Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
March 03, 2012

How Avaaz Is Sponsoring Fake War Propaganda From Syria

There are fake video reports coming out of Syria and we have good reason to believe that these are at least sponsored by the U.S. Avaaz foundation.

Let me recommend to watch this video. A Syrian citizen journalist "Danny" is preparing for a live call by CNN's Anderson Cooper.

The area is quite. Nothing really happens, no shots are heard until he is on live TV. Then he suddenly screams of mortar attacks and "200 death in the last 3 hours" and the sound of shots is played in the background. It is all Wag The Dog part II.

The "Danny" guy is a partner of Khalid Abu Salah who's various fake videos of him being wounded we wrote about here. You can see them together in this video with "Danny" playing the panicked civilian asking for help and Khaled Abu Salah again playing a wounded person.

As As'ad AbuKhalil wrote yesterday:

It seems that Syrian regime had agents among the rebels; or it seems that the Syrian regime obtained a trove of video footage from Baba Amru. They have been airing them non-stop. They are quite damning. They show the correspondent or witness (for CNN or from Aljazeera) before he is on the air: and the demeanor is drastically different from the demeanor on the air and they even show contrived sounds of explosions timed for broadcast time. I have to say that Aljazeera and the affiliated Ikhwan media win the award for the largest volume of lies in this crisis. Their lies have been rather helpful to the Syrian regime which now fills its airtime with exposing the lies and exaggerations of the Ikhwan-led Syrian opposition.

PS This is really scandalous. It shows the footage prior to Aljazeera reports: they show fake bandages applied on a child and then a person is ordered to carry a camera in his hand to make it look like a mobile footage. It shows a child being fed what to say on Aljazeera.

(I haven't yet found the video As'ad AbuKhalil describes in his last paragraph. Please drop a link to it in the comments in case you find it.) The video with the not-wounded wounded child is here (hat tip to sate3) and with English subtitles here. The video shows Kahled Abu Salah preparing the child for its testimony on AlJazeerah and the actual AlJazeerah appearance.

This whole rebellion, at least in the western media, is much made from such video propaganda. Notice that the equipment for such TV stunts has come through Avaaz, a progressive U.S. activist foundation that originally did global online clicktivism but has now become an operation that is smuggling journalists and equipment into and out of Syria:

First off Avaaz sent in hundreds of thousands of dollars' worth of communications equipment – satellite phones and internet connections known as BGANs – that gave the protesters a link to the outside world.

As with earlier Arab spring engagements in Tunisia and Libya, they realised that equipment alone was not enough: the protesters needed to know how to use it if they were to be effective. So Avaaz sent in trainers who could give grounding in how to use the satphones as well as basic training in citizen journalism.
...
Reports coming from Avaaz-trained citizen journalists in Homs and other key conflict zones, channelled through the Avaaz communications hub outside the country, has been a major source of information on the uprising and the regime's bloody response, used by news outlets around the world.

That would be those fake propaganda reports by "Danny" and Khaled Abu Salah and their like. Notice that Khaled Abu Salah was also in the video of the wounded western journalist Edith Bouviers who Avaaz had smuggled into and later out of Syria. So there definitely is a connection between Avaaz and these fake reporters. So where would you guess the rather expensive equipment "Danny" and Khalid are using and which enables them to appear with their fakes on CNN and AlJazeerah is coming from?

Avaaz says on its about page that it "is wholly member-funded." While the web-page has a donation button, it is unclear what this "member-funded" thingy means. According to its latest 990 form the "Avaaz Foundation is comprised of two members: Res Publica (U.S.) Inc and Moveon.org Civic Action." So these are the two members funding the "member-funded" Avaaz? From the 990 form, which seems redacted, it is not clear to me where the money to Avaaz, over $6 million in 2010, is actually coming from or where it is going. Could this be another U.S. government funded non-government organization like the National Endowment for Democracy or the International Republican Institute which act as fronts for the CIA and other secret services?

Posted by b on March 3, 2012 at 14:21 UTC | Permalink

Comments
« previous page

@ Walter Wit Man # 97, the so called ‘oppo’ in the US has to uphold new, founding myths.

To pick some varied figures:

-- from the religious (Chris Hedges), to the prudent low profile wooden and measured Democrat (Amy Goodman) to the somewhat flash and rambunctious journo (Matt Taibbi) to the established elder critic (Chomsky), to those who discuss economy (Naomi Klein) to supposed security experts, etc. - more - I’m only familiar with a few such famous figures...

all are ‘allowed’ and know very well where the barriers stand. They make their living from going so far but no further. They are poster adults who serve as guides for the discontented and puzzled, get them to buy books etc. and turn their minds to a very limited set of questions or issues.

