Death squads in Syria: deconstructing western
propaganda w/videos
4 articles here; the 4th, Syria: Another Western false flag event? has 2 impt (and graphic) video links :
*********************************
My sole purpose is to disseminate as much information as possible about this tragic events.I do not take any responsibility for the political positions taken whatsoever in here . Specially when the writers "support" the reactionary Islamic regime in Iran ,with their dead wrong analysis !!
PayYmaN PieDaR
********************************
Syria Under Attack by Globalist Death Squad ExpertsBy Brandon Turbeville Activist Post Monday, May 28, 2012
As the destabilization effort against Syria continues, the connections between the terrorist “opposition” forces and Anglo-American, pro-NATO governments are becoming more and more obvious, even as the mainstream media refuses to address the issue in any manner other than direct obfuscation. Thankfully, a sizable portion of the alternative media, along with outspoken Syrians like YouTube blogger Syrian Girl have played a major role in exposing the “rebels” for what they are – foreign terrorists and criminal Syrian elements that are being backed by Anglo-American and pro-NATO governments and intelligence agencies. Many of these individuals are admittedly al-Qaeda, much like the Libyan “rebels” who, after taking power with the help of NATO, immediately began restricting freedoms and slaughtering black Libyans. Indeed, a sizable portion of these terrorists have actually traveled from Libya to Syria, with some working from across the borders of Turkey, Jordan, and Lebanon. As author and historian, Webster Griffin Tarpley, has aptly stated before, it is now widely apparent that al-Qaeda is nothing more than the United States’ Arab legion. In addition, due the increasing level of brazenness with which the Anglo-American empires are engaging in their operations, the actual players involved in the destabilization efforts are also becoming more visible as well. One individual who is receiving uncharacteristic levels of press attention is Robert Ford, the U.S. ambassador to Syria. Of course, all of the reporting by the mainstream media is glowing and supportive, making it seem as if Ford were a bona fide people’s hero fighting for an oppressed population. Yet the reality is that he is nothing more than a globalist destabilization expert who is merely taking over from his mentor John Negroponte, who became quite refined as a enabler of mass slaughter in Central America and Iraq. Indeed, Negroponte’s Iraq affair is where Ford himself was able to hone his skills in the arming and assistance of ruthless death squads who target innocent people in campaigns of terror and mass murder. Now, however, questions must arise over possible connections to destabilization agents and potential participation in these efforts by General Robert Mood, the Norwegian general which has recently been appointed head of the United Nations Supervision Mission in Syria (UNSMIS) as well as the ever-present David Petraeus in the background. First, however, some background might be necessary for those who are not familiar with the connections between the prominent “officials” like Ford and Negroponte and how they are relevant to the situation in Syria. It should be noted that Prof. Michel Chossudovsky of GlobalResearch has provided an excellent historical presentation of the connections of Negroponte, Ford, and Petraeus in relation to death squads and destabilization in his article “The Pentagon’s ‘Salvador Option’: The Deployment of Death Squads in Iraq and Syria.” I encourage everyone to read this excellent piece for context and analysis as a companion to my own article. John Negroponte was the U.S. ambassador to Honduras from 1981 to 1985. In this role, he was instrumental in supporting and overseeing the Nicaraguan Contra killers who, although based in Honduras, engaged in horrific acts of terrorism inside Nicaragua. Ultimately, this operation claimed the lives of approximately 50,000 innocent civilians. This is the origin of the term “Salvador Option” when speaking of the formation of “death squads” for political purposes, an option that has become a hallmark of Negroponte and the system which he represents. Negroponte was also responsible for the formation of the Honduran death squads who engaged in a mission of terror against opponents of the US-backed Honduran regime as well as the Sandinistas and civilian populations in Nicaragua. As Peter Roff and James Chapin write in their article “Face-off: Bush’s Foreign Policy Warriors,”
In 2005, Negroponte was appointed as ambassador to Iraq. In this role, he again oversaw the formation of death squads who targeted both the civilian populations and the Iraqi insurgency. The goal here was to foment division within the insurgency and turn it into a fragmented front. A divided opposition is obviously much easier to defeat than a united one. This theory has been proven accurate time and time again. Indeed, in 2005, a story was leaked to Newsweek where the Pentagon confirmed that it was “considering forming hit squads of Kurdish and Shia fighters to target leaders of the Iraqi insurgency in a strategic shift borrowed from the American struggle against left-wing guerrillas in Central America 20 years ago.”1 The Pentagon did more than “consider” this option. Not very long after this information was leaked, Iraq began to see the results of its implementation. As Dahr Jamail of Antiwar.com wrote in 2007,
