Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
February 28, 2012

Sarkozy, Bouvier And Responsible Behaviour

A bad day for Sarkozy is a good day for the rest of the world.

Today is such a day.

The French Constitutional Council judged a recent law punishing negation of the Armenian genocide to be unconstitutional:

The Council said it wished "not to enter into the realm of responsibility that belongs to historians."

Sarkozy had pressed for the law to snap up more votes from the Armenian and the pro-Israel constituency in the upcoming presidential election.

A second defeat for Sarkozy came when he had to retract his earlier announcement today that the French journalist Edith Bouviers had been smuggled from Syria to Lebanon. We have looked into the somewhat murky circumstances of the allegedly wounded Edith Bouviers.

While Bouviers' current location is unknown one of the journalist who was with her, the British photographer Paul Conroy, was confirmed to have been smuggled to Lebanon.

Bouvier as well as Conroy had twice rejected to be evacuated by the Syrian Red Crescent which people took the risk to drive into the combat zone to rescue them as well as others.

Conroy and the Syrian opposition claim that several people were killed when the group smuggling him out came under fire.

I wonder what Conroy's conscience will tell him about putting them to this risk. By irresponsibly rejection the proven ability of the Syrian Red Crescent to get him out it is he who is responsible for their death.

As for Sarkozy we hope that he will, as looks increasingly likely, lose the presidential election. The world will be, in my view, better off without this farce of a would-be Napoleon.

Posted by b on February 28, 2012 at 18:24 UTC | Permalink

next page »

Ok. I'm trying to read through your jerry-rigged english to find your desired implication. Do you also mean to say that you defend Turkey's monstrous refusal to acknowledge the Turkish pogrom Armenians?

I suppose you need to walk down that dark road in order to supply more shit-fodder for your anti-USuk armamentarium.

Holy fuck, b.

Posted by: slothrop | Feb 28 2012 19:03 utc | 1

As much as I dislike Sarkozy, I am not sure I would want Lepine to be the successor, so be careful what you wish for.
Syria should be trying to charge these journalists. On the one hand the enteredt illegally, what would we do with people who enter illegally, then stirred up the media by sensationalizing their activities and at the end got a lot of people killed on their exit.
Any other country and these people would be in jail for a thousand rreason.

Posted by: ana souri | Feb 28 2012 19:06 utc | 2

As much as I dislike Sarkozy, I am not sure I would want Lepine to be the successor, so be careful what you wish for.

Maybe Ahmadinejad (we know it wouldn't be a sister) has a brother who would like to run. If it was MOA's vote only that counted, he'd win by a landslide.

Posted by: Morocco Bama | Feb 28 2012 19:28 utc | 3

MB don't give it for granted, I'd want to read his electoral program first

Posted by: claudio | Feb 28 2012 19:33 utc | 4

Sarkozy's last year in office has been appallingly cynical and unprofessional. Lest people forget the Libyan intervention was purely driven by France. Britain and the US were dragged into it by his warmongering, from a desire to have a Falklands-type victory he could go to the polls with like Thatcher.

Now I think he realises that he is to far behind in the polls to win, so he has spent the last while shamelessly pushing his neo-con beliefs on every foreign policy topic. On Syria he has been the principle cheerleader for intervention, he pushed the Iran oil embargo that will be awful for Europe, he even played politics with the French troops deployed in Afghanistan.

When majority Muslim youth rioted in Paris in 2005 Sarkozy called them "scum" in French the word scum "racaille" also has a racial/ethnic resonance however on Libya he was willing to send in troops and jets to defend rioting Muslims. Of course his position on Armenia is just as cynical. Armenian gypsies are the second largest gypsy community in the world after the Roma gypsies. In the past Sarkozy has shown nothing but disdain for gypsies expelling huge amounts in 2010 to get the far-right vote. Now after 6 years of silence he suddenly comes out on the Armenian holocaust? Damaging relations with Turkey just to get a few votes for himself.

Posted by: Colm O' Toole | Feb 28 2012 19:44 utc | 5

What b means is very clear: the French "law"making it an offence to doubt the conventional wisdom, as brought to us via the USIS, re the Armenian Massacres of 1915 is idiotic. Such laws are very dangerous. In American terms they clearly violate the Constitution's First Amendment.

As to the Turkish government's line, I see no reference to it at all. Of much greater concern are the current massacres, in Honduras for example, for which the US government is very obviously directly responsible.

As to Ahmedinejad, he seems very much the Gaullist tradition of national sovereignty and Bismarckian social solidarity which Sarkozy is betraying as he butchers poor muslims to distract the voters.

Posted by: bevin | Feb 28 2012 19:53 utc | 6

Laws against "genocide denial" are dangerous BS. And this has nothing to do with one's opinion on the events such laws refer to.

Even worse it's the fact that such laws are highly selective, unconnected to any objective criteria, such as number / percentage of deaths, number / percentage of displaced, etc. Any objective criteria would lead to the condemnation of what many western "civilized" states have done around the globe and of course within Europe itself.

Posted by: claudio | Feb 28 2012 19:55 utc | 7

And yes, Sarkozy is an arrogant, racist buffoon.

Posted by: claudio | Feb 28 2012 19:56 utc | 8

France has no equivalent of First Amendment protection of speech. They have statutes prohibiting Holocaust denial and hate speech. This decision would seem to conflict with these laws.

Seems more like this is a, perhaps unintended, defense of Armenian Holocaust denial.

Posted by: slothrop | Feb 28 2012 20:03 utc | 9

What b means is very clear: the French "law"making it an offence to doubt the conventional wisdom, as brought to us via the USIS, re the Armenian Massacres of 1915 is idiotic. Such laws are very dangerous. In American terms they clearly violate the Constitution's First Amendment.

No, what you mean is very clear, and I agree with the part about it being a dangerous law that infringes upon free speech, however, you appear to imply that the "massacre" is a matter of perspective and that the conventional history is inaccurate in this regard. Is that a fair assessment of your opinion? Also, I noticed you used the word "massacre" to describe it, yet I have often seen it referred to as a genocide. Which is it? And, if you believe it was neither, and the West's conventional version is inaccurate, what is your take?

Posted by: Morocco Bama | Feb 28 2012 20:07 utc | 10

@slothrop I'm trying to read through your jerry-rigged english

I wonder what is "jerry-rigged" in my writing when your use "english" without the capital letter that usually applies.

to acknowledge the Turkish pogrom Armenians

And now pogrom is a verb?

You seem to be barely able to use English. Please excuse me from taking my lessons on that subject elsewhere.

Posted by: b | Feb 28 2012 20:08 utc | 11

For the release of our compatriots and colleagues held captive in Baba Amr:

Posted by: m_s | Feb 28 2012 20:15 utc | 12

@ana souri - Hollande seems much more likely to be the winner than Le Pen.

