Al Queda wins an Oscar

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: Al Queda wins an Oscar

Postby stefano » Fri Mar 10, 2017 3:30 am

American Dream » Fri Mar 10, 2017 2:34 am wrote:
tapitsbo » Thu Mar 09, 2017 7:27 pm wrote:
If all the actors and policies are really so equivalent, then why would one be invested in the progress of the conflict?


My own answer would be "the Syrian People". I don't think this can apply to those who adhere to the more reactionary viewpoints as those generally also correlate with "rape-fugee" narratives which actively dehumanize the displaced and favor turning them back, building walls and barbed fences, letting them drown in the sea etc. So it seems rather doubtful that most of these could actually give a shit about Syrian people, whatever their rhetoric.


The Syrian people are demonstrably a hell of a lot better off in government-controlled areas than in opposition-controlled areas. Completely aside from the war, I mean. Amazing that you can still keep up this feeble-ass 'I hate all baddies and wish there was a goodie' in relation to a country where one government is chopping people's heads off for adultery and beating them for listening to music and the other, though guilty of the occasional bit of torture and disappearance, lets people live in peace if they keep their heads down.
User avatar
stefano
 
Posts: 2672
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2008 1:50 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Al Queda wins an Oscar

Postby tapitsbo » Fri Mar 10, 2017 3:31 am

Does anyone else find it weird that AD says there was a popular/participatory revolt in Syria (plausible)

but doesn't know who was involved in it?

and claims any documentation of it must be the work of evil Russians?

(despite the massive body of scholarship and expert analysis on these topics by specialists throughout the world)

It's almost like most of the posts by AD distract from the agenda of the unambiguously far-right countries which supported the "revolution" (and incidentally refused to take refugees)

some of us also remember the article that called the loyalists and their allies "islamophobic" despite the fact that they're almost all Muslims...

what's going on here?
tapitsbo
 
Posts: 1824
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2013 6:58 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Al Queda wins an Oscar

Postby Elvis » Fri Mar 10, 2017 4:48 am

I get it now. AD's postings are not reactions to events in Syria, for the general benefit of the board; they're reactions to members he's identified as right-wingers. The truckloads of "antifa" posts are for their benefit. Only with great hesitancy and carefully framed language will AD publicly take any position that may happen to be shared by the right.

Even AD's laudable concern for the Syrian people can't be stated without a deconstruction of what some other people might think about the Syrian people. :lol:
“The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists.” ― Joan Robinson
User avatar
Elvis
 
Posts: 7422
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 7:24 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Al Queda wins an Oscar

Postby stefano » Fri Mar 10, 2017 5:36 am

tapitsbo » Fri Mar 10, 2017 9:31 am wrote:Does anyone else find it weird that AD says there was a popular/participatory revolt in Syria (plausible)

but doesn't know who was involved in it?

and claims any documentation of it must be the work of evil Russians?

(despite the massive body of scholarship and expert analysis on these topics by specialists throughout the world)

It's almost like most of the posts by AD distract from the agenda of the unambiguously far-right countries which supported the "revolution" (and incidentally refused to take refugees)


A lot of people were involved in it. I wasn't following Syria closely in 2011 but I was watching Tunisia (where I lived for a year in 2007 and where I still have good friends I keep in touch with), and Egypt. It played out similarly in all the places - normal people turned out in numbers to protest, because they were fed up with the corruption and the rights restrictions and the secret prisons. The MB managed to hijack the thing because they were organised, and because they had plans in place to encourage protests (especially through Al Jazeera) and to provoke the security services into shooting at people (a few armed beardies in every crowd were firing shots). And it's definitely true that Assad freed terrorists from jail as a PR stunt. So as the MB became more extremist (especially after Morsi's election in Egypt), and normal people were forced to hustle or emigrate rather than get involved with politics as the war spread, or else took the government's side in opposition to the terrorists, the opposition movement became practically all terrorists.
User avatar
stefano
 
Posts: 2672
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2008 1:50 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Al Queda wins an Oscar

Postby American Dream » Fri Mar 10, 2017 11:42 am

Here is something from As'ad AbuKhalil, the Angry Arab:


