A Torrent of Disinformation : The NeoCon Propaganda Machine Pushing “Regime Change” in Syria

[stockholmer]

http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/01/06/the-neocon-propaganda-machine-pushing-%E2%80%9Cregime-change%E2%80%9D-in-syria/

“War with Iran is already here,” wrote a leading Israeli commentator recently, describing “the combination of covert warfare and international pressure” being applied to Iran. Although not mentioned, the “strategic prize” of the first stage of this war on Iran is Syria; the first campaign in a much wider sectarian power-bid. “Other than the collapse of the Islamic Republic itself,” Saudi King Abdullah was reported to have said last summer, “nothing would weaken Iran more than losing Syria.”

By December, senior United States officials were explicit about their regime change agenda for Syria: Tom Donilon, the US National Security Adviser, explained that the “end of the [President Bashar al-] Assad regime would constitute Iran’s greatest setback in the region yet – a strategic blow that will further shift the balance of power in the region against Iran.” Shortly before, a key official in terms of operationalizing this policy, Under Secretary of State for the Near East Jeffrey Feltman, had stated at a congressional hearing that the US would “relentlessly pursue our two-track strategy of supporting the opposition and diplomatically and financially strangling the [Syrian] regime until that outcome is achieved”.

What we are seeing in Syria is a deliberate and calculated campaign to bring down the Assad government so as to replace it with a regime “more compatible” with US interests in the region.

The blueprint for this project is essentially a report produced by the neo-conservative Brookings Institute for regime change in Iran in 2009. The report – “Which Path to Persia?” - continues to be the generic strategic approach for US-led regime change in the region.


snip

---------------------------------------------------------------


Let's Start A War: Anti-Assad Syrian NGOs Working Directly With British Government


http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2011/12/syrian-ngos-working-directly-with.html

In May 2011's article "The Siege of Syria," http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2011/05/seige-of-syria.html it was reported: "The coverage by the corporate-owned Western media exclusively relies on "activists inside and outside the country," the London-based "Syrian Human Rights Monitoring Centre" which apparently has no web presence, the Damascus Center for Human Rights http://www.dchrs.org/english/news.php?aboutus which boasts memberships with the National Endowment for Democracy and Tides Foundation-funded http://www.fidh.org/-Financial-Statements- International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) and the Coalition for the International Criminal Court, http://www.iccnow.org/?mod=supporters funded by the European Union, the Ford Foundation, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the Open Society Institute, the Sigrid Rausing Trust, and Humanity United.

Humanity United in turn boast http://www.humanityunited.org/all/partners partnerships with the BBC World Service Trust, NED/Open Society/US State Department-funded Benetech, http://www.benetech.org/about/strategic_partners.shtml the Open Society Institute, and the NED-funded http://www.ned.org/where-we-work/middle-east-and-northern-africa/mena-regional Solidarity Center http://www.humanityunited.org/all/partners/page:8 which mobilized Egypt's labor unions http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2011/02/who-are-egypts-protesters_09.html just as the US-stoked unrest began to falter. In other words, every organization involved interlocks with the vast corporate/foundation-funded imperial network masquerading as individual "human rights organizations" and benign NGOs. In reality this "civil society" network seeks to supplant national governments, and interface with global "institutions" like the IMF, World Bank, and the UN, all of which have been contrived by corporate-financier oligarchs. It is a modern day empire in the making."

The US National Endowment for Democracy's journal, Democracy Digest, would report in their August 2011 article titled, "Syrian military ‘strained’, http://www.demdigest.net/blog/2011/08/syrian-military-strained-as-clinton-meets-opposition-activists/ as Clinton meets opposition activists," (warning: link automatically plays very loud video clip) that the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights made one of many joint statements with the above mentioned US-funded Damascus Center for Human Rights. Meanwhile, Reuters featured a photograph http://news.yahoo.com/photos/rami-abdelrahman-head-syrian-observatory-human-rights-leaves-photo-195213346.html of the Observatory's head, Rami Abdelrahman, leaving a meeting with the British Foreign Minister William Hague.

It is quite clear that the "Syrian Observatory for Human Rights" based in London and receiving the entirety of their reports via "phone" & YouTube videos from Syria, is working in coordination with both US-funded NGOs and the British Foreign Minister. Considering that Hague similarly coddled Libyan opposition leaders in London http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2011/05/libyan-rebels-inspired-by-globalization.html while playing a key role in promoting the NATO attack on Libya and the subsequent installation of a BP oilman as "prime minister," http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2011/11/new-libyan-pm-big-oil-goon.html Abdelrahman's consorting signifies a verbatim repeat of the now openly fraudulent and genocidal NATO campaign in Libya. Just as in Libya, where "human rights activists" have now admitted to fabricating the evidence http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2011/10/lies-behind-humanitarian-war-in-libya.html used by the International Criminal Court and the United Nations to rubber stamp Wall Street and London's designs for regime change, likewise the "evidence" from Syria has turned out to be a complete fraud, http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2011/11/un-report-on-syria-based-on-witness.html derived by opposition "witnesses" and compiled by a corporate D.C. think-tank director http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2011/11/syria-nato-genocide-approaches.html into a UN "human rights report."

snip

much more at top link
----------------------------------------------------------------

flashbacks to similar propaganda/psy-ops methods:

(Tom MacMaster, the fake 'Gay Girl in Damascus' blogger's wife is Britta Froelicher, an activist with the American Friends Service Committee, an organization linked to the US intelligence community since the Cold War)

'A Gay Girl in Damascus': how the hoax unfolded

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/8572884/A-Gay-Girl-in-Damascus-how-the-hoax-unfolded.html

Here were examine how events unfolded which led to the diary being exposed as the work of the a married American man studying at the University of Edinburgh:


February 19, 2011: MacMaster posts the first item on the blog, pretending to be Amina Abdallah Arraf al Omari. The first posts introduce the author as a lesbian of American and Syrian parents, born in the US and now living in Damascus.
February to April, 2011: MacMaster gives sporadic updates from his character, ranging from political analysis and hard news accounts of the brutal repression of the country’s pro-democracy movement to love poetry and Mills and Boon-esque homosexual memoirs.


May 7, 2011: Western media start to take notice of the blog. In Britain, The Guardian leads the coverage, reporting: “She is perhaps an unlikely hero of revolt in a conservative country. Female, gay and half-American, Amina Abdullah is capturing the imagination of the Syrian opposition with a blog that has shot to prominence as the protest movement struggles in the face of a brutal government crackdown. Her blog, A Gay Girl in Damascus, is brutally honest, poking at subjects long considered taboo in Arab culture.” The story is accompanied by a photograph purporting to be of Amina. In reality, the image is of Jelena Lecic, a Londoner, and has been lifted off Facebook.