@alothrop France has no equivalent of First Amendment protection of speech.

As usual for a troll you have no idea of what you talk about:

The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, of constitutional value, states, in its article 11:

"The free communication of thoughts and of opinions is one of the most precious rights of man: any citizen thus may speak, write, print freely, save [if it is necessary] to respond to the abuse of this liberty, in the cases determined by the law."

In addition, France adheres to the European Convention on Human Rights and accepts the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights.

Posted by: b | Feb 28 2012 20:15 utc | 13

'And yes, Sarkozy is an arrogant, racist buffoon.

Posted by: claudio | Feb 28, 2012 2:56:36 PM | 8
so how is elecion systems of govt keep putting this sort into power in sophisticaated societies?

Posted by: brian | Feb 28 2012 20:38 utc | 14

'And yes, Sarkozy is an arrogant, racist buffoon.

Posted by: claudio | Feb 28, 2012 2:56:36 PM | 8
so how is election systems of govt keep putting this sort into power in sophisticaated societies?

Posted by: brian | Feb 28 2012 20:38 utc | 15

Maybe Germany in conjunction with the EU leadership, the IMF and the Big Banks will appoint a leader for France like they did with Greece. Perhaps not quite yet, but it's coming. And to think, DSK could have been the one. Considering what's shaking out now, we understand why they took the French version of Bill Clinton down.

Posted by: Morocco Bama | Feb 28 2012 21:01 utc | 16


maybe we aren't as sophisticated as we think

Posted by: claudio | Feb 28 2012 21:01 utc | 17

MB, the IMF et al can't desire a better servant than Sarkozy; among other things, he even dragged France into NATO

Posted by: claudio | Feb 28 2012 21:02 utc | 18

this is how le figaro describes it

they do have a problem explaining why the Red Crescent ambulances were not taken.

Posted by: somebody | Feb 28 2012 21:17 utc | 19

you appear to imply that the "massacre" is a matter of perspective

bevin implied no such thing. i am against criminalizing historical denial.

MB is a new comer here so i've no traction to with him but sloth has been around a long long time. i posit he could care less about the armenian genocide until the day israel got pissed at turkey and started pressuring congress to recognize it as the knesset did. it's not as if it appeared on the scene after the mavi marmara, the record is long and tragic.

using the armenian genocide as a cheap political tool against turkey to fight israel's deligitimization battle degrades the recognition and importance of genocide. it's really a shame. must everything exist just because and when it will benefit? they should stay out of this they have nothing to do with it. in fact, they should stay out of france's election, which is probably about as impossible as israel keeping their paws out of ours.

i'm so over this lobby. go away!

Posted by: annie | Feb 28 2012 21:34 utc | 20

i posit he could care less about the armenian genocide until the day israel got pissed at turkey

i forgot to finish that thought. so sloth, care to link you advocating recognition of armenian genocide before israel switched sides of the fence after the mavi marmara and their lobby demanded the US congress did to? after all it was only the year before the very same lobby prevented congress from recognizing the same genocide. or don't you remember? this has nothing to do with armenians finally getting recognized for their suffering and everything to do with israel wielding power overs others suffering for their own political gain. sickening, they should be ashamed. sorry for the repeat.

cough it up sloth.

Posted by: annie | Feb 28 2012 21:39 utc | 21

could it be that Bouvier is safe, but it is more convenient for the French government to hide her, so it can insist on the "humanitarian corridor"?

Posted by: claudio | Feb 28 2012 21:58 utc | 22

I guess the situation is complex. all the stakeholders, as Kofi Annan calls them, will have their specialist personnel on the ground.
I do not know if this has been posted yet
The Syrian secret service is supposed to be pretty ruthless and good, so is the Iranian, the Russian and Hezbollah
this is a smokescreen
Baba Amr probably really is surrounded and cut off.
I don't think anybody cares about Sarkozy's election prospects. However, the French ambassador has for some reason returned to Syria, Poland is representing the US, the British ambassador to Syria seems to be in London talking to the Syrian foreign office, so some people seem to be negotiating with the Syrian regime.
Basically I think something went bad and they do not wish for a press conference about it.

Posted by: somebody | Feb 28 2012 22:29 utc | 23

"Ok. I'm trying to read through your jerry-rigged english"

I was an exchange student in Germany many many moons ago. At my best, my German was ok. But it wasn't even 10% of b's English.

Posted by: Lysander | Feb 28 2012 23:09 utc | 24

First "jerry rigged" is bad English, Slothrop. "Jerry built" houses are badly built. "Jury rigged" ships limp back to port for proper repair.

".. conventional history is inaccurate in this regard. Is that a fair assessment of your opinion? Also, I noticed you used the word "massacre" to describe it, yet I have often seen it referred to as a genocide. Which is it? And, if you believe it was neither, and the West's conventional version is inaccurate, what is your take?"

You are right that I prefer the term "massacre" because it more accurately describes the terrible events of 1915. There is no evidence, that I have seen, that any attempt was made to eradicate either the Armenian race and culture. And certainly if that was the object it was very far from succeeding.

I also have a prejudice against bodies such as the French Assembly with its records in Algeria, Haiti and many other places deciding what I should think and anyone should say about events of which their members know absolutely nothing, and not least because together with Britain and the United States, France fills out the podium when it comes to making awards for genocide.

When the French Assembly resolves that genocide was deliberately and systematically planned for St Domingue in 1802 I might be inclined to listen to its denunciation of an Ottoman Empire which disappeared more than eighty years ago.

It will be recalled that when President Aristide called upon France to repair the ancient wrong of blackmailing Haiti into making reparations for the loss that kicking out the colonists caused, (paying which reparations which reduced Haitians to penury for generations), he was hustled into exile by US Marines. And this was in 2004, France remains criminally involved in the occupation of Haiti and the French Assembly are focused on Anatolia in 1915!

Posted by: bevin | Feb 28 2012 23:15 utc | 25

@25, I agree with that assessment about it being a massacre versus a genocide, and I agree with the rest of what you said related to it.

Posted by: Morocco Bama | Feb 28 2012 23:36 utc | 26

i do not find it in the least surprising that slothrop is becoming, well, slothful in both what passes for rhetoric & the quite hurtful asides to b & to those who offer their sketches of what it is to live under empire

like lizard, i don't believe in coincidences & the wave of sniping from trolls is directly proportionate to b's brave work in disintegrating the worthless 'narratives' that pass for information elsewhere

b's coverage of the elections in iran was really the beginning of these attempts, not at argument but at destruction

living in a world where nato officers run rapidly home to their secure offices in brussels after burning korans & failing once again in their soi disant expertise - the value of someone like b & his analysis (& those who offer real substance here) becomes more & more valuable to me, not less

Posted by: remembererringgiap | Feb 28 2012 23:47 utc | 27

@ somebody 23

Good link there.
The best we can hope for, after Assad crush the rebels, is a democratic election. The vote for a new constitution looks like a step in the right direction.

