Het
reguliere Syrische leger en Russische troepen zouden optrekken richting het
laatste gebied dat wordt beheerst door terreurgroepen, groepen die media en
politici in het westen eufemistisch ‘gematigde rebellen’ noemen…..
Althans tot voor kort, in het hieronder opgenomen artikel, eerder gepubliceerd op Zero Hedge, bericht
Tyler Durden over GB dat haar steun aan deze ‘gematigde rebellen’, alweer een onderafdeling van Al Qaida, heeft opgezegd.
Zoals
gezegd ook de reguliere media beginnen langzaam maar zeker met andere
woorden over deze terreurgroepen te schrijven, al zal het nog heel
wat tijd kosten voordat de massamedia hun toon zullen aanpassen….
Niet zo vreemd, immers daarmee geven die media organen aan dat ze in
feite vanaf het begin fout bezig zijn geweest en ‘fake news’ hebben gebracht.
Durden heeft het in het hieronder opgenomen artikel, volgens mij bij het verkeerde eind als hij stelt dat de Syrische provincie Idlib het laatste door terreurgroepen beheerst gebied is, immers in door de VS gecontroleerd gebied in het oosten van Syrië, worden terroristen van IS gedoogd en zelfs verdedigd door de VS*, mocht het Syrische leger een aanval inzetten (al is dit wel een andere situatie dan die in Idlib).
UK
Finally Ditches ‘Moderate’ Syrian Rebels Ahead of Idlib Battle
(ZHE Op-ed) — CNN
warns that Syrian and Russian forces are
closing in on the “last
rebel stronghold” in Syria while characteristically
failing to inform its readers that the “rebel” coalition in
control of the northwest pocket of Idlib is but the latest
incarnation of al-Qaeda, calling itself Hay’at
Tahrir al-Sham.
With
the final major battle looming which could mark the ultimate end and
final chapter to the war, the
Western public is about to be subjected to a final end-all media
onslaught of “the last hospital” and “the last school” and
“the last humanitarian rescuers” type
stories similar to how
the media presented the battle for Aleppo in 2016.
Starting
this past weekend, the refrain started: “Humanitarian
groups fear a ‘bloodbath’ as
Assad looks to press the advantage and wipe out the last pockets
of resistance,” as NBC reported,
which was echoed across a dozen other outlets.
There’s
now even an Idlib version of “Bana” that
popped up on twitter only a month ago. Six-year old “Hala”
supposedly set up an account to
publish awareness videos telling the world to keep their “eyes on
Idlib” ahead of Assad’s impending military campaign.
However,
there are some few outlets out there that recently decided to
finally drop the worn out transparent charade of “moderate rebels”
and simply call Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham for what it is. Business
Insider,
for example, accurately
labels Hay’at
Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) a terrorist
group in
some of their recent headlines, and has
called the
al-Qaeda affiliate, “the
next ISIS”.
But
it appears that HTS is set to be wiped about before fully
establishing control as the
next ISIS as
Syrian government ground forces and the Russian Air Force have
already begun eroding their perimeters, which had been established
when al-Qaeda first took Idlib city and much of the surrounding
province in 2015, with US and UK coalition help.
Over
the past days and weeks,massive
Syrian troop and heavy armor deployments have been seen amassing
outside the al-Qaeda held province,
poised for a final offensive. This after Syria’s southern
Daraa and Quneitra provinces were liberated in a mere matter of
weeks.
But
perhaps the greatest sign that the writing is on the wall for
Syria’s “the last rebel stronghold” (to repeat CNN’s
words),
there are new
reports that Britain has cut off its longtime support to the
“moderate rebels” it
has for years throughout the war funded and armed.
The
UK government is to end funding to a scheme to support the Syrian
opposition,
deeming the programmes now too risky to operate as the final
rebel-held areas face imminent attack from Bashar al-Assad’s
forces….
While
humanitarian support will continue, the ending of this governance
programme is highly symbolic, suggesting
Britain has accepted that the Syrian opposition, which it has backed
since the early days of the civil war in 2012 to 2013, is facing
imminent defeat from a combination of Syrian regime forces and
Russian airstrikes.
On
Monday a UK government spokesperson confirmed the following: “As
the situation on the ground in some regions has become increasingly
difficult we
have reduced support for some of our non-humanitarian programming,
but continue to deliver vital support to help those most in need and
to improve security and stability in the country,” according
to Reuters.
This
is in essence the
UK finally admitting its side has lost— though
we should note its “humanitarian funding” will continue to flow
to controversial groups like the ‘White Helmets’, who have long
been proven to
work in tandem with al-Qaeda.
Naar aanleiding van een eerder artikel van Caitlin Johnstone*, waarin ze op de nieuwe beschuldigingen aan het adres van Rusland ingaat en terecht wijst op het feit dat deze beschuldigingen wel heel toevallig net voor de top tussen Putin en Trump werden gepubliceerd, heeft ze het hieronder opgenomen artikel geschreven.
Men kan er maar geen genoeg van krijgen in de VS (en de rest van het westen): Rusland demoniseren op basis van… Ja, waarvan? ‘Simpel’: op basis van bewijzen die helaas voor iedereen geheim moeten blijven……** ha! ha! ha! ha! Nu zouden 12 Russische officieren de computers van Clinton (of eigenlijk van haar rechterhand Podesta) hebben gehackt en documenten hebben doorgespeeld aan Wikileaks……. Zoals de ‘overtuigende bewijsvoering’ bij de eerdere beschuldigingen aan het adres van Rusland, ook daar mochten we niet weten wat die ‘bewijzen’ zijn en waaruit de ‘overtuigende bewijsvoering’ is opgebouwd……
Caitlin Johnstone geeft in het hierna opgenomen artikel aan welke 5 feiten voor haar voldoende zouden zijn om op de ‘Russische-hysterie trein’ van de VS te springen…….
Feilloos geeft Johnstone aan waar de schoen wringt, al moet ik zeggen dat er nog wel meer redenen zijn waarom deze door de geheime diensten van de VS, met hulp van de democraten en de reguliere media gefabriceerde Rusland-hysterietotaal ongeloofwaardig is. (zelfs Nederland is aangestoken…. ha! ha! ha! ha! Als je gelooft dat Rusland zelfs maar moeite zou doen om de boel hier te beïnvloeden, ben je echt voor eeuwig de weg kwijt! Vanmorgen werd toevallig gemeld dat 900 retweets van een ‘Russische trollenfabriek’ [ha! ha! ha!] met racistisch commentaar hier de boel negatief zou hebben beïnvloed…… ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! Knettergek!!)
Terecht wijst Johnstone overigens op het feit dat uit overheidsdata blijkt dat de VS zelf van 1946 tot het jaar 2000 in 81 landen de verkiezingen heeft gemanipuleerd, zelfs in Rusland, een publiek feit….. Zo bezien kan de VS als wraak van die landen nog wel een 70 tal verkiezingsmanipulaties verzinnen………
Bovendien, als er nu één ding is waar de geheime diensten van de VS (en intussen ook de massamedia) goed in zijn, is het wel in glashard liegen, zo merkt Johnstone alweer volkomen terecht op.
Five Things That Would Make The CIA/CNN Russia Narrative More Believable
As we just discussed, some major news stories have recently dropped about what a horrible horrifying menace the Russian Federation is to the world, and as always I have nothing to offer the breathless pundits on CNN and MSNBC but my completely unsatisfied skepticism. My skepticism of the official Russia narrative remains so completely unsatisfied that if mainstream media were my husband I would already be cheating on it with my yoga instructor.
I do not believe the establishment Russia narrative. I do not believe that Donald Trump colluded with the Russian government to rig the 2016 election. I do not believe the Russian government did any election rigging for Trump to collude with. This is not because I believe Vladimir Putin is some kind of blueberry-picking girl scout, and it certainly isn’t because I think the Russian government is unwilling or incapable of meddling in the affairs of other nations to some extent when it suits them. It is simply because I am aware that the US intelligence community lies constantly as a matter of policy, and because I understand how the burden of proof works.
At this time, I see no reason to espouse any belief system which embraces as true the assertion that Russia meddled in the 2016 elections in any meaningful way, or that it presents a unique and urgent threat to the world which must be aggressively dealt with. But all the establishment mouthpieces tell me that I must necessarily embrace these assertions as known, irrefutable fact. Here are five things that would have to change in order for that to happen:
In most cases, it’s so basic that unproven allegations by a prosecutor in an indictment shouldn’t be accepted as true one need not even point it out. In this case, pointing it out will be seen as blasphemy. Everyone should want to see the evidence on which the claims are based:
The first step to getting a heretic like myself aboard the Russia hysteria train would be the existence of publicly available evidence of the claims made about election meddling in 2016, which rises to the level required in a post-Iraq invasion world. So far, that burden of proof for Russian hacking allegations has not come anywhere remotely close to being met.
How much proof would I need to lend my voice to the escalation of tensions between two nuclear superpowers? Mountains. I personally would settle for nothing less than hard proof which can be independently verified by trusted experts like the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity.
Is that a big ask? Yes. Yes it is. That’s what happens when government institutions completely discredit themselves as they did with the false narratives advanced in the manufacturing of support for the Iraq invasion. You don’t get to butcher a million Iraqis in a war based on lies, turn around a few years later and say “We need new cold war escalations with a nuclear superpower but we can’t prove it because the evidence is secret.” That’s not a thing. Copious amounts of hard, verifiable proof or GTFO***. So far we have no evidence besides the confident-sounding assertions of government insiders and their mass media mouthpieces, which is the same as no evidence.
2. Proof that election meddling actually influenced the election in a meaningful way.
Even if Russian hackers did exfiltrate Democratic party emails and give them to WikiLeaks, if it didn’t affect the election, who cares? That’s a single-day, second-page story at best, meriting nothing beyond a “Hmm, interesting, turns out Russia tried and failed to influence the US election,” followed by a shrug and moving on to something that actually matters.
After it has been thoroughly proven that Russia meddled in the elections in a meaningful way, it must then be established that that meddling had an actual impact on the election results.
3. Some reason to believe Russian election meddling was unwarranted and unacceptable.
The US government, by a very wide margin, interferes in the elections of other countries far, far more than any other government on earth does. The US government’s own data shows that it has deliberately meddled in the elections of 81 foreign governments between 1946 and 2000, including Russia in the nineties. This is public knowledge. A former CIA Director cracked jokes about it on Fox News earlier this year.