When the New York Times reviews RT TV

It is very amusing when US mainstream media critically reviews the media of their countries, especially when they are not friends of the US. In fact, the US media hated Aljazeera (when it was good) and loved Aljazeera when it became a crude propaganda outlet of the Qatari regime only because the policies of the two governments because closer. Remember when US politicaians would boycott Aljazeera? Now, even McCain appears there, and only because they know that Aljazeera has become indistinguishable form Saudi regime media--known as the model of free media in the world. So the Times reviewed RT TV because the premise is that US media are not propaganda media and that they alone can judge other media. This is part of the same myth: that there is "fake news" (and the news by enemies of the US) and then there is Truth media;, and they are the media that represent the consensus of the military-intelligence apparatus of the US. In fact, RT TV and US media are all propaganda media. But if you watch RT TV: there is more news reported than any of the US TV news, and there is less entertainment reported. From a news perspective, RT is more like CNN (of the 1980s when it was good) and Aljazeera before the Arab uprising--propaganda of the Russian perspective notwithstanding. The reach of RT is spreading, and even the website of RT now appears among the top website among Arabs. I mean, just compare RT TV to CNN and Fox. US news media are now nothing but entertainment (boring entertainment at that) and chit-chat.


http://angryarab.blogspot.com/2017/03/w ... rt-tv.html
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Al Queda wins an Oscar

Postby semper occultus » Fri Mar 10, 2017 1:52 pm

Is the BBC still lying over Syria footage?

8 March 2017

http://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/2017-03-08/is-the-bbc-still-lying-over-syria-footage/

Robert Stuart, a tenacious blogger, has been picking away at a scab the BBC would rather leave firmly in place.
His forensic research concerns an edition of the BBC’s flagship investigative current affairs show Panorama called Saving Syria’s Children. It was broadcast more than three years ago, as many in the media were trying to push the British government into intervening in Syria with bombing raids against the Syrian government – in a move that would effectively have bolstered ISIS and al-Qaeda affiliates in Syria.

The Panorama programme was one important piece of evidence advanced for such intervention. The footage it included was broadcast in several different formats, and purported to show the victims of a chemical weapon, or possibly incendiary, attack by the Syrian military on a school. The BBC reporter for Panorama was Ian Pannell.
From the outset, there were concerns about the authenticity of the footage, as I noted in a piece on my own blog in October 2013.
But Stuart’s sustained research and questioning of the BBC, and the state broadcaster’s increasing evasions, have given rise to ever greater concerns about the footage. It looks suspiciously like one scene in particular, of people with horrific burns, was staged.

Rather than confront these concerns and dispel them, the BBC and Pannell have tried a mixture of going to ground, stonewalling and misdirection. That has included trying to remove the footage from social media sites where it had been available.

Even by the BBC’s current dismal standards, its behaviour has been, on the best view, outrageously arrogant. Remember that the BBC is a publicly funded broadcaster. And yet the corporation appears to think it is not even minimally accountable to the British taxpayers who fund it.

In a fascinating new development, a leading freelance TV and radio producer Victor Lewis Smith – and one with a rare conscience and backbone – has intervened after viewing the footage.
He raised troubling questions with the BBC about the Panorama programme and threatened to tear up his contract for a forthcoming radio comedy pilot unless the corporation provided satisfactory answers.
For the first time, the state broadcaster was flushed out of its hiding hole. First, it tried more misdirection, telling him that Ofcom had reviewed the programme and sided with the BBC. But the Ofcom decision was about an RT investigation into the Panorama programme – note that Ofcom has hardly been impartial in its treatment of RT – and not a ruling on the veracity of the BBC footage, which Ofcom admitted it was not in a position to assess.

When Lewis Smith didn’t roll over, as the BBC clearly expected, the corporation offered up Panorama’s editor, Rachel Jupp. She would talk to Lewis Smith to placate him. But she had second thoughts and cried off. Lewis Smith then upped the stakes by asking for Panorama’s rushes and again threatened to terminate his contract.
Finally Jupp issued a feeble statement that did nothing to address the concerns Stuart and others have raised.

The BBC has made clear it isn’t willing to be transparent, open or accountable. British taxpayers wondering whether their money was used by the BBC to support a deception – one designed to bolster the case for a decisive political intervention in an extremely volatile conflict – still have no answers.

Lewis Smith has torn up his contract and announced his intention to make a crowd-funded feature documentary investigating the Panorama programme. Let’s hope he does so. This could prove to be a vital case study to help the British public and others judge whether the BBC is really there to serve them or to serve the British political elite.

UPDATE:
Robert Stuart says this 55-min video examining in detail his research was what got Lewis Smith involved. The cumulative effect of Stuart’s work leaves one troubled by the BBC’s role, to say the very least. The issue of whether this was a genuine or staged event could be settled by the BBC, if it so desired – not least, by releasing the rushes.