May 2011: As the blog gathers pace and followers, The Guardian arranges a sit down interview with Amina at a café in Damascus but she fails to show up, later claiming that harassment from secret police prevented the meeting. CNN also publishes an email interview with Amina, in which the character was quoted as saying: "A whole lot of long time changes are coming suddenly bubbling to the surface and views towards women, gay people and minorities are rapidly changing,"

snip

------------------------------------------------

The Christian Science Monitor: The Gay Girl in Damascus hoax, 'mass rape' in Libya, and press credulity
Have our propaganda detectors been dulled?

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Backchannels/2011/0613/The-Gay-Girl-in-Damascus-hoax-mass-rape-in-Libya-and-press-credulity


The Gay Girl in Damascus hoax, 'mass rape' in Libya, and press credulity
Have our propaganda detectors been dulled?

If you don't follow NPR's Andy Carvin on Twitter, let me be the first to tell you that The Gay Girl in Damascus is actually a 40-year-old American guy with a beard.

Through the efforts of Mr. Carvin, Ali Abunimah, and a few others, Thomas MacMaster was unveiled as the hoaxster. Mr. MacMaster said today that his wife, Britta Froelicher – an American listed as an associate fellow at St. Andrew's Center for Syrian Studies – was involved as a consultant. One of the better roundups on how MacMaster was forced into admitting his lies is on Ali Abunimah's Electronic Intifada blog.

But while MacMaster appears to be a garden-variety Internet troll, the Amina persona was boosted by the willingness of the conventional press (The Guardian, CNN, New York Times) and bloggers with major followings, like Andrew Sullivan, to accept what they were being told at face value.

snip

---------------------------------------------------------------

The Atlantic Magazine: Yet another American military operative outed as fake (Paula Brooks, aka 58-year-old former Air Force pilot David Graber)


http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2011/06/more-revelations-straight-males-posing-lesbian-bloggers/38796/

Only days after we learned that the author behind A Gay Girl in Damascus was a straight man from Georgia, The Washington Post is reporting http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/paula-brooks-editor-of-lez-get-real-also-a-man/2011/06/13/AGld2ZTH_blog.html#pagebreak that the purported DC-based lesbian mother who edited the lesbian news site Lez Get Real ("A Gay Girl's View on the World", which re-published Gay Girl in Damascus posts and helped the blog get started, is actually a 58-year-old former Air Force pilot and construction worker from Ohio named Bill Graber (pictured at right).

During interviews about the Gay Girl in Damascus hoax, "Paula Brooks" (Garber's wife's name), claiming she was deaf, initially spoke to Post reporters on the phone through her "father," who finally, after numerous conversations, admitted, "I am Paula Brooks." In perhaps the most surreal part of the story, the Post adds that Garber often flirted online with Gay Girl in Damascus author Tom MacMaster without either man realizing that the other was pretending to be a lesbian. Garber has turned over the site's management to Linda Carbonell, who writes under her maiden name but, we're pretty sure, is a woman. As of this writing, the site appears to be down.

snip

[joshcryer]

1. So hundreds of Syrians weren't killed yesterday by Assad's regime?

I'm wondering about your timing here, since these articles are woefully out of date, and none of them acknowledge the killings by the Assad regime in the past day. It's actually quite telling, if you ask me. I encountered this same sort of propaganda during the Libya crisis, where people would post highly out of date, highly focused "criticism" that could apply to any revolutionary group. Indeed, here you generalize about two individuals who don't represent the Syrian protesters to any degree, as if they have any relevance to the people on the ground wishing for self-determination in the face of Russian provided arms.

You're talking about articles nearly a year old here in some cases, none of which acknowledge the tyranny that the Syrian people are facing. I am utterly perplexed what the relevance of these outdated, jingoist articles actually mean.

[leveymg]

5. If there were defecting military units in America, we'd have thousands of people killed here, too.

Would the Saudis, Chinese and Russians have the right to set up no-fly zones over America to enforce their preferred outcomes?

[JackRiddler]

14. Stick to your guns because that is the right question!

leveymg:

If there were defecting military units in America, we'd have thousands of people killed here, too.

Would the Saudis, Chinese and Russians have the right to set up no-fly zones over America to enforce their preferred outcomes?

Yes. And Saddam was a very genuinely bad man, but that did not justify the US-UK lies or the crime against Iraq that these lies enabled.

You might add quotes: "no-fly zone," because we have seen that in practice that means a free-fire zone for US-UK or NATO bombers.

And the similarity to Saddam does not end with Assad's being a bad man:



That's Bush the father in 1990 with Assad the father, when he was a convenient ally.

Just as Assad the son has been a convenient ally in more recent years, long as he was a hired torturer for the CIA.

The governments of US-UK do nothing except for their own sense of geostrategic gain. Beneficiaries are always coincidental and the long term trend every time they pull off an aggression, whatever the justification, becomes all the more disastrous.

[arely staircase]

25. if my uncle had a vagina he'd be my aunt nt

[stevenleser]

30. A small percentage of military folks go Absent WithOut Leave every year. No one dies.

So no, we would not have thousands of people killed here.

[joshcryer]

55. The US doesn't typically lay siege to cities that are protesting against the government.

Now, there are some who would like the President to institute martial law under the Insurrection Act (ironically the same people who rec'd that thread are reccing this one, which itself tells the story). Bring in the National Guard, and so on, but that has yet to happen. And if protesters are shot in the streets by the government, they would have every right to defend themselves. That's basically the law of the jungle, once you have devolved to the point where you start shooting your own people with lethal weapons, they are going to shoot back. People don't sit down and just let themselves die, it's not human nature. Survival instinct says fight for your existence.

Meanwhile yes there would probably be defections.

And yes it would be suitable for the international community to condemn the US if it did that.

And yes if the international community had consensus the onus would be on it to stop the atrocities.

What amuses me about this whole mess is how "compassionate" and "caring" people are over the Middle East. Self-avowed experts, even. But as soon as it doesn't go their way, they say screw those people. Once upon a time we used to think democracy was the best system. I guess it's only the best system if somehow it slams the US (see: Latin America Democracy) but if the US is for it (Middle East Democracy), nope, screw those people, advocate the autocracy or theocracy.

[inna]

2. well, the neocon checklist is almost complete...

Remember Wesley Clark's revelation?... Seven countries in 5 years (well, plus/minus...)

General Wesley Clark, "Winning Modern Wars", page 130:

"As I went back through the Pentagon in November 2001, one of the senior military staff officers had time for a chat. Yes, we were still on track for going against Iraq, he said. But there was more. This was being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and there were a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia and Sudan.

