More on Syria

[rowan]

Is there proof of this? Besides something typed on a website?

This news comes directly from the US military itself. They could be lying to make themselves look bad, of course But so far the only question is over the actual number of civilian casualties. Reports are suggesting they may be much higher than the military has so far conceded, and this is quite typical in Yemen, where initial reports of 10 or 12 civilian casualties often end up in the hundreds. Anyways, the US military is carrying out its own investigation as we speak...

I was asking about your comment:

Russia were actually framed by the Western media for war crimes carried out by the US backed rebels/terrorists in Syria

Oh, my apologies. Plenty on that here: http://www.rugbyrebels.co/board/viewtop ... 109#p50536

[Sandydragon]

This news comes directly from the US military itself. They could be lying to make themselves look bad, of course But so far the only question is over the actual number of civilian casualties. Reports are suggesting they may be much higher than the military has so far conceded, and this is quite typical in Yemen, where initial reports of 10 or 12 civilian casualties often end up in the hundreds. Anyways, the US military is carrying out its own investigation as we speak...

I was asking about your comment:

Russia were actually framed by the Western media for war crimes carried out by the US backed rebels/terrorists in Syria

Oh, my apologies. Plenty on that here: http://www.rugbyrebels.co/board/viewtop ... 109#p50536

So no actual evidence then that the war crimes that Syria and Russia are accused of have been fabricated. The several hundreds of them that is.

[rowan]

I was asking about your comment:

Oh, my apologies. Plenty on that here: http://www.rugbyrebels.co/board/viewtop ... 109#p50536

So no actual evidence then that the war crimes that Syria and Russia are accused of have been fabricated. The several hundreds of them that is.

By liberating Syria from the terrorists America and their allies sent in there with a view to another regime change in the Middle East, you mean? You know, like the one which has cost more than a million lives in Iraq, and the one that has caused similar carnage and devastation in Libya. Don't let those little details bother your conscience. Just blame it on the countries which attempt to defend themselves - and Russia!

[Sandydragon]

Oh, my apologies. Plenty on that here: http://www.rugbyrebels.co/board/viewtop ... 109#p50536

So no actual evidence then that the war crimes that Syria and Russia are accused of have been fabricated. The several hundreds of them that is.

By liberating Syria from the terrorists America and their allies sent in there with a view to another regime change in the Middle East, you mean? You know, like the one which has cost more than a million lives in Iraq, and the one that has caused similar carnage and devastation in Libya. Don't let those little details bother your conscience. Just blame it on the countries which attempt to defend themselves - and Russia!

And as has been explained to you countless times before, the civil war in Syria was started by Assad when he cracked down on protestors. Our version of events just ignores all inconvenient facts.

And your little response there didn't cover my point that there is no evidence that the hundreds of war crimes alleged against Russia and Syria were somehow fabricated.

[rowan]

And as has been explained to you countless times before, the civil war in Syria was started by Assad when he cracked down on protestors. Our version of events just ignores all inconvenient facts.

& as has been eplained to you countless times before, the students and feminists involved in the Arab Spring protests did not morph into heavily armed, machine gun-toting Jihadi terrorists equipped with American weapons and vehicles as a result of that excessive - though highly exaggerated by the West - crackdown. It was simply the pretext for the proxies to be sent in to destabilize the country with a view to regime change.

There were plenty of reasons why the US and its allies wanted regime change. The Qatar - Turkey pipeline Assad rejected, Israel's border disputes with Syria (UN ruled against Israel), Turkey's concerns about Kurdish rebels operating from behind the Syrian border, and Saudi's wish to break the Shi'ite crescent from Iran to Lebanon which the US created with another of its regime changes in Iraq.

I mean, how many regime change operations does it take for you to figure out the pattern here? Do you still believe the WOMD theories? Do you still believe Gaddafi was planning a genocide of his own people? Do you still believe America has occupied Afghanistan for 16 years because it harbored Osama bin Laden?

I bet you'd even tell us the Mau Mau were really responsible for the British concentration camps in Kenya and the native Americans were responsible for the genocide in North America because they fired off a few arrows in retaliation. That's what it comes down to, I'm afraid - an imperialist mentality. We can kills millions of them, and when they resist that's our justification.

Btw, you know why Syria is allied to Russia, don't you? Because America tried regime change there once before, midway through the last century just before they helped overthrow Iran's first democratic government. That was during the Cold War and the US was forced to leave Syria alone or face the prospect of WWIII with the Soviets. Obviously not worth it.

I was in Syria not long before the Arab Spring and there was no sign of trouble at all. Refugees were flooding in from America's war on Iraq at the time. I actually travelled out to the Shi'ite quarter with my UN photographer buddy and met some of them. I'm sure you'll be quick to tell us about Assad Snr's Hama Massacre back in 82, but it is seldom mentioned this was the end result of an armed Muslim Brotherhood insurrection which involved acts of terrorism and an unsuccessful attempt to assassinate the leader.

Meanwhile, as for the comparison between Trump and Obama's first years in office, this might be of interest:

Among the many grisly scenes Obama will carry to his well-heated grave, one occurred early in his presidency in the first week of May 2009, a U.S. air-strike killed more than ten dozen civilians in Bola Boluk, a village in western Afghanistan’s Farah Province. Ninety-three of the dead villagers torn apart by U.S. explosives were children. Just 22 were males 18 years or older. As the New York Times reported:

http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/02/03/ ... terrorism/

& as for Iran's missile program:

[Sandydragon]

And as has been explained to you countless times before, the civil war in Syria was started by Assad when he cracked down on protestors. Our version of events just ignores all inconvenient facts.

& as has been eplained to you countless times before, the students and feminists involved in the Arab Spring protests did not morph into heavily armed, machine gun-toting Jihadi terrorists equipped with American weapons and vehicles as a result of that excessive - though highly exaggerated by the West - crackdown. It was simply the pretext for the proxies to be sent in to destabilize the country with a view to regime change.

There were plenty of reasons why the US and its allies wanted regime change. The Qatar - Turkey pipeline Assad rejected, Israel's border disputes with Syria (UN ruled against Israel), Turkey's concerns about Kurdish rebels operating from behind the Syrian border, and Saudi's wish to break the Shi'ite crescent from Iran to Lebanon which the US created with another of its regime changes in Iraq.

I mean, how many regime change operations does it take for you to figure out the pattern here? Do you still believe the WOMD theories? Do you still believe Gaddafi was planning a genocide of his own people? Do you still believe America has occupied Afghanistan for 16 years because it harbored Osama bin Laden?

