parviziyi @ 100:

neils contributions are in a section known as Comment is Free....which hosts a varied range of writers and views: its been there for ages. So you can still have a criminal cabal among the editors

Incompetence is the last refuge of the scoundrel...its used so often by the US regime for any crime their caught doing....synonymsn are 'mistake' 'error' etc

and you can ask Neil youself his views on the Guardian: he has a blog: http://neilclark66.blogspot.com.au/

Posted by: brian | Jun 5 2012 2:58 utc | 101

alexander 97:

'I was prepared to accept the western media narrative on the matters,'

one of the perks of begin an erstz professional free media in a ersatz liberal 'democracy'...people are conditioned to believe authority:

Any dictator would admire the uniformity and obedience of the U.S.
media' ~Noam Chomsky

and equally: Any dictator would admire the uniformity and obedience of the public in 'democracies'

Posted by: brian | Jun 5 2012 3:02 utc | 102

>>>Syria's history over the past 15 months is a disputed history, >>>

You're right about that, Parviziyi, especially as it is being recorded by the West. You can expect a repeat of Benghazi at any time soon. We shouldn't forget BHL's blatant lie that Ghaddafi's airforce was strafing the civilians of Benghazi. The Houla massacre probably happened to set the stage for another Benghazi-type lie. Has there been a UN or NATO war that wasn't started by a lie?

But you're wrong to be concerned about the recording of Syria's history from only 15 months ago as this period is too short to give an accurate account of the problem.

Posted by: www | Jun 5 2012 4:27 utc | 103

>>> somebody #96, hey, which country are you referring to?>>>

Syria, Claudio. The new constitution limits the President to 2 term in office of 7 years each. Since elections are due in 2014, the 14 additional years can see President Assad elected twice to serve until 2028. This means that technically, if elected twice in coming elections, President Assad will have served 28 years in total.

Posted by: www | Jun 5 2012 4:40 utc | 104

the fallacy is
- because the media is lying or fudging on several points that are important for the policies of their government or for the interests they serve (by whom they are paid, and no it is not us readers who pay them)

that

1) nothing they say is true
2) the opposite is true

the new chance with the internet now is we can compare the versions and form an opionion what might be the truth - and that opinion will be formed by our prejudices, our experience and our expectations

generally Western journalists do have an ethos to present full information as share holders will want to know, they just put a spin on it for the interest and prejudices of same share holders

their techniques to hedge are sometimes quite amusing and funny like this guy - who honestly has to admit that

"alex thomson ‏@alextomo Fact is Free Syrian Army fight in built up areas. They know this puts civilians at risk."

and he says exactly that in his channel4 report.

http://blogs.channel4.com/alex-thomsons-view/search-houla-killers/1811

However, this sentence is drowned out by shouting rebels :-))

That probably was the editor, not him.

Posted by: somebody | Jun 5 2012 5:37 utc | 105

i know when not to trust the MSM...: when somebody refers to them.

Posted by: brian | Jun 5 2012 6:47 utc | 106

www #104 - yes I know, I was trying to be sarcastic:

you really think governing a country should be a family business

reminds me of Bush & Clinton & Kennedy, etc

posts and employment given on the basis of connections and family ties?

this has nothing to do with Assad himself or his "regime", it's a matter of culture; in the Us and in the whole world, anyways, this happens at the upper echelons of society, where there is no competition, only cooptation

without competition, transparency and accountability?

like when Wolf was held accountable for the Iraq disaster and punished with the presidency of the World Bank? and does anyone know of somebody at FBI and CIA who was held accountable for their documented multiple failures on 9/11?

You really think people should have a choice between bad, worse and worst case?

elections in the western countries have become a periodic exercise in the "find the differences .." game

you enjoy living in a security state? with torture?

again, which country does this question remind you of?

Posted by: claudio | Jun 5 2012 7:51 utc | 107

There was a time when it was good to be living in the US. Still, it doesn't take anything away from Syria that also fit the description, as do so many other countries both rich and poor. Getting back to the Iron Curtain/regime analogy, I wasn't thinking of Albania or Bulgaria.

Posted by: www | Jun 5 2012 10:03 utc | 108

Claudio, it is not true in the case of Clinton, or Obama. actually I guess there was that strong opposition in the democratic party against Hillary Clinton,not because of what she stood for, but because it would have been "family business" and nepotism.

