The Saudis were long bent on unseating Assad. Salman was one of the key Saudi officials responsible for prosecuting the war in Syria, serving as a high-ranking intelligence official before being promoted to deputy minister of defense later in 2013.
The NSA document provides a glimpse into how the war had evolved from its early stages of popular uprisings and repression. By the time of the March 2013 attack, arguably the most salient dynamic in the conflict was the foreign powers on both sides fueling what appeared to be a bloody, entrenched stalemate. The document points to how deeply these foreign powers would become involved in parts of the armed uprising, even choosing specific operations for their local allies to carry out.
“A revolution, a proxy war, and a civil war are not necessarily mutually exclusive of each other.”
“A revolution, a proxy war, and a civil war are not necessarily mutually exclusive of each other,” said Aron Lund, an expert on Syria at The Century Foundation, a New York-based think tank. “All these things can exist simultaneously in the same country, as seems to have been the case in Syria.”
The uprising against the Assad regime in 2011 was in line with a wave of civil revolutions that broke out across the Middle East that year. Thousands of people living under much-reviled dictatorships sought to overthrow their rulers, launching mass demonstrations and sometimes engaging in armed attacks. Inspired by initial successes in Tunisia and Egypt, Syrians took to the streets in huge numbers. But their uprising would not be able to chart the same peaceful trajectory. In response to the protests, the Assad regime and its security forces waged an open war against their own people, refusing to countenance any change in power.
The crackdown shocked international observers. The then-largely civilian uprising, faced with extermination or resistance, took up arms. Assad’s response, though, coupled with the burgeoning revolution, also opened the door for the involvement of unscrupulous foreign powers. Since the conflict began, both sides of Syria’s civil war have received significant support from abroad. Opposition groups got help from Turkey, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia, while the government has been propped up by the efforts of Iran and Russia.
The March 2013 attacks in Damascus provide a concrete example of the role that foreign powers played in the day-to-day reality of the conflict. A number of videos posted by Syrian opposition media on the day of the attacks purport to show rebel fighters firing rockets at the same sites mentioned in the U.S. document. Local media reports from that day described an attack in which rockets struck within the areas of the presidential palace, a local government security branch, and the airport. A representative of the U.K.-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights quoted in a story the next day reporting the attacks, stating that they were unable to confirm whether they resulted in casualties.
The U.S. document, based on surveillance of “opposition plans and operations,” did not indicate whether the attacks deliberately targeted civilians or involved any extremist groups — but it did show that American spies found out about the attacks several days before they were launched.
Analyzing the videos of the attacks posted online by opposition factions, Lund said, “There appear to be several different groups involved, all identifying themselves as different factions of the ‘Free Syrian Army,’ and all apparently linking back to the same sponsor.”
Because of the fragmentary nature of the Syrian opposition since the early days of the conflict, it is difficult to know who else received arms or what strategy, if any, was being employed by outside sponsors to try and place various factions under central control. Over time, however, this chaotic strategic environment aided the cause of terrorist groups in Syria, as well as the regime.
In Syria, the uprising’s arms initially came from defecting army units that, outraged at the regime’s crackdown, joined the opposition. Among those who turned against Assad were high-ranking officials like Lt. Col. Hussein al-Harmoush, an army officer who had denounced the Syrian dictator after a wave of massacres in 2011. (Harmoush was likely abducted in Turkey and returned to Syria. After giving a videotaped “confession” on Syrian state television after his return, he has not been heard from since.)
“Refusenik” officers like Harmoush helped found the original armed groups that coalesced into the “Free Syrian Army,” a name that was more of a brand for the opposition than a singular entity. Groups identifying themselves as Free Syrian Army adopted Syria’s old independence flag and began conducting small operations across the country to defend protesters and requisition arms. Over time, the Free Syrian Army came to represent a diverse spectrum of nationalist opposition, Muslim Brotherhood-aligned Islamists, and family and tribal networks that took up arms to defend their villages and towns. (In contrast, hardline Islamists like Al Qaeda-affiliated Jabhat al-Nusra and the Islamic State did not take up the Free Syrian Army name or flag, due to their ideological opposition to nationalism.)
It would not be long before foreign states were providing arms to groups fighting the regime. But the flow of foreign-sponsored arms was a development that would contribute to the fracturing of the opposition.
As the ferocious crackdown proceeded and refugees began to stream out of the country, the arms afforded to rebels by defectors and raids on government facilities became insufficient. The opposition started to open channels with outside powers eager to see Assad fall. It would not be long before foreign states were providing arms to groups fighting the regime. But the flow of foreign-sponsored arms was a development that would contribute to the fracturing of the opposition.
“By 2013, there was a great division opening up between the sources of support for fighters, due to a growing rivalry between the Saudis and the Qataris,” said Lund, adding that Turkey sided with Qatar. “And this rivalry helped undermine the insurgency.”
“Much of the support seems to have run along personal lines, with support being provided by people who had personal connections with Syrians on the ground,” he added, a dynamic that impacted the armed uprising from the beginning. “But there was an ideological dimension to it as well.” Lund said that in general, Qatari- and Turkish-sponsored groups tended more toward Islamist ideology, while those supported by the United Arab Emirates and Saudi were either non-Islamist or adhered to a version of Islamism that did not threaten them, reflecting those countries’ opposition to the populism of the Muslim Brotherhood: “The Saudis and Emiratis were never really comfortable with most Syrian Islamists, though they supported some hardline groups at times.”
The Free Syrian Army factions in the videos of the March 2013 attacks appear to have belonged to Saudi- and Jordanian-supported Southern Front, as well as the Ahfad al-Rasul (“Grandsons of the Prophet”) Brigades. The group’s name offers a poignant example of the sort of confusion that reigned over rebel forces: The moniker Ahfad al-Rasul appears to have been used by different groups, with different ideological leanings, at different times in the conflict.
“Generally, a large number of civil wars tend to start from the periphery, with a small group of people who assemble in isolated areas of the country and take time to build up a military structure. That is the general idea behind a guerilla war,” said Stathis Kalyvas, a professor of political science at Yale University and author of “The Logic of Violence in Civil War.”
“The Syrian case is striking for the extent and the speed with which the opposition was able to arm itself,” Kalyvas said. “Despite the fact that there were many defections from the military, we didn’t really observe the implosion of Syrian state. At the same time, we saw this very decentralized but rapid emergence of a rebel army — which, for me, is quite puzzling — and the most likely explanation is the extent and ability of the opposition to gain external assistance.”
Unlike nationalist and Muslim Brotherhood-aligned groups, it has never been firmly established that terrorist organizations like ISIS benefitted from direct state sponsorship. ISIS did, however, manage to get a hold of both private funding and significant quantities of foreign armaments, including U.S. arms, during the maelstrom of the wars in Syria and Iraq. While largely independent, in 2015, Jabhat al-Nusra, Al Qaeda’s local affiliate, also benefitted from its participation in an umbrella coalition of Saudi-, Turkish-, and Qatari-sponsored groups known a Jaish al-Fatah, or the “Army of Conquest.” The relative independence of the most extreme groups over the course of the war – granted by the absence of state sponsorship – stood as a major advantage in the jockeying between various rebel factions. The extremist jihadists had a free hand to set their own agendas in everything from taking territory to running propaganda campaigns aimed at recruitment.
Over the course of the conflict, the most extreme groups, with the support of private donors and foreign volunteers, were largely able to defeat their rivals in the opposition that lined up under the Free Syrian Army umbrella. The Free Syrian Army-type factions had to manage their operations and alliances in order to keep their foreign backers on-side; some groups, for instance, were forced to turn against erstwhile allies like the Syrian Kurds to maintain their Turkish sponsorship. On the other hand, the extremists were able to operate with astounding flexibility. And they benefitted from having a coherent, if harsh, ideological doctrine to impose onto their cadres and areas under their control — another advantage while operating among populations desperate for any kind of order amid the terrifying insecurity of civil war.
“During the Cold War, you had many conflicts in which the rebels were divided by nationalist and communist factions. And very often, the communist factions were both more radical and more ruthless,” said Kalyvas. “Radical parties are often much more centralized and disciplined, making them better able to compete with non-radical rebel groups. The way that they deal with local populations also employs an effective mixture of propaganda — which they tend to be more skilled at — and the brutal suppression of any dissent.”
“This strategy,” Kalyvas added, “can often dominate a civil war and lead to the elimination of any rebel competition.”
Instead of foreshadowing a campaign to take Damascus, the 2013 mortar attacks wound up being just another episode in a long, grueling effort to unseat Assad by force.
There are still nationalist armed revolutionary factions operating in Syria, including the Manbij Military Council, a faction of the U.S.-backed Syrian Democratic Forces, as well as countless civil society activists and groups working in areas liberated from government control. But six years after the war began and four years since the attacks described in the NSA document, the tide of the war has turned dramatically. Caught between the hammer and anvil of extremist groups on one side and the regime on the other, the nationalist Syrian opposition has been largely defeated in its confrontation with the regime. Their slow – and, seemingly, final — vanquish came thanks in no small part to foreign intervention by Iran and Russia, but also, crucially, through the rebels’ own internal divisions.
In one of the videos purporting to show rockets being fired at Damascus International Airport, a rebel commander identified as member of the Free Syrian Army tells the camera that the attack was “in memory of the second anniversary of the Syrian revolution” — just as the Saudi prince had declared. A few months after the daring assault on the Syrian capital, the regime carried out one of the single greatest atrocities of the war: a chemical weapons attack on the Damascus suburb of Ghouta that killed upwards of 1,400 people, according to the U.S. The chemical massacre, and the muted international reaction to it, demoralized the opposition and helped galvanize a long fight back by the regime that ended the war in its favor.
Instead of foreshadowing a campaign to take Damascus, the 2013 mortar attacks wound up being just another episode in a long, grueling effort to unseat Assad by force. The direct foreign involvement in the attack paints a more sharply outlined picture of a war that had already begun to spin out of local control — with foreign powers manipulating Syrians on both sides. While outsiders have written checks, shipped arms, and fired missiles into Syria, it has been the Syrians who have been killed, driven into exile, and seen their country carved into pieces, in a conflict that, despite being more or less decided, continues to rage to this today.
Top photo: Saudi Arabia Deputy Minister of Defense Prince Salman bin Sultan, left, arrives for a meeting with Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel at the Radisson Hotel, on Friday, Dec. 6, 2013 in Manama, Bahrain.
All right here, 12 yrs in advance…
PART 1: Faking the Case Against Syria
http://www.counterpunch.org/2005/11/18/faking-the-case-against-syria/
PART 2: Operation Change of Location
http://www.counterpunch.org/2006/08/15/how-reports-of-the-july-12th-capture-of-idf-soldiers-soon-shifted-from-lebanon-to-israel/
PART 3: The Salvador Option in Beirut
http://www.counterpunch.org/2007/02/08/the-salvador-option-in-beirut/
DocHollywood (it would be nice if you could provide a counter argument)
Robert Parry at Consortium writes (“Escalating the Risky Fight With Russia” December 28, 2016; still refusing to believe that the US and especially Bellingcat were right when they pinned the blame on the downing of MH17 on Russia):
You remember Doc? The drunk Ukrainian army launching Buks – at least according to Parry’s single source.
Bellingcat wrote an exhaustive, detailed photographic analysis pinning the downing of MH17 on the Russians November 8th, 2014. Bellingcat used social media to follow the exact same Buk anti-missile battery from inside Russia to near the location where a Buk missile downed the passenger jet killing all 298 aboard.
According to the Telegraph (September 28, 2016), “MH17 Investigation: Moscow denounces ‘biased’ investigation as prosecutors say missile came from Russia”.
According to Bellingcat in the Telegraph article:
ROFL
craigsummers v craigsummers, redux
his posts once again lightly [edited] for clarity:
“Again[, to restate the obvious, I] am an idiot obsessively [repeating the same insubstantial claims over and over in] my posts. [So there’s no way I can see the stupidity in] what I said:
. . .even though the stupidity is obvious:
[A] Parry never has admitted he was wrong about MH17.
[B] Parry no longer brings up the subject.
indicating
[C] Parry knows he was wrong.
A simple illustration makes it even more obvious:
[A] VIPS never has admitted they were wrong about MH17.
[B] VIPS no longer brings up the subject
indicating
[C] VIPS knows they were wrong.
. . .but I still don’t get it, which is why I offer this classic non-sequitur:
. . .literally unaware that it has nothing to do with how I conjure my claims.
Heck, I could even apply my logic to myself:
[A] craigsummers never has admitted he was wrong about Black Lives Matters (or Hamas, or Afghanistan, or China, or whatever).
[B] craigsummers no longer* brings up the subject.
indicating
[C] craigsummers knows he was wrong.
. . .and I still won’t get it.
*”no longer” being as long or as short as whatever one chooses
That’s because I have managed to conflate repetition with confirmation, which explains why – in the face of contrary evidence – I just keep repeating the same thing over and over again:
. . .because repetition trumps evidence.
. . .or as I so eloquently explained myself before:
Thanks for yet another opportunity [to demonstrate my brilliance.] (By the way, the VIPS were dead wrong [as my logic proves]!).
FINISH HIM!
DocHollywood
You have a problem when your knowledge on a particular topic limits your responses to personal attacks, but that has been your MO for a long time.
Thanks Doc.
The noose is tightening on the Russian hack of the DNC according to the New York Times ( Trump Campaign Got Early Word Russia Had Democrats’ Emails https://nyti.ms/2z0n1Kl):
It’s fairly obvious that the Russian government was behind the hacking of the DNC. It’s just a matter of finding how the emails were obtained by the Russian-bot (bought) Assange. That’s fairly obvious too…….
@Craig Summers. Notice that you put quote marks around the coup in Ukraine which, together with your other comments, would lead one to think that you believe what happened in Ukraine was not a coup and the result of a “democratic uprising” or some such nonsense by citizens of Western Ukraine. Surely you must have seen the excerpt of a speech by Victoria Nuland, wife of PNAC co-founder Robert Kagan, telling a group of Ukrainian-American businessmen that the US had already spent $5 billion on trying to change the Ukrainian regime and head the conversation between her and US ambassador Geoff Pyatt about who should be and who should not be the next prime minister of Ukraine–before the coup–and her choice Yatsenyuk got the post. Maybe you have forgotten or maybe you never knew that before he fled Yanokovych had agreed with the leaders of four Western countries, one of which was Germany, to hold a special election after which he would leave office, peacefully, an outcome the US was desperate to prevent since the physical ousting of the elected president was essential in order to push Putin into taking the steps to re-connect Crimea with Russia since, as the US well knew, Sebastopol provided Russia with its only warm water port (which is why there were 25,000 Russian troops legally there at he time of the coup, by agreement with successive Ukraine governments.
As for your rep, Mr. Summers, I somehow recall having questions about who YOU were working for in another era and my conclusions weren’t flattering. Nor are they now.
“……..Maybe you have forgotten or maybe you never knew that before he fled Yanokovych had agreed with the leaders of four Western countries, one of which was Germany, to hold a special election after which he would leave office, peacefully, an outcome the US was desperate to prevent since the physical ousting of the elected president was essential in order to push Putin into taking the steps to re-connect Crimea with Russia……..”
The story in Ukraine is a lot more complex than you are suggesting – and it started over a hundred years ago. The ousting of Yanukovych met the definition of a coup, but it was a popular uprising against Russian domination of ethnic Ukrainians instigated when Yanukovych turned down closer economic ties with the EU under pressure from Russia. That set off the series of events which led to Yanukovych fleeing to Russia. No question that the US meddled in Ukraine, but so did Russia – for the last 100 years.
The military facility in Crimea (which was under a long term lease) was under no threat from Nato or the US. Putin decided to illegally annex the peninsula by sending in Russian special forces to secure the area before holding an illegal referendum. Putin lied when he denied sending the Russian military into Crimea. In addition, emboldened ethnic Russian separatists in Eastern Ukraine rebeled supported by the Russia military. In 2013 Russia threatened to intervene on behalf of Russian separatists if Ukraine signed the EU deal according to the Guardian (Ukraine’s EU trade deal will be catastrophic, says Russia https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/22/ukraine-european-union-trade-russia?CMP=share_btn_tw):
Glazyev threatened Ukraine with a Russian intervention to support the ethnic Russian separatists in Eastern Ukraine if they signed the EU deal. So this was all Russian bullshit that they (Russia) intervened in Eastern Ukraine to save the rebels from the Ukrainian Nazis. Glazyev threatened Russian intervention in 2013. This was planned to undermine the new Ukraine government (still in progress today). Sergei Glazyev is a part of Putin’s inner circle and was placed on sanctions by the Obama administration.
Russia has no inherent right to the “sphere of influence” outlined in the Medvedev Doctrine and enforced in Ukraine.
Thanks.
“Russia has no inherent right to the “sphere of influence” … in Ukraine.”
Are you suggesting the United States does?
Let me know if you find somewhere where I have implied that the US has an inherent right to a sphere of influence, OK?
Dear Mr Hussain,
I’m sorry but I do not agree with your analysis of the Syrian war. A Jesuit priest who lived in the country for many years testified that even from the start of the war the so called Free Syrian opposition was armed and shot at police.
Mark H Gaffney, author, Black 9/11
Parry uses a single source to implicate Ukraine in the downing of MH17 (http://blackbag.gawker.com/u-s-intelligence-vets-criticize-obama-for-peddling-wea-1615618579).
It’s Parry’s Gulf of Tonkin comparison. Has anyone ever confirmed the information put forth by his source?
He promoted the same story until the end of 2016 and stopped when he realized this was all bullshit i.e., they had photographs of the Russian Buk anti-missile battery entering and leaving eastern Ukraine. Who was his “source”. Probably an RT journalist……
Parry’s reporting is correct on MH-17 and he has never stopped disclosing info about the issue. The likely suspect is Igor Kolomoisky, a Ukrainian oligarch who finances the Right Sector Nazi battalions. Extensive proof of such is here:
https://clarityofsignal.com/2017/01/21/msm-mia-the-ukrainian-oligarch-right-sector-nazis-mh-17-and-joe-bidens-son/
and here:
https://clarityofsignal.com/2017/01/09/something-most-americans-dont-know-about-mh17ukrainian-govt-claims-radars-were-not-operational/
and here:
https://clarityofsignal.com/2017/07/02/eu-fascism-embraced-over-20-highly-revealing-videos-highlight-us-and-eu-support-for-fascist-pro-nazi-military-battalions-in-ukraine/
DocHollywood
Again Doc, you are making yourself look like an idiot obsessively challenging my posts. In this case, you didn’t read what I wrote (yes, it is that simple). You quote Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS):
Here is what I said about questioning US intelligence (https://theintercept.com/2017/10/24/syria-rebels-nsa-saudi-prince-assad/?comments=1#comment-461821):
I then showed on three different occasions Parry supporting (without evidence) conspiracy theories which served to deflect the evidence away from Syria and Russia – something Parry is quite good at. Don’t worry Doc, I will be giving you a lot more on the propaganda of Parry at Consortium in the future. He is a classic anti-American “journalists”(?).
Thanks for yet another opportunity Doc (By the way, the VIPS were dead wrong!).
On what basis doe the author assert that the US, Saudis and their other allies weren’t involved in the Syrian uprising from the very beginning? Or that there wasn’t violent opposition who shot into nonviolent protestors and police from the very beginning as is reported by peaceful protestors within Syria? It was US policy to take out Middle Eastern leaders who did not toe the line and replace them with US-1% friendly inserts. Read how US General Wesley Clark was informed that the Pentagon was pursuing plans to attack 7 countries – the Project for a New American Century. Violence is not limited to one side in any war. But let’s at least be clear about what nation is the greatest purveyor of violence in the world and the well-documented methods it uses to promote its imperial agenda.
And how many Syrian lives is the Intercept responsible for in sitting on this document until today?!
Apparently everything is about timing!!
“Furthermore, one day before Prime Minister Thani’s interview, The Intercept released a new top-secret NSA document unearthed from leaked intelligence files provided by Edward Snowden which show in stunning clarity that the armed opposition in Syria was under the direct command of foreign governments from the early years of the war which has now claimed half a million lives.”
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-10-28/shocking-viral-interview-qatar-confesses-secrets-behind-syrian-war
I must ask: How did you get to that conclusion?
craigsummers was banned from Consortiumnews.com
That certainly is true. In no way do I accept any responsibility for Parry deleting my posts. For awhile, Parry just deleted posts that were in conflict with the site positions on various topics like MH17 or the “coup” in Ukraine. I was placed in premoderation first. He posted a few of mine that agreed (to a certain extent) with the various authors. Finally, he accidentally posted a combative response to his article and that was it. He deleted that post, and after that, when I attempted to post, a message would say that my response was posted, but it never was (to this day). He never deleted my account, but nothing is posted.
Parry has the most sanitized comment section I have ever seen with 90% (+) agreement with the author. I am certain that there are many more commentators that he has treated the same way as myself. He always complains (in articles) about the narrative of the MSM, but he is much worse. He won a couple of journalism awards, but he is far more advocate (for Russian interests) than journalist. To my knowledge, he never has admitted he was wrong about MH17, but he no longer brings up the subject indicating he knows he was wrong. He posted a considerable amount of articles about MH17 from 2014 to the end of 2016. After that, they suddenly stopped. Parry was also wrong about the accusations against the Assad regime for the sarin attacks, but he still has not admitted that as well. He clearly holds the Russians and Syrians to a completely different standard than the US when it comes to the truth. He really is a pathetic “journalist”.
Thanks for that opportunity Doc.
The logic of craigsummers
in a post lightly [edited] for clarity:
“[A ]To my knowledge, he never has admitted he was wrong about MH17.
[B ] He no longer brings up the subject
[therefore:]
[C] he knows he was wrong.
[Isn’t that brilliant?