Of course, the fact that the death squad option was implemented so quickly after the release of the report suggests that the mercenaries were being organized and applied long before Newsweek was made aware of them. Nevertheless, serving in Iraq at the same time that the death squads were beginning to make their bloody mark on the cohesion of the “insurgency,” was Robert Ford who, at the time, had been appointed political counselor to the U.S. embassy in Baghdad. Ford remained in this post from 2004-2006 where he worked closely with Negroponte. He was also heavily involved in the organization of the death squads. Ford was instrumental in helping make “contacts” with these individuals as well as developing and maintaining relations with them for other purposes such as continued and future terror campaigns. In fact, Ford was once described by Negroponte as “one of these very tireless people . . . who didn’t mind putting on his flak jacket and helmet and going out of the Green Zone to meet contacts.” In short, Ford acted as a foot soldier in death squad formation. Attempting to summarize the death squad plan, Michael Hirsh and John Barry of Newsweek wrote in 2005:
Commenting further on the Newsweek article, the Times Online added, “Nor is it clear who would take responsibility for such a programme – the Pentagon or the Central Intelligence Agency. Such covert operations have traditionally been run by the CIA at arm’s length from the administration in power, giving US officials the ability to deny knowledge of it.”2 Although the focus of these articles revolve around the question of CIA/Pentagon death squads in Iraq, it is important to notice that, as far back as 2005, it was admitted that there were clear plans to create, fund, and operate death squads in Syria. Ford and Negroponte are not the only high-profile US officials in the trenches of death squad development however. General David Petraeus , now Director of the CIA, established and subsequently assumed command of the Multi-National Security Transition Command Iraq (MNSTC) under the auspices of training and equipping the Iraqi army, police, and security forces. Petraeus’ personal command of the MNSTC began in 2004, at virtually the same time Negroponte was appointed ambassador. In reality, MNSTC was not merely about training Iraqi forces, but about establishing death squads. Indeed, it was a true counterinsurgency strategy that was instrumental to the Iraqi “Salvador Option” employed by the Pentagon and, likely, the CIA. Although Petraeus is now Director of the CIA, his military connections are no doubt intact. Indeed, relationships of this nature do not change with the mere presentation of a new title on one operative or another. Likewise, Robert Ford’s 2009 appointment as ambassador to Syria is merely the insertion of yet another destabilization agent into the Syrian landscape. Ford’s current action in Syria serves the exact same purpose as his presence in Iraq only a few years previous. This time, however, it seems that Ford is taking on a more central role in the affair. Indeed, many Syrians, if not aware of the more sinister acts of Ford, are at least aware that he has been instrumental in fomenting violent rebellion and negative Western public opinion against the ruling government. This is why Ford’s convoy was attacked by “pro-government” Syrians as he rode through town meeting with his terrorist pets. Ford’s very presence in Syria has been nothing more than a destabilization tactic. Indeed, he has drawn quite a bit of international attention to himself by traveling across the country at will, “meeting with protestors” and turning terrorists into martyrs in the minds of the gullible Western public. Logically, by “meeting with protestors” one can read “instigating terrorism.” The mainstream media, however, reports Ford’s terror encouragement tour as a heroic act of solidarity with “the people.” Eventually, after a succession of terror tours the Assad regime finally slapped restrictions on Ford’s travel, requiring him not to leave the boundaries of Damascus. However, Ford openly disregarded those limitations and brazenly began traveling all over Syria, meeting with his terrorist brethren. Of course, one should not forget that Petraeus, as CIA Director and a direct connection and common denominator between U.S. military and NATO contacts, is also a major player in the Syrian “Salvador Option” which is now taking shape. The death squad strategy is largely useless without at least of one these institutions, a relatively easy accomplish since, at the top of both, the establishment merges to form the same shadow government. Nevertheless, there is one more major player in the Syrian destabilization that should be drawing some more attention for his potential role in the early development of the Syrian death squads. General Robert Mood, the Norwegian general who is now the head of the United Nations Supervision Mission In Syria (UNSMIS), is not without his own potential for connections to destabilization efforts in Syria. Ironically, Mood has extensive connections with NATO, the organization (by virtue of its member nations) which is responsible for the Syrian destabilization to begin with. So, as it stands, we now have NATO being sent in to Syria to observe and report on the actions of NATO (the death squads). One can already assume what observations will be made to the general public in the coming days (or weeks). It is worth noting that General Mood holds a Master’s Degree in Military Studies from the U.S. Marine Corps. University as well as attending his own countries