Posted by: Noirette | Mar 5 2012 17:05 utc | 101

I mistakenly left out the last sentence - which was - you knew all this already.

Posted by: Noirette | Mar 5 2012 17:08 utc | 102

@ 93 Hannah K. O'Luthon

Good job, finally some "bread & butter" case that can explain the motivation behind this campaign.

Posted by: Alexander | Mar 5 2012 17:17 utc | 103

Thanks Noirette. And yes I do know this already, but it has taken me longer to identify some of the perps than others (like Chomsky).

But I think you may be correct on all those perps you mention. As I mention up thread, Thierry Meyssan may also be another left wing gatekeeper, even though he may be reporting what is closest to the truth about Syria.

That's the problem with some of these left-wing perps. We hunger for a different perspective and Democracy Now and Chomsky and Hedges et al. seem to be the only ones offering it so even if I think they are perps I'm drawn to most of their message.

But the biggest secret is the little opposition we do have isn't even real. The fascists are completely in charge.

What's interesting is finding these left-wing perps in the blogosphere. You know many of these "progressive" bloggers are filling Chris Hedges' role in the internet. Surely Kos and Daily Kos are on the list, as well as Digby and Booman. Those three I'm almost positive are spooky perps and my suspect list is growing.

Posted by: Walter Wit Man | Mar 5 2012 17:49 utc | 104

I actually like and admire Chris Hedges and read him whenever he pops up on links like on MOA.

Meyssan is an enigma to me - I should know all about him but don’t - of course in France he is decried as a ‘conspiracist’ - etc. - hmmm maybe I should go read Voltaire Net. It is always easier to pierce BS that is far away. Certainly he was one of the first in France to call FOUL on the 9/11 official narrative.

Posted by: Noirette | Mar 5 2012 18:08 utc | 105

Noirette, I too was swept up in a wave of liberal fellow feeling for C Hedges: an articulate lefty speaking truth to power and all that. Then he appeared on CBC's premier talk show, Sunday Morning w/ Michael Enright, and I smelled a rat.

Posted by: yes_but | Mar 5 2012 18:17 utc | 106

I used to admire Chris Hedges as well. But his actions regarding Occupy protests and his article about the "black bloc" ( http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_cancer_of_occupy_20120206/ ) is what led me to have suspicions and to analyze his work.

His article seemed out of character to me because he had previously encouraged people to resist the fascist state any way they could because the situation was so dire. He even said, to paraphrase, all acts of resistance are needed, he called for confrontation with the police using civil disobedience, and got arrested himself. Then, when people followed his advice, he turned on them in a vicious way, basically advocating they be turned over to the fascist police state for committing the wrong type of civil disobedience. He is purposely fomenting division within the left and focusing on protester "violence", when there isn't any of significance, and therefore justifying the massive and brutal police suppression of the protests.

He also uses subtle mindfucking techniques (which I only recently became aware of through my research in acid fascist cults and sex cults). I firmly believe there is a psychological reason for all his good vs. evil rhetoric. In fact, this rhetoric is in the most recent piece quoted above too! He says: "[partisanship] reduces the world to black and white, good and evil." So in this case Hedges is saying reducing concepts to black and white is simplistic but Hedges does this all the time himself! Hedges often projects like this. It's odd and something I never noticed back when I like him.

But mostly it's been my research into fake news and fake videos, like we are discussing on this thread, and this video that has convinced me Chris Hedges is a perp. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOde31QYbI0 Look at the production values of that video. Look at the black v. white imagery (setting up a perfect juxtaposition between the pure "white" protesters like Hedges, vs. the Anarchist hooligan "black" protesters). Plus, the scene looks staged. At around :52 a protester slips out of his handcuffs as if they were not really arresting him and only pretending. Also, note the presence of white masks at the protest, which is ironic because Hedges later uses the fact the black bloc covers their faces against them (is subsequent article after the "Cancer" article once again uses the imagery of a white masked protester [a "good" protester]). Also note that Hedges is giving an amplified speech in front of the white house under a pure falling white snow (the white theme). Hedges is giving a pretty speech with apparent police support.

Hedges is fucking with people's heads because he is saying resist, like he is, but he gets special treatment and it's an impossible standard to impose on fellow protesters. The police in his protest were friendly and nice so it's harsh to second guess protesters who are facing police brutality.