Parry] posted a considerable amount of articles about MH17 from 2014 to the end of 2016 [when the JIT report came out]. After that [- when there was not much more for him to say -], they suddenly stopped [except they didn’t; see Consortium News February 23, 2017. But the point here is, one must keep repeating the same claims over and over when there’s nothing new to say, or one is wrong. That makes him] far more advocate (for Russian interests) than journalist. [And by my brilliant reasoning, theVeteran Intelligence Professionals For Sanity (VIPS) – who haven’t had much more to say since they published an open letter to Obama – must be a bunch of Russian stooges too:
As intelligence professionals we are embarrassed by the unprofessional use of partial intelligence information. As Americans, we find ourselves hoping that, if you indeed have more conclusive evidence, you will find a way to make it public without further delay. […]
Your administration has not provided any satellite imagery showing that the separatists had such weaponry, and there are several other “dogs that have not barked.” […]
What is needed, if you’ve got the goods, is an Interagency Intelligence Assessment—the genre used in the past to lay out the intelligence. We are hearing indirectly from some of our former colleagues that what Secretary Kerry is peddling does not square with the real intelligence.
I mean, just look at these Putin-lovin’ types questioning the MSM narrative like Parry did:
-William Binney, former Technical Director, World Geopolitical & MilitaryAnalysis, NSA; co-founder, SIGINT Automation Research Center (ret.)
-Thomas Drake, former Senior Executive, National Security Agency
-Philip Giraldi, CIA, Operations Officer (ret.)
-Matthew Hoh, former Capt., USMC, Iraq & Foreign Service Officer, Afghanistan (associate VIPS)
-Larry Johnson, CIA & State Department (ret.)
-John Kiriakou, Former CIA Counterterrorism Officer
-Karen Kwiatkowski, former Lt. Col., US Air Force (ret.), at Office of Secretary of Defense watching the manufacture of lies on Iraq, 2001-2003
-Edward Loomis, NSA, Cryptologic Computer Scientist (ret.)
-David MacMichael, National Intelligence Council (ret.)
-Ray McGovern, former US Army infantry/intelligence officer & CIA analyst (ret.)
-Elizabeth Murray, Deputy National Intelligence Officer for Middle East (ret.)
-Todd E. Pierce, MAJ, US Army Judge Advocate (Ret.)
-Coleen Rowley, Division Counsel & Special Agent, FBI (ret.)
-Peter Van Buren, US Department of State, Foreign Service Officer (ret.) (associate VIPS)
-Kirk Wiebe, former Senior Analyst, SIGINT Automation Research Center, NSA
-Ann Wright, Col., US Army (ret.); Foreign Service Officer (resigned).
Of course it logically follows that – since he hasn’t had much more to say but has failed to repeat the same claims over and over as I do -] Parry was also wrong about the accusations against the Assad regime for the sarin attacks, but he still has not admitted that as well. [Ergo, indubitably, and no evidence is needed:] He clearly holds the Russians and Syrians to a completely different standard than the US when it comes to the truth.
Thanks for that opportunity [to show off my brilliance].”
Herrsommer
Thank you for confirming that you are banned from consortiumnews.com.
And thank you for confirming that you’re a self-important troll who will never accept any responsibility for the asinine crap (s)he writes.
“……..And thank you for confirming that you’re a self-important troll who will never accept any responsibility for the asinine crap (s)he writes……..”
Of course, I accept all responsibility for what I write. I’m certain you will be able to repost where I said I didn’t? ROFL……
Herrsommer
Herrsommer stated on October 30 2017, 2:00 a.m.:
Thanks for that opportunity to further affirm that you are in fact a self-important troll who will never accept any responsibility for the asinine crap (s)he writes.
What I write and who deletes my post are two completely different things. ROFL
Herrsommer
No shit, Sherlock! Do you now wish to claim your troll posts on consortiumnews.com weren’t deleted because of the (reams of) retarded shit that you chose to write?
Thanks for another opportunity to further affirm that you are in fact a self-important troll who will never accept any responsibility for the asinine crap (s)he writes.
“Parry holds the Russians and Syrians to a completely different standard than the US.”
Because they have a different standard.
I have read your posts on Consortium: you are a self important ass without knowledge. Good riddance.
None of your posts have contributed to valuable information or analysis.
“……..None of your posts have contributed to valuable information or analysis…….”
There was enough information to get me deleted. Parry writes about democracy, but clearly doesn’t practice it on his own site.
Thanks Fred
ROFL…Yea, you self-important little window-licker, and “democracy” doesn’t mean that you get to crap all over Parry’s site.
Thanks, Herrsommer, for yet another opportunity to affirm that you are in fact a self-important troll who will never accept any responsibility for the asinine crap (s)he writes.
Ah, thank you; explains a lot.
DocHollywood
Anyone who has spent any time reading Robert Parry and the journalists he publishes at Consortium News knows that he does not accept the narrative of US Intelligence which concluded with high confidence that Russia at the highest levels interfered in the US election. This included hacking the DNC and turning over the emails to WikiLeaks through a third party. Parry has demanded “proof” of the complicity of Putin and the Russian government. In itself, there is nothing inherently wrong with questioning the US government account.
However, when it comes to Russia, there is a completely different story. Parry writes in his September 2017 article “The Official and Implausible MH-17 Scenario” (https://consortiumnews.com/2016/09/29/the-official-and-implausible-mh-17-scenario/) that the circuitous route taken by the Buk anti-missile battery into Eastern Ukraine was implausible yet he never addresses the geolocations of the Buk anti-missile battery uncovered by the Bellingcat and Dutch investigations. Did Parry believe someone just made up the photographs? He could have investigated the same sources as Bellingcat yet did not even address the issue in the article as if that visual evidence is just going to disappear. Parry simply ignores evidence while accepting Russian accounts. Parry writes:
Notice how the Russian government (by Parry’s account) seems almost distraught at the possibility that it was their Buk missile. Apparently Parry has an extremely reliable source deeply embedded in the Russian government who (reliably) told him Russia had accounted for every Buk after an “intensive investigation”. This was a lie of course. We know that from photographic evidence uncovered by the Bellingcat and Dutch investigations Will Parry admit that he made a massive mistake – or lied to cover for the Russian government? Doubtful. In every way, Parry is a shill for the Russian government.
My turn to speculate. Parry regularly runs a fund raising drive to support his “journalism” at Consortium. How much has he received through third party donations from the Russian government? We know that the Russian government interfered in the US election on social media (proven) and by hacking the DNC and turning over the emails to another Russian-bot (bought) organization (US Intelligence). Why wouldn’t the Russian government want to ensure that a pro-Russian western site willing to accept any narrative of the Russian government remain in business? I can’t think of any.
Consortium News- another example of the dangers of advocacy journalism.
The Consortium article should read 2016 (not 2017).
Bellingcat? Lol. It’s an obvious propaganda outfit. Are you on the payroll too?
Nothing like an article showing the utter corruption of the U.S. and its institutions to bring the government trolls out full bore. Me thinks this troll doth protest too much about Mr. Parry. Nice diversion tactic though.
DocHollywood used Consortium as a source. I just showed he is not a very good one.
Thanks.
Herrsommer
The Doc handed your ass to you. You just showed that you’re a self-important troll who will never accept any responsibility for the asinine crap (s)he writes.
Thanks.
Gary just handed your ass to you. Didn’t get it?
The NATO allies, principally USUK and France have a long history of regime change and creating havoc in the lives of civilians and of extra judicial killings. Patrice Lumunba, Kukuio people, Sihk people at the golden Temple, Chile 1973 Allende, Orlando Letelier in Washington, including giving the names of all communists of Indonesia to Suharto and to Saddam Hussein, supporting the killings of Yemenit civilians…
There is no discussion to be had. The intention is to sell weapons, then change regimes in order to divide and conquer all the resources from the country while the USUK populations are left to have millions in dire poverty dying of hunger and destitution.
I see no point in the posts of defenders of Assad or US or those against Russian or against any government. They all want a huge amount of people dead in order to aliviate the demands on the world resources. Reasons to do it are not needed. They have the power to create Ebola, Aids, Sarin attacks, heart attacks, poisoning waters…
At this point in time only God and He is not going to intervene cause humans created all this evil. Humans have to solve it .
In the situation at present there is just one thing to do, pray (if you can an believe. Outside of that: be calm, respectful, help your neighbour, be discipline, practice service in your community, plant a garden, plant trees, behave with ethics and use your reason with heartfelt abandon.
The rest…has nothing to do with you. Reading the news is a good way to realize how sick humanity is and to make sure one behaves in love and kindness to all kingdoms and to the planet.
Be well.
DocHollywood
I’m glad you used Consortium News as a source. Robert Parry at Consortium uses his position as an “award winning” journalist to advance conspiracy theories to protect his client states Russia and Syria. In all three cases below, he uses single sources (or speculation) to advance theories in service to Assad and Putin. Robert Parry writes (“MH-17 Mystery: A New Tonkin Gulf Case?” https://consortiumnews.com/2015/07/17/mh-17-mystery-a-new-tonkin-gulf-case/):
Parry compared MH17 to the Gulf of Tonkin incident used to justify the war in Vietnam. However, the investigation by Dutch authorities found that a Russian Buk missile was used by Russian supported rebels to shoot down the airliner killing all 300 aboard. The missile launcher carrying four Buk missiles was brought into rebel territory in Eastern Ukraine from Russia and returned to Russia with only three Buk missiles. This has been documented and confirmed by photographs (for example see Bellingcat “MH17 The Open Source Investigation three years later”).
Parry writes again sing a single source to advance another conspiracy theory (“A New Hole in Syria-Sarin Certainty”, 9-07-2017).
When you need a good conspiracy theory, use Israel (and all you need is “some evidence”). In actuality, the sarin attack was attributed to the Assad regime after a thorough joint investigation by OPCW-UN (JIM).
Parry advances the conspiracy theory that the intelligence community planned (and failed) an electoral college coup to depose Trump after undermining the Clinton campaign by leaking “at least“ the Podesta emails (protecting Russia’s role in the election hacking scandal). He speculates that the US intelligence community deemed both candidates unfit to be President.
You have to have some nerve to publish something that ridiculous. Parry twist “facts” to serve his anti-American agenda. Parry is an extremely poor source if you are interested in the truth. He is exceptionally good at deflecting blame away from Russia and Syria toward the US (using any means at his disposal).
Thanks Doc.
The post lightly [edited] for accuracy:
“I’m [banned from] Consortium News [after posting too many stupid claims and insults. What kind of stupid claims and insults? How about] Robert Parry at Consortium uses his position as an “award winning” journalist to advance conspiracy theories to protect his client states Russia and Syria. He uses [multiple] sources [in several articles, but I’m ignoring all of those] to advance [my laughably absurd claim that this he’s in] service to Assad and Putin. [My proof is that] Robert Parry [banned me from Consortium News].
Parry [who banned me from Consortium News] compared MH17 to the Gulf of Tonkin incident used to justify the war in Vietnam[, a historical lesson from which I cannot learn. He doesn’t just report whatever he’s told to say. For example, he reported] Dutch [Intelligence] found that [the only high-powered anti-aircraft missile systems in eastern Ukraine capable of bringing down MH-17 at 33,000 feet belonged to the Ukrainian military, not the rebels. But I’ve been banned at Consortium News, and I rely on the discredited claims of Bellingcat]
[I’m banned from Consortium News, so I make the ridiculous claim that Russia and Syria are Parry’s clients and throw about terms like] conspiracy theory. You have to have some nerve to publish [a direct quote from a former President of the U.N. General Assembly]. Parry twists “facts” to serve his anti-American agenda[: the author was Rick Sterling, not Parry, and it was a direct quote from a former President of the U.N. General Assembly, Father Miguel D’Escoto, that got my panties in a wad. That, and I’m banned from Consortium News]”
The post lightly [edited] for accuracy:
“Bigcoloringbook is now my go-to source for all things Russian (Whatever The MIC Says, I’ll Go Along With It via @ bigcoloringbookhtt /ww.bigcoloringbookcom I-have-my-brown-nose-way-up-the-Alantic-Council’s-crack) Thoughtful and decent people will evaluate it and the most recent OPCW report by merit and with consistent standards, but the decomposition of my brain is conclusive.
It doesn’t even occur to me that if – as I claim – Assad never fully complied with the agreement to remove all of his chemical weapons supply, then the OPCW is discredited by its prior certification that he did. But rationality doesn’t concern an authoritarian: those to whom I submit tell me chemical attacks can be attributed to the Assad regime, Hillary’s defeat can be blamed on Putin, and the occupation of the West Bank is the fault of the Palestinians. I just mindlessly accept and regurgitate it all along with every other imbecility I’m fed.
It may seem perverse to normal people, but I willingly subvert myself in submission to my betters. It’s not so easy a task to lie to oneself when the truth is so obvious; that’s why I must keep repeating what I am supposed to believe, like “The war is solely the fault of the brutal Assad regime,” and “Assad is completely responsible for the death of 400,000 people.” I avoid the obvious truth and the war crimes it reveals. Former Nicaraguan Foreign Minister and former President of the U.N. General Assembly, Father Miguel D’Escoto, is someone who should know. He says, “What the U.S. government is doing in Syria is tantamount to a war of aggression, which, according to the Nuremberg Tribunal, is the worst possible crime a State can commit against another State.” As the Nuremberg Tribunal declared, aggression is “the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.” [h/t Consortium News, February 11, 2017]. So I must ignore those principals and those embodied in the UN Charter as well as the facts to blame everyone but those who have committed – and continue to commit – the supreme international crime.”
“Assad never fully complied with the agreement to remove all of his chemical weapons supply, then the OPCW is discredited by its prior certification that he did.”
The OPCW certifies that a nation has removed the chemical weapons DECLARED. Again, the DECLARED chemical weapons. It is up to the nation (Syria) to DECLARE all its chemical weapons to the UN (OPCW). The UN (OPCW) cannot certify that Syria has no chemical weapons or has removed all chemical weapons. The UN (OPCW) can only certify that all weapons DECLARED have been removed. Are you smart enough to understand the simple difference?
“So I must ignore those principals and those embodied in the UN Charter as well as the facts to blame everyone but those who have committed – and continue to commit – the supreme international crime.”
An armed group located in Syria (ISIS) sent its soldiers in France and killed French citizens on French soil.
1)Does the UN Charter give France and its allies the right to take military actions against this armed group?
2)Does the UN Charter require that France and its allies work with Assad against that group even if France and the UN believe that Assad has committed war crimes?
You are not smart enough to even understand those questions, so just read them and start a conversation with Zara or Gladio about how the CIA and the Mossad started the Syrian civil war.
ROFL…Nah, you vapid little “western” window-licker, you are not smart enough to even “understand” just how vacuous “those questions” are, and just too fucking stupid to grasp that your little “western” fascist jerk-off buddy has just been ripped a new one by the Doc, so just go fuck yourself.
swisscheese thinks it’s “illogical” to believe the CIA might be doing in Syria what it has done countless other places.
He’s whip-smart, that one, he certainly doesn’t fall for this “CIA” psyop from we “Assadists”. Ha!
You might want to read TI policies regarding the comment sections.
You might want to go fuck yourself, you comprehension-challenged state-worshipping warmongering “western” window-licker.
BWAAAAAAAAAAHAHHAAHAAAHAAAHAAAAHAAAAA!!!
This has to be one of your best takedowns yet, Doc! :D
Agreed!
What a blatantly B.S. midleading article……Doing the globalists work….leading people to believe that the West came in on the side of the righteous, innocent civilians……..The West together with Israel and S.A. engineered this fucking disaster in Syria from the very beginning….Im gonna be reading theintercept with a newfound sense of skepticism…….
Lest our resident hasbara trolls successfully relegate the truth about Syria to the “memory hole” here’s a golden oldie regarding the U.S. financing and training terrorists in the use of chemical weapons – AND – plans to use an attack using said weapons as a false flag justification for further regime change activity:
https://www.globalresearch.ca/pentagon-trained-syrias-al-qaeda-rebels-in-the-use-of-chemical-weapons/5583784
What’s your point? That the crimes of Assad should be covered up or ignored because the US is also guilty of crimes?
It is evident to me that those interested in politics not people can only see things like this as a zero sum game. It is possible to be against all civilian murder regardless of who is responsible. Apparently those who put politics first cant do this and cant even understand it Mark.
And global research is not a reliable source for anything other than the latest conspiracy theory.
The point is that although Syria likely committed crimes, many of them are false flags and are an excuse to attack and destroy a sovereign nation. The point is that just like no other country has the right to bomb us or support terrorists to kill us because of our racism, we do not have the right to bomb others or support terrorists because of their crimes. Simple really.
Who said we did have the right? By the same token why does that mean we should defend Assad when he does commit crimes? That seems pretty simple to me and what many on this board seem to feel because the US is wrong Assad must be right.
The US invaded Assad’s country so he is right.
Why are there false flags? Is it a conspiracy between the UN, human rights organizations, journalists on the ground, former Syrian soldiers and all Western intelligence services? Can you elaborate more on that conspiracy? And tell us whether the Mossad is involved?
This is really just for the record, not for your personal edification, since I don’t think that’s why you posed these questions, but…
which has nations that sponsor terrorism and commit gross human rights on their HRC (KSA, et al.)
Which human rights organizations are those? The one that employs former US State Department officials despite claiming to be “independent”? Or the one whose advocacy director refused to summarily condemn CIA renditions and said there was a legitimate place for them? Those human rights organizations?
People who uncritically cite these orgs as credible seem unable to comprehend that they are not immune to bribery or corruption. Why would anyone assume they were to the extent that they put blind faith in them?
Er, “on the ground”? You mean the journalists getting their information from terrorists, doing PR for terrorists, and in general failing to investigate anything?
You mean the 2% who defected?
This sounds like a bit of a dickish straw man, but, um, yes, all countries with an interest in having control over that part of the world for economic or geopolitical reasons would most assuredly have their intelligence agencies involved.
Mossad is never involved. At all. In anything. They don’t care what goes on in the Middle East, you silly man!
If you still believe the MSM line on Syria, despite the media blackout on Aleppo’s liberation, the Bana Alabed scam, the Omran Daqneesh scam, the White Helmets scam, the Bilal al-Kareem scam, the “last hospital in Aleppo” scam, the UN’s failure to investigate claims the FSA was using cw, the UN’s failure to do anything about the documented instances of US and proxies using depleted uranium, the revelations (via documents and testimony) regarding what the Gulf States were doing in Syria early on, and the generally shitty fact-free grandstanding “arguments” presented by anti-Assad propagandists in discussions like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1ia7AsXFsc
then I am afraid you are hopelessly lost.
“This is really just for the record…”
Nope. This for your record not “the” record. You need to take a peak out of your universe to understand that I only read one sentence from your illogical comments. I am not sure whom are you trying to convince or impress with them.
You’re obviously scared of me and I literally don’t care whether you read me or not. I will keep correcting crap that is spewed on here either way.
ROFL…Yep. You really are dumber than a box of rocks.
Nah, you comprehension-challenged state-worshipping fascist, you’re just dumber than a box o’ rocks. And you need to piss off to Pornhub if all you wanna do is jerk-off your worthless little “western” wiener, you narcissistic little “western” window-licker.
On journalists in Syria:
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/syria-aleppo-iraq-mosul-isis-middle-east-conflict-assad-war-everything-youve-read-could-be-wrong-a7451656.html
Also:
Why did the Gulf of Tonkin happen? Why did the Reichstag happen?
Same reason.
Isn’t it sad that one must turn to Russian state propaganda when one wants the truth about what the U.S. and our proxies are doing in Syria?
https://www.rt.com/usa/407267-state-department-chemical-weapons-syria/
Macron called out Putin for the lying and propaganda of Sputnik and RT – with Putin present in France.
But you keep getting your news from RT, Mark. Putin clearly favored Le Pen.
In this case, the Americans are admitting that their rebels use chemical weapons. This can be verified through other news outlets. This obviously puts the American claims that Syria used chemical bombs to bomb their own people at jeopardy.
“This obviously puts the American claims that Syria used chemical bombs to bomb their own people at jeopardy.”
You mean the UN claims that Syria used chemical bombs to bomb their own people. Right? Did you believe the UN when it claimed in 2003 that there was no evidence that Saddam had WMD? If yes, why suddenly the UN claims against Assad are false flags?
Zara
According to the Amnesty International 2016-2017 report:
my addition in brackets
The regime attempted to starve the rebels and therefore the Syrian civilians. However, I agree that using starvation as a weapon is a terrorist tactic. Assad is the biggest terrorist in Syria. You are naive Zara.
I went to the trouble of actually reading the relevant section of the report, craig. There is NO MENTION of what the terrorists were doing at that time, how they were hoarding the aid the government was sending in and extorting the people with it. The report is completely one-sided and deceptive.
UNLIKE you, I cite people who provide in-person testimony of what happened in Madaya.
http://www.mintpressnews.com/order-returns-to-western-syria-civilians-recount-horrors-rebel-rule/232380/
Also, answer the question I posed in my comment, shithead, or you have no credibility. Why is the man in the photo not starving to death if there is no food there?
ANSWER IT OR ADMIT YOU ARE ATTEMPTING TO DECEIVE.
You people are fucking desperate. It’s pathetic the way you lie and avoid dealing with what is right in front of your face.
Yep, it’s just a big conspiracy against the fun loving, eye doctor Assad. No truth at all to Amnesty’s report on the death of 23,000-31,000 prisoners in government detention centers (terrorism), or the UN report on the sarin attacks by the government which left hundreds dead (terrorism), or the crack down by the government on the protesters marching for political rights killing hundreds initiating the civil conflict (terrorism), or the targeting and bombing of numerous medical facilities, medical workers, field hospitals including most recently in September of this year (terrorism):
All just a giant conspiracy. Assad is completely responsible for the death of 400,000 people. By the way, your use of English slang is top notch for a second language.
Thanks.
You can’t answer a basic question, even though the picture completely destroys the narrative you have set up.
All you have left is mockery. It’s truly, truly pathetic.
Ok, then. Enjoy your paycheck from the Fascist States of America.
Crag Summers is a member of the George W. Bush/Dick Cheney neocon school. He thinks that simply repeating lies like this:
enough will make them true.