Posted by: Alexander | Feb 28 2012 23:50 utc | 28

To any trolls, no I don't like crushing of any kind, but it does look inevitable.

Posted by: Alexander | Feb 28 2012 23:52 utc | 29

Thank you b for such enlighten perspective of what's going on in Syria. Are these journalists suffering from Stockholm syndrome? I love your come back on certain comments...Good job.
Avaaz on its website declares that it smuggled international journalists to Syria so it's Avaaz responsibility to protect them or free them. It's not the job of Red crescent to risk their lives for these ungrateful creatures. Or because the Red Crescent volunteers are Arabs they can perish by the dozen; but a FOREIGNER oh he/she is a Goddess must survive at all costs. The amount of deaths rises surrounding the rebels' (excuse me, peaceful protestors per Mrs Clinton) locations isn't a big question mark?? Places were rebels don't exist in Syria no one dies. I feel the message is right there.

I'm tired of this faux humanitarian promo on Syria when there are far more humanitarian crisis in the world.The Somali children living in Kenya’s Dadaab the world’s largest refugee camp bearing the brunt of Africa’s worst famine in sixty years did NOT have one Avaaz representative. CNN pretty boy (so humanitarian )Anderson Cooper did NOT dedicate 5 sec. to these people ...yet he seems interested in men in Homs.

Posted by: David | Feb 29 2012 0:36 utc | 30

On PBS's NewsHour tonight, our favorite 21st Century Forrest Gump, but of, apparently, Syrian extraction, showed up on a news video provided by the rebels in Baba Amr. It was about heavy shelling, etc., of Homs and featured a crippled young boy who cannot use his legs, thus he has been unable to escape, per the Western media reporter. He was shown in the ruins of a shelled house, covered in dust, but accompanied by...a doctor...who looked just like...Khaled Abu Saleh. Again, dressed and identified as a doctor.

I can't recall the name used for the doctor, and NewsHour doesn't have video available until later, transcript tomorrow usually. The program should be available at this link.

I didn't have a lot of time to look at the guy, but it sure looked very, very similar to the guy Bernhard covered in such detail. Western media have picked up on this? They don't run facial recognition software to double check who is being featured on these videos sent out by the rebels? Hhhmmm....

Posted by: jawbone | Feb 29 2012 0:57 utc | 31

Actually, I take back the part about it being just a massacre. It's pretty clear it was a genocide and the Germans were complicit with the Turks in their hunger for Empire. It was a warm up, a dress rehearsal if you will, to the Jewish Holocaust. Here's an excellent documentary with solid evidence.

Germany, Turkey and the Armenian Genocide

Posted by: Morocco Bama | Feb 29 2012 1:07 utc | 32

Then again, maybe it was a different guy.... I'm not that great at IDing people.

Posted by: jawbone | Feb 29 2012 1:26 utc | 33

I followed the tweets of @MilesAmoore and something was going on today there. Western journos are in bed with Homs gangs.

Posted by: Sophia | Feb 29 2012 1:36 utc | 34

I think on the Armenian issue people get too bogged down on labels. Gwynne Dyer, a journalist, who used to lecture War Studies at the British Military Officers Sandhurst Academy had this account of what happened at the time.

Long ago, when I was a budding historian, I was sidetracked for a while by the controversy over the massacres of 1915. I read the archival reports on British and Russian negotiations with Armenian revolutionaries after the Ottoman Empire entered the First World War on the other side in early 1915. I even read the documents in the Turkish General Staff archives ordering the deportation of the Armenian population from eastern Anatolia later that year. What happened is quite clear.

The British and the Russians planned to knock the Ottoman Empire out of the war quickly with simultaneous invasions of eastern Anatolia, with Russia entering from the north and Britain landings on Turkey’s south coast. So they welcomed the approaches of Armenian nationalist groups and asked them to launch uprisings behind the Turkish lines to synchronise with the invasions. The usual half-promises about independence were made, and the Armenian groups fell for it.

The British later switched their attack to the Dardanelles in an attempt to grab Istanbul, but they never warned their Armenian allies that the south coast invasion was off. The Russians did invade, but the Turks managed to stop them. The Armenian revolutionaries launched their uprisings as promised, and the Turks took a terrible vengeance on the whole community.

Istanbul ordered the Armenian minority be removed from eastern Anatolia on the grounds that their presence behind the lines posed a danger to Turkish defences. Wealthy Armenians were allowed to travel south to Syria by train or ship, but for the impoverished masses, it was columns marching over the mountains in the dead of winter. They faced rape and murder at the hands of their guards, there was little or no food, and many hundreds of thousands died.

If genocide just means killing a lot of people, then this certainly was one. If genocide means a policy that aims to exterminate a particular ethnic or religious group, then it wasn’t. Armenians who made it alive to Syria, then also part of the Ottoman empire, were not sent to death camps.


I've read similar accounts from other figures. The Ottoman Empire started collapsing in 1908 and was gone by 1918. In 1915 it was in a horrific way economically, militarily and politically. There was never a systematic campaign or decision to slaughter Armenians and the historical documents paint a picture of choas in the centralised state. Generals were going rogue, several were executed for insubordination, troop discipline was almost non-existant, and while hundreds of thousands (or a million) Armenians died on the trek thousands of Ottoman soldiers marching with them also died.

Posted by: Colm O' Toole | Feb 29 2012 3:27 utc | 35

About the conflicting messages: it seems Paul Conroy was smuggled out;
as in the rebels trying to hold the city, and the journalists hostage, weren't supposed to know until Bouvier had also been safely released.

Posted by: Alexander | Feb 29 2012 4:37 utc | 36

MB @ 31: Thanks for the links, quite damning. It's amazing to me that 90+ yrs. after the deed so many people are in denial about the obvious genocide that took place. Not the first in history, nor the last. And the Turks, are they afraid of paying reparations, or too ignorant to understand the evidence?

Posted by: ben | Feb 29 2012 5:13 utc | 37

[The Armenian genocide] was a warm up, a dress rehearsal if you will, to the Jewish Holocaust.

The German Empire conducted an even earlier 'dress rehearsal' -- in Namibia in 1904. As in Armenia, the vanquished were driven into the desert to die.

Posted by: Watson | Feb 29 2012 6:15 utc | 38

Yeah, and slothrop's rainbow ends in MB's armchair. I'll buy a round of Metamucil.

Posted by: Biklett | Feb 29 2012 6:34 utc | 39

Armenians got caught between the empires and nationalism. To compare it with the German holocaust might be useful historically when you look at nationalism, colonialism, religion, the Ottoman and Austrian Hungarian Empires, and "humanitarian" foreign intervention, but is misleading otherwise. You might as well compare it to the Lebanese Civil War.

