Landis at least has grasped that ISIL/ISIS are not included. But having grasped it, he rejects it:

On the other hand, the statement is in no way hostile to the ISIS. It might in fact suit them pretty well, since it weakens the hand of the Western-backed camp and adds weight to Islamist demands. When I asked a representative of Tawhid, he said the reason they’re not on the list of signatories is just because they’re not members. If they want to, and share the principles, they could join. The members already present will decide.

I think that is just Arab politesse (something I see all the time, a refusal to condemn or denigrate anybody if it can possibly be avoided, a sort of universal courtliness). It seems to me that this is a coalition against ISIL/ISIS, as I explained on a previous thread:

This month, ISIS/ISIL killed Ahrar ash-Sham commander Abu Obeida al-Binnishi. Ahrar al-Sham fighters were trying to free members of an Islamic charity from Malaysia who had been kidnapped by ISIS. Also this month, ISIS overran Azaz, taking it from the FSA-affiliated Northern Storm brigade. ISIS had attempted to kidnap a German doctor working in Azaz, and the Northern Storm brigade had taken exception to this. In an interview with the Syrian National Media Centre (a Kuwait-sponsored entity) in Jul 2013, a suspected al-Qaeda member named Abu Musab al-Suri alleged that ISIS/ISIL had been infiltrated by the Syrian regime. It is said that ISIS/ISIL avoids direct confrontations with the army and tries to divide other groups. So this new coalition includes Jabhat al-Nusra and excludes ISIS/ISIL. It is conceivable that what we are looking at here is a proxy war between the Sauds and Kuwait.

Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Sep 25 2013 17:45 utc | 4

@5 none of that really matters if the weapons and funding keep flowing

Posted by: hmm | Sep 25 2013 18:06 utc | 6

“A collection of some of Syria’s most powerful rebel brigades have rejected a Western-backed opposition group t”
To what extend this may be a reflection of the saudi plans having hit the wall, with US not going to war. saudi’s with no strategic plans are now going ape sh*t. This is the extend of their ability, bombing, killing just like a disease.

Posted by: Rd. | Sep 25 2013 18:25 utc | 8

This is a great post, b.
What makes it great is the act of drawing attention to the embarrassing fact that this so-called “spontaneous uprising” (united by deep yearnings for ‘democracy’) couldn’t look less united, or less democratic, or less spontaneous, or less motivated by good intentions, if it tried.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Sep 25 2013 19:42 utc | 10

RT interviews an Hezbollah MP

HH: Syria has been infiltrated by groups that have links to the CIA, and are also backed by certain Arab nations. Their task is to topple the regime, since it has proved to be resilient. The West has tried to distance itself from these groups to avoid being responsible for their terrorist activities. Right now those groups are fighting one another in northern Syria. They are trying to destroy the Free Syrian Army, as we can see from yesterday’s fighting in the Azaz area. Those groups are blacklisted by the West as terrorist groups, but the West prefers to keep silent about it. The Americans back those groups, because they share the purpose of overthrowing the regime in Syria, since the Syrian regime has been supportive of the resistance against the Israeli occupation.

So, what is the strategy – trying to get rid of the locals who might make a deal with the government?

Posted by: somebody | Sep 25 2013 20:13 utc | 12

Read the interview in the New York Times with the deputy foreign minister, Peter. Mekdad must have some group(s) or individuals in mind to have mentioned it.

Posted by: Mike Maloney | Sep 25 2013 21:42 utc | 14

well this embarrasses the ‘rebel’ supporters…esp those on the left:
guys like the-often-good-but-on-syria-dodgy Richard (‘Considering the New Yorker’s reputation for rigorous fact-checking, I felt let down by the quality of this(article on Burgas attack) piece’) Silverstein’ http://www.richardsilverstein.com/
who takes aim at Mother Agnes;
and the self imploding unrepentent marxist
http://louisproyect.org/

Posted by: brian | Sep 25 2013 22:30 utc | 16

@ 6: “none of that really matters if the weapons and funding keep flowing”
Yup! Bottom line, despite all the Kabuki going on, regime change and destruction of Syria are STILL the goals of the West. If the West and their proxies keep sending arms to these “rebels”, Syria, and Assad, cease to be an obstruction to empire and their goals. The fetid dreams of the globalists are yet alive and well.

