There were leaked emails in which Hillary said that provoking civil war in Syria was the best way to help Israel.. john mccain has been photographed meeting with Isis leaders and is the worst hawk in Washington.
Syria war: The online activists pushing conspiracy theories
As the investigation continues into another alleged chemical attack in Syria, one group of influential online activists is busy spreading their version of events.
Inspectors from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) are attempting to access the previously rebel-held town of Douma, where medical organisations and rescue workers say President Bashar al-Assad's forces dropped bombs filled with toxic chemicals in an attack on 7 April, killing more than 40 people.
The Syrian government and its key ally, Russia, say the incident was staged. But the US, UK and France - who support the opposition to Mr Assad - say they are confident that chlorine and possibly a nerve agent were used.
Despite the uncertainty about what happened in Douma, a cluster of influential social media activists is certain that it knows what occurred on 7 April.
They've seized on a theory being floated by Russian officials and state-owned media outlets that the attacks were "staged" or were a "false flag" operation, carried out by jihadist groups or spies in order to put the blame on the Assad government and provide a justification for Western intervention.
The group includes activists and people who call themselves "independent journalists", and several have Twitter followings reaching into the tens or hundreds of thousands.
The activists call themselves "anti-war", but as they generally back the Syrian government's military operations against rebel forces seeking to overthrow Mr Assad and Russian air strikes carried out in support, it might be more accurate to describe them as "anti-Western intervention" or "pro-Syrian government".
According to their narrative, international media organisations across the political spectrum, along with human rights organisations, are somehow covertly aligned with Western governments, Saudi Arabia, the Islamic State group and al-Qaeda and taking part in a secretive plot to take over Syria.
The network of activists includes people like Vanessa Beeley. She has more than 30,000 Twitter followers and writes for a news outlet that the website Media Bias/Fact Check calls a "conspiracy and conjecture site" that has "an extreme right bias".
In response to a list of questions, she called BBC Trending's story a "blatant attempt" to "silence independent journalism" and repeated unsubstantiated claims about alleged chemical weapons attacks.
Beeley gives talks to fringe groups and makes appearances on media outlets including state-owned Russian channel RT.
But in the online conversation about Syria there are more influential activists, about whom much less is known.
Sarah Abdallah (@sahouraxo on Twitter) has more than 125,000 followers, among them more than 250 journalists from mainstream media outlets. Her follower count is comparable to BBC journalists who regularly report on Syria, such as BBC Middle East Editor Jeremy Bowen (167,000) and BBC Chief International Correspondent Lyse Doucet (142,000).
In addition to pictures of herself, Sarah Abdallah tweets constant pro-Russia and pro-Assad messages, with a dollop of retweeting mostly aimed at attacking Barack Obama, other US Democrats and Saudi Arabia.
In her Twitter profile she describes herself as an "Independent Lebanese geopolitical commentator" but she has almost no online presence or published stories or writing away from social media platforms. A personal blog linked to by her account has no posts.
Her tweets have been quoted by mainstream news outlets, but a Google News search indicates that she has not written any articles in either English or Arabic.
She refused to comment several times when approached by BBC Trending and did not respond to specific requests to comment on this story in particular.
Image captionIn several pictures posted by Sarah Abdallah, items in the background - such as the house in this picture - are common to North America, rather than Lebanon
There were leaked emails in which Hillary said that provoking civil war in Syria was the best way to help Israel.. john mccain has been photographed meeting with Isis leaders and is the worst hawk in Washington.
call me a dog.
Stolen emails. Not leaked.
I don't disagree that both McCain or Clinton are in favor of Syrian intervention. But Clinton hasn't been in government since 2013 and we've seen a right-leaning member of this very board openly celebrate McCain's brain cancer.
You guys obviously confuse current events with geopolitics. I am not going to find the links myself because no one will read them...but most of these are from US think tanks or politicians. Straight from the horses mouth. Do some googling, and call it conspiracy if you’d like, because it at root that’s what it is...
CIA papers from as far back as ‘83 about regime change in Syria (Assad sr)
Diplomatic cables from the mid 00’s detailing the use of sectarian strife to undermine and topple Assad...
Diplomatic cables from the late 00’s confirming the end game in Syria was regime change.
Documents confirming US NGO involvement in uprisings against Assad.
Public statements from the US government confirming they will not accept peace if Assad remains in power.
Detailed confirmations of terrorists and arms, connected to Libya, Jordan, turkey, SA, flowing into Syria. Oil from ISIS to Turkey.
All the ‘oops’ air drops of supplies to ISIS.
Which Path to Persia by the Brookings Institute (revolving door think tank)
The Grand Chessboard by zbigniew brezinski (obama’s Mentor)
General Wesley Clark’s comments re regime change
Ralph Peters’ map of the ‘new middle east’, used in nATO training.
Syria war: The online activists pushing conspiracy theories
As the investigation continues into another alleged chemical attack in Syria, one group of influential online activists is busy spreading their version of events.
Inspectors from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) are attempting to access the previously rebel-held town of Douma, where medical organisations and rescue workers say President Bashar al-Assad's forces dropped bombs filled with toxic chemicals in an attack on 7 April, killing more than 40 people.
The Syrian government and its key ally, Russia, say the incident was staged. But the US, UK and France - who support the opposition to Mr Assad - say they are confident that chlorine and possibly a nerve agent were used.
Despite the uncertainty about what happened in Douma, a cluster of influential social media activists is certain that it knows what occurred on 7 April.
They've seized on a theory being floated by Russian officials and state-owned media outlets that the attacks were "staged" or were a "false flag" operation, carried out by jihadist groups or spies in order to put the blame on the Assad government and provide a justification for Western intervention.
The group includes activists and people who call themselves "independent journalists", and several have Twitter followings reaching into the tens or hundreds of thousands.
The activists call themselves "anti-war", but as they generally back the Syrian government's military operations against rebel forces seeking to overthrow Mr Assad and Russian air strikes carried out in support, it might be more accurate to describe them as "anti-Western intervention" or "pro-Syrian government".
According to their narrative, international media organisations across the political spectrum, along with human rights organisations, are somehow covertly aligned with Western governments, Saudi Arabia, the Islamic State group and al-Qaeda and taking part in a secretive plot to take over Syria.
The network of activists includes people like Vanessa Beeley. She has more than 30,000 Twitter followers and writes for a news outlet that the website Media Bias/Fact Check calls a "conspiracy and conjecture site" that has "an extreme right bias".
In response to a list of questions, she called BBC Trending's story a "blatant attempt" to "silence independent journalism" and repeated unsubstantiated claims about alleged chemical weapons attacks.
Beeley gives talks to fringe groups and makes appearances on media outlets including state-owned Russian channel RT.
But in the online conversation about Syria there are more influential activists, about whom much less is known.
Sarah Abdallah (@sahouraxo on Twitter) has more than 125,000 followers, among them more than 250 journalists from mainstream media outlets. Her follower count is comparable to BBC journalists who regularly report on Syria, such as BBC Middle East Editor Jeremy Bowen (167,000) and BBC Chief International Correspondent Lyse Doucet (142,000).
In addition to pictures of herself, Sarah Abdallah tweets constant pro-Russia and pro-Assad messages, with a dollop of retweeting mostly aimed at attacking Barack Obama, other US Democrats and Saudi Arabia.
In her Twitter profile she describes herself as an "Independent Lebanese geopolitical commentator" but she has almost no online presence or published stories or writing away from social media platforms. A personal blog linked to by her account has no posts.
Her tweets have been quoted by mainstream news outlets, but a Google News search indicates that she has not written any articles in either English or Arabic.
She refused to comment several times when approached by BBC Trending and did not respond to specific requests to comment on this story in particular.