...He said it with reproach--with disbelief, almost--at the breadth of the vision. I moved the conversation away, for this was not something I wanted to hear. And it was not something I wanted to see moving forward, either. ...I left the Pentagon that afternoon deeply concerned."

[leveymg]

11. Thanks for reminding us of that. It's also similar to the "A Clean Break" (1997) neocon hit list

Last edited Sat Feb 4, 2012, 02:28 PM - Edit history (1)

drawn up by the later architects of the Iraq War and the WMD charade (Wolfowitz-Feith-Wurmer's Office of Special Plans (OSP) deception shop). These same men handed Bibi Netanyahu the "Clean Break" regime change plan in 1997. That too talked about working with friendly Arab regimes to knock over rivals and create a greater Israeli regional co-prosperity sphere, and a break with the U.S., which was viewed as holding back the creation of a Greater Israel. "A Clean Break" called first for regime change in Iraq-Lebanon-Syria-Iran. See, http://www.iasps.org/strat1.htm

Talk about "continuity of government"!

[woo me with science]

13. Thank you for this important reminder. nt

[pampango]

3. Whatever the neocons are/aren't doing, the Syrian people are certainly pushing for 'regime change'.

Perhaps the Syrian masses don't understand that they are helping the neocons. However since it is the former not the latter that is getting shot in the streets by the thousands, I doubt that they care very much.

It's funny how people who have been ruled for decades by a brutal dictator and his son can actually want that form of government to go away. My guess is that most of us would feel the same way if we had been born in Syria rather than in the US. And we would be out on the streets there, too.

"The forced silence of people living under autocrats should never have been mistaken for popular complacency."

[leveymg]

6. The "Syrian people" are divided, and the regime is predominantly Shi'ia. It's a religious civil war

You want to take sides with the Sunnis and their Saudi backers?

[pampango]

7. I want "to take sides" with anyone who a voice in deciding who governs the country.

If you want to believe that this is a instance of one group of "potential" dictators against another group of "actual dictators", you seem to have little faith that Syrians can govern themselves without a dictator who can force them to live with each other.

Myth #7: The Arab Spring is a Western plot. This allegation was made by the Qaddafis in Libya and is currently asserted by many in Syria’s Baath Party. Nothing could be farther from the truth. It is quite clear that the upheavals in the Arab world came as a surprise to the G8 nations, and were mostly at least initially unwelcome. France’s minister of defense offered help with police training to Zine El Abidine Ben Ali’s Tunisia once the demonstrations got going last year this time. The US initially signalled support for Hosni Mubarak during the rallies against him of late January.

There is substantial ambivalence over the upheaval in Syria, and so far (written on 12/30/11) the main form of intervention is targeted financial sanctions. If there is anything that is already clear as we catch history on the run here, it is that the uprisings were spontaneous, indigenous, centered on dissatisfied youth, and that and presented the status quo Powers with unwelcome challenges.

http://www.juancole.com/2011/12/top-ten-myths-about-the-arab-spring-of-2011.html

"The new Arab world created by the people power movements of 2011 is not suddenly Sweden. No one should have expected it to be. The Arab world had been stuck in a stagnating rut, of dictatorship, family cartels, embezzlement, corruption, and stagnation. Where economic growth of 5% a year began being reported, as in Tunisia or Egypt, it was either a lie or was mostly captured by a small economic elite, the Arab 1%.

What began in some of these countries in 2011 was a transition, a transition that activists hoped would be toward regular, free and fair parliamentary elections and ways for students, workers, office workers, women, religious activists, and religious minorities to have an impact on policy. None of these things would have been possible in the least under the old regimes. There was no hope. Now there is hope but no certitude.

The transitions may fail ... but (t)he day when bigots could say that Arabs or Muslims are incapable of a certain kind of politics has passed. But the day when we can understand in detail why their politics evolves as it does is still not here.

http://www.juancole.com/2012/01/sharp-elbowed-politics-in-the-new-arab-world.html

[leveymg]

9. Syria is as unlike Tunisia as Iran is to Egypt The "Arab Spring" isn't a one-size-fits-all popular

uprising. And, it isn't entirely indigenous. If it were, and if popular uprisings had a chance of succeeding in efficient police states with a large base of support like Syria, I would support it. But, the Tunisia model of popular insurrection and the Libya model of humanitarian intervention against isolated, autocrats aren't appropriate in Syria.

Here's why: Syria is a genocide waiting to happen if the opposition overthrows the regime. The Shi'ia minority-dominated Ba'ath Party have run the place by force since the 1964 military coup in the face of repeated efforts by the Sunnis and their Saudi-Gulf State sponsors to overthrow the regime by force and terror. It's part a religious war mixed up with a war for regional hegemony. The present struggle is seen inside Syria as just a continuation of that "long campaign of terror". Look it up.

Terrorism in Syria - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_Syria Cached - Similar
You +1'd this publicly. Undo
From 1976 to 1982, Sunni Islamists fought the Ba'ath Party-controlled government of Syria in what has been called "long campaign of terror". Islamists attacked ...

As it is, this is a recurring bloody civil war, and western countries prodded by Israel are only making it bloodier. But, the outcome is likely to be a continued stalemate with significant casualties for both the opposition and the regime. An armed intervention would result in a spread of the fighting and a prolonged regional war with huge casualties for all involved. No, thank you.

[pampango]

10. So it comes down to a brutal dictator or "a genocide waiting to happen".

"The Shi'ia minority-dominated Ba'ath Party have run the place by force since the 1964 military coup in the face of repeated efforts by the Sunnis and their Saudi-Gulf State sponsors to overthrow the regime by force..."

A minority party has run the country by force for 48 years is the only alternative to a Sunni-sponsored genocide in the making?

Where does this leave the vast majority of Syrians who, like people everywhere, just want to have some say in how they are governed and to go about their lives in peace? Is it just not in the cards for Syrians to ever live what most of us would consider a "normal" life?

[leveymg]

12. Those who just want freedom are often the first sacrificed in struggles between ruthless parties

Like the Hungarians in '56 were led to expect western help and then sacrificed in the Cold War. http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB76/

Meanwhile, in Washington, U.S. officials observed the tidal wave of events with shock and no small degree of ambivalence as to how to respond. The main line of President Eisenhower's policy was to promote the independence of the so-called captive nations, but only over the longer-term. There is little doubt that he was deeply upset by the crushing of the revolt, and he was not deaf to public pressure or the emotional lobbying of activists within his own administration. But he had also determined, and internal studies backed him up, that there was little the United States could do short of risking global war to help the rebels. And he was not prepared to go that far, nor even, for that matter, to jeopardize the atmosphere of improving relations with Moscow that had characterized the previous period.