Posted by: ben | Sep 26 2013 0:21 utc | 18

@17 I just haven’t been able to see the “rebels” and “eat” in the same post without feeling a little nauseous.
…….
The fact is that this is a direct result of the stare down of the American attack by the Resistance.
Things will likely get worse while Al Qaeda, the Saudis, Turks, and Israelis consolidate their puppets and ramp up the violence try in a vain effort to try and continue their policy (which will quickly devolve into an effort to keep Al Qaeda focused on anyone but them). But as they come to realize that they cannot do it and the costs are impossibly high (especially without the hope of the trump card of American bombing) they will realize they have to wind down this war and Syria will be whole again – with completely new dynamics in the region and, despite the destruction, likely stronger than ever in terms of national purpose.

Posted by: guest77 | Sep 26 2013 1:11 utc | 20

@brian#16:
There is a lot of disinformation ciruculating about Syria and it’s not just coming from the MSM. It’s perfectly reasonable to be just as skeptical about an NPR reporter’s inside-Damascus-source when they’re telling you something that romanticizes the FSA (like Kelly McEvers reporting from Beirut) as it is when it plants the evidence on the FSA (like Gavlak from Amman). Some of the stories in the alternative press that are too good to be true are half-truths planted by intelligence services to make the left look gullible (and to cast doubt on the real facts when they finally surface). The current known facts about the Ghouta attack (no matter how US, Israeli or UN officials spin them) are sufficient to punch holes in the insurgent account of events and deaths. Some people, somewhere died, but the UN team did not see or examine any of their bodies.

Posted by: Rusty Pipes | Sep 26 2013 2:09 utc | 22

For those who do not know him the American conservative/libertarian Justin Raimondo is (almost) always interesting at antiwar.com. Posted by: bevin | Sep 25, 2013 6:29:06 PM | 15

The exception presumably being his (almost) incessant “red”-baiting and “commie”-bashing.

Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Sep 26 2013 3:56 utc | 24

Must read
http://landdestroyer.blogspot.de/2013/09/video-rockets-used-in-damacus-cw-attack.html

Posted by: Mina | Sep 26 2013 7:45 utc | 26

The thing that strikes me about the video is that it was shot from a busy overlooking highway. You can hear the traffic.

Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Sep 26 2013 9:35 utc | 28

There was no mask to begin with. Any sane person could see through the BS that was being spewed by the assorted MSM. Even politicians in the West knew very well the “opposition” SNC didn’t really have any traction with the jihadis on the ground and that the “FSA” where just some imaginary label for used for the jihadis when convenient. Blatant lies, fabrication etc etc became the order of the day.
It’s just that the facts have become too hard to brush aside or ignore. The Syrians conflict’s always been, right from the beginning, a MB attempt at obtaining power through any mean. With heavy backing from any state that got an ax to grind with Assad..

Posted by: Zico | Sep 26 2013 11:15 utc | 30

“The exception presumably being his (almost) incessant “red”-baiting and “commie”-bashing.”
No Rowan: that is interesting too! It really is.
It is not without significance that fans of Ayn Rand, such as Raimondo and Paul, are pushing for major changes in imperial foreign policies. Changes which, despite being unacceptable to you, so impure, politically, are their sponsors, will be most welcome to those people who live under the heel of imperial death squads and drones. These will include Syrians in Bandar’s sights
Your sulking is not unlike theirs when their joy at the defeat of the Nazis was lost amid their grumbling about the deportment of the Red Army.
Life is hard, Rowan, but, to become wise it is often necessary to attend to the opinions of those with whom we disagree, or dislike.

Posted by: bevin | Sep 26 2013 13:48 utc | 32

To get an idea of what the West would be happy with for Syria, just take a look at Egypt 2012
http://www.sandmonkey.org/2012/12/12/a-simple-update-regarding-our-constitutional-referendum/

Posted by: Mina | Sep 26 2013 14:25 utc | 34

This sentence literally does not make sense:

Changes which, despite being unacceptable to you, so impure, politically, are their sponsors, will be most welcome to those people who live under the heel of imperial death squads and drones.

Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Sep 26 2013 14:45 utc | 36

Oh, I get it now. It’s Raimondo & Paul who are the sponsors of the changes in foreign policy which will be so welcome to those living under the boot heel of the drones. But all this is bullshit, unfortunately. As Bevin should surely know, a non imperialist capitalism is as impossible as a non air-breathing combustion engine. However, if by some unhappy chance the US were utterly devastated by coast-to-coast nuclear attack, then capitalism could start again at a domestic level, which would give Messrs Raimondo & Paul a chance to live out their log cabin fantasies. Except that the country would be invaded, by people who would not take kindly to such fantasies.

Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Sep 26 2013 15:46 utc | 38

“If the price of the collapse of the Empire was the modest inconvenience of having to put up with the “coalition that honestly thinks that labor unions were an invention of Stalin!””
I probably shouldn’t have understated it as such for their philosophy (if you can call it that) – as Rowan alludes to – starts from an inflated selfishness and egoism that is inherently antagonistic towards any sense of community on any level. So we have the following scenario:
I got mine. F*ck my brother that lazy f*ck. Yikes.
I got mine. F*ck my neighbor that lazy f*ck. Ouch.
I got mine. F*ck my city. Really?
I got mine. F*ck my state. Hmmm….
I got mine. F*ck the country. Okaaaayyy….
I got mine. F*ck the rest of the world. HURRAY!!!! Welcome to the party!!!! Let’s build a coalition!!!
I mean, just because rational people tangentially join libertarians at their 6th level of hate, it isn’t cause for much celebration and I think minor inconvenience would rather quickly turn into unmitigated, violent disasters.
Not saying that you support them, just clarifying my idea. Off for the day. Cheers.

Posted by: JSorrentine | Sep 26 2013 16:52 utc | 40

@41: For quite a few years now I have had a simple model of this. It applies equally well to Somalia, Yemen and Mali, just to give a few parallels. First, you have a genuine, indigenous revolt. Then you have the mysterious appearance of an AQ-affiliate right alongside it, and even intermittently allying with it. This AQ-affiliate is what the originator of this whole system of counter-insurgency, Brigadier Frank Kitson of Kenya and Malaya fame, called a “pseudo-gang”. But the genuine indigenous rebels don’t realise this, unfortunately. They think al-Qaeda is the greatest thing in anti-imperialism since sliced bread. They shiver with delight whenever they remember 9/11, because they take it at face value. They admire AQ, and they think Zawahiri is genuine too. So the ‘alliance’ is something they accept with a real sense of being honoured. But then things start to go wrong. The AQ-affiliated “ally” starts doing things that make no sense, but have the effect of bringing down massive retaliation from the central government. If our poor rebels had read some basic textbooks on guerrilla warfare, they would know as a matter of doctrine that you don’t for instance, bomb prestigious restaurants in the capital city when there are only a few hundred of you, your grievance is essentially regional or ethnic, and you have not yet developed any support among the vast masses of the peasantry. But now it’s too late. As the distinguished theoretician Vo Nguyen Giap would have put it, ya fucked.

Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Sep 26 2013 18:14 utc | 42

@41
There are very human reasons for the never ending wars; over population, religion and money.
There are way too many young men with no jobs and with no prospect of ever having a family. They are prime cannon fodder.
Islam (Sunnis and Shiites) and Christians have been at it for a thousand years. True believers objective number one is killing any non-believer: Muslim, Jew, Christian, or Pagan. Jihads, Pogroms and Crusades are especially made for this purpose.
A basic human need is to lord it over your Lessers. Communism was overthrown so Russian Plutocrats would be free to feed their greed. Money is to be made from war. Every missile blown up over Syria is money is somebody’s pocket.

Posted by: VietnamVet | Sep 26 2013 18:17 utc | 44

@42, – maybe I should rephrase, then: “Al Qaeda is more coherent, it simply tries to take over f… up what it can”
but really, maybe al-Shabaab is not Al Qaeda; and it is fighting its own war for Somalia; in Somalia, Us aggression (through Ethiopia and then drones) came before any act of terrorism, on the basis that the Islamic Courts were “harboring terrorists” (AFAIR)
and in Libya, it played along the Nato script till the fall of Gaddafi, and then simply joined the various factions’ turf wars
in the ME, Al Qaeda resembles much more what you described; but I would add: they not only legitimize the repression of the resistances at the eyes of the majority, they also directly turn against their apparent comrades of resistance: Hezbollah, Sunnis in the “triangle of death”, FSA, etc