But of course it is not about history, but Israel and Turkey, recompensation and a Christian role in today's Islamist Turkey.

History from the view of Turkey is written like this:

"During the First World War the armed nationalist Ottoman Armenian bands rioted and slaughtered a considerable number of Muslims in order to establish an independent Armenia. The radical Armenian attacks caused counter-attacks and the intercommunal clashes claimed many lives. When the Armenian bands helped the occupying Russian forces, and posed a threat to the security of the Ottoman army the Ottoman government decided to re-locate the Armenians from the sensitive regions into more safe areas.[20] Unfortunately, many Armenians died during this relocation due to the band attacks, climatic conditions and diseases. When considering the war circumstances such deaths were understandable; In the Caucasian front for example about 90.000 Turkish soldiers died because of the cold in a couple of days. That is to say the Ottoman State had not enough equipment to prevent the massive mortalities under the war’s catastrophic conditions. However all undesired tragedies the Armenians and the Muslims faced were presented as an Armenian massacre in Britain by the Armenian groups and the British religious groups. When the Republic of Armenia in Caucasus declared its independence on 29 May 1918, it was represented in London as an independent state by the Armenian National Bureau. The Bureau published information booklets, organised discussion sessions and meetings related to the Armenian question, problems of Armenia and the Armenian diaspora. Its efforts focused on two important cities; London and Manchester. The bureau’s manipulative impact over the press was clear. In other words, the bureau helped to shape the anti-Ottoman feelings regarding the Ottoman-Armenian relations in Britain."

And it would stem back to something like this
"In the mid-1860s and early 1870s, things began to change as an intellectual class began to emerge among Armenian society. Educated in the European university system or in American missionary schools in the Ottoman Empire, these Armenians began to question their second-class status in society and initiated a movement that asked for better treatment from their government. In one such instance, after amassing the signatures of peasants from Western Armenia, the Armenian Communal Council petitioned to the Ottoman government to redress the issues that the peasants complained about the most: "the looting and murder in Armenian towns by [Muslim] Kurds and Circassians, improprieties during tax collection, criminal behavior by government officials and the refusal to accept Christians as witnesses in trial." The Ottoman government considered these grievances and promised to punish those responsible, though no meaningful steps were ever taken.[35]:36

Following the violent suppression of Christians in the uprisings in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria and Serbia in 1875, the Great Powers invoked the 1856 Treaty of Paris by claiming that it gave them the right to intervene and protect the Ottoman Empire's Christian minorities.[35]:35ff Under growing pressure, the government of Sultan Abdul Hamid II declared itself a constitutional monarchy with a parliament (which was almost immediately prorogued) and entered into negotiations with the powers. At the same time, the Armenian patriarchate of Constantinople, Nerses II, forwarded Armenian complaints of widespread "forced land seizure… forced conversion of women and children, arson, protection extortion, rape, and murder" to the Powers"

and this

What bites me, is that there has been a regular repeat of this type of policies since the 19th century. This type of massacre happens during war, and the warmongers are alive and well. Real people lose their life.

Posted by: somebody | Feb 29 2012 6:36 utc | 40

Strong as ever brother giap@27


Posted by: Uncle $cam | Feb 29 2012 6:38 utc | 41

@31 - it was more than just an Armenian genocide. it was Armenian, Greek, and Assyrian. so perhaps we should more properly call it a christian genocide.

and now, when we start recognizing it as a religious war, then we can start to notice the parallels to the jewish experience. and by that, i mean those little unpleasantries that "holocaust denial" laws are meant to deny discussion of. that is, that the jewish race was not being targeted for eradication by the germans. in fact, as Edwin Black wrote about several years ago, the Zionists collaborated with the Nazis. these zionists are not really jews in a religious sense, but in an ethnic sense. religiously, they weren't supposed to go back to israel until the messiah came. zionists are therefore not really jews. they're just a subset of the jewish ethnicity that wanted an ethnically pure state, just as a subset of the german ethnicity wanted an ethnically pure state.

and this is what seems to be so explosive about the french decision on the armenian genocide. the implication is that you can now talk about the little unpleasantries in the jewish genocide that deviate from the accepted narratives without getting arrested for "holocaust denial". hell, even Mondoweiss recently banned talking about the "Transfer Agreement", himself calling it denial.

Posted by: Proton Soup | Feb 29 2012 7:08 utc | 42

I would not make to much of that Proton Soup, nationalists play into each others hands same way as religious fundamentalists do because they confirm each others view. So obviously Nazis and Zionists agreed Jews should not be part of Germany and Eastern Europe, same as religious fundamentalists agree on the separation of their communities.

That journalist adventure has turned really bad and won't be able to be told as heroic tale

Posted by: somebody | Feb 29 2012 7:42 utc | 43

@ 41
Damn, that's explosive stuff. How come I never heard of this?
I always thaught Hitler had something to do with creating Israel, but damn. I mean, he was 1/4 jewish, but still.

Posted by: Alexander | Feb 29 2012 7:45 utc | 44

@ 42 even.

Posted by: Alexander | Feb 29 2012 7:54 utc | 45

Alexander, you might be interested in this: Zionism in the Age of the Dictators

Posted by: claudio | Feb 29 2012 8:05 utc | 46

Interesting link at #19.

It seems this is the first semi-official military history of the battle--told from the pov of a smart and chirpy local. I'm suspicious of the author, but there are some interesting points about his history:

1. The rebels were shooting missiles from civilian areas.
2. The rebels were shooting civilians who were attempting to leave the war zone (mostly old men).
3. Felons had been recruited to fight.
4. There is a lot of ammo and weaponry and spidey holes to put them.
5. Then there is the funny business of one reporter escaping (too bad for the old guys that got shot trying to escape--the young reporter was evidently allowed to leave). I also love the touch that some mob type group (*cough*CIA**cough) serves their transportation needs.

Anyway, could you imagine if the the West had foreign entities funding this activity? The hypocrisy doesn't get more obvious than this. I don't buy the reporter's description of them being hostages, because I suspect he's simply laying down cover that these reporters are really there or are real people. Notice he doesn't describe meeting them, but leaves the impression they are there.

I suspect this is nothing but yet another psy operation. The evidence in the other thread is pretty convincing and I wouldn't be surprised if all the action is taking place on a set. Which governments have the means and motive to do this? Which governments have been caught repeatedly playing these games? Which ones have the huge war and black op budgets and are waging secret wars in over a hundred countries? Syria?

Those are actors we saw in the video. This is a well crafted stage play and it's a coordinated effort. Check out the media attention on this. I wouldn't be surprised to see Seal Team XX fly in to save the day next. Or maybe Sarkozy and the French get to be the heroes this time.

