Posted on 07/17/2012 10:36:54 AM PDT by opentalk
The media have been too passive when it comes to Syrian opposition sources, without scrutinising their backgrounds and their political connections. Time for a closer look …
A nightmare is unfolding across Syria, in the homes of al-Heffa and the streets of Houla. And we all know how the story ends: with thousands of soldiers and civilians killed, towns and families destroyed, and President Assad beaten to death in a ditch.
This is the story of the Syrian war, but there is another story to be told. A tale less bloody, but nevertheless important. This is a story about the storytellers: the spokespeople, the "experts on Syria", the "democracy activists". The statement makers. The people who "urge" and "warn" and "call for action".
It's a tale about some of the most quoted members of the Syrian opposition and their connection to the Anglo-American opposition creation business. The mainstream news media have, in the main, been remarkably passive when it comes to Syrian sources: billing them simply as "official spokesmen" or "pro-democracy campaigners" without, for the most part, scrutinising their statements, their backgrounds or their political connections.
It's important to stress: to investigate the background of a Syrian spokesperson is not to doubt the sincerity of his or her opposition to Assad. But a passionate hatred of the Assad regime is no guarantee of independence. Indeed, a number of key figures in the Syrian opposition movement are long-term exiles who were receiving US government funding to undermine the Assad government long before the Arab spring broke out
(Excerpt) Read more at guardian.co.uk ...
“President Assad beaten to death in a ditch” - that has a nice ring to it
Why does that sound nice? His replacement will be the Syrian opposition Moslem brotherhood. They will still hate the USA, even if we intervene on their side. They will also hate Jews and Israel.
Assad,, gassing and cluster bombing the opposition has the same nice ring to it too. Either way, i win.
Ohhh, and i cant WAIT for all the Syrian refugees we allow into the country like we did Somalians and Iraqis.
If the Western media would stay out of this, and realize their Islamic Democracy scheme is going to be disastrous, these little uprisings would be over quickly. As bad as Assad is, he is better than the coming Muslim Brotherhood.
Read appropriately, it could be said that the U.S. has had one “Middle East” policy, since 2000, and the U.S. State Department is not it’s architect, just one of the “international” agencies through whom behind-the-scenes “world planners” are operating, with THEIR operatives placed where ever, in whatever institutions they are needed, for those plans, including the institutions of various governments, our own included, or institutions are created and appropriately labeled, for them to carryout their assigned roles.
To see this coming one only had to ask, at the start of the “Syrian opposition call for Assad to step down”, why then?, what was new?, was it just because it was the season?, had Assad just previously become more brutal? (NO!), had is government suddenly become “worse”, (NO!!), so why at that time??
Because forces outside of Syria, forces outside of the “Syrian opposition” decided it was time. You think they don’t have something they are expecting for themselves? And, given what you now understanding about whose paying for the “Syrian revolt” at this time, now that you know who are the movers and shakers behind it, where do you see “Syrian” policy vis-a-vis Israel going when the dust clears?
What did the Guardian miss? (or leave out on purpose). Anglo-American interests are not the only interests represented in, or providing funding to many of the so called “democracy projects” directed at Syria. There is big Middle East money and persons, with stakes in many of the institutes mentioned, and its not Iranian either.
So, is it even really an “Anglo-American” project, or are they just being played, just being given the driver seat in a game they don’t own?
“Anglo-American interests”
Brazilo-italio,,,Canadian-indonesian, Paki-Argentinian, etc.
American interests and British interests are not the same, except in the view of our masters. Britain has always had very different interests than the USA, and seeks to drag us into their policy goals. They love spending American lives, equipment and cash to do what they deem critical.
This is especially true in light of Britain becoming an Orwellian totalitarian state that has given itself over to the Moslems. Our interests have never been more divergent.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.