Posted by: claudio | Sep 26 2013 18:36 utc | 46

“…It’s Raimondo & Paul who are the sponsors of the changes in foreign policy which will be so welcome to those living under the boot heel of the drones…”
They are influencing a part of the constituency which was, until recently, solidly committed to militarism, the Peeping Tom state and creeping authoritarianism. They are helping to split the consensus to which the mass media is committed.
That is welcome.
As to the socio-economic views of the “libertarian” Randian right, they are completely anomalous and exposed as such in the current crisis, in which tens of millions of “middle class” Americans are watching their wealth, status, future aspirations and other illusions evaporate.
There is no chance or threat of their policies being implemented.
The real threat is of liberalism morphing, again, into fascism. This is why opposition to militarism and state surveillance and the Panopticon infrastructure of social control is so important: they greatly improve the ability of the proto-fascists to seize power.
A campaign, on the right, pointing out the unconstitutionality and radicalism of the programme that Washington is trying to implement, is to be welcomed. It complements the critique that we should be making without detracting from our ability to put forward policies which make it clear that imperialism is capitalism and vice versa. And that you cannot choose between them.
Campaigning against war and authoritarianism brings many disparate elements together in a common struggle, during the course of which ideas will change or be refined. My guess is that during the course of the coming struggles the necessity of adopting socialist ideas will become apparent to many currently deluded by right “libertarianism.” And that is a very good reason for understanding where such people are coming from and where bridges can most easily be built.
@42 You realise, Rowan, do you, that Kitson was barely commissioned by 1948 when the Malay Emergency broke out (he was 22) and would have been very junior in Kenya too? The strategies that Robert Thompson put forward and Kitson followed, used to be attributed, by Thompson among others, to Gerald Templar. I guess it is a question of who published last.

Posted by: bevin | Sep 26 2013 19:11 utc | 48

41) They target the secular “Western/modern” lifestyle – all fundamentalist movements target that. I put the “modern” in because Western fundamentalist/right wing movements do the same.
Nobody cares about any “axis” what people get mad about is other people’s lifestyle choices – fundamentalist or secular, it works both ways.

Posted by: somebody | Sep 26 2013 20:08 utc | 50

b
did lavrov just get shafted tonight

Posted by: remembererringgiap | Sep 26 2013 20:22 utc | 52

@48

“As to the socio-economic views of the “libertarian” Randian right, they are completely anomalous and exposed as such in the current crisis, in which tens of millions of “middle class” Americans are watching their wealth, status, future aspirations and other illusions evaporate.
There is no chance or threat of their policies being implemented.”

Sorry, but your Canadian is showing. Nearly every single state and municipality – not to mention the federal government – in the US is implementing those very views and has been for decades especially in the South as the free flow of campaign cash has been able to crush any form of democratic dissent/opposition to said socio-economic views which are at times dressed up in different “more Democratic” clothing – it’s hard for the poor to tell the difference between neoliberalism and libertarianism. Maybe if polls actually counted for something in politics your argument would stand but they don’t and your assessment doesn’t harken to reality. The policies of the libertarian right have ALREADY won the day in the US for the most part and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. Need I mention gun-control – another crusade of the libertarian right – and the complete lack thereof now in the US? Don’t even bother bringing it up if you want to run for office.

“My guess is that during the course of the coming struggles the necessity of adopting socialist ideas will become apparent to many currently deluded by right “libertarianism.” And that is a very good reason for understanding where such people are coming from and where bridges can most easily be built.”

Again, the Southern US has for decades consistently been the poorest, sickest and least-educated section of the United States yet that area’s anti-unionism etc are stronger than ever and there is nary a peep/flirtation with any form of “leftism” much less socialism.
Americans have one choice: corporate control of their lives. Period. There is no alternative.
Whether it’s via libertarians who want to destroy the state and replace it with corporations or neoliberals who want to sell the state to corporations, again, the end point is the same and there is no, none, zero, zip, zilch, nada, movement of any consequence to counter this in the US no matter how much you may like to believe that that is not the truth.
You seem to suffer under the terrible illusion that the US is a functioning democracy. Really, you have to stop that if you want to get anywhere real.
If it was a democracy your whimsical views into the political future of the US wouldn’t sound so completely far-fetched and fatuous.

