President Assad tellis it like it is:
President al-Assad : Syria Built its Policy on National & Popular Compass, We Don’t Accept any Type of Solution from Abroad Regardless of its Content
…
In an interview with the Iran’s Channel 4 on Thursday evening, President al-Assad said the Syrian people play the primary role in preserving Syria as a state, since the role of the state institutions and army can’t be separated from the people, and that otherwise the state could not have stood in the face of the popular stance, noting that this was expressed through the spontaneous demonstrations in the street.
President al-Assad emphasized that the solid internal situation is the real barrier which prevents the success of any foreign interference, whether this interference is through pumping money or sending weapons, stressing that the internal and external situations are inseparable and that one cannot assign percentages to their role in the crisis.
….
President al-Assad said that the state’s responsibility, in accordance with the Constitution, is to protect all its citizens in all the Syrian territories, and when it takes out a terrorist, it protects dozens and perhaps hundreds or thousands, because a terrorist targets citizens from one place to another.
“We didn’t release any person whose hands are stained with Syrian blood; we released persons who have taken up arms as a result of false understanding or ignorance or because of the need for money, but they have not committed criminal acts, and they made a self-initiative and turned themselves in to the state and asked to be allowed to return to the correct position in society… it’s natural to be tolerant with those and give them the opportunity to be patriotic people again,” he explained….
http://www.sana.sy/eng/21/2012/06/29/428450.htm
as for the turks and their dream of a new ottoman empire: IT SUCKS!…they want a empire yet cower before the US and EU and willingly do their bidding….no way to start an empire

Posted by: brian | Jun 30 2012 5:36 utc | 3

Although, in my impression, rebels or terrorists seem to be responsible for more of the outright massacres and roadside bombs that kill mostly civilian, And overall probably kill more civilian than the army.

Posted by: Alexander | Jun 30 2012 5:41 utc | 5

Posted by: Alexander | Jun 30, 2012 1:41:41 AM | 5
has the army killed civilians???
lets see what the people say:
http://lizzie-phelan.blogspot.com.au/2012/04/citizens-of-homs-if-army-leaves-homs-we.html
the idea is to undermine the syrian army and so defence against the terrorist insurgency by claiming they are killng civilians..the way the insurgency kills civilians…not by accident but design…few if any syrians in syria believe this…

Posted by: brian | Jun 30 2012 5:45 utc | 7

The army kill civilians, not by design, by accident, rebels kill civilians both by accident and by design. That’s how I would differenciate it.

Posted by: Alexander | Jun 30 2012 6:01 utc | 9

>>> If you go to the US embassy FB page … >>>
Brian, if you go to the government press organ, SANA…

Posted by: www | Jun 30 2012 6:05 utc | 11

Somebody #8, the monarchies have been helping Islamic fundamentalist movements in Yemen, Tunisia, Libya and now Syria to appease them keep them away from their own doorsteps, but it won’t work for ever. Sooner or later they turn will come up. The Islamic fundamentalists are just starting to make demands in Jordan and the movement is spreading.

Posted by: www | Jun 30 2012 6:52 utc | 13

the simple fact is that “Terrorist” are Civilians…. now I think we in the west forget that, but Terrorism is just a crime like “murder” or “property damage”, the only difference is that it is politically motivated Murder or property damage….
thus if the dead are not 80% civilians on any day, then the Syrian government must be killing all of the western special forces…. the simple fact it also that the police is a CIVILIAN structure….

Posted by: simon | Jun 30 2012 8:13 utc | 15

>>> as for the turks and their dream of a new ottoman empire: IT SUCKS!…they want a empire yet cower before the US and EU and willingly do their bidding….no way to start an empire >>>
Brian #3, you haven’t understood the new Ottoman Empire being preached by David Oglu and Erdogan. They are talking about an empire of a different kind.