If I’m going to abandon my skepticism and accept the Gospel According to Maddow****, after meaningful, concrete election interference has been clearly established I’m going to need a very convincing reason to believe that it is somehow wrong or improper for a government to attempt to respond in kind to the undisputed single worst offender of this exact offense. It makes no sense for the United States to actively create an environment in which election interference is something that governments do to one another, and then cry like a spanked child when its election is interfered with by one of the very governments whose elections the US recently meddled in.
This is nonsense. America being far and away the worst election meddler on the planet makes it a fair target for election meddling by not just Russia, but every country in the world. It is very obviously moral and acceptable for any government on earth to interfere in America’s elections as long as it remains the world’s worst offender in that area. In order for Russia to be in the wrong if it interfered in America’s elections, some very convincing argument I’ve not yet heard will have to be made to support that case.
4. Proof that the election meddling went beyond simply giving Americans access to information about their government.
If all the Russians did was simply show Americans emails of Democratic Party officials talking to one another and circulate some MSM articles as claimed in the ridiculous Russian troll farm allegations, that’s nothing to get upset about. If anything, Americans should be upset that they had to hear about Democratic Party corruption through the grapevine instead of having light shed on it by the American officials whose job it is to do so. Complaints about election meddling is only valid if that election meddling isn’t comprised of truth and facts.
5. A valid reason to believe escalated tensions between two nuclear superpowers are worthwhile.
After it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Russia did indeed meddle in the US elections in a meaningful way, and after it has then been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Russia actually influenced election results in a significant way, and after the case has been clearly made that it was bad and wrong for Russia to do this instead of fair and reasonable, and after it has been clearly proven that the election meddling went beyond simply telling Americans the truth about their government, the question then becomes what, if anything, should be done about it?
If you look at the actions that this administration has taken over the last year and a half, the answer to that question appears to be harsh sanctions, NATO expansionism, selling arms to Ukraine, throwing out diplomats, increasing military presence along Russia’s border, a Nuclear Posture Review which is much more aggressive toward Russia, repeatedly bombing Syria, and just generally creating more and more opportunities for something to go catastrophically wrong with one of the two nations’ aging, outdated nuclear arsenals, setting off a chain of events from which there is no turning back and no surviving.
And the pundits and politicians keep pushing for more and more escalations, at this very moment braying with one voice that Trump must aggressively confront Putin about Mueller’s indictments or withdraw from the peace talks. But is it worth it? Is it worth risking the life of every terrestrial organism to, what? What specifically would be gained that makes increasing the risk of nuclear catastrophe worthwhile? Making sure nobody interferes in America’s fake elections? I’d need to see a very clear and specific case made, with a ‘pros’ and ‘cons’ list and “THE POTENTIAL DEATH OF LITERALLY EVERYTHING” written in big red letters at the top of the ‘cons’ column.
Rallying the world to cut off Russia from the world stage and cripple its economy has been been a goal of the US power establishment since the collapse of the Soviet Union, so there’s no reason to believe that even the people who are making the claims against Russia actually believe them. The goal is crippling Russia to handicap China, and ultimately to shore up global hegemony for the US-centralized empire by preventing the rise of any rival superpowers. The sociopathic alliance of plutocrats and intelligence/defense agencies who control that empire are willing to threaten nuclear confrontation in order to ensure their continued dominance. All of their actions against Russia since 2016 have had everything to do with establishing long-term planetary dominance and nothing whatsoever to do with election meddling.
Those five things would need to happen before I’d be willing to jump aboard the “Russia! Russia!” train. Until then I’ll just keep pointing to the total lack of evidence and how very, very far the CIA/CNN Russia narrative is from credibility.
** Vanmorgen op Radio1 bij de ‘onafhankelijke’ zendgemachtigde NOS, VS correspondent Wouter Zwart. Deze enorme leugenaar durfde keihard te zeggen dat er bergen bewijs zijn voor de aanklachten tegen 12 Russische officieren, die de computers van de democraten zouden hebben gekraakt….. ‘Bergen bewijs‘ die niemand mag inzien…… Later zal ik hier nog een bericht over opstellen. Hier nog een artikel van Blik op NOS Journaal over deze Zwart met commentaar op de top tussen Putin en Trump: ‘Wouter Zwart (NOS) desinformeert over Putin-Trump Top‘ (klik ook op het label Wouter Zwart, direct onder dit bericht)
*** GTFO: Get The Fuck Out
**** Rachel Maddow, een radio en tv presentator MSNBC
Nadat
Facebook aankondigde haar ‘trending nieuws’ onderdeel te laten vallen, vanwege
het ‘hoge gehalte aan fake news’ (nepnieuws) en deze te vervangen voor een
‘breaking news’ programmering*, heeft dit frauderende mediaorgaan
besloten nieuws shows te gaan brengen.
Ter verduidelijking van het ‘breaking news’ platform: dit ‘breaking news’ onderdeel wordt samengesteld door 80 regulaire mediaorganen, je weet wel media die zich keer op keer juist schuldig maken aan het brengen van fake news……. (neem de berichtgeving voorafgaand, tijdens en zelfs na de illegale oorlogen die de VS is begonnen in bijvoorbeeld Afghanistan, Irak, Libië en Syrië……)
Om het voorgaande nog verder uit te rollen, komen er dus nieuws shows, die worden uitbesteed aan ‘uiterst betrouwbare nieuwsorganen’ als CNN en Fox News….. ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!
ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!
Kortom
Facebook gaat geïnstitutionaliseerde fake news shows brengen!!
Verbaas
je verder over de mislukte bokkesprongen van Facebook in het volgende artikel van
Carey Wedler (van o.a. Steemit):
Facebook
to Fund Original News Shows From “Trustworthy” Outlets Like
CNN and Fox News
In
an effort to improve its credibility, Facebook is launching original
news shows with mainstream networks like ABC, Fox
News,
and CNN.
Amid ongoing controversies and
widespread public distrust of the platform — as well as widespread
public apprehension toward the political, media, and corporate
establishment at large — it is unclear how Facebook intends to
leverage these outlets to build trust.
Variety,
an entertainment industry outlet, reported Wednesday
that the new effort “is
partly aimed at driving up viewing on its Facebook
Watchplatform
— but it also is supposed to demonstrate the social-media giant’s
commitment to funding trustworthy journalism.”
The
initiative, to be introduced this summer, is led by a mainstream
reporter-turned-Facebook employee. Campbell Brown, Facebook’s head
of global news partnerships, was previously a host for CNN and
worked as a reporter for NBC
News.
“Given
this is our first step into this, we wanted to have a diverse slate
of shows that could deliver different things,” she
said of the new program. Other participants include Univision, Mic,
and ATTN.
“Earlier
this year we made a commitment to
show news that is trustworthy, informative, and local on Facebook. As
a part of that commitment, we are creating a dedicated section within
Watch for news shows produced exclusively for Facebook by news
publishers. With this effort, we are testing a destination for high
quality and timely news content on the platform.”
The
move comes as Facebook moves to discontinue its “trending news”
service, which has been accused of spreading fake information (the
platform will instead implement a “breaking news” feature,
working with 80 different outlets around the world in a project
separate from it’s mainstream Watch programming).
To
be sure, Facebook has served as a breeding ground for wildly
inaccurate “news” stories from highly questionable outlets.
However,
despite Facebook’s stated intention to combat this type of fake
news, it is no secret that outlets like CNN and Fox
News have disingenuously helped
perpetuate society-wide submission to corrupt, exploitative agendas
by baiting the public with divide and conquer tactics
and distractions.
CNN,
which dubs itself “the
most trusted name in news,” spends
much of its airtime obsessing over Russia, the Mueller investigation,
Stormy Daniels, and other topics that are comparatively superficial
in light of bipartisan policies that destroy the world and infringe
upon people’s basic rights. They have been caught on multiple
instances pushing incorrect
information and
selectively reporting stories. For example, one “exclusive report”
on Libya’s burgeoning human slave trade failed to acknowledge that
a major catalyzing force for the trade’s growth was the Obama
administration’s toppling of former Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi.
Fox
News,
too, is an egregious perpetuator of manipulative narratives, and the
outlet’s hosts spend much of their time covering petty issues. In
one instance, earlier this year, Fox
and Friends pundits
had a meltdown over
the NFL’s decision to broadcast potential national anthem protests
at the Super Bowl (they did not actually occur). Fox was
also a major contributor to
the push for the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
Both outlets,
along with MSNBC, ABC, NBC,
and CBS have
been found to
spread falsehoods on a regular basis as pundits prattle on, peddling
establishment viewpoints.
These
mainstream outlets also push emotionally charged, vitriolic opinions,
and to a large extent, these divides are evident in the comment
sections of political Facebook posts.
Despite
Facebook’s cozying up to mainstream outlets, Variety reports
that both Fox
News and CNN previously complained about
Facebook’s approach to news. “It
was important to us that there was a fair value exchange, which there
hasn’t always been,” said
Andrew Morse, CNN’s
EVP and GM of CNN Digital
Worldwide, while speaking about the new programming deal. Anderson
Cooper will host CNN’s
Facebook show while Shep Smith will helm Fox’s.
The
move follows not only claims of Facebook spreading dis- and
mis-information but also suppressing reach
for many large pages not deemed “trustworthy.” Independent news
organizations, in particular, have complained that their followers
now rarely see their posts.
Regardless
of this new program, public trust in mainstream news sources at large
continues to drop.
While this seems promising, unfortunately, much of this distrust is
also associated with part of the population’s unquestioning trust
in President Donald Trump as many of his supporters tend to reject
news that discredits or criticizes him.
As
Facebook continues to serve as a mouthpiece for the establishment —
and as it continues to work with
the government to police the internet — the need for decentralized
alternatives like Steemit, Minds, and othersthat
do not censor their users or promote propaganda is increasingly
apparent.
De
democratische partij in de VS zit in grote ellende, waar de top
onlangs toegaf dat men de voorverkiezingen in de partij, voorafgaand
aan de presidentsverkiezingen heeft gestoken, dit ten koste van
progressieve kandidaten als Sanders. Voorts is men bezig een
aanklacht tegen Wikileaks voor te bereiden vanwege de feitelijke berichtgeving over de manipulaties van die partijtop…….
