Protesters instigated the conflict and fired the first shots. Here is a credible witness, Late Father Frans in Homs, who was later kidnapped and murdered by terrorists. http://www.globalresearch.ca/eyewit...tigated-and-paid-by-foreign-interests/5378784
This is so ridiculous it is almost painful. "Who doesn't fire on protesters ?" Every year we have peaceful protesters killed by Israel in Palestine. Have you never heard of "Tianamen Square" in China ? Have you never heard the Neil Young song lyrics "Four dead in Ohio" ? This was not the first time the US has fired on protesters. No kidding ! It is incredibly dense to think that a Government firing on protestors is justification to invade that nation. It also takes a fair degree of denseness not to realize that the Pentagon and US mass media is a lying propaganda machine. How many examples would you like ?
On May 6 of last year, former Swiss attorney-general Carla Del Ponte, speaking for the United Nations independent commission of inquiry on Syria, ruffled many feathers when she said, 'there are strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof of the use of sarin gas, from the way the victims were treated. This was use on the part of the opposition, the rebels, not by the government authorities'. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/05/us-syria-crisis-un-idUSBRE94409Z20130505 Del Ponte added: 'We have no indication at all that the Syrian government have used chemical weapons.' A report on Syria's August 21, 2013 gas attacks was written by two authentically credible figures, Richard Lloyd and Theodore Postol. Lloyd is a former United Nations weapons inspector who in two decades at Raytheon, a top military contractor, wrote two books on warhead design. He has written a critique of the Israeli Iron Dome anti-missile system for engineers and weapons designers. In March 2013, the New York Times noted that Lloyd 'has the credentials for a critique'. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/21/w...dome-system-is-at-center-of-debate.html?_r=1& Postol is a professor and national security expert in MIT's Program in Science, Technology and Society. In 1995 he received the Hilliard Roderick Prize from the American Association for the Advancement of Science and in 2001 he received the Norbert Wiener Award from Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility 'for uncovering numerous and important false claims about missile defenses'. http://web.mit.edu/sts/people/postol.html Postol has a proven track record in, for example, debunking Pentagon claims on the success of its Patriot missile system. http://medialens.org/index.php/aler...n-iron-dome-israel-trident-and-the-media.html In September 2013, the New York Times described Lloyd and Postol as 'leading weapons experts'. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/05/w...carried-large-payload-of-gas-experts-say.html Their January 14 report titled, 'Possible Implications of Faulty U.S. Technical Intelligence,' examines US government claims regarding the August 21 chemical weapons attacks in Damascus. The report finds that the range of the rocket that delivered sarin in the largest attack that night was too short for the device to have been fired from Syrian government positions, as claimed by the Obama administration. Using mathematical projections about the likely force of the rocket – which has been variously described as 'a trash can on a stick' and 'a soup can' – Lloyd and Postol conclude that the device likely had a maximum range of 2 kilometres, or just more than 1.2 miles. The 'trash can' was not capable of flying the 6 miles from the centre of the Syrian government-controlled part of Damascus to the point of impact in the suburbs, as claimed by the US government, nor even the 3.6 miles from the edges of government-controlled territory. Lloyd and Postol comment in their report: 'This indicates that these munitions could not possibly have been fired at east Ghouta from the "heart" or the eastern edge of the Syrian Government controlled area depicted in the intelligence map published by the White House on August 30, 2013. 'This faulty intelligence could have led to an unjustified US military action based on false intelligence. 'A proper vetting of the fact that the munition was of such short range would have led to a completely different assessment of the situation from the gathered data.' https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documen...possible-implications-of-bad-intelligence.pdf Postol adds: 'I honestly have no idea what happened. My view when I started this process was that it couldn't be anything but the Syrian government behind the attack. But now I'm not sure of anything. The administration narrative was not even close to reality. Our intelligence cannot possibly be correct.' http://www.star-telegram.com/2014/01/15/5488779/new-analysis-of-rocket-used-in.html?rh=1 Lloyd, who has carefully studied weapons capabilities in the Syrian conflict, rejects the claim that rebels are less capable of making these rockets than the Syrian military: 'The Syrian rebels most definitely have the ability to make these weapons. I think they might have more ability than the Syrian government.' http://www.star-telegram.com/2014/01/15/5488779/new-analysis-of-rocket-used-in.html?rh=1 Lloyd and Postol have made clear that they are not arguing that the rebels were behind the attack, but instead pointing to the flawed assessments behind US claims. As far as I am aware, Lloyd and Postol's report has not been mentioned in any UK newspaper. As Craig Murray, formerly Britain's Ambassador to Uzbekistan, noted, corporate media are supplying 'an extraordinary barrage of distorted propaganda to fool western populations over the course and meaning of events'. http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2013/05/killing-syrians-a-game-anyone-can-play/