Image captionIn several pictures posted by Sarah Abdallah, items in the background - such as the house in this picture - are common to North America, rather than Lebanon
You guys obviously confuse current events with geopolitics. I am not going to find the links myself because no one will read them...but most of these are from US think tanks or politicians. Straight from the horses mouth. Do some googling, and call it conspiracy if you’d like, because it at root that’s what it is...
CIA papers from as far back as ‘83 about regime change in Syria (Assad sr)
Diplomatic cables from the mid 00’s detailing the use of sectarian strife to undermine and topple Assad...
Diplomatic cables from the late 00’s confirming the end game in Syria was regime change.
Documents confirming US NGO involvement in uprisings against Assad.
Public statements from the US government confirming they will not accept peace if Assad remains in power.
Detailed confirmations of terrorists and arms, connected to Libya, Jordan, turkey, SA, flowing into Syria. Oil from ISIS to Turkey.
All the ‘oops’ air drops of supplies to ISIS.
Which Path to Persia by the Brookings Institute (revolving door think tank)
The Grand Chessboard by zbigniew brezinski (obama’s Mentor)
General Wesley Clark’s comments re regime change
Ralph Peters’ map of the ‘new middle east’, used in nATO training.
The war has been going on for many years now with no intervention for regime change yet you and others still keep dragging out that boogieman. At some point it's crying wolf.
Syria war: The online activists pushing conspiracy theories
As the investigation continues into another alleged chemical attack in Syria, one group of influential online activists is busy spreading their version of events.
Inspectors from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) are attempting to access the previously rebel-held town of Douma, where medical organisations and rescue workers say President Bashar al-Assad's forces dropped bombs filled with toxic chemicals in an attack on 7 April, killing more than 40 people.
The Syrian government and its key ally, Russia, say the incident was staged. But the US, UK and France - who support the opposition to Mr Assad - say they are confident that chlorine and possibly a nerve agent were used.
Despite the uncertainty about what happened in Douma, a cluster of influential social media activists is certain that it knows what occurred on 7 April.
They've seized on a theory being floated by Russian officials and state-owned media outlets that the attacks were "staged" or were a "false flag" operation, carried out by jihadist groups or spies in order to put the blame on the Assad government and provide a justification for Western intervention.
The group includes activists and people who call themselves "independent journalists", and several have Twitter followings reaching into the tens or hundreds of thousands.
The activists call themselves "anti-war", but as they generally back the Syrian government's military operations against rebel forces seeking to overthrow Mr Assad and Russian air strikes carried out in support, it might be more accurate to describe them as "anti-Western intervention" or "pro-Syrian government".
According to their narrative, international media organisations across the political spectrum, along with human rights organisations, are somehow covertly aligned with Western governments, Saudi Arabia, the Islamic State group and al-Qaeda and taking part in a secretive plot to take over Syria.
The network of activists includes people like Vanessa Beeley. She has more than 30,000 Twitter followers and writes for a news outlet that the website Media Bias/Fact Check calls a "conspiracy and conjecture site" that has "an extreme right bias".
In response to a list of questions, she called BBC Trending's story a "blatant attempt" to "silence independent journalism" and repeated unsubstantiated claims about alleged chemical weapons attacks.
Beeley gives talks to fringe groups and makes appearances on media outlets including state-owned Russian channel RT.
But in the online conversation about Syria there are more influential activists, about whom much less is known.
Sarah Abdallah (@sahouraxo on Twitter) has more than 125,000 followers, among them more than 250 journalists from mainstream media outlets. Her follower count is comparable to BBC journalists who regularly report on Syria, such as BBC Middle East Editor Jeremy Bowen (167,000) and BBC Chief International Correspondent Lyse Doucet (142,000).
In addition to pictures of herself, Sarah Abdallah tweets constant pro-Russia and pro-Assad messages, with a dollop of retweeting mostly aimed at attacking Barack Obama, other US Democrats and Saudi Arabia.
In her Twitter profile she describes herself as an "Independent Lebanese geopolitical commentator" but she has almost no online presence or published stories or writing away from social media platforms. A personal blog linked to by her account has no posts.
Her tweets have been quoted by mainstream news outlets, but a Google News search indicates that she has not written any articles in either English or Arabic.
She refused to comment several times when approached by BBC Trending and did not respond to specific requests to comment on this story in particular.
Image captionIn several pictures posted by Sarah Abdallah, items in the background - such as the house in this picture - are common to North America, rather than Lebanon
What was I being distracted from when I began following her three years ago?
Interesting that she didn't want to talk to the BBC. But now plays victim to their "smear".
You didn’t answer the question, but I’ll answer yours with another: If was smearing you, would you want to give them ammo? You know the line of questioning would not allow here to speak her mind, and if it did, it would likely be published only once heavily redacted. I wonder why the BBC never requests statements on Syria from Chris Hedges, or Noam Chomsky, or Seymour Hersch, or Robert Fisk? They’re a bunch of no name bloggers, right?
The sentence "McCain and Hillary too" in this tweet is just blowing a dog whistle towards the worst elements of both the Left and the Right.
Maybe but if you knew nothing about foreign policy and could barely pronounce your own name but based your foreign policies exactly opposite of what those two did or stood for, the world would be a much better place (middle east) and there would be more of us.
Syria war: The online activists pushing conspiracy theories
As the investigation continues into another alleged chemical attack in Syria, one group of influential online activists is busy spreading their version of events.
Inspectors from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) are attempting to access the previously rebel-held town of Douma, where medical organisations and rescue workers say President Bashar al-Assad's forces dropped bombs filled with toxic chemicals in an attack on 7 April, killing more than 40 people.
The Syrian government and its key ally, Russia, say the incident was staged. But the US, UK and France - who support the opposition to Mr Assad - say they are confident that chlorine and possibly a nerve agent were used.
Despite the uncertainty about what happened in Douma, a cluster of influential social media activists is certain that it knows what occurred on 7 April.
They've seized on a theory being floated by Russian officials and state-owned media outlets that the attacks were "staged" or were a "false flag" operation, carried out by jihadist groups or spies in order to put the blame on the Assad government and provide a justification for Western intervention.
The group includes activists and people who call themselves "independent journalists", and several have Twitter followings reaching into the tens or hundreds of thousands.
The activists call themselves "anti-war", but as they generally back the Syrian government's military operations against rebel forces seeking to overthrow Mr Assad and Russian air strikes carried out in support, it might be more accurate to describe them as "anti-Western intervention" or "pro-Syrian government".
According to their narrative, international media organisations across the political spectrum, along with human rights organisations, are somehow covertly aligned with Western governments, Saudi Arabia, the Islamic State group and al-Qaeda and taking part in a secretive plot to take over Syria.
The network of activists includes people like Vanessa Beeley. She has more than 30,000 Twitter followers and writes for a news outlet that the website Media Bias/Fact Check calls a "conspiracy and conjecture site" that has "an extreme right bias".
In response to a list of questions, she called BBC Trending's story a "blatant attempt" to "silence independent journalism" and repeated unsubstantiated claims about alleged chemical weapons attacks.
Beeley gives talks to fringe groups and makes appearances on media outlets including state-owned Russian channel RT.
But in the online conversation about Syria there are more influential activists, about whom much less is known.
Sarah Abdallah (@sahouraxo on Twitter) has more than 125,000 followers, among them more than 250 journalists from mainstream media outlets. Her follower count is comparable to BBC journalists who regularly report on Syria, such as BBC Middle East Editor Jeremy Bowen (167,000) and BBC Chief International Correspondent Lyse Doucet (142,000).
In addition to pictures of herself, Sarah Abdallah tweets constant pro-Russia and pro-Assad messages, with a dollop of retweeting mostly aimed at attacking Barack Obama, other US Democrats and Saudi Arabia.
In her Twitter profile she describes herself as an "Independent Lebanese geopolitical commentator" but she has almost no online presence or published stories or writing away from social media platforms. A personal blog linked to by her account has no posts.