- See more at: http://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/2017- ... UGIX4.dpuf
User avatar
semper occultus
 
Posts: 2974
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2006 2:01 pm
Location: London,England
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Al Queda wins an Oscar

Postby tapitsbo » Fri Mar 10, 2017 2:31 pm

stefano » Fri Mar 10, 2017 5:36 am wrote:
tapitsbo » Fri Mar 10, 2017 9:31 am wrote:Does anyone else find it weird that AD says there was a popular/participatory revolt in Syria (plausible)

but doesn't know who was involved in it?

and claims any documentation of it must be the work of evil Russians?

(despite the massive body of scholarship and expert analysis on these topics by specialists throughout the world)

It's almost like most of the posts by AD distract from the agenda of the unambiguously far-right countries which supported the "revolution" (and incidentally refused to take refugees)


A lot of people were involved in it. I wasn't following Syria closely in 2011 but I was watching Tunisia (where I lived for a year in 2007 and where I still have good friends I keep in touch with), and Egypt. It played out similarly in all the places - normal people turned out in numbers to protest, because they were fed up with the corruption and the rights restrictions and the secret prisons. The MB managed to hijack the thing because they were organised, and because they had plans in place to encourage protests (especially through Al Jazeera) and to provoke the security services into shooting at people (a few armed beardies in every crowd were firing shots). And it's definitely true that Assad freed terrorists from jail as a PR stunt. So as the MB became more extremist (especially after Morsi's election in Egypt), and normal people were forced to hustle or emigrate rather than get involved with politics as the war spread, or else took the government's side in opposition to the terrorists, the opposition movement became practically all terrorists.


Yes this mirrors what I have heard roughly - I have also heard that it was only the "terrorists" who had much success against the "regime" yet this elaborate fiction of a "moderate opposition government" has been maintained for YEARS now (popular protests happen all over the place including in North America but there is no similar organization swooping in to turn it into a civil war - yet)

What's extremely frustrating is the charade kept up that there are still some sort of liberal democrat pluralist "opposition" fighters with any stake in the conflict!

Most of the rhetoric of the opposition groups openly gloats about ethnic cleansing of minorities like shia/druze/alawites/christians/kurds (I guess you could frame this as "social justice" - really a stretch though!)

Of course membership in most of the "terrorist" groups has been perfectly legal all along in countries like Turkey or Qatar or Saudi Arabia - or even Western countries...

and let's not kid ourselves, the hardline Islamist groups have thepopular support of hundreds of millions of people around the world (including western centrists who fetishize/romanticize them)

It gets creepy when speaking about these groups or the parties that are in conflict with them becomes framed as fascist wrongthink...
Last edited by tapitsbo on Fri Mar 10, 2017 2:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
tapitsbo
 
Posts: 1824
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2013 6:58 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Al Queda wins an Oscar

Postby American Dream » Fri Mar 10, 2017 2:42 pm

American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Al Queda wins an Oscar

Postby tapitsbo » Fri Mar 10, 2017 2:48 pm

Does somebody have an award for this guy?
tapitsbo
 
Posts: 1824
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2013 6:58 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Al Queda wins an Oscar

Postby Iamwhomiam » Fri Mar 10, 2017 10:16 pm

I believe one word will suffice for my response to you both, Stefano and Elvis:
Oh!

I really paid no attention to news about the white hats anymore than I did the Oscars.

Tapitsbo, are you claiming Trump has shown restraint in exercising his policy towards Assad or Syria?

For whatever reasons, the US government has shown some restraint under the Obama admin and now the Trump admin with Syria.


Because the day you wrote that, Trump landed 800 Marines in Syria. Did Obama call to greatly increase our military budget? Did Trump?

After a century and more of colonial (OIL) exploitation and manipulation, the peoples of Middle Eastern countries have a right to forcefully object to further meddling by the west.
User avatar
Iamwhomiam
 
Posts: 6572
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 2:47 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Al Queda wins an Oscar

Postby tapitsbo » Sat Mar 11, 2017 5:26 am

Restraint compared to other certain other candidates and political figures sure (McCain, Clinton, etc.) who talked about plans to overrun Syria altogether by prioritizing the destruction of what was left of the Syrian government and handing it on a plate to the jihadists who are now getting rolled up into the boxed-in turkish offensive or cut off from their supply lines in places like Idlib...