Yet Washington's role in the Hungarian revolution soon became mired in controversy. One of the most successful weapons in the East-West battle for the hearts and minds of Eastern Europe was the CIA-administered Radio Free Europe. But in the wake of the uprising, RFE's broadcasts into Hungary sometimes took on a much more aggressive tone, encouraging the rebels to believe that Western support was imminent, and even giving tactical advice on how to fight the Soviets. The hopes that were raised, then dashed, by these broadcasts cast an even darker shadow over the Hungarian tragedy that leaves many Hungarians embittered to this day.

[nadinbrzezinski]

80. Allawi, not Shia.

[leveymg]

100. Alawi IS a Shia sect.

Last edited Sun Feb 5, 2012, 02:58 PM - Edit history (1)

Alawi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alawi Cached - Similar
You +1'd this publicly. Undo
Alawis are self-described Shi'i Muslims, and have been called Shia by other sources including the highly influential Lebanese Shia cleric Musa al-Sadr of ...
Etymology - History - Beliefs - Population

And, the Allawis have been in conflict with the surrounding Sunni and Turkish populations, by which they were persecuted for many years in Syria before taking power in the 1964 coup:

Under the Ottoman Empire they were ill treated,[21] and they resisted an attempt to convert them to Sunni Islam.[22] They revolted against the Ottomans on several occasions, and maintained virtual autonomy in their mountains.[23] T. E. Lawrence wrote: "The sect, vital in itself, was clannish in feeling and politics. One Nosairi would not betray another, and would hardly not betray an unbeliever."[24] In the early part of the 20th century, the Sunnis sat on the wealth and dominated politics, while Alawites lived as poor peasants.[25][26]

Come on Nadin, your statement is like saying the majority in Syria aren't Sunni, they're Hanafi. They're both, just as Chevrolet is its own brand and part of General Motors.

[nadinbrzezinski]

101. Yeah but they are considered a break away sect

And a MINORITY SECT AT THAT.

[leveymg]

102. Same difference.

My basic point stands. Regime change in Syria won't be according to the quick, cheap and easy Tunisia or Libya models. Democratization wasn't the point by outside actors and, as predicted, it hasn't been the outcome. The result has been a weakening and division of Iran's regional major ally during the buildup to another "optional" war, and that has come primarily at the expense of the Syrian opposition.

[nadinbrzezinski]

103. Not in Syria or to Syrians.

They are a minority, like it or not, and have most power, even eschewing mainstream Shia and preferring an alliance with Christians.

[leveymg]

104. I don't want to get into Intra-Shi'ia theological or doctrinal questions here.

But, you have a point.

[nadinbrzezinski]

105. Nope this is not the place

Suffice it to say to outsiders (of any religion) those doctrinal differences might even seem idiotic.

[Swede]

4. Well who the hell is killing all the protestors there?

Open your fucking eyes.

[stevenleser]

28. That small segment of the anti-war crowd frames everything as "US is bad and is behind this"

It doesnt matter how much twisting of fact is required in the exercise, that is where they are going in their interpretations.

Your question is a good one and completely relevant, but they are not interested in exploring it.

[ronnie624]

98. U.S. secretly backed Syrian opposition groups, cables released by WikiLeaks show

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/us-secretly-backed-syrian-opposition-groups-cables-released-by-wikileaks-show/2011/04/14/AF1p9hwD_story.html

The history of U.S. involvement in the Middle East is well documented.

[ronnie624]

97. Is the killing of protestors verifiable? n/t

[MH1]

8. "unrec" for link to counterpuke

not a credible source.

it's hard to know what's really going on but it seems like lots of protestors are getting killed by their government. If that was happening here, you'd be on the side of 'regime change' too.

I find it not credible that there is an ongoing 'plan for world domination' at a time when it appears that our military spending will actually, finally, be cut - or at least stop growing, which with inflation, means that military resources will still be cut a little bit.

Between the last two factors and that the source is a well-known anti-Democrat shit-stirrer, it only convinces me more that the original post is disinformation.

[JackRiddler]

15. How convenient for you, blanket dismissal of a publication with about 50 diverse authors.

Pretty much what Freepers do with DU, right?

Counterpunch is one of the most heterogenous publications - that also means everyone will find something to bother them - and one of the best by far, for news and analysis, on the Web. It's a brain trust of those who are contrary to conventional wisdoms of many kinds, and so here it's under automatic attack by the sneer-swarm, like Greenwald and Taibbi and FDL. This is convenient for those who never want to read or consider a case on the facts and argument.

Booga booga! Run away, run away!

[stevenleser]

31. Your argument can be completely flipped, we also dismiss Free Republic which has dozens of diverse

authors.

We all dismiss publications and websites we personally find unreliable.

I find counterpunch reliable as long as they arent discussing the US.

[JackRiddler]

39. Can be and should be are two different things.

If someone asked you to explain why you dismiss FR, you would be able to do so citing common and typical examples and the editorial policy there.

CR is a much more open platform and has some brilliant writers with a very broad range of often conflicting views, as well as the occasional investigative gem. There are even a few conventional Democrats. You can cherrypick anything you'd like, but you won't find common and typical examples that fairly reduce CR to a common denominator.

[stevenleser]

42. CR can be summarized quite easily.

If you read an article on CommonDreams.org, there is a 95% chance it will be of one of the following types:

1. Democrats are not left enough
2. Some Democrats are intentionally tools of the 1%, they only pretend at being different
3. Any war that happens in the world is somehow the US' fault. The one occasional exception is when it is Israel's fault.
4. All wars are the result of evil and hidden plans. Since I have already given #3 above, that means that all wars are the result of hidden and evil American plans or, occasionally, hidden and evil Israeli plans.
5. Republicans and Conservatives are horrible and evil. And they only succeed because (See #1 and #2 above)

[JackRiddler]

46. 1, 2 and 5 are pretty much true...

3 is your exaggeration and in any case, US critics should absolutely focus first on their own country and the atrocities they can affect through their own political action. You are also exaggerating with 4, which is largely true (do you know of any wars that are the result of good and open plans?) but excludes the possibility that wars can also result from a sense of right against right, or the stupidity of long-defunct conflicts.

Do you have any actual criticisms of Counterpunch? (That would be the site at www.counterpunch.org, not CommonDreams.org as you wrote, but that's a forgivable mistake.) Because I can think of a couple.

[hfojvt]

37. I used to love it, back in 2003

Then the Democratic primary started, and as a group, they seemed to turn and start "punching" at the Democrats.

[inna]

16. "counterpuke" to some, one of the best sources to others.

lol, to each their own.

your unrec has been unrecc'd.