Norwegian Army Staff College and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Defense College located in Rome – truly a citizen of the world. From 2008 to 2011, Mood was the Commander in Chief of the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization (UNTSO), an organization whose stated purpose is to provide a military command structure for UN peacekeeping functions in the Middle East. Mood was also Operations Officer for the Norwegian Battalion of UNIFL (United Nations Interim Force In Lebanon) during the 1980s. However, interestingly enough, Mood, in his position as Commander in Chief of UNTSO, oversaw the various established groups of UN “observers,” some of which were (and still are) located in Syria. One of those groups OGG (Observer Group Golan) is split into two different substations with one of those stations headquartered in Damascus (OGG – Damascus). Other outposts of UNTSO are based in Israel, Lebanon (which borders Syria), and Egypt. Mood’s position then, would put him squarely involved in Syria at the same time as Robert Ford and presumably, David Petraeus via his personally delegated presence. With that in mind, one must wonder what role Mood might have had in the formation of the death squads being developed at the time. Webster Tarpley alluded to this possibility in an interview conducted with PressTV when he said:
The fact that the “rebellion” in Syria is actually a NATO/Anglo-American/Arab puppet state fostered destabilization effort is not debatable to anyone who has even a basic grasp of the events now transpiring in the region. Although it is taking much longer to do to Syria what these same forces accomplished in Libya, the game plan remains exactly the same. In fact, many of the players that took part in the dismantling the Gaddafi regime are now involved in the destruction of Assad’s government. The same al-Qaeda terrorists that emerged in Libya have now traveled to Syriafor round two of imperial moves to establish puppet governments and reduce the living standards of an entire nation. The infamous Libyan “rebel” leader Belhaj is now reportedly conducting operations in Syria as well. Of course, all of these forces work with the direct aid of the Anglo-Americans and the de facto world army known as NATO. It has even been reported by Thierry Meyssan of the Voltaire Network that French agents acting as mercenaries/death squad participants were captured by the Syrian government early on in the “rebellion.” All the while, the mainstream Western media reported the events as “peaceful protest” and a grass-roots level organic Syrian uprising against an oppressive regime. In examining the behavior and writings of the world elite, it is abundantly clear that Syria exists as the last stepping stone before war is launched against Iran. It seems almost certain that the Assad regime must be replaced by a puppet government more favorable to the Anglo-American imperial powers or, at the very least, one that is incapable of resisting them. While Syria has lasted much longer than its counterparts Libya and Egypt, it is unlikely that it will be able to hold out much longer, particularly with the acceptance of the UN “observer” forces inside its borders and an ever-growing pro-war sentiment expressed by Western governments. If war is launched on Iran, whether by the Western powers or by Israel, World War Three is likely to follow. While the United States and hence the rest of NATO will undoubtedly follow the footsteps of the mad dog of the Middle East, Russia will likely take the opposing side. China and India are likely to follow Russia. A direct clash of these world powers has the potential to produce more destruction than the previous two world wars put together. Although not the architects of the war, it is important that the names of Negroponte, Ford, Petraeus, and Mood be remembered for posterity as the worker bees who facilitated it. Notes:
Source: Activist Post Brandon Turbeville is an author out of Mullins, South Carolina. He has a Bachelor's Degree from Francis Marion University and is the author of three books, Codex Alimentarius -- The End of Health Freedom, 7 Real Conspiracies, and Five Sense Solutions and Dispatches >From a Dissident. Turbeville has published over one hundred articles dealing with a wide variety of subjects including health, economics, government corruption, and civil liberties. Brandon Turbeville is available for podcast, radio, and TV interviews. Please contact us at activistpost (at) gmail.com. Anti-Syrian Propaganda Promotes War by Stephen LendmanA previous article discussed scoundrel media anti-Iranian propaganda. They also target Syria. They march in lockstep with imperial lawlessness. Readers and viewers deserve better than misinformation and betrayal. They need alternative sources to avoid it. Washington has longstanding designs on Iran and Syria. Regime change is planned by any means. War threatens both countries. Obama, the peace candidate, can't wait to start another one. He's already guilty of war crimes multiples times over. Media scoundrels back him. Peace, equity, justice, human and civil rights, other democratic values, and obeying rule of law principles don't matter. Political Washington abhors them. So do media scoundrels. America unmasked is loathsome, dangerous and rapacious. Scoundrel media reality reveals rejection of fundamental journalistic principles. The Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) "is dedicated to the perpetuation of a free press as the cornerstone of our nation and our liberty." Democratic