Posted by: Walter Wit Man | Feb 29 2012 8:12 utc | 47

As always, Britain wins on points in India. Just read Mike Davis's "Late Victorian Holocausts".

In the 1870s, in the El Nino famines, she was the first to let millions die while exporting their grain. She was the first to set up concentration camps (a generation before anyone else). And she was the first to bypass morality with a pseudo-scientific rationale - "the British scientific approach to famine". Oh yes, and Churchill gassed the Kurds in the '20s.

The Nazis had no reason to look to Turkey, as they had better mentors much closer to home. Indeed, the City and Wall Street helped bring them to power. Even while Britain was fighting the Nazis, she allowed the Bengal Famine to happen.

Posted by: Bob Jackson | Feb 29 2012 8:19 utc | 48

Taking Jawbone's cue, I checked out NewsHour at 18:28 and sure enough, it looks like our good doctor to me. I hear the ears are a good place to look so it look so it would cool to see comparisons. They call him "mahmoud a mahmoud" (as I hear it) on the NewsHour, one of the "hero" doctors of Homs, they say.

Also notice the horrible images with the child. The only time we see children casualties on teevee is when it's the other guys allegedly doing it. One relief is that maybe this child didn't really get hurt and is only an actor.

Posted by: Walter Wit Man | Feb 29 2012 8:38 utc | 49

Thanks to all for a great thread. In particular, thanks to Bevin both for the English lesson (I had forgotten about "jerry built" but did have "jury rigged" in mind) and his
other comments. Thanks also to Giap for his doubts about coincidences which I share,
although I would like to hope that MOA's "dissidents" actually and perhaps paradoxically enrich the dialectic here (which, I assume, is also b's reason for not "squashing" them).
I am grateful to all those who have adduced a broad array of examples of massacres or attempted genocides, a task which is, alas, all too easy for those who know some history, but all too rare in the popular media except when used instrumentally in the service of current realpolitik.

This link to the redoutable Imad Khadduri's site is slightly off-topic (geographically) but both the first and the last sections are of interest, not to mention the section on "educide", one of the more pernicious, and effective techniques for subjugating a restive nation.

Posted by: Hannah K. O'Luthon | Feb 29 2012 8:58 utc | 50

@ claudio 46
Thanks, that gives a good historical background on zionism.

@ Hannah K. O'Luthon 50
Irans hack of the US drone comes to mind, if Israel or USA launch missiles, what is to stop Iran performing the same hack? The drone was landed by giving it new GPS coordinates (making the drone think it landed in Afghanistan), and most weapons type guidance is also based on GPS. Late last year, I believed that was what the whole deal was all about, Israel & USA being miffed by Iran compromising their sattelite, drone and missile tecknology.

Posted by: Alexander | Feb 29 2012 9:33 utc | 51

I think what went wrong is US/UK not backing intervention, but France, Saudi, Quatar.

And that presumably is what the split of the Syrian National Council is about.

Posted by: somebody | Feb 29 2012 9:44 utc | 52

@38, I think there is a major difference between the Holocaust and the Armenian Genocide [if you wish to call it that, I will agree] which in old Turkish was typically called "Kital" [from Katl'etmek, i.e., the killings]. There were armed uprisings by Armenian militia, supported by outside powers attacking the Ottoman Empire, most notably Russia and France, some of which pre-dated the mass killings/deportations of Armenians. It was during war in an area of the empire with no rule of law, and civilians as well as military were involved, so it was very different than the massively organised, planned and executed German genocide of Jews/Roma etc. Germany ruled the lands on which it carried out genocide with an iron fist, and was not cracking down on armed opposition. Such distinctions are important, but do not change the gravity or the sorrow of what the Armenians suffered. Please note, that hundreds of thousands of Turkish/Kurdish civilians also perished at the same time, in the same Geographical area.

Posted by: kodlu | Feb 29 2012 10:07 utc | 53

comparing historical events is futile anyway, if you do not analyse causes and try to avoid it next time around

Posted by: somebody | Feb 29 2012 10:24 utc | 54

Wife of spanish journalist who is still in homs has contradicted some of the official statements ( see also the spanish s guy pics on syriatruth website)

Posted by: HK | Feb 29 2012 11:39 utc | 55

For those of you who recognize it as a genocide, I applaud your objectivity and impartiality. By maintaining that principled stance, you haven't clouded your critical faculties to see things as they are....and were. For the rest, it appears your ideology is precluding you from calling a spade a spade. Did France, GB, the United States and other notable Imperialists have, and still continue to have, their fair share of massacres that can and should be labeled genocides? Yes. But we're talking about the Armenians here, so that's irrelevant. It's callous and ignoble to cast a shadow of doubt on what the Germans and Turks did to the Armenians, and when you get right down to it, the only reason there is any doubt is because the Armenians....those few that survived in comparison to the many who were exterminated, haven't ruthlessly flogged the world with their victimhood as the Zionists have done. You play directly into the Zionists hands by denying the full scope of the Armenian tragedy, and you don't even know it. How easily fooled you are by the deceptive.

Posted by: Morocco Bama | Feb 29 2012 12:10 utc | 56

ok. that explains the avaaz intervention insisting the rescue was done all for themselves.

"Selon la BBC, le photographe du Sunday Times a été évacué avec l'aide de combattants de l'Armée syrienne libre et de l'opposition. Le Foreign Office a confirmé l'évacuation du journaliste britannique."

Posted by: somebody | Feb 29 2012 12:16 utc | 57

Questioning the Syrian “Casualty List”

While the overwhelming perception of Syrian casualties thus far has been that they are primarily unarmed civilians deliberately targeted by government forces, it has become obvious these casualties are also likely to include: Civilians caught in the crossfire between government forces and opposition gunmen; victims of deliberate violence by armed groups; “dead opposition fighters” whose attire do not distinguish them from regular civilians; and members of the Syrian security forces, both on and off duty.
Pretty good debunking of the usual "western" narrative.

Posted by: b | Feb 29 2012 12:48 utc | 58

@44, you're so transparent it's not even funny. You do know that, don't you? It's as plain as day for anyone who has any sense of pattern recognition.

Anyway, yes, the Zionists collaborated with Hitler. To what extent and degree is up for debate, but a collaboration of any degree is an abomination. That doesn't preclude it being a genocidal holocaust by any stretch of the imagination.

Posted by: Morocco Bama | Feb 29 2012 12:52 utc | 59

Morocco Bama, I would also argue that they were justified as they actually saved Jews.

The tragedy is the German Jews Nazis killed were mainly German nationalist, lots of people did not know they were Jewish before the Nazis told them.

I am also told the favourite country to emigrate from the displaced persons camps after the war was the United States, if people were given a choice.