Intussen
is het zo dat je in de VS niet ongestraft kan zeggen dat het hele
Russiagate verhaal verzonnen is om Rusland de schuld voor o.a. het
lekken van documenten en manipulatie van de verkiezingen in de
schoenen te schuiven. Je wordt nog net niet door de overheid
vervolgd, maar je naam wordt door de media al snel door de stront
gehaald…..
Met
andere woorden: als je kritiek hebt op smerige beschuldigingen van o.a. de geheime diensten en de reguliere media, beschuldigingen waar geen nanometer bewijs voor is, ben je een linkse Russische trol (en eigenlijk een verrader…), ook al is jouw verhaal op feiten gebaseerd……….
Jill Stein, leider van de Green Party in de VS wordt o.a. door Jim Sciutto van CNN aangemerkt als een Russische trol, dit voor het aanhalen van feitelijke VS bemoeienis met verkiezingen in andere landen (gedocumenteerd)……. Uiteraard is dit uitermate gevaarlijk, zeker in de ‘gun crazy’ VS, mensen daar zijn voor minder vermoord……..
Lees
het volgende onthutsende verhaal van Caitlin Johnstone, gepubliceerd
op Steemit:
“Russian
Talking Points” Look An Awful Lot Like Well-Documented Facts
Things
aren’t looking great for the Democratic establishment, which recently
admitted that it stacks its primaries against
progressive candidates and is currently engaged in a desperate, hail
Mary lawsuit
against WikiLeaks for
its factual publications about the party. So of course you know what
that means.
That’s
right! It’s time for Democratic pundits to begin down-punching Jill
Stein.
“Jill
Stein is on @NewDay right
now repeating Russian talking points on its interference in the 2016
election and on US foreign policy,” tweeted CNN
Chief National Security Correspondent Jim Sciutto today, without
shame or self-reflection.
Sciutto
was referring to comments Stein made on a CNN
interview today about
America’s undeniable, entirely factual and well-documented
history of
meddling in other countries’ elections, including a citation of
an ex-CIA
Director’s recent admission that
the US has interfered in foreign electoral processes and continues to
do so to this day.
Because
that’s what constitutes a “Russian talking point” these
days: raw, easily verifiable facts.
Stein’s
interviewer, Chris “It’s illegal to read WikiLeaks” Cuomo,
echoed a similar sentiment in response to her points, in essence
arguing that only Russians should be stating these blatantly obvious
and extremely relevant facts.
“You
know, that would be the case for Russia to make, not from the
American perspective,” Cuomo said. “Of course, there’s
hypocrisy involved, lots of different big state actors do lots of
things that they may not want people to know about. But let Russia
say that the United States did it to us, and here’s how they did it,
so this is fair play. From the American perspective and you running
for president, more than once of this country, shouldn’t your
position have been, this was bad what they did, they’re trying to do
it right now and we have to stop it?”
Right.
Because you have so many Russians on your show making that case, do
you Chris?
This
is absolute lunacy. The implication here is that it isn’t ever okay
for Americans to talk about Russia in any other context than how
awful and evil its government is; that nobody can speak about how
America’s behavior factors into the equation in a very real and
significant way. Not because it’s not factual, not because it’s not
relevant, but because it’s a “Russian talking point”, and
only Russians should be saying it.
And
this sentiment being promulgated by these establishment pundits is
being swallowed hook, line and sinker by the rank-and-file citizenry
who consume such media. Every single day, without exception, I am
accused multiple times of being a propagandist for the Kremlin. Not
because there’s any evidence for that, not because I’m writing
anything that is untruthful, but because I’m writing “Russian
talking points”, i.e. arguments that have ostensibly been made
at some point by Russians.
And
it is, to be perfectly honest, infuriating. These people are actively
making the case for willful ignorance and stupidity. They’re actively
arguing that facts which don’t support the narratives being
promulgated by the CIA and the State Department should be completely
excluded from all discussion within the western hemisphere, and that
only Russians should be making them. They do this while
simultaneously arguing that Russian media is dangerous and should be
avoided by Americans. Only Russians should argue against CIA/CNN
narratives, and we should never, ever listen to those arguments.
They’re
arguing for the deliberate omission of relevant facts from dialogue.
They are arguing that we should all be morons, on purpose.
Of course it’s
relevant to the discussion that the US interferes with foreign
democratic processes far more than any other government on the
planet! Are you nuts? Yes, obviously if
yours is the primary country responsible creating a climate wherein
governments meddle in the elections of other nations, that undeniable
fact must necessarily be a part of any sensible analysis of what’s
happening and what should be done about it. Anyone who tries to argue
that that fact shouldn’t be a part of the conversation is making an
argument in favor of stupidity.
That’s
not a “whataboutism”, as empire loyalists like Eric
Boehlert habitually claim.
It’s crucial factual information.
The
environment that these pundits are creating is itself hostile to
democracy. If all “talking points” are excluded from the
conversation other than those which lead to continually escalating
sanctions, proxy wars, nuclear posturing and brinkmanship, then
there’s no way for activism or democracy to tap the brake on the
west’s ongoing trajectory toward direct military confrontation with a
nuclear superpower.
In
her interview, Stein outlined this
quite clearly:
“You
know, I think that kind of position which says that we’re in a
totally different category from the rest of the world is not working.
This century of American domination, you know, sort of didn’t play
out the way we thought it would, we’re embroiled now — we have the
military in practically every country around the world. In the recent
taxes that people pay, the average American paid almost $3,500 that
went into the Department of Offense, I would call it, not the
Department of Defense, $3,500, whereas we put $40 into the EPA.
“You
know, 57 percent of our discretionary dollars now are going into the
military. It’s part of a mindset that says, we’re always right and
they’re always wrong and we’re going to be dominating militarily and
economically. We’re in a multi-polar world right now and, you know,
we need to behave as an exemplary member of the community and that is
by upholding ourselves and leading the way on international law,
human rights and diplomacy. That approach is really paying off on the
Korean peninsula right now. I think we should be using it more
broadly.”
Cuomo,
who as the son of a New York Governor and brother of the current New
York Governor is as much Democratic Party royalty as a Clinton, had
some very interesting facial expressions in response to Stein’s
arguments. Whenever an interviewee makes strong points which go
against the establishment grain he always looks like he’s taking a
really uncomfortable shit:
(ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!)
There
have been far too many cartoonishly absurd responses to Stein’s
interview for me to address in a single article without putting my
laptop through the wall in a fit of rage, but this
tweet from
MSNBC and Atlanticcontributor
Natasha Bertrand is really something else.
“Jill
Stein just told @CNN that
her presence at RT gala in Moscow Dec 2015 wasn’t controversial at
the time because Obama ‘was still on track for a reboot’ with Putin,”
said Bertrand, adding that “Russia had already annexed Crimea,
invaded eastern Ukraine, intervened in Syria for Assad, and hacked
the DNC.”
This
is actual, real-life “Oceania had always been at war with
Eastasia” Orwellian revisionist doublethink. There was no public
information about any Russian DNC hack in 2015, and the average
American hardly ever thought about Russia at that time.
Then-Secretary of State John Kerry personally
met with Vladimir Putin in July of 2016 to
discuss collaboration against terrorist forces in Syria. Only in the
most warped, revisionist, funhouse mirror Orwellian reality tunnel
can it be claimed that Stein visiting Moscow in December of 2015
would have been considered shady or controversial at the time.
The
fact that Bertrand’s tweet was liked and shared thousands of times on
Twitter is extremely creepy and disturbing. Establishment media
didn’t start indoctrinating American liberals with Russia hysteria
until the tail end of 2016, but it’s been so effective that MSNBC
mainliners are now gaslighting themselves into a revision of their
own history.
This
is why people like myself fight the CIA/CNN Russia narrative so
aggressively. Not because we’re propagandists, not because we’re
“useful idiots”, not because of “Russian talking
points”, but because the US-centralized power establishment’s
nonstop campaign to manufacture support for its agendas of global
hegemony are making us all stupid and crazy.
Stop
playing along with this bullshit. Stop letting them make us stupid
and crazy. Stop letting them manipulate us into consenting to
escalations with a nuclear superpower. Stop. Turn back. Wrong way.
Internet
censorship is getting pretty bad, so best way to keep seeing my daily
articles is to get on the mailing list for my website,
so you’ll get an email notification for everything I publish. My
articles and podcasts are entirely reader and listener-funded, so if
you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me
on Facebook,
following my antics on Twitter,checking
out mypodcast,
throwing some money into my hat onPatreonorPaypal, or
buying my new bookWoke:
A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers.
‘Campagne Clinton, smeriger dan gedacht…………‘ (met daarin daarin opgenomen de volgende artikelen: ‘Donna Brazile Bombshell: ‘Proof’ Hillary ‘Rigged’ Primary Against Bernie‘ en ‘Democrats in Denial After Donna Brazile Says Primary Was Rigged for Hillary‘)
Zie ook het volgende artikel daterend van 26 oktober 2017: ‘‘Death Sentence for Local Media’: Warnings as FCC Pushes Change to Benefit Right-Wing Media Giant‘ Met o.a.:“At a time when broadcast conglomerates like Sinclair are gobbling up new stations and pulling media resources out of marginalized communities, we still need the main studio rule to help connect broadcasters to the local viewers and listeners they’re supposed to serve.” —Dana Floberg, Free Press. Vergeet niet dat bijvoorbeeld de lokale dagbladen in ons land intussen zo ongeveer allemaal zijn ondergebracht bij de grote dagbladen, allen in bezit van op winst beluste eigenaren, dan wel (beursgenoteerde) politiek rechtse organisaties, die een eigen belang hebben bij voor hen gunstig gekleurde berichtgeving in de bladen die zij onder het beheer hebben, waarbij deze eigenaren allen grote aanhangers zijn van het ijskoude, inhumane neoliberalisme en grote voorstanders zijn van de VS terreur, waar ter wereld die ook wordt uitgeoefend……..
Onder andere CNN, als prominent ‘lid’ van de reguliere media, is bezig met het zwart maken van sociale media, journalisten en
presentatoren als ze zich niet blindelings achter de volgende zaken stellen: -de illegale oorlogen van de VS, -de
staatsgrepen met hulp van en of door de VS, -de geheime militaire CIA acties buiten de VS en -de
standrechtelijke executies van verdachten middels drones…….. Met ‘superlatieven’ als links, fascistisch en pedofilie valt men
journalisten en verslaggevers aan, zo ook Jimmy Dore en zijn show op
YouTube.