freedom depends on keeping "the American people well informed....It is the role of journalists to provide this information in an accurate, comprehensive, timely and understandable manner." SPJ's Code of Ethics affirms this responsibility. Scoundrel media members fall way short. Fiction substitutes for fact. News is carefully filtered. Dissent is marginalized, and support for wealth and power is policy. Aggressive wars are called liberating ones. Civil liberties are suppressed for our own good, and patriotism means going along with government policy no matter how repugnant, lawless or destructive. On May 26, headlines featured dozens killed in Houla. Fingers pointed the wrong way. The New York Times headlined "Dozens of Children Die in Brutal Attack on Syrian Town," saying: Over 100 died, "including at least 32 children under the age of 10," according to UN (unnamed) officials. Assad was blamed for "indiscriminate" shelling civilian neighborhoods. "....Syrian tanks and artillery pounded Houla....during the day, (unidentified) opposition groups said...." "(S)oldiers and pro-government fighters stormed the village and killed families in their homes late at night." Sources weren't named or checked. Scoundrel media regurgitate spurious accounts. Headlines scream them. Reports distort, lie, and omit what's most important. Since early last year, US, UK and perhaps other NATO and regional special forces operated in Syria. So have CIA and MI6 agents. Israel is also involved. So are other regional states. Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Jordan, Libya's puppet regime, and Lebanon's March 14 alliance actively aid rogue killers. Washington orchestrates everything. Britain's a willing partner. So are France and other NATO states. Arms, ammunition, equipment, and funding are supplied. So is training and direction on the ground. It replicates the Libya model. So far it's short of NATO bombing. For how long matters most. Western-generated violence advances the ball closer to war. Claims about a popular uprising are spurious. At issue is Washington's long-planned insurrection to replace Assad with a pro-US puppet. In February 2011, US, UK and French special forces together with intelligence operatives actively aided anti- Gaddafi insurgents. Bombing began weeks later. Despite denials, NATO stands ready to intervene in Syria and perhaps Iran. Washington orchestrated war on Libya. It's directing anti-Assad efforts now. All options are open. Expect war. It's coming, then another post-November against Iran. Ravaging the world one country at a time is policy. The business of America is war. Permanent ones are planned. How much more humanity can takes worries independent analysts reflecting on issues this vital. World peace is up for grabs. So is humanity's survival. The threat remains grave and real. Yet it's unaddressed publicly. On May 27, Syrian Sana State media headlined "Makdissi: Syria Categorically Denies Responsibility of the Syrian Forces for al-Houla Massacre," saying: Spokesman for Syrian Foreign Affairs and Expatriates Minister, Jihad Makdissi, denied spurious reports blaming Assad for mass slaughter in Houla. Western-backed insurgents bear full responsibility. It wasn't the first time and won't be the last. Pointing fingers the wrong way blames victims. Makdissi held a Sunday press conference. He strongly condemned insurgent killings. No government tanks or artillery entered Houla. Hundreds of insurgents attacked civilians with Western weapons. "The law enforcement members never left their positions and were in a state of self-defense." Makdissi also condemned the "tsumami" of lies naming Assad for what Western-backed insurgents committed. "We've talked to the Defense Ministry, the Interior Ministry and the authorities concerned in the picture of what happened in Houla." "It has been confirmed that hundreds of gunmen gathered at 2:00 o'clock on Friday afternoon , using Pick-up cars loaded with up-to-date and heavy weapons, like mortars, machineguns and anti-tank missiles, which are newly used in the confrontation with the state forces.'' "The gunmen headed to al-Houla area which is guarded by the government forces at five points where law-enforcement members and security are positioned, which lie outside the places where the massacres happened." "The attack lasted from 2:00 pm o'clock until 11:00 pm. 3 law-enforcement members were martyred and 16 injured, some critically, and there were charred bodies.'' Makkissi also mentioned a recent Al-Shoumarieh village massacre. Insurgents burnt homes, crops and a hospital. Both incidents are part of a broader campaign to terrorize Syrian civilians. It's done to turn them against Assad. Instead, his support grows. If war comes, he get much more. America and other Security Council scoundrels support regime change and lawless killing. Heavy arms reach Syrian insurgents regularly. Women, children and the elderly are targeted. Kofi Annan's sham peace plan was cover to permit it. Syrian forces provide security as best they can. Assad confronts insurgents responsibly. Doing so draws blame. Fingers point the wrong way. Washington bears most responsibility. So do key NATO partners, Turkey, Israel, and other neighboring states. They're providing arms and safe havens. They're guilty of crimes of war and against humanity. The Syrian Human Rights Network condemned terrorist killings. One massacre follows another. It called on other human rights group to unite against Western imperialism. As expected, UN Secretary-General and Kofi Annan