Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
August 11, 2012
Clinton And Turkish Press Freedom

Hillary Clinton is currently in Istanbul. The Turkish journalist Mahir Zeynalov tweeted her press conference with the Turkish foreign minister Davutoglov. He thought that one of her statements was rather funny:

lol. Clinton: You don't have freedom of press in Syria as you have here in Turkey.

That lol is certainly deserved. Reporters without borders lists Turkey as number 148 in its press freedom index. That is worse than Russia which the various U.S. editorial writers like to bash for alleged lack of press freedom. Over the last year at least 90 Turkish journalist sat in jail for rather murky reasons. There is also a system of informal censorship through government pressure on editors and media owners.

Clinton is just covering up what every observer can easily see. The U.S. is not at all concerned about human rights or freedom of the press. It is an empire gone mad:

Afghanistan in the 1980s and 90s … Bosnia and Kosovo in the 1990s … Libya 2011 … Syria 2012 … In military conflicts in each of these countries the United States and al Qaeda (or one of its associates) have been on the same side.

What does this tell us about the United States’ “War On Terrorism”?

[I]f you want to understand this thing called United States foreign policy … forget about the War on Terrorism, forget about September 11, forget about democracy, forget about freedom, forget about human rights, forget about religion, forget about the people of Libya and Syria … keep your eyes on the prize … Whatever advances American global domination. Whatever suits their goals at the moment. There is no moral factor built into the DNA of US foreign policy.

Well said.

Comments

Tim Anderson
Australian media finally starting to wake up –
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-08-14/outrage-as-grisly-syria-video-shows-bodies-thrown-from-roof/4196550

Posted by: brian | Aug 14 2012 8:10 utc | 101

Claudio, the Grauniad quotes for Aleppo the Tawheed Unity Brigade
“the rebel Tawheed Unity brigade in Aleppo said it had destroyed three government tanks at a roundabout in the city.”
Wikipedia says the same, Wikipedia also claims that the leader was fighting in the Lebanese Palestinian camp Al Bahred
Fatah al Islam features in Hersh’s New Yorker Peace from 2007 “The redirection” claiming that the US is funding Al Queida like Jihadist groups again via Saudi Arabia trying to find a military Sunni counterweight to Hezbollah.
My impression is that these groups are rental and the biography of their personnel suggests a lot of them are mercenary whilst a few might be true believers, secret services working like secret services are bound to have contacts/links to these groups including Syrian intelligence.
People in them might be from Syria, Palestinian camps mainly, they would not be a grass root local political movement.
The only role I can see for grass root armed local movements in Syria is a protective defensive role, i.e. shielding activists from secret service and police. They would negotiate ceasefires before risking destruction.

Posted by: somebody | Aug 14 2012 8:59 utc | 102

the problem starts when these groups do not get paid. I remember Al Bahred clashes started when the group tried to rob a bank …

Posted by: somebody | Aug 14 2012 9:26 utc | 103

Alakhbar_Jan Aziz;
Mohammad alSensawi a commander of the “Syrian revolution” in Bab alHaw border crossing said;
“When we become victorious, an Islamic state from Syria to Lebanon, where the casinos and whores, will be established and the rule will clear; who submits survives and who doesn’t gets killed!!”
قائد «الثورة السورية» في باب الهوا، محمد الصنصاوي، إنه عندما سينتصر «سنقيم دولة إسلامية من سوريا إلى لبنان، حيث الكازينوات والعاهرات»، وإن قاعدة حكمه ستكون واضحة: «من يخضع يسلم، والآخرون يقتلون».

Posted by: brian | Aug 14 2012 11:21 utc | 104

ok, I’m a bit slow, but now I’m fairly convinced that Aleppo was a decisive battle
studying some of the reportage available, it seems that:
1) the rebels indeed made a huge effort to hold their ground in Aleppo (this is what I was most skeptical of, being apparently senseless)
2) the bulk of the effort was sustained by Syrian rebels and untrained foreign jihadists, which were routed; they were the most inexperienced and “expendable”; the professional foreign jihadists were the quickest to withdraw
the whole scenario seemed senseless, as I said; this is what I came up with to explain such losing strategy:
1) the aims, beliefs and timing of the rebels (professionals aside) are different than those of their foreign sponsors; most of the rebels probably weren’t interested in a long-term strategy of terrorism aimed at delegitimizing the regime; they were seeking a revolution and thought the population would side with them, and probably many were bitterly surprised when it didn’t happen
2) many, Syrians, Turkish, and other sponsors, thought the army would split when faced with a “popular revolt”; probably some defectors made them believe so; maybe the fact that Clinton didn’t meet with Tlass in Turkey has to do with such disappointment

Posted by: claudio | Aug 14 2012 17:38 utc | 105

well, b foresaw it
from The Independent

A new dynamic was also introduced into a conflict already deeply divisive and sectarian with a militia from the Al-Barre tribe, chanting their loyalty to Basher al-Assad, carrying out an assault near the city’s airport which killed 16 revolutionary fighters and cleared, for the time being, a road through which soldiers and supplies can be brought in from Damascus.

Posted by: claudio | Aug 14 2012 18:32 utc | 106

Now the SNC is asking for a truce to start negotiations. How do we read that? Are they retreating and need to regroup? Also I wonder how much influence they really have on the armed ‘rebels’ inside Syria. On the other hand the Turkish army seems to be staging some ‘military exercises’ in the Syrian frontier close to Aleppo.

Posted by: ThePaper | Aug 14 2012 19:05 utc | 107

Well, good to see that the Syrian regime is arming their followers. Because with the regular army they won’t win the civil war nor they will stop foreign intervention. A passive population can be easily conquered or subverted.

Posted by: ThePaper | Aug 14 2012 19:11 utc | 108

more thoughts on Aleppo – it’s usually said that if it was a real revolution, the Us wouldn’t support it; maybe that’s just what happened in Aleppo, where from the first moment Us and Turkey bode the rebels good luck and substantially left them on their own
Parviziyi here at MoA has always stressed the existence of a genuine (albeit minority) domestic revolutionary opposition to Assad, and probably it was it (not the foreign fighters) that provided the core force of the assault on Aleppo, and above all the one that more stubbornly resisted to the army’s advance 8
so after the rapid withering away of the “pacific” protesters, and now the routing in Aleppo of the violent factions, the initiative will largely be led by foreign sponsored and controlled forces (SA and Qatar)
… and Us and Turkey are at the moment out of options; I think they had banked all their cards on a split within the army, and then an engineered coup led by defector General Munaf Tlass, using the grass-root revolutionaries as a ram against the army in Aleppo, and planning to dispose of them when not needed anymorez

Posted by: claudio | Aug 14 2012 22:41 utc | 110

Something of a class war in Aleppo it seems claudio. According to this article in the LA Times the local revolutionaries came from the poor suburbs. The wealthier citizens are not happy about the damage.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-syria-aleppo-20120814,0,4861280.story

Posted by: dh | Aug 14 2012 22:51 utc | 111

dh, thanks for the link, really interesting reporting; yes, when I started thinking along these lines the Aleppo battle started to make sense; on strictly militarily basis, it just couldn’t

Posted by: claudio | Aug 14 2012 23:47 utc | 112