Sorry, Crag. Maybe you should actually read the article under which you’re attempting to propagandize. It’s now public knowledge that attacks on the Syrian regime and attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure were directly ordered by the U.S. proxy state of Saudi Arabia.
What will you say when it finally comes out that the chemical attacks were actually staged and perpetrated by the U.S. and/or Saudi interests? Will you bother to show your face?
Sorry to let you in on a little secret, but the Assad regime used sarin as recently as April 4th, 2017 at Khan Sheikhoun. Additionally, they used sarin on March 30, 2017 in Al-Lataminah. Where have you been Mark?. Both attacks can be reviewed at Bellingcat.
So the hasbara troll (or U.S. deep state operative) Craig Summers crawls out of his hole on cue. Hey Craig, has Assad used any chemical weapons lately? Why not?
craig’s argument style sometimes reminds me of someone who, upon realizing the person they’re talking to only speaks Chinese, simply yells louder at them in English.
Why did you withheld this document FOR YEARS?
https://www.mintpressnews.com/intercept-withheld-nsa-doc-that-may-have-altered-course-of-syria-war/233757/
Bellingcat calls out Russia for lying in their attempt to cover for the war crimes of Assad (What the OPCW-UN JIM’s Leaked Report on Khan Sheikhoun Tells Us About Russia’s Denials and Syria’s Sarin via @bellingcat https://www.bellingcat.com/news/mena/2017/10/27/opcw-un-jims-leaked-report-khan-sheikhoun-tells-us-russias-denials-syrias-sarin/). Russia along with the Assad regime will attempt to discredit the UN report on the sarin attack at Khan Sheikhoun, but the chemical composition of the sarin is conclusive. Assad never fully complied with the agreement to remove all of his chemical weapons supply. Ghouta and Khan Sheikhoun and numerous other sarin and/or chlorine related chemical attacks can be attributed to the Assad regime. Hundreds were killed at Ghouta from the Assad sarin attack.
The crackdown on the mostly peaceful protests by ordinary Syrians seeking more political rights began the war in which over 400,000 have died. The war is solely the fault of the brutal Assad regime. Assad had promised reforms but simply didn’t deliver. He decided to quell the protests violently as his father did at Hama in the early 1980s (where 10,000-20,000 people were killed). Amnesty International has documented thousands of deaths inside the regime detention centers (23,000-31,000). Tens of thousands remain.
The rash of posts from TI’s resident hasbara idiots needs to be countered.
Here is the testimony of the Syrian rep at the UN from a couple of weeks ago. (I’m not including the replies of the other countries because it’s basically all empty bullshit.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e91ZDmKn9UY#t=8m0s
What will happen to Qatar, do you think, for threatening to use CW against a potential tribal uprising? Are “GilG” and “swisscheese” going to demand the ruling elite in Qatar step down? Intervention? Should foreign armies enter Qatar and run around chopping off heads, because of this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFpX0n-tBd0
Are you two completely full of crap, or what? Now’s your chance to show you aren’t.
I havent given aupport to US intervention in Syria, this is just another false accusation that you continue to make in spite of my saying this multiple times. That being said you would never catch me defending the rulers of Qatar if they used cw, like you have with Assad.
As for your video: really thats your refute,
the Syrian amb. denying they did it? And an attempt to edit out what other amb said.
Sorry but that is just weak. You might as well admit you have nothing.
This is just cowardly. You ought to be ashamed of yourself.
You haven’t condemned the terrorists either you degenerate, or given any attention to the atrocities they are committing. You are, again, obsessed with demonizing Assad, the man who is actually fighting them. This is the same as being on their side. You are a terrorist supporter, end of story. Until you come out officially against them, call for all of them to exit Syria and admit their atrocities, and stop promoting their propaganda, YOU ARE ON THE SIDE OF TERRORISTS.
When it comes to the video, you absolutely, completely miss the point, because you are stupid. The Syrian ambassador is laying out all of the reasons that the Gulf States violate human rights, yet nothing, NOTHING, happens to them. The point was to show how incredibly biased the UN is, to expose the bullshit about “Syria did the chemical attack and the UN report proves is” as something that no thinking person should immediately trust.
And I didn’t “edit out” what the ambassadors said, you goddamned liar. It is easy enough for you to go to the beginning of the video if you want, unless you are incompetent.
You are a disgusting human being.
Face it Zara you have been exposed. You asked me a question and I answered it fairly. I’m not sure which terrorists you want me to condemn, but you asked me specifically about Qatar and I gave you an answer. Your only defense of Assad seems to be down to that the UN is unfairly singling him out. Every time I present evidence you just say it’s biased and your only evidence is from the Syria govt itself, who’s evidence consists of saying we didn’t do it, paid shills like Beasley, Or a twitter account that makes claims based on false hoods about the nature of sarin gas and how long after it is released into the air it is deadly and draws conclusion based this ignorance.
And I said you made an ATTEMPT to edit the video, I didn’t lie at all that is what you attempted to do. On the other hand you have stated repeatedly that I have supported intervention in Syria which I have not.
I’m sorry you feel like being opposed to a dictator gassing and murdering his own people is disgusting and supporting such a person is not but hey you are entitled to your opinion. Have a nice day.
Exposed as what? You’re talking nonsense.
You did not, you liar. I asked you specifically if you would call for the head of the Qatari government to step down for their threats to use cw on their citizens. You made some vague statement about not supporting intervention and not defending Qatar but you did NOT say whether or not the Qatari government should step down.
“Which terrorists?” Are you fucking kidding me? Al-Nusra? Nour-al-Din-al-Zinki? Ahrar al Sham? THOSE terrorists? The ones who have been making life hell for Syrians for six years?
You’re being disingenuous. You know full well there are Western-backed terrorists in Syria. It has been explained to you over and over and over again, that this is the case. You are pretending the only “terrorist” is Assad, and you are LYING.
First of all, that is completely false. I have cited all kinds of evidence throughout this comment section that shows the narrative about him is exaggerated or flat-out fabricated.
Furthermore, if you are basing your condemnation of him on UN reports, and I am showing you how the UN is biased against him, that completely destroys the basis for condemning him, something you are minimizing, of course.
It is.
I already explained to you that was not the reason I was citing the Syrian government. You are lying again.
And you cannot refute her, and you have no evidence she is a “paid shill”.
It did not make CLAIMS; the point was this sarin attack does not look like the only other previous known sarin attack. A reason to be skeptical, that is all. You are distorting the content.
I did not attempt to EDIT anything. That would have required me to have tried to change the content somehow, which I did not do, and did not attempt to do. I merely queued it up to the relevant point because I didn’t want people to have to sit through eight minutes of terrorist regimes grandstanding about “human rights”. Again, if you really wanted to see those first few minutes you could have simply done so by clicking at the beginning. I attempted to hide absolutely nothing.
You are such a liar.
You HAVE lied on multiple occasions and anyone who reads these comments in entirety will be able to see what a liar you are.
You are lying AGAIN. I said you were a terrorist supporter, which you are, because you do not call out the acts of Nusra, Ahrar-al Sham, etc. To you the only bad actor in any of this is Assad. You are providing cover for these terrorists and repeating their propaganda, helping to keep people from seeing what is really going on and who is actually deliberately targeting civilians.
You ARE disgusting for not talking about the Western-backed terrorists and lying so goddamn much about what I have said.
And now you’re running away. You’re the one who has been exposed. And I bet going forward you will be too cowardly to talk with me again, because you know I can prove you wrong.
Have a shitty day.
So you think I should call for the gov’t of Qatar to step down for threatening to use CW, but not actually doing it, and I should not be against Assad actually using chemical weapons. Hmmm.
Beesley admitted she was Assad’s guest in Damascus. Her entire reportage in in support of him. You on the other other hand claim Chomsky is not to be believed because he was on MIT’s payroll. I rarely agree with Chomsky but how anyone can claim his views are colored because he is on the take but thinks Beeley is a reliable source who is being unbiased is just being ridiculous.
I call out anyone who targets civilians. I didn’t say there weren’t crimes committed by those who are supported by the west. If you want to give me a specific act where a group targeted civilians and you have proof that they were given support by the west I will condemn it. not calling each group out by name does not mean I support them. Your claim that I support them is just bs. You on the other hand have denied Assad’s crimes and gave him your support.
I’m not running away I just don’t see the point in carrying on a discussion with someone who insists that I support something I haven’t and keeps using vulgar language and calling me names because they don’t have the ability to back up there claims.
You haven’t proved anything I said was wrong. On the other hand I have proved your sources wrong and ignorant about sarin gas, in your denial that sarin was used.
Nobody in their right mind still thinks that the last two (at least) reported/alleged chemical weapon attacks in Syria were perpetrated by the regime.
If you want to talk about war crimes, look no further than the CIA and U.S. military. The scale, even compared to everything of which Assad is wrongly accused, is not even within an order of magnitude. The U.S. (and our proxies in Saudi Arabia, Israel, and others) are by far the biggest supporter and perpetrator of state terrorism in the history of the world. Where’s your outrage over that?
Hmmm…..
As I have said many times I condemn any murder of civilians. You guys are the ones defending Assad, I havent defended any war crimes. No one in their right mind could expect to successfully pass themselves off as being interested in human rights while defending a btcher like Assad. It is evident to me that those interested in politics not people can only see things like this as a zero sum game. It is possible to be against all civilian murder regardless of who is responsible. Apparently those who put politics first cant do this and cant even understanf it Mark.
When one side is made up of invaders, and the other side is defending the people against these invaders and is widely supported by the native population, yes, it’s pretty clear which side is in the right.
Do you not realize that if Assad falls the terrorists take over? And not just the literal armed gangs–the terrorist states that sponsor them will be able to expand their power in the region and turn the country into another Libya. Don’t think that’s not the plan; there are parts of Syria that already look like Libya, and Iraq, for that matter. I don’t know how you could see it any differently; you’re either pro-Assad or pro-terrorist, because there is no third option.
And lastly, Gil, I don’t know why you now want us to believe you have actually occupied some virtuous neutral position all along. Unless I missed something, every link and every comment you post under these Syria articles is critical of Assad or the Syrian government or those who defend them in some way. I’ve seen you troll commenters with ridiculous criticism of the Syrian constitution and question the integrity of people who doubt the fairy tale of Assad’s senseless bloodlust, if not outright calling them liars.
Have you, by contrast, EVER posted anything revealing the atrocities and criminal machinations of the terrorists or the Western powers? From what I’ve seen you have constantly vilified one side and one side ONLY.
*shrugs* You’re still a terrorist apologist, end of story.
Well, now, I guess you are a glutton for punishment. Perhaps I was wrong about you. *shrugs*
No, I asked IF you would call for the head of the Qatari government to step down. Speaking of that, what, specifically, do you think should happen to Qatar?
Her being a guest does not prove she was “paid” by the Syrian government. You said, very specifically, that she was a “paid shill”. I can only assume from this that you have documentation that she received financial compensation from the Syrian government. Can you produce this? If not, it would be nice if you had the integrity to retract this statement.
And the Amnesty report craig wanted me to look at blames the Syrian government for everything, yet somehow I am supposed to take that seriously. What the hell is your point?
Also, you’re saying the testimony of the people Beeley interviewed on the ground was somehow made up? Mistranslated? What? What exactly is the basis for your refusal to take these peoples’ testimonies seriously? It would be nice if you actually addressed this instead of cherry-picking how to respond to me and glossing over what’s difficult like you usually do.
You seem not to comprehend the possibility that perhaps Beeley came to report “in support” of Assad because of the reality she observed on the ground. I mean, she has been on the ground in Syria, and I don’t think you have.
Since you have a tendency to leave things out, I will summarize what I said wrt Chomsky.
1) I suggested he does not know anything about Syria (to my knowledge he has not been there to actually gather evidence),
2) I said he was financed by MIT, a key institution of the military-industrial complex,
3) AND I said he was not applying his and Hermann’s well-known Propaganda Model to the Syria coverage.
Three reasons, Gil, not to believe Chomsky. Not just one.
Again, this comparison between Beeley and Chomsky is not apt, and you are, as usual, failing to acknowledge what I actually said.
Oh, really? When did you call out al-Nusra?
Hm. How about the kidnapping and murder of activist Mohamed Rafea by the FSA’s al-Siddiq faction? The FSA received funding from the US.
http://yalibnan.com/2012/07/28/us-authorizes-financial-support-to-free-syrian-army/
Can you condemn this and acknowledge that Assad and the SAA have the right to fight against groups that do things like this?
YOU are spouting bs now. ALL YOU DO HERE IS BLAME ASSAD.
You give no thought to the other side of this story, that Assad is defending his nation from terrorists, that the civilian casualties are the unintended consequences of war, or that because the terrorists are not officially part of a state army, their deaths are ALSO counted as “civilian deaths”. In short, you believe and perpetuate the terrorist version of events. THAT IS WHY I SAY YOU SUPPORT THEM.
You also do not seem to understand, no matter how many times it is said to you, CIVILIANS WOULD NOT HAVE ENDURED BOMBING BY THE SAA IF THE WESTERN-BACKED TERRORISTS HAD NOT BEEN THERE.
Oh, forgive me please, children are being deliberately starved by terrorists and the Syrian government is being blamed, the US and their proxies destroyed Raqqa and poisoned the ground with depleted uranium, but my language is vulgar and I’m calling you names because you have lied repeatedly and distorted my words and I’m getting sick of it. You have your priorities straight, that is for sure. *eyeroll*
That you simply dismiss the proof I provide does not mean I have not proven it. You have lied and misrepresented so many of my words you clearly have no interest in the truth.
When did I “deny” sarin was used? I think you are making this up.
First footnote, Gil, ISIS used human shields in Raqqa and the US-backed SDF let them leave along with their human shields, by the way.
Can you condemn this, please? What should happen to the SDF?
“Omar Alloush, a member of Raqqa’s Civil Council, said the evacuation would include foreign fighters. He said it would take place overnight into Sunday. The jihadists would be taking some 400 civilians with them as human shields, he said.”
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-raqqa/u-s-backed-sdf-to-let-syrian-islamic-state-fighters-leave-raqqa-idUSKBN1CJ04R
Second footnote, Gil, IDF commander Herzi Halevi said in mid-2016 the state of Israel preferred ISIS to maintain its influence in Syria.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5h8rZikcw0#t=37m06s
Can you condemn this, please? What should the US do about this? Should it withdraw its support for Israel, do you think?
Last footnote, Gil, because I don’t want this to get missed, and I’m worried that it will.
What is your problem with this young boy’s testimony? I mean, I know Beeley is conducting this interview, and she’s a “shill”, according to you, but you’re saying this young man is lying? Why?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kaQFUA5Zf7U#t=19m54s
Doctor fears more children will starve to death if roads don’t open to besieged Damascus suburbs
http://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/as-it-happens-tuesday-edition-1.4369027/doctor-fears-more-children-will-starve-to-death-if-roads-don-t-open-to-besieged-damascus-suburbs-1.4369032
Terrorist propaganda. That’s what you’re promoting here, Gil. Proud of yourself?
If this is even real, those of us who know how this game is played know that starving civilians is a terrorist tactic, not a government tactic. That’s what happened in Madaya, and that’s what happened in Aleppo. And this looks similar.
Tell me, please. If there is no food in Ghouta, why is this guy holding the child not also wasting away himself?
https://twitter.com/amer_almohibany/status/923284694367600641
Please. Stop. Being. So. Stupid.
Huh? How am I promoting terrorist propaganda by posting by a reliable news source. On the other hand you are using twitter tweets to refute.
You on the other hand are defending a dictator who kills his people and if you are trying to use past events to discount what is happaning now how about we look at the fact that Assad’s fathers killing of 20,000 in Hama
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982_Hama_massacre
Also another news source reporting on Ghouta.
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/10/eastern-ghouta-siege-worst-171024093156941.html
“The government is starving us” is TERRORIST PROPAGANDA.
So what if I’m using Twitter? It’s a photo used by someone to further vilify the government but it’s not at all consistent with the narrative. The only problem you have with it is it refutes the idea that there is no food in Ghouta.
Oh, God. I am defending a DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED LEADER who DEFENDS HIS PEOPLE FROM TERRORISTS.
I also don’t know what the hell the events at Hama have to do with now but if you had any idea what the Muslim Brotherhood DID to the Syrian government in the 1980s you might not be acting like such a terrorist shill now.
Ooh, ooh! Can I just dismiss Qatar-based al-Jazeera out of hand like you have done Vanessa Beeley? Thanks.
It looks like Russia is aware that there is something to hide.
Russia Vetoes Extension of U.N. Inquiry Into Syrian Chemical Weapons Attack
http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/10/24/russia-vetoes-extension-of-u-n-inquiry-into-syrian-chemical-weapons-attack/?utm_content=buffer3eb20&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
Looks like the OPCW is the one with something to hide since they didn’t even follow their own investigative procedures (bold mine):
http://sana.sy/en/?p=116605
“The statement reiterated that the investigation conducted by the joint mechanism into using sarin gas in Khan Sheikhoun town on Aril 4th and the later developments showed that there are essential problems in the work of the mechanism such as the selective implementation by the US and its unwillingness to use all means of investigation provided for in the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), in addition to its rejection to conduct the investigation at the site of the accident.
The Ministry revealed that a number of the Western states are still trying to keep the issues as they are without correcting them because “Their goal is not to reach the truth, but to use specialized international bodies in order to increase the pressure on the Syrian Government.
The Ministry clarified that the tripartite rejection by the US, England and France to condemn the use of chemical weapons by terrorists in Syria over the past few years has almost reached the extent of “covering the crimes of terrorists.”
From the REPORT OF THE OPCW FACT-FINDING MISSION IN SYRIA
REGARDING AN ALLEGED INCIDENT
IN KHAN SHAYKHUN, SYRIAN ARAB REPUBLIC
APRIL 2017
“As regards the question of an on-site visit by the FFM to the scene of the incident, it is an area located outside the effective control of the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic. It is to be noted that the use of sarin or a sarin-like substance is not questioned. This is also evident from the position of the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic which provided to the FFM its own information and materials as evidence. Since the mandate of the FFM is confined to establishing only the fact of
the use of chemical weapons, the security risks associated with a deployment to Khan
Shaykhun far outweighed any additional corroboration of the facts that have already been established. The Director-General has therefore decided that the FFM will not undertake an on-site visit to Khan Shaykhun. ”
The conclusions were derived from analysis of biomedical specimens, interviews, and
supplementary material submitted during the interview process. Additional data came
from analysis of environmental samples. Evidence was cross-referenced and subsequently corroborated.
Whilst unable to visit the location shortly after the incident, the rapid deployment
enabled the team to attend autopsies, collect biomedical specimens from casualties and fatalities, interview a wide variety of witnesses, and receive environmental samples. ”
You can read the extensive report including the methodologies used here:
https://www.opcw.org/fileadmin/OPCW/Fact_Finding_Mission/s-1510-2017_e_.pdf
Or you can take the word of the sana the Syrian Arab News Agency which is a govt of Syria media organization linked to the Ministry of Information.
I do take the word of SANA. Syria didn’t send terrorists to my country; my country sent terrorists to Syria. There is no reason for me to see the Syrian government as evil, and ample reason for me to see my government as evil. But you’re a terrorist supporter, so I can see why you’d have a problem with my stance.
Russia’s position is in line with the skepticism of UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter. And you are not using your head, as usual.
https://twitter.com/thebeestang/status/892781699465195520
UN report confirms Assad used sarin gas on his own people.
“The panel is confident that the Syrian Arab Republic is responsible for the release of sarin at Khan Sheikhoun on 4 April 2017,” stated the report.”
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-4177113
You really must stop being such a gullible moron.
https://twitter.com/thebeestang/status/923765633795411970
Also what many ignorant people don’t know, because it evaporates
so quickly, sarin presents an immediate, but short-lived, threat.
So don’t be fooled by propagandists who might make dumb assed claims based on not understanding this FACT.
Really? Then why the Hazmat suits in other sarin attacks?
In the other attacks were in Japan where they had them available and didn’t want to take chances because the gas can still cause sickness , not in a war zone where the govt was trying their best to kill people. How does the fact that they wore them in Japan counter the fact that sarin evaporates quickly and not a serious threat after a short time.
The point is it’s suspicious that this does not look like the other sarin attack. Given how many of these incidents have been shown to be faked and staged, it’s yet another reason to be skeptical.
You’re making excuses and sounding desperate. The fact that “it’s a war zone” does not prove these pictures are genuine.
First you claim the pictures prove that sarin was not used then when that is debunked you claim the pictures are faked. You are the one who posted the picture in the first place.
Wow.
God, Gil, you are just too unbearably dumb.
These pictures do not prove this is a sarin attack. THAT IS THE POINT. By “genuine” I meant indicative of a “genuine sarin attack”.
Christ almighty.
@Scandinavian, there is zero evidence that Assad carried out the Khan Sheikhoun, chemical attacks…. Trump exploited the rumour’s hyped by the MSM to bolster his flagging popularity…
MIT rocket scientist and engineer Theodore Postol has comprehensively debunked the Khan Shaykhun allegations, so have Seymour Hersh, and Intel Veterans for Sanity..among others
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2017/04/67102.html
https://www.activistpost.com/2017/06/mit-chemical-weapons-expert-debunks-khan-sheikhoun-syria-attacks-narrative.html
https://www.sott.net/article/354651-Seymour-Hersh-There-Was-No-Chemical-Weapon-Attack-On-Khan-Sheikhoun
http://raymcgovern.com/2017/04/27/intelligence-veterans-vips-voice-doubts-on-syrian-crisis/
The UN just reported that Assad’s forces used chemical weapons. Let’s wait for the anti US crew to tell us how the UN investigators work for CIA and Mossad
The UN has not published the official report yet but certain press agencies seem to have well placed sources.
Hahahaha no one believes this garbage.
https://twitter.com/TheUNTimes/status/923664339780947968
Also, US used depleted uranium in Syria, which results in malignancies and birth defects when it poisons the ground and water. Did the UN do anything at all about that? Time to sanction or invade the US, you think? You still maintain the UN is somehow impartial?
http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/02/14/the-united-states-used-depleted-uranium-in-syria/
At least be consistent you fucking fascist.