Her tweets have been quoted by mainstream news outlets, but a Google News search indicates that she has not written any articles in either English or Arabic.
She refused to comment several times when approached by BBC Trending and did not respond to specific requests to comment on this story in particular.
Image captionIn several pictures posted by Sarah Abdallah, items in the background - such as the house in this picture - are common to North America, rather than Lebanon
What was I being distracted from when I began following her three years ago?
Interesting that she didn't want to talk to the BBC. But now plays victim to their "smear".
You didn’t answer the question, but I’ll answer yours with another: If was smearing you, would you want to give them ammo? You know the line of questioning would not allow here to speak her mind, and if it did, it would likely be published only once heavily redacted. I wonder why the BBC never requests statements on Syria from Chris Hedges, or Noam Chomsky, or Seymour Hersch, or Robert Fisk? They’re a bunch of no name bloggers, right?
What question?
And if I was asked questions from BBC I would answer them, that's what I would do. But I'm not working for, or being duped by the Russians. If I was spreading Russian propaganda I sure as hell wouldn't want anyone digging into my affairs, I would just go on Twitter and preach to my choir. Retreat to my fans, why answer any hard questions and possibly be exposed.
You guys obviously confuse current events with geopolitics. I am not going to find the links myself because no one will read them...but most of these are from US think tanks or politicians. Straight from the horses mouth. Do some googling, and call it conspiracy if you’d like, because it at root that’s what it is...
CIA papers from as far back as ‘83 about regime change in Syria (Assad sr)
Diplomatic cables from the mid 00’s detailing the use of sectarian strife to undermine and topple Assad...
Diplomatic cables from the late 00’s confirming the end game in Syria was regime change.
Documents confirming US NGO involvement in uprisings against Assad.
Public statements from the US government confirming they will not accept peace if Assad remains in power.
Detailed confirmations of terrorists and arms, connected to Libya, Jordan, turkey, SA, flowing into Syria. Oil from ISIS to Turkey.
All the ‘oops’ air drops of supplies to ISIS.
Which Path to Persia by the Brookings Institute (revolving door think tank)
The Grand Chessboard by zbigniew brezinski (obama’s Mentor)
General Wesley Clark’s comments re regime change
Ralph Peters’ map of the ‘new middle east’, used in nATO training.
The war has been going on for many years now with no intervention for regime change yet you and others still keep dragging out that boogieman. At some point it's crying wolf.
Even if regime change is not accomplished any time soon, or in a way that does not remove Assad (ie:Balkanization of Syria with Assad retaining control of parts), the overall goal can still be accomplished...to weaken a traditional ally of Iran and Russia (and enemy of Israel) to maintain hegemony in the region. Eventually the US and Israel will go after Iran. Weakening Syria and hezbollah is part of that bigger picture. It’s all laid out in the docs I mentioned above. If you are interested in this topic, you owe it to yourself to read up on this points. Most are not biased reports, they are leaked documents and position papers from the ppl who run the US.
Syria war: The online activists pushing conspiracy theories
As the investigation continues into another alleged chemical attack in Syria, one group of influential online activists is busy spreading their version of events.
Inspectors from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) are attempting to access the previously rebel-held town of Douma, where medical organisations and rescue workers say President Bashar al-Assad's forces dropped bombs filled with toxic chemicals in an attack on 7 April, killing more than 40 people.
The Syrian government and its key ally, Russia, say the incident was staged. But the US, UK and France - who support the opposition to Mr Assad - say they are confident that chlorine and possibly a nerve agent were used.
Despite the uncertainty about what happened in Douma, a cluster of influential social media activists is certain that it knows what occurred on 7 April.
They've seized on a theory being floated by Russian officials and state-owned media outlets that the attacks were "staged" or were a "false flag" operation, carried out by jihadist groups or spies in order to put the blame on the Assad government and provide a justification for Western intervention.
The group includes activists and people who call themselves "independent journalists", and several have Twitter followings reaching into the tens or hundreds of thousands.
The activists call themselves "anti-war", but as they generally back the Syrian government's military operations against rebel forces seeking to overthrow Mr Assad and Russian air strikes carried out in support, it might be more accurate to describe them as "anti-Western intervention" or "pro-Syrian government".
According to their narrative, international media organisations across the political spectrum, along with human rights organisations, are somehow covertly aligned with Western governments, Saudi Arabia, the Islamic State group and al-Qaeda and taking part in a secretive plot to take over Syria.
The network of activists includes people like Vanessa Beeley. She has more than 30,000 Twitter followers and writes for a news outlet that the website Media Bias/Fact Check calls a "conspiracy and conjecture site" that has "an extreme right bias".
In response to a list of questions, she called BBC Trending's story a "blatant attempt" to "silence independent journalism" and repeated unsubstantiated claims about alleged chemical weapons attacks.
Beeley gives talks to fringe groups and makes appearances on media outlets including state-owned Russian channel RT.
But in the online conversation about Syria there are more influential activists, about whom much less is known.
Sarah Abdallah (@sahouraxo on Twitter) has more than 125,000 followers, among them more than 250 journalists from mainstream media outlets. Her follower count is comparable to BBC journalists who regularly report on Syria, such as BBC Middle East Editor Jeremy Bowen (167,000) and BBC Chief International Correspondent Lyse Doucet (142,000).
In addition to pictures of herself, Sarah Abdallah tweets constant pro-Russia and pro-Assad messages, with a dollop of retweeting mostly aimed at attacking Barack Obama, other US Democrats and Saudi Arabia.
In her Twitter profile she describes herself as an "Independent Lebanese geopolitical commentator" but she has almost no online presence or published stories or writing away from social media platforms. A personal blog linked to by her account has no posts.
Her tweets have been quoted by mainstream news outlets, but a Google News search indicates that she has not written any articles in either English or Arabic.
She refused to comment several times when approached by BBC Trending and did not respond to specific requests to comment on this story in particular.
Image captionIn several pictures posted by Sarah Abdallah, items in the background - such as the house in this picture - are common to North America, rather than Lebanon
What was I being distracted from when I began following her three years ago?
Interesting that she didn't want to talk to the BBC. But now plays victim to their "smear".
You didn’t answer the question, but I’ll answer yours with another: If was smearing you, would you want to give them ammo? You know the line of questioning would not allow here to speak her mind, and if it did, it would likely be published only once heavily redacted. I wonder why the BBC never requests statements on Syria from Chris Hedges, or Noam Chomsky, or Seymour Hersch, or Robert Fisk? They’re a bunch of no name bloggers, right?
even a perfect fool could see that it was a setup, a hit (fruedian?) piece was coming one way or the other. perfect example of this was when Cernovich went on CNN. (avoid the trigger, i know that name is like strobe lights to some, it was just an example since I cant think of a better example)
You guys obviously confuse current events with geopolitics. I am not going to find the links myself because no one will read them...but most of these are from US think tanks or politicians. Straight from the horses mouth. Do some googling, and call it conspiracy if you’d like, because it at root that’s what it is...
CIA papers from as far back as ‘83 about regime change in Syria (Assad sr)
Diplomatic cables from the mid 00’s detailing the use of sectarian strife to undermine and topple Assad...
Diplomatic cables from the late 00’s confirming the end game in Syria was regime change.
Documents confirming US NGO involvement in uprisings against Assad.
Public statements from the US government confirming they will not accept peace if Assad remains in power.
Detailed confirmations of terrorists and arms, connected to Libya, Jordan, turkey, SA, flowing into Syria. Oil from ISIS to Turkey.
All the ‘oops’ air drops of supplies to ISIS.
Which Path to Persia by the Brookings Institute (revolving door think tank)
The Grand Chessboard by zbigniew brezinski (obama’s Mentor)
General Wesley Clark’s comments re regime change
Ralph Peters’ map of the ‘new middle east’, used in nATO training.
