Monday, October 3, 2016

Cory Morningstar — Syria: Avaaz, Purpose & The Art Of Selling Hate For Empire

More  propaganda.

21st Century Wire
AVAAZ: Washington’s Merchant of War Peddles the No Fly Zone in Syria, Calls for Another Libya
Vanessa Beeley, British investigative journalist focused on the Middle East

The White Helmets have been demonstrated to be a primarily US and NATO funded organisation embedded in Al Nusra and ISIS held areas exclusively.
This is an alleged “non-governmental” organisation, the definition of an NGO, that thus far has received funding from at least three major NATO governments, including $23 million from the US Government and $29 million (£19.7 million) from the UK Government, $4.5 million (€4 million) from the Dutch Government. In addition, it receives material assistance and training funded and run by a variety of other EU Nations.
A request has been put into the EU Secretary General to provide all correspondence relating to the funding and training of the White Helmets. By law this information must be made transparent and available to the public.
There has been a concerted campaign by a range of investigative journalists to expose the true roots of these Syria Civil Defence operatives, known as the White Helmets. The most damning statement, however, did not come from us, but from their funders and backers in the US State Department who attempted to explain the US deportation of the prominent White Helmet leader, Raed Saleh, from Dulles airport on the 18th April 2016.
“It was unclear whether Mr. Saleh’s name might have shown up on a database, fed by a variety of intelligence and security agencies and intended to guard against the prospect of terrorism suspects slipping into the country.” ~ New York Times
WHO ARE SYRIA’S WHITE HELMETS (terrorist linked)


Morningstar reveals the link between Avaaz and related organizations and their sponsorship and funding by Democratic establishment liberal internationalist/interventionists.

Wrong Kind of Green
Syria: Avaaz, Purpose & The Art Of Selling Hate For Empire
Cory Morningstar


Ryan Harris said...

An old grumbling curmudgeon that rivals the grinch who stole xmas. Good grief.
Regardless of who pays for them or why, the people on the ground pulling people from rubble and providing emergency medical care are courageous and doing good work. This is essentially the timeless definition of "good." I'd assume they are paid for with government money one way or the other, even if the government is malicious, the acts are good and done in the finest tradition of being non-partisan as possible as the red cross was before the red cross became a bureaucratic political mess. Everything is suspect in war, of course, but of all things to target as politically motivated and evil??? Maybe bombing and droning people has been weighing on Barry's conscience and he wants to do something to ensure he isn't paraded in front of a tribunal in the Hague or some new institution in Beijing in a few years.

Tom Hickey said...

The issue is whether it is OK to mix humanitarian work with "other" work, such as propaganda and covert ops that use "humanitarian" work to induce desired cognitive-affective behavioral change. Many involved in humanitarian work say no it's not. It just creates suspicion around all humanitarian work and creates an adverse climate. This has affected the operations of bona fide UN humanitarian work in Syria, for example.

It's like mixing news and propaganda. After awhile, it starts becoming more widely recognized and news loses its credibility.

A third is missing the ideal and real. The ideal in regime change is supposedly bringing freedom and democracy but the reality is usually replacing one power structure that is unfriendly with a friendly one (puppet regime), regardless of its actual worth relative to freedom and democracy. In doing this the US has eroded its soft power as its intentions are increasing viewed as promoting the interests of elites without much regard for ordinary people, or even to their disadvantage.

This happening in all these three cases now. Basically, mixing the ideal and real in this way is cynical and hypocritical. In the end it's poisonous.

For example, the Russians knew that the US had no intention of separating the moderates from the terrorists even if they could. They went along with the charade to demonstrate to the world that the US was acting in bad faith and cannot be trusted to keep its word. Now the US has had to back out completely and try to save face by blaming it on Russia, while the Russian military assists the Syrian military in driving Al Qaeda out of their remaining territory in Aleppo.

Bob said...

The propaganda didn't work, not the way the hawks would've liked. The American people do not want to fight another useless war.

What are ordinary American's attitude towards Putin and Russia?
Do they believe what the MSM tells them?

Tom Hickey said...

Americans are suckers for a good little war that can be won quickly and inexpensively with air power and without committing American boots on the ground. Going to be difficult to convince them that this is the case in going to war with Russia. Americans in general are pretty clueless about anything other than the latest celebrity news, but they are not absolute morons either.

Bob said...

Do you think the immigration issue and terrorism have lowered American sympathy for Muslims? (It always was rather low.)