It truly is a shame that Trump wasn’t elected in 2012. Instead we got Obama’s lukewarm, halfhearted meddling, and red lines that weren’t really red lines anyways. Both of the above helped to make the situation a lot worse.
At least when it comes to Syria, Trump has turned out to be a better President than I expected. He didn’t get us involved in yet another neocon war, but when faced with Assad’s chemical attack, he acted tough and decisive. And it worked.
Assad got the message, and hasn’t tried chemical attacks on a similar scale since.
I greatly appreciate the Intercept making this information public. My question is WHY did they sit on it until Syria was no longer on the radar and CHOOSE to WAIT to release it, especially now when other news guarantees it will be buried??!!
The posts lightly [edited] for accuracy:
“I don’t take attacks [on my delusions] lightly, so when I take the
unusual step of calling you a dumbass, it’s because you are advancing [facts that demolish my] theory about the war in Syria.[I’m really the] only dumbass. I am trying to pass off [a complete fantasy] about how the war started during the Obama Administration [when it was planned and initiated years earlier]; got anything new besides [the actual events] of yesteryear?
[Honest people] will continue to [to tell the truth about how the US planned the war against] Assad despite his brutal record [because it was the US and its proxies that funded and armed the jihadi terrorists now fighting] the civil war in Syria.
[I get] childish and angry [when someone] rebut[s every] single political argument I make.”
Hi Murtaza,
so you’re saying basically that you guys at TI have been sitting on this for something like 4 years!?
Now that the war is almost over and SAs involvement has been confirmed by Podesta mails f.ex and it doesn’t matter anymore, you release this?
I also believe it would be of interest you named your ‘rebel’ buddies with the FSA as they are labelled in Syria: terrorists. Not rebels, or moderate opposition, terrorists.
You guys aren’t running a news outlet here. This is something else. .
Anyways congrats Murtaza, nice story, as always, say hi to Pierre when you get the chance.
Given that there is even a Tom Hanks movie showing how the USA has directly and intentionally armed Islamic fighters since the 90’s in Afghanistan, and given the USA’s obsessive interest in the region, and pro-active approach to regime change, this sentence seems naive to me:
“ISIS did, however, manage to get a hold of both private funding and significant quantities of foreign armaments, including U.S. arms”.
The US did not arm the Taliban.
The US
paid, er, persuaded Pakistan to arm the Taliban.“……The US paid, er, persuaded Pakistan to arm the Taliban…….”
Another left wing lie.
The Mujahideen.
Take it up with Tom Hanks.
The reply slightly [expanded] for accuracy:
“The US did not arm the Taliban. [The US and its proxies merely recruited financed, supported, trained, and armed a bunch of other Islamic fundamentalists like the Mujahideen (including Osama bin Ladin), Al Qaeda, Al Nusra, and ISIS:
‘I mean, let’s remember here: The people we are fighting today we funded 20 years ago, and we did it because we were locked in this struggle with the Soviet Union. . .Sounds like a pretty good idea! Let’s deal with the ISI and the Pakistani military, and let’s go recruit these Mujahedin! That’s great! Let’s get some to come from Saudi Arabia and other places, importing their Wahhabi brand of Islam. . .and it led to the collapse of the Soviet Union. So there’s a very strong argument, which is: It wasn’t a bad investment to end the Soviet Union, but let’s be careful what we sow, because we will harvest.’ – Former Sec of State Hillary Clinton, 2009
‘The Salafist [sic], the Muslim Brotherhood and AQI [al-Qaeda in Iraq] are the major forces driving the insurgency in Syria. The West, Gulf countries, and Turkey support [this] opposition, while Russia, China and Iran support the [Assad] regime.
. . .If the situation unravels {in Syria}, there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor), and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime {with] dire consequences {for Iraq as it would} create the ideal atmosphere for AQI to return to its old pockets in Mosul and Ramadi.’
– Department of Defense memorandum, 2012
‘It was a willful decision to do what they’re doing. . .and I will tell you, it goes before 2012. I mean, when we were, when we were in Iraq and we still had decisions to be made before there was a decision to pull out of Iraq in 2011. I mean, it was very clear what we were, what we were going to face.’
– Director (former) of the US Defense Intelligence Agency Michael Flynn on US support for the foreign radical jihadists that came to Syria before the protests and later became ISIL and Al Nusra, Head to Head, Al Jazeera, July 29, 2015.
‘The Obama administration has never publicly admitted to its role in creating what the CIA calls a ‘rat line’, a back channel highway into Syria. The rat line, authorised in early 2012, was used to funnel weapons and ammunition from Libya via southern Turkey and across the Syrian border to the opposition. Many of those in Syria who ultimately received the weapons were jihadists, some of them affiliated with al-Qaida.’
– The Red Line and the Rat Line, Seymour M. Hersh, London Review of Books, April 17, 2014
‘We need to use our diplomatic and more traditional intelligence assets to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL and other radical Sunni groups in the region. . .that have, unfortunately, been attracted to Syria. . .the Saudis have exported more extreme ideology than any other place on earth over the course of the last 30 years. . .That’s been complicated by the fact that the Saudis 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.’
– Hillary Clinton, in her emails leaked to Wikileaks
‘. . . the Bush Administration has. . . taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. . . [with subsequent] bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.’
– The New Yorker, March 5, 2007.
‘Most of the arms shipped at the behest of Saudi Arabia and Qatar to supply Syrian rebel groups fighting the government of Bashar al-Assad are going to hard-line Islamic jihadists, and not the more secular opposition groups that the West wants to bolster, according to American officials and Middle Eastern diplomats.’
– The New York Times, October 14, 2012
There’s Rambo III too, in which Stallone fights side by side with a Bin Laden like “Freedom Fighter”, when Bin Laden himself was a praised hero by the West.
http://www.businessinsider.com/1993-independent-article-about-osama-bin-laden-2013-12
So not only they helped them, they are proud of it. The USA deep state doesn’t give a crap about the millions killed in the Middle East as a result of their loting invasions, and they don’t give a crap either about their own citizens killed in the 9/11.
If something, they took it as an opportunity to make more profit out of war.
For those who turn a blind eye to Assad’s crimes and tell themselves its just fake news, tell me what you think of this source.
https://www.democracynow.org/2017/4/5/the_assad_regime_is_a_moral
It’s not a question of turning a blind eye.
Nobody doubted that Saddam Hussein committed atrocities against his own citizens.
The point is that we were happy to support Hussein throughout the Iran Iraq war, knowing what kind of man he was.
Just as we had been happy to support the Shah of Iran knowing that he tortured his citizens.
Iraq (which had an educated population, well run hospitals etc etc) has been completely destroyed and the same people who compared Hussein to Hitler have turned a blind eye to the awful suffering and total destruction of that country caused by the war.
Be honest. The purpose of regime change has nothing to do with helping the citizens of the country.
And they will happily destroy Iran too if they get the chance.
Asking a frum little israel-worshipping and Arab-hating zio anti-Semite bigot like BiLG to “Be honest” is like asking a vulture not to eat dead things.
I dont, nor have I defended US action in Iraq or Syria. I take issue with those who claim Asssd is innocent of murdering protesters and civilians. If you read tbrough the comments you will find those who make this claim.
Assad is a brutal dictator. Name those who claimed Assad is “innocent.”
Learn to read, you psychotic little israel-worshipping Zionist window-licker, you are the atrocious asshole who keeps making “this claim” while glossing over the genocidal actions of the US and its proxies.
Dude, terrorists invaded Syria and started sniping at people from rooftops, chopping off heads, hoarding food and starving and imprisoning people. Aleppo residents themselves confirm this. The US’s anti-Assad stance has nothing at all to do with liberating people from tyranny or violence; this is obvious, as horrible tyranny and violence has been visited upon them since the war. So what is it about? None of the Zionist criminal apologists in this comment section will grapple with that. You’re utterly incapable of it. Instead you’re obsessed with the caricature of “Assad” as an evil person, despite the fact that who rules Syria ain’t your damn business; it’s an internal matter for Syrians to resolve. That you THINK it IS your business reveals your colonialist attitude toward these people.
Again, I will point out, it has been documented, the US sought regime change against Assad before his supposed 2011 “crimes”. They sought to gain control of Syria before the Assads were even in charge and have been doing so for the past seven decades.
Why can’t you recognize that the US/Western/Gulf motives in demonizing this man are not based on concern for the Syrian people, and therefore there must be some other reason? Why does that not prompt any skepticism of this demonization on your part? Do you deny, for instance, that residents of Aleppo celebrated when the city was liberated from terrorists? Do you also deny that most of Western media refused to show Syrians celebrating? (I looked for footage from CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, etc., showing these celebrations–I found none.) Do you deny that everyday Syrians frequently mob President Assad when he comes to see them and openly express their appreciation and love for him? (It does not matter what dubious Western-sponsored polls of refugees think; what matters is the opinion the Syrians living under his government think of him, as they are the ones currently being affected by what he does.)
And lastly, why can’t you accept that your opinion of Assad is completely irrelevant, as it is not for you to decide who is president of Syria, even if you personally don’t like what he does?
You just keep denying. Without providing any evidence to back up your claims. Are you saying if the US is not concerned about Sryian covilians for the right reasons it doent matter that Assad is killing civilians? I think you need to have your moral compass adjusted. I am sure many Syrians cheer Assad, so what. Many Americans cheer trump. Does that mean he isnt an idiot who is also responsible for civilian deaths?
Why would I accept that my opinion of Assad irrelevant? I didnt claim it was my decision who is the dictator of Syria. Maybe where you are from people are not free to express their opinions but where I live its allowed.
Where do you live?
Why do you keep defending a murderer and a butcher?
Nah, you insipid little israel-worshipping zio window-licker, if you could “think” you wouldn’t spew such drivel. And what would a turgid little israel-worshipping ziopath like you know about morality.
Why would an irrelevant little israel-worshipping ziotard like you accept that his worthless little opinion was worthless and irrelevant? ROFL…Why don’t you go entertain your mommy with your asinine questions, you irrelevant little zio window-licker.
What the hell are you talking about? YOU provided some two-minute clip from Chomsky saying absolutely nothing. How is that proof of your claims?
I am saying the US opposes Assad BECAUSE they don’t want what’s best for Syrians. All you have to do is look at what US involvement in Iraq and in Libya and now in Raqqa has resulted in.
You’re Zionist scum, and I’m not, so no, I don’t.
So you admit it but what Syrians want for their own country is shrugged off by you. Got it. You prove your colonialist attitude yet again.
Trump has a nearly 60% DISAPPROVAL RATING by Americans, dumbass.
Just above you refused to defer to the Syrian population about how they perceive their own leader, and, instead of allowing that to inform your views and get you to question some of your assumptions, you just told yourself it didn’t matter and bizarrely compared Assad to Trump. You said, very clearly, “so what?” while admitting Syrians love Assad. Are you some kind of racist who thinks Syrians would massively support someone who was indiscriminately killing them?
Are you eligible to vote in the Syrian elections? No? Then your opinion IS IRRELEVANT.
Me=Your opinion of Assad is irrelevant
You=You just said I’m not free to express my opinion!!!
Do you know why people think you’re stupid? Saying your opinion is irrelevant is not the same as saying you have no right to express it. But you idiotically conflated the two.
As if I’d tell a scumbag like you.
Why do you take the word of murderers and butchers al-Qaeda?
To add, and make it very clear:
You are obsessed with “Assad killing civilians”. Do you ever ask yourself why civilians are being killed?
Were civilians being bombed by the Syrian government BEFORE the West sent terrorists to the country?
Answer: NO.
Obviously what this means is that civilian casualties are the unfortunate collateral damage of bombings the Syrian government is using to try to rid the country of terrorists. So get the terrorists out and the bombing will stop.
THINK, please.
“The point is that we were happy to support Hussein throughout the Iran Iraq war…”
Yes, but now we are not happy about another dictator committing atrocities.
Are you saying Western leaders are hypocrites? I think they are
Are you saying Western policies are inconsistent? I think they are
But aren’t you inconsistent when you blame the West for supporting a dictator and then you blame the West again for being against a dictator? In that case you have a problem with the West not with dictatorship.
And no one with more than half a brain actually cares when worthless little state-worshipping “western” window-lickers like you “are not happy”.
I don’t think it’s inconsistent to say that when the West dabbles in supporting regimes and changing regimes, it’s doing so in order to push it’s own agenda forward.
We supported Saddam in the Iran/Iraq war because we were attempting to change the regime in Iran. Saddam was the proxy, and the goal was to install a pro-western regime in Iran.
It is definitely inconsistent to blame the West for supporting a dictator called Saddam and then you blame the West for being against a dictator called Assad. Obviously, the West is inconsistent, but there is no logic in your argument if your initial concern was the support for a dictator committing atrocities. Do you want the West to ignore Assad’s crimes? Support Assad?
What exactly do you want?
1) Do you want the West to sanction all dictators? Or
2) Do you want the West to ignore all dictators by dealing with them as if nothing is going on? Or
3) Do you want the end of the UN and international treaties because those conventions require something to be done against dictators responsible for war crimes?
A little less bullshit.
That’s what I want.
The idea that the invasion of Iraq in 2003 was going to spread democracy and liberate Iraq: bullshit.
Saddam was uniquely evil: bullshit.
The ongoing war in Afghanistan (the longest war in US history) is going to create a peaceful country and implant Western values: bullshit.
If I had one wish, I would ask for honesty. That we admit our motives and our actions.
But since I can’t have that … I want someone I can vote for without the feeling that I’m going to vomit.
How about we start by upholding the agreement we made with Iran?
How about withdrawing from Afghanistan?
Why? What do you want?
You have not answered my questions. So, I will ask them in a simple manner:
Why were you concerned or upset that the West supported Saddam? Was it because he was a violent dictator? If yes, then why are you concerned or upset that the West is against a dictator (Assad)?
“If I had one wish, I would ask for honesty. That we admit our motives and our actions.”
So, if the West was honest by stating it supported the Shah of Iran because of oil regardless of his violent actions, would you be fine with it?
(By the way, I have not met anybody anywhere, from high school, university, workplace, media, the streets..who do not know that the West supported the shah because of oil)
“Why? What do you want?”
My wish is for many anti US citizens to save time by stating they are against the West and they will blame it for everything instead of resorting to nonsensical exercise such as portraying Assad as an innocent head of state.
In a democracy, I get to make some choices.
I am against the George W. Bush version of the West in which we can invade a country on a hunch, and systematically destroy it.
I’m against the current justification for staying in Afghanistan, which is that we’re now fighting for the memory of our fallen soldiers, as if another 10 years of war is the best way to honour them.
Who is portraying Assad as innocent? Who is portraying Bush as innocent?
When Russia occupied Afghanistan we portrayed them as an evil empire spreading its values through an illegal occupation, and we portrayed the Mujahideen as innocent freedom fighters. Now we are the occupiers and we portray ourselves as innocent victims of terrorists.
I’m against this insanity, and I get to vote against it every 4 years. Does that make me anti-Western?
And when we elect a candidate who is against dumb wars, and we get another decade of dumb wars, does that make you proud to be Western?
“In a democracy, I get to make some choices”
Correct, but do you personally have the capability to make those choices? I have been asking you for days what choices you want your government to take vis a vis dictators, but you seem completely incapable of answering that simple question. Your comments are about Iran, Afghanistan..”bullshit”…Again what are choices do you want the government to take?
1) Sanction ALL dictators without exception? If yes so why are you upset they are sanctioning a dictator called Assad?
2) Doing business with dictators while ignoring their crimes?
3) Pull out on UN and international treaties that require that something must be done when dictators commit serious crimes?
You’re the only person who thinks that these three options are being considered by anyone.
Nobody else in the world imagines that the USA has, or should have, a blanket policy on dictators.
Clearly the USA approaches all foreign policy decisions along lines similar to this:
How will this affect us?
How will this affect the region un question?
How will this affect our relationships with the other super-powers?
How will this affect our allies?
It’s childish to pretend that anyone in power in the USA takes a moral line against (or for) dictators.
And when Saddam Hussein, for example, was demonized and compared to Hitler, it was hypocrisy, since we had supported him through the Iran Iraq war, and since we had had no qualms selling him almost his entire arsenal.
As Chalmers Johnson said, the joke in the CIA was, “We know he has weapons of mass destruction – we have the receipts.”
You’re the only person who thinks that these three options ”
I do not think there are only three options. I gave you three options as a start. Unfortunately, you have absolutely no options to provide to the government you choose through elections.
There are commentators who resort to a nonsensical exercise to blame the West for everything, but you are resorting to a babbling exercise. All your comments are complaints about the US without specifying clear and concrete steps you want your elected leaders should take.
Your opinion becomes irrelevant if all you have is complaints without clear proposals.
Struggling a little there with the nuts and bolts of democracy.
The electorate does not get in a bus and go to Washington and give them options. Think about that one for a while.
For the last 9 years, voters have clearly indicated that they want the USA to take the concrete step of getting out of Afghanistan, but we’re still there, and you’re saying it’s the voters’ fault …. and it’s anti-Western and nonsensical to say the military should do what the voters tell them to do.
“For the last 9 years, voters have clearly indicated that they want the USA to take the concrete step of getting out of Afghanistan, but we’re still there, and …”
1) 55% of the US voters supported the elected US president’s (Obama) plan to keep some forces in Afghanistan. That is exactly what he did. So, I am not sure whether you are upset because he followed the wishes of MOST of the people who elected him or because he did not follow your wish
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/12/most-want-some-troops-in-afghanistan-despite-strong-criticism-of-the-war/
2) “you’re saying it’s the voters’ fault …. and it’s anti-Western and nonsensical to say the military should do what the voters tell them to do.”
This is your fault if you are incapable of telling the persons who works for you what policies they should follow. You spend a long time babbling and complaining, but so far you are completely incapable of telling the people you are paying what consistent policies they should adopt when facing dictators.
In your response you ignored what Frank said–that the US does what it does to further its own interests. Western imperialism is written off by you as “inconsistency”, but this is false. If you analyze these situations, the West is actually highly consistent, in pursuing its interests. Support people when they serve our interests, and attempt to destroy people when they no longer do. It’s really, really simple.
People like you never ask, why does the US support these dictators in the first place, as if the fundamental problem isn’t the West pursuing its interests at the expense of any and all other concerns.
As always, you ignore what you don’t want to acknowledge.
Yes, and when you look at the policies the US is now imposing on its OWN US citizens, you understand nowhere is exempt or safe from this predator. Those who have been saying the chickens come home to roost, etc, were trying to alert others to this.
What exactly does Chomsky know about Syria? He’s financed by MIT ffs. Note how vague he is about the Syrian government’s sins; he’s usually conveniently quite vague when he’s being opportunistically trotted out like this. I find it quite interesting that if you apply Chomsky and Herman’s Propaganda Model to the Syrian conflict you can see atrocious media bias quite clearly in favor of the West’s story; however, Chomsky doesn’t seem to want to apply his own model to his commentary. He’s not to be taken seriously at this point.
Michael Parenti exposed Chomsky years ago for his bullshit about Milosevic. That Chomsky would exaggerate what an enemy of the West is doing and downplay the role of the West in creating terror isn’t that surprising to me. That’s what I think of your “source”.
No one with a functioning brain should care about what DN says about Syria.
http://21stcenturywire.com/2016/11/26/democracy-now-criminal-cheerleaders-for-perpetual-conflict-and-bloodshed-in-syria/
Btw I’ll be ignoring Zionist shitheads whining about this piece or trying to deflect from the basic point, which is, DN lies and misleads its viewership about Syria. Either prove Beeley wrong about the issues raised in the piece or STFU.
Too funny, after whinning about Chomsky and claiming he is biased because he is financed by MIT (he no longer works there btw), you post an article by Beasley who traveled to Syria on Assads dime and stayed as his guest. Who pays her bills btw? And claim DN is biased but not Beasley who is a full time Assad stooge. Oh my.
ROFL…Yea, you frum little israel-worshipping ziotard, your ability to contort yourself into a pretzel in order to better present hole is truly a sight to behold.
Ha! You didn’t prove her wrong, nor can you prove she went to Syria “on Assad’s dime”.
Go fuck yourself, you liar.
The elimination of the Jews has always been the best solution. Time
to do what is necessary .
Only 4 points??
When are you going to tell us how the CIA or Mossad arrested and tortured those Syrian teenagers in Deraa?
We also want to know how the CIA and Mossad infiltrated the Syrian army and police to shoot at protesters in Deraa.
Tell us please. Photosymbiosis can help you if you need more information to conceive your theory.
I debunked this crap, you utter moron, including testimony from a Saudi official admitting Dara’a was not an organic protest. You’re too scared to expose yourself to it, so you continue to troll commenters with these lies as if people won’t notice and can’t see for themselves how you’ve been shown to be wrong.
Actually, I take that back. You’re not a moron. You’re utterly despicable and if I thought you deserved pity I’d feel embarrassed for you that you have to shut your eyes to the truth this way.
Attack the argument, not the commenter.
That’s all you have, and it’s pathetic. You’ve LOST the argument. I guess you’re the kind of egoist that just HAS to have the last word, don’t you, no matter how discredited you are.
What you CAN’T deal with is the FACT that the US was trying to engage in regime change even before these supposed “atrocities” by the Syrian government took place.
Also, what you CAN’T deal with is the FACT that US allies have engaged in documented (not fabricated) atrocities against their own people and the US doesn’t do shit about it. Your “concern” for civilians “tortured/murdered by the Assad regime” would only be sincere if you were calling for war and regime change against Bahrain and KSA. But I don’t see you doing that. You are full of shit and totally exposed.
You are utterly at a loss to deal with these contradictions and things that undermine your pathetic narrative. Therefore, you are reduced to repeating yourself, trolling, ignoring and writing off as “illogical” people who can actually debunk you.
And I’ll add, if you were sincere, you would have been calling for the overthrow of the US government for years, if you’re so bothered by the torture and murder of civilians.
yak yak yakidi yak yak ….the US tortures…overthrow the US..yakidi yak yak..