[rudycantfail]

18. You don't believe the U.S. has a plan for World domination?

[bhikkhu]

26. Absolutely - starting with Afghanistan

oh wait - I think there's a lesson there...

[rudycantfail]

38. ...a lesson nobody seems to

be learning from.

[bhikkhu]

17. So is "gay girl in Damascus" thrown in there to justify the "disinformation" tag?

...because other than that, I don't see any disinformation, just regional strategic policy. Insinuating that "gay girl in Damascus" was a psy-op is done by the magic of words in proximity, and a pretty unlikely chain of tentative association with no underlying evidence or coherent theory - which makes the OP something like clever disinformation itself.

A consistent theme behind every article dismissing the possibility of an Arab Spring is that most of the world has no mind or capacity for decision-making or self-rule, so the most important part of any civil unrest isn't what the people there want, but what Western power is behind it, and why. Which would be pretty insulting if you happen to be a Syrian, and pretty delusional if you are a Western power, still imagining the world is a puppet and you hold the strings.

[rudycantfail]

19. What do you think happened in Libya?

[bhikkhu]

24. NATO and the US helped a popular revolution overthrow a brutal dictator

What do you think was more important there - the popular revolution or the air support? Are the Libyan people puppets too, and was it all about us?

[stevenleser]

32. Your last phrase is the key. To one particular segment of the anti-war crowd it is all about us and

we are bad. End of story except the spinning.

[rudycantfail]

35. Libya was

an organic, grass roots, popular uprising that just needed our air support so they wouldn't get slaughtered. Well, that's the Judith Miller explanation of what happened.

[arely staircase]

21. it's really a not so subtle bigotry

those people couldn't be taking matters into their own hands i mean they are after all those people.

[stevenleser]

34. It is but with these folks it is unintentional. They have tunnel vision aimed at blaming the US for

all things negative that happen on the world scene with a particular emphasis on blaming the US for any wars that happen.

[arely staircase]

36. i know it isn't intentional

it is sort of a mirror image of the neo-cons themselves. both groups see the u.s. as the center of the universe. only one group sees it as pure and the other sees it as pure evil. neither group does nuance.

[JackRiddler]

40. If you're looking to bomb it, you own a piece of the war.

[rudycantfail]

41. We hate America first

right?

[stevenleser]

43. If you are part of the crowd I am talking about? Yes. nt

[rudycantfail]

45. SUPPORT THE TROOPS

[arely staircase]

49. your the one who seems to be supporting some troops nt

[rudycantfail]

48. Fight em over there so we don't have to fight em over here, right?

[URL=][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[stevenleser]

54. You can prattle off all the straw men you want.It still wont make my argument what you want it to be

and it still will not make your position right.

[rudycantfail]

56. There's nothing wrong with

being proud to be an American where at least you know you're free.

[stevenleser]

58. There is nothing wrong with my ignore list either! Enjoy it! nt

[rudycantfail]

59. Okay, but before you do

explain how the CIA was not heavily involved in the Libyan overthrow from beginning to end.

[sabrina 1]

61. No, the bigotry is in thinking that those 'poor people' can't have a Revolution without Western

interference. The Egyptians and the Tunisians did it on their own, that is why it was supported by people who actually care about a country having control over its own destiny. Both those countries made it clear they wanted no 'Western interference, no Western style 'democracy' as in the tragic case of Iraq'.

[arely staircase]

63. if by interference you mean helping people remove the man who is murdering them in the streets

i don't know if we are or not. but i certainly hope we are. and if we are i doubt the syrians in the streets share your opinion about the matter. undoubtedly assad does. and i believe your iraq analogy is weak (to put it mildly.) i don't know if you remember or not but we invaded and ocuppied iraq for almost a decade.

i don't know of any us troops in syria. if there are some special forces on the ground helping out, i am certainly glad they are there. i hope very much that we are helping the syrian people remove mr. assad and frankly i will not shed a tear when he meets the same fate as quaddafi. and he will. i only hope it is before he butchers more innocent people.

[sabrina 1]

65. Well, if you held that position for all the decades the US supported the Assad regime,

which btw, I did not at least for as long as I've known about them, your post would make sense.

How do you feel about the Bahrain Regime's murdering of its citizens with our support right now? Bahrain is a bloodbath, but where is the outrage here? Or do we just get outraged when we are told to get outraged?

And I'm sorry I cannot agree with you regarding the committing of war crimes, such as the primitive, horrific murder of an African leader, which Bishop Tutu, (is he under the bus yet?) correctly commented 'should cause any civilized person to recoil'. Another one of our allies btw, until he wasn't.

I respect the Geneva Conventions and believe in the rule of law. Dictators who harm their own people should never be supported by this country, nor should they be torn apart in the streets as in the Dark Ages imho, when we have no more use for them so long as we have the means to act in a more civilized manner. I hope one day those who committed those war crimes will be brought to justice.

But then, I believed in the US Constitution, the Geneva Conventions and all the other brilliant laws written to make this a more civilized world. Silly me.

[arely staircase]

66. sure, quaddafi's death was horrific. it was certainly recoil-worthy

but it was not at all unexpected given the nature of his regime. file it under - when bad things happen to bad people. as far a bahrain - i wish the people there well too i certainly hope they are successful in removing their dictator too.

and you aren't silly. i just find your sympathies misplaced.

and as far as your first comment i have held that position for decades. so i guess it makes since now?

[joshcryer]

69. "Bahrain is a bloodbath" = patently dishonest. 60 deaths = 0.004% Bahrain population.

In Syria 7,100 deaths is 0.03% of the Syrian population. For perspective, the number of people killed just yesterday was proportionately as many people as died on 9/11 here.

Where's the outrage over complete perspective failure, equating Bahrain to Syria?

It was done with Libya and it is being done here.

Occupy Oakland's illegal detention and arrest was a flagrant violation of the Geneva Conventions, if only we did have someone who would condemn the United States for its actions, but the world is full of cowardly oligarchs and their defenders.

[nadinbrzezinski]

81. Ok I need to ask, when did the Hafez Al Assad regime become

An American client state? I mean that's why the American fleet pulled in to the port of Tartus? Oh wait, tat was the RNS Novgorod and companion ships.

[ronnie624]

99. The "gay girl in Damascus" hoax

was included to help illustrate how misinformation is disseminated. I saw no insinuation that it was a psy-op. Often, the media establishment will widely report on issues uncritically, especially if the story helps promote an agenda that media owners agree with (imperialism in the ME, for example). Whether it's done deliberately or subconsciously, it clearly helps in the promotion of a particular world view, and thus the manufacture of support for state involvement in a given issue.