You will also love this. Who is in the above photo? "Moderate" FSA General, Jabhat Al Nusra (Al Qaeda) commander, and wait for this, an ISIS leader of Afghan descent!!!! and who is in the below photo? The very same FSA commander with U.S. Ambassador to Syria Robert Ford! Why are they all together smiling in August 2013? To celebrate the takeover of a major Menagh Airbase in Aleppo, of course! All smiles between FSA / JAN / ISIS back then. Now let me surprise you, the same FSA general in the middle is now in Turkey meeting with American officials asking for arms and financial support. [video=youtube;qCDTuGvljpY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCDTuGvljpY[/video] Now can any normal person say that American policy in Syria is not downright criminal?
Thanks for taking time out to post that very important information that our media bury. I was aware of that particular story but it's significant enough for others to ponder on. What we are witnessing is the same kind of propaganda, selective and distorted censored information, usually by omission that was complicit in leading to regime change in Iraq. If corporate media performance on Iraq was shocking, the response to Syria is made worse precisely because the lessons from Iraq could hardly be more obvious. Despite this, and despite the clear need for scepticism regarding claims made about a Syrian government also being targeted by the West, the cartoonist Steve Bell – respected as a rare radical voice at the Guardian - produced a cartoon in response to a report commissioned by the Qatari government claiming that the Syrian government had 'systematically tortured and executed about 11,000 detainees since the start of the uprising'. You might recall the cartoon in question. This is the cartoon: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cartoon/2014/jan/22/steve-bell-evidence-killing-syria And this is the report: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-25822571 The cartoon suggests, not only that Syrian president Assad is personally responsible for the mass torture and deaths, but that he is proud of them. This demonisation of an Official Enemy recalls the crude state propaganda of the First World War. Consider the source of the claims depicted in Bell's cartoon. The Guardian reports that Qatar 'has played a major role arming the rebels seeking to overthrow Bashar al-Assad', having played 'a central role in extending support to the Libyan rebels fighting to overthrow Muammar Gaddafi'. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/24/qatar-emir-steps-down-son-tamim Noam Chomsky notes that arms have been 'flown in [to Syria] from Qatar by the CIA'. Indeed, Qatar has close military ties to the US and UK, with forces armed and trained by the West. Qatar contains the principle overseas headquarters of the US military's Central Command (CENTCOM) and was a key staging ground for the invasion of Iraq. In 2012, the US State Department reported that arms totalling $1.7 billion had been approved to Qatar in the previous fiscal year. http://www.publicintegrity.org/2012...-finger-and-arms-exports-human-rights-abusers Qatar has long been a dictatorship, an absolute monarchy - political parties are forbidden and there is no independent legislature. Amnesty International recently described how the authorities 'maintain strict control on freedom of expression'. New cases of torture recently emerged in a country where migrant workers are 'exploited, abused and inadequately protected under the law'. https://www.amnesty.org/en/region/qatar/report-2013#section-121-2 Craig Murray, the former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan, put the cartoon, and much other media performance, in perspective: 'But whether 11,000 people really were murdered in a single detainee camp I am unsure. What I do know is that the BBC presentation of today's report has been a disgrace. The report was commissioned by the government of Qatar who commissioned Carter Ruck to do it. Both those organisations are infamous suppressors of free speech. What is reprehensible is that the BBC are presenting the report as though it were produced by neutral experts, whereas the opposite is the case. It is produced not by anti torture campaigners or by human rights activists, but by lawyers who are doing it purely and simply because they are being paid to do it.' Murray added in a comment beneath his article: 'It is plain the intention of the commissioners of the report is not to investigate atrocities in Syria, but to push again for Western military intervention. Part of a strategy which will next involve a staged breakdown of the Geneva talks.' http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2014/01/syria-and-diplomacy/ The report was headline and front page news on BBC TV, radio and website, and was given massive coverage across the media. It was accepted - with rare caveats vaguely noting that Qatar 'supports' the 'rebels' - at face value.