Jimmy
Dore stelt onder meer dat CNN advertentie inkomsten steeds verder
teruglopen, terwijl deze inkomsten op YouTube kanalen een stuk hoger
liggen, ofwel een reden om YouTube kanalen te beschuldigen voor het
aanprijzen van pedofilie en fascisme…..
Uiteraard
stelt CNN dat figuren als Jimmy Dore zich daarnaast schuldig maken aan
samenzweringstheorieën, waar Dore erop wijst dat hij deze juist
ontleedt en als onzin neerzet. Zo noemt Dore de leugens over de
massavernietigingswapens van Sadam Hoessein, een samenzweringstheorie
die uiteindelijk leidde tot de illegale oorlog van de VS tegen Irak in 2003,
een oorlog die tot de dood van meer dan 1,5 miljoen Irakezen leidde, ofwel 1,5 miljoen
moorden voornamelijk op conto van de VS, de grootste terreurentiteit op aarde…..
Nog zo’n
samenzweringstheorie is die van Russiagate, na bijna 2 jaar gooien
met stront, is er niet één bewijs geleverd voor de bevestiging van
die theorie…….
Volgens Dore (en vele anderen) is het hele gedoe in de VS, zoals de hypocritische hysterie over Syrië en ‘de oorlog tegen terreur’ ten eerste in het belang van het militair-industrieel complex dat op volle toeren moet blijven draaien. Ten tweede denkt men hiermee alle critici de mond te kunnen snoeren………
Zie de
volgende humoristische video over deze zaak (met Jimmy Dore):
The
bottom line in America today
“PRO-WAR
IN EVERY CASE AND ALL THE TIME”
THE
ENDLESS MANUFACTURE OF CRISIS
What’s
the bottom line in America today?
Here
it is:
If
you want to be a a newscaster or reporter in the US, you better be
pro-war in every case and all the time.
The
recent CNN attack on Jimmy Dore and other people who question war
hysteria…
This
is the Third “Red Scare” in the last 100 years…
The
first one – after WW I – gave J. Edgar Hoover his career and was
used to attack civil rights
The
second one – after WW II – gave groups like the CIA extraordinary
powers, including war waging power in Vietnam.
The
third one – after the bogus “War on Terror” – is on now. The
goal now is to keep the military-industrial complex humming along and
to shut down anyone who questions why our health care, education, and
banking systems are in such bad condition.
Anti-Media
bracht gisteren een artikel van Tyler Durden dat eerder op Zero Hedge
werd pepubliceerd.
Uitgebreid
verteld Robert Fisk over zijn bevindingen in Douma. Fisk is één van
de weinigen die niet geloofde dat het winnende Syrische leger het
eigen volk zou aanvallen met gifgas….. Alweer als één van de
weinigen besloot Fisk zelf op onderzoek uit te gaan en hij vertrok
naar Douma. Terwijl de reguliere westerse (massa-) media en het
grootste deel van de westerse politici (plus zogenaamde deskundigen
en opiniemakers) keihard durven te zeggen dat het Syrische leger en
daarmee Assad schuldig is aan de ‘gifgasaanval’ en nee, daar heeft men geen bewijzen voor,
men lult elkaar en terreurgroep Jaysh al-Islam plus de White Helmets gewoon na………. (de White Helmets die al heel wat ‘fake news’ [nepnieuws] hebben verspreid, zoals bekend zou moeten zijn bij de westerse reguliere media en politiek……)
Sterker
nog: door de voornoemde woordvoerders van de media en andere figuren
wordt de grote gifgasaanval van augustus 2013 er keer op keer
bijgesleept als een oorlogsmisdaad van het reguliere Syrische leger, terwijl
uit en te na is aangetoond dat door het westen genoemde ‘gematigde
rebellen’ verantwoordelijk zijn voor (ook) die aanval…….(o.a. een
VN onderzoek toonde dit aan……)
Ook nu verlaat men zich op o.a. op de terreurgroep Jaysh al-Islam
(het leger van de islam, echt een naam voor een ‘gematigde rebellen
groep…..’ ha! ha! ha!) en de White Helmets voor de
getuigenverklaringen……. Dit ‘leger van de islam’ (betekenis van Jaysh al-Islam) heeft NB toegegeven dat
het eerder gifgas heeft gebruikt in Syrië…….. Onbegrijpelijk
trouwens dat het westen geen commentaar heeft op het feit dat meerdere ‘gematigde
rebellengroepen’ in het bezit zijn van gifgas…. Wat de White
Helmets betreft, die zijn al lang door de mand gevallen als hulp van
Al Qaida en nog een paar andere terreurgroepen, waaronder Jaysh al-Islam…….
De
conclusie die Fisk heeft getrokken, is dat er zelfs geen gifgasaanval
heeft plaatsgevonden in Douma……..
Lees
het relaas van Fisk en geeft het door, de hoogste tijd dat de muur
van leugens en ongebreidelde oorlogshitserij wordt doorbroken!!
“They
Were Not Gassed”: Famed Reporter Reaches Syrian ‘Chemical Attack’
Site
(ZHE) — Robert
Fisk’s bombshell first-hand account for the UKIndependentruns
contrary to nearly every claim circulating in major international
press concerning what happened just over week ago on April 7th in an
embattled suburb outside Damascus: not only has the veteran British
journalist found no
evidence of a mass chemical attack, but he’s encountered multiple
local eyewitnesses who experienced the chaos of that night, but who
say the gas attack never happened.
Fisk
isthe
first Western journalist to reach and report from the site of
the alleged chemical weapons attackwidely
blamed on Assad’s forces. Writing
from Douma in eastern Ghouta, Robert Fisk has interviewed a Syrian
doctor who works at the hospital shown in one of the well-known
videos which purports to depict victims of a chemical attack.
The
Independent: “Middle East Correspondent Robert Fisk in one of the
miles of tunnels hacked beneath Douma by prisoners of Syrian rebels.”
(source: Yara Ismail via the Independent)
Importantly,
the report, published late in the day Monday, is
causing a stir among
mainstream journalists who–minutes
after the Saudi-sponsored jihadist group Jaish
al-Islam (Army
of Islam) accused
the Syrian Army of gassing civilians–began
uncritically promoting the “Assad gassed his own people”
narrative as an already cemented and “proven” fact based on the
mere word a notoriously brutal armed group who itself
has admitted to using chemical weapons on the Syrian battlefield in
prior years. Also
notable is that no journalist or international observer was anywhere
near Douma when the purported chemical attack took place.
Controversy
ensued immediately after Fisk’s report, especially as he is
among the most recognizable names in the past four decades of Middle
East war reporting,
having twice won the British Press Awards’ Journalist of the Year
prize and as seven time winner of the British Press Awards’ Foreign
Correspondent of the Year (the NY
Times has referred
to him as“probably
the most famous foreign correspondent in Britain” while The
Guardian has
called him “one
of the most famous journalists in the world”). An Arabic speaker,
Fisk became famous for being among the few reporters in history to
conduct face-to-face interviews with Osama bin Laden, which he did on
three occasions between 1993 and 1997.
This
is the story of a town called Douma, a ravaged, stinking place of
smashed apartment blocks–and of an underground clinic whose images
of suffering allowed three of the Western world’s most powerful
nations to bomb Syria last week. There’s even a friendly doctor in
a green coat who, when I track him down in the very same
clinic, cheerfully
tells me that the “gas” videotape which horrified the world–
despite all the doubters–is perfectly genuine.
War
stories, however, have a habit of growing darker. For
the same 58-year old senior Syrian doctor then adds something
profoundly uncomfortable: the patients, he says, were overcome not by
gas but by oxygen starvationin
the rubbish-filled tunnels and basements in which they lived, on a
night of wind and heavy shelling that stirred up a dust storm.
Fisk
goes on to identify
the doctor by name – Dr. Assim Rahaibani – which is notable given
the fact that all early reporting from Douma typically relied on
“unnamed doctors” and anonymous opposition sources for early
claims of a chlorine gas attack (lately
morphed into an unverified “mixed” chlorine-and-sarin attack).
The
doctor’s testimony is consistent with that of the well-known Syrian
opposition group Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR), which
initially reported based on its own pro-rebel sourcing that
heavy government bombardment of Douma city resulted in the
collapse of homes and underground shelters, causing civilians in
hiding to suffocate.
According
to SOHR,
which has long been a key go-to source for mainstream media over the
course of the war, “70
of them [women and children] have suffered suffocation as a result of
the demolition of home basements over them due to the heavy and
intense shelling.”
Though
outlets from The
Guardian to The
Washington Post to The
New York Times have
quoted SOHR on a near daily basis throughout the past six years of
war, the
anti-Assad opposition outlet’s reporting of mass asphyxiation
due to collapse of shelters has been notably absent from the same
publications.
Fisk
details the Syrian doctor’s testimony, who is adamant in his
emphasis that civilians were suffocating en masse, and
were not gassed:
It
was a short walk to Dr Rahaibani. From the door of his subterranean
clinic–“Point 200”, it is called, in the weird geology of this
partly-underground city–is a corridor leading downhill where he
showed me his lowly hospital and the few beds where a small girl was
crying as nurses treated a cut above her eye.
“I
was with my family in the basement of my home three hundred metres
from here on the night but all
the doctors know what happened.There
was a lot of shelling [by government forces] and aircraft were always
over Douma at night–but on this night, there was wind and huge dust
clouds began to come into the basements and cellars where people
lived. People
began to arrive here suffering from hypoxia, oxygen loss. Then
someone at the door, a “White Helmet”, shouted “Gas!”, and a
panic began. People started throwing water over each other. Yes, the
video was filmed here, it is genuine, but what you see are people
suffering from hypoxia–not gas poisoning.”
In
addition to interviewing a doctor while standing in the very hospital
featured in White Helmets footage of the events, Fisk cites the
testimonies of multiple locals in the following:
Before
we go any further, readers should be aware that this is not the only
story in Douma. There
are the many people I talked to amid the ruins of the town who said
they had “never believed in” gas stories–which were usually put
about, they claimed, by the armed Islamist groups.
These
particular jihadis survived under a blizzard of shellfire by living
in other’s people’s homes and in vast,
wide tunnels with underground roads carved through the living rock by
prisoners with pick-axes on three levels beneath the town.I
walked through three of them yesterday, vast corridors of living rock
which still contained Russian–yes, Russian–rockets and burned-out
cars.
