Syria watch...

[raspberry-blower]

Craig Murray: Index on disgrace

Mr Freedland is of course a perfect representation of an interesting fact. Those who are most active in telling us that we must attack Syria, and that anybody who questions the government’s pretexts is insane or evil, are precisely the same individuals who supported the war in Iraq and attacked those who doubted the existence of Iraqi WMD. indeed these people – Jonathan Freedland, David Aaronovitch, Oliver Kamm, Alan Mendoza, Andrew Rawnsley, John Rentoul, Nick Cohen – are the leaders of the tiny, insignificant number of people who still believe that the invasion of Iraq was both justified and beneficial in its result.

Yet these people of proven terrible judgement, they and others of their media class, are the arbiters who are allowed to dictate the terms of what is and what is not an acceptable public utterance on the situation in Syria.

[Mr. Fox]

I wasn't going to, but... oh well...

More classic John Hemming derail tactics.

The 'Sky' article that you like so much (I found it typically disgusting in propaganda terms) said of Bellingcat and their piece (that you hadn't even read?):

With some remarkable but simple use of technology, an organisation called Bellingcat run by freelance investigative journalist Eliot Higgins, has pieced together the videos. He has geolocated them to an area of Douma and has cross referenced elements from each video to determine that they are all of the same location.

Have a read of his team’s work. It contains links too to other 'open source' information which the western alliance used as part of its justification for their airstrikes against President Assad.

Similar analysis was done on the Khan Sheikhoun chemical attack a year ago which went through precisely the same process of claim and counter claim.

It implies that the 'Bellingcat' 'analysis' is worth looking at due to their 'remarkable but simple use of technology'.

To demonstrate that their 'remarkable but simple use of technology' - their methodology - is flawed is a perfectly valid reason to dismiss their claims as unreliable.

It's quite interesting the wording Sky uses to to present this 'source'... exactly as described by wikispooks: "wary of claiming their own... quotable but can not be made attributable"

The fact is that you, John, did pretty much the same thing: posted a link (which you fixed for us! Well done!) to a Bellingcat piece, declined to elaborate or quote and endorse any of it's contents, but immediately denied having even read it - it's as if you know that it's unreliable.

By failing to actually repeat or endorse any of their claims, you guarantee that the only responses it's likely to generate are going to be about the reliability of your source.

Then you skip around wibbling about 'ad hominems' and clucking in latin. You ninny.

But like I said, take it to 'meta'.

-

Craig Murray: Index on disgrace

But the Chairman of Index on Censorship is, incredibly, Rupert Murdoch lead hack David Aaronovitch

That is beyond irony.

I think Murray's writing is getting better... I quite like 'rational scepticism' as a phrase.

When Jeremy Corbyn became leader of the opposition, one of two things had to happen. Either the Overton window had to shift to allow for the reflection of views held by the leader of the official opposition and his myriad supporters, or the leader of the opposition had to be castigated and humiliated as an unreasonable lunatic. Corbyn’s rational scepticism on British involvement in the conflict in Syria is a key moment in this process. Despite the fact Corbyn’s scepticism is supported by a wide swathe of diplomatic and military opinion within the UK, it has to be portrayed as fringe, extreme and irrational.

We thus have the extraordinary spectacle of a coordinated government and media onslaught on anybody who doubts their entirely fact free narratives. Those who were demonstrably completely wrong over Iraq are held up as infallible, and given full control of all state and corporate media platforms, where they deride those who were right over Iraq as crackpots and Russian bots.

Meanwhile public trust in the state and corporate media hits new lows, which is the happy part of this story.

..which is why they're so keen for us to 'have a read' of 'Bellingcat', etc.

[johnhemming2]

More classic John Hemming derail tactics.

I found it typically disgusting in propaganda terms

clucking in latin.
You ninny.

I did actually read the Sky piece which made reference to other videos. There has been an argument proposed that the one video was fabricated. There has been no argument about the other videos.

I am sympathetic with Craig Murray's criticism of the Times for their anti-Freedom of Speech approach referred to, however.

[raspberry-blower]

White helmets exposed again:

Carla Ortiz on the Jimmy Dore show

[Mr. Fox]

That was a good interview, RB - I learned a fair bit from that... for instance, about the number of women that hold high political office in the Syrian Government.

Also about the 'Assad Regime Bombing Schools' media mantra from a while ago - the MSM forgot to mention that the head choppers had closed and taken over the schools for their HQ.

