Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 163
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Examples?

 

 

I used to think Fisk was great. What a mess he's become. Here's a good takedown of his regime-apologetics:

 

https://louisproyect.org/2018/04/17/fisking-douma/

 

Fisk’s article is really the sort of thing that could occupy an entire semester in a journalism class as an example of what not to do. Fisk is essentially Judith Miller but in a kind of reverse-kryptonite version. Instead of being embedded with the American invasion like Miller was, Fisk is escorted around by Syrian troops. Instead of functioning as a propagandist for George W. Bush, Fisk serves another master in Damascus. Is there anything that Miller and Fisk share in common? Certainly. It is the Islamophobia that allowed both to justify their support of war crimes in the name of stopping al-Qaeda.

 

 

Excellent article on a related topic:

 

https://www.truthdig.com/articles/why-are-some-on-the-left-falling-for-fake-news-on-syria/

Edited by Guatered
Link to post
Share on other sites

ZDF News in Germany pretty convinced it was all staged.

 

I've still seen nothing that would help explain why Assad would mount a chemical attack (thus further uniting the forces against him / Russia / Iran) at a point in time when he had pretty much won the civil war. 

 

Still think Fisk's account is the most plausible (because it requires least tin foil hat conspiracy thinking) but it wouldn't even surprise me if the Western backed rebels actually mounted a chemical attack (which is what ZDF seem to be implying). 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am buying that there was some sort of coordination between the US and Russia on the missile attack.

 

I am not buying that Assad didn't gas these people. He has form and he's a brute of a man.

 

I agree that he's not a good guy, and that he's done it in the past, but why would he do it now, on the eve of victory? It just doesn't make sense. 

 

Worth remembering that the "rebels / freedom fighters" have also been found to have used chemical weapons. They would have more to gain by making it look like an Assad attack than Assad would in inciting the west to attack him on the eve of victory. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am buying that there was some sort of coordination between the US and Russia on the missile attack.

 

I am not buying that Assad didn't gas these people. He has form and he's a brute of a man.

Just because he did it in the past, doesn't mean he did it this time

 

There is no evidence whatsoever

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 year later...

That leaked document is being promoted by the Assad supporting Syria Propaganda Working Group. They're a small group of fringe conspiracy theorists who also promote pro-Russian theories on Salisbury, and include 9-11 truthers.

 

The OPCW has made clear that this person from this leaked report was not part of their research delegation to Douma; and that their final report from March 1st represents their overall findings. The Assad propagandists are delighted to misrepresent the leaked report but the OPCW are clear in standing by their findings. (Though the OPCW is constrained from assigning responsibility, the report makes clear that the chemical attacks were delivered by air, which means it had to be by the regime).

 

But for those who want to run disinformation on behalf of the Assad regime, none of that matters.

 

For the record - the Syrian regime has used chemical weapons on over 300 occasions, including 98% of all cases in Syria. There is copious documentation on all this.

 

I know Syrians who survived chemical weapons attacks. These sorts of conspiracy theories are so deeply hurtful. It's heartbreaking to see them spread.

 

Our research found that there have been at least 336 chemical weapons attacks over the course of the Syrian civil war – significantly more than has commonly been known. Around 98 percent of these attacks can be attributed to the Assad regime, with the Islamic State group responsible for the rest. Approximately 90 percent of all confirmed attacks occurred after the infamous “red line” incident of August 2013. The Syrian military’s chemical warfare campaign is closely intertwined – logistically, operationally and strategically – with its campaign of conventional warfare. The designs of the Assad regime’s improvised chlorine munitions, which have accounted for at least 89 percent of all chemical attacks throughout the war, are clearly derived from conventional “barrel” or “lob” bombs. Both are employed by the same Syrian military formations via the same delivery systems.

 

https://www.gppi.net/media/GPPi_Schneider_Luetkefend_2019_Nowhere_to_Hide_Web.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 months later...

This is going south. It’s getting worse by the hour. Kurds now allying with Assad and looks like they will take on the Turks. Throw Russia into the mix and it looks like we have the potential for a complete meltdown.

 

Interesting to see how Turkey turned a blind eye to the ISIS barbarism within meters of them and now they want to attack the Kurds.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not hard, The US (with the saudis) backed and funded ISIS (or whatever the rebels were calling themselves) to overthrow Assad, just like they funded AQ all these years ago only to bite them in the a*** years later

 

The Bushes, the Clintons, Obama and Trump are all as bad as each other when it comes to killing non Americans

Link to post
Share on other sites

Basically ISIS or not really ISIS? What I’m in denial about is blanket statements that the US funded and supported ISIS. It does no good whatsoever to make tenuous statements like that. If there was money going to anti-Assad groups, then great. He’s a f*cking butcher. If those groups buddied up to those ISIS beasts, then shame on them. 
 

The US has plenty of blood on their hands without having to resort to using them as a scapegoat for the acts of ISIS. There is a prominent guy around who used your exact argument by the way. That’s how I know for sure that it is a bunch of crap.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That article literally says "That doesn’t mean the US created Isis, of course". Apart from that, its a typically dreadful article by Milne, who never misses a chance to run apologetics for authoritarian regimes, chiefly Russia. The sooner Corbyn fires him, the better.

 

The US pull out of the NE is a disgrace and a disaster. Its forced the SDF into an alliance for with the Assad regime. The regime who's speciality is locking up and torturing any independent political actors. There are still more than 100,000 missing in Syria, the vast majority in the regime gulags. (For comparison, in the history of the Troubles in NI, there were just 12, and these disappearances were considered to be some of the worst crimes of all). So the NE is now full of civil society activists terrified of what will happen to them.

 

The outrage over the pull out is full justified. However - it would be good to see similar outrage over the victims in Idlib, who have faced a devastating aerial assault all year. A particular characteristic of this has been the deliberate attacks on hospitals by the regime and Russia. 8 years and still the world allows Assad to butcher Syrians with impunity

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It’s all too easy to point the finger at the US, as horribly as they’ve behaved at times. Yet the direct butchery of the Russians gets pushed to the background. The US is a convenient scapegoat and a more popular one to vilify than Russia. And I’m not having the motives of Obama thrown into the same pot as previous administrations.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...