Posted by: www | Jun 30 2012 8:27 utc | 17

Posted by: www | Jun 30, 2012 2:05:52 AM | 11
yes i do go to SANA http://www... at least there im not dealing with writers with no nom de plums! their articles are accurate as can be determined by other sources..aka syrians on twitter facebook etc…
If you care to you may challenged there articles on this forum:
take this one:
Indonesia Warns of Foreign Interference in Syria Internal Affairs
http://www.sana.sy/eng/22/2012/06/29/428419.htm
NOW www is that is that not accurate?
as for the western media..LOL

Posted by: brian | Jun 30 2012 10:19 utc | 19

Syria: Who Arms the Gang Called “Free Syrian Army”?
https://www.facebook.com/notes/syrian-youths-english/syria-who-arms-the-gang-called-free-syrian-army/272583212814722?ref=nf

Posted by: brian | Jun 30 2012 11:23 utc | 21

At Syria’s border, after months of waiting, the weapons arrive

“True the weapons came,” said one Free Syria Army commander, Abdul-Rahman Hallak, sitting in the old police station’s meeting room. “There have been around 5,000. That’s true too. But it is not enough to win a war.”
…
Weapons are not the only new arrivals. The rebels acknowledged that three days ago an American man, believed to be a government employee, passed through. He had first been shown around a nearby refugee camp and was brought into Syria by rebels who are not from here; his destination unknown.
The rebels, however, disavow any knowledge though of other foreigners, particularly Arab nationals who are reputed to be entering Syria in increasing numbers as the war grinds on. Early on Friday morning, the Guardian witnessed three Libyan men and two Gulf state nationals arrive in the southern Turkish province of Hatay on a flight from Istanbul.
Two of the new arrivals were carrying backpacks and provisions, but it was not clear if they were planning to join an insurgency across the border.

Posted by: b | Jun 30 2012 11:57 utc | 23

Not sure what to make of all the news that Suadis are massing troops to move south of Syria. I checked online sites and no mention although many satellite stations like Press TV and RT are making all the noise of apending Saudi buildup in Jordan.
Is this a pressure tactic orchestrated by the US during the Geneva meetings or did the Saudis go crazy all of a sudden.

Posted by: ana souri | Jun 30 2012 12:22 utc | 25

Is Turkey reciting an “entrance ritual” necessary for a full membership in the “Western club”?
It seems everything it’s doing it does unwillingly and reluctantly, and often appeals to the Us and Nato to end its misery.
My impression is that Turkey fears of being abandoned by the West, stranded half-way though the course, having aroused hostilities all around and having nurtured uncontrollable forces in its own territory. I hope the whole construction directed at Syria blows instead on Erdogan’s face.

Posted by: claudio | Jun 30 2012 13:46 utc | 27

Somebody #27. not cold feet, somebody, but smarts. Any attack on Syria by any party will light up the whole Middle East. The US doesn’t want that.
BTW flipping to Egypt for a sec, I just heard that Dr Morsi’s wife, Najla, is a Christian Copt. 2 of his 5 children born in the US are American citizens but none of them are at the ceremony. Morsi’s wife is there but sitting in the women’s upper balcony. At the swearing-in ceremony and at the military parade grounds where authority is being transfered from the army to the President, el-Baradei and Amr Moussa are sitting in the front row of the guests of honor.

Posted by: www | Jun 30 2012 14:43 utc | 29

Antifo, the US wouldn’t do anything that would jeopardize oil deliveries from the gulf countries. The gulf countries themselves wouldn’t want to have a war starting in their backyard. If the oil stops flowing, the first to suffer losses would be the oil Arabs that have over a trillion dollars invested in the American economy. Speaking of gulf Arabs with heavy investments in the West, do you have an idea of how much Qatar has already invested in London and Paris? The Saudis probably have much more invested there and neither of them would want to see a war started in the ME either.

Posted by: www | Jun 30 2012 16:46 utc | 31

there are striking similarities between the current position of Turkey, and that of Israel in the war against Lebanon in 2006
Israel was goaded, reluctantly, into the disastrous ground invasion by Us neocons headed by Condoleeza Rice
Erdogan is in the same position, fears an analogous fate, and pleads for support before plunging irreversibly in the Syrian adventure