On a related note, here's a short video (< 8 mins) that's worth a look:

'Assad Takes Honda Civic To New Liberated Ghouta W/ No Convoy, No Security, No Protection.'

It is literally Assad driving along in a Honda Civic, talking to camera.

He talks about has concern that an entire generation have missed out on 7 or 8 years of schooling.

[clv101]

It is literally Assad driving along in a Honda Civic, talking to camera.

He talks about has concern that an entire generation have missed out on 7 or 8 years of schooling.

One interesting thing about the whole Syria thing is how little we actually see of Assad in our media - very rarely do 'we' broadcast interviews, speeches etc from him. It's as if the media don't want us to know who he is.

[woodburner]

If Assad is a monster, he is very two faced about it. In the video he comes across as extraordinarily reasonable.

[Mr. Fox]

I think most people have an innate sense when it comes to knowing when they're being bullshitted. The danger of showing Assad (particularly if next to our own political masters) is that he'll seem so much more 'human'.

There's an interesting youtuber who appears to know a bit about 'body language', who does a running commentary on various public figures delivering speeches and interviews.

I found her commentary on an Assad interview (from last year) interesting:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8lyktVh4yQ

There's also the fact that we're led to believe that the Syrian people are essentially so anti-Assad that they'd basically prefer to live under the rule of the head-choppers than under the 'brutal Assad regime' - therefore, we're doing them a favour by dropping bombs on them. Anything that challenges this narrative is effectively silenced.

People are beginning to notice, though...

The Syrian people "are very grateful to the Syrian Army, to Assad and, I may say, for Russian help in getting rid of the terrorists. They are the perpetrators of the most appalling atrocities and killings."

However, British media like the BBC have done a poor job of accurately conveying this public attitude, Baroness Cox told RT.

"People are very keen to hear the point of view from people inside Syria. It's widely felt and widely reported that BBC reporting is very biased and very one-sided, and so they really want a bigger picture."

RT

Baroness Caroline Cox was part of a delegation that visited Syria recently...

UK FOREIGN POLICY HAS ESCALATED CRISIS IN SYRIA

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

A British delegation of clergymen, parliamentarians, journalists and academics visited Syria last week, arriving in the region during the missile attacks by the USA, the UK and France.

They visited Syria at the invitation of Ignatius Aphrem, the Syriac Patriach, and met Christian and Muslim religious leaders, the Speaker of Parliament, MPs from many parts of Syria and opposition MPs, internationally-respected artists, musicians and intellectuals, the humanitarian aid organisation St Ephemeral Patriarchal Development Committee (EPDC) and members of local communities in Damascus, Saidnaya, Maaloula, Homs and Aleppo.

Key issues raised by Syrians:

· Airstrikes: Everyone whom the group met expressed deep anger at the recent missile attacks by the USA, the UK and France, claiming the attacks were illegal (no mandate and not a threat to their countries); the missiles were fired a day before chemical weapons experts were due to visit the scene of the alleged attack; the lack of substantial evidence (Journalist Robert Fisk has since visited and found no corroborative evidence).

· Regime change: Despite the well-documented criticisms of the Syrian Government, many Syrians are deeply concerned by the British Government’s commitment to impose a transition of power, including the removal of President Assad. All those whom the group met passionately believe that, as there is no remaining ‘moderate’ armed opposition, regime change would create a disaster comparable to those in Iraq and Libya.

· UK Govt support for Islamist-related groups: The UK Government has provided massive financial support to so-called ‘moderate’ opposition forces associated with jihadist militants. The vast majority of opposition forces have extremist ideologies, with no intention of creating democracy in Syria. This is only prolonging the war and the suffering of the Syrian people.

· Sanctions: There is widespread concern over the devastating impact of sanctions and the destruction of industrial infrastructure. These greatly harm civilians, for whom it is very difficult to obtain employment, and adequate supplies of food, medicines and medical equipment.

Three Christian Patriarchs in Syria issued a joint statement after the missile attacks:

“This brutal aggression is a clear violation of the international laws and the UN Charter, because it is an unjustified assault on a sovereign country… [the missile attack] encourages the terrorist organisations and gives them momentum to continue in their terrorism.�

Baroness Cox, a member of the delegation, said:

“Everyone we met expressed deep sadness and anger at the devastating impact of British foreign policy, including the recent airstrikes by the USA, the UK and France. It is fundamentally wrong to inflict missile strikes related to alleged chemical warfare before unequivocal evidence is known and publicised.