On planet Earth what you wrote is called balderdash, not an argument. Hence I recommend that you talk to Gladio or Photosymbiosis. They both live in your universe where nonsense and ignorance prevail.
*snort*
You who whine perpetually about anti-American bias are obviously not that concerned with atrocities committed by/facilitated by the US! Utterly shocking!
Speaking of someone not having an argument, you don’t have one against Doc Hollywood’s list, obviously. Hence why you didn’t actually deal with the facts presented and attempted to deflect and repeated your debunked garbage in response.
You’re obviously indignant that you’ve been refuted. Boo-hoo, you whiny child.
RECKON WITH THE FACTS IN DOC HOLLYWOOD’S COMMENT YOU COWARDLY FASCIST. NO, I WON’T LET YOU GET AWAY WITH IGNORING THEM.
What you’re doing is projection, a coping mechanism. Not a valid argument. As an objective observer, I can tell you unequivocally, you lost this argument.
“As an objective observer”
Lol lol lol lol
Unfortunately the main discover of this gets lost because it has to pen several paragraphs of ‘Assad is a bad man’.
Saudi Arabia sponsored a blatant act of terrorism in Syria.
1. They provided explosives, 2. provided proxy manpower, and 3. ordered and attack on a civilian infrastructure that actually did end up killing civilians. Oh but let’s talk about Assad a few dozen times to confuse people even though that is a separate issue.
Question, why doesn’t the U.S. list Saudi Arabia as a terrorist state?
After all, the U.S. State Dept. endlessly drones on about how evil Iran is because they allegedly plotted to kill the Saudi ambassador on U.S. soil. This non-event is a primary example of how Iran is a terrorist state, garnering multiple paragraphs in their report. Btw that plot was likely a setup by either MEK or the Saudis themselves but even if it was an Iranian plot, there was no incident. But here the Saudis actually spilled blood on foreign soil.
They won’t discuss Saudi Arabia as a terrorist state because Saudi Arabia (and Israel and Jordan and other GCC monarchies) is a client state of the U.S. system. They pump 10 million barrels of oil a day into world markets – at current prices about $500 million a day – which they price in American dollars and then they reinvest a large portion of that cash back into Wall Street and London banks, as well as into arms purchases from U.S. corporations like Lockheed, United Defense, Northrup, etc.
This goes undiscussed because the primary owners (shareholders) of American media corporations are also the primary shareholders in the banks and weapons corporations, and don’t want the cash flows disrupted (since they can’t sell weapons to states designated as state sponsors of terrorism).
As far as why Saudi Arabia targeted Syria, well, the story is basically that around 2008 there was a major effort launched to bring Assad into the American-Israel-Saudi axis; but a condition of assistance for Assad was that he cut all ties with Iran. Iran responded quickly by offering Assad even better deals – pipelines to Europe for Iranian gas and oil (which would pay fees to Syria, also a joint project with Russia’s Gazprom), railroads, airport constructions, a regional electricity grid (Deir Ezzor) linking Syria and Iran and Iraq – basically, their goal was to bring Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Iran together into an economic integration system (think NAFTA).
This caused the Israelis and the Gulf Arab monarchies to have paranoid conniption fits, Israel because of Lebanon, Hezbollah, etc; Saudi Arabia because they live in constant fear of an 1979-Islamic Revolution event (or an Arab Spring pro-democracy event) deposing the monarchy and replacing it with a parliamentary system. The neocons and neoliberals in the United States, with close ties to Israel and Saudi Arabia, have generally backed Israel and Saudi Arabia in this agenda.
On the other hand, and this is interesting, many American business interests would like to get contracts with Iran, for example, Boeing likes selling passenger airplanes and Iran needs a whole new fleet. European business interests are even more eager to get a piece of the Iranian pie. But this is not something the geopolitical imperial fantasists want to see; they want to push the situation back into violent destabilizing conflict.
Yes. The US has wanted to control Syria for at least 70 years–regime change efforts date back to the late 1940s, so, ultimately this has nothing to do with “Assad”.
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2017/02/u-s-carried-regime-change-syria-1949-tried-numerous-times-since.html
Even if the hysterical stuff about Assad “killing his own people!!!!” was true the US has no problems with governments that do this. The US didn’t wage war on Bahrain when their government killed protesters in 2011; from what I’ve read they didn’t even cut diplomatic ties. So this really is all horseshit from these fascist apologists for empire.
Hey, attacking an American presidential palace would be terrorism. Attacking a Syrian presidential palace is freedom fighting. Because, well… because.
Given that there is even a Tom Hanks movie about the USA directly and intentionally supplyung arms to Islamic fighters in Afghanistan 20 years ago, and the USA’s obsessive interest in this region, and close military collaboration with both Saudia Arabia and Qatar, this sentence seems very naive to me:
“ISIS did, however, manage to get a hold of both private funding and significant quantities of foreign armaments, including U.S. arms”.
DocHollywood
Got anything new Doc besides the conspiracy theories of yesteryear? Was it the neocons running the Obama administration?
Amnesty International:
“……….When army tanks recently rolled into the city of Dera’a in southern Syria and began shelling residential areas, the human rights crisis in the country reached a new low. More than 400 people have died across Syria since protestors calling for political reform took to the streets in mid-March. Hundreds of people have been arbitrarily arrested and detained incommunicado, placing them at serious risk of torture [or execution] and other ill-treatment. Torture of detainees has long been common and endemic in Syria…..Amnesty International has repeatedly urged the Syrian government to rein in the security forces……The Syrian authorities have failed to take these steps and intensified repression.Consequently, Amnesty International has called on the UN Security Council to refer Syria to the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, to impose an arms embargo and to freeze the assets abroad of the Syrian President and his senior associates………..”
What could be more obvious than the action proposed by Amnesty International to rein in Assad (the murderer)? Apologists (like yourself Doc) will continue to surface for Assad despite his brutal record before and after HE initiated the civil war in Syria; Remember when Glenn was outraged over the attack on the medical facility in Afghanistan by the US gunship. He wrote three articles excoriating the US, but you will never hear from Glenn on the medical facilities attacked by Assad and/or the Russians (“Three Idlib Medical Facilities Attacked on 19 September 2017″ via @bellingcat https://www.bellingcat.com/news/2017/09/29/three-idlib-medical-facilities-attacked-19-september/.
“…….On 19 September 2017, just four days after the Astana International meeting establishing Syria’s De-Escalation Zones in many parts of the country, and only days after the United Nations’ Commission of Inquiry presented findings of a fact-finding mission confirming the illegal use of chemical weapons and the systemic targeting of medical facilities by the Syrian government in April 2017, three Idlib medical facilities serving a combined more than 100.000 people yearly were allegedly attacked in airstrikes attributed to Syrian or Russian forces…….”
That was just the latest attack on medical facilities by Assad (the murderer).
Propaganda has reached your bones, nothing we can do. May your soul rest in peace.
PresAssad is indeed a killer— so why do others join in? Easy, because they are in on the plan to steal all the oil resources of that region of the world. Because the US no longer produces anything of real value except sheer brute strength, and to power all this needs oil. So there we go! VPPence voted along CrookdClintons “the industry knows best and should be consulted— in charge”.
Robert Ford was US Ambassador to Syria when the revolt against Syrian president Assad was launched. He not only was a chief architect of regime change in Syria, but actively worked with rebels to aid their overthrow of the Syrian government.
Ford assured us that those taking up arms to overthrow the Syrian government were simply moderates and democrats seeking to change Syria’s autocratic system. Anyone pointing out the obviously Islamist extremist nature of the rebellion and the foreign funding and backing for the jihadists was written off as an Assad apologist or worse.
Ambassador Ford talked himself blue in the face reassuring us that he was only supporting moderates in Syria. As evidence mounted that the recipients of the largesse doled out by Washington was going to jihadist groups, Ford finally admitted early last year that most of the moderates he backed were fighting alongside ISIS and al-Qaeda. Witness this incredible Twitter exchange with then-ex Ambassador Ford:
https://www.globalresearch.ca/you-wont-believe-what-former-us-ambassador-robert-s-ford-said-about-al-qaedas-syrian-allies/5504906
Great link. Thank you.
Sorry but this article is only right about the Western support of the terrorists.
This was NEVER a civil war.
This war was planned years in advance by the US, Israel, the UK, France? Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia. For this they used the Muslim Brotherhood and their friends from al Qaeda.
It should be remembered these organizations have for years been working with MI6, Mossad and the CIA.
Or does anyone really believe a Boeing 757 flown by someone from Al Qaeda can fly two meters above ground for over a distance of maybe 1 km and then drive into the Pentagon.
One can as well believe we are Martians and the earth if as flat as a pancake.
What I find hard to believe is how people who claim to have progressive values can support a butcher like Assad.
Whats so hard about believing that someone from A Q could take enough flying lessons to make him a good enough to crash?
What is hard to believe is that ANY person can support the war crimes committed by the United States against Syria. The US is in gross violation of international law by both being in Syria and arming/funding terrorists against a sovereign nation.
And this is after Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya. Despicable.
“The US is in gross violation of international law by both being in Syria”
Translation: you have no idea how international law works.
Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter prohibits states from using force against the territorial integrity or political independence of another state. By definition, the United States is using force against Syria.
There are two exceptions to Article 2: Security Council approval and self-defense. Clearly the Security Council has not approved, and any claim of self-defense is laughable. That’s when you start getting former legal advisers of the US Department of State for the Obama administration such as Harold Koh pushing the humanitarian intervention angle. This is the same argument that King Leopold of Belgium used to justify the genocide of millions of Congolese, or Hitler for his invasion of Poland.
In April 1984, Nicaragua instituted ICJ proceedings against the United States alleging that U.S. support for the Contras violated the prohibition on the use of force, and amounted to an unlawful intervention under international law. Even though the United States withdrew from the case, the court ruled in favor of Nicaragua in 1986.
“and any claim of self-defense is laughable”
So, let’s us laugh!
Actually I am not laughing at your statement. I am laughing at the pathetic and nonsensical exercise that the anti US anti Western commenters like you resort around here. Dude, just state you will blame the West for everything because you just do not like the west.
Your homework:
Read Article 51 of the United Nations Charter and answer the following questions to yourself:
1) Has an armed group located in Syria attacked French, Belge, Iraqi citizens on their soil?
2) Do France, Belgium, Iraq and their allies (US, UK..) have a right to defend themselves collectively against that armed group that has killed their citizens on their soil?
“pushing the humanitarian intervention angle. This is the same argument that King Leopold of Belgium used”
It is also the same argument used by NATO in Kosovo and the same used by the UK in Sierra Leone.
(Belgium followed your advice: they refused to use that argument to stop the genocide in Rwanda. Tell us how it went.)
You are not too bright are you? Let’s ignore the fact that the United States has been seeking to overthrow the Syrian government for decades
… or that General Wesley Clark clearly stated that “we’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.” weeks after 9/11
… or that Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar, and the United States have been directly and indirectly arming ISIS and al Qaeda from the very beginning, the same groups you refer to.
When was Syria attacked in comparison to the other countries? Ironically, your delusional rant highlights that Syria could have rightfully applied Article 51.
You should be ashamed of yourself. The “Good Germans” at least feigned ignorance. Keep looking for those WMDs, I’m sure you’ll find them some day.
Obviously you did not do your homework. Again answer that question to yourself:
Do France, Iraq and their allies have a right to defend themselves collectively against an armed group located in Syria that has killed French citizens and Iraqi citizens on their soil?
I am not sure why you are writing all that BS. Are you trying to convince yourself of something? You are anti western. Even if an armed group located in Syria would kill 100 French citizens on French soil, you would still lie to yourself, distort international laws to blame France and its allies for attacking that group in response.
Absolutely not, you worthless little “western” worshipping zio window-licker, your precious gang of nation-destroying “western” aggressors and their collective proxies have no “right to defend themselves” whatsoever.
ROFL…Obviously you need to go find some tweezers so you can work your worthless little wiener to your precious “western”.
Did France fund terrorists in Syria before “ISIS” even officially existed?
Yes.
Does this render swisscheese’s “self-defense” argument without merit?
Why, YES!
I havent expressed support for anyone in this conflict.
Now please explain why you have a problem with my first comment.
It was claimed that Iraq had weapons of WMD, mobile biological weapons labs, was sending envelopes with anthrax, and was using human shredders among many other lies. Millions killed, many more forced refugees. To this day the United States is illegally occupying Iraq.
The same war criminals then went on to say that Gaddaffi was massacring Libyans and giving his soldiers Viagra to rape women.
The most prosperous country in Libya was turned into an open air slave market where murder and rape are commonplace. Again,
this was based on lies and no one was held accountable.
And right after the same story plays out with Syria. The same war criminals started funding and training terrorists to release on Syria well before March of 2011. This is in serious violation of international law. But we are now supposed to believe these war criminals that have systematically killed millions and are illegally in Syria that Assad is a butcher? Really? Don’t you have any pride?
Huh? You take pride in defending a butcher. What pride do you think I am lacking in?
Because the intellegence agencies lied about WMD’s in Iraq that means Asssd couldnt have murdered civilain protesters in spite of evidence that he did? Is that really what you are going with? You really believe that is a logical argument?
For God’s sake, I have to also hold your hand? If you had any pride you would not keep believing the same sources that have consistently lied not just about Iraq, but also Libya and now Syria. All claims that have portrayed Assad as being a butcher have been proven to be either highly suspect or outright propaganda.
And yet you will believe the war criminals with their drone assassination program and torture centers. Does it even register with you that Bush and Obama are the real butchers? But here is the kicker… whether Assad is guilty of all those claims is moot. Put on your big boy/girl pants and answer the following questions:
* Is the United States legally in Syria?
* Is the United States legally funding and arming terrorists in Syria?
If you can’t answer yes to either question, how many more millions need to die until you stop being a “Good American”?
“If you had any pride you would not keep believing the same sources that have consistently lied not just about Iraq, but also Libya and now Syria.”
Actually we do not have to believe the same sources. Amnesty International was not the source of Iraq WMDs. The UN never stated Iraq had WMDs in 2003. But we can believe the Syrian refugees who call Assad a butcher, can we?
“All claims that have portrayed Assad as being a butcher have been proven to be either highly suspect or outright propaganda.”
How much the CIA and Mossad paid those thousands of Syrian refugees who claim Assad is a violent and dangerous dictator?
The US govt is not the only source for this information. The UN has conducted investigations and reported on civilian deaths by the Syrian govt , although Russia vetoed other investigations into Assad chemical weapons use. Gee why do you think they did that? Regional media such as Al Jarzera has reported on Assad’s massacres of civilians. Are you unaware of all this?
How is it moot if Assad did murder civilians? Are you saying US crimes mean you feel it makes it ok for Assad to murder civilians. Do you have any morals at all?
Again where have I defended US actions in this matter? The only one defending the murder of civilians is you Tobin. BTW where are you from?
Says the frum little israel-worshipping and Arab-hating zio anti-Semite bigot who is only here to shill for his cancerous Zionist apartheid regime in Palestine.
Honestly … tell me you’re oblivious to the numerous pilots who have said that crashing that particular plane in that particular way was practically impossible (let alone the photos of the crash site, let alone the size of the hole) … because if you really don’t know about them … I’m pleased to know you … how is life in your igloo? Do you get lonely out on the artic tundra? And have you seen the northern lights this year?
How many pilots out of the many thousands in the world have said that?
How did they explain the plane wreckage at the scene?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hgrunnLcG9Q
How many viable brain cells do you have left, you insipid little Zionism-swilling ziopath?
Because ignorance is strength.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgrunnLcG9Q
The video starts off with a ridiculos premise, that the plan was sophisticated. There was nothing complicated about it. You dont need anything more that a flight schedule, boxcutters, and enough skill as a pilot to crash a plane. It offers no proof for its claims and is totally wrong about when the blame was put on OBL.
Exposes thoroughly the sham sold as “War on Terror”. Guess the only manner for both Iraq and Syria to really get rid of IS and such terrorists is getting rid of the US and its allies.
By now everybody knows the script. Start with a foreign aid budget promoting freedom and democracy. Then organise peaceful mass demonstration while distributing cookies to participating students, old ladies and children. Finally when there is enough confusion in the streets you let the ultras in, causing violence so that the images of shooting riot police will influence public opinion in Western countries. Then you ‘fuck the EU’ who tried desperately to find a last diplomatic solution. Then you put in place a puppet governemnt that launches a civil war by supplying lethal weapons to the ultras. …… As soon as public opinion starts questioning this policy , you use your infiltrated MSM contacts to blame Russia and Putin. You sometimes even publish false intelligence at the UN.
[email protected]: We all know the script, we all know it causes enormous human suffering and destruction but we are so depending on our consumerist behaviour …
Ok , I get that plan, but how did they get Assad to start killing protesters and bombing civilians?
1) He didn’t kill protesters.
2) He was targeting terrorists who were using civilians as human shields.
You’re as stupid as ever, Gil.
Even Assad’s buddies in Russia say he killed protesters.
https://www.rt.com/news/protesters-killed-un-investigate-795-9/
Not to mention the UN saying it. Along with multiple human rights groups.
Now where is your evidence you fascist apologist for a butcher and a dictator.
Arghhh, I wish I would have read this comment before responding to you. Apparently you are an imbecile or paid to be one. From the article:
“The Human Rights Council has ordered an investigation into *alleged* violations.”
Nowhere does RT state that Assad killed protestors. Furthermore, they quote a political analyst:
“…somebody is pushing the people from the outside, and telling them ‘Do as much damage as you can.’ It is the West that is actually helping to destabilize Syria.”
Maybe it’s time you took up a different interest because this isn’t for you.
Have you read the UN reports?
Maybe you spend more time actually reading the reports and less time defending muderous dictators.
Of course you deflect when it turns out your “source” doesn’t say what you claim it does.
Idiot.
Who funds those “human rights” groups, hm? You want us to trust the UN when they allow Saudi Fucking Arabia to sit on the Human Rights Council?
Also you seem to be the king of false accusations. First you falsely claim I supported US war crimes , now you claim Im paid to post. Does the truth mean anything to you? Or do you just trade in smears you cant back up. Wow you are a regular Joe McCarthy.
I find it a bit excessive that in order to change a ‘regime’ a whole country ( population and infrastructure ) is destroyed. Guess you are a military man following the ‘ in order to liberate , we had to annihilate ‘ doctrine.
Huh? Not sure what post you are responding to but it cant be mine. Where have I expressed support for “regime” change by outsiders military actions?What is with you guys, cant you respond without making false accusations?
So you did not get the plan !
The yankee regime’s real collusion with foreign interests is proven by this new revelation to be its use of the selfsame element of towelhead barbarians whose 9/11 activities set off decades of yankee wars of conquest in the middle east based on a purported “war on terror.” The historical record links the yankee regime closely with the creation and succour of the jihadi threat and thereby exposes the level of barbarism now characteristic of this outlaw criminal imperialist power structure.
Doc Bollywood
“……I’m only refuting Craigsummers’ unfounded assertion that Assad ordered attacks merely to not end up the same way Mburak did…….”
You have never refuted anything I’ve said – and this is no exception. First of all, I didn’t say “merely”, so quit putting words in my keyboard, OK? I said to avoid a similar fate as Mubarak which was to be removed from power. I could have added so he would not have to institute the reforms he promised and perhaps be voted out of office. That was never going to happen. The protests were initiated as a part of the Arab Spring as Amnesty International described in 2016:
“……….The Middle East and North Africa was engulfed in an unprecedented outburst of popular protests and demand for reform. It began in Tunisia and spread within weeks to Egypt, Yemen, Bahrain, Libya and Syria……….Long-standing authoritarian leaders were swept from power, including Hosni Mubarak in Egypt and Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali in Tunisia………Many hoped that this “Arab Spring” would bring in new governments that would deliver political reform and social justice. But the reality is more war and violence, and a crackdown on people who dare to speak out for a fairer, more open society………”
Do you see the connection between the Arab Spring and the removal of dictators from power? That is what Assad feared – as he should have.
Thanks.
Herrsommer,
ROFL…Yea, you self-refuting state-worshipping and Arab-hating zio anti-Semite bigot, technically, you are correct.
Thanks.
“……..technically, you are correct…….”
You finally got something right……ROFL
What’s missing from this mans narrative is that in 2011 prior to and simultaneous with the peaceful demos there were highly organised ambushes of police and army as well as bombings. The insurgency was well underway and any reaction by the peaceful demonstrators must be placed in this context. I suspect a close investigation of the Libyan “revolution” may well show a similar pattern. the question is …who was organising these attacks?
CIA. And it is NO secret, but this imperialist propagandist who writes about “Damascus, Bashar al-Assad’s capital” as if it is OK to bomb the big city because of Assad, is NOT going to admit it.
The Syrian opposition had armed elements from the beginning. This article is misleading about that.
Isn’t PRISM associated with Section 702/Upstream surveillance? Why would NSA need Section 702 authority to collect on a foreign target?
Western media always say “brutal dictator” about Assad but I have never read any evidence from them nor others to justify that. He is in fact a strongman ruler in the mold of Lee Kuan Yew or Syngman Rhee or Mahatir…he appears to be a peaceful guy who knows in a chaotic country force need be used to keep it in order ,for economic reforms to get time to bear fruits. And he was damn well succeeding:Good economic progress without oil or gas,a reasonable democracy,secular,multiculturalism,peaceful society;name another Arab country that has/had these? In fact this success is what did him in,as both Arab dictators and their Western allies coudnt digest anyone succeeding outside their control. Muslim majority countries should ally with Eastern powers like China,Russia,India whose ambitions are mainly economic. The West will never allow Muslim nations to progress..its a civilizational war.
The West coalition led by US and helped by puppet Saudi Arabia and spoiled brat Israel wanted to take over Syria and install jihadists so that exploitation would be easy after Syria became a failed state like Libya and to some extent Iraq and Afghanistan. Thanks to Unity of Syrian army, help from Iran and Russia. NATO and their puppets will keep trying, so Syria needs to keep up the resistance to expel the enemies in Raqqa and Idlib and of course Golan.