Posted by: claudio | Jun 30 2012 17:33 utc | 33

www, exactly, my analogy regards the decision to invade, I wasn’t very clear

Posted by: claudio | Jun 30 2012 18:11 utc | 35

Results of today’s meeting in Geneva from Jazeera:
World powers agree to Syria transition plan
Proposed unity government to include members of the present administration as well as opposition by “mutual consent”.
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2012/06/201263017158463573.html
Last Modified: 30 Jun 2012 18:17
Kofi Annan told reporters “We must work together to implement what has been agreed” [AFP]
World powers have agreed that a national unity government should be set up inSyria to resolve the conflict between President Bashar al-Assad and opposition forces trying to oust him.
A crunch meeting in Geneva on Saturday agreed that a transitional government “could include members of the present government and the opposition and other groups and shall be formed on the basis of mutual consent”, said Kofi Annan, the United Nations and Arab League special envoy on Syria.
Critics said the breakthrough was a watered down version of Annan’s Syria plan that leaves open whether
President Bashar al-Assad can be part of the transition government.
Annan said Saturday “it is for the people of Syria to come to a political agreement”.
He said “the hard work starts now. We must work together to implement what has been agreed”.
Russia had refused to back a provision that would call for Assad to step down to make way for a unity government.
Asked what the transition plan spelled for Assad, Annan said: “The document makes it clear that we have provided guidelines and principles to assist the Syrian parties as they move ahead with the transition and establish a transition government and go through changes required. The future of Assad will be left to them.
Pressed if members from the regime who have engaged in repression would be part of the interim government, he said: “I would doubt that Syrians… would select people with blood on their hands to lead them.”
Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, said that the Syria plan agreed to by major powers “paves the way for a post-Assad” government.
She said Assad “will still have to go, he will never pass the mutual consent test given the blood on his hands’.’

Posted by: www | Jun 30 2012 19:20 utc | 37

@4, AP and Reuters are cordyceps for innocent human minds. But who are these insincere leftists to whom you refer?

Posted by: ruralito | Jun 30 2012 19:41 utc | 39

@ 37
Hillary is a scary goolish creature that you never know quite where stand.

Posted by: Alexander | Jun 30 2012 19:54 utc | 41

background to www’s 36 post:
Today’s and yesterday’s press in CH, radio as well, report that Iran will not participate in the meet today at the UN (Geneva.) Because Obama (aka envoys like Hill) will not sit down with Iran. (see link from Information clearing house.)
So KSA (Saudi) had to be convinced to not attend. They agreed to keep out. So the participants are the big Five (Security Council), Turkey, Iraq, Quatar and Koweit. Lame. Strikingly nobody mentioned that maybe Syria could be present? Not a word…
Negotiations, it was said, are all about how to manage a ‘transition’ – between the lines it is hinted at that Russia is on board. *No surprise*, as I stated before.
Meanwhile, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, violently bashed Syria, in a report published last Wednesday. Quarrels and arguments… about a resolution that will be, or not, transmitted to the International Criminal Court, because the ‘culprits’ are like …everyone. Their report attributes the Houla massacre to Gvmt. forces, but adds, well one can’t know really, the final words are not out, no ‘bodies / persons responsible’ can really be identified. The Syrian delegate left the room while this discussion was going on. China, Russia, Iran supported Syrian. These countries, in this meeting, supported the Annan plan.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article31738.htm
for the result, for now, see www 36.

Posted by: Noirette | Jun 30 2012 20:43 utc | 43

Any declaration from this meeting is null and void – a dead on arrival mission, imo.You’d think since this meeting was about Syria, the Syrian government would’ve been present to present their view on the way forward..But what do we get? The financiers and backers of the terrorists groups from beacons of democracies like Qatar, Kuwait etc…This will make for a classic comedy if it wasn’t that serious..
And these “states” have taken it upon themselves to decide and determine which future Syria must take…The word hubris is not enough to describe this..The worse part is, Annan, the convenient tool of US/NATOGCC/UN, have the nerve to deliver the message and not even acknowleged that there’re armed gangs causing chaos with the help of the very countries he’s had the meeting with..This must be the joke of the century…
So far, from the way things are going, it’s evident the “rebels”, whoever they are, will be crush as no country wants to intervene militarily..Don’t be fooled by the sudden Turkish troop deployment. it’s purely for domestic consumption..Notice how the main incident that brought Turkey to this point has been brushed under the carpet and everyone’s now talking about Turkish troop deployment and not the Jet incident???
Plan A, B and C has failed..Looks more like they’re seeking a way out to regroup..