“There is also a real fear that the response by the USA, UK and France may encourage jihadists to initiate another chemical weapons incident in order to stimulate an even more ferocious response against the Syrian Government and Army.

“Syrians should have the right to determine their own future and to elect their own leadership, without foreign interference.�

http://www.baronesscox.com/2018/04/uk-f ... risis.html

[woodburner]

Body language is questionable as a science, and any movement/action can’t be simply explained. The explanations in general I would suggest are as reliable as MSM stories of the news, they might be right, or they might not. If you are interested then a book called Communication Genius by Tony Buon is worth a read. It has 40 chapters of myth busting information, including body language, and all the references anyone could need if they want further information ISBN 978-1-473-60540-4

[Mr. Fox]

Absolutely, WB - I wouldn't call it a 'science', or analysis based on it anything more than 'interesting'... but I maintain that we are often better at spotting lies than we think we are.

Often, I find people who have been 'coached' to appear more 'sincere' end up looking even worse.

I liked the video of Assad driving, as I think it unlikely that a person could negotiate Damascus traffic while talking coherently AND manage to 'fake' sincerity all at the same time. Perhaps he's such and *evil monster* that he knows people might think this.

..and cheers for the book recommendation, I'll look that one up.

-

MoA have a piece regarding the Iraq strikes in Syria (and the US reaction to them) mentioned up-thread:

Syria-Iraq - U.S. Cuddles ISIS - Others Plan For The Final Fight

The above tweet by the spokesperson for the U.S. Operation Inherent Resolve (OIR) against ISIS is extremely misleading if not false. The U.S. is trying to take some credit for a strike which was done without its consensus. The attack against ISIS was initiated by an anti-U.S. alliance as a warning against further U.S. shenanigans with ISIS.

[kenneal - lagger]

.......There's also the fact that we're led to believe that the Syrian people are essentially so anti-Assad that they'd basically prefer to live under the rule of the head-choppers than under the 'brutal Assad regime' - therefore, we're doing them a favour by dropping bombs on them. Anything that challenges this narrative is effectively silenced. ....

The Syrian war is essentially a civil war between two factions of Islam, with a few complications added in. So if you go into the area controlled by Sunnis you will get a very different reaction to that in an area controlled by the Shia government.

If you continually see a load of people supporting the government line there is a distinct possibility that the reportage is from government areas. There is also the distinct possibility that some of the people shown will feel intimidated into supporting the government line because of fear of repercussions. There is also the possibility that people in Sunni areas are now so fed up with the war that they would like it to end but are intimidated by Sunni forces into supporting the continuation of the war. We will never know the truth of the matter so perhaps we ought to just keep our noses out of it. We will be damned if we do and damned if we don't.

I am just as circumspect of the reporting from the BBC as I am that from RT or other pro Syrian government sources. You have to realise that the war was started when the Syrian government attempted to restore their control over some areas by military means which included the dropping of barrel bombs indiscriminately, or perhaps that didn't happen and it was "the Americans what done it!"

[Little John]

There was no "civil war" in Syria before the funding, by outside forces, of the head choppers.

[woodburner]

KL, bear in mind the White Helmets is a group of mercenaries started by a British (ex?)-army officer in Turkey.

Syria is a country, Iraq was a construction as was most of the rest of the ME. Assad seems to me to be the most respectable of all the players, and it will be a sad, if not devastating loss if he goes. If the surrounding warmongers, US, UK, other NATO hangers-on all minded their own business instead of sticking their ignorant noses in, the situation would be far better for most people, not least the Syrians. For the people from various places in Syria, they don’t seem to have a problem with what we are told are the other side, ie Sunni or Shia, only with the effin mercenaries, supported by the US and UK bigots.

[Little John]

KL, bear in mind the White Helmets is a group of mercenaries started by a British (ex?)-army officer in Turkey.

Syria is a country, Iraq was a construction as was most of the rest of the ME. Assad seems to me to be the most respectable of all the players, and it will be a sad, if not devastating loss if he goes. If the surrounding warmongers, US, UK, other NATO hangers-on all minded their own business instead of sticking their ignorant noses in, the situation would be far better for most people, not least the Syrians. For the people from various places in Syria, they don’t seem to have a problem with what we are told are the other side, ie Sunni or Shia, only with the effin mercenaries, supported by the US and UK bigots.

All of this

[johnhemming2]

Syria is a country, Iraq was a construction

How do you substantiate this assertion?

I accept that Iraq was constructed from three different Ottoman Provinces and is a patchwork of ethnic groups. How does Syria differ?