I bet you'd even tell us the Mau Mau were really responsible for the British concentration camps in Kenya and the native Americans were responsible for the genocide in North America because they fired off a few arrows in retaliation. That's what it comes down to, I'm afraid - an imperialist mentality. We can kills millions of them, and when they resist that's our justification.

Btw, you know why Syria is allied to Russia, don't you? Because America tried regime change there once before, midway through the last century just before they helped overthrow Iran's first democratic government. That was during the Cold War and the US was forced to leave Syria alone or face the prospect of WWIII with the Soviets. Obviously not worth it.

I was in Syria not long before the Arab Spring and there was no sign of trouble at all. Refugees were flooding in from America's war on Iraq at the time. I actually travelled out to the Shi'ite quarter with my UN photographer buddy and met some of them. I'm sure you'll be quick to tell us about Assad Snr's Hama Massacre back in 82, but it is seldom mentioned this was the end result of an armed Muslim Brotherhood insurrection which involved acts of terrorism and an unsuccessful attempt to assassinate the leader.

Meanwhile, as for the comparison between Trump and Obama's first years in office, this might be of interest:

Among the many grisly scenes Obama will carry to his well-heated grave, one occurred early in his presidency in the first week of May 2009, a U.S. air-strike killed more than ten dozen civilians in Bola Boluk, a village in western Afghanistan’s Farah Province. Ninety-three of the dead villagers torn apart by U.S. explosives were children. Just 22 were males 18 years or older. As the New York Times reported:

http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/02/03/ ... terrorism/

& as for Iran's missile program:

NOr did they turn into western backed heavily armed terrorist s over night as you claim. Assad. Fought this onto himself, although at least you now appear to be admitting that the initial protests were actually a reflection of public dissatisfaction with the regime, which were (contrary to your propaganda) dealt with ruthlessly.

[rowan]

And as has been explained to you countless times before, the civil war in Syria was started by Assad when he cracked down on protestors. Our version of events just ignores all inconvenient facts.

& as has been eplained to you countless times before, the students and feminists involved in the Arab Spring protests did not morph into heavily armed, machine gun-toting Jihadi terrorists equipped with American weapons and vehicles as a result of that excessive - though highly exaggerated by the West - crackdown. It was simply the pretext for the proxies to be sent in to destabilize the country with a view to regime change.

There were plenty of reasons why the US and its allies wanted regime change. The Qatar - Turkey pipeline Assad rejected, Israel's border disputes with Syria (UN ruled against Israel), Turkey's concerns about Kurdish rebels operating from behind the Syrian border, and Saudi's wish to break the Shi'ite crescent from Iran to Lebanon which the US created with another of its regime changes in Iraq.

I mean, how many regime change operations does it take for you to figure out the pattern here? Do you still believe the WOMD theories? Do you still believe Gaddafi was planning a genocide of his own people? Do you still believe America has occupied Afghanistan for 16 years because it harbored Osama bin Laden?

I bet you'd even tell us the Mau Mau were really responsible for the British concentration camps in Kenya and the native Americans were responsible for the genocide in North America because they fired off a few arrows in retaliation. That's what it comes down to, I'm afraid - an imperialist mentality. We can kills millions of them, and when they resist that's our justification.

Btw, you know why Syria is allied to Russia, don't you? Because America tried regime change there once before, midway through the last century just before they helped overthrow Iran's first democratic government. That was during the Cold War and the US was forced to leave Syria alone or face the prospect of WWIII with the Soviets. Obviously not worth it.

I was in Syria not long before the Arab Spring and there was no sign of trouble at all. Refugees were flooding in from America's war on Iraq at the time. I actually travelled out to the Shi'ite quarter with my UN photographer buddy and met some of them. I'm sure you'll be quick to tell us about Assad Snr's Hama Massacre back in 82, but it is seldom mentioned this was the end result of an armed Muslim Brotherhood insurrection which involved acts of terrorism and an unsuccessful attempt to assassinate the leader.

Meanwhile, as for the comparison between Trump and Obama's first years in office, this might be of interest:

Among the many grisly scenes Obama will carry to his well-heated grave, one occurred early in his presidency in the first week of May 2009, a U.S. air-strike killed more than ten dozen civilians in Bola Boluk, a village in western Afghanistan’s Farah Province. Ninety-three of the dead villagers torn apart by U.S. explosives were children. Just 22 were males 18 years or older. As the New York Times reported:

http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/02/03/ ... terrorism/

& as for Iran's missile program:

NOr did they turn into western backed heavily armed terrorist s over night as you claim. Assad. Fought this onto himself, although at least you now appear to be admitting that the initial protests were actually a reflection of public dissatisfaction with the regime, which were (contrary to your propaganda) dealt with ruthlessly.

Quite an imagination you have there. At what point did I imply complete public satisfaction with the regime? I said things appeared very settled when I was there before the Arab Spring protests. That's not to say there wasn't underlying resentment. But these grievances were not remotely the same as those of the terrorists' NATO et al sent in there, and who were hell-bent on regime change. The idea they were the same people is simply laughable. In fact, elections were held recently and Assad was overwhelmingly elected. So I think you're the one who is making propaganda here. There are far worse regimes in the Middle East which are actually allied to Washington. In fact, Assad was simply one of the last remaining exceptions. & I said the response to the Arab Spring protests was excessive but not as brutal as the Western propaganda suggested. Your perspective is simply what the mainstream media of the nations mostly responsible for the carnage in the Middle East are telling you to think. That's imperialist mentality all the way, & the entire tone of your comments throughout the discussion reflects this, whether you are aware of it or not.

[rowan]

I know you guys don't like me sharing that Wesley Clark video naming all the nations America decided to attack after 9/11, but you remember who was last on the list, right?

WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY Sean Spicer asserted at Thursday’s press briefing that Iran had attacked a U.S. naval vessel, as part of his argument defending the administration’s bellicose announcement that Iran is “on notice.”

National Security Adviser Michael Flynn on Wednesday said he was “officially putting Iran on notice” following the country’s ballistic missile test and an attack on a Saudi naval vessel by Houthi rebels in Yemen (the Houthis are tenuously aligned with Iran’s government but are distinct from it).

The White House press corps wanted to know what being put “on notice” entailed, and Spicer responded by claiming that Iran’s government took actions against a U.S. naval vessel, which would be an act of war. “I think General Flynn was really clear yesterday that Iran has violated the Joint Resolution, that Iran’s additional hostile actions that it took against our Navy vessel are ones that we are very clear are not going to sit by and take,” he said. “I think that we will have further updates for you on those additional actions.”