Posted by: Zico | Jun 30 2012 22:02 utc | 45

Good background article by M K Bhadrakumar in Asia Times Online: “Syria puts double whammy on Turkey”
” … It is against the totality of this background that the Syrian action against the Turkish aircraft needs to be weighed. Damascus has a reputation for “poker diplomacy”. It may have conveyed a host of signals to Turkey (and its Western allies):
Syria’s air-defense system is effective and lethal;
There will be a price to pay if Turkey keeps escalating its interference in Syria;
Turkey’s military superiority has its limits;
The Syrian crisis can easily flare up into a regional crisis.”
http://www.atimes.com//atimes/Middle_Easthttp://www.atimes.com//atimes/Middle_East/NF26Ak02.html

Posted by: Headache | Jun 30 2012 22:19 utc | 47

following on the analogy Turkey 2012 – Israel 2006 (see posts #32-34), we must add Georgia 2008, pushed to invade South Ossetia
it seems there’s a price to be paid in exchange for participation in the “permanent war” lobby
Qatar is paying it with exceptional good-will, but far from its boundaries
the Us is sending its allies in the front-line against its strategic rivals (Iran, Russia); only in Pakistan it has to do the hard work itself (but among the Afghan Talibans some groups seem willing to help); probably there’s a strategic decision to use Us troops mostly in central and eastern Asia, and disentangle itself from the Middle East; and its allies must prove their worth and fill the void with wars by procurement …

Posted by: claudio | Jun 30 2012 22:21 utc | 49

The west giving false hope to the rebels only prolongs this bloodbath, at the expence of the Syrian people, and is totally irresponsible, when considering the west really isn’t going to change the outcome in the long run, they will only draw out the battle in time and blood. If not for the precedence set in Libya, the Syrian rebels wouldn’t have taken up arms with the expectation of the west backing them up with airpower (no-fly-zone), so the Russian and Chinese position is really important to reset the standard for future conflicts, that outside meddling will not be tolerated.

Posted by: Alexander | Jun 30 2012 22:56 utc | 51

48, claudio, you can add Libya, where France and Britain did it, and it needed Sarkozy to get it done (who was preesumably blackmailed as some people must
have known about him being financed by Gaddafi.)
I agree, that is the plan. It is unworkable though, as everybody pushed will jump the fence when they can. Quatar will, Turkey will. Israel probably is unable to.

Posted by: somebody | Jul 1 2012 5:45 utc | 53

>>> The west giving false hope to the rebels only prolongs this bloodbath>>>
Have to disagree with you, Alexander #50, the West and the East have unlimited funds and can keep the carnage going fo decades and I wouldn’t be surprised
if it did. On the other hand, you have a regime that is adamant about staying in power while refusing to make meaningful changes that would stop the carnage.
The West and the East are responsible but so is the regime.

Posted by: www | Jul 1 2012 6:10 utc | 55

Zico #44, Qatar are not the bad guys in this story.
On the other hand, you have a regime that is adamant about staying in power while refusing to make meaningful changes that would stop the carnage.
So suddenly Qatar is an angel and has good intentions re Syria…Even to the point of funding terrorist groups to kill the very Syrians he’s so concerned about..Try this twisted logic on some high school kids because it won’t fly here.Well guess what? By your logic, so is Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups..From their point of view, they all have good intentions..I can’t believe you’re out here shilling for the criminal thani family whole deposed his own father in a US backed coup and painting his rule/policies as some sort of noble cause..It’s taken you a while to expose yourself for who you really are but slow but surely, your own postings give you away.
I guess you’re one of them quasi-leftist liberals who for some strange reason, support Western imperial aggression under the guise of “humanitarian intervention”..They often say stupid things like, “we don’t support war but there needs to be an interventions to stop the bloodshed” – forgetting that this same “intervention” kills far more of the same people it was meant to save.
And also, who’re you to determine whether the “regime” is adamant or not? Do you say that because Syrian government policies don’t agree with your views? Will you agree if the Syrian president tells the al thani family to step down because they’re not democratically elected?
What next? That Saudi Arabia will be championing democracy all across the region?
I’m really assuming what you said was your attempt at sarcasm but if not, then your hypocrisy leave much to be desired.