blamed the victims. Their disingenuous condemnation said: "This appalling and brutal crime involving indiscriminate and disproportionate use of force is a flagrant violation of international law and of the commitments of the Syrian government to cease the use of heavy weapons in population centers and violence in all its forms." A brief White House statement called the attack "a vile testament to an illegitimate regime that responds to peaceful political protest with unspeakable and inhuman brutality." Hillary Clinton, an unindicted war criminal, said: "The United States condemns in the strongest possible terms yesterday's massacre in the Syrian village of Haoula. United Nations observers have confirmed that dozens of men, women, and children were killed and hundreds more wounded in a vicious assault that involved a regime artillery and tank barrage on a residential neighborhood." "Those who perpetrated this atrocity must be identified and held to account. And the United States will work with the international community to intensify our pressure on Asad and his cronies, whose rule by murder and fear must come to an end." "We stand in solidarity with the Syrian people and the peaceful marchers in cities across Syria who have taken to the streets to denounce the massacre in Haoula." EU foreign policy head Catherine Ashton also blamed Assad. She accused him of "heinous act(s) perpetrated by (his) regime against (his) civilian population." The European parliament head called Houla killings a war crime. Indeed so but responsible parties weren't named. France called for a Friends of Syria meeting. Britain summoned Syria's envoy to explain. It also called for and got a Security Council meeting. On Sunday, a closed door session was held. A statement followed. In part it said: "The members of the Security Council condemned in the strongest possible terms the killings, confirmed by United Nations observers, of dozens of men, women and children and the wounding of hundreds more in the village of El-Houleh, near Homs, in attacks that involved a series of government artillery and tank shellings on a residential neighbourhood." "The members of the Security Council also condemned the killing of civilians by shooting at close range and by severe physical abuse." "The members of the Security Council reiterated that all violence in all its forms by all parties must cease. Those responsible for acts of violence must be held accountable." "The members of the Security Council demanded that the Government of Syria immediately cease the use of heavy weapons in population centres and immediately pullback its troops and its heavy weapons from in and around population centres and return them to their barracks." What should have been highlighted wasn't stressed. Insurgent killers weren't condemned. Russia and China went along. They'll have to explain why. Condemnation focused largely on Assad. Defending civilians against Western recruited mercenaries wasn't explained. At the same time, Moscow's Deputy UN ambassador, Alexander Pankin, refused to rule out insurgent responsibility. He also suggested foreign special forces involvement. Russia knows full well who's responsible. It's time to say so in blunt terms. UN observer mission head General Robert Mood said "killing innocent children and civilians (must) stop." He disingenuously claimed responsible parties remain "unclear." He knows full well what's going on. He and other observers have been attacked several times. In closed Sunday session, he briefed Security Council members. Details are sketchy. He said at least 116 were killed. Many were children. Unofficial reports suggest he blamed Assad. He knows who's responsible but blamed the victim. Many civilians were killed with knives or shot at close range. Insurgent assassins were responsible. Possibly US and UK special forces directed them. America deploys death squads in dozens of countries. For sure Syria and Iran are targeted. Nonetheless, victims are blamed for killer gang crimes. The hypocrisy requires no comment. Expect no end of conflict. War advances closer. Russia and China are Syria's last line of defense. They've provided firewall protection so far. For how much longer remains unclear. Daily things spin more out of control. Full-blown conflict looms. The so-call Free Syrian Army said it's no longer committed to Annan's peace plan. It refused its terms all along. Its disingenuous statement said: "We won't allow truce after truce, which prolongs the crisis for years." It's terrorism bears full responsibility. It committed daily violence since last year. It won't tolerate peace and security. It's mission is death, destruction, turmoil, and toppling Assad in league with Washington, NATO partners, and rogue regional allies. Kuwait currently heads the 22-member Arab League. It called for a ministerial meeting to "take steps to put an end to the oppressive practices against the Syrian people." Kuwait and most other League members support Western imperialism. They're part of the problem, not the solution. On May 27, The New York Times headlined "US Hopes Assad Can Be Eased Out With Russia's Aid," saying: Obama "will push for the departure of President Bashar al-Assad under a proposal modeled on the transition in another strife-torn Arab country, Yemen." Yemen's election was illegitimate. Former president Ali Abdullah Saleh's vice president, Mansour Al-Hadi, ran unopposed. New faces representing old policies kept power. Washington orchestrated everything behind the scenes. Obama wants a similar process replacing