Another issue are the (non-)immigration policies during the war.

Posted by: somebody | Feb 29 2012 13:03 utc | 60

Here's an interesting perspective. I agree with much of what he says, but unlike him, I'm not a Plutocrat, so my goals and aspirations for this world are very much different, I'm sure. Ben, if you read it, see if something pops out for you like it did for me. It's a theme you and I have taken note of, and you have repeated it on multiple occasions. He alludes to it in this interview in a rather cryptic manner, but it's there if you pay close enough attention.

Doug Casey: Is a US-Iran War Inevitable?

Posted by: Morocco Bama | Feb 29 2012 13:40 utc | 61

"Patel said the group showed "staggering bravery," and the journalists in particular "have a larger role."

"They are witnesses to a crime -- witnesses to a gigantic crime," he said. "The crackdown on Syrian citizens and the shelling of Baba Amr, but also the very specific crime of targeting of journalists."


"Bouvier has refused to leave the country without guarantees from the Syrian government that she could keep her photos and recordings, the Local Coordination Committees of Syria said Tuesday."

this is ... you know what it reminds me of ...
attacking my big brother and then shouting murder
I did not have a fighting chance, but my mother would save me ...

Posted by: somebody | Feb 29 2012 14:25 utc | 62

@ 61, thanks for the read. I think no matter the reason, the USUKFA,AKA West, is chasing a decades old policy of hegemony in that part of the world. Any excuse will do nicely, thank you very much, for the continuation of resource hegemony needed by the corporate dominated West. All this "they're building a bomb" hysteria, is just the latest smokescreen to mask the real objectives of the malignant 1%. Any Sovereign nation that insists on too much autonomy, will be subverted and bulldozed by their hand maidens in the financial or military sectors. I think I'll now take off my tin-foil hat.

Posted by: ben | Feb 29 2012 14:44 utc | 63

@40, 42, 53, 56
I can understand how Turkey would deny that it was genocide, and I can understand how Armenians and other Christians would say that it was. I can also understand that if genocide is the correct term to describe the Holocaust, then Jews would object to that word being used to describe other mass killings. What I find despicable is the cynical use of the term by arrogant imperialists who use it to effect regime change against tyrants whom they suddenly find inconvenient.

Posted by: Watson | Feb 29 2012 14:46 utc | 64

People who try to limit discussion of any issue have an agenda,one obvious plank being they fear the truth.Liars hate the light of day,and if all claims of genocide,extermination,gassing what have you,are true,what harm is their in discussion,and why fear facts that bolster your claims.
Very simple logic,and only liars fear the truth.

Posted by: dahoit | Feb 29 2012 15:28 utc | 65

Anyone ever hear of the Patria incident?Where the exterminator Hitler let a shipload of French?Jews in 1940(allegedly before his alleged Wannsee? declaration-I'm starting not to believe anything spewed by these serial liars in their unintended Hitler rehabilitation scheme) sail to Palestine to help the Zionist project?(?)And when the British refused to let those passengers disembark,and said they had a choice of Mauritius or Trinidad in response to Arab resistance,the Hagganah blew up the ship and killed 260? fellow Jews and more wounded.And blamed the ship for being poorly built so that's why it sunk in 16 minutes trapping those dead.
Chutzpah,indeed,and a sign of the lengths these paranoid wacko nuts will go to to ensure their wacky state of insecurity,built on the corpses of millions.

Posted by: dahoit | Feb 29 2012 15:42 utc | 66

OT, but, for those who think the US has left Iraq with autonomy, there's this:

Posted by: ben | Feb 29 2012 15:45 utc | 67

This from penny on Syria:

Posted by: ben | Feb 29 2012 16:22 utc | 68

The "first semi-official military history" of the battle for Homs was linked to in #12, not #19, as I previously wrote. My bad. Here's the link:

After reading b's subsequent link re questioning the numbers . . . I note that almost all news sources are unquestioningly accepting the stated numbers from the groups associated with/supporting the Free Syria Army. The article linked in #12 claims a shadowy mob type group acts as the office of public relations for the SFA (said mob group most likely is run by Western intelligence). One should assume these numbers are entirely made up. B's linked report shows that when the little information made available by these rebel groups is investigated, they are nothing but bold lies. They included Palestinian victims on their death lists even though they were nowhere near the current fighting, for instance. We know these groups are lying so why should we believe anything they say? I also note that the author of the #12 article claims to be criticizing the Free Syria Army but subtly accepts their facts as true. Once again the few sources that seem to be critical are actually supporting the basic story.

Frankly, the Syrian government is probably the most truthful source here. They don't seem to have been caught in the same lies.

Posted by: Walter Wit Man | Feb 29 2012 16:48 utc | 69

Here's a picture of the Milan missile the "activists" evidently shot at the real Syrian Army, from within Homs:

Notice the cover story for Conway is getting more and more incredible. Now 23 "activists" were brutally killed trying to help Conway escape.

Also notice that our hero, Ms. Bouvier, is refusing to leave unless she is allowed to leave with her journalistic materials. Ha. That's a nice touch. And the rationale keeps shifting. Was this her concern when the Red Cross and Red Crescent showed up?

Posted by: Walter Wit Man | Feb 29 2012 17:03 utc | 70

The whole setup is vile. And yes I mean Avaaz.

The Syrian government claims that the Free Syrian Army destroyed houses so that the destruction could be filmed.

Like everybody else the Syrian government is full of propaganda. The problem is that with Avaaz filming, the Free Syrian Army has every incentive to do so. They have to stage news to make their struggle interesting for the media.

Posted by: somebody | Feb 29 2012 17:17 utc | 71

Assuming for a moment that most of the details we are getting in the news is disinformation . . . why the focus on Lebanon? Is it to drive a wedge between Iran, Lebanon, and Syria?

If there are supply lines to the rebels or escape routes, why don't they run through Israel? Or Turkey, as previously reported. Or the sea. Why are the journalists insisting on going to Lebanon and why is the "mob" that is running the PR and travel needs of the rebels going through Lebanon? The Thierry Meyssan piece at Voltaire takes pains to describe the Lebanese connection (again, trusting the word of the Free Syrian Army?).

Posted by: Walter Wit Man | Feb 29 2012 17:17 utc | 72

Perhaps the Turks should pass a law making it illegal to deny the French genocide against the Algerian native population between 1954 and 1962. Many of the French war criminals are no doubt still alive unlike the Turks who are held responsible for the Armenian "Genocide".

BTW, Votaire Net is reporting that Syria is holding 18 French prisoners including 12 French soldiers. Whoops! At first I thought it might be a reference to Bouvier but it seems not.

Posted by: blowback | Feb 29 2012 17:19 utc | 73


How do you know the Syrian government is engaging in lies? Because the Western media told us? Because Western officials told us?