Posted by: Zico | Jul 1 2012 6:43 utc | 57

ap definitively has gone partisan
Syrians brand world talks on crisis a failure
“In the single most serious incident, mortar fire killed 30 civilians at a funeral in the
town of Zamalka, 10 kilometres (six miles) east of Damascus, the Britain-based watchdog said.”
And this is China`s take
“A booby-trapped car went off in the suburb of Damascus on Saturday evening, pro-government radio and activists reported.
The blast was reported by both parties, but great disparity clouded the details with the absence of official comments.
The pro-government Sham FM radio said the car was meant to go off at a military checkpoint in Zamalka, adding that a number of armed men preparing the explosion were killed.
While the oppositional network, Local Coordination Committees ( LCC), said more than 20 people were killed by the car blast, which ripped through a funeral procession of a man killed recently.
The activists report couldn’t be verified, because customarily, no funeral processions would be held after sunset in Muslim countries in general.”
http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/718156.shtml

Posted by: somebody | Jul 1 2012 10:06 utc | 59

>>> The “regime” is now a legitimate government, it has more support then most NATO/USA. There is no regime but a elected government.>>>
Hans #55, don’t get tied up in knots over the word, the Syrian government itself uses that word to describe itself in both English and Arabic.
Nobody here is questioning the legitimacy of the government or its popularity. It’s a fact that the majority is satisfied with the government
they have and dreads what would come in its place. Nonetheless, it doesn’t mean that most Syrians are enchanted
with the continued granting of government jobs and other favours to party loyalists by the entrenched Baathists in spite of promises to the contrary and a new
constitution that had promised a change. If you’re into popularity contests, walk into a room of Syrians and ask for a show of hands of those that
would jump on the opportunity of getting a green card and you’d be surprised with the results.
Back to the regime issue, you probably remember the chant that started the ball rolling in Tunisia and later spread to other countries:
“Ash-shab yurid isqat an-nizam”. “Nizam” is the Arabic word for “regime”. “Ash-Shaab is “people”, “yurid” means “wants” and “isqat” is “downfall”
The people wishes the downfall of the regime. It was used in Tunisia, Yemen, Bahrain, Egypt, Libya, Morocco, Jordan and now in Syria and all these countries
had elected governments.
Rachid Khalidi said of the slogan: “The people want the fall of the regime.” They are not only referring to their corrupt governments; they also mean the
old regime that has prevailed for decades in the entire Arab world, from the Atlantic to the Gulf”

Posted by: www | Jul 1 2012 10:15 utc | 61

yeah, and that shows the whole weakness of it,why I am suspisious of the hype surrounding it and why I would not call it revolution.
Compare that slogan to
“Fraternite!, Egalite!, Liberte!”
“Peace! Land! Bread!”
or if you prefer
“Independence, Freedom, and Islamic Republic”
the difference is, these slogans say in a very simple way what the revolution is for …

Posted by: somebody | Jul 1 2012 11:18 utc | 63

esp for those who think turkey is not involved:
Syria: Saudi admits “protesters” had weapons from the start
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vLd_9c4WOU

Posted by: brian | Jul 1 2012 12:01 utc | 65

>>> the difference is, these slogans say in a very simple way what the revolution is for …>>>
What was it about in Egypt, in Libya, in Yemen, in Syria? Nobody really knows.

Posted by: www | Jul 1 2012 12:08 utc | 67

“But it wasn’t always so and not too long ago that Qatar’s money was welcome in Syria, but something broke between them.”
www, same story with Turkey, what happened?
Let me guess, Assad was offered investment and trade for cutting ties with Hezbollah and Iran, and Assad wanted Lebanon and the Golan, then he might consider it?
I guess the number of atrocities would decrease considerably if you could not film them and post them on Youtube.

Posted by: somebody | Jul 1 2012 12:41 utc | 69

the right margin has gone, so this is all short lines.
Syria reminds me of corporate take-overs and ‘fusions‘..
There are endless stressful meets, power plays, lots of discussion about pay-outs and share offerings,
lawyers with three trolleys of docs, etc.
However, in corp. negotiations the two (or more) parties meet and go at it hammer-heads.
When it is a country, outside forces or supposed deciders (UN? no…Koweit? ..no) behave in the same way.
As if countries were corporations.
(We are all part of a corporation now but we just don’t realize it yet 😉 )
Remember, the US has sought to disturb, corrupt, defang, negate, any International org. for a long time now, with the UN in first place.
Sending Hill to this irrelevant meet is part of the same strategy.
She is there, so it is SERIOUS, which creates an illusion of importance and power,
which keeps ppl running around in circles, mouthing the agreed platitudes, etc.
(Of course they all want to keep their jobs.)
Lybia was more of a Mafia type op – kill the Capo and exile (judge, imprison, get rid of) the family and see what happens next!
– ..so Lybia will be cut into at least two, possibly more, pieces.