Assad with a pro-Western puppet. "The success of the plan hinges on Russia," said The Times. Obama will press Vladimir Putin to go along. On June 18 and 19, they'll meet at the Mexico G20 summit. Los Cabos, Baja California Sur plays host city. On May 9, Putin spoke in Moscow's Red Square. His speech commemorated Russia's victory over Nazi Germany. He addressed troops and war veterans. He promised strength and assertiveness as president, saying: "Russia has been consistently pursuing a policy of strengthening the world's security and we have a great moral right to take a principled and insistent stand." He pointed fingers at Washington and NATO. According to Plekhanov Moscow University of Economics vice president Sergei Markov: Putin "made it clear that such threats that arise from the United States exist today and can eventually lead to a global confrontation." In early May, Russian Chief of General Staff Nikolai Makarov said Moscow may preemptively strike America's missile shield in neighboring countries. In November, then President Dmitry Medvedev threatened to withdraw from New START. Washington's installations target Russia. They pose a strategic threat. So do surrounding bases and America's Syria and Iran regime change plans. America wants unchallenged regional dominance. Putin understands the threat. He appears determined to act. He accused Washington of orchestrating Moscow street protests. He cancelled plans to attend the May G8 summit. He wasn't with NATO states in Chicago. On May 28, Press TV said "Russia's military intelligence organization (GRU) believes that Washington was behind the crash of a Russian Sukhoi Superjet 100 plane in Indonesia earlier in May." Forty-five on board were killed. The demonstration flight showed potential buyers the plane's advanced technological capability. A GRU general said: "We know that (Washington) ha(s) special equipment that can cut communications between an aircraft and the ground or interfere with the parameters on board." He said electronic jamming the plane's onboard equipment likely caused the crash. The black box cockpit voice recorder indicated "no systemic problem or functional failure" during flight. Alexander Yablontsev was one of Russia's most experienced test pilots. An unnamed Sukhoi official suggested "industrial sabotage to drive our aircraft from the market." Whether for strategic and/or commercial reasons, America often commits these type acts. Doing it on Putin's watch perhaps heightens his determination to confront Western aggression. He's unlikely to yield on Syria or Iran. He seems determined to avoid war at all costs. Given Washington's rage to topple Assad, succeeding may prove out of reach. Events going forward bear watching.  Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.His new book is titled "How Wall Street Fleeces America: Privatized Banking, Government Collusion and Class War" Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening . Piling on Irresponsibly Against Syriaby Stephen LendmanWhen Washington and Israel plan war, even sources that know better pile on. Haaretz is no exception. At times it reports responsibly. Other times it falls short. More on that below. Founded in 1918, Haaretz is Israel's oldest broadsheet. Britain Mandate government sponsored it. In 1919, Zionist immigrants took control. Initially it was called Hadashot Haaretz (News of the Land). Later it became Haaretz (The Land). In 1937, Salman Schocken bought the paper. In 1939, his son Gershom became editor-in-chief. He remained so until death in 1990. Schocken family members maintained full ownership. In 2006, that changed. German publisher M. DeMont Schauberg acquired a 25% stake. Former Israeli German ambassador, Avi Primor, helped negotiate the deal. In June 2011, Russian/Israeli businessman Leonid Nevzlin bought a 20% interest. Schoken family members now owns 60%. Gershom Schocken established Haaretz's editorial policy. Current chief editor Aluf Benn has responsibility. It's published in Hebrew and English. It's also available online. It usually leans left but not always. It's followed closely by opinion makers within and outside Israel. The paper calls itself liberal on domestic and international affairs. Increasingly it falls short. Sometimes it tries having it both ways. For example, in covering Nabka Day 2012, it published a photo showing a Palestinian stone thrower. Doing so was irresponsible. In discussing Amnesty International's annual human rights report condemning Israeli excessive, sometimes lethal, force, another photo displayed Palestinian violence. Stone-throwing was again shown. An Israeli army bulldozer was portrayed as victim, not aggressor. Haaretz also omitted vital information AI explained. At times when discussing clashes between soldiers and Palestinians, coverage slants one way. It suggests security forces respond to Palestinian provocations. It's virtually always the other way. Haaretz knows but won't say. Its May 28 editorial reflects irresponsible opinion. Headlined "UN troops to Syria now," it said: "The scope of the slaughter in Syria should be enough to justify purposeful action to show that the international community is not prepared to watch from the sidelines." It called Western-generated insurgents a "revolt (against Assad's) regime." It blamed him for killer gang violence. It cited baseless UN death figures. No one knows the true toll. No source was named or credible evidence cited. It called for international "action to remove the murderous regime." Doing so points fingers the wrong