Calling Western imperialism in the Middle East nothing more than a product of delusion, is itself delusional. There is ample documentation of continuous, ongoing, always self-serving U.S. intervention there.

[arely staircase]

20. the syrians seem to be pushing it too

being against it for no other reason than neo-cons are for it would rather silly.

[rudycantfail]

44. "The syrians seem to be pushing it too"

What percentage of Syrians pushing a civil war equals "The Syrians"?

[arely staircase]

47. enough that the government is mowing them down in the streets yet they keep showing up

assad will soon meet a similar fate as quaddafi, hopefully it will it will happen before he murders too many more people. and as far our government helping them do it, i certainly hope so. i hope my taxes are specifically earmarked for it.

[rudycantfail]

50. Do you think our government

should fully and publicly acknowledge our role in this revolution or would you rather it be kept secret?

[arely staircase]

51. whichever is more effective. nt

[rudycantfail]

52. When you say "our government helping them do it"

do you mean you're okay that CIA and special forces boots on the ground with money, training and weapons?

[arely staircase]

53. is that the most effective way to help the syrians rid themselves of th butcher assad?

i don't know if it is or not. if it is, then yes.

[rudycantfail]

57. I appreciate your honesty. n/t

[stevenleser]

22. This really is nonsense. Unfortunately, some of the anti-war folks are obsessed with making

everything fit into their philosophy that everything is the US' fault and is somehow about us.

Egypt was not about us, Libya was not about us and Syria is not about us.

Once you accept that, the entire rest of the premise of this article falls down miserably.

[BeFree]

27. Right

US is pure as driven snow..... !?!?!

Grow up.

[stevenleser]

29. That you resort to creating straw men tells everyone all they need to know.

Grow up and learn how to properly discourse with people.

[Poll_Blind]

33. LOL, tell me about it! Who is supposed to fall for that, BTW?

I can't even believe the politically naive would even swallow that hook.

PB

[Fool Count]

60. "That everything is the US' fault and is somehow about us." That is not a "philosophy",

that is a scientific truth supported by decades of irrefutable empirical data. What empirical support
does the view "that US is selfless helper of everyone fighting for freedom and democracy" have?

[stevenleser]

64. Hahahaha! Hilarious. Next time though, use the sarcasm tag. nt

[joshcryer]

70. US doesn't support democracy in Latin America = bad. Supports it in Middle East = bad.

There's your empirical evidence.

[Fool Count]

91. If US supported democracy in Middle East, they would be starting with their "friends" -

Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Jordan and Bahrain. As it stands now the claim that "US supports democracy in the
Middle East" is simply not credible. Everyone insisting on it is either delusional or a liar.

[joshcryer]

92. Qatar: Elections in 2013. Jordan: Prime Minister resigned Feb 1st, move to implement democracy.

Yemen: 21st of January, immunity law was passed, elections begin 21st of February. (I remember when Yemen was touted so much against Libya back in the day.)

Bahrain: Having independent dialog for reforms.

UAE: No reforms on the horizon, half of the cabinet is elected, however. One of the highest HDI's in the world, you'd think all of those people touting Libya's pathetic HDI would praise UAE.

Saudi Arabia: Reforms have been slow, not likely in the short term.

So, out of all of those (and Yemen, which you conveniently left out), 4 out of 6 are making reforms and moving toward democratization. 3 out of 6 will have them within the next two years (we still have to wait and see on Bahrain).

Amazing, isn't it? Parrot islamaphobic commentary, and people who aren't informed about the Middle East make their own biased conclusions. What you said sounds really interesting, but it doesn't reflect the reality. By underscoring it with an insult (one that itself is what it claims others would be), you really push the point far, and prevent people from thinking for themselves.

The Obama administration, and current US policy most certainly supports democracy in the Middle East. It may be wrong, but I don't see it. Certainly xenophobic, islamaphobic conservatives think that the US is being too friendly with the Middle East, and they will parrot vile slurs, such as the recent Egyptian football riots, to "prove" that all Muslims are "incapable of being civilized." It's the most vile crap I have ever encountered, and I've even encountered it on DU, with "evil islamists" being behind the revolutions, and so on.

[Fool Count]

95. "Having independent dialog for reforms"? What the hell does it even mean?

Qaddafi offered "independent dialog for reforms". "Revolutionaries" weren't interested.
Sure, "independent dialog" is much less fun than pulling toenails off their opponents.
Syrian government has the whole roadmap for reform with multi-party elections and
all that. Salafists and their Gulf backers wouldn't here any of that, they would accept
nothing short of Assad hanging from a lamp pole. Some democracy. When Bahraini protesters
decided that "independent dialog for reform" sounded too vague and took matters into
their own hands those democratizing proxies, the Saudis, showed them democracy.
Did we here any accusatory zeal from Hillary Clinton or Susan Rice on that occasion?
Sorry, but hesitating still to call you a liar, I must go with delusional here. Either one
or the other anyhow.

[joshcryer]

96. Heh, the insults continue.

Gaddafi offered "independent dialog" after he sent a convoy of attackers to "cleanse a city ally by ally" of the "rats."

Meanwhile the racist, xenophobic, islampaphobic naysayers have been predicting a failure for reform in Bahrain for almost a year now, and yet all signs show progress, and that the Bahraini's aren't going to sit down. The US is still selling arms to Bahrain, but it's doing the same with Yemen, too. I see it as the US making as much money out of it as they can, because once these countries democratize there will be no more of that.

"Egypt, Tunisia, Libya," demonstrators now shout during running battles with security forces. "Bahrain's leaders are next."

[sabrina 1]

62. Why do Americans think that other nations are not capable of solving their own problems?

Egyptians and Tunisians made it very clear they wanted no help from the US. They don't trust us, and why should they? The US fully supported their dictators for decades making it impossible for them to take matters into their own hands. When they had had enough, our dictator friends used weapons against them, funded by us, to kill hundreds of them.

Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan everywhere there is a dictator, the US supported him in these countries helping to create the situations those people are now trying to change.

It's way past time for the US to take care of its own business and stop supporting dictators else where, such as Bahrain eg. If any country needs the US to stop funding its dictator, it is Bahrain where that government, US ally, is mowing its people down in the streets also.

We seem to be very selective about who we think needs our help. Just stop supporting dictators would be a start. We've caused untold harm to untold millions of people because of those policies of supporting the most brutal regimes, then turing around decades later, and claiming we now want to help.

[stevenleser]

67. No one thinks that. The US doesn't get involved in most disputes.

The Kenyan election crisis of 2007-2008 is a good example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007-2008_Kenyan_crisis this was resolved by the UN and African organizations taking the key role. The US did almost nothing.