Posted by: Noirette | Jul 1 2012 13:13 utc | 71

To make it clearer @65, The headline referred to the Funeral procession, the photo to a previously published attack at a financial institution…..

Posted by: georgeg | Jul 1 2012 13:47 utc | 73

>>> so tell me, what was special about Tahrir square, except the press coverage?>>>
Nothing special, somebody, people were there in the square because they had been told to not be there. Other than asking for the fall of Mubarak
there weren’t any serious demands. The number of participants in events is always boosted to make it appear more important than it actually is.
Hassan Nasrallah talked about the numbers games at rallies; he said it was so easy to play with numbers using the zoom-in,
zoom-out feature on TV cameras that would make a few hundred protestors appear as if they were a few thousands and that although Hezbollah’s opponents
played these games, his party didn’t have to. That zoom-in, zoom-out game was evidently true of many mass rallies although Hezbollah played a few games
itself. When others claimed that Hezbollah had an astronomical number of participants at its rallies, it simply didn’t confirm or deny these numbers and left
everyone guessing.
About the coverage of Tahrir Square. About a year or so back, I read an essay somewhere, sorry can’t find it anymore, about how Jazeera’s coverage of
Libya had been part of its long-term program to dupe its audience that began with its comprehensive coverage of the 2006 war on Lebanon, followed by its
equally damning-of-Israel coverage in the December 2008 war on Gaza after which the Arab audience began to totally trust Jazeera with the news. When the uprising
started in Tunisia and Jazeera was there was there with its usual good coverage, Arabs developed a super trust in Jazeera. After Tunisia, Jazeera went on to cover
Tahrir Square in the same great way but when Jazeera got to Libya, that’s where the bouquets to Jazeera stopped in the essay and it went into a conspiratorial mode.
The essay said that Arabs and the West bought into all the false Libya stories being broadcast by Jazeera because of its established credibility from its
coverage of Lebanon 2006, Gaza 2008,Tunisia and Tahrir Square. After its false reporting in Libya, Jazeera moved on to Syria for more of the same. In short,
the essay said that Jazeera built up its credibility with its excellent past coverage of events in preparation for what it did down the road in Libya and Syria,
which is very hard to believe. It is a far-fetched conspiratorial scenario but what is not far-fetched is the night and day difference in coverage by Jazeera
between Tunisia/Tahrir and Libya/Syria. In Tunisia and Egypt, Jazeer was simply reporting the news as it was happening but in Libya and Syria, Jazeera’s
involvement became much more. Although I don’t like its coverage of Syria, I still think Jazeera is a good network.

Posted by: www | Jul 1 2012 14:31 utc | 75

www, al Jazeera’s methods have not changed during any of the coverage, i.e. attracting viewers with dead babies, shock videos and action, plus expressing views that are taboo in Western media (that is Al Jazeera English, Arabic would be a different matter anyways). So I guess their coverage was doubtful through all those events. As any media corporation Al Jazeera’s goal would be to attract as many viewers as possible.
Throughout all events they have consistently supported events to the benefit of the Muslim Brotherhood, if you look at the outcome (I do not think their Lebanon 2006 coverage was in support of Hezbollah, would have been more in support of Siniora, I suppose) …

Posted by: somebody | Jul 1 2012 15:01 utc | 77

Somebody, Jazeera’s staff from what I read is wall-to-Wall Brothers, but its 2006 coverage was anti-Israel much more than pro-Hezbollah.
This was probably due to its Beirut chief, a Tunisian-Lebanese and very much against Israel. That journalist and a few others resigned
last year because they couldn’t go along with Jazeera’s script on Syria. He had been at the network from the days it was still the BBC; his own
Arabic news network opened a couple of weeks back, called it “Mayadeen”, which is the plural of maydan like in Maydan al-Tahrir.