way. Fundamental rule of law principles were ignored. No nation may interfere in the internal affairs of others unless attacked. Haaretz understands but stayed silent. Syria attacked no one. It's under attack. Daily externally-generated violence rages. Assad confronts it responsibly. So would all leaders, including democrats, despots and everyone in between. Blaming victims is unconscionable. It reflects scoundrel, not legitimate, journalism. Haaretz knows better. Too often it falls short. It backed NATO's war on Gaddafi. Irresponsible reporting encouraged the wrong side. It supports Annan's peace plan. It's one-sided cover for imperial lawlessness. It ignores Washington's longstanding regime change plans. It's silent on Israel's role. Its provocations go unmentioned. So does its regional dominance plan. Haaretz supports military aggression. It urges UN intervention. Rule of law principles don't matter. Nor does right over wrong. "This authority must be applied without delay." Turkish and Lebanese Security are threatened, it claimed. Ankara's direct role was ignored. Responsible opinion writers draw conclusions from verifiable facts. Haaretz often regurgitates baseless claims and spurious accusations, especially on war and peace issues. It's part of NATO's anti-Assad campaign. Turkey plays a key role. It provides insurgents safe havens, arms, and other direct aid. Its military is actively involved. Lebanon's March 14 alliance provides arms. So do other regional states, NATO countries, and Israel. Haaretz claimed "Hezbollah will try to divert attention from Syria to Israel." Responsible journalism avoids baseless inflammatory statements, comments and accusations. On May 28, a Reuters story was featured. Headlined "Shelling on Syria opposition kills 30 in Hama days after Houla massacre," it said: "Syrian army tanks shelled (Hama) residential neighborhoods...." It cited unnamed opposition, not legitimate, sources. "A video circulated by opposition sources purportedly showed a group of people, including two toddlers, lying wounded or dead on the floor of a mosque in the city, including several bodies with severed limbs." Blame game finger pointing shamelessly names victims. On May 27, Haaretz headlined "Netanyahu: Israel 'appalled' by Syria massacre; Iran and Hezbollah must also be held responsible." In a statement his office released, he said: He's "appalled at the continuous slaughter of innocent civilians by Assad's forces....Iran and Hezbollah cannot be separated from Assad's massacre, and the world needs to take action against them as well." Netanyahu's a world class thug. He's a regional menace. He enforces occupation harshness. He mocks democratic governance. He threatens nonbelligerent neighbors. Quoting him without comment is irresponsible. Publishing lies is worse. Doing it mars Haaretz's reputation. It's happening much too often. It's also true on Iran. Numerous reports include false and misleading information. On May 28, it headlined "Report: Iran sought to strike Jewish, US targets in Azerbaijan," saying: Iran was implicated in a foiled plot, it said. A Washington Post report was cited. It claimed emails sent to America's Azerbaijan ambassador, Matthew Bryza. Sources cited were unnamed US officials. They always lack credibility. The scheme allegedly involved "snipers with silencer-equipped rifles and a car bomb." Iran was named responsible. Why wasn't explained. What could Tehran hope to gain? Recall last year's spurious claims about plans to kill Saudi's US ambassador in Washington. Regurgitated in screaming headlines, they were laughable on their face. They read more like a bad film plot. Other fake terror ones followed. All lacked credibility. None passed the smell test. Neither does the alleged Azerbaijan scheme and claims about Tehran's nonexistent nuclear weapons program. Every time charges surface, baseless claims, not evidence are cited. Regurgitating inflammatory reports reflects irresponsible journalism. Haaretz backs regime change in Syria. It joined Netanyahu's war on Iran. Numerous articles include spurious accusations. Iran denies all charges. An official statement this time said: "We believe that the glorious people of Azerbaijan understand that this part of the script of Iranophobia and Islamophobia (that) is organized by the Zionists and the United States." On May 28, Haaretz headlined "Israeli public must take stock of the Iranian issue," saying: Iran has "enough enriched uranium to assemble five nuclear bombs. Within a fairly short time, Iran will not be far from passing the threshold and becoming a nuclear power....Don't say you didn't know." All nations with commercial nuclear reactors have enough uranium and plutonium to produce multiple bombs. Only a handful do. Israel is among them. It's nuclear armed and dangerous. Haaretz ignored the real threat. Instead it cited years of failure to halt Iran's peaceful nuclear program by non-military means. It claimed Israel is "in a state of numb exhaustion." It said "sovereign citizens....have two strikes against us in this contest with Iran, and we cannot afford strike three." It implied support, but didn't endorse war. In March, it claimed Israeli satellite images "raised suspicions" about Iran concealing nuclear tests. It said evidence "reinforce(s)" Israel's accusation about Tehran allegedly developing nuclear weapons. So-called evidence showed trucks and earth-moving vehicles at Iran's Parchin military site. Accusations suggested "carting away radioactive material created in nuclear testing." Claims were spurious