In fact, we haven't caught the Syrian government lying and instead it appears to be telling the truth. Syrian television showed images of huge weapons and explosives being discovered last Fall, signifying outside support, and the Western media ignored it and called it lies, etc. Well, these recent reports (like Thierry Meyssan's report), prove Syria was not lying.

On the other hand we have caught the rebels and the Western governments and media lying like sacks of shit. They are faking videos! They are lying about casualty figures. This very reporter that this current hubbub is all about was seen with a known perp actor in the video that purportedly shows her wounded in Homs. Obviously, the video is most likely fake.

Yet even the reasonable people still want to pretend like "both sides" are engaging in lies? Well, one side is disproportionately powerful and disproportionately lying . . . and it ain't the Syrians.

Posted by: Walter Wit Man | Feb 29 2012 17:26 utc | 74

@66, what on God's green earth does that have to do with Sarkozy and the Armenian genocide legislation in France? What lengths will you, and others, go to in support of your myopic and pedantic hatred of the Zionists that it must be interjected into every discussion whether it be something as innocuous as what someone had for breakfast to the color of Obama's underwear...when he's wearing any? Seriously, stop. Get a grip. It reminds me of the Saturday Night Live skit about the Chicago Fans. All they could talk about were Da Bears. They had to keep repeating it because it consumed almost every waking moment of their day.....and their dreams. Same goes for some of you except it's Da Jews. Crikey!

Da Jews.....erm...Bears

Posted by: Morocco Bama | Feb 29 2012 17:37 utc | 75

How do you know the Syrian government is engaging in lies?

Maybe because Governments lie? Or you think only some Governments lie....namely the ones you don't like?

Posted by: Morocco Bama | Feb 29 2012 17:45 utc | 76

Did I say I "liked" the Syrian government Morocco Bama? I only noted that it appears to be telling the truth in this instance.

Nice deflection and straw man argumentation. Do you have a comment about the substantive facts or do you just engage in dishonest argumentation like this?

If Syria is indeed a victim of a foreign sponsored attack, as seems probable, why do they have to lie?

Let's make a ledger of lies. The Syrian government should be the first source we look at because it has proven to be telling the truth whereas the rebels and the West have been caught lying repeatedly and shamelessly. That's the logical thing to do.

But you don't seem to be very interested in logic.

Posted by: Walter Wit Man | Feb 29 2012 17:58 utc | 77

Walter Wit Man, if you need a police state to govern, it is very likely you cannot afford the truth ...

Posted by: somebody | Feb 29 2012 18:05 utc | 78

Somebody, that sound nice but is almost meaningless. They were governing just fine until the West decided to attack them.

What would the U.S. do if rebels, funded by American enemies, were staging in the suburbs, assassinating government officials and engaging in terrorism, and firing anti-tank missiles from within these suburbs? Yeah, I think the U.S. would be far more brutal than the Syrian government. Furthermore, the rebels have shady ties to criminals and terrorists and are alleged to be holding journalists as human shields and shooting civilians who attempt to leave.

What government in the world would not view this as a threat?

Plus, this is not an organic revolution that indicates the government lost its mandate. Hell, only about 10% of Americans approve of their Congress and Assad is probably not that much less popular than Obama.

Nah. Syria is a target. Part of this is a huge psychological operation meant to demonize Syria and Assad. You are a perfect representation of this in action . . . applying faulty logic in an effort to propagandize and support the Western war crimes against Syria and others.

Posted by: Walter Wit Man | Feb 29 2012 18:13 utc | 79

@77, all I did was respond to that one sentence I isolated, and if you review it, somebody already provided you with the answer to your question before you asked it when he/she said:

Like everybody else the Syrian government is full of propaganda.

The operative phrase there is "like everybody else."

IMO, Syria has every reason in the world to lie right now, and I wouldn't blame them, so an equally valid case can be made that they are lying for those very reasons.

And for the record, I had this to say about Syria per the Wayback Machine:

Nah, they're not going to invade Syria, under any pretext. It's too much like Egypt in that regard, and they never would have invaded Egypt. They'll try an Egypt-like scenario, but Syria's demographic is not the same as Egypt's, so it will fail. They will find other ways to try to destabilize and neutralize Syria, for sure, but invasion/occupation will not be one of them.

Posted by: Morocco Bama | Oct 3, 2011 11:18:12 AM | 4

I still stand by that.

Posted by: Morocco Bama | Feb 29 2012 18:14 utc | 80

"I still stand by that."

Ha. You stand by that as facts are proving you totally wrong?

Did you see the link above where Thierry Meyssan reports that 13 French soldiers have been captured? So who has been lying about foreign troops and who has been telling the truth?

And do you really believe that the rebels are an organic group that revolted on its own? Have you seen the weaponry they have? Have you seen the assassinations and terrorist attacks? Have you seen how well organized and media friendly they are? They evidently are strong enough they have a fake video propaganda arm as well.

Time to put on the bib because someone is eating crow!

Posted by: Walter Wit Man | Feb 29 2012 18:27 utc | 81

Sorry for jumping in here like this
but, I've had an issue all along with the pics of Colvin and then I stumbled across another one

except they are the same photos
but her dead husband is in it this time
what the hell
Marie Colvin says "spook" every which way one looks at it
Who ever she is. whatever her name may really be

I don't know a darn thing about photo shopping but, if anyone can shed some light or share their thoughts I would appreciate it

As for Bouvier, who ever she is, whatever the agenda is with her
She had two opportunities to leave... she didn't
And for a person with a broken femur or shattered depending on the news this is unbelievable

Posted by: Penny | Feb 29 2012 18:32 utc | 82

Re: 31 -- LINK for transcript for the NewsHour News Wrap covering Syria among other items. Video at same link.

Only the doctor seen in previous videos is on this one, not the fighter with various wounds. The child in the wreckage is shown covered in dust and debris from the waist down and later with a small amount of blood on the side of his face. From the transcript:

We have a report on the ongoing assault on Homs and the world's response, narrated by Jonathan Miller of Independent Television News.
JONATHAN MILLER: The images coming out of Homs are shocking. This little boy is alive. He looks like an earthquake victim, but this is a manmade disaster, his home hit by a rocket. The boy is disabled. His legs are paralyzed. He couldn't run.

Dr. Mahmoud Al-Mahmoud, one of the humanitarian heroes in Homs, appeals again for help. "We're being butchered here," he says.

Posted by: jawbone | Feb 29 2012 18:38 utc | 83

sorry Walter Mit Man, it is legimitate to get rid of your government if you do not like it ....

Posted by: somebody | Feb 29 2012 18:58 utc | 84

Jawbone, do you have the link to the previous videos showing the doctor (on the NewsHour link they identify him as a "humanitarian hero" Dr. Mahmoud Al-Mahmoud)?