Major Garrett of CBS News quietly corrected him, saying “a Saudi vessel,” and Spicer then responded almost inaudibly: “Sorry, thank you, yes a Saudi vessel. Yes, that’s right.” He did not in any way address his false claim that it was an Iranian attack, however.

https://theintercept.com/2017/02/02/pre ... ct-of-war/

[Sandydragon]

& as has been eplained to you countless times before, the students and feminists involved in the Arab Spring protests did not morph into heavily armed, machine gun-toting Jihadi terrorists equipped with American weapons and vehicles as a result of that excessive - though highly exaggerated by the West - crackdown. It was simply the pretext for the proxies to be sent in to destabilize the country with a view to regime change.

There were plenty of reasons why the US and its allies wanted regime change. The Qatar - Turkey pipeline Assad rejected, Israel's border disputes with Syria (UN ruled against Israel), Turkey's concerns about Kurdish rebels operating from behind the Syrian border, and Saudi's wish to break the Shi'ite crescent from Iran to Lebanon which the US created with another of its regime changes in Iraq.

I mean, how many regime change operations does it take for you to figure out the pattern here? Do you still believe the WOMD theories? Do you still believe Gaddafi was planning a genocide of his own people? Do you still believe America has occupied Afghanistan for 16 years because it harbored Osama bin Laden?

I bet you'd even tell us the Mau Mau were really responsible for the British concentration camps in Kenya and the native Americans were responsible for the genocide in North America because they fired off a few arrows in retaliation. That's what it comes down to, I'm afraid - an imperialist mentality. We can kills millions of them, and when they resist that's our justification.

Btw, you know why Syria is allied to Russia, don't you? Because America tried regime change there once before, midway through the last century just before they helped overthrow Iran's first democratic government. That was during the Cold War and the US was forced to leave Syria alone or face the prospect of WWIII with the Soviets. Obviously not worth it.

I was in Syria not long before the Arab Spring and there was no sign of trouble at all. Refugees were flooding in from America's war on Iraq at the time. I actually travelled out to the Shi'ite quarter with my UN photographer buddy and met some of them. I'm sure you'll be quick to tell us about Assad Snr's Hama Massacre back in 82, but it is seldom mentioned this was the end result of an armed Muslim Brotherhood insurrection which involved acts of terrorism and an unsuccessful attempt to assassinate the leader.

Meanwhile, as for the comparison between Trump and Obama's first years in office, this might be of interest:

Among the many grisly scenes Obama will carry to his well-heated grave, one occurred early in his presidency in the first week of May 2009, a U.S. air-strike killed more than ten dozen civilians in Bola Boluk, a village in western Afghanistan’s Farah Province. Ninety-three of the dead villagers torn apart by U.S. explosives were children. Just 22 were males 18 years or older. As the New York Times reported:

http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/02/03/ ... terrorism/

& as for Iran's missile program:

NOr did they turn into western backed heavily armed terrorist s over night as you claim. Assad. Fought this onto himself, although at least you now appear to be admitting that the initial protests were actually a reflection of public dissatisfaction with the regime, which were (contrary to your propaganda) dealt with ruthlessly.

Quite an imagination you have there. At what point did I imply complete public satisfaction with the regime? I said things appeared very settled when I was there before the Arab Spring protests. That's not to say there wasn't underlying resentment. But these grievances were not remotely the same as those of the terrorists' NATO et al sent in there, and who were hell-bent on regime change. The idea they were the same people is simply laughable. In fact, elections were held recently and Assad was overwhelmingly elected. So I think you're the one who is making propaganda here. There are far worse regimes in the Middle East which are actually allied to Washington. In fact, Assad was simply one of the last remaining exceptions. & I said the response to the Arab Spring protests was excessive but not as brutal as the Western propaganda suggested. Your perspective is simply what the mainstream media of the nations mostly responsible for the carnage in the Middle East are telling you to think. That's imperialist mentality all the way, & the entire tone of your comments throughout the discussion reflects this, whether you are aware of it or not.

Russia is interested in Syria because of its strategic requirements for naval facilities.

Anyway, you might find this interesting given your confusion over how small protests can escalate into civil war.

http://www.understandingwar.org/report/assad-regime

I await your next dose of propaganda with something approaching boredom.

[Sandydragon]

I'm moving the Syrian topic posts from the trump thread as they don't really belong there.

[rowan]

I just checked the author's profile.

Joseph Holliday is a Senior Research Analyst at the Institute for the Study of War, where he studies
security dynamics in Syria. He is the author of The Struggle for Syria in 2011, a report published by
ISW in December 2011. Holliday served as an Infantry and Intelligence officer in the U.S. Army from
June 2006 to September 2011, and continues to serve in the Army reserves. During his time on active
duty, Joe deployed to East Baghdad, Iraq from November 2007 to January 2009 with the 10th Mountain
Division, 2-30 Infantry Battalion. From May 2010 to May 2011 Holliday deployed to Afghanistan’s
Kunar Province as the Intelligence Officer for 2-327 Infantry Battalion, 101st Airborne Division. He
has a Bachelor’s degree in History from Princeton University

So, back to reality. . .

The Kerry-Abdullah secret deal

On September 11, US Secretary of State Kerry met Saudi King Abdullah at his palace on the Red Sea. The King invited former head of Saudi intelligence, Prince Bandar to attend. There a deal was hammered out which saw Saudi support for the Syrian airstrikes against ISIS on condition Washington backed the Saudis in toppling Assad, a firm ally of Russia and de facto of Iran and an obstacle to Saudi and UAE plans to control the emerging EU natural gas market and destroy Russia’s lucrative EU trade. A report in the Wall Street Journal noted there had been “months of behind-the-scenes work by the US and Arab leaders, who agreed on the need to cooperate against Islamic State, but not how or when. The process gave the Saudis leverage to extract a fresh US commitment to beef up training for rebels fighting Mr. Assad, whose demise the Saudis still see as a top priority.” [3]



Shortly after signing with Iran and Iraq, on August 16, 2011, Bashar al-Assad’s Syrian Ministry of Oil announced the discovery of a gas well in the Area of Qarah in the Central Region of Syria near Homs. Gazprom, with Assad in power, would be a major investor or operator of the new gas fields in Syria. [7] Iran ultimately plans to extend the pipeline from Damascus to Lebanon’s Mediterranean port where it would be delivered to the huge EU market. Syria would buy Iranian gas along with a current Iraqi agreement to buy Iranian gas from Iran’s part of South Pars field.[8]

Qatar, today the world’s largest exporter of LNG, largely to Asia, wants the same EU market that Iran and Syria eye. For that, they would build pipelines to the Mediterranean. Here is where getting rid of the pro-Iran Assad is essential. In 2009 Qatar approached Bashar al-Assad to propose construction of a gas pipeline from Qatar’s north Field through Syria on to Turkey and to the EU. Assad refused, citing Syria’s long friendly relations with Russia and Gazprom. That refusal combined with the Iran-Iraq-Syria gas pipeline agreement in 2011 ignited the full-scale Saudi and Qatari assault on Assad’s power, financing al Qaeda terrorists, recruits of Jihadist fanatics willing to kill Alawite and Shi’ite “infidels” for $100 a month and a Kalishnikov. The Washington neo-conservative warhawks in and around the Obama White House, along with their allies in the right-wing Netanyahu government, were cheering from the bleachers as Syria went up in flames after spring 2011.