I'm still trying to figure out Messyan as well. He's reported some crucial facts--lots of them contradict the MSM and seem legit . . . . but I'm suspicious because even though he's critical he does backstop the existence of these journalists in the rebel areas of Syria that they claimed to be reporting from, which I am a bit dubious about.

Posted by: Walter Wit Man | Mar 5 2012 18:38 utc | 107

not so fast my friends, chris hedges usffers from that ailment the liberal bourgeois intellectuals like to hide, he is frightened, very frightened & because he has had more than a passing relationship with the elites, he knows how mad they are - i see that more than i do any hidden agenda & because we live in very dark times it is quite difficult for l b intellectual to escape a certain messianic bent

Posted by: remembererringgiap | Mar 5 2012 18:41 utc | 108

I'm sorry. At 1:52 the protester slips out of his loose handcuffs. The people in Oakland did not get handcuffs like that.

Posted by: Walter Wit Man | Mar 5 2012 18:42 utc | 109

Is it likely a family remains in power since 1971 by general consent?
What is the source of income of an intellectual?


Posted by: somebody | Mar 5, 2012 2:46:37 AM | 84
============

oh yes...especially if they provide good govt...look at the british royalty...been in power for centuries...

But i can understand why foreigners hate the Syrian govt...it is independent of western control...thats the real issue here your faux concern for syria conceals.

Posted by: brian | Mar 5 2012 21:01 utc | 110

'Meyssan is an enigma to me - I should know all about him but don’t - of course in France he is decried as a ‘conspiracist’ - etc. - hmmm maybe I should go read Voltaire Net.'

Meyssa became known to me thru his work on 9-11: Hunt the Boeing : test your perceptions website...and subsequent books: The Big Lie and Pentagate...and became persona non grata in the US.
yes you should go read Voltaire net...

Posted by: brian | Mar 5 2012 21:37 utc | 111

WWM @ 97 -- Your quote from Chris Hedges doesn't read to me as you interpret it:

"It is we who legitimize the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, suicide bombers and radical jihadists." [Uh, Ahmadinejad has suicide bombers and jihadis? Really Hedges you fucking stooge?]

Hedges is not saying that Ahmadinejad has "suicide bombers and jihadis"; he is saying that Western, especially US, actions give legitimacy to the three actors, as separate entities and not necessarily working together. Iran's president has probably been helped internally by the often irrational Western criticism; and many agree that US actions have inspired many to join and become suicide bombers and radical jihadists.

Do you have other proof or even circumstantial evidence Hedges is a CIA operative...or even CIA dupe? Thnx.

Posted by: jawbone | Mar 5 2012 21:38 utc | 112

It is obvious by now that there are a lot of fake videos, perhaps made with the aid of Avaaz. There are a lot of videos which were simply not true, and in looking at them, it was obvious.

The question remains how illusory is the image given? my answer is that the situation is exaggerated. To imagine that the government forces did not treat recaptured Baba Amr harshly is unlikely. Stories of people being shot out of hand are being multiplied by ten or more.

The inhabitants of Baba Amr supported the revolt. What is not certain is whether the fighters were local, or countrymen.

Compare with Falluja, and it's the same thing or less. In Falluja, everyone who remained was killed, here no.

Posted by: alexno | Mar 5 2012 22:05 utc | 113

I would love to see someone do some investigative journalism on Wissam Tarif himself. My observer view of Avaaz is similar to others: that they're all over the place, with no real central office dictating their positions. In this case, it would appear Tarif is leading their Syria work, and right or wrong, he's got an obvious agenda (and has lied about his nationality, from what I can tell; to what ends?)

Posted by: myob | Mar 5 2012 22:26 utc | 114

Jawbone,

I'm sorry to mix up Chris Hedges in this post. This is about fake war propaganda in Syria. There now is conclusive proof of this.

I believe there is also propaganda aimed at the American people more directly, and I suspect Hedges of being involved, along with quite a few others. This is more speculative so I don't want to mix it up with the more conclusive proof.

And re my interpretation on Hedge's statement, yes I shouldn't have said it was Ahmadinejad's suicide bombers, but this doesn't change my interpretation of his comment. He's putting Ahmadinejad in the same category as suicide bombers and "jihadis" (which is probably offensive itself--and coming from a liberal religious guy to boot). And he's alleging Iran is doing this. What suicide bombers is Iran sponsering? What jihad wars? The U.S. is far more guilty of those crimes than Iran is. Hedges is demonizing Iran under the guise of being antiwar.

