Saturday, September 3, 2016

Alex Christoforou — Must see video: US Peace Council returns from Syria, a country fighting “invasion by the most powerful country in the world”

Madelyn Hoffman, Executive Director of New Jersey Peace Action, Member of the Syria Delegation at the 17:15
“This is not a civil war in Syria. That’s probably the first thing we heard, and we heard it over and over again.
It is not President Assad against his own people. It is President Assad and the Syrian people, all together, in unity, against outside forces, outside mercenary forces, terror organisations, the names change everyday or every other day, to try to protect their identity, and maybe keep the connection between the country that funded it and that group, kind of a little bit more nebulous, but there are groups, mercenary forces, supported by Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, United States, and underneath it, Israel, the state of Israel.
And these outside mercenary forces are the ones that are terrorising the Syrian people, and are attempting to divide the Syrian people.”
Let's see how much exposure this report gets in the US mainstream. Predict none, or at best marginal and partial, with more attention on the propaganda to "balance" it.


Kaivey said...

Very interesting. They call Assad brutal but I don't think he is. He is mild mannered and just wanted to be a doctor in London. He might have inherited a military they could be brutal, like they are in most Middle Eastern countries, but the army had been tough to protect the Druze, Christian, and Alawite minorities from extremists in the Sunni majority.

Paul Craig Roberts says there is evidence that it was Washington backed mercenaries that shot the Syrian civilians when they were demonstrating so as to trigger the civil war there.

The West demonises Assad so they can have their excuse to overthrow him, but just imagine if it was Russia, or Syria that was treating the Palestinians so badly like the Israelis do. What an outcry that would cause. Syria is surrounded by brutal fascist regimes that Washington supports.

John said...

Nicely put, Kevin. I'd only say that Washington not only supports these regimes but ensures they're not overthrown. Without Washington's backing (militarily and with intelligence) these regimes would have been overthrown decades ago by secular nationalists. Wahhabis hate secular nationalists more than anyone else because they won't become Wahhabi wackos like themselves. Washington hates secular nationalists because they'll use the oil wealth - and jack up the oil price - to develop their own countries. Washington and the Wahhabis are fighting the same enemy, and are now allied in a genocidal fight if need be against the populations of the Muslim world.

Remember Washington is not America. Most Americans haven't got the faintest idea what demonic madness Washington gets up to. If they did, they'd lynch the imperialist bastards.

Kaivey said...

Hi John, Just think if the Middle Eastern countries had not only got the benefits from their oil but had developed their own industries too. This is precisely what the Western ruling elite feared. But the West had nothing to fear, as it could use tariffs protect its own industries, also, technology is so good now we can all live a decent life on a lot less capital.

Why have wars and things like that to maintain our standard of living, which is pure evil anyway, and could lead to the end of the world. But we are always told how competition improves our standard of living, so more healthy economic competition between countries would have improved our lives. If oil had got a lot more expensive, then alternative energy systems would have been developed a long time ago improving the quality of our lives while producing much cheaper, cleaner fuel.

It's funny how the ruling elite constantly lecture us on the benefits of competition, but if they ever get a whiff of it themselves they start a war, or cause a coup in another country installing a dictator and a corrupt elite.

Ryan Harris said...

We have to assume their development priorities were not economic and industrial. Preserving traditions, culture, natural resources from economic development and industrialization is often a goal that is frowned upon by western liberals but countries like Saudi Arabia or Israel have made no secret about their policy objectives from the beginning, and fairly successful development that rejected western liberalism but embraced some amount of economic development and used their natural resources for the benefit of their society.

The way Information, Capital, Resources, Manufactured Goods, People, and Legal rights are organized in the US/UK model is pretty good but is it the best? Should everyone else be forced to emulate it?

India, Russia and China all rejected the consensus western development priorities for their own. If you order the development cards in that image to the priorities of different governments and add a few that are excluded, I think it helps build an understanding of why different countries have sometimes not promoted policies that seem rational in liberal cultural values.

Tom frequently points out the intolerance and aggression in western liberal political systems toward countries who don't share their priorities. I don't understand why the western politicians and public think they are illuminati on anything that extends beyond basic human rights.