Posted by: JSorrentine | Sep 26 2013 20:46 utc | 54

@48 adding:

“A campaign, on the right, pointing out the unconstitutionality and radicalism of the programme that Washington is trying to implement, is to be welcomed. It complements the critique that we should be making without detracting from our ability to put forward policies which make it clear that imperialism is capitalism and vice versa. And that you cannot choose between them. “

Gee, if we only could do an experiment to test whether or not the “hard-right” would point out the unconstitutionality of our government’s actions if THEY held the reins of power (again, not that there’s much difference vis a vis the layman’s existence), huh?
Oh that’s right, we did do that experiment already, it was called the George W Bush Presidency who not only did NOT GET ELECTED as prescribed by the Constitution – hey, you think that might be considered unconstitutional? – but he launched illegal wars, spied on US citizens, tortured, indefinitely detained citizens on and on and on. Hey, where was the “hard-right” and their Constitutional awareness for such BLATANT criminality? How come there was no around to create this wonderful coalitions of law-abiding citizens?
Nowhere to be found. Funny that, huh? But I’m sure you’ll tell me that now things they are changing, that this time it’s different.
Gee, I wonder what will happen the next time a right-winger is elected POTUS?
Let me gaze into my crystal ball….
The Republican POTUS will CONTINUE to ignore any and all laws while doing the bidding of corporations and the role of “law-abiding citizens” will fall back to those on the “left”. How clever.

Posted by: JSorrentine | Sep 26 2013 21:11 utc | 56

There is no way US troops would be participating. It would be sniper’s heavan.

Posted by: dh | Sep 26 2013 23:56 utc | 58

I just wanted to give a massive shout-out here. I stumbled upon this site via a Glenn Greenwald link quite a few moons ago. I only haphazardly checked in here, but once it became clear that media coverage of Syria, even among “alternate” sites, was either horribly misinformed or rife with blatant agendas, I found myself frequenting this site weekly to try to get to the bottom of the Syria situation. Recently I’ve taken to promoting this site whenever I can as a valuable source of information on the Syria conflict, which hopefully may expose you folks to a larger audience in general, not just concerning Syria. Some of the main authors and commentators seem to me, a credentialed student of history, veritable gem mines of useful information and sources. You folks have a special community here, and I applaud it. Cheers, and thanks.

Posted by: CathexesInc | Sep 27 2013 0:42 utc | 60

Now we actually have a leaked copy of the draft, and this is what it says, right at the end:

Decides, in the event of non-compliance with this resolution, including unauthorized transfer of chemical weapons, or any use of chemical weapons by anyone in the Syrian Arab Republic, to impose measures under Chapter VII of the UN Charter.

So this actually means that, on the basis of any alleged ‘non-compliance’, FUKUS can claim they have the automatic right to order air attacks (‘impose measures’), whatever Russia and China may say.

Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Sep 27 2013 6:56 utc | 62

The draft doc makes no explicit reference to the need to return to the UN. Despite what Russians or indeed any one here, might claim, there is no explicitly mandated “2nd vote” requirement in that document.
The draft doc states only “decides to impose measures under Chpt 7”.
It says nothing regarding the exact nature of those measures, nor how they will be imposed. There is nothing specifically ruled IN or OUT in that wording.
One might claim that a 2nd-vote is somehow “inferred”, but that would be wishful-thinking/delusional at best

Posted by: hmm | Sep 27 2013 8:24 utc | 64

AP likewise:

But if Syria fails to comply, the council will need to adopt a second resolution to impose measures under Ch 7…

I still don’t see any proviso remotely like that.

Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Sep 27 2013 9:35 utc | 66

As part of the deal, Russia agreed to send troops to Syria to guard CW sites. Sergei Ryabkov, a deputy foreign minister, said that other former Soviet republics that were part of CSTO would also deploy soldiers to provide security for the OPCW team overseeing the program. (Graun)

Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Sep 27 2013 10:20 utc | 68

Abraham Sofaer, a former State Dept legal adviser responsible for US-Iran negotiations and author of Taking on Iran, said a UNSCR that mentions Chapter 7 would give both the Russians and the Obama administration a bit of what they want.
Chapter 7 is the part of the UN charter that allows for military and non-military actions to “promote peace and security.”
Sofaer said:

The Russians will argue that mentioning Chapter 7 doesn’t automatically approve use of force, that it requires other measures first.
We would say this contemplates enforcement including use of force. The provision would give Obama grounds to argue later that there’s a moral obligation to approve use of force if the Syrians do not comply with their obligations.