And
further fascinating is that the veteran British war correspondent
comes upon local Douma residents who have so long been trapped in an
isolated ‘fog
of war’ battlefield
environment, that they are not even aware of the international
importance that the town has played in the US coalition decision to
bomb Syria:
So
the story of Douma is thus not just a story of gas–or no gas, as
the case may be. It’s about thousands of people who did not opt for
evacuation from Douma on buses that left last week, alongside
the gunmen with whom they had to livelike
troglodytes for months in order to survive.
I
walked across this town quite freely yesterday without soldier,
policeman or minder to haunt my footsteps, just two Syrian friends, a
camera and a notebook.I
sometimes had to clamber across 20-foot-high ramparts, up and down
almost sheer walls of earth. Happy to see foreigners among them,
happier still that the siege is finally over, they are mostly
smiling; those whose faces you can see, of course, because a
surprising number of Douma’s women wear full-length black hijab.
…Oddly,
after chatting to more than 20 people, I couldn’t find one who
showed the slightest interest in Douma’s role in bringing about the
Western air attacks.Two
actually told me they didn’t know about the connection.
But
it was a strange world I walked into. Two men, Hussam and Nazir Abu
Aishe, said they were unaware how many people had been killed in
Douma, although
the latter admitted he had a cousin “executed by Jaish el-Islam
[the Army of Islam] for allegedly being “close to the regime”.They
shrugged when I asked about the 43 people said to have died in the
infamous Douma attack.
The
White Helmets–the medical first responders already legendary in the
West but with some interesting corners to their own story–played a
familiar role during the battles. They
are partly funded by the [British] Foreign Office and most of the
local offices were staffed by Douma men.
I
found their wrecked offices not far from Dr Rahaibani’s clinic. A
gas mask had been left outside a food container with one eye-piece
pierced and a pile of dirty military camouflage uniforms lay inside
one room. Planted, I asked myself? I doubt it. The place was heaped
with capsules, broken medical equipment and files, bedding and
mattresses.
Of
course we must hear their side of the story, but it will not happen
here: a
woman told us that every member of the White Helmets in Douma
abandoned their main headquarters and chose to take the
government-organised and Russian-protected buses to the rebel
province of Idlib with the armed groups when the final truce was
agreed.
And
Fisk further narrates the strangeness of some of the reporting now
happening far outside of Douma which flatly contradicts the
testimonies of civilians still inside Douma that he encounters:
How
could it be that Douma refugees who had reached camps in Turkey were
already describing a gas attack which no-one in Douma today seemed to
recall?It
did occur to me, once I was walking for more than a mile through
these wretched prisoner-groined tunnels, that the citizens of Douma
lived so isolated from each other for so long that “news” in our
sense of the word simply had no meaning to them.
Syria
doesn’t cut it as Jeffersonian democracy–as I cynically like to
tell my Arab colleagues–and it is indeed a ruthless dictatorship,
but that couldn’t cow these people, happy to see foreigners among
them, from reacting with a few words of truth.So
what were they telling me?
They
talked about the Islamists under whom they had lived. They talked
about how the armed groups had stolen civilian homes to avoid the
Syrian government and Russian bombing.The
Jaish el-Islam had burned their offices before they left, but the
massive buildings inside the security zones they created had almost
all been sandwiched to the ground by air strikes. A Syrian colonel I
came across behind one of these buildings asked if I wanted to see
how deep the tunnels were. I stopped after well over a mile when he
cryptically observed that “this tunnel might reach as far as
Britain”. Ah yes, Ms May, I remembered, whose air strikes had been
so intimately connected to this place of tunnels and dust. And gas?
For
a prime example of what Fisk references as refugees in Turkey
“already describing a gas attack which no-one in Douma seemed to
recall…” CNN
aired a segment from one such refugee camp which is absolutely
bizarre and stunning in its claims.
began
sniffing a 7-year-old Syrian girl’s backpack while concluding, “I
mean there’s definitely something that stings…” –
with the implication that empirical proof had been found of
government chemical weapons use against the little girl and her
family.
This CNN report by Arwa Damon is an example of what Western governments and media consider evidence that the Syrian govt used chemical weapons in #Douma. In fact it proves nothing. CNN continues to shamelessly promote Jihadist propaganda & western military intervention #Syria
And
in the full
segment,
Damon attempts to subtly introduce the idea of a nerve agent used
against the family (though initial claims were widely reported to be
chlorine) by awkwardly including the account of the girl’s escape
from Douma: “She
could barely breath…she
felt as if her
entire nerves basically released.”
This Syrian girl hid her dolls inside a box, telling them “you’re going to suffocate in here, maybe, but at least you might be safe from the bombings.” CNN reports from inside a refugee camp in Syria hours after a coordinated US-led airstrike hit the area. https://cnn.it/2H2pCLe
Though
it’s unclear what the strange phrasing of “her entire nerves
basically released” actually means, CNN’s
Arwa Damon is ultimately claiming to be able to safely and
comfortably handle and sniff a backpack which contains residual sarin
and chlorine agents,
while simultaneously presenting the backpack as “proof” of a
chemical attack which happened a week prior (to say nothing the
clearly unscientific and bogus nature all of the above).
Notably,
in addition to Fisk’s bombshell report filed from ground zero of
the claimed chemical attack in Douma, cable
network One
America News has
also issued a report from on the ground in the newly liberated town,
finding “no evidence” – in its words – that a chemical attack
took place there.
Robert
Fisk’s report for The
Independent and
the One America News segment constitute
the first major international media reports from the location of the
alleged chemical attack. But
it will be interesting to see the extent to which international
chemical and weapons experts either validate or refute their
conclusions once the site is inspected.
Meanwhile,
the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
(OPCW) Fact-Finding Mission (FFM) team arrived
in Damascus on Saturday, April 14th – after the
US-led overnight strikes which primarily hit government buildings in
the capital.
Niets
nieuws (hé ‘nog een variatie’ op nepnieuws): de eigenaren van de reguliere media die de inhoud bepalen van
wat er wordt gebracht aan ‘nieuws’, neem Murdoch wiens kranten enz. vooral de inhumane neoliberale status quo en het buitenlandbeleid van de VS propageren
als zaligmakend. Derhalve kan je nog nauwelijks spreken van onafhankelijke journalistiek als je spreekt over de berichtgeving in reguliere (massa-) media…..
In de VS
is het grote mediaorgaan Sinclair op een uiterst domme manier tegen
de lamp gelopen: het leek de top van dit bedrijf wel een goede zaak
om de belangrijkste presentatoren (zogenaamde nieuwsankers) van lokale/regionale nieuws en actualiteiten zenders dezelfde tekst op te laten lezen! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!
In deze
tekst wordt fake news (nepnieuws) dan wel false news (idem) aan de
kaak gesteld, waarbij het duidelijk is dat vooral rechtse propaganda
tot ‘het echte nieuws’ behoort…… Volgens de presentatoren zullen
veel kijkers die hen al jaren volgen onmiddellijk doorhebben dat het
hier om propaganda gaat en zoals het is bij propaganda, deze klopt
voor het overgrote deel nooit en is bovendien juist fake news, daar
zaken niet worden gecontroleerd……… Met andere woorden: in de
strijd tegen fake news wordt er vooral juist gebruik gemaakt van…. fake
news!! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!
Kortom
Sinclair legt met deze dwang juist de vinger op de stinkende
propaganda wond…… Hetzelfde Sinclair dat rond de 70% van de VS bevolking van ‘lokaal nieuws’ voorziet……
‘Stuff
of Nightmares’: Viral Video Shows Sinclair Forcing Local TV Anchors
to Recite Propaganda
(COMMONDREAMS)Journalists and
corporate watchdogs reacted with alarmwhen
it was reported last month that the right-wing media giant Sinclair
Broadcast Group was planning to force local news anchors to read from
a script denouncing “fake” and “false” news stories in a
distinctly Trumpian fashion.
But
this horror was amplified after Deadspin compiled
a video this weekend of what the company’s “dangerous”
proposal actually looks like in practice.
Speaking
toCNN on
Sunday, Sinclair employees and local reporters said they are deeply
concerned about the right-wing ideological bent being foisted upon
television stations across the United States by the massive media
company.
“It
sickens me the way this company is encroaching upon trusted news
brands in rural markets,” one reporter told CNN on
the condition of anonymity, fearing retaliation from Sinclair’s
management.
“I
feel bad because they’re seeing these people they’ve trusted for
decades tell them things they know are essentially propaganda,” added
a local anchor.
Owned
by a family of ultra-conservative millionaires, Sinclair currently
operates nearly 200 news stations nationwide—and is pushing for
even more control of local outlets, with
help from the GOP*-controlled FCC. (FCC: Federal Communications Commissions)
If Sinclair’s
acquisition of Tribune Media is
ultimately approved, the company will own enough stations to reach
an estimated 70
percent of American households, sparking concerns that pro-Trump
propaganda could begin to dominate local news.
“I
try everyday to do fair, local stories, some Trump-related, but it’s
always washed out by this stuff they do at a national level,” said
one local reporter.
Below
is the full
script dozens
of local news anchors have been forced to read under threat of
termination:
Hi,
I’m(A) ____________, and I’m (B) _________________…
(B)
Our greatest responsibility is to serve our Northwest communities. We
are extremely proud of the quality, balanced journalism that KOMO
News produces.
(A)
But we’re concerned about the troubling trend of irresponsible, one
sided news stories plaguing our country. The sharing of biased and
false news has become all too common on social media.
(B)
More alarming, some media outlets publish these same fake stories…
stories that just aren’t true, without checking facts first.
(A)
Unfortunately, some members of the media use their platforms to push
their own personal bias and agenda to control ‘exactly what people
think’…This is extremely dangerous to a democracy.
(B)
At KOMO it’s our responsibility to pursue and report the truth. We
understand Truth is neither politically ‘left nor right.’ Our
commitment to factual reporting is the foundation of our credibility,
now more than ever.
(A)
But we are human and sometimes our reporting might fall short. If you
believe our coverage is unfair please reach out to us by going to
KOMOnews.com and clicking on CONTENT CONCERNS. We value your
comments. We will respond back to you.
(B)
We work very hard to seek the truth and strive to be fair, balanced
and factual… We consider it our honor, our privilege to responsibly
deliver the news every day.
(A)
Thank you for watching and we appreciate your feedback.