I'm not sure of the exact particulars of how to research this, but from my experience at 9/11 truth places, it can be really helpful to analyze these pictures closely (for instance the Let's Roll forums has good image/video analysis).

I think the critical step is getting video software that can capture every frame. It would be helpful to get some screen shots of these perps. Especially their ears. The "injured" actor seems to have easily recognizable ears and he definitely seems seems like it would be easy to really pin him down as being a fake.

All these videos have indications of being fake and I bet further visual research will really bear fruit. The child is really calm in that NewsHour video and I wonder how he could have survived when everything around him was destroyed in the way it was. Pretty lucky timing to have a cameraman right there as they pulled the boy from the rubble.

Posted by: Walter Wit Man | Feb 29 2012 19:04 utc | 85

Ha. You stand by that as facts are proving you totally wrong?

The thread that came from was a thread in which b claimed the same treatment that was afforded Libya will be afforded Syria. It's not the same treatment, there is no invasion by NATO, and there will be no invasion by NATO or the U.S. They will, and are, attempting to destabilize the regime, but by insinuating themselves in a conflict that's been brewing under the surface for years. Surely you can't pretend that all is well and good and has been in Syria? There would be nothing for outside forces to drive a wedge into if that were the case. The conflict that raged under Senior never died, it was subdued with some pacifying policies....the social contract.....and Junior has undone that, and now he's made himself vulnerable to attack by the very forces that led him to undue those policies. Syria will fall when Iran is attacked and the Mullahs are annihilated and/or neutered. It won't be the other way around.

Posted by: Morocco Bama | Feb 29 2012 19:08 utc | 86

Sorry somebody . . . . sometimes what the New York Times reports and what the U.S. government claims is not the truth. In fact, an intelligent observer would be highly suspicious of the claims about the *organic* rebel uprising in Syria (and indeed the entire region).

Why do I get the impression you don't care about the truth and instead would rather battle personalities. Any comment about the rebels faking the numbers and faking the videos?

What does that tell you that the people you support have been nailed for engaging in massive propaganda? Did you even blink an eye as you ignored that and instead simply cast aspersions on those that are duly skeptical?

Do you care about the facts at all?

Posted by: Walter Wit Man | Feb 29 2012 19:14 utc | 87

Let the equivocation begin! Oh, the French troops caught on Syrian soil were not a NATO force, even though France is part of NATO, because they didn't have the proper papers or blah blah blah blah

Whatever. The West, through its agents, assets, and proxies--is attacking Syria.

Admit it.

And I don't know what was going on in Syria before--just like you don't know. Almost EVERYTHING we know comes from known propagandists from the West. People that I can see are clearly lying right now. I wouldn't be surprised if Assad is demonstrably better than say Obama. How many people does Syria imprison and how many does the U.S. imprison? How much does the U.S. spend on spying on its citizens vs. Syria? I don't know but I suspect the propaganda that the West has been spreading is totally wrong.

Posted by: Walter Wit Man | Feb 29 2012 19:22 utc | 88

Look even Walter Man, even the Syrian government admits as much

Posted by: somebody | Feb 29 2012 19:36 utc | 89

As long as Assad has the support of more that two thirds of the population, any takeover or revolt can't be called legitimate.
The 18 french soldiers caught on syrian soil strenghtens his case. Of course he has to crush the army defectors, al-quaida, allawite and western (french army) individuals that constitute the rebels, as any government would. That is not to say there veren't peaceful demonstrations, what he is fighting are these armed groups.

Posted by: Alexander | Feb 29 2012 19:41 utc | 90

s/allawite/Takfirist even.

Posted by: Alexander | Feb 29 2012 19:52 utc | 91

are you sure it is true, Alexander? Anybody can say anything on twitter or on a blog :-))

Posted by: somebody | Feb 29 2012 20:00 utc | 92

I bet the "Syrian uprising" will be ended in at most a week.

Posted by: Alexander | Feb 29 2012 20:04 utc | 93

@Walter Wit Man #72, regarding Lebanon's peculiar role:

these are just two articles, dating 2007, of new dynamics of radicalism in Lebanon after the Syria-Saudi relations breakdown and the failed Israel aggression, which might shed some light on the subject, although I'm sure there is more recent reporting on it:

Lebanon bending under extremist challenge - by Mahan Abedin

Loose Saudi cannons in Lebanon - by Sami Moubayed

Posted by: claudio | Feb 29 2012 20:36 utc | 94

@ Posted by: Morocco Bama | Feb 29, 2012 2:08:11 PM | 86

"there is no invasion by NATO, and there will be no invasion by NATO or the U.S."

How can you be so sure about that? Besides, Turkey is a NATO member state.

Posted by: peter radiator | Feb 29 2012 20:56 utc | 95

well I guess they would not plead for humanitarian access to an area in Homs if they intended to invade

plus they have to solve the Koran burning issue first

Posted by: somebody | Feb 29 2012 21:34 utc | 96

The rebels* are proxies of NATO (i.e. the West). They are trained, funded, supplied, supported, and directed by the West (along with the Gulf Coast junior partners). The U.S. coalition is providing diplomatic support, psychological operations and using its controlled media as a weapon.

In other words the invasion has already occurred. Time to eat crow.

Those activist protesters that put down their protest signs and are now shooting anti tank missiles come courtesy of the West. How else do you explain the massive funding and organization, etc?

*or as they have laughingly been called in the mainstream press, "activists"

Posted by: Walter Wit Man | Feb 29 2012 21:35 utc | 97

Walter Man, do you think it might be possible that there are activists, protesters, armed resistance, sectarian trouble makers, terrorists, foreign secret service operators in Syria at the same time?

Could the accusation to be funded by foreign powers be used to discredit political opponents if true or not?

Could Bashar Assad be described as a proxy of Russia and Iran? Or maybe China?

And, by the way, who funds you?

Anyways, I think Bashar Assad did manage to survive for now:

Posted by: somebody | Feb 29 2012 21:57 utc | 98

I again have access to LexisNexis here at University of Montana, Mansfield Library, if anyone needs me to look up something for them...

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Feb 29 2012 22:06 utc | 99

Hey Penny,

Great posts. You clearly found an instance of a photoshopped image with Mary Colvin.

To me it's like the photoshoppers tried to have both her and her husband stand on the ledge the guys appear to be sitting on. But even her position doesn't look right and her husband doesn't fit at all.

And when someone says "don't bother" . . . "move along" that tells me you are on the right track.

You should check out the analysis of faked pictures and fake identities here:

It seemed weird to me at first but now that I've dug into the details of many of the images we are shown I see the real wisdom in being able to analyze images critically and skeptically.

Posted by: Walter Wit Man | Feb 29 2012 22:09 utc | 100

next page »

The comments to this entry are closed.