See what I mean? He's playing mind games with us.

And this is my only "evidence". It's informed speculation. The same thing I used (as well as others, like those on this site) to figure out that Danny from Syria was a fraud. It's the same logic I used figure out Marie Colvin is a fraud. The same logic I used to figure out Tyler Hicks is a fraud.

Hedges is more clever and he has a more established liberal cover. But he's being pressed into action to play mind games with liberals and Occupy and to limit the potency of protest this spring as our foreign wars heat up and the economy gets worse.

Posted by: Walter Wit Man | Mar 5 2012 22:50 utc | 115

fwiw - i just started reading hedge's book 'war is a force...' after picking up a copy for fifty cents and about choked on this line

I respect and admire the qualities of professional soldiers. Without the determination of soldiers like General Wesley K.Clark, we might not have intervened in Kosova or Bosnia."

i tend to agree w/ r'giap's assessment though and recognize the utility in many of hedge's polemics and critiques while not trying to see him as something he is not

Posted by: b real | Mar 6 2012 0:42 utc | 116


'
With the backing of Russia - still traumatized by her experience with the Islamic Emirate of Ichkeria - and China - eager to see the Syrian government protect its citizens -, the Syrian National Army stormed the stronghold on 9 February after all mediation attempts had failed. Defeated, the Free "Syrian" Army soon entrenched itself in an area of approximately 40 hectares, which was immediately sealed off by loyalist forces; it steadily withered and eventually fell on 1 March. In retaliation, the remaining armed elements of the Emirate massacred the Christians in the two villages they ripped through on their way to exile in Lebanon.
Throughout this period, major media have served to veil the sordid and cruel reality of this Emirate, and to replace it with a made-up story of revolution and repression. A special effort was made to create the impression that thousands of civilians were being shelled by the Syrian military artillery or the air force. At the heart of this propaganda construct, we find a press center used by the satellite channels of the Coalition: Al-Jazeera (Qatar), Al-Arabiya (Saudi Arabia), France24 (France), BBC (UK) and CNN (USA) under the coordination of Israeli journalists.'

http://www.voltairenet.org/The-journalist-combatants-of-Baba

Posted by: brian | Mar 6 2012 1:02 utc | 117

@brian - quite fascinating, but I don't understand Meyssan's role

We will base ourselves on the videos broadcast by Western and Gulf TV channels, the testimonies of survivors recorded by the Voltaire Network office in Syria, and the documents which were found in the Emirate’s press center.
[...]
I took part in this collective effort. In actual fact, a French journalist declined the first opportunity to get out with the help of the International Red Cross and the Syrian Red Crescent. Suspecting a trap, she refused to accept the extended hand. My mission was two-fold. In the first place, to establish contact with my compatriots, brief them about the political and military context, and facilitate their hand over to a French official to be placed under diplomatic protection. Secondly, I had to report to those who are working for peace in this region regarding the exact sequence of events and assess the good will of the actors.

But who assigned Meyssan his "mission"?

Posted by: claudio | Mar 6 2012 1:59 utc | 118

hannan thanks for the link@ 93

Posted by: annie | Mar 6 2012 2:48 utc | 119

yes_but
*Noirette, I too was swept up in a wave of liberal fellow feeling for C Hedges: an articulate lefty speaking truth to power and all that. Then he appeared on CBC's premier talk show, Sunday Morning w/ Michael Enright, and I smelled a rat.*

whereas wikileaks , feted by times, forbes, economists, war street journal, nyt, ..., remains the premier go to source ?

Posted by: denk | Mar 6 2012 2:56 utc | 120

I have been reading Hedges for a long time and I admire his capacity to capture the nuances here inside the belly of the beast. Hedges has spent a considerable time in war zones too; and he is under no illusions concerning this sadistic and Mammon-based elite of ours, or about what the 1% is capable of doing. He has understood the connection between states of real despair and societal anger in the people here, and also studied the masses who have turned toward the "redemptive violence" of religious fundamentalism, and the danger of this. More than any other American investigative journalist I can think of, Hedges has made the deeper issues of political culture in this country, his focus. He's talked lucidly about the illusions and myths, and the displacement of a literate world, with a world of spectacle.

Chris Hedges is no lightweight, and I think his writing deserves closer attention. He's made it clear that his personal commitment to the Occupy movement is complete; and as far as I can tell, he believes that acts of civil disobedience make a fundamental difference to the way things will turn out for us as moral beings; and more than ever these acts of conscience matter greatly .