The Muslims needs to wake up. Blood thirst, love of weapons, hating all that are different and blind revenge is what consumes that country and many others. OP does not show any difference of thought, the same mind set leads to the same results. Wake up, Jihad is an idiotic deadly concept, fix your religion or leave it. There is still hope of fixing Islam the same way protestants have removed most of the problematic elements in Christianity to build the modern society that allow current days thriving of humanity.
A lot of countries don't fire on protesters actually. I didn't say that And? So? I never said that either Can you read? That's not my concern as I don't live in the US and I don't source my news from there either. - - - Updated - - - It doesn't matter whether shots were fired from the crowd or not. You don't shoot into the crowd.
Excuse me! You won't accept any source except for the ridiculous piece you posted which is full of errors and extremely dubious to say the least I've asked repeatedly just even to get that from you. And all this is so that you can perpetuate this ridiculous idea that the west is behind everything that happens in the world. Believe it or not people are actually capable of doing things for themselves. We are done here. I do not wish to converse with you other children.
No she hasn't. She said that there is a strong suspicion but not confirmed or conclusive proof. You do speak English don't you? I'll ask you the same question. That's not a protest. That's a mob If you were following what I was writing you'll know that I was referring to the protest in February and March No wonder you're losing the war.
I agree 100% that extremist Islam is a plague on Society but I will go further. You talk about "fixing" religion. I agree 100%. The question then becomes "what to fix" What is the ideology that results in so many of Islam, and from cultures all over the world (so this is not restricted to one group of Muslims) go rogue ? These are folks living in France, England, Canada, US on and on .. leaving their home countries to sacrifice their lives for a cause. Obviously they believe in that cause. It is not like all these people are just waking up in the morning one day and deciding to do this. These folks have been indoctrinated into some kind of ideology that, at least in their minds, justifies what there actions. I will not get much into the specifics of how mind control works but I can if you like. You have seen folks in cults do the same thing and there is a method to that madness. I will however tell you what the dangerous ideology is that sets the stage for this madness. You take a young child, (or adult for that matter ) and tell them that if they do not believe in doctrines derived in some holy Book they will suffer the most horrible torture the mind can imagine in the afterlife. Not only will they suffer torture in the afterlife, it will be for an eternity. For ever and ever and ever. If the child (or youth or adult) internalizes or adopts it has a real impact on their subconscious and will affect their thoughts and actions. Step 2: Some religious or messianic leader then teaches that if one questions "the Book" one is in danger of hell. Soon this becomes if one questions the dogma created by humans "about that book" one will be in danger of hell. The adherent then develops subconscious defense mechanisms that kick in they come across information that questions or contradicts cult doctrine. Denial or demonization of the messenger are common ones. Step 3: Ramp up the fear factor. The religious leader then paints a black vs white, good vs evil, God vs Devil paradigm. Religious Dogma is "Good", anything that contradicts this doctrine is "Evil". Those that question or do not agree are demonized "in league with the Devil". Adherents are taught that "Satan is around every corner trying to trick you". Spiritual warfare is going on so you better watch out. I am sure you can come up with numerous examples of your own. Folks are taught to worry not about this life but to focus on the some reward in the afterlife. One these beliefs are in place it is a short step towards Jihad. A foreign threat is then framed in terms of this Good vs Evil, God vs Satan paradigm. Anyone who is "not one of us" is then dehumanized as one of Satan's minions. Anyone who questions, or God forbid draws a cartoon making fun of a prophet, is against God. Acting out against such people, including killing them is then Gods will. Killing "unbelievers" is then justified in the name of God. These dangerous ideologies provide the platform and the incubatory stage. Good lucking getting folks to address Steps 1-3. It is only the last phase of the disease that is addressed and not the cause of the disease.