Today the US-backed wars in Ukraine and in Syria are but two fronts in the same strategic war to cripple Russia and China and to rupture any Eurasian counter-pole to a US-controlled New World Order. In each, control of energy pipelines, this time primarily of natural gas pipelines—from Russia to the EU via Ukraine and from Iran and Syria to the EU via Syria—is the strategic goal. The true aim of the US and Israel backed ISIS is to give the pretext for bombing Assad’s vital grain silos and oil refineries to cripple the economy in preparation for a “Ghaddafi-”style elimination of Russia and China and Iran-ally Bashar al-Assad.

[rowan]

& one from the Guardian

Whatever the case, few recall that US agitation against Syria began long before recent atrocities, in the context of wider operations targeting Iranian influence across the Middle East.

In May 2007, a presidential finding revealed that Bush had authorised CIA operations against Iran. Anti-Syria operations were also in full swing around this time as part of this covert programme, according to Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker. A range of US government and intelligence sources told him that the Bush administration had "cooperated with Saudi Arabia's government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations" intended to weaken the Shi'ite Hezbollah in Lebanon. "The US has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria," wrote Hersh, "a byproduct" of which is "the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups" hostile to the United States and "sympathetic to al-Qaeda." He noted that "the Saudi government, with Washington's approval, would provide funds and logistical aid to weaken the government of President Bashir Assad, of Syria," with a view to pressure him to be "more conciliatory and open to negotiations" with Israel. One faction receiving covert US "political and financial support" through the Saudis was the exiled Syrian Muslim Brotherhood.

According to former French foreign minister Roland Dumas, Britain had planned covert action in Syria as early as 2009: "I was in England two years before the violence in Syria on other business", he told French television:

"I met with top British officials, who confessed to me that they were preparing something in Syria. This was in Britain not in America. Britain was preparing gunmen to invade Syria."

The 2011 uprisings, it would seem - triggered by a confluence of domestic energy shortages and climate-induced droughts which led to massive food price hikes - came at an opportune moment that was quickly exploited. Leaked emails from the private intelligence firm Stratfor including notes from a meeting with Pentagon officials confirmed US-UK training of Syrian opposition forces since 2011 aimed at eliciting "collapse" of Assad's regime "from within."

So what was this unfolding strategy to undermine Syria and Iran all about? According to retired NATO Secretary General Wesley Clark, a memo from the Office of the US Secretary of Defense just a few weeks after 9/11 revealed plans to "attack and destroy the governments in 7 countries in five years", starting with Iraq and moving on to "Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran." In a subsequent interview, Clark argues that this strategy is fundamentally about control of the region's vast oil and gas resources.

Much of the strategy currently at play was candidly described in a 2008 US Army-funded RAND report, Unfolding the Future of the Long War (pdf). The report noted that "the economies of the industrialized states will continue to rely heavily on oil, thus making it a strategically important resource." As most oil will be produced in the Middle East, the US has "motive for maintaining stability in and good relations with Middle Eastern states":

"The geographic area of proven oil reserves coincides with the power base of much of the Salafi-jihadist network. This creates a linkage between oil supplies and the long war that is not easily broken or simply characterized... For the foreseeable future, world oil production growth and total output will be dominated by Persian Gulf resources... The region will therefore remain a strategic priority, and this priority will interact strongly with that of prosecuting the long war."

In this context, the report identified several potential trajectories for regional policy focused on protecting access to Gulf oil supplies, among which the following are most salient:

"Divide and Rule focuses on exploiting fault lines between the various Salafi-jihadist groups to turn them against each other and dissipate their energy on internal conflicts. This strategy relies heavily on covert action, information operations (IO), unconventional warfare, and support to indigenous security forces... the United States and its local allies could use the nationalist jihadists to launch proxy IO campaigns to discredit the transnational jihadists in the eyes of the local populace... US leaders could also choose to capitalize on the 'Sustained Shia-Sunni Conflict' trajectory by taking the side of the conservative Sunni regimes against Shiite empowerment movements in the Muslim world.... possibly supporting authoritative Sunni governments against a continuingly hostile Iran."

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... -pipelines

[WaspInWales]

& one from the Guardian

Whatever the case, few recall that US agitation against Syria began long before recent atrocities, in the context of wider operations targeting Iranian influence across the Middle East.

In May 2007, a presidential finding revealed that Bush had authorised CIA operations against Iran. Anti-Syria operations were also in full swing around this time as part of this covert programme, according to Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker. A range of US government and intelligence sources told him that the Bush administration had "cooperated with Saudi Arabia's government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations" intended to weaken the Shi'ite Hezbollah in Lebanon. "The US has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria," wrote Hersh, "a byproduct" of which is "the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups" hostile to the United States and "sympathetic to al-Qaeda." He noted that "the Saudi government, with Washington's approval, would provide funds and logistical aid to weaken the government of President Bashir Assad, of Syria," with a view to pressure him to be "more conciliatory and open to negotiations" with Israel. One faction receiving covert US "political and financial support" through the Saudis was the exiled Syrian Muslim Brotherhood.

According to former French foreign minister Roland Dumas, Britain had planned covert action in Syria as early as 2009: "I was in England two years before the violence in Syria on other business", he told French television:

"I met with top British officials, who confessed to me that they were preparing something in Syria. This was in Britain not in America. Britain was preparing gunmen to invade Syria."

The 2011 uprisings, it would seem - triggered by a confluence of domestic energy shortages and climate-induced droughts which led to massive food price hikes - came at an opportune moment that was quickly exploited. Leaked emails from the private intelligence firm Stratfor including notes from a meeting with Pentagon officials confirmed US-UK training of Syrian opposition forces since 2011 aimed at eliciting "collapse" of Assad's regime "from within."