Actually arguably, power no longer lies with politicians in most Western countries, if it ever has, and it is not really an attractive job position any longer. You must be a real masochist to go through an US election campaign with all its restrictions on your personal lifestyle before, during and after, German chancellor Schröder in Germany remarked that you just have to look at the political personnel to realize that it is not them who move things (he was a backroom business deal guy, but made it himself from the bottom). I got a lot of jobs from experienced bosses who explicitly told me that they preferred that I did not have any connections, as they would be faced with all kinds of subtle pressures if I had.

There are well defined elites in Britain and France who make it very hard for outsiders, however they used to be countered by trade union power and still are to a certain degree.

I do not know about the US but if people feel really strong about something in Europe, politicans have to react.

Having said all this, what is happening in Syria is vile on all sides. It feels like giving military training to the kids of Hackney, Brixton, the banlieues or Neukölln.

Posted by: somebody | Jun 5 2012 11:12 utc | 109

Arming the Syrian Opposition is Not Humanitarian

Agenzia Fides, the official Vatican news agency recently reported on the "ongoing ethnic cleansing of Christians, and the confiscation of their property" in the city of Homs. Thus, Syrian religious minorities have good reason to fear for their lives.

In the wake of the massacre that killed 108 in the village of Houla, located northwest of the central Syrian city of Homs, including 34 women and 49 children, the U.N. promised to investigate the massacre. There are also reports that shadow groups, terrorists and the rebels have been trained and armed by foreign forces, and are terrorizing the civilian population.

Yada yada..

I've been searching the web for articles on rebels killing civilians, but those are hard to come by..

Posted by: Alexander | Jun 5 2012 14:19 utc | 110

SYRIA: Killing Innocent Civilians as part of a US Covert Op. Mobilizing Public Support for a R2P War against Syria

by Prof. Michel Chossudovsky
excerpt:

US military doctrine envisages the central role of "massive casualty producing events" in which innocent civilians are killed.

The killings are deliberately carried out as part of a covert operation. The enemy is blamed for the resulting atrocities.

The objective is to justify a military agenda on humanitarian grounds. The doctrine dates back to 1962: Operation Northwoods.

Under a secret 1962 Pentagon Plan entitled Operation Northwoods, civilians in the Cuban community in Miami were to be killed as part of a covert operation. The objective was to trigger a "helpful wave of indignation in US newspapers". The killings and "acts of terrorism" were then to be blamed on the Cuban government of Fidel Castro.

Posted by: Alexander | Jun 5 2012 14:22 utc | 111

somebody, ok, I don't want to push analogies too far; but I do have the impression that the democracy/dictatorship distinction, within which I had the impression you were writing, is overused and overvalued; it doesn't account for the real mechanisms of power within a country, nor for the "quality of life" of the common people, but practically only for "free speech" (which I don't underestimate since I like so much to read and write along with you peopl, but 90% of the time it's only to decry our helplessness)

Posted by: claudio | Jun 5 2012 16:22 utc | 112

question is: what can you do about this manipulation? The comment shows that there are still quite a lot of people in europe that are sceptical about "their" media coverage. I guess it's different in the US not to mention elsewhere (including Syria or Libya or Russia) in the world. Maybe the sceptics are more keen to enter the "comment" area of their favourite news source, where they fight professional commenters, while the other 90% buy everything they're served and just scan the headlines. This is creepy. Right now people are dying somewhere in the middle east but it's scary to imagine the effects of this kind of propaganda right here in [place you live].

Posted by: peter radiator | Jun 5 2012 22:58 utc | 113

Alexander @ 111 -- I have to admit Northwoods was what immediately came to mind when the news of the masscre broke. But I felt I needed more information.

Amazingly, as of today/last night the MCM (Mainstream Corporate Media, which includes public broadcasting) pundits were still talking about the perpetrators as being government supporting gangs or paramilitary.

The news which does not fit The Narrative is not getting through. As of yet.

Months from now there will be non-apology apologies from the MCM outlets.

Posted by: jawbone | Jun 6 2012 2:31 utc | 114

"You're a fucking dick." Posted by: slothrop

My goodness, slothrop! That was quite a rant! And what's more - it was the clearest indication yet of your slipping grip on sanity.

Posted by: arthurdecco | Jun 6 2012 18:27 utc | 115