Sounded to me that you were trying to justify supporting a war against Syria. My apologies if I took your words out of context.
Losing the war? What makes you think we are losing? We took Homs back. Damascus is safer than ever. Aleppo is now under total siege. Qalamoun and border with Lebanon 100% under army control. Army making progress in Latakia and Hama. You call that losing? The terrorists and their supporters are facing a harsh cold winter with no supplies and backup. We will have a siege on them for 3 months and in spring 2015 we move in and crush them like flies. Damascus, Homs, Qalamoun, hamah, Latakia will be 100% under army control!
And a lot of countries do fire on protesters and even gas them, yet not a word is mentioned in the corporate medias...Turkey for one. Now don't you find it strange that Assad was demonized for firing on protesters, and Yanukovich was warned not to fire on protesters even though police were being beaten and were being set on fire, yet when Poroshenko began bombing and killing peaceful protesters, not one word was being said by either Obama, Kerry or the corporate media? By the same reasoning, why did Kerry say that he would not recognize the election in Syria, even though it was watched over by international observers with the excuse that there was a war going on, yet in Ukraine where there is a war going on it was recognized by Kerry, even though part of the country is not represented? Don't you find these double standards highly suspicious? I do!
When a crime is committed the first thing a detective looks for is the motive and the means. Assad had no motive to use chemical weapons since he was winning the battle, while the jihadists knew that the only way they could defeat Assad's troops was to have them bombed by the U.S., so they were the ones with the motive. Also why would Assad use chemical weapons when the UN inspectors were only a few miles a way, checking to see if chemical weapons had been used? Assad invited them in to prove that chemical weapons were never used, so why would he put a noose around his own neck by using them when they were there? It's not logical, it's only the kind of stupidity that Obama and Kerry would dream up. The whole thing was preposterous, and the Pulitzer Prize winning investigative reporter Seymour Hersch proved that the chemicals were supplied by the MIT Turkish Intelligence and the attack was implemented by the jihadists. Every major publication in the U.S. refused to publish his report, and he had to go to London to get it published.
Syrian Army, led by legendary General Issam Zahreddine, crossed the Euphrates river to capture Saqer Island from ISIS in Deir Ez Zor. Several ISIS cockroaches captured. Lets hope the Syrian Army has invented a few new torture techniques to send these savage ISIS to hell in as much pain as possible. [video=youtube;BiQw32vvcyA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiQw32vvcyA[/video]
Why do you supposed such hideous violence has broken out in Syria? It has lasted so long and been so horrific. Does Syria have any system in place for resolving disputes or reforming government or getting a consensus of opinion from the citizens? Is there any sort of Shura Council or Majlis that participates in government?
Last summer, Syria was defeating ISIS. That's why ISIS went to Iraq - for easier pickings. But now the progress of the Syrians against ISIS has slowed to a crawl. Just a few local successes such as shown in Post #142. Has ISIS gotten stronger or has Assad weakened?
Massacre of the 17th division and the loss of Raqqa. It highlighted the fact that the Syrian army was unable to reinforce not to mention relieve then as well as adequately supply the division. By Sun Tzu's definition that is a loss. Even the fact that Syria's army can't even send men to Kobane of it's borders is a clear sign of the lack of control. It's also evident that the Syrian air force is running out of ordnance to drop. And the corps of professional troops has been vastly reduced and with an entire country that will have to be garrisoned that means that the Army will stretched wafer thin. The rebels as well as other groups however don't suffer from a supply of willing volunteers as well as fanatics. They also receive large amounts of funds and weaponry easily secured from private weapons dealers and even from foreign governments. And of course ISIS have moved all their looted equipment and tanks as well as SPG's to Syria. What was taken back was rubble and ruined cities from guerilla armies which have the option of melting into the countryside or even the local populace. If Damascus fell then it would have been game over. Yes I do. Because at best case it's a pyrrhic victory considering the damage done to Syria and the resentment that will follow from people that will have nothing when they come back. Bad idea to release such plans on a public domain. And considering Syria can't control her border they will obtain supplies irrespective of the winter. I suggest that you familiarise yourself with guerilla warfare and counter insurgency if you really want to accurately gauge the situation.