You forgot ISIS oil to Israel and lets not pretend who is really behind all of this strife for Syria, for who truly benefits?. Doesn't make it right, unknown or a conspiracy theory but it also doesn't make Assad and Putin on the Ritz nice guys worthy of comparison to Western democratic systems of government or leaders worthy of emulation, adulation or admiration. Syria is an old fashioned Cold War slow burn proxy war and we're all not a bunch of rubes with no knowledge or understanding of the region, its people and its history, nor of US malfesence and past war crimes. Sorry, but the history of the region and its conflicts were knowable well before YouTube and celebrity bloggers came into being.
You guys obviously confuse current events with geopolitics. I am not going to find the links myself because no one will read them...but most of these are from US think tanks or politicians. Straight from the horses mouth. Do some googling, and call it conspiracy if you’d like, because it at root that’s what it is...
CIA papers from as far back as ‘83 about regime change in Syria (Assad sr)
Diplomatic cables from the mid 00’s detailing the use of sectarian strife to undermine and topple Assad...
Diplomatic cables from the late 00’s confirming the end game in Syria was regime change.
Documents confirming US NGO involvement in uprisings against Assad.
Public statements from the US government confirming they will not accept peace if Assad remains in power.
Detailed confirmations of terrorists and arms, connected to Libya, Jordan, turkey, SA, flowing into Syria. Oil from ISIS to Turkey.
All the ‘oops’ air drops of supplies to ISIS.
Which Path to Persia by the Brookings Institute (revolving door think tank)
The Grand Chessboard by zbigniew brezinski (obama’s Mentor)
General Wesley Clark’s comments re regime change
Ralph Peters’ map of the ‘new middle east’, used in nATO training.
Project for the New American Century (PNAC)
John Bolton stood on stage and said to 100s the US will overthrow Assad, I cant find the video from about a year ago before he was NSA.
You guys obviously confuse current events with geopolitics. I am not going to find the links myself because no one will read them...but most of these are from US think tanks or politicians. Straight from the horses mouth. Do some googling, and call it conspiracy if you’d like, because it at root that’s what it is...
CIA papers from as far back as ‘83 about regime change in Syria (Assad sr)
Diplomatic cables from the mid 00’s detailing the use of sectarian strife to undermine and topple Assad...
Diplomatic cables from the late 00’s confirming the end game in Syria was regime change.
Documents confirming US NGO involvement in uprisings against Assad.
Public statements from the US government confirming they will not accept peace if Assad remains in power.
Detailed confirmations of terrorists and arms, connected to Libya, Jordan, turkey, SA, flowing into Syria. Oil from ISIS to Turkey.
All the ‘oops’ air drops of supplies to ISIS.
Which Path to Persia by the Brookings Institute (revolving door think tank)
The Grand Chessboard by zbigniew brezinski (obama’s Mentor)
General Wesley Clark’s comments re regime change
Ralph Peters’ map of the ‘new middle east’, used in nATO training.
Project for the New American Century (PNAC)
John Bolton stood on stage and said to 100s the US will overthrow Assad, I cant find the video from about a year ago before he was NSA.
This is not news. Just a distraction from the Cohen Affair. So, Bolton was appoionted by Team Trump Treason. Is it fair to say then that US Syria policy is officially to overthrow Assad? If so, and it happens, is Team Trump Treason's next target Iran? If so, how can you say, "both sides are the same?" Again, would love to see Team Trump Treason take a presser and explain the US policy toward Syria and the intricacies of the Middle East without saying, "there was no collusion, collusion, collusion, collusion, collusion, collusion, collusion. Should I hold my breath?
Syria war: The online activists pushing conspiracy theories
As the investigation continues into another alleged chemical attack in Syria, one group of influential online activists is busy spreading their version of events.
Inspectors from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) are attempting to access the previously rebel-held town of Douma, where medical organisations and rescue workers say President Bashar al-Assad's forces dropped bombs filled with toxic chemicals in an attack on 7 April, killing more than 40 people.
The Syrian government and its key ally, Russia, say the incident was staged. But the US, UK and France - who support the opposition to Mr Assad - say they are confident that chlorine and possibly a nerve agent were used.
Despite the uncertainty about what happened in Douma, a cluster of influential social media activists is certain that it knows what occurred on 7 April.
They've seized on a theory being floated by Russian officials and state-owned media outlets that the attacks were "staged" or were a "false flag" operation, carried out by jihadist groups or spies in order to put the blame on the Assad government and provide a justification for Western intervention.
The group includes activists and people who call themselves "independent journalists", and several have Twitter followings reaching into the tens or hundreds of thousands.
The activists call themselves "anti-war", but as they generally back the Syrian government's military operations against rebel forces seeking to overthrow Mr Assad and Russian air strikes carried out in support, it might be more accurate to describe them as "anti-Western intervention" or "pro-Syrian government".
According to their narrative, international media organisations across the political spectrum, along with human rights organisations, are somehow covertly aligned with Western governments, Saudi Arabia, the Islamic State group and al-Qaeda and taking part in a secretive plot to take over Syria.
The network of activists includes people like Vanessa Beeley. She has more than 30,000 Twitter followers and writes for a news outlet that the website Media Bias/Fact Check calls a "conspiracy and conjecture site" that has "an extreme right bias".
In response to a list of questions, she called BBC Trending's story a "blatant attempt" to "silence independent journalism" and repeated unsubstantiated claims about alleged chemical weapons attacks.
Beeley gives talks to fringe groups and makes appearances on media outlets including state-owned Russian channel RT.
But in the online conversation about Syria there are more influential activists, about whom much less is known.
Sarah Abdallah (@sahouraxo on Twitter) has more than 125,000 followers, among them more than 250 journalists from mainstream media outlets. Her follower count is comparable to BBC journalists who regularly report on Syria, such as BBC Middle East Editor Jeremy Bowen (167,000) and BBC Chief International Correspondent Lyse Doucet (142,000).
In addition to pictures of herself, Sarah Abdallah tweets constant pro-Russia and pro-Assad messages, with a dollop of retweeting mostly aimed at attacking Barack Obama, other US Democrats and Saudi Arabia.
In her Twitter profile she describes herself as an "Independent Lebanese geopolitical commentator" but she has almost no online presence or published stories or writing away from social media platforms. A personal blog linked to by her account has no posts.
Her tweets have been quoted by mainstream news outlets, but a Google News search indicates that she has not written any articles in either English or Arabic.
She refused to comment several times when approached by BBC Trending and did not respond to specific requests to comment on this story in particular.
Image captionIn several pictures posted by Sarah Abdallah, items in the background - such as the house in this picture - are common to North America, rather than Lebanon
What was I being distracted from when I began following her three years ago?
Interesting that she didn't want to talk to the BBC. But now plays victim to their "smear".
You didn’t answer the question, but I’ll answer yours with another: If was smearing you, would you want to give them ammo? You know the line of questioning would not allow here to speak her mind, and if it did, it would likely be published only once heavily redacted. I wonder why the BBC never requests statements on Syria from Chris Hedges, or Noam Chomsky, or Seymour Hersch, or Robert Fisk? They’re a bunch of no name bloggers, right?
What question?
And if I was asked questions from BBC I would answer them, that's what I would do. But I'm not working for, or being duped by the Russians. If I was spreading Russian propaganda I sure as hell wouldn't want anyone digging into my affairs, I would just go on Twitter and preach to my choir. Retreat to my fans, why answer any hard questions and possibly be exposed.
The question was directed to H2M - what was I being distracted from three years ago when Obama was in power and Sarah's positions were identical to those today?
What if sputnik wanted to interview you? would you talk to them and risk your position being twisted, or your words being used out of context?
And....what about the other journo's I mentioned? Why do they get ZERO air time on MSM in the west?
You guys obviously confuse current events with geopolitics. I am not going to find the links myself because no one will read them...but most of these are from US think tanks or politicians. Straight from the horses mouth. Do some googling, and call it conspiracy if you’d like, because it at root that’s what it is...
CIA papers from as far back as ‘83 about regime change in Syria (Assad sr)
Diplomatic cables from the mid 00’s detailing the use of sectarian strife to undermine and topple Assad...
Diplomatic cables from the late 00’s confirming the end game in Syria was regime change.
Documents confirming US NGO involvement in uprisings against Assad.
Public statements from the US government confirming they will not accept peace if Assad remains in power.
Detailed confirmations of terrorists and arms, connected to Libya, Jordan, turkey, SA, flowing into Syria. Oil from ISIS to Turkey.
All the ‘oops’ air drops of supplies to ISIS.
Which Path to Persia by the Brookings Institute (revolving door think tank)
The Grand Chessboard by zbigniew brezinski (obama’s Mentor)
General Wesley Clark’s comments re regime change
Ralph Peters’ map of the ‘new middle east’, used in nATO training.
Project for the New American Century (PNAC)
John Bolton stood on stage and said to 100s the US will overthrow Assad, I cant find the video from about a year ago before he was NSA.
This is not news. Just a distraction from the Cohen Affair. So, Bolton was appoionted by Team Trump Treason. Is it fair to say then that US Syria policy is officially to overthrow Assad? If so, and it happens, is Team Trump Treason's next target Iran? If so, how can you say, "both sides are the same?" Again, would love to see Team Trump Treason take a presser and explain the US policy toward Syria and the intricacies of the Middle East without saying, "there was no collusion, collusion, collusion, collusion, collusion, collusion, collusion. Should I hold my breath?
You can say both sides are the same by checking the dates on the points I mentioned. Both D and R in power throughout. Geopolitics happen over the long term with varying levels of nuance regarding approach between the teams.
Your other post in response to me has me confused. What is your position on Syria? I never said anything in favour of Assad or Putin. I never compared systems. There are arguments to be made as to which power has been better or worse for the world as it pertains to geopolitics and imperialism, but I never went there. I was only laying out a clear motive of regime change (and/or balkanization), and answering cui bono? It sounds like you acknowledge that the US and Israel benefit most from what has happened there over the past decade....So...do you see no ulterior motive in air strikes on Syria? You see no reason to wait for evidence before accusations? You see no benefit in falsifying reports to frame attacks? Not even knowing how many precedents there are for these questions? I don't get it man...
You guys obviously confuse current events with geopolitics. I am not going to find the links myself because no one will read them...but most of these are from US think tanks or politicians. Straight from the horses mouth. Do some googling, and call it conspiracy if you’d like, because it at root that’s what it is...
CIA papers from as far back as ‘83 about regime change in Syria (Assad sr)
Diplomatic cables from the mid 00’s detailing the use of sectarian strife to undermine and topple Assad...
Diplomatic cables from the late 00’s confirming the end game in Syria was regime change.
Documents confirming US NGO involvement in uprisings against Assad.
Public statements from the US government confirming they will not accept peace if Assad remains in power.
Detailed confirmations of terrorists and arms, connected to Libya, Jordan, turkey, SA, flowing into Syria. Oil from ISIS to Turkey.
All the ‘oops’ air drops of supplies to ISIS.
Which Path to Persia by the Brookings Institute (revolving door think tank)
The Grand Chessboard by zbigniew brezinski (obama’s Mentor)
General Wesley Clark’s comments re regime change
Ralph Peters’ map of the ‘new middle east’, used in nATO training.
Project for the New American Century (PNAC)
John Bolton stood on stage and said to 100s the US will overthrow Assad, I cant find the video from about a year ago before he was NSA.
Thought I had PNAC listed...this was all off the top of my head....there is so much more. my mistake. Thanks for catching it.
Syria war: The online activists pushing conspiracy theories
As the investigation continues into another alleged chemical attack in Syria, one group of influential online activists is busy spreading their version of events.
Inspectors from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) are attempting to access the previously rebel-held town of Douma, where medical organisations and rescue workers say President Bashar al-Assad's forces dropped bombs filled with toxic chemicals in an attack on 7 April, killing more than 40 people.
The Syrian government and its key ally, Russia, say the incident was staged. But the US, UK and France - who support the opposition to Mr Assad - say they are confident that chlorine and possibly a nerve agent were used.
Despite the uncertainty about what happened in Douma, a cluster of influential social media activists is certain that it knows what occurred on 7 April.
They've seized on a theory being floated by Russian officials and state-owned media outlets that the attacks were "staged" or were a "false flag" operation, carried out by jihadist groups or spies in order to put the blame on the Assad government and provide a justification for Western intervention.
The group includes activists and people who call themselves "independent journalists", and several have Twitter followings reaching into the tens or hundreds of thousands.
The activists call themselves "anti-war", but as they generally back the Syrian government's military operations against rebel forces seeking to overthrow Mr Assad and Russian air strikes carried out in support, it might be more accurate to describe them as "anti-Western intervention" or "pro-Syrian government".
According to their narrative, international media organisations across the political spectrum, along with human rights organisations, are somehow covertly aligned with Western governments, Saudi Arabia, the Islamic State group and al-Qaeda and taking part in a secretive plot to take over Syria.
The network of activists includes people like Vanessa Beeley. She has more than 30,000 Twitter followers and writes for a news outlet that the website Media Bias/Fact Check calls a "conspiracy and conjecture site" that has "an extreme right bias".
In response to a list of questions, she called BBC Trending's story a "blatant attempt" to "silence independent journalism" and repeated unsubstantiated claims about alleged chemical weapons attacks.
The question was directed to H2M - what was I being distracted from three years ago when Obama was in power and Sarah's positions were identical to those today?
What if sputnik wanted to interview you? would you talk to them and risk your position being twisted, or your words being used out of context?
And....what about the other journo's I mentioned? Why do they get ZERO air time on MSM in the west?
Sarah's positions not being the same today as three years ago are not what is in dispute. What is in dispute is whether Assad and Putin are nice guys, have an agenda and whether they dropped chemical weapons on innocent Syrians, mainly women, children and old people. What you were being distracted from was an Obama Administration reluctent to get sucked into the Syrian quagmire. We've known the neocon position on the Middle East since 1998 when "revenge for Pappy Bush" was floated. Lets not forget the whole thing that started this shit show, the Assad regime's brutality toward some teenagers spraying anti-Assad grafitti and the local population's visceral reaction, in the spirit of the Arab Spring, and the subsequent brutality perputrated upon them for, dare thee, non-violently protesting. Now, you want to argue that Assad is a nice guy? Do you want to argue that the US took advantage of the situation to further the ensuing chaos? But none of that excuses the Assad regime and its Russian sponsors of using chemical weapons. Syria signed a pledge not to use chemical weapons and they have, repeatedly. If the West is not going to do something, then who is? Should it be given a pass? A blink-blink, nod-nod, sorry we can't help you? Putin could put a stop to it. Putin shot down a civilian airliner. Putin invaded Crimea and is stirring shit in Ukraine and using troll bots to stir rightist movements in Eastern Europe to destablizie NATO. Yet, he and Assad are nice guys? At least giving honest answers to the BBC won't get you killed.
Sputnik? Damn, you aging me? If RT wanted to interview me, I'd do it with conditions, that it be taped, video and sound, by each side, with a third, independent party present doing the same. If the questions and my answers were misrepresented or redacted so as to alter the intent of my answers, I'd go public via every news outlet I could think of. That said, RT is a propaganda arm of Putin and I know that going in.
I'm not sure why you think the other journalists don't get heard. I've heard them on NPR, read them in The Nation and Harper's, as well as know that I can go to a bookstore and read their books. Its not my fault that most American news consumers are lazy. Why doesn't Faux News put them on, being the #1 source for trusted news and all?
Syria war: The online activists pushing conspiracy theories
As the investigation continues into another alleged chemical attack in Syria, one group of influential online activists is busy spreading their version of events.
Inspectors from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) are attempting to access the previously rebel-held town of Douma, where medical organisations and rescue workers say President Bashar al-Assad's forces dropped bombs filled with toxic chemicals in an attack on 7 April, killing more than 40 people.
The Syrian government and its key ally, Russia, say the incident was staged. But the US, UK and France - who support the opposition to Mr Assad - say they are confident that chlorine and possibly a nerve agent were used.
Despite the uncertainty about what happened in Douma, a cluster of influential social media activists is certain that it knows what occurred on 7 April.
They've seized on a theory being floated by Russian officials and state-owned media outlets that the attacks were "staged" or were a "false flag" operation, carried out by jihadist groups or spies in order to put the blame on the Assad government and provide a justification for Western intervention.
The group includes activists and people who call themselves "independent journalists", and several have Twitter followings reaching into the tens or hundreds of thousands.
The activists call themselves "anti-war", but as they generally back the Syrian government's military operations against rebel forces seeking to overthrow Mr Assad and Russian air strikes carried out in support, it might be more accurate to describe them as "anti-Western intervention" or "pro-Syrian government".
According to their narrative, international media organisations across the political spectrum, along with human rights organisations, are somehow covertly aligned with Western governments, Saudi Arabia, the Islamic State group and al-Qaeda and taking part in a secretive plot to take over Syria.
The network of activists includes people like Vanessa Beeley. She has more than 30,000 Twitter followers and writes for a news outlet that the website Media Bias/Fact Check calls a "conspiracy and conjecture site" that has "an extreme right bias".
In response to a list of questions, she called BBC Trending's story a "blatant attempt" to "silence independent journalism" and repeated unsubstantiated claims about alleged chemical weapons attacks.
Beeley gives talks to fringe groups and makes appearances on media outlets including state-owned Russian channel RT.
But in the online conversation about Syria there are more influential activists, about whom much less is known.
Sarah Abdallah (@sahouraxo on Twitter) has more than 125,000 followers, among them more than 250 journalists from mainstream media outlets. Her follower count is comparable to BBC journalists who regularly report on Syria, such as BBC Middle East Editor Jeremy Bowen (167,000) and BBC Chief International Correspondent Lyse Doucet (142,000).
In addition to pictures of herself, Sarah Abdallah tweets constant pro-Russia and pro-Assad messages, with a dollop of retweeting mostly aimed at attacking Barack Obama, other US Democrats and Saudi Arabia.
In her Twitter profile she describes herself as an "Independent Lebanese geopolitical commentator" but she has almost no online presence or published stories or writing away from social media platforms. A personal blog linked to by her account has no posts.
Her tweets have been quoted by mainstream news outlets, but a Google News search indicates that she has not written any articles in either English or Arabic.
She refused to comment several times when approached by BBC Trending and did not respond to specific requests to comment on this story in particular.
Image captionIn several pictures posted by Sarah Abdallah, items in the background - such as the house in this picture - are common to North America, rather than Lebanon
Sarah's positions not being the same today as three years ago are not what is in dispute. What is in dispute is whether Assad and Putin are nice guys, have an agenda and whether they dropped chemical weapons on innocent Syrians, mainly women, children and old people.What you were being distracted from was an Obama Administration reluctent to get sucked into the Syrian quagmire. We've known the neocon position on the Middle East since 1998 when "revenge for Pappy Bush" was floated
Obama was in power throughout the entire escalation, and was the first to send troops there. He pushed for no-fly zones. He propagated the same anti-Assad, pro-regime change statements. The US was not in a position to open up a new hot war front for most of his presidency. Was the decision not to because of his policies, or because it wasn't time yet, or because it wasn't necessary when the country could be destabilized and destroyed via slow-burn proxy war as you call it? Maybe the neocons would have gone in guns a blazin....maybe not.
Lets not forget the whole thing that started this shit show, the Assad regime's brutality toward some teenagers spraying anti-Assad grafitti and the local population's visceral reaction, in the spirit of the Arab Spring, and the subsequent brutality perputrated upon them for, dare thee, non-violently protesting. You need to read the diplomatic cables I mentioned above....about fomenting protests and uprisings in Syria, well before they began. About the funding for them. About the use of sectarian strife to turn it into a war. And where the visceral reactors came from...they are majority non-local, fyi
Now, you want to argue that Assad is a nice guy? I do?
Do you want to argue that the US took advantage of the situation to further the ensuing chaos? But none of that excuses the Assad regime and its Russian sponsors of using chemical weapons. No, it doesn't. But it sure as fuck casts doubt as to who is telling the truth about who used them.
Sputnik? Damn, you aging me? If RT wanted to interview me, I'd do it with conditions, that it be taped, video and sound, by each side, with a third, independent party present doing the same. If the questions and my answers were misrepresented or redacted so as to alter the intent of my answers, I'd go public via every news outlet I could think of. That said, RT is a propaganda arm of Putin and I know that going in. If this was Sarah's approach, the BBC would likely have just said 'she refused to comment', or they would go ahead with the piece, then cry conspiracy and discredit the blogs she published her side of the story on. Or just bury it, knowing their viewership was big enough that public opinion was swayed way more by them than the blog.
I'm not sure why you think the other journalists don't get heard. I've heard them on NPR, read them in The Nation and Harper's, as well as know that I can go to a bookstore and read their books. Its not my fault that most American news consumers are lazy. Why doesn't Faux News put them on, being the #1 source for trusted news and all?
The Nation, Harper's and NPR? That is fringe mainstream....CBS, NBC, ABC, FOX, CNN, MSNBC, NYT, WAPO, etc....? never. RT is more mainstream than the nation or harper's or NPR.
There were leaked emails in which Hillary said that provoking civil war in Syria was the best way to help Israel.. john mccain has been photographed meeting with Isis leaders and is the worst hawk in Washington.
call me a dog.
Stolen emails. Not leaked.
I don't disagree that both McCain or Clinton are in favor of Syrian intervention. But Clinton hasn't been in government since 2013 and we've seen a right-leaning member of this very board openly celebrate McCain's brain cancer.
This kind of thing doesn't help your cause.
missed this. Sorry. stolen. whatever. doesn't change the content. They are both architects of the war in Syria and have both celebrated worse than one man's brain cancer.
At least one poster in here spread the bullshit fake news about Comet Pizza... that person now has zero credibility on any issue and appears to fall for any conspiracy floated on the web...
Sarah's positions not being the same today as three years ago are not what is in dispute. What is in dispute is whether Assad and Putin are nice guys, have an agenda and whether they dropped chemical weapons on innocent Syrians, mainly women, children and old people.What you were being distracted from was an Obama Administration reluctent to get sucked into the Syrian quagmire. We've known the neocon position on the Middle East since 1998 when "revenge for Pappy Bush" was floated
Obama was in power throughout the entire escalation, and was the first to send troops there. He pushed for no-fly zones. He propagated the same anti-Assad, pro-regime change statements. The US was not in a position to open up a new hot war front for most of his presidency. Was the decision not to because of his policies, or because it wasn't time yet, or because it wasn't necessary when the country could be destabilized and destroyed via slow-burn proxy war as you call it? Maybe the neocons would have gone in guns a blazin....maybe not.
Lets not forget the whole thing that started this shit show, the Assad regime's brutality toward some teenagers spraying anti-Assad grafitti and the local population's visceral reaction, in the spirit of the Arab Spring, and the subsequent brutality perputrated upon them for, dare thee, non-violently protesting. You need to read the diplomatic cables I mentioned above....about fomenting protests and uprisings in Syria, well before they began. About the funding for them. About the use of sectarian strife to turn it into a war. And where the visceral reactors came from...they are majority non-local, fyi
Now, you want to argue that Assad is a nice guy? I do?