Posted by: hmm | Sep 27 2013 11:28 utc | 70

Syria chemical weapons inspections ‘to begin next week’

Experts from the world’s chemical weapons watchdog will begin inspecting Syria’s stockpile by Tuesday, a draft agreement says.
The text also authorises the OPCW to inspect “any other site identified by a State Party as having been involved in the Syrian chemical weapons programme, unless deemed unwarranted by the director general”.

Here we go. Unless Ban Ki-Moon says otherwise, the US and Israel can demand that an inspection of every nook and cranny of Syria is undertaken – or else.
What a bloody ruse.

Posted by: Pat Bateman | Sep 27 2013 11:51 utc | 72

I read the text of the upcoming UNSC Resolution at http://un-report.blogspot.de/2013/09/security-council-draft-resolution-on.html
The resolution has been written by the Russians in such a way as to entice the USA to vote for it. A Russian objective is to try to bring the USA back to supporting the UNSC as the supreme institution for resolving international disputes, something which the Russians dearly wish for (as Wellington Yueh said on this board a couple of weeks ago).
I agree with USA commentator Abraham Sofaer, linked to at #69 and #60 above, who said the ambiguous mention of Chapter 7 in the Resolution gives both the Russians and the Americans a bit of what they want: “The Russians will argue that mentioning Chapter 7 doesn’t automatically approve use of force, that it requires other measure first. We [USA] would say this contemplates enforcement including use of force [without another UNSC resolution].”
Setting aside the Chapter 7 ambiguity thingy, and looking at the rest of the UNSC Resolution, I regard the whole thing as serving Russia’s interests. I read it as another Russian effort at trying to manage their crazy American ‘partners’. From Syria’s point of view, since Syria can join the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPWC) without any UNSC Resolution, this UNSC Resolution is needless and uncalled for. Since Syria has already decided to fully join the OPCW, I can largely agree with anyone who thinks the UNSC Resolution is basically academic. However the UNSC Resolution is undesirable from Syria’s point of view because it does infringe on Syria’s sovereignty, and will continue to infringe into the indefinite future, in this item of text:

“[The UNSC] decides that the Syrian Arab Republic shall cooperate fully with the OPCW and the United Nations, including by complying with their relevant recommendations, by accepting personnel designated by the OPCW or the United Nations, by providing for and ensuring the security of activities undertaken by these personnel, by providing these personnel with immediate and unfettered access to and the right to inspect, in discharging their functions, any and all sites, and by allowing immediate and unfettered access to individuals that the OPCW has grounds to believe to be of importance for the purpose of its mandate, and /decides/ that all parties in Syria shall cooperate fully in this regard.” http://un-report.blogspot.de/2013/09/security-council-draft-resolution-on.html

Posted by: Parviziyi | Sep 27 2013 12:02 utc | 74

good news for Russia, bad news for Syria
I hope I’m wrong, but this is what I was worried with since the beginning:

by accepting personnel designated by the OPCW or the United Nations, by providing for and ensuring the security of activities undertaken by these personnel, by providing these personnel with immediate and unfettered access to and the right to inspect, in discharging their functions, any and all sites, and by allowing immediate and unfettered access to individuals that the OPCW has grounds to believe to be of importance for the purpose of its mandate,

Posted by: claudio | Sep 27 2013 12:28 utc | 76

Hmmm #72
You agree with Angry Arab on that point. For a white supremacist, I am impressed you have such affinities. I doubt everything in the article is fake though, but some people here know Iran much better than you do. Do you believe everything you read in newspapers?
you really are a silly clueless little bint, zina
I doubt everything in the article is fake though,
what you doubt about the content of the article is immaterial since all you have appeared to do is simply c&p the URL without actually reading the article. Even someone as dense as you, zina, would have seen it for what it is, cheap propaganda, after less than a few seconds reading it.

Posted by: hmm | Sep 27 2013 12:37 utc | 78

Mina and hmmm
As a reporting journalist your job is to gather the facts to provide the version of events closest to the reality. But this guy has put together some snippets of factual information to create a story which only promotes the political “ligne de conduite” of Netanyahoo.