Zie ook het volgende artikel daterend van 26 oktober 2017: ‘‘Death Sentence for Local Media’: Warnings as FCC Pushes Change to Benefit Right-Wing Media Giant‘ (“At
a time when broadcast conglomerates like Sinclair are gobbling up new
stations and pulling media resources out of marginalized communities,
we still need the main studio rule to help connect broadcasters to
the local viewers and listeners they’re supposed to serve.” —Dana
Floberg, Free Press) De hierboven opgenomen link zit al in het bovenstaande artikel, maar is belangrijk genoeg om nog eens te herhalen. Vergeet niet dat bijvoorbeeld de lokale dagbladen in ons land intussen zo ongeveer allemaal zijn ondergebracht bij de grote dagbladen, allen in bezit van op winst beluste eigenaren, die een eigen belang hebben bij voor hen gunstig gekleurde berichtgeving in de bladen die zij onder het beheer hebben……..
‘Campagne Clinton, smeriger dan gedacht…………‘ (met daarin daarin opgenomen de volgende artikelen: ‘Donna Brazile Bombshell: ‘Proof’ Hillary ‘Rigged’ Primary Against Bernie‘ en ‘Democrats in Denial After Donna Brazile Says Primary Was Rigged for Hillary‘)
Voor nog meer berichten over fake news en propaganda klik op de labels: ‘nepnieuws’ en ‘propaganda’, direct onder dit bericht.
Na plaatsing nog de volgende toevoeging gemaakt: ‘Sinclair bedient rond de 70% van de VS bevolking van ‘lokaal nieuws’, deze toevoeging daar ik deze was vergeten in de kop en in de tekst. Mijn excuus.
Op 7 februari jl. zouden Syrische troepen, gesteund door Russische adviseurs en huurlingen een basis van de Syrische democratische strijdmacht (SDF, of Syrian Democratic Forces) hebben aangevallen. Het gaat hier om ‘een door de VS gesteunde basis’ waar zich ook VS militairen dan wel adviseurs zouden hebben opgehouden of (nog) ophouden. Met hulp van VS luchtstrijdkrachten werd de aanval afgeslagen……
Vreemd genoeg vielen aan de kant van de aanvallers meer dan 100 strijders, voornamelijk Russen en viel er aan de kant van de door de VS gesteunde strijders (SDF is een terreurorganisatie) en VS militairen niet één slachtoffer, iets dat totaal ongeloofwaardig is.
Darius Shahtahmasebi stelt na ophef in de VS, waar Rusland wordt beschuldigt van het willens en wetens aanvallen van VS militairen, dat Rusland niet van de partij was bij de aanval, daar het hier ging om huurlingen en ‘militaire aannemers’.
Voorts stelt Shahtahmasebi terecht dat Rusland nog steeds op volkomen legitieme basis aanwezig is in Syrië, dit in tegenstelling tot de VS. Daarnaast is het uiteraard een normale zaak dat het reguliere Syrische leger, illegaal bezet Syrisch gebied wil heroveren, zo stelt ook Shahtahmasebi.
Rusland heeft intussen contracten gesloten met de Syrische overheid over de winning van gas en olie, ook in het gebied waar de aanval plaats vond……….. Gezien dat feit zou het niet vreemd zijn te veronderstellen, dat de VS als een bok op de haverkist het gebied koste wat kost wil behouden ‘voor de SDF’ (ofwel voor zichzelf) en daarbij alle ‘vijanden’ zal afslachten, die maar in de buurt durven te komen van dit gebied…….
Eerder in 2017 heeft de VS zich ook al geroerd met aanvallen in dit gebied, toen hielp de VS de SDF met het veroveren van dit gebied en ‘om deze positie te verdedigen’ blijft de VS illegaal gestationeerd in dit gebied….. Lees: de VS blijft aanwezig om olie en gas belangen van oliemaatschappijen in de VS te verdedigen…..
Shahtahmasebi stelt voorts dat wanneer Rusland een olierijk gebied in de VS illegaal zou bezetten en VS troepen zouden zich daartegen verzetten, niemand zou zeggen dat de Russen worden aangevallen (daar zij zich immers illegaal op het gebied van de VS zouden bevinden). Beetje vreemde redenering, daar een aanval nu eenmaal een aanval is, in wat voor omstandigheid dan ook, je spreekt in die gevallen van wel of niet gerechtvaardigd geweld en ja dan kan je ook spreken van (grootschalige) terreur als dit geweld niet gerechtvaardigd is, terreur waar de VS zich keer op keer schuldig aan maakt in Syrië, zoals ook weer in dit geval……
Dat de VS niets te zoeken heeft in Syrië is een feit, zeker als je ziet, dat de VS aan de wieg stond van IS, deze terreurgroep heeft vervoerd en vrije doorgang heeft verleend richting Syrië, waar de VS deze psychopaten ook nog eens deels heeft bewapend, terwijl de VS tegelijkertijd zogenaamd IS bestrijdt en ‘waarvoor de VS het nodig acht in Syrië te blijven……’ (zoals eerder gezegd: dit is vooral in het belang van de oliemaatschappijen in de VS…)
Jammer dat Shahtahmasebi daar geen aandacht aan besteed, zoals hij ook al niets zegt over het ontbreken van slachtoffers aan ‘VS zijde’, bij de hiervoor genoemde aanval..
In één ding heeft hij volkomen gelijk: Rusland heeft geen aanval geopend op de VS militairen. Alle acties van de VS tegen het reguliere Syrische leger en/of de Russen, zijn oorlogsmisdaden en daarmee grootschalige terreur! Je weet wel het soort terreur waar de westerse reguliere media en het grootste deel van de westerse politici zich niet druk om maken, dit gebeurd pas als VS terreur elders terreur uitlokt, zoals wraakacties in de straten van de EU……
Don’t
Be a Moron: Russia Didn’t Attack US Troops in Syria
(ANTIMEDIAOp-ed)—On
February 16, 2018, Bloomberg’sEli
Lakepublishedan
article entitled “Don’t Be Fooled: Russia Attacked U.S. Troops in
Syria.”
For
context, the U.S.-led coalition conducted
air and artillery strikes against
what was believed to be pro-government forces in Syria on February 7,
2018, in response to an “unprovoked attack” launched by these
pro-regime forces. Not long after, reports began
emerging that
significant numbers of Russian personnel were included in the over
100 dead and wounded, though Russia denied this at first. As
the evidence
began to mount,
the accepted version of events on both sides was that those involved
were Russian mercenaries and contractors, not official troops.
When
asked about the incident initially, U.S. Secretary of Defense James
Mattis said he
had “no
idea why they [pro-government forces] would attack there, the forces
were known to be there, obviously the Russians knew.”
“We
have always known that there are elements in this very complex battle
space that the Russians did not have, I would call it, control
of,” he
added.
In
response to this conundrum, Lake wrote:
“Now,
it should be said that Mattis, a retired four-star Marine Corps
general, is a very smart man. His perplexity in this case is probably
what Plato called a ‘noble lie,’ a falsehood spoken by a leader
to achieve a greater social good. If Mattis acknowledges the obvious
— that the Kremlin authorized a direct assault on a U.S.-sponsored
base by non-uniformed personnel — he risks an escalation spiral in
Syria. Better to express bewilderment and give Russian President
Vladimir Putin a chance to back down and deny culpability, which he
ended up doing despite the heavy casualties suffered by his
mercenaries.”
Lake
added:
“But
make no mistake: There is overwhelming evidence that those Russian
contractors were working at the behest of the Kremlin. What’s more,
the Russians knew U.S. military personnel were in Deir Ezzor, which
has been part of successive agreements to separate, or ‘deconflict,’
forces fighting in Syria.”
First,
if the Kremlin did actually give the go-ahead for the advancement of
troops in that particular area, it is already quite apparent that the
aim of the pro-government troops in question, including their Russian
component, was to try to seize a lucrative Syrian oil field in the
vicinity. CBS reported that
according to Pentagon officials, the Russians did, indeed, have their
sights on these oil fields. CNN also
reported this before it was made aware that the Syrian troops
involved Russian contractors.
Russia
was recently granted exclusive
rights over Syria’s oil and gas production, and Deir Ez-zor is
Syria’s most oil-rich region. So, with regard to the perplexity as
to why Syrian and/or Russian personnel would launch an offensive, the
reasoning is already well-known. The U.S. provided air cover for
Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) to retain a substantial portion of
this area in 2017 and retains
its military presence there in
order to enable SDF’s occupation to continue.
Second,
and most important, if Syrian forces, backed by Russian forces
(whether they are official troops or not), decide to launch an
offensive to retake one of its oil fields, it is not the U.S. that is
under the attack. The U.S. is an invading force that has been bombing
Syria since 2014 without legal justification and continues to
maintain an illegal military presence in order to carry out its
dangerous foreign policy agenda. It wouldn’t matter if the U.S. had
one troop on the ground in Syria and if Russia had ten thousand —
Russia’s presence has been sanctioned under international law and
America’s hasn’t.
Yes,
Russia knew U.S. personnel were in Deir Ez-zor. But that doesn’t
mean Russia and Syria should be barred from reclaiming the territory
under international law. If Russia had set up an illegal base in an
oil-rich part of the U.S. and American troops launched an offensive
with their allies to retake the territory, no one in their right mind
would try to suggest that Russian troops were subsequently under
attack. In fact, if this particular scenario were to play out, the
NATO charter
would require all
of America’s NATO allies to come to its aid against this
hypothetical Russian aggression.
It
doesn’t matter what one thinks of the Syrian government and the
various allegations against it. Even for the sake of argument, we
should assume that all of the allegations against Bashar al-Assad are
true. It doesn’t make a difference.
The
U.S. has attacked Syria, and it could be the case that Syria and its
allies want to drive them out, as is their right. That’s the only
way to properly view this issue if we want to maintain a workable
system of international mutual respect and cooperation. Right now,
there only appears to be one flawed system: the U.S. and its allies
doing whatever they like until they are eventually confronted by a
formidable adversary that possesses nuclear weapons.
Tijdens
de illegale oorlog tegen Syrië zijn meerdere pogingen gedaan het
Syrische bewind te beschuldigen van gifgasaanvallen tegen de eigen bevolking en ondanks dat deze aanvallen na onderzoek stuk voor stuk
werden toegewezen aan de ‘gematigde rebellen’ (lees door het westen
gesteunde psychopathische moordenaars, verkrachters en martelbeulen),
houden de westerse reguliere media en het grootste deel van de
westerse politici vol dat Syrië ‘ofwel Assad’ de schuldige was…….