If that was the basis for a case then it would be thrown out. And Assad did have the means or at least the army did. That's a long shot. So? The UN investigators didn't investigate Ghouta for the purpose of finding the instigator only to find out if chemical weapons were used. Also I would be very critical of Assad if he knew that both the launchers and rockets were captured or otherwise unaccounted for whilst at the same time invited the UN to investigate his chemical weapons. That's extremely dubious as the Syrian army did posses chemical weapons as well as the launchers before the war.
Yes they are mentioned. If you were aware of the context that comment then you would know I was making the point that free societies don't murder their citizens for protesting. This topic isn't actually about the Ukraine as I've had to make clear to another poster. But in answer to your query: We don't get the sloppy and amateurish US news media in my country. That's reasonable As I said this isn't about the Ukraine.
17th division was surrounded for over 16 months by ISIS in an isolated Raqqah desert. 80% of Syrian soldiers made it out and were rescued by the Kurds. Capture of 17th division base meant nothing because the personnel there were not engaged in any offensive actions in Raqqah. They were under siege. Why would Syrian Army send men to Kobane? That is a Kurdish area and they have plenty of fighters there. Syrian Army will not send troops to isolated areas with no supplies. We are focusing on Damascus, Aleppo, Homs, Hamah and Latakia. You understand that? We will rebuild the cities we capture from Al Qaeda. Construction begins immediately after a city is recaptured. Rebuilding in Homs. Some neighborhoods that were captured in Homs in early 2013 are already 100% rebuilt and people are living there!
The piece I posted wasn't ridiculous at all and, contrary to your claims, it was fully referenced with links. The bottom line is this: You uncritically accept the narrative of pro Western establishment propaganda organs like the BBC. I don't. I notice you've conveniently side-stepped the issues I raised in posts 128 and 130. Anyone objectively analysing the facts contained within the said posts cannot arrive at any other conclusion than to accept that in relation to the reportage on Syria, the coverage of organs like the BBC and the Guardian have been, and continue to be, an utter disgrace. Despite the fact, as my posts make clear, there is no evidence that Assad had used chemical weapons on his own people, it continues to be reported as fact that he almost certainly did. Take The Guardian's Owen Jones, for example. This is what Jones said in his latest book, 'The Establishment And How They Get Away With It'.: "In the summer of 2013, hundreds of Syrian civilians were gassed to death, almost certainly by regime forces." (pp.692-693). No evidence is presented for this strongly contested claim. Libya and Syria are awkward issues for a journalist openly reluctant to criticise his employers - both the Guardian and Independent have worked hard to promote the idea that the West has a 'responsibility to protect' people in these countries. Please read and consider very carefully this brilliant dissection of the BBCs propaganda blitz on Syria: http://bbcpanoramasavingsyriaschildren.wordpress.com/ The BBC documentary in question was broadcast at the time when the security establishment were trying to propel us into war against Assad, before they decided it was just as profitable to have a war against Assads enemies. For the security establishment and arms industry, any dream will do. My own opinion is that there was a genuine attack, but that the coverage of it was deliberately enhanced and exaggerated. The smoking gun remains the two versions of the soundtrack of Dr Hallams live interview. The failure to acknowledge that the charity featured is directly linked to one of the fighting rebel factions is less spectacular than some of the other possible fabrications, but in itself an appalling dereliction of journalistic integrity. It is vital to remember the context. This massive propaganda broadcast, entitled Saving Syrias Children, was put out by the BBC just before the crucial vote by the Commons on the governments request to go to war with Syria, in order to save Syrian civilians. Please do read the main page and I do urge you and everybody else to follow all the links through because this is very, very important. If the above has not yet convinced you of what millions of people have long ago awoken to, namely, that on the key issues, the BBC is purely an organ of state propaganda, then nothing will. The BBC is often picked out for special criticism because the nature of its propaganda is particularly pernicious. You see, unlike most other media, the BBC is not owned - no gimlet-eyed media mogul is either available, or required, to pressure it's journalists to obey rules that are perfectly understood for all