So what was this unfolding strategy to undermine Syria and Iran all about? According to retired NATO Secretary General Wesley Clark, a memo from the Office of the US Secretary of Defense just a few weeks after 9/11 revealed plans to "attack and destroy the governments in 7 countries in five years", starting with Iraq and moving on to "Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran." In a subsequent interview, Clark argues that this strategy is fundamentally about control of the region's vast oil and gas resources.

Much of the strategy currently at play was candidly described in a 2008 US Army-funded RAND report, Unfolding the Future of the Long War (pdf). The report noted that "the economies of the industrialized states will continue to rely heavily on oil, thus making it a strategically important resource." As most oil will be produced in the Middle East, the US has "motive for maintaining stability in and good relations with Middle Eastern states":

"The geographic area of proven oil reserves coincides with the power base of much of the Salafi-jihadist network. This creates a linkage between oil supplies and the long war that is not easily broken or simply characterized... For the foreseeable future, world oil production growth and total output will be dominated by Persian Gulf resources... The region will therefore remain a strategic priority, and this priority will interact strongly with that of prosecuting the long war."

In this context, the report identified several potential trajectories for regional policy focused on protecting access to Gulf oil supplies, among which the following are most salient:

"Divide and Rule focuses on exploiting fault lines between the various Salafi-jihadist groups to turn them against each other and dissipate their energy on internal conflicts. This strategy relies heavily on covert action, information operations (IO), unconventional warfare, and support to indigenous security forces... the United States and its local allies could use the nationalist jihadists to launch proxy IO campaigns to discredit the transnational jihadists in the eyes of the local populace... US leaders could also choose to capitalize on the 'Sustained Shia-Sunni Conflict' trajectory by taking the side of the conservative Sunni regimes against Shiite empowerment movements in the Muslim world.... possibly supporting authoritative Sunni governments against a continuingly hostile Iran."

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... -pipelines

Noticed you left a few paragraphs out of the original article?

[Sandydragon]

I just checked the author's profile.

Joseph Holliday is a Senior Research Analyst at the Institute for the Study of War, where he studies
security dynamics in Syria. He is the author of The Struggle for Syria in 2011, a report published by
ISW in December 2011. Holliday served as an Infantry and Intelligence officer in the U.S. Army from
June 2006 to September 2011, and continues to serve in the Army reserves. During his time on active
duty, Joe deployed to East Baghdad, Iraq from November 2007 to January 2009 with the 10th Mountain
Division, 2-30 Infantry Battalion. From May 2010 to May 2011 Holliday deployed to Afghanistan’s
Kunar Province as the Intelligence Officer for 2-327 Infantry Battalion, 101st Airborne Division. He
has a Bachelor’s degree in History from Princeton University

So, back to reality. . .

The Kerry-Abdullah secret deal

On September 11, US Secretary of State Kerry met Saudi King Abdullah at his palace on the Red Sea. The King invited former head of Saudi intelligence, Prince Bandar to attend. There a deal was hammered out which saw Saudi support for the Syrian airstrikes against ISIS on condition Washington backed the Saudis in toppling Assad, a firm ally of Russia and de facto of Iran and an obstacle to Saudi and UAE plans to control the emerging EU natural gas market and destroy Russia’s lucrative EU trade. A report in the Wall Street Journal noted there had been “months of behind-the-scenes work by the US and Arab leaders, who agreed on the need to cooperate against Islamic State, but not how or when. The process gave the Saudis leverage to extract a fresh US commitment to beef up training for rebels fighting Mr. Assad, whose demise the Saudis still see as a top priority.” [3]



Shortly after signing with Iran and Iraq, on August 16, 2011, Bashar al-Assad’s Syrian Ministry of Oil announced the discovery of a gas well in the Area of Qarah in the Central Region of Syria near Homs. Gazprom, with Assad in power, would be a major investor or operator of the new gas fields in Syria. [7] Iran ultimately plans to extend the pipeline from Damascus to Lebanon’s Mediterranean port where it would be delivered to the huge EU market. Syria would buy Iranian gas along with a current Iraqi agreement to buy Iranian gas from Iran’s part of South Pars field.[8]

Qatar, today the world’s largest exporter of LNG, largely to Asia, wants the same EU market that Iran and Syria eye. For that, they would build pipelines to the Mediterranean. Here is where getting rid of the pro-Iran Assad is essential. In 2009 Qatar approached Bashar al-Assad to propose construction of a gas pipeline from Qatar’s north Field through Syria on to Turkey and to the EU. Assad refused, citing Syria’s long friendly relations with Russia and Gazprom. That refusal combined with the Iran-Iraq-Syria gas pipeline agreement in 2011 ignited the full-scale Saudi and Qatari assault on Assad’s power, financing al Qaeda terrorists, recruits of Jihadist fanatics willing to kill Alawite and Shi’ite “infidels” for $100 a month and a Kalishnikov. The Washington neo-conservative warhawks in and around the Obama White House, along with their allies in the right-wing Netanyahu government, were cheering from the bleachers as Syria went up in flames after spring 2011.

Today the US-backed wars in Ukraine and in Syria are but two fronts in the same strategic war to cripple Russia and China and to rupture any Eurasian counter-pole to a US-controlled New World Order. In each, control of energy pipelines, this time primarily of natural gas pipelines—from Russia to the EU via Ukraine and from Iran and Syria to the EU via Syria—is the strategic goal. The true aim of the US and Israel backed ISIS is to give the pretext for bombing Assad’s vital grain silos and oil refineries to cripple the economy in preparation for a “Ghaddafi-”style elimination of Russia and China and Iran-ally Bashar al-Assad.

I see. So because he is ex army, he is no longer credible. Compared to a journalist who has made a career by being anti American who you love to cite?

Israel and America being pleased that Assad was in trouble doesn't provide proof that they instigated the whole thing.

[Sandydragon]

& one from the Guardian

Whatever the case, few recall that US agitation against Syria began long before recent atrocities, in the context of wider operations targeting Iranian influence across the Middle East.

In May 2007, a presidential finding revealed that Bush had authorised CIA operations against Iran. Anti-Syria operations were also in full swing around this time as part of this covert programme, according to Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker. A range of US government and intelligence sources told him that the Bush administration had "cooperated with Saudi Arabia's government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations" intended to weaken the Shi'ite Hezbollah in Lebanon. "The US has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria," wrote Hersh, "a byproduct" of which is "the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups" hostile to the United States and "sympathetic to al-Qaeda." He noted that "the Saudi government, with Washington's approval, would provide funds and logistical aid to weaken the government of President Bashir Assad, of Syria," with a view to pressure him to be "more conciliatory and open to negotiations" with Israel. One faction receiving covert US "political and financial support" through the Saudis was the exiled Syrian Muslim Brotherhood.