Individual conscience and collective courage, messianism, paranoid embolisms, night sweats and sleeplessness; sometimes the dissolving, digestive juices, in the belly of this beast just seem too corrosive. But I'd like to stand beside Chris Hedges on any day, or hear him speak about all that may befall us. And if we should fall silent or be taken down; I hope in the end, we will be in solidarity with other good people, and we will still possess our humanity, which is the better part of valor.

Posted by: Copeland | Mar 6 2012 3:20 utc | 121

But who assigned Meyssan his "mission"?


Posted by: claudio | Mar 5, 2012 8:59:03 PM | 118

what do you mean assigned? Hes a journalist based now IN syria. What dont you understand about his 'role'? You sound suspicious needlessly...

Posted by: brian | Mar 6 2012 3:26 utc | 122

brian,

You need to be more suspicious. Even if someone appears to be on your "side" you need to ask questions.

As I wrote previously, Messyan is probably reporting the closest thing to the truth, but I have some doubts about him (as being a "liberal" gatekeeper).

It's a fair question to ask who was paying him. He appears to be a stringer. He started Voltaire Network. So who knows how that all works . . . maybe he is self funded, etc., and is able to take risks and get the scoop and make money off writing books or hopes to make money off it in the future. Maybe he is paid by someone to be there. Maybe he has enough money and it's not that expensive to report from Syria. It's actually a good line of inquiry because we have so few sources in Syria we should trust and we have to review all assumptions. There is an amazing amount of lies which tells me something big is afoot.

Likewise, questioning Putin's motives is no different than questioning Obama's or Romney's motives, it's not "trolling", its being duly skeptical.

I keep finding out I am not cynical enough.

Posted by: Walter Wit Man | Mar 6 2012 4:45 utc | 123

Copeland,

Thanks for the comment! Like Hedges, you pack in a bunch of stuff in your writing. So I'm going to respond to it line by line (thanks again!):

"I have been reading Hedges for a long time and I admire his capacity to capture the nuances here inside the belly of the beast. [agreed--he's nuanced and subtle, or is it misleading and chameleon-like? Like Obama.] Hedges has spent a considerable time in war zones too; and he is under no illusions concerning this sadistic and Mammon-based elite of ours, or about what the 1% is capable of doing. [In keeping with the spirit of this thread I would like to see more details of said war zone experience. Also, he's been "arrested" protesting and I'm not impressed as I see it as a way to establish his guru status rather than sincere rebellion.] He has understood the connection between states of real despair and societal anger in the people here, and also studied the masses who have turned toward the "redemptive violence" of religious fundamentalism, and the danger of this. [I suspect Mr. Hedges is indeed a student of mass mind fucking.] More than any other American investigative journalist I can think of, Hedges has made the deeper issues of political culture in this country, his focus. [He studies the American people like an animal to control.] He's talked lucidly about the illusions and myths, and the displacement of a literate world, with a world of spectacle. [He's a magician practicing mind fucking and like most perps he can't help but talk about it all the time.]

Chris Hedges is no lightweight, and I think his writing deserves closer attention. [Agreed. We need to out these perps.] He's made it clear that his personal commitment to the Occupy movement is complete; and as far as I can tell, he believes that acts of civil disobedience make a fundamental difference to the way things will turn out for us as moral beings; and more than ever these acts of conscience matter greatly. [He's lying. He's not sincere. He's telling people to commit civil disobedience and then yelling "NO, NOT THAT WAY DIPSHIT. Police, arrest that vandal, that cancer, he's messing up the purity of our protest and making us look bad." That's not calling us to be moral beings of conscience, or whatever, that's messing with our head like a tyrannical football coach.]

And then a lot of times Hedges just descends into meaningless platitudes and lazy dichotomies of Hope vs. Evil, Good vs. Bad. Look at the protest speech in front of the White House I link to above, his speech is filled with this hope crap. It's meaningless. But sounds good at times. He's a good writer.

He also pulls the crap where he correctly identifies the horrors of the fascist state. And this is why I used to like him! He does this well. Too well. I suspect that when he's doing this he isn't really warning us about the evils of the fascist state, he's threatening us. He's playing mind games and trying to terrorize people.