Yes both the Obama and Trump admins have supported meddling as have the Russians, Europeans, Gulf countries, Iranians, etc.

I take this as the reality of international politics... so far it's stopped quite a bit short of the US role in Iraq, though

My understanding is that the US is increasingly limited in what it can do in this conflict unless it starts pulling off some pretty incendiary moves that would lead to massive domino effects/repercussions... sure the Trump admin might do something like that but they'd run into real problems pulling it off

The US isn't ready for war with countries like Turkey or Iran... the rest of the world wouldn't stand by and let that happen, at least I hope not...

Of course there's a power vacuum opening up as IS loses territory in between Syria and Iraq and the conflict is far from over (not to mention overlap with instability in many other regions like North Africa)

But would the situation REALLY be better if the Syrian government had been "decapitated" with Aleppo and Damascus handed to jihadists (yay White Helmets!) and war spilling into even more adjacent countries?


What's happened so far is horrible enough...
tapitsbo
 
Posts: 1824
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2013 6:58 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Al Queda wins an Oscar

Postby Sounder » Sun Mar 12, 2017 7:17 am

Surely there were many well meaning (but naive) people involved in 'building a better society'. But those NED funded efforts were bound to devolve into the hands of fanatics, who killed the 'revolutionaries' and show magnitudes greater disrespect toward the dignity of the people of Syria than Assad could show in his worst moments.

In a way, I do sort of understand AD's headbanging response. For him Assad is the primary evil, but I think that is a coping device to avoid mentioning his actual primary imperative which is No Borders.



stefano » Fri Mar 10, 2017 5:36 am wrote:

tapitsbo » Fri Mar 10, 2017 9:31 am wrote:
Does anyone else find it weird that AD says there was a popular/participatory revolt in Syria (plausible)

but doesn't know who was involved in it?

and claims any documentation of it must be the work of evil Russians?

(despite the massive body of scholarship and expert analysis on these topics by specialists throughout the world)

It's almost like most of the posts by AD distract from the agenda of the unambiguously far-right countries which supported the "revolution" (and incidentally refused to take refugees)



A lot of people were involved in it. I wasn't following Syria closely in 2011 but I was watching Tunisia (where I lived for a year in 2007 and where I still have good friends I keep in touch with), and Egypt. It played out similarly in all the places - normal people turned out in numbers to protest, because they were fed up with the corruption and the rights restrictions and the secret prisons. The MB managed to hijack the thing because they were organised, and because they had plans in place to encourage protests (especially through Al Jazeera) and to provoke the security services into shooting at people (a few armed beardies in every crowd were firing shots). And it's definitely true that Assad freed terrorists from jail as a PR stunt. So as the MB became more extremist (especially after Morsi's election in Egypt), and normal people were forced to hustle or emigrate rather than get involved with politics as the war spread, or else took the government's side in opposition to the terrorists, the opposition movement became practically all terrorists.




Yes this mirrors what I have heard roughly - I have also heard that it was only the "terrorists" who had much success against the "regime" yet this elaborate fiction of a "moderate opposition government" has been maintained for YEARS now (popular protests happen all over the place including in North America but there is no similar organization swooping in to turn it into a civil war - yet)

What's extremely frustrating is the charade kept up that there are still some sort of liberal democrat pluralist "opposition" fighters with any stake in the conflict!

Most of the rhetoric of the opposition groups openly gloats about ethnic cleansing of minorities like shia/druze/alawites/christians/kurds (I guess you could frame this as "social justice" - really a stretch though!)

Of course membership in most of the "terrorist" groups has been perfectly legal all along in countries like Turkey or Qatar or Saudi Arabia - or even Western countries...

and let's not kid ourselves, the hardline Islamist groups have thepopular support of hundreds of millions of people around the world (including western centrists who fetishize/romanticize them)

It gets creepy when speaking about these groups or the parties that are in conflict with them becomes framed as fascist wrongthink...
All these things will continue as long as coercion remains a central element of our mentality.
Sounder
 
Posts: 4054
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 8:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Al Queda wins an Oscar

Postby tapitsbo » Sun Mar 12, 2017 2:17 pm

I'm pretty sure most people in the middle east don't support "fanatics", but there are a lot of people who do.

And "fanatics" are interested in their own sorts of borders.

"Fanatics" are maybe easier for countries like the US and its allies to push around - for now - that's debatable though.
tapitsbo
 
Posts: 1824
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2013 6:58 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Previous

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests