Skip to comments.Alternate media needed to understand Syria
Posted on 03/06/2013 9:05:42 PM PST by Mount Athos
Many so-called news pieces on the war in Syria strike me as little more than war propaganda.
Often they quote an organization pompously called the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights as if it had a pipeline to God, yet Sharmine Narwani, a specialist in Middle East affairs at Oxford University, has demonstrated that the SOHR grossly exaggerates or lies about casualty figures.
Thailand-based geopolitical researcher and writer Tony Cartalucci describes the SOHR as "merely a single man, sitting behind a computer in a British apartment," allegedly receiving phone calls "with information always incriminating the Syrian government." This one-man operation, Rami Abdul Rahman, favors regime change. He slinks "in and out of the British Foreign Office to meet directly with Foreign Secretary William Hague who also openly seeks the removal of Syrian President, Bashar al-Assad."
The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights is probably a war propagandist, so why is American news quoting it or shielding us from the criticism of the SOHR?
Many stories in American newspapers blamed the Syrian government for the infamous Houla Massacre, yet later, as John Rosenthal of the Transatlantic Intelligencer observed, at least three German newspapers linked the killings to the so-called rebels. Did American newspapers report the findings of the German papers?
And who are these rebels? Many of them apparently aren't rebels at all; they're foreign jihadists.
Having worked in a Syrian monastery for 18 years, Sister Agnes Mariam, mother superior of the Monastery of St. James the Mutilated in Syria, says that "very few Syrians (are) among the rebels" in the battleground of Aleppo.
Pepe Escobar of Asia Times observes, "Salafi-jihadis cross into Syria in droves not only from Iraq but also Kuwait, Algeria, Tunisia and Pakistan, following enraged calls by their imams. Kidnapping, raping and slaughtering pro-Assad regime civilians is becoming the law of the land."
When the opposition to President Assad uses undeniable terrorism such as blowing up city buildings and killing civilians, why does American news shy away from the word "terrorism?"
Saudi Arabia and Qatar have probably spent hundreds of millions of dollars, if not more, to support the so-called rebels in Syria. Staunchly backed by President Obama, the dictatorial Saudi and Qatar regimes are, Aamir Raza Husain of The Times of India observes, two of "the largest sponsors of international terror." Indeed, in 2007, the London Sunday Times reported that "wealthy Saudis remain the chief financiers of worldwide terror networks." Why doesn't American news emphasize the Saudi and Qatari, and by association Obama, support of terrorism?
If Americans want to know what's happening in wars where the western ruling elite seeks regime change, as in Syria, they'll have to supplement mainstream sources with alternate news sites and then make educated guesses.
Unfortunately, truth is the first casualty in war, and if truth doesn't support the regime change that America's ruling elite wants, either American reporters are not interested in finding and telling that truth or are not allowed to do so.
Often it is the only source of information they cite.
Iran is Russia's puppet.
Why is Mr More Flexible apparently attacking Putin's plaything?
Just burning weapons for cash?