How sad. This is “regime change” propaganda and I have to wonder if The Intercept hasn’t succumbed to some sort of blackmail. No independent observer who has followed events in Syria could take this article seriously.
Photosymbiosis
The picture you paint of Assad is false .
“……..Why did they want to overthrow Assad so badly? No, it wasn’t about human rights or democracy – it was simply about Assad accepting Iran’s offer of economic cooperation and regional integration in 2009 – pipelines, railroads, airports, electricity grid – a pretty good deal for the Syrian people, but one not acceptable to Saudi Arabia, Israel and the U.S. regime……..”
First of all, there is nothing (at least from the part you posted below) that indicates that the US was supporting armed insurrection in April. You can’t change the facts on the ground which is that Assad quelled the (mostly) peaceful protests using his military. Amnesty International documented and appealed to Assad to rein in his security forces and army. The war was strictly initiated by Assad.
Additionally, lets not make it look like Assad and Syria are just innocent bystander in the Middle East. Syria was a staging point for jihadists fighting the US in Iraq. This was done with the encouragement and support of Assad (the murderer). So using the jihadists for your own end is perfectly acceptable to Assad. The US cutoff diplomatic relations with Syria after the assassination of the former Lebanese Prime Minister, Rafik Hariri in 2005. Under pressure from the UN, Assad removed his military from Lebanon.
Iran ran weapons through Syria to arm Hezbollah, and Assad hosted the Hamas in Damascus while funding and supporting the terrorist organization. Assad is a regional hegemon.
When you provide the truth about the Assad regime, it is much easier to understand US opposition to the Assad regime.
The set-up:
The claim:
The contrary evidence:
1) “Classified U.S. diplomatic cables show that the State Department has funneled as much as $6 million to [Syrian opposition figures] since 2006 . . . under President George W. Bush. . .
The financial backing has continued under President Obama, even as his administration. . . posted an ambassador to Damascus for the first time in six years.”
– U.S. secretly backed Syrian opposition groups, cables released by WikiLeaks show, The Washington Post, April 17, 2011.[h/t to Reader http://intellit.muskingum.edu/othercountries_folder/syria.html
2) “It was a willful decision to do what they’re doing. . .and I will tell you, it goes before 2012. I mean, when we were, when we were in Iraq and we still had decisions to be made before there was a decision to pull out of Iraq in 2011. I mean, it was very clear what we were, what we were going to face.”
– Director (former) of the US Defense Intelligence Agency Michael Flynn on US support for the foreign radical jihadists that came to Syria before the protests and later became ISIL and Al Nusra, Head to Head, Al Jazeera, July 29, 2015.
3) “. . . the Bush Administration has. . . taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. . . [with subsequent] bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.
– The New Yorker, March 5, 2007.
4) “This is a memo that describes how we’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.”
– General (retired) Wesley Clark, former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO, describing a secret memo circulating through the Pentagon in 2002, DemocracyNow, March 2, 2007.
The response to the facts:
I know Iran was supporting Iraqi insurgent groups, but how involved were the Syrians, exactly?
I know individual Syrians joined some of the insurgents, and that the Assad regime turned a blind eye to Middle Easterners who transited through Syria to fight in Iraq and their higher-ups (like Abu Ghadiya) and that a couple Syrians were killed in a 2005 border incident with US Army Rangers.
Was Syria actively involved in supporting the insurgency, like Iran was? Just curious.
Brandon
According to Middle East Eye (Iraq asked Syria’s Assad to stop aiding ‘jihadists': Former official https://shar.es/1PG0Hx via @MiddleEastEye):
“…….Iraq’s former national security advisor Mowaffak al-Rubaie had warned Syrian President Bashar al-Assad against supporting “jihadi” militants who later become leaders in the Islamic State (IS), the former top Iraqi official said……..The alleged support and training for the militants took place in Syria and was carried out by government security forces who reportedly wanted to keep American troops busy fighting in Iraq following the 2003 US-led invasion of the country……”I went and met President Bashar al-Assad twice, and presented him with material evidence, documents, satellite pictures, confessions, all sort of evidence that his security forces were involved in active (sic) and transporting jihadist from Syria to Iraq,” Rubaie told Al Jazeera, in the first of a two-part documentary entitled Enemy of Enemies: The Rise of ISIL aired earlier this week………”And also, there were training camps with names and locations. He (Assad) was in total denial of that. I remember telling him that this will – in no time – backfire on Syria,” he added………”
And the New York Times (“Syrian Rebels Tied to Al Qaeda Play Key Role in War”, December 8, 2012):
“…….Many of its members [Nusra Front] — Syrians, Iraqis and a few from other countries —fought in Iraq, where the Syrian government helped funnel jihadis to battle the American occupation………” my addition in brackets
Delusional much? ?
I think the article’s pretty good. In terms of comments; I’m with Anon on this mostly. The attack sited happened how long before the assault on Latakia? Both of those attacks were in the long-tem, total failures. Doc Bollywood, why would the ‘moderate rebels’ cohort with jabhat al nusra on a mass suicide mission? Because Doc people are stupid. The more entitled and emboldened they feel to exert violence, the stupider they become. Hafez didn’t ever use chem weapons either huh? The part about regime change and daesh for that matter is two-fold; first, the Baa’th party is continuously underestimated. And the flow of foreign jihadists through Syria to Iraq came home to roost. Craig thanks for mentioning hersh’s descredited scoop. I don’t know if he’s totally kaput? But he did put a lot of effort in that one to vouch for his ‘source.’ So yeah, Sy should probably read more of swisscheese’s rants. In terms of what’s gonna happen? It’s probably gonna still suck for years.
I think religion is the worst joke cast upon humanity. God does have a sense of humor. God, also never created hell. Man did.
Interesting windsurfing skills !!
Remember, “No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it.” -Albert Einstein
Since we know that eating octopus is not the right remedy against lack of long term political memory, let’s all be honest, hide our heads under a pile of fresh green leafy vegetables and just pretend like everything is alright and nobody knows what we are doing.
Murtaza please stop cranking out this blatant propaganda month after month. We all know that the uprising was manipulated from start out of Robet Ford’s US embassy.
Gives us a break already.
It’s tyring to post the same data over and over.
The GCC, big oil, Clinton inc, the Blob and US IT concocted this tragedy. Stop this faux progressive crap already.
Are you going to ask leopard to change its spots?
He is a USA imperialism propagandist (and do not forget that Zionist colonizers of Palestine are backers of “rebels” aka AQ and IS) too.
“the regime carried out one of the single greatest atrocities of the war: a chemical weapons attack on the Damascus suburb of Ghouta that killed upwards of 1,400 people, according to the U.S.” According to the US; there is absolutely no proof the elected government of Syria carried any chemical weapon bombings; as a matter of fact, it’s more like that the US, Saudis or the israeli terrorist regimes were behind it. Assad is much smarter than that.
“A representative of the U.K.-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights…”
What is this organization? Who’s in it? Last I heard, it comprised of a total of 1 person.
You’re such a shill Murtaza. You and that Mariam Saleh. The Intercept’s coverage/opinion on Syria is total shit, because of you two.
Is that really what you have heard about that organization or what you want to hear about that organization?
How many people it has in Syria? Have you heard about that?
Any consistency between its casualty reports and those of well known NGOs or the UN?
What is wrong with you? Why are you such an obnoxious shitposting troll? If he is incorrect, demonstrate how he is incorrect already. How do you have the time to come here and and taunt commenters by hinting at shit but never proving it? Fucksake.
Maybe you should improve your reading comprehension. The commenter claims he has only heard one thing about that organization. I find it strange because there have been numerous articles and reports about that organization for years. Don’t blame me if the commenter is incapable of clarifying his statement.
Name calling and cursing must make you feel so well!
First, I’ll talk any damn way I please, thank you very much.
You are obviously trolling since you didn’t just come out with something to debunk him. You were being deliberately obnoxious. It’s not my fault you can’t own it.
You’ve just got to be the dumbest person I’ve ever come across.
“Any consistency between its casualty reports and those of well known NGOs or the UN?”
What NGOs. Name me one that was on the ground there. You don’t know shit about shit, but you opine like 6 year old.
“What NGO. Name me one that was on the ground there”
Only one? I give you two
Physicians for Human Rights
Syrian Center for Policy Research.
Now, tell us. Is it really the only thing you have heard about the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights?
I find it bizarre that you claim I “don’t know shit about shit” but
1) You only know one thing about the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights
2) You are unaware that there have been NGOs in Syria providing information about the conflict for years
You are supposed to know some basic information before you tell others they don’t know “shit about shit”.
” I give you two
Physicians for Human Rights
Syrian Center for Policy Research.”
Wow. You really convinced me. You know how I know there’s a god? I’ll give you many examples.
Christians
Buddhists
Muslims
Jews
Hindus
I’m a fucking genius.
Provide proof that they were there, or fuck off.
I am curious regarding the kind of proofs you are looking for?
The Syrian Center for Policy Research is located in Damascus. Its official reports are open to the public on its website. The directors do not hide their names on those reports. Are you saying they are lying? They are located somewhere else?
Physicians for Human Rights is an international organization with physicians all around the world including Libya, Iraq, and Syria. Dr. Hamza al Khatib was in Aleppo when he talked to CNN. The video is still on YouTube. Are you saying those doctors who asked for help in Aleppo were not really in Aleppo?
The Union of Medical Care and Relief Organizations run Bab al Hawa hospital, the Sarmada Center, the Syrian Medical Center and many other medical centers. Are you saying all those press reports, YouTube videos in which they ask for help are fakes?
Swisscheese, you forgot the White Helmets. They won on Oscar for best foreign scripted documentary. I also loved their youtube mannequin ….
I am not following you. So, the White Helmets is fake? They have never saved lives as they claim? It’s members never died while saving lives? Is that your point?
My point was you forgot to mention them.
Have you read his inquiry? He only asked for one NGO.
But you named several and obviously not the Oscar winning white helmets.
I understand why…they were always suspiciously close to Assad atrocities with working recording materials in a country ruled by either the Assad regime or extreme jihadists.
Again….i recommend you watch their mannequin film. It looks all so real !
I am still not following you. He asked for one NGO located in Syria and I gave him two. He said he wanted proof those NGOs are located in Syria and I asked him what kinds of proofs he wanted. Then he run away as usual.
What does your opinion of white helmets have to do with any of this? What exactly is your point? Telling me I “forgot to mention them” does not make any sense. If you ask a kid an example of ONE fruit and she says strawberry would you give her zero point because she “forgot ” to mention apple?
Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, Iran and Russia were all mentioned. What about the US? Who role and whose side were the Americans supporting? Don’t tell me that the US just stood aloof and watch the war!!! We stir and jump aside to see what’s going on.
“fired several barrages of rockets at targets in the heart of Damascus, Bashar al-Assad’s capital.”
All this time I had been thinking Damascus was Syria’s capital city. I feel so stupid now for not realizing I had been taken in by pro-regime propaganda. Map providers Google, Apple, Bing, Open Street Map….even Putin’s Yandex (!) all have been similarly hoodwinked and erroneously list Damascus as Syria’s capital. I trust you will contact these organizations immediately and ask them to rectify this blatant falsehood.
Nice American Ally!? “Will the 9/11 Case Finally Go to Trial?”: Andrew Cockburn on New Evidence Linking Saudis to Attacks
https://www.democracynow.org/2017/9/13/will_the_9_11_case_finally
I never met a Saudi I ever liked. Must be how they smell.
Why is this just being released now????
thank you! this’s from the snowden stuff? why hasn’t this (& so much more?) come out earlier?…
“Opposition groups got help from Turkey, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia,”
Illegal, illegal, illegal.
“while the government has been propped up by the efforts of Iran and Russia.”
Legal, legal.
“Their slow – and, seemingly, final — vanquish came thanks in no small part to foreign intervention by Iran and Russia, but also, crucially, through the rebels’ own internal divisions.”
“foreign intervention” is the best way to describe a recognized sovereign state legally inviting allies to defend its sovereignty against illegal invention by rogue actors?
so much for “moderate opposition”
to my american friends:
the people you are now supporting in syria calling them “freedom fighters” and “moderate opposition” are basically the same who did 9/11 and the same “freedom fighters” taliban you were supporting in the 80s in afghanistan
Trump is working on becoming a “War Criminal’ – remember his missile attack . .
60 million dollars – 1 million a rocket 59 hit their targets and one mis-fired . . .
the airport – was up and running the following day – – –
BUT Donald Trump has give no explanation or legal reason for the attack…..
Here’s the Clinton State Dept email from Wikileaks that shows that the U.S. was backing opposition groups in Syria as early as March 2011 in a bid to instigate a regime change program. Notably, at the very same time, Clinton was pressuring everyone to go along with the Bahrain-Saudi crackdown on pro-democracy protesters.
Here’s the WaPo story in question (notice that this was well before the WaPo was taken over by Amazon’s Jeff Bezos for some $250 million – Bezos also holding a $600 million CIA contract for Amazon Web Services.)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/us-secretly-backed-syrian-opposition-groups-cables-released-by-wikileaks-show/2011/04/14/AF1p9hwD_story.html
Why did they want to overthrow Assad so badly? No, it wasn’t about human rights or democracy – it was simply about Assad accepting Iran’s offer of economic cooperation and regional integration in 2009 – pipelines, railroads, airports, electricity grid – a pretty good deal for the Syrian people, but one not acceptable to Saudi Arabia, Israel and the U.S. regime.
So that’s the real story – regime change from day one, backed by a pile of lies and distortions and dishonest BS a mile long. The result? The world’s biggest refugee crisis since WWII, hundreds of thousands dead, the rise of ISIS and Al Qaeda in Syria and the export of terrorism and political instability to Europe (which played a big role in Brexit and the rise of the European far right) – what an epic disaster.
This is why people who look at Hillary Clinton’s record in detail are somewhat relieved that her and her cohort are not in power right now, even if the raging orange nincompoop is. She’d probably have us in a shooting war with Russia by now, or sending troops in to create a Kurdish client state, or some other godawful nightmare game – with the complete support and blessing of the corporate media and the Borg State.
The U.S. has always wanted to get rid of the Assads because they won’t kowtow to U.S. demands. Simple as that really. The U.S. never fights wars for democracy, only an idiot or badly misinformed person would believe that. Like all other countries, they fight foreign wars for resources, whether direct or indirect.
Agree, but not just the Assads. As somebody has said upthread, ALL governments of Syria, democratic or otherwise, going back to the 1940s. The principal tool has been the Muslim Brotherhood.
Stephen Gowans book, Washington’s Long War in Syria”, traces this history:
https://www.amazon.com/Washingtons-Long-Syria-Stephen-Gowans/dp/1771861088/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1503085130&sr=8-1&keywords=long+war+on+syria
Part of Trump’s arms deal with them?? Did he approve first hand – or only after the fact (alternate fact??) Bragged about the arms deal – bet on the under the table part Shh. SECRET sell-out….
Lots of MSM ‘appears to be’ and ‘the US reported’ weaseldom here, not what I expect from the intercept. A number of these appear to be things that could be easily investigated, like finding out how many civilians were reported killed in this attack (sure many were killed), or details of some of the undoubtedly nasty things these groups now clearly linked to and to some degree controlled by Saudi did. Also appears the author is highly disinterested in investigating foreign support for al queda /ISIS- do you really think the Saudis and co. drew a line between supporting ‘moderately’ brutal islamists and similar true believers (in their wahabi ideology) in isis and Al queda? Methinks this author has a few axes to grind with the Assad regime, and more than a little affection for rebel nuts who have rarely been shy about showing how brutal they can be, including Assad supporting
“Lots of MSM ‘appears to be’ and ‘the US reported’ weaseldom here, not what I expect from the intercept. ” Are you blaming The Intercept for ‘not reporting or reporting’ what was in Snowden’s document release? Who should investigate these ‘things’? Please stop blaming the author ; you can call for your own investigation as a free citizen. Blame NSA or Washington, not the author.
“A revolution, a proxy war, and a civil war are not necessarily mutually exclusive …”
True. But the problem here is that Syria was the only country left in the region beside Iran that could act as a counter force against U.S./western imperialism and aggression. Sure the rebels had good reason to rebel against Assad for his neglect in the drought — caused by global warming/climate change, BTW, so look in the mirror if you drive, own a home without solar panels on the roof, or eat meat daily — but it’s a good thing that Assad wasn’t unseated, because a U.S. lackey would have replaced him.
“but it’s a good thing that Assad wasn’t unseated”
Is that what the Syrian refugees told you? About the victims of barrel bombs in Homs and Allepo? Did they tell you the same thing?
Given how, per the UN, Aleppo city and Aleppo governorate received the most refugees returning in the six months of this year
Source: http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=57340#.We_1FFtSyUk
Further, given how few people sought to be evacuated from Aleppo (including Bana al-Alabed and her handler- er, mom), I’d say most of the people there backed Assad.
So, the answer is, “Yes.”
I think we should ask them directly. What do you think?
October 2015: Survey of Syrian Refugees in Europe: Berlin Social Science Center
“70% are fleeing the violence of the Assad regime and its allies (32% Isis, 18% Free Syrian Army, 17% Al Nusra, 8% Kurdish forces).”
March 2016; Survey if Syrian Refugees in Turkey. Most of them from Aleppo: Havard, University of California, Bogacizi University
“Of those who responded, 71 percent agreed that an “end to the fighting in Syria” would be ideal. Sixty-five percent of respondents agreed that removal of the Assad regime would be an ideal ending.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/03/15/new-survey-data-shows-what-syrian-civilians-want-and-fear/
Did you even attempt to analyze any of those surveys or you just decided to come up with your own hypothesis that fit your views?
What you are leaving out is that the Berlin survey was conducted in partnership with The Syria Campaign. Here is what The Syria Campaign gets up to:
“The Syria Campaign began in spring 2014…The Syria Campaign is managed by Anna Nolan, who grew up in northern Ireland and has very likely never been to Syria. In addition to promoting the White Helmets, Syria Campaign promotes a new social media campaign called “Planet Syria”. It features emotional pleas for the world to take notice of Syria in another thinly veiled effort pushing for foreign intervention and war. According to their website, The Syria Campaign received start-up funding from the foundation of Ayman Asfari, a billionaire who made his money in the oil and gas services industry. …One of their first efforts was to work to prevent publicity and information about the Syrian Presidential Election of June 2014. Accordingly, “The Syria Campaign” pressured Facebook to remove advertisements or publicity about the Syrian election. Since then Syria Campaign has engineered huge media exposure and mythology about their baby, the “White Helmets” using all sorts of social and traditional media. The campaigns are largely fact free. For example, the Syrian election was dismissed out of hand by them and John Kerry but taken seriously by many millions of Syrians.”
https://ingaza.wordpress.com/syria/human-rights-front-groups-humanitarian-interventionalists-warring-on-syria/
Also, it’s ridiculous that you would uncritically cite the CIA mouthpiece WaPo while ignoring live in-person testimonies, like these:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxwXU4vhrZE
Why didn’t these people conducting these surveys actually travel to Syria to interview the people living there? Why are you prioritizing the opinions of refugees and ignoring the voices of the people living in Syria?
And what about the fact that even Assad’s political opposition has been behind him versus the West and the terrorists?
“In Damascus I met with various leaders of internal opposition, who notably all rallied behind President al-Assad and against the external Riyadh and Turkish-backed “opposition” put forth by the West. The Kurdish representative, Berwine Brahim, stated, “We want you to convey that conspiracy, terrorism and interference from Western countries has united supporters of the government and the opposition, to support President Bashar al-Assad. We opposition members see that President al-Assad is the guarantee of Syria.”
https://www.sott.net/article/313862-Syria-Dispatch-Most-Syrians-Support-Assad-Reject-Phony-Foreign-Revolution
It’s not like Assad dropped an atomic weapon and killed 80,000 civilians in one go.
What if the US had dropped an atomic bomb that killed 10,000,000 civilians in one go. Would it make it okay for Assad to commit war crimes?
What if Germany started a war against Russia that resulted in 20,000,000 Russians getting killed. Would it make it okay for the Russian president to kill 8,000,000 Russians after the war?
What if Germany killed 6,000,000 Jews in fewer than 6 years. Would it make it okay for Jews to seize somebody’s land after that genocide?
Finally, are you rational enough to notice how nonsensical your argument is?
This revisionist propaganda contradicting well documented facts is once again just bizarre for The Intercept to allow to be published under their name.
It’s junk.
“The NSA document provides a glimpse into how the war had evolved from its early stages of popular uprisings and repression.”
The first casualties in the regime change war in Syria were Syrian police and army… attacked by foreign fighters sponsored by foreign powers.
The protests were usurped into an “uprising” by that foreign meddling, and the “repression” was the Syrian government response to those violent attacks, NOT the other way around.
“A revolution, a proxy war, and a civil war are not necessarily mutually exclusive of each other,”
Uh, actually they are mutually exclusive when the facts make it clear that they are.
Protests are not a “revolution”.
A “civil war” is not started and driven by foreign powers.
And a “proxy war” is the only accurate term… though it only applies to those attempting regime change. Syrians defending themselves are not proxies.
“In response to the protests, the Assad regime and its security forces waged an open war against their own people”
False.
Again, Assad responded to attacks within Syria by foreign fighters sponsored by foreign powers.
“The then-largely civilian uprising, faced with extermination or resistance, took up arms.”
Once again, revisionist nonsense.
Protests are not an “uprising”, and it was the attacks on Syrian forces which triggered the response.
Syrians siding with the foreign fighters sponsored by foreign powers against their own country were fools to allow themselves to be used, and became legitimate targets.
“Assad’s response, though, coupled with the burgeoning revolution, also opened the door for the involvement of unscrupulous foreign powers.”
Revisionism again.
“Unscrupulous foreign powers” started the fighting.
“Opposition groups got help from Turkey, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia”
Uh, no mention of the massive US support?
The CIA program arming and training “rebels” in Jordan AND providing logistical support for the Saudi/UAE/Qatari effort was reported by the NYT in 2012… but began in 2011.