According to former French foreign minister Roland Dumas, Britain had planned covert action in Syria as early as 2009: "I was in England two years before the violence in Syria on other business", he told French television:

"I met with top British officials, who confessed to me that they were preparing something in Syria. This was in Britain not in America. Britain was preparing gunmen to invade Syria."

The 2011 uprisings, it would seem - triggered by a confluence of domestic energy shortages and climate-induced droughts which led to massive food price hikes - came at an opportune moment that was quickly exploited. Leaked emails from the private intelligence firm Stratfor including notes from a meeting with Pentagon officials confirmed US-UK training of Syrian opposition forces since 2011 aimed at eliciting "collapse" of Assad's regime "from within."

So what was this unfolding strategy to undermine Syria and Iran all about? According to retired NATO Secretary General Wesley Clark, a memo from the Office of the US Secretary of Defense just a few weeks after 9/11 revealed plans to "attack and destroy the governments in 7 countries in five years", starting with Iraq and moving on to "Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran." In a subsequent interview, Clark argues that this strategy is fundamentally about control of the region's vast oil and gas resources.

Much of the strategy currently at play was candidly described in a 2008 US Army-funded RAND report, Unfolding the Future of the Long War (pdf). The report noted that "the economies of the industrialized states will continue to rely heavily on oil, thus making it a strategically important resource." As most oil will be produced in the Middle East, the US has "motive for maintaining stability in and good relations with Middle Eastern states":

"The geographic area of proven oil reserves coincides with the power base of much of the Salafi-jihadist network. This creates a linkage between oil supplies and the long war that is not easily broken or simply characterized... For the foreseeable future, world oil production growth and total output will be dominated by Persian Gulf resources... The region will therefore remain a strategic priority, and this priority will interact strongly with that of prosecuting the long war."

In this context, the report identified several potential trajectories for regional policy focused on protecting access to Gulf oil supplies, among which the following are most salient:

"Divide and Rule focuses on exploiting fault lines between the various Salafi-jihadist groups to turn them against each other and dissipate their energy on internal conflicts. This strategy relies heavily on covert action, information operations (IO), unconventional warfare, and support to indigenous security forces... the United States and its local allies could use the nationalist jihadists to launch proxy IO campaigns to discredit the transnational jihadists in the eyes of the local populace... US leaders could also choose to capitalize on the 'Sustained Shia-Sunni Conflict' trajectory by taking the side of the conservative Sunni regimes against Shiite empowerment movements in the Muslim world.... possibly supporting authoritative Sunni governments against a continuingly hostile Iran."

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... -pipelines

Noticed you left a few paragraphs out of the original article?

You mean the bit where the author categorically labels Assad as a war criminal?

[rowan]

& one from the Guardian

Whatever the case, few recall that US agitation against Syria began long before recent atrocities, in the context of wider operations targeting Iranian influence across the Middle East.

In May 2007, a presidential finding revealed that Bush had authorised CIA operations against Iran. Anti-Syria operations were also in full swing around this time as part of this covert programme, according to Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker. A range of US government and intelligence sources told him that the Bush administration had "cooperated with Saudi Arabia's government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations" intended to weaken the Shi'ite Hezbollah in Lebanon. "The US has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria," wrote Hersh, "a byproduct" of which is "the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups" hostile to the United States and "sympathetic to al-Qaeda." He noted that "the Saudi government, with Washington's approval, would provide funds and logistical aid to weaken the government of President Bashir Assad, of Syria," with a view to pressure him to be "more conciliatory and open to negotiations" with Israel. One faction receiving covert US "political and financial support" through the Saudis was the exiled Syrian Muslim Brotherhood.

According to former French foreign minister Roland Dumas, Britain had planned covert action in Syria as early as 2009: "I was in England two years before the violence in Syria on other business", he told French television:

"I met with top British officials, who confessed to me that they were preparing something in Syria. This was in Britain not in America. Britain was preparing gunmen to invade Syria."

The 2011 uprisings, it would seem - triggered by a confluence of domestic energy shortages and climate-induced droughts which led to massive food price hikes - came at an opportune moment that was quickly exploited. Leaked emails from the private intelligence firm Stratfor including notes from a meeting with Pentagon officials confirmed US-UK training of Syrian opposition forces since 2011 aimed at eliciting "collapse" of Assad's regime "from within."

So what was this unfolding strategy to undermine Syria and Iran all about? According to retired NATO Secretary General Wesley Clark, a memo from the Office of the US Secretary of Defense just a few weeks after 9/11 revealed plans to "attack and destroy the governments in 7 countries in five years", starting with Iraq and moving on to "Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran." In a subsequent interview, Clark argues that this strategy is fundamentally about control of the region's vast oil and gas resources.

Much of the strategy currently at play was candidly described in a 2008 US Army-funded RAND report, Unfolding the Future of the Long War (pdf). The report noted that "the economies of the industrialized states will continue to rely heavily on oil, thus making it a strategically important resource." As most oil will be produced in the Middle East, the US has "motive for maintaining stability in and good relations with Middle Eastern states":

"The geographic area of proven oil reserves coincides with the power base of much of the Salafi-jihadist network. This creates a linkage between oil supplies and the long war that is not easily broken or simply characterized... For the foreseeable future, world oil production growth and total output will be dominated by Persian Gulf resources... The region will therefore remain a strategic priority, and this priority will interact strongly with that of prosecuting the long war."

In this context, the report identified several potential trajectories for regional policy focused on protecting access to Gulf oil supplies, among which the following are most salient:

"Divide and Rule focuses on exploiting fault lines between the various Salafi-jihadist groups to turn them against each other and dissipate their energy on internal conflicts. This strategy relies heavily on covert action, information operations (IO), unconventional warfare, and support to indigenous security forces... the United States and its local allies could use the nationalist jihadists to launch proxy IO campaigns to discredit the transnational jihadists in the eyes of the local populace... US leaders could also choose to capitalize on the 'Sustained Shia-Sunni Conflict' trajectory by taking the side of the conservative Sunni regimes against Shiite empowerment movements in the Muslim world.... possibly supporting authoritative Sunni governments against a continuingly hostile Iran."

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... -pipelines

Noticed you left a few paragraphs out of the original article?

Usually do. Not sure how that's supposed to contradict the fact that NATO and associates began planninng for regime change in Damascus (again) long before the Arab Spring protests - which were nothing to do with it. I mean, when the Guardian runs a story pinning the blame squarely on NATO, rather than one of their victims, for a change, that says an awful lot - while Seymour Hersh is a Pullitzer prize-winner who exposed the My Lai massacre and subsequent cover up during the Vietnam War.