Check out this recent column. Hedges is "warning" us (really threatening us):

"The security and surveillance state has a vast arsenal and array of tools at its disposal. It operates in secret. It dissembles and lies. It hides behind phony organizations and individuals who use false histories and false names. It has millions of dollars to spend, the capacity to deny not only its activities but also its existence. Its physical assets honeycomb the country. It can wiretap, eavesdrop and monitor every form of communication. It can hire informants, send in clandestine agents, recruit members within the movement by offering legal immunity, churn out a steady stream of divisive propaganda and amass huge databases and clandestine operations centers. And it is authorized to use deadly force."

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/occupy_draws_strength_from_the_powerless_20120213/ (the whole thing is packed full of mindfucking propaganda--it's a doozy)

Hedges is trying to be a guru gatekeeper and he's establishing his bona fides by getting "arrested" and then dividing people and messing with people's minds.

Posted by: Walter Wit Man | Mar 6 2012 5:33 utc | 124

well said Copeland.

Posted by: lizard | Mar 6 2012 5:34 utc | 125

Meyssan's version of the events does not make sense. He has a record of being too imaginative, even if I liked his book on 9/11. He does not say that he is based in Syria now but that he was in Lebanon during the events, and indeed he has good friend in Lebanon and Syria. But he cannot speak Arabic fluently (if he could, he would have documented the fabricated videos and Gulf networks propaganda, since one year).

Posted by: HW | Mar 6 2012 8:46 utc | 126

i am genuinely amused at all the Hedges hate. so he's suspect because he advocates resistance, but not initiating violence and property damage? so he'll shout and not disperse, but won't throw Molotov cocktails, and that's not good enough for Walter. heh, what a freaking joke. let's be honest on what you're really about. he just dissed AIPAC. how dare anyone call them out for the violent, racist freaks that they are. and they are, you know. anyone catch Eric Cantor's speech at AIPAC a year or so ago? Cantor called all Arabs terrorists, and these freaks applauded. how dare anyone notice that they are the equivalent of aryan supremacists. it's only allowed to say such things about gentiles like the Bushies.

sorry, not buying it. got to say that i'm a fan of the man. been so since i caught him preaching that liberalism is dead. it's true, most everyone is bought off. and every attempt is made to destroy those who aren't. there is no left anymore, only shades of right. we have combined republican nationalism with democrat socialism to generate a bipartisan national socialism. anybody who's got the balls to recognize what is happening to us is OK by me. they don't have to agree with me on everything.

Posted by: Proton Soup | Mar 6 2012 9:08 utc | 127

actually there is a simple way to make Avaaz meaningless and do fundraising for your own favourite causes - it is called piggyback

1. create a website and a twitter account avaaz-watch or something like that
2. for every avaaz action create a page with avaaz in the title and the name of the campaign
3. name the charity of your choice involved in serious campaigns on the same topic, link to the campaing including a paypal button
or
4. explain why the avaaz campaign is rubbish and suggest better alternative causes (including paypal donate button)
5. write a 140 letter twitter entry on the subject and link to your page
6. ask your friends to link to your page ...
extend to facebook, google+, whatever you wish

anybody blackhat or whitehat?


Posted by: somebody | Mar 6 2012 10:20 utc | 128

before I forget, make sure everybody can contribute, do crowdsourcing ...

Posted by: somebody | Mar 6 2012 10:29 utc | 129

last note:

make it generic for similar scams. call it something like global-charity-watch/avaaz

Posted by: somebody | Mar 6 2012 10:35 utc | 130

kpfa mp3 - Letters and Politics, for February 8, 2012

Chris Hedges and Kristof Lopaur of Occupy Oakland debate black bloc, militancy and tactics.

Posted by: b real | Mar 6 2012 15:45 utc | 132

brian,

You need to be more suspicious. Even if someone appears to be on your "side" you need to ask questions.

...
I keep finding out I am not cynical enough.

Posted by: Walter Wit Man | Mar 5, 2012 11:45:51 PM | 123
=================================

fine, walt, lets start with you..who are you and why should anyone trust you? I know Meyssan far better over the past decade of his journalism than you who ive seen comment only the last couple of days..Meyssan has far more credibility...maybe in 10 years you will also be as credible....

Posted by: brian | Mar 6 2012 20:53 utc | 133

brian,

I've noticed that in your debate style you don't really debate the substance but instead you play dirty and impugn the motives of those you disagree with.

Meyssan's reporting (as well as the reporting of Ankhar Kochneva http://australiansforsyria.wordpress.com/2012/02/12/interview-with-ankhar-kochneva-writer-and-sole-foreign-journalist-permanently-living-in-syria/) conflicts dramatically with the reporting of another group of reporters (like Paul Conroy, Marie Colvin, Edith Bouvier, Tyler Hicks, etc.). One group is lying. I'm just using logic. I have no special skills in this regard.