Posted by: www | Jul 1 2012 15:27 utc | 79

could be that some people woke up after the 2006 Lebanon war, seems it was not just Al Jazeera reporter who could not stand the bombs but Western reporters, too …
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/events/2007/2/17islamic%20world/2007islamforum_israel%20hezb%20war.pdf
“One Australian expert on counterinsurgency, now on loan to the State Department, Colonel David Kilcullen, agreed. “It’s now fundamentally an information fight,” he explained. When insurgents ambush an American convoy in Iraq, he said, “they are not doing that because they want to reduce the number of Humvees we have in Iraq by one. They’re doing it because they want spectacular media footage of a burning Humvee.” He then gave another example: “If bin Laden didn’t have access to global media, satellite communications and the Internet, he’d just be a cranky guy in a cave.”4 Maybe, but in fact bin Laden does understand the enormous power of modern communications. Whenever he has a message for the world, he simply tapes it and gives it to Al-Jazeera. He knows it will be broadcast throughout the world. When bin Laden wanted to help tip the 2004 presidential election in the U.S. to the incumbent, George W. Bush, he criticized Bush in a taped message delivered to Al-Jazeera. In Washington, such an approach would be called “media manipulation,” and it works there as it does in the Middle East.”

Posted by: somebody | Jul 1 2012 16:00 utc | 81

Somebody #81, the stretch probably came from Headache’s super long link in #46. As to the Brookings, mostly everything that comes out of it has an Israel
angle to it no matter how banale it may seem such as the story about the burning of the Humvee. The Iraqis wanted to see one burning because their
asses were burning from what was done to their country, not because they wanted attention from the press. That was just another Zionist-inspired subtle message
on how Iraqis like the rest of the Arabs are sub-human. BTW, Brookings has a branch in Doha, Qatar; its manager was invited to explain the “Arab Spring” to the
attendees at Herzliya this year.

Posted by: www | Jul 1 2012 17:31 utc | 83

Antifo | Jun 30, 2012 12:03:34 PM @ 30.
Re: ‘directed chaos’
Yep, that seems to be the plan.
However, there’s a world of difference between ‘directed’ chaos and ‘controlled’ chaos. The blather from the chaos-istas quoted in your extract overlooks the fact that no matter how many mathematical algorithms ones builds into a (successful) plot to produce chaos, the result will be too “chaotic” for the perps to micro-manage (control) the outcome.
What’s nice about chaos theory is that while the US’s Chaos and other Depts are engaged in wishful thinking about how they hope their aimless, half-baked plots might unfold, state actors with logical, linear, and coherent plans seem to be well on the way to outmanoevering them.
Here is a couple of examples…
1. Putin offering Pakistan a practical alternative to its pointless, destructive and counter-productive alliance with the US.
A Russia House on the Indian Ocean (MKB atimes)
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/NF30Ag02.html
2. Peter Lee taking a closer look at the dream vs the reality of the wishful thinking behind the Iran sanctions.
Who will Iran sanctions really cripple? (Peter Lee atimes)
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/NF30Ad01.html
So while the Yankees sit around congratulating themselves on the mathematical precision of chaos theory, and generally Fiddling While Rome Burns, everyone else is getting off their asses and DOING clever and uncomplicated things to trump them.
Also Headache’s @ 47’s link to Syria/Turkey (which wouldn’t work for me) helps illustrate the differnce between a half-baked plot and a coherent plan.
Syria puts double whammy on Turkey (MKB atimes)
http://www.atimes.com//atimes/Middle_East/NF26Ak02.html

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Jul 1 2012 18:55 utc | 85

jawbone | Jul 1, 2012 11:52:57 AM | 80
Would you care to explain precisely what you’re talking about (preferably not in computer-speak)?
I haven’t had a problem (which wasn’t of my own making) with the way any aspect of this site works since my arrival here about a year ago.
Are you suggesting that commenters should hide links behind a word, as in the last line of ‘Allowed HTML Tags’ in the comment section?
I thought any link address cut and pasted from the top line of the browser was OK unless it occupied more than (say) a line-and-a-half in the comment box.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Jul 1 2012 19:25 utc | 87

Thanks somebody.
I assume I can cut and paste MoA’s HREF line and use it as a template with appropriate substitutions in the URL and label fields?
If so I wonder why somebody (else) didn’t just point that out and say so…

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Jul 2 2012 7:15 utc | 89