How can a TI journalist not know these facts?
Is it an intentional omission?
The DIA program arming and training “rebels” in Turkey was widely reported in 2014.
Obama publicly announced air drops of ammunition for the “rebels”.
Why is the US role swept under the rug?
And why no mention of the Israeli support that has been widely reported in Israeli media?
That amounts to misinformation.
“Because of the fragmentary nature of the Syrian opposition since the early days of the conflict, it is difficult to know to who else received arms”
No, it’s not.
All the “rebels” received foreign support.
They weren’t whittling their guns, manufacturing ammunition, or growing their own food.
“the uprising’s arms initially came from defecting army units that, outraged at the regime’s crackdown, joined the opposition.”
False.
The foreign fighters who initiated the conflict crossed into Syria with their weapons.
“after a wave of massacres in 2011″
False.
This is pure propaganda.
It is unsubstantiated assertion created to justify treason by Syrians collaborating with foreign powers against their own country.
““Refusenik” officers like Harmoush helped found the original armed groups that coalesced into the “Free Syrian Army,””
False.
The group was set up and funded by the US and Saudis.
And they were never an “army”, just weapons suppliers to the various factions of “rebels”.
“a name that was more of a brand for the opposition than a singular entity”
See. Even Murtaza admits it.
“As the ferocious crackdown proceeded and refugees began to stream out of the country”
False.
The refugees fled because of the foreign backed regime change war and the Syrian government response.
“The opposition started to open channels with outside powers eager to see Assad fall. It would not be long before foreign states were providing arms to groups fighting the regime”
False.
Again, the outside powers initiated the conflict.
They opened the channels.
“while those supported by the United Arab Emirates and Saudi were either non-Islamist or adhered to a version of Islamism that did not threaten them”
Huh?
Non-Islamists backed by the Saudis?
Funny how there isn’t a link to substantiate that whopper.
Oh, the version that “did not threaten them”… meaning the ones who have been responsible for terror attacks in the US, Europe, and around the world.
““The Saudis and Emiratis were never really comfortable with most Syrian Islamists, though they supported some hardline groups at times.””
At times?
Yes, at the beginning, the middle and the end.
Those “times”.
“The Syrian conflict is notable for the extent to which the rebel opposition was able to arm itself and continue challenging the regime over years of grinding warfare, experts on the internal dynamics of civil wars say.”
No.
It’s not “notable”.
Arms flowing in from foreign powers is not “arming themselves”, nor unusual in foreign backed regime change wars. It was never a “civil war”.
““The Syrian case is striking for the extent and the speed with which the opposition was able to arm itself,””
Again, no.
It’s not “striking” when planeloads of weapons are flown in by foreign backers… and, again, that isn’t “arming themselves”.
“At the same time, we saw this very decentralized but rapid emergence of a rebel army”
Funny how hundreds of thousands of foreign fighters sponsored by foreign powers flooding into Syria can occur “rapidly”.
“and the most likely explanation is the extent and ability of the opposition to gain external assistance.”
No.
When the “opposition” are external actors, external assistance isn’t “gained”, it’s originated.
“it has never been firmly established that terrorist organizations like ISIS benefitted from direct state sponsorship.”
Bull.
It has been established, just denied despite the glaring evidence to the contrary.
“The relative independence of the most extreme groups over the course of the war – granted by the absence of state sponsorship”
Again, bull.
Those responsible denying their sponsorship is not the same as an “absence of state sponsorship”.
In any case, all the groups of “rebels” were extremists.
There aren’t, and never were moderate “rebels”.
“the most extreme groups, with the support of private donors and foreign volunteers”
Again, the ridiculous notion that these groups were operating without state sponsored support just doesn’t match the evidence.
“There are still nationalist armed revolutionary factions operating in Syria, including the Manbij Military Council, a faction of the U.S.-backed Syrian Democratic Forces”
The term “nationalist” being applied to traitors who collaborate with foreign powers against their own country is a stretch, but at least the US role is finally admitted.
Way to contradict the earlier omission!
“A few months after the daring assault on the Syrian capital, the regime carried out one of the single greatest atrocities of the war: a chemical weapons attack on the Damascus suburb of Ghouta that killed upwards of 1,400 people, according to the U.S.”
No.
Actually, it has been reported that US intelligence raised doubts about any Syrian government involvement in that attack, which supposedly caused Obama to call off the air strikes. Furthermore, it has been widely reported that the UN inspectors also doubted involvement by the Syrian government.
“with foreign powers manipulating Syrians on both sides”
Bull.
Syrians defending their country don’t need to be “manipulated” to do so.
“it has been the Syrians who have been killed”
Mostly true.
But it has been reported that over 5000 Saudis have been killed fighting in Syria, and upwards of 50,000 other foreign fighters of various nationalities have dies fighting there as well.
TI can do better.
Yes! This reads very much like a typical msm propaganda piece, admits an instance of anti-assad terrorism (firing a bunch of notoriously inaccurate rockets into a heavily populated area is terrorism; btw, with a few minutes effort sure the author could find info on how many civilians died in this attack) then spends most of the rest of the article providing ‘evidence’ of Assad evilness to subtly suggest that such ‘moderate’ rebels, who of course, are the only ones the gulf states support (!!!), are basically justified. And instead of saying ‘here’s clear evidence Saudis supported to the point of control these groups, look at all the evil shit these groups have done’ , which should be easy as they’re all basically brutal and happy to publicize their brutality, we get a vague, meandering discussion of how ‘wow, that escalated quickly, who woulda thunk it?’.
Clearly the author has a dog in the fight, and it ain’t ‘evil’ secularist Assad, who I strongly suspect is damn popular among syrians who see him as the man who either liberated or defended them against foreign crazies who wanted to crush secularism, and were happy to chop everyone’s heads off to do it.
If isis had won in Syria (conveniently providing a pretext for full US invasion, as the narrative shifted from ‘assad is slaughtering dozens of beautiful opposition babies!!’ to ‘isis is slaughtering everyone!!!’), would fools like this author have celebrated? There is a seeming desperation among the Assad opposition to justify the epically disastrous outcome of this psuedo uprising, which has killed shitloads of syrians often horrifically and trashed the country, for no fucking reason other than the west being annoyed with Assad not playing ball, and to curb Iranian and Russian influence in their own backyard.
Sick of hearing msm excuses for the disaster we have made in Syria- I expect better from the intercept. The ugly truth is that the legion horrors of this war have little to do with Assad’s repression- it is a nightmare we pushed and enabled for craven, utterly selfish, and a largely frivolous reasons.
Excellent comment. I couldn’t have said it better. Thank you
Great job!
The Intercept is absolute crap on the Syria Issue. They might as well be MSDNC.
… but at least the quality of the comments is better at TI than in the msm.
:o)
Interesting article, save for a couple of things:
1. So, the “external powers” interfering in Syria were the Saudis, UAE, Turkey, Qatar, Russia and Iran? Why do I feel a country’s missing? Big one, currently led by an orange-wigged narcicist, you really can’t miss it.
2. So, Qatar and Turkey funded radical islamist groups, while the Saudis only supported “non-threatening” ones? How odd, then, that both ISIS and Al Nusra (in the various guises it adopted over the years) are both followers of Wahhabism, the very doctrine the Saudis, unlike Qatar and Turkey, promote.
If I want to read US MSM propaganda, I’m really spoilt for choice. That’s not what I come looking for in an Intercept article, though.
This is a surprisingly accurate depiction of events in Syria based on known facts not those supplied by Assad apologists.
The Damascus rocket attack by the rebels could have been Saudi inspired or just part of a rebel offensive that the Saudis supported and promoted. One thing missing from this otherwise excellent post is that some of the rebel leaders later stated that their forces were ready and able to move to overrun the Assad forces in Damascus. They stated that the US/CIA intervened and convinced them to not continue the offensive, that it wasn’t the correct time for this move.
If you look at what the US actually did to support some rebel groups they supplied enough arms directly and through the KSA to continue the fighting but never enough to actually win the war. TOW missiles were supplied through the KSA but MANPADS and other heavy weapons weren’t and they were needed to overcome Assad’s air power monopoly.
All US statements about ending the conflict were couched in the ‘transitional government’ model never even discussing a total rebel victory that the US would not have much influence over. Once the Russian air power arrived along with the Iranian militias the rebels couldn’t defeat these foreign powers propping up Assad. If the rebels are lucky the Russians will impose some type of transitional government or at lest power sharing but the Iranians will resist any challenge to their direct control of the Assad regime.
That’s great the gay-killing, misogynist jihadists had command and control. I wouldn’t want all the arms and training Obama gave them to go to waste!
https://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n08/seymour-m-hersh/the-red-line-and-the-rat-line
Obama was so stupid he armed rebels in Syria that began to fight each other:
http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-cia-pentagon-isis-20160327-story.html
Former cheerleader for the “FSA” has devolved into some kind of realistic and factual approach to what happened in Syria, by an “Intercept” author who pretended the ‘white helmets’ were nothing but good Samaritans and the Syrian opposition were all secular democrats.
‘Bout time.
If he wasn’t a “prince” he most likely would have been a head-chopper fighting with ISIS. You only need to look at those psychopathic eyes to know that.
The headline confirms what serious analysts of Syria have known for years. Hussain then packs the valid information with the same old discredited narrative. Why doesn’t the Intercept dig into the archives and confirm that Saudis were funding and arming “rebels” long before 2013? Your very poor analyses of Syria are discrediting the other work of Intercept. Like Democracy Now, your reports and investigations are very good in areas but bad and biased in the most critical foreign policy areas. Why don’t you acknowledge the counter-evidence of Ghouta and “rebel” violence in 2011 and massive outpouring of SUPPPORT for the Syrian government? It’s time to start publishing some other writers since Hussain evidently cannot see or admit reality.
Mr. Hussain
“…….In Syria, the uprising’s arms initially came from defecting army units that, outraged at the regime’s crackdown, joined the opposition. Among those who turned against Assad were high-ranking officials like Lt. Col. Hussein al-Harmoush, an army officer who had denounced the Syrian dictator after a wave of massacres in 2011……”
For the most part, this accurately describes the initial conflict in Syria despite the lies promoted by far left wing sites like Consortium News and Russian-bots which frequent this site. Assad initiated the crackdown to avoid a similar fate as Mubarak who was overthrown in Egypt because of popular protests. The initial crackdown was accurately described by Amnesty International which later described the horrific conditions and deaths of thousands of prisoners in Assad’s prison system.
No doubt that this article (which also correctly places the blame for the 2013 Ghouta chemical attack on Assad) will generate a lot of negative comments from the anti-American left and Russian-bots.
Evidence? There is none. In fact, the evidence that exists, expertly detailed in “The Red Line and the Rat Line” by Sy Hersh, directly contradicts your story.
Logic? Let’s go to the article:
So Assad planned the chemical attack to demoralize the opposition. He knew ahead of time that (i) the “red line” proffered by Obama and similar rumblings from Europe wouldn’t materialize, (ii) the attack wouldn’t provoke a different, unexpected external reaction, (iii) the result would be him being forced by the Russians to give up his chemical arsenal and somehow he thought this was good for his war effort (which raises the question of why he wouldn’t just voluntarily turn them over in the first place), (iv) the “demoralization” (rather than the killing, which chemical attacks did very little of in this war) of his enemies is what would win him the war.
That argument is asinine on its face. Assad speaks fluent English and has answered questions about this narrative before. His story is much more believable than yours; I suggest you revisit it.
“In fact, the evidence that exists, expertly detailed in “The Red Line and the Rat Line” by Sy Hersh, directly contradicts your story.”
No, that is not “evidence”. That is just the narrative you pick, the universe you create in order to fit your views. Basically you will use every BS you can find to prove yourself that the parties supported by the US are the ones responsible while the parties supported by US foes are not responsible.
Like many other anti Americans you are resorting to a nonsensical exercise while all you have to say is that you are anti US and you will blame the US, or its allies for whatever bad things happen.
Unlike you who claims any and all criticism of the US must be based on anti US bias. It was obvious that any use of chemical weapons by Assad couldn’t possibly turn out in his favor. Must be anti US bias to think that, right?
“Unlike you who claims any and all criticism of the US must be based on anti US bias.”
I never claim that. You are lying as usual. I can criticize the US myself:
a) Selling weapons to extremely violent dictators
b) Toppling elected governments specially during the Cold War
c) Starting the Iraq war in 2003 under false accusations
….I can continue all day.
“Must be anti US bias to think that, right?”
Yes, because you are not analyzing evidence against Assad. You are just creating arguments to exonerate him. And that particular argument is stupid anyway. There were UN troops in the Balkans when the Serbians committed genocide, and UN troops in Rwanda when the Hutus did the same. Was it obvious that a genocide in front of the UN could not possibly turn out in their favor?
Why do so many of you make up arguments that don’t exist? I don’t see anyone trying to exonerate Assad? They’re just skeptical of the narrative against him knowing how much lies our politicians and media repeats.
Off topic: Here is an example. The media and many politicians are claiming ignorance about our presence in Africa, Niger specifically. I’ve known about that presence for decades because it was reported by the same outlets claiming ignorance. I looked it up for confirmation and there are multiple stories around our cooperation with Chad in Niger from as early as 2004.
“Why do so many of you make up arguments that don’t exist? I don’t see anyone trying to exonerate Assad? They’re just skeptical of the narrative against him knowing how much lies our politicians and media repeats.”
There is a massive difference between politicians stating that a government has weapon of mass destruction and a group of eyewitnesses, refugees, international journalists, local and international human right workers stating they saw government troops shooting at civilians. The difference is substantial when thousands of those government troops tell the world that indeed they had attacked civilians and they will not do it anymore.
The anti US crew is not only refusing to acknowledge this difference, but they automatically dismiss the evidence presented to them. This is not skepticism. This is just anti Americanism. They do not care about Assad or the Syrians. They just cannot accept that a US enemy could be wrong. They will attack whatever organizations that confirm the US accusations against Assad whether it is the UN, Amnesty International, HRW, etc..
Bang on. I for one am no fan of any autocrat but am even less enamoured by western (read US) geopolitical subversion and its media cheerleaders. Noone in the target countries has ever benefitted apart from a new bunch of autocrats.
You could continue all day and that still wouldn’t mean you don’t do as I said. So you’re a hypocrite.
I’m analyzing tactics. Assad isn’t stupid. He might as well have bombed Israel as use chemical weapons. Either time. And assuming Assad is smart enough to want to survive must mean I’m trying to exonerate him and my argument is stupid. And yet you seem to base Assad’s guilt on what happened in the presence of UN troops during alleged genocides? OK.
Do you even understand what you write? Let me go basic:
Basis: in international law, common law, civil law there MUST be EVIDENCE to convict an individual of a crime.
Syria
What is the crime? use of chemical weapons
Who are the suspects? Assad, rebel groups, terrorist groups.
What is the evidence against Assad?
Your response: cricket.
What is Assad’s defense?
Your response: Assad is not stupid. Assad wants to survive. Using chemical weapons would not have been in his favor.
My response to you:
1) Your argument is stupid because dictators do crimes that are obviously not in their favor. Example: a Serbian dictator committed genocide in front of thousands of UN troops and journalists. A Rwandan dictator did exactly the same even after the UN told him they would be consequences if he did.
2) Evidence is what you analyze in order to send somebody to jail. Motive is not enough to find someone guilty. People do commit crimes without motives.
3) You are regurgitating the anti US propaganda. You ignore evidence against Assad while telling us all the reasons why he would not have used chemical weapons. This is basically the Russian government view: telling us why Assad had no reasons to use those weapons, which suggests that US allies had more reasons to use them.
Conclusion
Exactly. you are exonerating Assad!
You know that there’s no documentation of Milosevic actually ordering this action, right? And that US diplomat Jacques Paul Klein acknowledged this on camera, basically admitting their case amounted to trying to read Milosevic’s mind? AND that many witnesses who came to testify against him had been coerced or bribed into doing so, including at least one who was explicitly threatened with prison?
Are you talking about this Rwandan genocide?
https://dissidentvoice.org/2009/04/the-rwanda-genocide-fabrications/
What? Not unless they’re clinically insane. Pardon us if we’re not as usefully idiotic as you. It seems many commenters here prefer to use their brains.
And you are engaging in racist and/or bigoted “othering” that paints people the US doesn’t like as inscrutably evil, practitioners of villainy incomprehensible to normal humans, so there is no point in examining these propaganda lines and trying to figure out who is benefiting from them. The enemies of the US are all just irrationally wicked, aren’t they? According to you should we ignore the evidence that the US has been trying to get rid of the Assads and take over Syria for decades (long before the “atrocities” you accuse Bashar Assad of allegedly took place)? These things are completely irrelevant to the anti-Assad narrative? It must all just be a coincidence, right?
“You know that there’s no documentation of Milosevic…..”
Go read what the Trial Chamber concluded and then come back with another nonsensical argument.
“Are you talking about this Rwandan genocide?”
Go read UN reports, Kofi Annan testimony, UN troops testimony and then tell me what was factually incorrect in my statement.
“What? Not unless they’re clinically insane. Pardon us if we’re not as usefully idiotic as you. It seems many commenters here prefer to use their brains.”
1) Learn the difference between motive and intent in law
2) learn the difference between motive in law and motive in psychology
3) learn why motives are generally not necessary to get a conviction
Interesting that commenters like you who keep using the word idiot exposes their ignorance of the subject being discussed so blatantly.
“And you are engaging in racist and/or bigoted “othering” that paints ….”
No time to answer to that soup salad.
I think you do not know what “nonsensical” means. And you also did not actually watch footage of the trial.
Piss off, you idiot. You didn’t even read the article, did you?
Since you obviously don’t know that I am not talking about motives as they pertain to law, but what literally drives people, you moron, I think you need to revisit this statement.
Yeah, you’d just rather not admit you’re racist, you racist.
Milosevic was tried and found not guilty of genocide or war crimes by the UN war crimes tribunal. Your counter argument holds no water.
My Goodness!! Can you please link us to that imaginary verdict?
1) My argument is sound. Assad wanted to survive and a chemical attack would have been suicidal. You, on the other hand, seem to think that all dictators must be like those that continued alleged genocides in front of UN troops and therefore Assad is guilty. And amazingly you’re sticking with that.
2) What evidence? There is no proof that Assad used chemical weapons. Oh wait, there is that sound evidence that other dictators continued alleged genocides in front of UN troops. Yes, people do commit crimes without motives. So Assad did this with no motive and because other dictators commit alleged genocides in front of UN troops. Wow, you’re brilliant.
3) You are regurgitating the US MSM propaganda. I’m not ignoring any evidence because there is none. You ignore motive and the fact that the US has been calling for regime change in Syria for the last decade. Of course it must be my anti-Us bias that makes me think the US will use loose evidence to support their agenda. US allies? You mean al Qaeda? They are above that, right? By the way, would al Qaeda use chemical weapons in front of UN troops? Or is that reserved for dictators who want to commit suicide or those that continue alleged genocides in front of UN troops?
Saying I’m exonerating Assad would be like saying I’m a Saddam apologist because he didn’t have WMD like we said he did before destroying their country. Or by saying Libya had one of the highest standard of living in North Africa I must be exonerating Qaddafi for being a vicious dictator also.
Conclusion
You are an idiot.
1) “My argument is sound. Assad wanted to survive and a chemical attack would have been suicidal.”
Irrelevant. In international law, civil law, and common law motives do not have to be proven to get a guilty verdict. (with only a few exceptions)
“You, on the other hand, seem to think that all dictators must be like those that continued alleged genocides in front of UN troops and therefore Assad is guilty.”
Improve your reading comprehension. I never said Assad is guilty because other dictators who wanted to survive did irrational acts. I said your argument is stupid as a defense because other dictators who wanted to survive have done irrational acts. Courts analyze EVIDENCE against dictators to find out whether they are guilty of crimes.
2) “What evidence? There is no proof that Assad used chemical weapons.”
The UN has concluded on September 6, 2017 that Assad forces used chemical weapons in Syria. The investigative report is available here. Feel free to review it and challenge the evidence:
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/IICISyria/Pages/IndependentInternationalCommission.aspx
Tomorrow the UN will release its investigative reports regarding who was responsible the latest chemical attack in April.
You should read those reports, analyze the evidence instead of writing nonsensical questions.
3) This is just a soup salad
“Saying I’m exonerating Assad would be like saying I’m a Saddam apologist because he didn’t have WMD like we said he did before destroying their country.”
The US government said Saddam had WMD. The Germans said they were not sure. The French said they were not sure. The UN said probably not.
The US government said Assad used chemical weapons. The UN said yes he did and provided evidence. Eyewitnesses on the ground said yes he did. Local medical workers said yes he did. Journalists on the ground said yes he did. Russia, Assad’s supporter, is the one saying Assad did not. Moreover Russia vetoed UN investigations to find out who used chemical weapons.
You are therefore exonerating Assad because you refuse to grasp the difference and you even go as far as denying the evidence that the UN presented against Assad.
Conclusion
Learn how the concepts of evidence and motive work in law before you call others “idiots”.
So in 2017 only days after the US said that they were no longer interested in regime change in Syria and when the long war was finally going Assad’s way, he decided to launch chemical weapons on his own people (if you want to call foreign fighters associated with al Qaeda his own people). Never mind Hersh’s article(is Hersh Russian?) that says US intelligence had no proof that Assad was guilty and had to talk Trump into giving the Russians warning that he was going to bomb Syria. Hersh’s narrative doesn’t fit yours so you trot out the UN’s finding as though they are beyond reproach and aren’t influenced by the lone superpower’s influence. That same superpower that has been clamoring for regime change in Syria for all these years.
My reading comprehension is fine. I said Assad wants to survive as an argument of him not using chemical weapons and you said that was a stupid argument BECAUSE other dictators carry out alleged genocides in front of UN troops. You countered my argument with saying your gibberish about other dictators. How am I not comprehending the obvious?