The US did not get involved in the civil war and genocide in Rwanda http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_Genocide
I guess the anti-US intervention folks would claim that is a success story for non-US intervention.

We didnt get involved in Darfur http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Darfur . Another for the non-US intervention highlight reel, I guess.

The US did not get involved in the Slovenian independance war http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slovenian_Independence_War

I can go on.

[sabrina 1]

72. Well, in a way you make the point made by many observers. The US, while claiming to care

about humanitarian issues, oddly didn't get involved in Rwanda. And even as we are told their interest is humanitarian, in Libya eg, they have supported the brutal regime in Bahrain. At the same time, we are seeing a push to intervene in Syria. Seems we are very selective when it comes to 'humanitarian' concerns.

But aside from all that, the US has consistently supported brutal regimes over the past several decades, in South and Central America eg and also in the ME and that may be why we are not taken seriously when we claim that we care about the actual people who suffered under the regimes we have supported.

While claiming to be concerned about the Syrian people, the US is fully supportive of Karamov in Uzbekistan and of the brutal regime in Bahrain.

Seems to me our Foreign policy is not clear to say the least. What ARE we doing and why in all these countries where our policies are so contradictory?

[woo me with science]

78. Funny how a lot of the incoherence becomes explicable...

...explicable, not justifiable....if we use PNAC history and writings as a guide.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002266311#post2

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2456137

[joshcryer]

71. The US also supported Ben Ali, Mubarak, Gaddafi. Maybe the key element is internal uprising, huh?

Maybe, just maybe, the US is respecting the wishes of self-determined peoples on a case by case basis?

"Bahrain where that government, US ally, is mowing its people down in the streets also."

Again you repeat that dishonest characterization of Bahraini vs Syria false equivalence.

Bahrain and the opposition have already started dialog and reforms will be happening there. Meanwhile Syria is 100x more deadly than Bahrain using highly conservative estimates.

Total propaganda.

[sabrina 1]

74. Maybe let the Bahrainis speak for themselves:

http://www.jadaliyya.com/pages/index/3244/bahrains-independent-commission-of-inquiry_a-path-

Murder, torture, imprisonment of doctors and others who tried to take care of the wounded, Saudi troops brought in to crush the revolution etc. etc. But hey, they are our allies.

As for the US and Egypt and Tunisia, the Revolutionaries want an apology from the US for the decades of support for their dictators. They do not share your belief in the altruism of a nation that waited until it became clear there was no way to continue their support for those two dictators.

See comments from Biden and Obama even as the regimes were shooting revolutionaries in the streets. Biden 'No, Mubarak is not a dictator'. And 'Mubarak is a friend and ally of the US' even as his regime was brutalizing the protestors.

The US in the end had no choice. Decades of oppression resulted in a powerful explosion of resistance not anticipated by the US in the early stages as they tried to continue to support their old friends. Good for those people for finally taking matters into their own hands. They have not forgotten the support given to their brutal regimes and want no interference from the West whom they, rightfully do not trust.

[joshcryer]

76. They already are speaking for themselves as the independent dialogue shows.

I would think that the Bahrainis not wish for their political movement to be used in arguments that have no basis on Syria.

[sabrina 1]

79. Dead Bahrainis are as dead as dead people anywhere else. What is remarkable is how selective

we are about who we need to help. Frankly all the Bahrainis want, as is the case with most of those rising up against our Dictator friends, is to stop Western support for the dictators who have oppressed them and allow them to deal with their own issues. But if there is oil or other resources the West needs, that is not going to happen, unless we, citizens of those western nations have the same courage those who are rising up against those made powerful by our government's support, take a similar stand.

I do not want my tax dollars going to support a dictator like Karamov eg. But they do, because it seems until this government decides to stop supporting one of their 'allies' no one talks about all of our current dictator 'friends' whose people are suffering as a result of that support.

[joshcryer]

83. All people living under autocrats deserve to be free.

Yet we selectively choose the "anti-American" autocrats over the pro-American autocrats for some reason. Syria and Libya are just perfect examples. Those people who supported Tunisia and Egypt do everything they can to selectively diminish the death and destruction in "anti-American" states. It's a neo-jingoism that is just as bad as pro-American jingoism.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

85. So go complain about the ones the US is *supporting*.

Don't pick out one of the times it's got it right as something to oppose.

[joshcryer]

86. I have. See my sig. This OP is about Syria. This OP is showing the bias.

It's hilarious, look at the recs, people who supported Egypt and Tunisia because they were client states, same people don't support Libya or Syria because they're not client states. See how that works? Democracy is only OK in the Middle East if it is a slight on the US, it has nothing to do with being pro-democracy.

[sabrina 1]

87. Well, there's not much chance of those living under our very good friend, Karamov eg, of ever being

free. Nor under the regime of our very good friends in Saudi Arabia, especially women and gays. Nor is there much of a chance, despite the pretense that something is being done in Bahrain, for the Bahrainis to live in freedom.

Seems some dictatorships are okay, mostly those who are willing to do what we want them to do, until they don't.

I can't wait for the day when the US decides it no longer supports Karamov. I'm sure I'll see a whole lot of people here on DU who right now have nothing to say about him, screaming for 'regime change'. I guess for some, it's best to wait, no matter how brutally the people are being treated, until they are given the word from the PTBs that NOW is the time to start screaming about brutality. Too late of course, for all those who have died and/or been tortured while we wait for the word.

I've noticed this over the past couple of years. No one cares about the people being boiled in oil or shot down in the streets in Uzbekistan merely for peacefully demonstrating. So I won't take them too seriously if and when the US finally decides they got all they can from Karamov and designates him, finally, to be a brutal dictator. NOW is the time to be screaming about our tax dollars going to that brutal dictator. But where is the outrage?? Oh yes, the propaganda has not been aimed at that dictator yet. And if he watches himself, no matter how many people he tortures, he just may survive until he dies peacefully in his bed.

Sorry, I don't support our support for any dictators, no matter who or where they are. There is a rel lack of consistency in the 'outraged' imho.

[joshcryer]

88. "ever" is a long time, Karamov will die, they will show self-determination.

Saudi Arabia will have a very hard time staying the autocratic state that it is as the rest of the Middle East embraces democracy, as soon as the oil runs out (within the next 20 years) they will have to adapt or what happened to the kings of EU will happen to them, it's inevitable. Bahrain is going to do just fine, they have succeeded in getting the reforms pushed, and if they are rebuffed, you can expect large protests like last year. It's only a matter of time before all client dictatorships fall from within.

I even expect Iran to fall from within in the next 5-10 years. The mass protests there actually started the Arab Spring (though they aren't Arab's, you know what I mean).