Do you want to argue that the US took advantage of the situation to further the ensuing chaos? But none of that excuses the Assad regime and its Russian sponsors of using chemical weapons. No, it doesn't. But it sure as fuck casts doubt as to who is telling the truth about who used them.
Sputnik? Damn, you aging me? If RT wanted to interview me, I'd do it with conditions, that it be taped, video and sound, by each side, with a third, independent party present doing the same. If the questions and my answers were misrepresented or redacted so as to alter the intent of my answers, I'd go public via every news outlet I could think of. That said, RT is a propaganda arm of Putin and I know that going in. If this was Sarah's approach, the BBC would likely have just said 'she refused to comment', or they would go ahead with the piece, then cry conspiracy and discredit the blogs she published her side of the story on. Or just bury it, knowing their viewership was big enough that public opinion was swayed way more by them than the blog.
I'm not sure why you think the other journalists don't get heard. I've heard them on NPR, read them in The Nation and Harper's, as well as know that I can go to a bookstore and read their books. Its not my fault that most American news consumers are lazy. Why doesn't Faux News put them on, being the #1 source for trusted news and all?
The Nation, Harper's and NPR? That is fringe mainstream....CBS, NBC, ABC, FOX, CNN, MSNBC, NYT, WAPO, etc....? never. RT is more mainstream than the nation or harper's or NPR.
Drowned Out:
Obama was in power throughout the entire escalation, and was the first to send troops there. He pushed for no-fly zones. He propagated the same anti-Assad, pro-regime change statements. The US was not in a position to open up a new hot war front for most of his presidency. Was the decision not to because of his policies, or because it wasn't time yet, or because it wasn't necessary when the country could be destabilized and destroyed via slow-burn proxy war as you call it? Maybe the neocons would have gone in guns a blazin....maybe not.
Obama resisted escalation and avoided going in "guns blazing." Obama knew it was a shit show and wanted no part of it. He reluctantly sent special forces and enforced a no fly zone. Yet that didn't deter Assad and the Russians from dropping barrel bombs of cholrine gas, not illegal to own but illegal to use as a weapon of war, from helicopters. Why do you think both Bibi and Putin were pissed at him? Because he resisted Israeli entreaties to go further but did enough to piss off Putin and his ally Assad. The West's moral dillema is always, do something and be criticized or do nothing and be criticized. Chemical weapons in the hands of ISIS would have been catastrophic and Assad needed to go. How he goes, or whether he goes, is what is up for debate, or should be.
You need to read the diplomatic cables I mentioned above....about fomenting protests and uprisings in Syria, well before they began. About the funding for them. About the use of sectarian strife to turn it into a war. And where the visceral reactors came from...they are majority non-local, fyi
Are you claiming that the reporting by Richard Engle, on the ground, as it unfolded, as well as that of other western, reputable journalists was a fabrication? I'd love to see the source of your "majority, non-local." And the "sectarian strife" you refer to was against Assad and his clan/sect.
I do?
My question was rhetorical. Some on here, despite where you land, think Assad is a nice guy. If Assad wanted to be a peaceful vision loving opthamologist, why didn't he stay in London?
No, it doesn't. But it sure as fuck casts doubt as to who is telling the truth about who used them.
Why? If Assad/Putin didn't use them, why not allow unfettered access to the victims and sites? The UN/OPCW sources others have cited, and yet others have relied upon and then changed their mind and doubted them, have previously pointed to the Assad regime as being responsible for previous attacks. You don't think Putin had the guy poisoned with plumonium and wasn't responsible for the latest incident in Britain? Really? You doubt who is currently using chemical weapons in Syria?
If this was Sarah's approach, the BBC would likely have just said 'she refused to comment', or they would go ahead with the piece, then cry conspiracy and discredit the blogs she published her side of the story on. Or just bury it, knowing their viewership was big enough that public opinion was swayed way more by them than the blog.
Then Sarah is lazy and its just another way to "discredit" the MSM, which all follows Putin's playbook. Is the BBC the only western news outlet? Members of Parliment, US Congress, Der Speigel are not looking for credible news? I hate to break it to you but propaganda and disinformation have been around for a long, long time and Putin is using it profioundly, see Election, US, 2016. And I'll add because Russia can't beat the West militarily and they have no interest in going nuclear either, they're resorting to social media disinformation campaigns, and efectively so, I might add.
.The Nation, Harper's and NPR? That is fringe mainstream....CBS, NBC, ABC, FOX, CNN, MSNBC, NYT, WAPO, etc....? never. RT is more mainstream than the nation or harper's or NPR.
By "mainstream," do you mean by viewership or accuracy of reporting? You need to read the IC assessment of Russia interfering with our election. It spells it all out, who works for who, how they gained in popularity and how its propaganda on a major, industrial scale. I guess that makes Faux News worth watching because the claim to be "Fair and Balanced" and the most watched news outlet on television? How many western journalists have been killed for critizing their government or publishing, speaking out or exposing their government for misdeeds? How many have been killeed, jailed or gone missing in Putin's Russia or Assad's Syria for the same? Who was Hitler's first hire?
Comments
john mccain has been photographed meeting with Isis leaders and is the worst hawk in Washington.
call me a dog.
What was I being distracted from when I began following her three years ago?
I don't disagree that both McCain or Clinton are in favor of Syrian intervention. But Clinton hasn't been in government since 2013 and we've seen a right-leaning member of this very board openly celebrate McCain's brain cancer.
This kind of thing doesn't help your cause.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
What are the motives?
You guys obviously confuse current events with geopolitics.
I am not going to find the links myself because no one will read them...but most of these are from US think tanks or politicians. Straight from the horses mouth. Do some googling, and call it conspiracy if you’d like, because it at root that’s what it is...
CIA papers from as far back as ‘83 about regime change in Syria (Assad sr)
Diplomatic cables from the mid 00’s detailing the use of sectarian strife to undermine and topple Assad...
Diplomatic cables from the late 00’s confirming the end game in Syria was regime change.
Documents confirming US NGO involvement in uprisings against Assad.
Public statements from the US government confirming they will not accept peace if Assad remains in power.
Detailed confirmations of terrorists and arms, connected to Libya, Jordan, turkey, SA, flowing into Syria. Oil from ISIS to Turkey.
All the ‘oops’ air drops of supplies to ISIS.
Which Path to Persia by the Brookings Institute (revolving door think tank)
The Grand Chessboard by zbigniew brezinski (obama’s Mentor)
General Wesley Clark’s comments re regime change
Ralph Peters’ map of the ‘new middle east’, used in nATO training.
And if I was asked questions from BBC I would answer them, that's what I would do. But I'm not working for, or being duped by the Russians. If I was spreading Russian propaganda I sure as hell wouldn't want anyone digging into my affairs, I would just go on Twitter and preach to my choir. Retreat to my fans, why answer any hard questions and possibly be exposed.
Eventually the US and Israel will go after Iran. Weakening Syria and hezbollah is part of that bigger picture. It’s all laid out in the docs I mentioned above. If you are interested in this topic, you owe it to yourself to read up on this points. Most are not biased reports, they are leaked documents and position papers from the ppl who run the US.
perfect example of this was when Cernovich went on CNN. (avoid the trigger, i know that name is like strobe lights to some, it was just an example since I cant think of a better example)
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
John Bolton stood on stage and said to 100s the US will overthrow Assad, I cant find the video from about a year ago before he was NSA.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
What if sputnik wanted to interview you? would you talk to them and risk your position being twisted, or your words being used out of context?
And....what about the other journo's I mentioned? Why do they get ZERO air time on MSM in the west?