that they are unwritten. George Orwell grasped this only too well having dismissed the tendency for media self-criticism to be restricted on a laser-like focus on mogul-owned media as a liberal herring. He wrote: "Circus dogs jump when the trainer cracks his whip. But the really well-trained dog is the one that turns his somersault when there is no whip." (Orwell, 'As I Please', Tribune, 1944). No boss is required. In the Owen Jones book I referred to above, Jones mentions the large number of privately educated journalists, the filtering out of less well-off applicants, the revolving door between media and politics, and the lack of female and minority ethnic journalists. But key issues of structural corporate media corruption are not even mentioned. This is typical of journalistic critique in general. Orwell wrote: "Is the English press honest or dishonest? At normal times it is deeply dishonest. All the papers that matter live off their advertisements, and the advertisers exercise an indirect censorship over news." http://orwell.ru/library/essays/lion/english/e_eye About this crucial problem of media dependency on advertising - a non-mogul related problem that applies every bit as much to the Guardian as it does to the Tory and tabloid press - the Owen Jones's of this world have literally nothing to say. Compare Jones's media analysis with that of Edward Herman, co-author with Noam Chomsky of the classic text, 'Manufacturing Consent': "The dominant media are firmly imbedded in the market system. They are profit-seeking businesses, owned by very wealthy people (or other companies); they are funded largely by advertisers who are also profit-seeking entities, and who want their ads to appear in a supportive selling environment. The media are also dependent on government and major business firms as information sources, and both efficiency and political considerations, and frequently overlapping interests, cause a certain degree of solidarity to prevail among the government, major media, and other corporate businesses. "Government and large non-media business firms are also best positioned (and sufficiently wealthy) to be able to pressure the media with threats of withdrawal of advertising or TV licenses, libel suits, and other direct and indirect modes of attack. The media are also constrained by the dominant ideology, which heavily featured anticommunism before and during the Cold War era, and was mobilized often to prevent the media from criticizing attacks on small states labelled communist. "These factors are linked together, reflecting the multi-levelled capability of powerful business and government entities and collectives (e.g., the Business Roundtable; U.S. Chamber of Commerce; industry lobbies and front groups) to exert power over the flow of information." (Herman, 'The Propaganda Model Revisited,' Monthly Review, July 1996). Media ownership is obviously just one of a range of internal and external pressures generating media conformity. Andrew MacGregor Marshall, the former head of the Reuters bureau in Iraq, adds some detail: "So I think that there is tendency for the Western media to claim that it is neutral and unbiased, when in fact it's clearly propagating a one-sided, quite nationalistic and selfish view of its own interventions in these countries... If you want to accuse the US military of an atrocity, you have to make sure that every last element of your story is absolutely accurate, because if you make one mistake, you will be vilified and your career will be over. And we have seen that happen to some people in recent years. But if you want to say that some group of militants in Yemen or Afghanistan or Iraq have committed an atrocity, your story might be completely wrong, but nobody will vilify you and nobody will ever really check it out." http://rt.com/op-edge/185360-reuters-chief-iraq-useless/ About these deep structural problems compromising the corporate media system, journalists like Jones, again, have little or nothing to say. They often communicate the message that the problem is not with profit-oriented corporate media, like the Guardian, reporting on a world dominated by corporations, but with mogul-owned media distorted by wealthy individuals.
It was extremely ridiculous. Because of the supposition of the statements and one of the few references that it did have actually came from the Guardian a newspaper which I presented as my evidence which you quite simply refused to accept. Double standards. No I didn't as I made blatantly clear to Syriangirl. And quite frankly I've given up on you because of your duplicity and sheer unfairness. You yourself posted links from the Guardian. I never even raised that issue myself nor did I base my opinions based the Ghouta chemical attack. For the final time if you cannot behave like an adult then I will have nothing to do with you. It's that simple. Everyone is entitled to a point of view as long as it's done respectfully.