I said I trusted Meyssan's reporting the most in this group of reporters. But there is no source I totally trust. The whole thing is fishy to me. I agree with that his earlier reporting about 9/11 etc. looks like it was good and I'm generally favorable to him . . . but I'm going to keep on being skeptical and follow my hunches and use logic.

Thanks for your concern . . . .

Posted by: Walter Wit Man | Mar 6 2012 21:31 utc | 134

@brian #122

what do you mean assigned? Hes a journalist based now IN syria. What dont you understand about his 'role'? You sound suspicious needlessly...

mine is a natural curiosity; Meyssan himself uses this term, "mission"; if I had to guess, I'd say he could be a Russian agent, or at least a source; nothing scandalous, doesn't detract from the quality of his work, but a role that is worth remembering when assessing his reportages; anyways, I read the article you linked with great interest

Posted by: claudio | Mar 6 2012 23:11 utc | 135

'impugn the motives of those you disagree with.'

isnt this what you are doing to Meyssan??? so why pass your behaviour off on me?

as for this:
'conflicts dramatically with the reporting of another group of reporters (like Paul Conroy, Marie Colvin, Edith Bouvier, Tyler Hicks, etc.). One group is lying. I'm just using logic. I have no special skills in this regard.'

LOL what? Colvin has a shady past with her accompanying KLA on their ventures...Colvn et all have no credibility with me...they may with you which only shows logic is not very good at discerning who is telling the truth.

Meyssan and Korchneva..they are more credible

Posted by: brian | Mar 6 2012 23:23 utc | 136

'mine is a natural curiosity; Meyssan himself uses this term, "mission"; if I had to guess, I'd say he could be a Russian agent'

another eg of poor judgement...please stop guessing and then basing yopur commentary on a guess that is clearly baseless.

Posted by: brian | Mar 6 2012 23:24 utc | 137

brian, we are all guessing all the time; and I'm not basing my commentary on a guess; I said I defined his narration of events fascinating, and I believe him more than any MSM journalist on Syria and probably any other matter as well;

BUT! it is he that spoke in terms of "mission", and in his reconstruction of events he seems well connected and well aware of intelligence services methods and techniques;

AND: it is he that says

I had to report to those who are working for peace in this region regarding the exact sequence of events

so after all he is quite transparent, too, it is just you that doesn't want to make some simple connections

I repeat, I don't find the idea of a connection with an intelligence agency condemning in itself; after all, part of their job is to understand what really happens on the ground;

Posted by: claudio | Mar 7 2012 0:24 utc | 138

Now brian's being intentionally obtuse--pretending not to understand what I'm saying.

LOL indeed. I don't think brian is interested in the truth and would rather play silly games.

brian,

I ask again? Why can't you debate the substance and why must you play dirty?

Who are you working for? It's a shame hacks like you have to disrupt what could be a fruitful debate.

too many trolls on this site. Good content by lots of people but the trolls run wild.

Posted by: Walter Wit Man | Mar 7 2012 0:31 utc | 139

'BUT! it is he that spoke in terms of "mission", and in his reconstruction of events he seems well connected and well aware of intelligence services methods and techniques;'

yes...so?

The idea that Meyssan may be an agent based on nothing but suspicion and 'logic' renders your own assessments less useful.

Meyssan is being smeared...by persons who are frankly unknown to me.

Posted by: brian | Mar 7 2012 2:14 utc | 140

@ somebody

"I do not blame people who do not want a family to rule for 40 years ..."


If we take that a face value you are validating a concocted narrative.
A false dichotomy
Will a so called democracy be an improvement?
You know with preselected candidates and everything controlled by the corporations and elite idiots.
Like in the US or Canada or Britian
Where we all get selection er election?
Or how about a theocracy, as has shown up in Libya
Is the situation better for the people?
Because the ruler for x number of years is gone and how they get "elections"
I am not endorsing a family run government, except for Britian whose royal family runs everything including the government...