You mean the bit where the author categorically labels Assad as a war criminal?


No, he was quoting "international observers" there. Independent journalists and other sources from nations such as Canada and Britain had a very different view, as we've seen.

[Sandydragon]

Some key events from 2011 which outline how thisall kicked off in the first place.

The key points are the repeated comments on the brutal repression by Assad regime and the condemnation from acrosss the world, sadly blocked by the UNSC.

Also the early mention of human right violations by Syrian troops reported by UN troops observers.

http://www.un.org/en/preventgenocide/ad ... ria-26.pdf

[Sandydragon]

For comparison, the initial reports of arms supply to the rebels were mud 2012, which incidentally after hezbollah reportedly got involved. Any claim that this was anything other than an internal revolt just isn't borne out by the facts. This was a series of protests, which were britually put down, 4000 estimated casualties by the end of 2011, so I don't think there is much to substantiate the claim that western media was mis reporting the severity of the government reprisals.

Further,ore, where did the rebels get their weapons from. Well frankly they took the vast majority offf the Syrian army, either through surrendering troops or through desertions. The overwhelming majority of their heavy weaponry today is of soviet/Russian origin and was in service with the Syrian military.

A good overview of the origins of the conflict are provided by William Polk here. https://www.theatlantic.com/internation ... ad/281989/

He does mention foreign meddling prior to the civil war, but the immediate cause is the severe environmental factors which resulted in protests, brutally put down by the regime.

And so tens of thousands of frightened, angry, hungry, and impoverished former farmers were jammed into Syria’s towns and cities, where they constituted tinder ready to catch fire. The spark was struck on March 15, 2011, when a relatively small group gathered in the southwestern town of Daraa to protest against government failure to help them. Instead of meeting with the protesters and at least hearing their complaints, the government saw them as subversives. The lesson of Hama must have been at the front of the mind of every member of the Assad regime. Failure to act decisively, Hama had shown, inevitably led to insurrection. Compromise could come only after order was assured. So Bashar followed the lead of his father. He ordered a crackdown. And the army, long frustrated by inaction and humiliated by its successive defeats in confrontation with Israel, responded violently. Its action backfired. Riots broke out all over the country. As they did, the government attempted to quell them with military force. It failed. So, during the next two years, what had begun as a food and water issue gradually turned into a political and religious caus

[rowan]

Some key events from 2011 which outline how thisall kicked off in the first place

In May 2007, a presidential finding revealed that Bush had authorised CIA operations against Iran. Anti-Syria operations were also in full swing around this time as part of this covert programme, according to Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker. A range of US government and intelligence sources told him that the Bush administration had "cooperated with Saudi Arabia's government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations" intended to weaken the Shi'ite Hezbollah in Lebanon. "The US has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria," wrote Hersh, "a byproduct" of which is "the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups" hostile to the United States and "sympathetic to al-Qaeda." He noted that "the Saudi government, with Washington's approval, would provide funds and logistical aid to weaken the government of President Bashir Assad, of Syria," with a view to pressure him to be "more conciliatory and open to negotiations" with Israel. One faction receiving covert US "political and financial support" through the Saudis was the exiled Syrian Muslim Brotherhood.

According to former French foreign minister Roland Dumas, Britain had planned covert action in Syria as early as 2009: "I was in England two years before the violence in Syria on other business", he told French television:

"I met with top British officials, who confessed to me that they were preparing something in Syria. This was in Britain not in America. Britain was preparing gunmen to invade Syria."

The 2011 uprisings, it would seem - triggered by a confluence of domestic energy shortages and climate-induced droughts which led to massive food price hikes - came at an opportune moment that was quickly exploited. Leaked emails from the private intelligence firm Stratfor including notes from a meeting with Pentagon officials confirmed US-UK training of Syrian opposition forces since 2011 aimed at eliciting "collapse" of Assad's regime "from within."

So what was this unfolding strategy to undermine Syria and Iran all about? According to retired NATO Secretary General Wesley Clark, a memo from the Office of the US Secretary of Defense just a few weeks after 9/11 revealed plans to "attack and destroy the governments in 7 countries in five years", starting with Iraq and moving on to "Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran." In a subsequent interview, Clark argues that this strategy is fundamentally about control of the region's vast oil and gas resources.


July 16 – From Istanbul, Syrian opposition groups elect a 25-member National Salvation Council to challenge Assad.

This is quite the bombshell delivered by two CHP deputies in the Turkish parliament and reported by Today’s Zaman, one of the top dailies in Turkey.

It supports Seymour Hersh’s reporting that the notorious sarin gas attack at Ghouta was a false flag orchestrated by Turkish intelligence in order to cross President Obama’s chemical weapons “red line” and draw the United States into the Syria war to topple Assad.

If so, President Obama deserves credit for “holding the line” against the attack despite the grumbling and incitement of the Syria hawks at home and abroad.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/10/23/ ... -in-syria/

Aug 7 – Saudi Arabia recalls its ambassador from Syria in protest against Assad’s deadly crackdown, calling the violence “unacceptable.” Hours later, Kuwait and Bahrain follow suit, recalling their envoys.

Qatar, today the world’s largest exporter of LNG, largely to Asia, wants the same EU market that Iran and Syria eye. For that, they would build pipelines to the Mediterranean. Here is where getting rid of the pro-Iran Assad is essential. In 2009 Qatar approached Bashar al-Assad to propose construction of a gas pipeline from Qatar’s north Field through Syria on to Turkey and to the EU. Assad refused, citing Syria’s long friendly relations with Russia and Gazprom. That refusal combined with the Iran-Iraq-Syria gas pipeline agreement in 2011 ignited the full-scale Saudi and Qatari assault on Assad’s power, financing al Qaeda terrorists, recruits of Jihadist fanatics willing to kill Alawite and Shi’ite “infidels” for $100 a month and a Kalishnikov. The Washington neo-conservative warhawks in and around the Obama White House, along with their allies in the right-wing Netanyahu government, were cheering from the bleachers as Syria went up in flames after spring 2011.


A good overview of the origins of the conflict are provided by William Polk here.

Polk taught Middle Eastern history and politics at Harvard from 1955–61, and was then appointed by President Kennedy to the State Department's Policy Planning Council focusing on the Middle East and North Africa.[1] While there he served as a member of the Cuban Missile Crisis management team.

[Sandydragon]

Oh yes, the Pulitzer winning reporter who never names his sources and has a history of anti western commentary. Completely without bias there and must be believed by anyone who doesn't want to fact check.