Your other post in response to me has me confused. What is your position on Syria? I never said anything in favour of Assad or Putin. I never compared systems. There are arguments to be made as to which power has been better or worse for the world as it pertains to geopolitics and imperialism, but I never went there. I was only laying out a clear motive of regime change (and/or balkanization), and answering cui bono?
It sounds like you acknowledge that the US and Israel benefit most from what has happened there over the past decade....So...do you see no ulterior motive in air strikes on Syria? You see no reason to wait for evidence before accusations? You see no benefit in falsifying reports to frame attacks? Not even knowing how many precedents there are for these questions? I don't get it man...
Sputnik? Damn, you aging me? If RT wanted to interview me, I'd do it with conditions, that it be taped, video and sound, by each side, with a third, independent party present doing the same. If the questions and my answers were misrepresented or redacted so as to alter the intent of my answers, I'd go public via every news outlet I could think of. That said, RT is a propaganda arm of Putin and I know that going in.
I'm not sure why you think the other journalists don't get heard. I've heard them on NPR, read them in The Nation and Harper's, as well as know that I can go to a bookstore and read their books. Its not my fault that most American news consumers are lazy. Why doesn't Faux News put them on, being the #1 source for trusted news and all?
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Obama was in power throughout the entire escalation, and was the first to send troops there. He pushed for no-fly zones. He propagated the same anti-Assad, pro-regime change statements. The US was not in a position to open up a new hot war front for most of his presidency. Was the decision not to because of his policies, or because it wasn't time yet, or because it wasn't necessary when the country could be destabilized and destroyed via slow-burn proxy war as you call it? Maybe the neocons would have gone in guns a blazin....maybe not.
Lets not forget the whole thing that started this shit show, the Assad regime's brutality toward some teenagers spraying anti-Assad grafitti and the local population's visceral reaction, in the spirit of the Arab Spring, and the subsequent brutality perputrated upon them for, dare thee, non-violently protesting.
You need to read the diplomatic cables I mentioned above....about fomenting protests and uprisings in Syria, well before they began. About the funding for them. About the use of sectarian strife to turn it into a war. And where the visceral reactors came from...they are majority non-local, fyi
Now, you want to argue that Assad is a nice guy?
I do?
Do you want to argue that the US took advantage of the situation to further the ensuing chaos? But none of that excuses the Assad regime and its Russian sponsors of using chemical weapons.
No, it doesn't. But it sure as fuck casts doubt as to who is telling the truth about who used them.
Sputnik? Damn, you aging me? If RT wanted to interview me, I'd do it with conditions, that it be taped, video and sound, by each side, with a third, independent party present doing the same. If the questions and my answers were misrepresented or redacted so as to alter the intent of my answers, I'd go public via every news outlet I could think of. That said, RT is a propaganda arm of Putin and I know that going in.
If this was Sarah's approach, the BBC would likely have just said 'she refused to comment', or they would go ahead with the piece, then cry conspiracy and discredit the blogs she published her side of the story on. Or just bury it, knowing their viewership was big enough that public opinion was swayed way more by them than the blog.
I'm not sure why you think the other journalists don't get heard. I've heard them on NPR, read them in The Nation and Harper's, as well as know that I can go to a bookstore and read their books. Its not my fault that most American news consumers are lazy. Why doesn't Faux News put them on, being the #1 source for trusted news and all?
The Nation, Harper's and NPR? That is fringe mainstream....CBS, NBC, ABC, FOX, CNN, MSNBC, NYT, WAPO, etc....? never. RT is more mainstream than the nation or harper's or NPR.
They are both architects of the war in Syria and have both celebrated worse than one man's brain cancer.
Sorry bro
Because the US has never co-opted a protest, nor created one as a covert op, right?
Obama was in power throughout the entire escalation, and was the first to send troops there. He pushed for no-fly zones. He propagated the same anti-Assad, pro-regime change statements. The US was not in a position to open up a new hot war front for most of his presidency. Was the decision not to because of his policies, or because it wasn't time yet, or because it wasn't necessary when the country could be destabilized and destroyed via slow-burn proxy war as you call it? Maybe the neocons would have gone in guns a blazin....maybe not.
Obama resisted escalation and avoided going in "guns blazing." Obama knew it was a shit show and wanted no part of it. He reluctantly sent special forces and enforced a no fly zone. Yet that didn't deter Assad and the Russians from dropping barrel bombs of cholrine gas, not illegal to own but illegal to use as a weapon of war, from helicopters. Why do you think both Bibi and Putin were pissed at him? Because he resisted Israeli entreaties to go further but did enough to piss off Putin and his ally Assad. The West's moral dillema is always, do something and be criticized or do nothing and be criticized. Chemical weapons in the hands of ISIS would have been catastrophic and Assad needed to go. How he goes, or whether he goes, is what is up for debate, or should be.
You need to read the diplomatic cables I mentioned above....about fomenting protests and uprisings in Syria, well before they began. About the funding for them. About the use of sectarian strife to turn it into a war. And where the visceral reactors came from...they are majority non-local, fyi
Are you claiming that the reporting by Richard Engle, on the ground, as it unfolded, as well as that of other western, reputable journalists was a fabrication? I'd love to see the source of your "majority, non-local." And the "sectarian strife" you refer to was against Assad and his clan/sect.
I do?
My question was rhetorical. Some on here, despite where you land, think Assad is a nice guy. If Assad wanted to be a peaceful vision loving opthamologist, why didn't he stay in London?
No, it doesn't. But it sure as fuck casts doubt as to who is telling the truth about who used them.
Why? If Assad/Putin didn't use them, why not allow unfettered access to the victims and sites? The UN/OPCW sources others have cited, and yet others have relied upon and then changed their mind and doubted them, have previously pointed to the Assad regime as being responsible for previous attacks. You don't think Putin had the guy poisoned with plumonium and wasn't responsible for the latest incident in Britain? Really? You doubt who is currently using chemical weapons in Syria?
If this was Sarah's approach, the BBC would likely have just said 'she refused to comment', or they would go ahead with the piece, then cry conspiracy and discredit the blogs she published her side of the story on. Or just bury it, knowing their viewership was big enough that public opinion was swayed way more by them than the blog.
Then Sarah is lazy and its just another way to "discredit" the MSM, which all follows Putin's playbook. Is the BBC the only western news outlet? Members of Parliment, US Congress, Der Speigel are not looking for credible news? I hate to break it to you but propaganda and disinformation have been around for a long, long time and Putin is using it profioundly, see Election, US, 2016. And I'll add because Russia can't beat the West militarily and they have no interest in going nuclear either, they're resorting to social media disinformation campaigns, and efectively so, I might add.
.The Nation, Harper's and NPR? That is fringe mainstream....CBS, NBC, ABC, FOX, CNN, MSNBC, NYT, WAPO, etc....? never. RT is more mainstream than the nation or harper's or NPR.
By "mainstream," do you mean by viewership or accuracy of reporting? You need to read the IC assessment of Russia interfering with our election. It spells it all out, who works for who, how they gained in popularity and how its propaganda on a major, industrial scale. I guess that makes Faux News worth watching because the claim to be "Fair and Balanced" and the most watched news outlet on television? How many western journalists have been killed for critizing their government or publishing, speaking out or exposing their government for misdeeds? How many have been killeed, jailed or gone missing in Putin's Russia or Assad's Syria for the same? Who was Hitler's first hire?
Stop believing the myth.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
http://www.truth-out.org/progressivepicks/item/33180-wikileaks-reveals-how-the-us-aggressively-pursued-regime-change-in-syria-igniting-a-bloodbath
Bombing an empty airfield for show isn't shock & awe
And so is Noam Chomsky... you wondered what he thought right?
https://newrepublic.com/article/113834/noam-chomsky-syria-civil-war-not-americas-fault
https://www.democracynow.org/2017/4/5/the_assad_regime_is_a_moral
Keep following Russian funded twitter "journalists"