The Syrian need to decide the fate of their own nation, without NATO's "help"
Bottom line, that is not what is going on in their nation

Posted by: Penny | Mar 7 2012 12:28 utc | 141

we are all unknown to each other; I'm not smearing Meyssan; all readers of this blog constantly pose questions regarding everything that goes on in this world; I don't understand why it's so difficult for you to simply accept a different view on this particular matter

moreover, I only expressed an opinion, and later a conjecture, after you insisted that someone tell you why Meyssan shouldn't be considered completely trustworthy;

and I clearly stated that my view of him is, on the whole, positive, in the sense that he is a source that it's worth listening to

so why should you start denouncing a non-existent smear campaign?

besides, all those I expressed are my personal opinions; you should directly ask b why he, in the first place, said he didn't trust Meyssan as a source for the arrests of French officials in Homs

Posted by: claudio | Mar 7 2012 12:31 utc | 142

my previous post obviously is directed at brian's #140

Posted by: claudio | Mar 7 2012 12:34 utc | 143

This article is cited by Alistair Crooke here:

http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/NC09Ak03.html

Posted by: Sophia | Mar 8 2012 20:33 utc | 144

the Crook article helps to make clear the US regime and EU servants aer backing another fundamentalist muslim group as they did in afganistan in 1980s..the salafists have publically stated they are happy to see 1/3 of syrians killed to get rid of the secular govt..they are receiving US funding arms and support.
I recall when it was enough to say palestinan aid might to go HAMAS for such groups in US to be put in jail..yet the US regime and its robot bureaucrats see no problem with arming and funding real terrroists with US taxpayers money

Posted by: brian | Mar 8 2012 20:54 utc | 145

@ somebody

"I do not blame people who do not want a family to rule for 40 years ..."
==============
'somebody' is supporting the US regime narrative. The people he sympathises with are salafists who do not want 40 more years of secular rule

Posted by: brian | Mar 8 2012 20:56 utc | 146

'moreover, I only expressed an opinion, and later a conjecture, after you insisted that someone tell you why Meyssan shouldn't be considered completely trustworthy; '

meyssan is completely trustworthy...unlike some persons, iveknown his work for years and years...Conjecture/theorising is the hobgoblin of little minds

All youve done is to have me conjecture what your game is, Claudio! to sow doubts and rob readers of a very shrewd journalist?

Posted by: brian | Mar 8 2012 20:58 utc | 147

brian, you are out of your mind; all I can do is record your statement that you've followed Meyssan for years and find him infallible; ok; but insulting me and attributing me dark aims for saying I had had a different impression after a casual reading is really over the top; you must be stressed and fatigued; there are more worthy enemies for a Paladin like you out in the blogosphere, and also some in the real world

Posted by: claudio | Mar 8 2012 23:53 utc | 148

if you are the "real" brian, of course

Posted by: claudio | Mar 8 2012 23:55 utc | 149

of course you aren't! you just reversing against me my arguments against slothrop!
b, could you check, please?

Posted by: claudio | Mar 9 2012 0:05 utc | 150

I'm sorry. At 1:52 the protester slips out of his loose handcuffs. The people in Oakland did not get handcuffs like that.

Posted by: Walter Wit Man | Mar 5, 2012 1:42:37 PM | 109

And that is because they are in DC NOT OAKLAND!! In DC, the police treat people who do civil disobedience in a respectful manner, the protesters pay their fine of $100 and are out of jail in a few hours. They are not made to stand in kettles for hours or sit on buses for hours without food or water or bathrooms. The protesters know exactly where to stand to get/not get arrested. I have stood with them on several occasions. I have not been arrested there because I do not think it is helpful - HOWEVER, I totally respect ALL non-violent direct actions. They are at least trying, and not hurting anyone, and since NOTHING, NOT ONE DAMN THING, HAS WORKED SO FAR, WHO AM I TO SAY WHAT NON-VIOLENT ACTIONS THEY SHOULD OR SHOULD NOT ENGAGE IN?? Hell, maybe one day the peaceful civil disobedience will work (it sure seemed to help out on the tarsands pipeline issue).

I happen to know some of the Veterans for Peace in that video... they are very sincere. Some of them have paid a horrible price for following their conscience. And the ones I don't know are friends of friends. As far as I can tell, they are also very sincere and moral human beings.

So, my conclusion is the Hedges is not the one doing mindfucking here.... it is Walter Wit Man who is doing that. 'impugn the motives of those you disagree with.' seems to be Walter's main tactic. I would like to recommend that YOU stop impugning on the motives of people that you disagree with - but know very little about.

Posted by: Susan | Mar 9 2012 9:22 utc | 151

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thierry_Meyssan

I would not trust him.

Posted by: somebody | Mar 4, 2012 4:29:53 AM | 52
=================

but you trust Wikipedia!...interesting

Posted by: brian | Mar 13 2012 1:53 utc | 152

« previous page

The comments to this entry are closed.