I was extremely critical of the Andijan massacre, and indeed, Joe Biden even called for the UN to get involved over that atrocity. But, of course, that was Bush's state department who didn't give a shit. Meanwhile social media did not have the same kind of penetration it does now, and finally the 99% have a voice, and their voice will be heard, they will oust the autocrats and elites. Meanwhile cushy oligarch defenders will happily sit on their comfy couches telling these people how they should be and failing to voice support in all situations where oppression is happening.

Uzbekistan will continue to try to censor the internet just as all the other states that censor it do, and they will try to keep a lid on social media, because they know what will happen if it is let loose. But that can only go on for so long.

I don't support any dictators, but I do find the lack of support for the Syrian protesters quite telling. It's more about being anti-American than it is pro-freedom and democracy and human self-determination.

[sabrina 1]

93. You are mistaken if you think there is no support for the Syrians. You conflate interference and

what has resulted in many unnecessary deaths with 'support'. And while we continue to finance Karamov eg, and wait for him to die, many innocent Uzbeks will die as he lives in luxury complements of the US taxpayer. But who cares, as the Wikileaks cables showed, it's not that the US doesn't know he's a 'bad guy' but 'he lets us build bases in Uzbekistan'.

All we need to do right now, given how unpopular the US among ME revolutionaries, and for good reason as they have pointed out, Abu Ghraib etc. etc. a million dead Iraqis or more, eg, is to stop funding these dictators. But I seen no calls for that here ever. The time to be outraged over Syria and Libya was when the US was supporting them. Just as now, the time to be outraged over Karamov, is NOW. No money to dictators. Without that kind of support over the past six decades or so, the people themselves could deal with them. As the Egyptians have pointed out.

[joshcryer]

94. I think there is ample support for the Syrians from those who don't invoke...

...their favorite Emmanuel Goldstein for the "two minutes hate." Otherwise the Syrian's have been thrown under the bus just as the Libyan's with people slandering them calling it imperialist, neocon, PNAC conspiracies.

[nadinbrzezinski]

82. There is no doubt in my mind western spec ops are

At least on the Jordanian, and Turkish border...but that be sop. That does not mean we are behind every revolt. In fact the M-4 Carbines in some hands are extremely suggestive. But that does not mean the FSA is our tool... In time that will become clear.

If anything this s quickly becoming a red line for Russia for good Russian strategic reasons. And please never point to the Russian Navy Ships at the port of Tartus. I swear, at times it looks we grew the fleet and currently fly Migs too.

[arely staircase]

23. btw i hope the us government is helping topple ASSad

[Odin2005]

68. The West is Bad, The West is Evil, Blah, Blah, Blah...

[unkachuck]

73. "...a deliberate and calculated campaign to bring down the Assad government..."

....I'm so confused....

....if what we're mainly witnessing in Syria is another example of 'democracy promotion' by us and our allies, then I'm against any and all intervention....

....if what we're mainly witnessing in Syria is the brutal repression by a dictator against his own peoples' desire for democratic change, then I'm for helping the Syrian people in their struggle by any means possible....

....if it's a convergence and combination of the above, I would continue to side with helping the Syrian people until their democratic struggle is realized or becomes hopeless, then re-evaluate....

[pampango]

75. Is it considered liberal or conservative to support hundreds of thousands of demonstrators

who protest for months on end against a dictatorial government? Liberal

Is it considered liberal or conservative to side with the authoritarian government that kills thousands of civilians who refuse to stop protesting against said government? Conservative

Is it considered liberal or conservative to believe that some countries need to be ruled by dictators because the people who live within their borders cannot learn to live with each other? Conservative

Is it considered liberal or conservative to believe that all people have a right to political and civil liberties and to self-government? Liberal

Is it considered liberal or conservative to tell people in certain countries that they have to live with authoritarian governments because there are more important geopolitical issues at stake, so their personal rights and liberties have to take a back seat? Conservative

[jeanpalmer]

77. Never understood

how agencies funded by the Democtatic and Republican wings of Congress can be referred to as "non-governmental organizations." By definition, they're governmental? How can any "journalist" refer to them as "NGO's," without at least a question mark? And yet, that's the way they're always referred to. It's what convinces me the mainstream media is just a mouthpiece for the federal government And the NGO staffers are all politicos. John McCain, a US senator, is the CEO of one of them. LOL. How more governmental can you get? Everyone in the world knows they're highly governmental, and subsversive.

I don't understand why foreign governments put up with them. They're obviously subversive organizations, designed primarily to overthrow non-compliant governments and further US commercial/political interests. Why would Iran, Russia, Syria, Venezuela or Egypt allow them to operate? It's like engaging in a death wish. The"NGO's" must bribe the hell out of the local power structure. Looks like Egypt finally got fed up with them and gave them the boot.

It's just another waste of taxpayer money on behalf of the corporations imo. And you know it's costly.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

84. You should be ashamed of yourself.

The Assad regime a spectacularly brutal and repressive dictatorship; regime change in Syria would be a wonderful thing; the majority of the pressure for that is coming from within Syria. I'm kind of appalled that I even have to state this.

I don't know how much the West is doing, or can do to help that, but it certainly should do what it can.

[jeanpalmer]

89. There are different ways of looking at Western "help."

How many people in Syria are satisfied with their government and don't want change? To them, western intervention is disruptive, hazardous and unwanted. Similar to the US support for the Contras under Reagan. It's nothing more than meddling in other people's business. It's the US trying to impose its corrupt system on others. Our system of government is corrupt, paid for and serving the highest bidders. You really want Syria to have a version of that? If there's a need for outside intervention, it's here in the USA -- we need intervention by people who are willing to return the government to the people.

The US and its allies ought to stay out and quit fomenting trouble. Trust the Syrians to take care of their own problems. That's the best approach.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

90. I'm afraid I think this post contains at least two really silly statements.

> Our system of government is corrupt, paid for and serving the highest bidders. You really want Syria to have a version of that?

Actually, the US is among the least corrupt, free-est, and most democratic countries on the planet - certainly in the top 20%, and possibly in the top 10%. Damn right I want the Syrians to have a version of that, and the majority of Syrians appear to want it too.


> Trust the Syrians to take care of their own problems.

Of course we shouldn't trust the Syrians to take care of their own problems, because they almost certainly can't.

By all means argue that outside intervention in Syria will do more harm than good.

But please don't pretend that things are likely to all be OK in the absence of that intervention - the Syrians probably won't be able to oust Assad without outside intervention, and he'll cause an immense amount of suffering.

Argue "doing something would be worse still", sure. But don't suggest that the outcome of not doing anything won't be awful, or that it will all be all right in the end if the US doesn't intervene.