His so called debunking of the Sarin gas attack has been picked apart by enough experts to question his wider credibility.

4000 people killed by Syrian troops by the end of 2011. British authorities get it in the neck when they kill one person by mistake (and rightly so) yet apparently killing several thousand isn't a sign of an over reaction.

[rowan]

Oh yes, the Pulitzer winning reporter who never names his sources and has a history of anti western commentary. Completely without bias there and must be believed by anyone who doesn't want to fact check.

His so called debunking of the Sarin gas attack has been picked apart by enough experts to question his wider credibility.

This guy, you mean? Hersh first gained recognition in 1969 for exposing the My Lai Massacre and its cover-up during the Vietnam War, for which he received the 1970 Pulitzer Prize for International Reporting. In 2004, he notably reported on the US military's mistreatment of detainees at Abu Ghraib prison. He has also won two National Magazine Awards and five George Polk Awards. In 2004, he received the George Orwell Award

Ok, if he disagrees with the US & UK's mainstream media about one of their run-of-the-mill regime change operations in the Middle East and exposes the truth, the way he did so courageously about Vietnam and Abu Ghraib, then he must have been possessed by the devil, right?

Here's another view from a Canadian journalist:

Documents prepared by US Congress researchers as early as 2005 revealed that the US government was actively weighing regime change in Syria long before the Arab Spring uprisings of 2011, challenging the view that US support for the Syrian rebels is based on allegiance to a “democratic uprising” and showing that it is simply an extension of a long-standing policy of seeking to topple the government in Damascus. Indeed, the researchers made clear that the US government’s motivation to overthrow the government of Syrian president Bashar al-Assad is unrelated to democracy promotion in the Middle East. In point of fact, they noted that Washington’s preference is for secular dictatorships (Egypt) and monarchies (Jordan and Saudi Arabia.) The impetus for pursuing regime change, according to the researchers, was a desire to sweep away an impediment to the achievement of US goals in the Middle East related to strengthening Israel, consolidating US domination of Iraq, and fostering free-market, free enterprise economies. Democracy was never a consideration.

http://yournewswire.com/the-usas-attemp ... d-in-2003/

Wikileaks:

LONDON — Speaking from Ecuador’s embassy in London, Julian Assange revealed that the United States planned to overthrow the Syrian government as far back as 2006, several years before the start of the current crisis.

The United States and its allies in the Middle East, including Turkey and Israel, have been frequently accused of contributing to the ongoing destabilization of Syria in the wake of the uprising and subsequent civil war which began in 2011. But according to cables from the WikiLeaks archive, discussed in the Syria chapter of Assange’s book, plans to deliberately destabilize the region go back at least five years further.

According to Assange, the cable illuminates how the current Syrian crisis reflects U.S. influence on the Middle East, particularly the ways it has used its allies to put pressure on the country. “Part of the problem in Syria is that you have a number of US allies surrounding it, principally Saudi and Qatar, that are funneling in weapons,” Assange noted, adding that it shows how the U.S. uses its over 100 army bases and network of embassies to further its imperialist interests.

The mainstream media often presents a simplistic view of the Syrian crisis, especially when the U.S. government is using it as support for war, ignoring the history of the region and the many conflicting alliances it holds.

http://www.mintpressnews.com/julian-ass ... 06/209493/

[Sandydragon]

Yes, that guy who was rightly hailed for his work in Vietnam but has received justifiable criticism for citing unnamed sources. Frankly, it's all a bit convenient. Unless of course your view aligns with his in which case his word is the gospel truth.

[Sandydragon]

So, in this instance, Hersh is quoting a French politician, Roland Dumas, who at the time of the alleged meeting held no official government position. This is the same anti-Semitic Dumas who has been implicated in the Elf corruption case and has been convicted of mis appropriating funds who just happened to be approached by an unnamed British official who divulged what would have been top secret information.

Right oh.

[rowan]

Sounds like just the sort of fellow who would spill the beans

So, since your only recourse now is to just dismiss the credibility of all sources, including Pulitzer Prize-winner and legendary journalist Seymour Hersh, how would you go about dismissing this fellow:

Wesley Clark has been awarded numerous honors, awards, and knighthoods over the course of his military and civilian career. Notable military awards include the Defense Distinguished Service Medal with four oak leaf clusters, the Legion of Merit with three oak leaf clusters, the Silver Star, and the Bronze Star with an oak leaf cluster.[146] Internationally Clark has received numerous civilian honors such as the Grand Cross of the Order of Merit of the Federal Republic of Germany and military honors such as the Grand Cross of the Medal of Military Merit from Portugal and knighthoods.[147] Clark has been awarded some honors as a civilian, such as the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2000.[148] The people of Gjakova, Kosovo, named a street after him for his role in helping their city and country.[149][150] The city of Madison in Alabama has also named a boulevard after Clark.[151][152] Municipal approval has been granted for the construction of a new street to be named "General Clark Court" in Virginia Beach, Virginia.[153] He has also been appointed a Fellow at the Burkle Center for International Relations at UCLA. He is a member of the guiding coalition of the Project on National Security Reform. In 2013, General Clark was awarded the Hanno R. Ellenbogen Citizenship Award by the Prague Society for International Cooperation.[154]

Or this fellow:


John Pilger

Selected Awards
1966: Descriptive Writer of the Year
1967: Reporter of the Year
1967: Journalist of the Year
1970: International Reporter of the Year
1974: News Reporter of the Year
1977: Campaigning Journalist of the Year
1979: Journalist of the Year
1979-80: UN Media Peace Prize, Australia
1980-81: UN Media Peace Prize, Gold Medal, Australia
1979: TV Times Readers' Award
1990: The George Foster Peabody Award, USA
1991: American Television Academy Award ('Emmy')
1991: British Academy of Film and Television Arts - The Richard Dimbleby Award
1990: Reporters San Frontiers Award, France
1995: International de Television Geneve Award
2001: The Monismanien Prize (Sweden)
2003: The Sophie Prize for Human Rights (Norway)
2003: EMMA Media Personality of the Year
2004: Royal Television Society Best Documentary, 'Stealing a Nation'
2008: Best Documentary, One World Awards, 'The War On Democracy'
2009: Sydney Peace Prize
2011: Grierson Trustees' Award

[cashead]

Oh, so winning a Pulitzer matters to the point where their word can be taken as gospel? Haven't you dismissed the Guardian as "the Blairite Bugle" in the past?

Or does that only apply if it conforms to your agenda.

P.S. Peep that RT logo in the corner of the video.