The weapons inspectors said Saddam didn’t have WMD’s. The fact the UN said they weren’t sure tells you everything about the US influence on the UN. The UN authorized the invasion of Iraq which proved to be completely wrong and yet you will believe them in this situation because it fits in well with your beliefs. I’ll take Sy Hersh’s word over anything the puppet UN says, especially after them approving the worst foreign policy disaster of our time. My god, they believed that Colin Powell fairy tale.
Conclusion
You are still a fucking idiot.
“The UN authorized the invasion of Iraq ”
The UN never authorized the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Can you share that resolution that authorized force against Iraq in 2003?
Of course, you will take Sy Hersh’s word. He had no access to the crime scene, no access to the evidence, did not interview the suspects but he says what you want to hear. It is hilarious how the anti US crew dismiss everything that could make the US enemies look bad.
Conclusion:
Your long nonsensical soup salad means Checkmate for Swisscheese!
I was wrong. I get our invasions mixed up. I was thinking of resolution 1441 but it doesn’t apply.
Right, Hersh just pulls what he writes out of his ass. He made sense and he exposed Trump for being clueless.
And when our allies, like the Saudis, bomb the shit out of Yemen we anti-US crew will probably bitch about that too. We won’t be satisfied until we stop killing people. Sorry.
“I was wrong. I get our invasions mixed up. I was thinking of resolution 1441 but it doesn’t apply.”
Yes, you were, but it is commendable that you acknowledge it.
“Right, Hersh just pulls what he writes out of his ass. He made sense and he exposed Trump for being clueless”
Hersh gave his OPINION based on the information he had. Did he go the crime scene? No
Did he interview witnesses of the incident? No. Did he interview the suspects? No. Did he have access to forensic labs that analyze evidence? No.
But you have concluded his opinion is enough to know who is to blame for that serious crime. At the same time you have automatically rejected UN investigations that released their finding by physically going to the crime scenes, interviewing witnesses, suspects and by accessing forensic analysis of physical evidence. You did not even challenge the evidence presented by the UN against Assad. Your argument is simple: if it isn’t Hersh it must be correct. If it is the UN it must be wrong. You sincerely believe it is a rational argument?
Seems you know more about me than I do myself!
It is.
Now I know something about you! English is not your first language.
I am pro-American.
What are you talking about? Find a single word I said in the comment you replied to that is “anti US.”
“Seems you know more about me than I do myself!”
I know about your comments.
“It is”
In your universe you have created, yes.
“Now I know something about you! English is not your first language.”
Congratulations. Now find something that is less obvious.
“I am pro-American.”
No, you are not.
“What are you talking about? Find a single word I said in the comment you replied to that is “anti US.”
Easy one: you are not analyzing evidence against Assad. You are using the Russian’s narrative, which essentially consists of telling us why Assad would not have used chemical weapons. That is a pathetic argument as criminals and dictators usually do things that are irrational such as killing thousands of young Muslims in the Balkans in front of UN troops and journalists. Your ultimate goal is to place the blame on US proxies. Hence why you view Assad’s story as “believable”.
Find a single word I said…
Whew, you are dumber than you think I think you are.
“Whew, you are dumber than you think I think you are.”
1) Attack the argument, not the commenter.
2) You asked for a single word, but I gave you a collection of words = your argument, which consists of ignoring evidence against Assad while giving us hypotheses on why he would not use chemical weapons.
3) You are the typical anti US commenter: a) exonerate US enemies regardless of what they do to their own people b) blame the US for the conflict c) attack the commenter who exposes your nonsensical exercise.
Engineering Prof Theodor Postol of MIT is also a credible expert on these matters and he is of the opinion that the Assad did it meme is a crock based on trajectories and ballistics evidence.
He had no access to the evidence. He gave his opinions based on Youtube videos. What you call “ballistic evidence” is just Youtube videos and photigraphs.
You need to compare his opinion with the reports of investigators who had access the crime scene, witnesses, real items, satellite reports…
Maybe you already knew that but you just wanted to repeat his opinion because that is why you wanted to hear.
macroman
“……Evidence? There is none. In fact, the evidence that exists, expertly detailed in “The Red Line and the Rat Line” by Sy Hersh, directly contradicts your story……..”
Not expertly at all. Seymour published a report on the most recent chemical attack in Khan Sheikhun which was completely at odds with the Syrian-Russian accounts and the rebel account of the attack (and the evidence). Seymour has been discredited. See Bellingcat’s summary of chemical attacks in Syria including Ghouta (“A History of Sarin Use in the Syrian Conflict” via @bellingcat https://www.bellingcat.com/news/mena/2017/09/06/history-sarin-use-syrian-conflict/). Additionally, an additive unique to the Syrian sarin supply called hexamine (used to neutralize acids) has been identified by the French in the Ghouta and Khan Sheikhun sarin attacks. After the Ghouta attack, Assad denied that the rebels ever had access to the regime’s sarin supply thus he fingered his own regime.
Bellingcat (Elliot Higgins) works for NATO via the Atlantic Council and should not be considered impartial. He is an imperial shill, has no academic expertise in the areas he opines about and has himself been discredited by subject matter experts.
Bellingcat? Seriously? The poster boy for western disinformation using Google Earth eagerly lapped up by the msm desparate for any “evidence” to support their lame narratives. The poor bloke has never landed a hit yet.
edited for clarity
For the most part, this accurately describes the initial conflict in Syria[.] [But] despite the lies promoted by [right] wing [trolls from] sites like [Breitbar] News and [myself] which frequent this site[, I will simply give my usual unfounded opinion that] Assad initiated the crackdown to avoid a similar fate as Mubarak who was overthrown in Egypt because of popular protests. The initial crackdown was accurately described by Amnesty International[.]
“I will simply give my usual unfounded opinion that] Assad initiated the crackdown”
Why stop here? Tell us about the conspiracy of:
The teenage boys, arrested and tortured in Daraa in 2011
Teenager Hamza Ali Al-Khateeb (13 years old) tortured and killed under the custody of the Syrian government in 2011
Thousands of people demonstrating on the streets of Daraa demanding justice for those teenagers. Explain to us how they were not really upset that Assad regime arrested and tortured a bunch of kids, but they were just part of a conspiracy.
The Guardian that published emails in which Assad’s advisers (families) telling him to spin footage of tortures as just western propaganda
Hundreds of witnesses, refugees, former police and soldiers, human right workers, journalists acknowledging that Assad forces did in fact shoot live ammunition on those demonstrators.
Please tell us about that massive conspiracy since it is “unfounded” that Assad initiated the crackdown. Did the Mossad or the CIA arrested and tortured those kids? Those Syrian soldiers who were shooting at the demonstrators were CIA agents, right?
Yes, this definitely sounds like Assad ordered the attacks with the hope of not ending up like Mburak. How could I have been so wrong?
Yes, you always send a delegation to diffuse a situation you ordered, right?
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2011/04/201141918352728300.html
Please provide evidence that (a) Assad ordered the attack/arrests in Daraa and (b) his reasons for doing so were ONLY because he wanted to avoid Mburak’s fate.
I’ll wait.
Dude, no need for another of your nonsensical exercise. You are always wasting time when you can just go straight to the point: you are anti US and you will blame the US (and Israel) for everything.
Now you want evidence that a commander in chief ordered the deployment of hundreds of troops in a local town. You really think a rational individual (Swisscheese), will get into that idiotic argument?
Do you also need evidence that Adolf Hitler ordered the arrest of Lea Deutsch?
My argument has nothing to do with USA.
I’m only refuting Craigsummers’ unfounded assertion that Assad ordered attacks merely to not end up the same way Mburak did.
As usual, you miss the point entirely.
His assertion is not “unfounded”. He is just repeating what Syrian refugees, Syrian eyewitnesses, former Syrian soldiers, international journalists, local and international human rights organizations have stated. They have all stated that Assad initiated the crackdown having Syrian forces attack demonstrators. As any dictators it is rational to believe that he did not want to finish like Mubarak, Ben Ali or even Gaddafi.
Your argument has a lot to do with the USA. You are just regurgitating the typical anti US propaganda. You are just exonerating Assad in order to blame the conflict on the USA and its allies. There is no need for all that nonsense, and certainly no need for idiotic arguments such as requesting evidence that dictator who runs a government with a well documented history of arresting and torturing dissents ordered the arrest and torture of dissents who dare attacking him.
This is how low you have become in your nonsensical exercise. Really, dude? Evidence that the commander in chief ordered the deployment of soldiers in a local town?
Again, do you want evidence that the Fuhrer ordered the arrest of Lea Deutsch?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=silJoHrXsIc
Here is something befitting your intellect since you don’t really want to understand logic and continue to choose to not address my comment explaining my position.
btw, creating strawmen is not your strong point.
First Law of Holes.
Dude, you don’t have logical arguments. You come to The Intercept and write whatever comes out of posterior to vent your anti US views.
Thousands of refugees, eyewitnesses, and former Syrian soldiers blame Assad for initiating the crackdown.
Local and international journalists on the ground blame Assad.Local and international human rights organizations blame Assad.
And you come here to conclude that blaming Assad for initiating that crackdown is “unfounded “. You could at least come with some conspiracy theories like Photosymbiosis. Tell us how those refugees, former soldiers, HRW, AI…are part of a CIA or Mossad plan to topple Assad!
The fact that you use the word intellect here shows you have no idea what it means.
I get dumber every time I come across one of your comments! Please stop watching cnn or MSN! You mite learn something
First, where is the proof the boys were “tortured”? They were “reportedly” abused by local police, but even if true how is that directly Assad’s fault? He responded to the incident very quickly, ordered the children released and punished the governor in the region. You would deny that local authorities can act without the president’s say-so?
I’m sure you will claim this is a “nonsensical exercise” like you always do as a way of avoiding dealing with reality, but is President Obama directly responsible for the murders of Walter Scott, Michael Brown and Freddie Gray? Would you have advocated for Obama’s overthrow on this basis? If you were going to call for the removal of a nation’s leader, wouldn’t you want to make sure he was actually guilty of the accusations leveled against him, rather than just assuming he was?
Debunked:
http://uprootedpalestinians.blogspot.com/2011/06/breaking-news-true-story-of-hamza-al.html
Here Anwar al-Eshki admitting that the KSA provided weapons to Islamists in Dara’a. He says the plan was to drive the government forces out of the cities to the villages, which is exactly what happened.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoGmrWWJ77w
So, yeah, much of it WAS a conspiracy. A Saudi official is on record admitting it.
Also:
“…their rooftop sniping closely resembled the Muslim Brotherhood’s failed insurrection in Hama, back in 1982. Hafez al Assad crushed that revolt in a few weeks. Of the incident US intelligence said total casualties were probably ‘about 2,000′ including ‘300 to 400′ members of the Muslim Brotherhood’s elite militia. The Brotherhood and many western sources have since inflated those numbers, calling it a ‘massacre’. Armed Islamists posing as civilian victims have a long history in Syria.”
http://handsoffsyria.blogspot.com/2014/09/why-syrians-support-bashar-al-assad.html
Also, I guess the cache of weapons found in Al-Omari mosque in Dara’a that the “peaceful protesters” rallied in front of and the waves and waves of pro-Assad demonstrations in 2011 were just made up.
The same Guardian that acknowledged it was “impossible to rule out the possibility of fakes” in these emails? Are you a serious person?
None of which are specified by you, of course. Who are we supposed to believe–“unnamed activists”? Why not Mohamed Rafea, Lizzie Phelan, and Cal Perry, all of whom were in-country and reported broad support for Assad and the government at the time? If these reports of police crackdowns and murder of civilians by the government were true why the mass pro-Assad rallies? (Not interested in your “whataboutism” or your endless attempts at deflection–I would like you to directly confront this specific contradiction and explain Assad’s popularity if he’s such a monster.) Even Time magazine and Israeli media reported at the time that police and soldiers were among those killed in the demonstrations you reference. So Assad forces must have been killing their own for some reason!
http://www.premshankarjha.com/2014/02/27/syria-who-fired-the-first-shot/
“Damascus first became aware of the conspiracy when trouble broke out on March 18, 2011 in Dera’a, a small city astride the Syria – Jordan border. A peaceful demonstration demanding some political changes in the local administration and lowering of diesel prices turned violent when shots were fired killing four persons. The international media, led by the Qatar-based Al Jazeera, and the Riyadh-based Al Arabiya television channels immediately accused Assad’s forces of firing into the crowd to disperse it…The Syrian government’s version of what had happened was entirely different. The first shots, it claimed, were fired on March 18 but not by the police. They were fired by armed men who had infiltrated the procession and, at a pre-determined moment, begun to shoot at the security police. That is why, of the four persons killed on that day, one was a policeman. However, according to Dr Mekdad, what convinced the government that the Dera’a uprising was part of a larger conspiracy was what happened when the police sent for reinforcements. Armed men ambushed one of the trucks as it entered Dera’a and killed all the soldiers in it…Suleiman Khalidi, the local correspondent of Reuters, reported on March 23 that 37 bodies had been brought to the Dera’a hospital till then. The number was intriguing because all news reports had been unanimous that 13 civilians had been killed till March 23, so where did the other 24 bodies come from?…Incontrovertible confirmation came a month later when ‘peaceful protesters’ stopped an army truck outside Dera’a and again killed all the 20 soldiers in it. But this time they did so by cutting their throats. This was the sanctified method of killing that the ‘Afghanis’, as the Afghanistan-returned Jihadis were called in Algeria, had used to kill more than ten thousand villagers during two years of bitter insurgency after the First Afghan war. It was to be seen over and over again in Syria in the coming months.”
The people shooting at the Syrian civilian population were doing what CIA death squads do, in fact.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5L49L6iZSSg
I can’t help but wonder how old you were when you stopped believing in Santa Claus. You seem to be gullible and extremely slow on the uptake.
Correction: Anwar al-Eshki is indicting Turkey; sorry, but it is clear he advised this person. Point is the conflict in Dara’a was not organic.
Sorry, I only read the first paragraph. I certainly cannot spend too much time your long nonsensical exercise!!
You should have a conversation with commenter called Gladio or Photosymbiosis. Like you they create their own universe where illogical theories and ignorance prevail.
It’s not nonsensical.
It’s not a creation. I certainly didn’t make up any of the videos or testimonies!
It’s not illogical.
It’s not ignorant.
Your fascist bullshit has been debunked, and you can’t bear to see it.
“fascist”
LOL LOL a defender of Assad calling me fascist.
Good one!!
Good argument. *thumbs up*
Still can’t deal with reality, I see.
So the Intercept is now running teaser ads for its contributors upcoming fiction books? Or have the editors read so many ‘alternative history’ books (you know, ‘histories’ set in a world where the Mayans had ‘discovered’ the Europe of the dark ages) right alongside their actual history books that they can’t tell the difference?
Murtaza, the uprising was not peaceful from the beginning. Your narrative is false and follows the MSM nonsense about Syria.
http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=8106
Get real, this is nonsense – “on both sides”? Sounds like Trump talking about Charlottesville here:
What actually happened is this: the Arab Spring pro-democracy movement, which began as non-violent mass demonstrations for more democratic rule across the Middle East in late 2010 / early 2011, was hijacked in some countries by the United States and its allies to foster regime change (in Syria and Libya, primarily) via the financing and arming of Wahhabist Islamic jihadi groups.
In other countries (Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, UAE, Kuwait, Egypt, etc.) the Arab Spring was either quickly or slowly crushed – with the full assistance and support of the United States – in the name of perpetuating dictatorial rule in the name of propping up U.S. client regimes and preventing another Shah of Iran moment in the Middle East.
One of the extremely rare objective analysis of this is here:
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2012/02/20/commentary/how-the-arab-spring-was-hijacked/
So, no, the Syrian conflict is not “revolution, civil war, or proxy war” – it was a targeted regime change operation cooked up by the CIA, the State Department, Saudi Arabia and Israel, with support (in the beginning) from Turkey, Jordan and Qatar – and only undertaken because Assad had refused to cut economic ties with Iran, as Chelsea Manning’s Wikileaks archive (Cablegate) make completely clear.
Spin it however you like, but those are the facts. 400,000 dead people, millions of refugees – and while GW Bush and Dick Cheney slaughtered many in Iraq from 2003 onwards, this Syrian slaughter game belongs to Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton, who cooked it up and implemented it. And it would have ended with ISIS overrunning Syria (Israel’s stated ‘preferred outcome’) if the Russians hadn’t started bombing the ISIS oil convoys in 2015 and so disrupted the whole game.
Come on get off the propaganda train, can’t we?
Even Assad, who is served by your narrative, doesn’t give that version. There were (I lack the perfect word here) “organic” protests against Assad during the Arab Spring. Assad says the protesters became violent, then it escalated, then the targeted regime change via proxy fighters went into effect. The anti-Assad Syrians tell basically the same story except they say the gov. started the violence at the protests, not them.
Yes, “it was a targeted regime change” by mercenaries hired by the culprits you list (another way of saying, you’ll note, a “proxy war”) but it is and was also correctly described as a “revolution” and a “civil war.” So the author is spot-on, at least according to the accounts of those that were there and involved.
I’d suggest the word ‘hothoused’ or ‘forced’ rather than ‘organic’, due to the amount of a created environment vs natural local conditions in producing the ‘crop’.
Sort of like the ‘protests’ against Mossadeigh, the ‘uprising’ by Contras, etc.
Was everyone of the protesters on the payroll of the CIA and Mossad? No, but most of them would have been content to let the movement towards ever more democracy by the Syrian government keep going (as it has despite all that the US has tried to sabotage things) if the propaganda and agitation campaigns hadn’t fed them a steady diet of lies, distortions, and the promise of effectively becoming the elite/privileged amongst Syrians (or outright US/SA approved dictators) if they violently overthrew that government.
All you need to do is compare and contrast the U.S. response to pro-democracy protests in Bahrain to the U.S. response to pro-democracy protests in Syria to understand how the game was played out in early 2011.
Syria’s regime did offer many concessions to the protest groups at first:
http://archive.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2011/03/29/syrians_march_in_pro_assad_demonstration/
. . .but the Saudi-financed jihadis quickly took over the protests and launched military attacks on the Syrian government. These groups are who the U.S. began covertly funneling arms to out of Libya in 2012, if not earlier.
In contrast, in Bahrain, with similar calls for a transition to democratic rule, the U.S. greenlighted the Saudis to come in with tanks, bulldoze the protest movement, and arrest and torture everyone involved. There’s Hillary Clinton emails about that, too.
“A few months after the daring assault on the Syrian capital, the regime carried out one of the single greatest atrocities of the war: a chemical weapons attack on the Damascus suburb of Ghouta that killed upwards of 1,400 people, according to the U.S.”
The above paragraph is a loud red flag – neocon friendly propaganda.
The Syrian “uprising ” was financed from the beginning by foreign powers. Here is the best investigation by a Bulgarian Journalist regarding the issue. It’s in English.
https://trud.bg/350-diplomatic-flights-carry-weapons-for-terrorists/
Murtaza, read and learn!
Seriously? This so resembles the ‘Marxist correlation of forces analysis crap’ that general secretaries would always include in their 6-7-hour speeches at their parties gathering.
So, let’s state it clearly. The Saudis, the Israelis of the Jewish State, the Turks and the always-ready Neocons tried very, very, very hard to murder Syria and prince Salami is only one of the many disgusting criminals who struggled oh-so-hard to make it happen. It appears that Syria may survive now but it’s going to be seriously hurt and amputated. There will be no peace in the Middle East for as long as the despots of Saudi Arabia stay in power and the apartheid Jewish State exists in its current form.
@TheIntercept: Why exactly did this take 4 years for this to come out?
Snowden gave you this material in 2013. Was this not news worthy enough in 2014, 2015, or 2016?
They had to wait long enough so that they could couple the actual news (Salman directing some rebels in Syria and U.S knows it) with a long-winded narrative that’s redundant to every reader that’s been awake the past 6 years.
An interesting query!
It is understandable that Pentagon and Saudis would not want this to come out because it would undermine the “sales job” they were doing in order to convince Americans that “night was day”!
Unfortunately, in the theater of Syria, fiction has already won and all the facts this late in the game will have minimal impact.
Apparently the news shouldn’t interfere with … the news, eh?
I dunno, I never trusted Snowden, I’m skeptical of this narrative of Saudi Arabia as the good guys, and a couple of powerpoint slides don’t have the ring of hard evidence to my eyes. Do I care? I say leave the Middle East to kill its own unattended, and if we’re not competent to build our own solar panels then budget to buy them from the Chinese with the leftover money, and (though being careful and demanding glasnost) don’t let the anti-fracking hype get so far afield of reality that we don’t have oil from here, let Trump’s people enact some immigration limits if they insist, and just freaking forget about it. The lives of the pirate-worshippers will never be anything but nasty, brutish, and short, but we don’t have to be responsible.
I believe that attribution for the Ghouta attack remains inconclusive, no?
Ah, but the writer and editors cleverly left an out for themselves by tagging on “according to the U.S.” to the statement about the Ghouta attack. Allowing the statement to remain unchallenged. Which is a propaganda tactic.
In reality, chances are very high that the chemical attack was launched by anti-Assad forces supplied with chemical agents via Turkey, possibly leading back to stocks that Gaddafi had held onto, and which were transferred to Syria via the covert CIA operation run out of Benghazi in 2012 before the official green light was given by Obama to feed arms and money and foreign fighters to every Islamic jihadi outfit in Syria.
It’s as though Murtaza has chosen to studiously ignore, or somehow altogether miraculously missed the widely read published analysis by Dr. Theodore Postol which strongly suggests that this event was most likely staged by forces in opposition to the regime.
Exactly! That bit is propaganda as written, no doubt.
That is to put it very mildly. There is no evidence and less likelihood that the government of Syria undertook this “attack” which serves the purposes-at the cost of a mere couple of hundred lives (nothing to the masters of massacres in Iraq, Libya and elsewhere)- of the Imperial regime in Washington.
Laughable that those like Summers who live off these kinds of wars are reduced to citing the ‘evidence’ adduced by bellingcat in contradiction of Hersh and the many who agree with his conclusions.
No serious observer believes that the matter of Ghoutta is anything more or less than an historically sordid false flag provocation.