on their face. Equipment cited proved nothing. If ground areas are irradiated, residues remain no matter how much earth is removed. Total cleanup is virtually impossible. Repeating baseless accusations without evidence reflects irresponsible journalism. Doing it repeatedly is unconscionable. Haaretz is guilty much too often, especially on Iran and Syria. Doing so makes imperial war more likely. Against either nation threatens the entire region. General war may follow. Involvement is a heavy cross to bear. Haaretz shares blame with other media scoundrels. Hopefully it'll report responsibly again. The stakes are much too high to do less. Syria: Another Western false flag event?29.05.2012Photographic manipulation again, using a supposed massacre to change public opinion, parading bodies of children supposedly killed by President Assad's armed forces? Interesting, because the picture shown is of over 100 bodies of children when according to the same source, the number killed was 32. The lie is exposed below. The mathematics once again does not add up. Let us see the history of western lies. Remember the yellowcake uranium Saddam Hussein was buying from "Nigeria" to make nuclear bombs? He wasn't. And anyway it's Niger, not Nigeria. Remember the fantastic evidence proving he had Weapons of Mass Destruction - the doctorate thesis copied and pasted from the Internet and sexed up by Downing Street? He didn't have any. Remember the oil-clogged bird shown to conjure up horrific images of animals affected by the Kuwaiti oil spill in the Gulf? It was taken in Alaska and was a victim of the Exxon Valdez disaster. Remember the "evidence" that Colonel Gaddafi's armed forces were strafing and bombing civilians? They weren't. There have been numerous attempts to create false flag events in Syria, including shipping chemical weapons to the Turkish border to use on civilians and blame the Government - a plan which was picked up and mentioned by me in this column before it happened. And now we have the "massacre of Houla", a village near Homs. According to whom? For a start the Syrian authorities deny any involvement in such a massacre and sent a team to investigate, after admitting there was terrorist activity in the area. By terrorist activity read the new Western friends, Al-Qaeda. And after what the FUKUS Axis' terrorists did in Libya - slicing the breasts off women in the streets, cutting the lips off black African detainees, torturing people to death, raping, torching people and property, and after discovering that a sizeable number of "Syrian" terrorists are in fact Libyan terrorists, who would put such an atrocity past these...people, especially since Al-Qaeda is involved (?) In fact, where does Western complicity end and how deeply are they covertly involved in this incident to drum up another false flag event to sponsor another nice little war? Now we have allegations against BBC (what again?). Remember the photos of "hundreds of thousands" of Russians taking to the streets against Putin recently? Except they didn't, the real numbers were a few thousand, many of them paid, and the photos concerned were from the 1991 demonstrations against the dissolution of the USSR. Remember the photos of the violence in Moscow? Except it wasn't, the pictures were from Greece, complete with National Bank of Greece in the background, in Greek. That was an American news source. This time it is allegedly a photo showing Syrian children bound up in bundles. However, The Italian photographer Marco di Lauro has been quoted as claiming that he took that photograph. In Iraq, nine years ago! What really happened at Houla? For a start, why don't Governments try to find out what really happened before allowing knee-jerk reactions to bring them to the brink of hasty and dangerous decisions? The same goes for newspapers and media outlets spreading nonsense and rubbish as "news". We have already exposed a puerile attempt to misuse photographic evidence by one outlet. As regards the other photographs, for a start, if, as it has been claimed, the Houla Massacre was an 18-hour barrage of heavy artillery fire, why then are the victims not blasted to pieces? For those of us who have witnessed heavy artillery barrages and inspected the damage, you do not have bullet or stab wounds in your head or neck. You have mutilated and unrecognisable bodies. You have heads severed from necks, you have bones sticking out through skin, you have limbs torn off, you have guts and brains spread all over walls and floors. In the case of Houla, the bodies are intact, looking as if the victims were killed at close range with knife or gun wounds from short range, or else were victims of short-range RPG attack. Watch this video of a Syrian girl explaining the west's policy in the backdrop to Houla: http://www.infowars.com/syrian-houla-massacres-divide-conquer-strategy-exposed/ Are these the victims of heavy artillery fire? And what about the other massacres committed against peaceful Syrian families by the western-backed terrorist forces? In the following video, we see a Syrian terrorist with an RPG launcher firing into the buildings at Houla. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ijsGZiIqS4 The only question remains is was this massacre committed by the so-called FSA (Free Syrian Army) or by the British and American special forces reportedly already inside the country? After what the FUKUS-Axis did in Libya... Timothy-Bancroft-Hinchey http://english.pravda.ru/world/asia/29-05-2012/121255-syria_massacre-0/ |
No comments:
Post a Comment