Uit
een groot aantal aanwijzingen zou volgens Moon of Alabama blijken dat
men o.a. samen met de White Helmets (onderdeel van Al Qaida Syrië dat door de VS van ‘de zwarte lijst’ is gehaald…) en CNN bezig
is een nieuwe ‘false flag’ operatie op touw te zetten, waarbij Syrië weer zal
worden aangewezen als dader van een gifgasaanval……
In het volgende artikel wordt o.a. uitgelegd dat chlorine amper slachtoffers maakt, terwijl men bij meerdere aanvallen met dit gas, sprak over het uiterst dodelijke sarin gas…….. Zoals men ook vorig jaar bij de aanval op Khan Sheikhoun, waarbij een voorraad chlorine van Al Qaida Syrië werd geraakt, stelde dat de Syrische luchtmacht sarin gas zou hebben ingezet, ook dit was alweer een leugen van enorme proporties…..
Een bericht eerder gepubliceerd op Moon of Alabama, zoals overgenomen op Information Clearing House 15 februari 2018:
Syria
– New ‘Chemical Weapons’ Fake Planned – Chlorine Though Will Not Do
By
Moon Of Alabama
February
15, 2018 “Information
Clearing House” – During the seven years of
the war on Syria several accusations were made that the government
that it had used ‘chemical weapons’ against the attacking extremists.
The Syrian government denied to have ever released any chemicals. The
implausible to murky ‘evidence’ of such incidents always came from
foreign paid propaganda groups and extremists on the ground.
They were likely staged to incriminate the government and to thereby
induce military attacks by foreign states.
We
currently see several reports which in their combination look like
preparations for of another fake ‘chemical weapon’ incident.
On
February 13 the Russian
Center for the Reconciliation of Opposing Sides in Syrianoted a
warning of an upcoming false-flag ‘chemical attack’ incident:
“On
the evening of February 12, a resident from the Serakab settlement
located in the Idlib province called the Russian Center for
Reconciliaition to notify (the center) about a chemical weapons
attack that could be staged to provide footage for a foreign TV
channel,” the statement reads. “The caller said that
earlier on February 12, Jabhat al-Nusra members travelling in three
cars had brought more than 20
chlorine gas cylinders and
personal protective equipment to Serakab,” the Center added.
“According
to the caller, members of the local While Helmets branch wore
personal protective equipment while rehearsing first aid provision to
civilians suffering from chemical poisoning,” the Russian Center
said.
…
“The caller pointed out that all
the proceedings had been filmed by professional reporters who used a
mic with the CNN logo, while commenting on the actions being taken by
the White Helmets,”
the statement said, adding that in between takes, the reporters had
consulted with some people over a satellite telephone in English.
The White
Helmets are
a mostly British
funded propaganda
organization embedded with Hayat Tahreer Al-Sham, the current
incarnation of al-Qaeda in Syria which rules Idleb governorate. The
head of al-Qaeda in Syria, Abu Jaber Al-Sheikh, lauded
(video, alternative)
the White
Helmets as
the “hidden soldiers of our revolution”.
CNN is
currently embedded with al-Qaeda and is producingWhite
Helmets propaganda
in Idleb governorate:
CNN
Today @cnntoday – 12:23
AM – 14 Feb 2018
EXCLUSIVE
report from
@arwaCNN in #Idlib Syria and
@holmescnn has #TheBreakdown on more fighting in #Ghouta #Afrin
#DeirEzzor
The
Russian warning is not the only sign that another fake chemical
weapon attack is coming up.
The
Israeli government is pushing “top
secret” disinformation into the public which preemptively blames
the Syrian government for any upcoming incident. It is also attempts
to influence foreign governments on the issue:
According
to a “Top
secret” cable
sent to Israeli ambassadors earlier this week, Israel fears that the
Assad regime will use the chemical weapons it still has left in a way
which might spill over to Israeli territory. The contents of the
cable were shared
with me by senior Israeli officials.
…
[T]he
strategic division in the Israeli ministry of foreign affairs sent
the ‘Top Secret” cable to 15 Israeli embassies around the world,
including in Washington.
…
One of the more unusual
instructions in the cable was to
pass a strong message regarding the Israeli concern that the chemical
weapons left at the disposal of the Assad regime might be used
against rebel forces …
On
Tuesday the White
Helmets were
again trying to
get more foreign powers involved in fighting the Syrian government:
France
should stop talking about red lines and focus on real action to
persuade the main actors in Syria’s conflict to agree a ceasefire,
[Abdulrahman Almawwas], the vice-president of the Syria Civil
Defence, or “White Helmets”, said on Tuesday.
…
Speaking
after meeting senior French officials, including
Macron’s chief diplomatic adviser, Almawwas
said France needed to put pressure on the main protagonists, such as
pushing for a no-fly zone, even though he acknowledged France had few
options.
Only
hours after Abdulrahman Almawwas spoke with Macron’s chief
diplomatic adviser, the French president issued a
statement which set up a ‘red line’ trap:
“On
chemical weapons, I set a red line and I reaffirm that red line,”
Macron told reporters. “If we have proven
evidence that
chemical weapons proscribed in treaties are used, we
will strike the place where they are made.”
“Today, our
agencies, our armed forces have not established that chemical
weapons, as set out in treaties, have been used against the civilian
population.”
Setting
red lines is a trap for oneself as it includes an invitation to
others to break them. Anyone can release ‘chemical weapons’ in
insurgent controlled areas in Syria and blame the Syrian government –
thus potentially triggering the French ‘red line’. So far though
France has “not established” that a real chemical weapon
incident ever happened. Of note in Macron’s statement was also the
threat to strike at “the place where they are made”. That
place would likely be outside of Syria. The French Foreign Ministry
noted Macorn’s inconvenient choice of words, intervened and today
“clarified”
his remarks:
France’s
foreign minister on Wednesday sought to clarify his government’s
position on the use of chemical weapons in Syria saying that Paris
would only strike if the attacks were lethal and carried out by
government forces.
…
“(The
president) confirmed that he would proceed to military strikes
against regime installations if there was a new use of chemical
weapons by Bashar al-Assad’s forces when
these attacks are lethal and regime’s responsibility is proven,”
Jean-Yves Le Drian told lawmakers.
Al-Qaeda
will have no problem to create a “lethal” chemical weapon
attack. They have killed ten-thousands of Syrian without any remorse.
To “prove” that the Syrian government did it will be the
task of the White Helmets and its CNN and Atlantic
Council collaborators.
In
their last attempt to smear the Syrian government for using ‘chemical
weapons’ those organizations hyped
the remainsof
a few 107mmm rockets which allegedly carried chlorine gas and were
fired against the Takfiri held areas of east-Ghouta. (Unmentioned
were the thousands of grenades fired by
east-Ghouta Takfiris against civilians in Damascus.)
If
those rockets had held chlorine they would have had no effect on
anyone.
Chlorine
gas is hardly ever deadly. It is 2.5 times heavier than air with a
distinct yellow-green color and a strong bleach odor. Chlorine gas
will only kill those submerged in a high concentration cloud. If one
sees or smells it one simply walks away from the cloud and thereby
stays safe. Chlorine was used as the first chemical weapon in World
War I because it would creep downwards into deep enemy ditches. Even
then it was soon found to be ineffective as a weapon and replaced
with other chemicals.
That
a few rockets with a few pounds of chlorine would have no ‘lethal’
effect is also obvious from official
reportsduring
the U.S. occupation of Iraq:
The
first documented chlorine attack was Oct. 21, 2006, in Ramadi, a
Multinational Force Iraq spokeswoman said. In that attack, terrorists
drove a car bomb with 12 120 mm mortar shells and two
100-pound chlorine tanks.
The attack wounded three
Iraqi policemen and a civilian.
The
first attack that received media attention was at Taji, where
terrorists remotely detonated a 5-ton truck packed with 100 pounds of
high explosives and two
1-ton chlorine tanks.
The attack killed
one civilian and
wounded 114 others.
…
The most recent attack was June 3
against Forward Operating Base Warhorse, in Diyala province. Again, a
suicide car bomber launched the attack, and officials estimate it
included two
tanks of chlorine and
1,000 pounds of explosive. The cloud from the attack blew over
Warhorse and sickened 65
servicemembers, Multinational Force Iraq officials said. All
were examined and returned to duty.
…
A
Multinational Force Iraq spokesman said there are anecdotal reports
that while
the blasts from the attacks have killed, few have died solely from
the gas.
“We hear that an old man and some babies may have been killed, but
we can’t pin that down,” the spokesman said.
If
literally tons of chlorine were used in attacks in Iraq with no
deadly effect how could a few pounds on top of some small rockets
kill anyone?
On
February 2 the U.S. Secretary of Defense Mattis acknowledge the
practical uselessness of chlorine by putting it into a “separate
category” than other chemical weapons. He also noted that
he has no evidence of any such weapon use:
Q: Is there evidence of chlorine gas weapons used — evidence of chlorine gas weapons?
SEC. MATTIS: I think that’s, yes —
Q:
No, I know, I heard you.
SEC.
MATTIS: I think it’s been used repeatedly. And that’s, as you know, a
somewhat separate category,
which is why I broke out the sarin as another — yeah.
Q: So
there’s credible evidence out there that both sarin and chlorine —
SEC.
MATTIS: No,
I have not got the evidence, not specifically. I don’t have the
evidence.
What
I’m saying is that other — that groups
on the ground, NGOs, fighters on the ground have said that sarin has
been used.
So we are looking for evidence. I
don’t have evidence, credible or uncredible.
NGOs
and “fighters on the ground” claimed to have evidence of
chemical weapon attacks. But just like the French agencies and armed
forces Macron mentioned, Mattis and the DoD have none.
The
Takfiris of al-Qaeda, the White
Helmets propaganda
shop and its media acolytes may well prepare, as the Russians report,
another fake chemical attack stunt. The Israeli government is busy
preparing the public relations ground. But the French government,
having trapped itself with ‘red line’ nonsense, then set the mark
higher at ‘lethal’ attacks.
Chlorine
is, as shown above, hardly ever lethal. But al-Qaeda will have no
qualms about coming up with a few corpses to prove the ‘lethality’ of
a fake incident.
We
also have seen how, with some outside help, a harmless chlorine
release can be faked in an allegedly deadly sarin attack. Such
happened in April 2017 in the Khan Sheikhun incident.
Multiple
early on-the-ground reports by local witnesses and Turkish
officials spoke
of chlorine release and
chlorine affected patients. Only a day later were these claims turned
into an alleged “sarin attack”. Real evidence was never
obtained from the al-Qaeda ruled grounds where that incident
happened.
A discredited
investigation was
inconclusive. It claimed some “sarin-like substance” may
have been involved but it could
not even explain why
more than 50 casualties of the claimed incident arrived at far away
hospitals BEFORE it had happened at all:
The
admission times of the [hospital] records range between 0600 and 1600
hours. Analysis of the aforementioned medical records revealed
that in
57 cases, patients were admitted in five hospitals before the
incident in Khan Shaykhun (at
0600, 0620 and 0640 hours).
One
has to agree with Secretary of Defense Mattis on this – some corpses
shown to CNN by “NGOs” and “fighters on the ground”
are not real evidence. Neither are discredited investigations. If the
al-Qaeda Takfiris and its supporters want to come up with some
believable fake they must set their standard much higher.
De door de VS geleidde coalitie heeft met haar aanval op strijders voor het legitieme Syrische leger een grens overschreden die het risico op een oorlog tussen de VS en Rusland een heel stuk dichterbij brengt…… Je zal begrijpen dat wanneer dit gebeurd er sprake zal zijn van de Derde Weredloorlog, immers China zal zich zonder meer achter Rusland scharen tegen de ongebreidelde VS agressie (of zeg maar gerust; terreur)….
De VS heeft intussen 2.000 militairen op Syrisch grondgebied en is daarmee illegaal aanwezig in dit land, het lamme excuus voor de hiervoor genoemde aanval dat het hier om zelfverdediging gaat, is zo bezien al helemaal een gotspe!!
Israël heeft intussen laten zien het niet eens te zijn met de huidige status quo en heeft zich nu volledig in de Syrische oorlog gemengd, dit zogenaamd na een aanval met een drone op ‘Israëlisch grondgebied’, een duidelijke false flag operatie met de bedoeling de eigen terreur in Syrië te rechtvaardigen…… Eerdere bombardementen voerde Israël zogenaamd uit, om Iraanse wapentransporten richting Libanon te voorkomen, echter de grootste schade schijnt toch te zijn toegebracht aan het Syrische leger en groepen die samen met dit leger tegen IS hebben gestreden en strijden……..
De corrupte Israëlische premier Netanyahu heeft de afgelopen tijd wekelijks minstens één keer Syrië en Iran gewaarschuwd voor aanvallen van Israël als men niet zou inbinden en bijvoorbeeld zou proberen gebieden aan de Golanhoogten te heroveren, hetzelfde gebied dat Israël NB aan de andere kant van de grens illegaal heeft bezet …… Eerder lapte Israël IS strijders op in hetzelfde gebied, zodat ze daarna verder konden vechten tegen het reguliere Syrische leger, ook voerde Israël op verzoek van IS bombardementen uit op stellingen van het Syrische leger……
Nu is nog de vraag hoelang Rusland zal blijven toezien, voordat het Israëlische en/of VS jagers zal aanvallen……..
Lees het volgende uitstekende artikel van Darius Shahtahmasebi, zoals weergegeven op Anti-Media:
The
World Is on the Brink of War Once Again as All Hell Breaks Loose in
Syria
(ANTIMEDIA)—The
U.S.-led coalition conducted air and artillery strikes against
pro-regime forces in Syria on Wednesday, killing over 100
pro-government fighters, CNNreports.
According
to the coalition’s statement, the strikes were carried out after
forces allied with the Syrian government “initiated
an unprovoked attack” against
what CNNtermed “a
well-established Syrian Democratic Forces headquarters where
coalition advisers were working with US-backed Syrian fighters.”
CNN dubbed
the U.S.-led strike “defensive” even though U.S. forces have no
legal authority to be in Syria in the first place, something the New
York Timeswas
forced to admit a
few weeks ago. According to official numbers, there are some 2,000
U.S. troops embedded with SDF forces in Syria, and Syria has deemed
these U.S. troops to be an invading
force.
Technically, the act of violating Syria’s sovereignty and killing
over 100 of its troops in a flagrant act of war makes the U.S. the
aggressor — not the defender — in this scenario. (If you are
having trouble understanding this, try reversing the U.S. and Syria
in the scenario and seeing how you would feel if the shoe were on the
other foot).
According to
the Marine
Corps Times,
the coalition service members were acting in an “advise, assist and
accompany capacity” when the attack occurred, eight kilometers east
of the current Euphrates River deconfliction line. However, U.S.
troops in Syria have been doing a lot more than advising and
assisting on the ground. According to
Army Sgt. Major. John Wayne Troxell, one particular Marine
battalion “fired
more rounds in five months in Raqqa, Syria, than any other Marine
artillery battalion, or any Marine or Army battalion, since the
Vietnam war.”
“In
five months they fired 35,000 artillery rounds on ISIS targets,
killing ISIS fighters by the dozens,” Troxell
told Marine
Corps Times in
January.
The Marine
Corps Times called it an “explosive revelation” that
shed light on the “immense level of lethal force brought to
Raqqa and northern Syria,” noting that in comparison, only
34,000 artillery rounds had been fired in the invasion of Iraq.
Moving
back to the matter at hand, CNN reported
that the attack on the U.S. base in Syria involved some 500 pro-Assad
forces using artillery, mortar fire, and Russian-made tanks.
According to the military official CNN quoted,
no U.S. or SDF forces were killed in the attack, but the coalition
still saw it fit to retaliate by killing at least 100 Syrian
government forces. It is indisputably and particularly hypocritical
that there is no international outrage over this act of aggression
when one compares the media
hysteria over
a country like North Korea, which is currently bombing no one.
The
official also stated that the coalition suspected the pro-government
forces attacked because they have their sights set on seizing the
lucrative oil fields in the area, which the SDF had previously taken
after ISIS’ control over the area collapsed.
Despite
the fact that this territory belongs to Syria, the U.S. is providing
air cover for the SDF to take hold of this oil-rich region. The SDF
doesn’t have an air force of its own, but if it can start
generating substantial revenue from
these oil fields, then it may be able to start buying more and more
military equipment from the U.S.
The
other option, of course, is that the U.S. can provide air cover for
the SDF in the region indefinitely, something that could pose a
problem in the distant future if the U.S. military presence has no
determined end in sight. As it stands, the U.S. is proposing it stay
in Syria until a political resolution sees the Assad
government unseated.
The
official also explained that Russia had been informed of the presence
of pro-regime forces in the area before the attack and that Russia
assured the coalition they would not engage with coalition forces.
Russia responded
to the attack almost
immediately, condemning the U.S. military presence in Syria as
“illegal” and accusing the U.S. of trying to steal Syrian oil.
“The
recent incident once again shows that the United States’ illegal
military presence in Syria is actually aimed at taking control of the
country’s economic assets and not at fighting against the ISIS
international terror group,” the
Russian Defense Ministry said in a statement, as quoted by
the Washington
Post (WaPo). It
should also be noted that these incidents of aggression do nothing to
aid Russia’s
current and ongoing attempt to
establish a peace process of its own.
At
around the same time, Turkish media reported that
Turkey’s Prime Minister and its Foreign Minister had been in
contact with both Iran and Russia. This is remarkable because these
communications have preceded a scheduled visit to Turkey this weekend
by U.S. national security advisor H.R. McMaster. Iran and Russia were
also reportedly in contact with each other at around the same time,
as well. Could it be that this triangle
of emerging power brokers in
Syria deciding the fate of Syria without the involvement of the U.S.
has prompted the American military to take drastic measures to
disrupt this developing alliance? Even with opposing aims in Syria —
and even with Turkey’s
recent invasion of Syrian territory —
Iran, Turkey, and Russia have all managed to find some common ground
without resorting to a confrontation with one another.
Accusing
the U.S. of “mission-creep,” former U.S. ambassador to Syria
Robert Ford said “[t]he
Americans have managed through their diplomatic strategy to isolate
themselves to the point where Turkey, Iran and Syria all agree that
what the U.S. is doing in Syria is bad.”
Further,
before the American-led air attack took place, Russia accused the
U.S. of attempting
to partition Syria,
an accusation that appears to be grounded in reality. CNN has
acknowledged that the U.S. did not strike pro-regime forces that
crossed back to their assigned territory of the Euphrates River even
though all of the territory technically belongs to the government
under international law. In other words, the U.S. is happy to leave
Syrian troops to their own devices provided they stay within the
areas the U.S. has assigned to them. How else could this be
described, if not a partition?
Further,
according to the International Crisis Group (ICG), an international
NGO whose mission is to prevent and resolve deadly conflict, Iran
and Israel are only one “miscalculation” away
from war as both sides have been seen to escalate their military
interventions in Syria. The ICG identified Russia as the only real
mediator between the two countries and urged Russia to play a more
active role in averting a potential escalation.
Further,
also on Wednesday, the BBC reported that
Israeli warplanes had attacked a military complex in Damascus. A
Syrian military statement reportedly said its air defense systems had
blocked most of the missiles, but it is not clear if there were any
significant casualties. Meanwhile, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu also reportedly visited the
disputed Golan Heights territory at the same time, warning his
enemies not to test Israel’s resolve. This was a clear reference to
Iran and Hezbollah, which is prominent in both Lebanon and Syria.
In
what can be described as an amazing coincidence, these air attacks by
both Israel and the U.S. have taken
place off the back of a joint military exercise between
the United States and Israel, which simulated a joint U.S.-Israeli
response to a rocket attack by Hezbollah.
Were
these recent attacks by Israel and the U.S. a one-time incident in
response to the threats allegedly posed by pro-Assad forces,
including Hezbollah? Or are both these countries building up to
something more confrontational?
All
things considered, it seems likely we will find out where this
conflict is headed in the not too distant future, especially given
the potential for one miscalculated move to lead to something
extremely volatile. As it stands, it should be noted that in the
meantime, it is not Syria that is attacking any other state or
launching a war against any other country.
With
the assistance of the media, the U.S. and Israel continue to bomb
Syrian territory in direct contravention of international law, now
killing and wounding significant numbers of the Syrian government’s
armed forces without any significant journalistic or international
opposition.
One
can only hope that someone heeds the advice of the ICG and attempts
to de-escalate this conflict before it transforms itself into a
regional powder keg involving at least three or more nuclear
powers.