Posted by: ATH | Sep 27 2013 13:05 utc | 80

there’s almost nothing factual in it – it’s mostly a collection of alleged quotes or hearsay or anecdotes related 2nd/3rd/4th hand.
The majority of the “sources” used are either anonymous or about as trustworthy as . . em . . . Filkins himself, or even Zina herself for that matter. Given how low Filkins has had to go for “sources” and quotes I’m surprised he hasn’t quoted another Zina fave, Melamine Phillips.
His sources seem to range from the ever intriguing “a Middle Eastern security official” to the 100% reliable “a former Iraqi leader” – one would have to be a complete spazzhead to even think it contained anything reliable in the first place.
Reading propaganda can be useful occasionally, as it’s possible to learn something useful just by perusing lies. Just a pity that that was not Zina’s intention at all.

Posted by: hmm | Sep 27 2013 13:22 utc | 82

I was under the impression that Lavrov would not allow a reference to chapter 7 under any circumstances, yet there it is at 22/ to impose measures under chapter 7 of the United Nations charter. The Russians said there was no automaticity in UNSC Resolution 1441 to use force in 2002, but George W said there were consequences for breaching 1441, unfortunately he was right about that to the tune of 1 million dead and a cost estimated by the Kennedy Law School of 6 Trillion dollars.
Similarly the Russians were taken for a ride over the Libya resolution, it seems they will never learn, Samantha and Susan have got what they want, it seems we now await the inevitable showdown and test of wills.

Posted by: harrylaw | Sep 27 2013 14:11 utc | 84

@49 – “Gangs and pseudo-gangs” is available second hand about £/$200 a go. Posted by: Yonatan | Sep 27, 2013 10:06:02 AM | 82

Well, I’m not spending that much on it. My experience with inter-library loans is that they are very slow and often rather grudging; public libraries don’t really like to be used as if they were university libraries. But it isn’t that important to me.

Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Sep 27 2013 14:25 utc | 86

…that Dexter Filkins NewYorker piece that you’re pimping is pure propaganda, from start to finish. Well done
Posted by: hmm | Sep 27, 2013 7:58:01 AM | 72
Well from middle to finish, anyway.
The first part goes a long way toward explaining why the Yanks and “Israelis” use fact-free ad hominem against Iran … the facts are too awful to think about let alone talk about. i.e. attacking Iran would redefine the meaning of blowback, Iran having had close to a quarter of a century to prepare…

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Sep 27 2013 14:36 utc | 88

For comparison sakes, here are links to the two UNSC resolutions 1970 and 1973 that were used for the Libyan “exercise”. Compared to those, this current draft is a bunch of meaningless diplo-speak.

Posted by: JSorrentine | Sep 27 2013 15:00 utc | 90

@88
My alliterative nature sometimes gets the best of me and I really wasn’t baiting. 😉
It’s just that “outsiders” really have to understand that the situation in the US is far worse than is portrayed as even the most “supposedly” progressive of activists at heart still cling to – and proselytize to others – that the US as a viable nation can still be salvaged THROUGH the current political system and that is just hopelessly naive. Certainly, coalitions of disparate parts could in other countries maybe “do something” but the US system has been so thoroughly and systematically corrupted – e.g., unlimited corporate money in election campaigns? as a manifestation of free speech? (just one example ) – that before people can even talk about teaming up that really have to start having honest conversations about a replacement.
Here, for example, is one of the Supreme Court Justices – unmitigated fascist Antonin Scalia – yesterday talking about a person’s right to privacy as understood Constitutionally (from AP):

Scalia said that before the court’s 1967 opinion on wiretapping, the high court held the view that there were no constitutional prohibitions on wiretaps because conversations were not explicitly granted privacy protection under the Fourth Amendment, which protects against Americans against unreasonable search and seizure of “their persons, houses, papers, and effects.”
But he said then the Warren court stepped in and found that “there’s a generalized right of privacy that comes from penumbras and emanations, blah blah blah, garbage.”

(Read his opinion in Bush v. Gore if you want high jurisprudence comedy.) It’s gotten so bad that the fascists don’t even bother trying anymore. They don’t care. They know the people are either 1) working every waking second at a dead-end job to keep themselves alive or 2) feeding their mind with inane idiocy so they don’t have to worry about even saying – much less doing – the right things.
In addition, TPTB have take mass-media propaganda to a whole new level. Every movement and nearly every talking point is easily shunted into “acceptable” channels before any momentum is built around it. If somehow something does pick up some steam the overly militarized police force – chock full of War on Terror veterans and armed to the teeth with the latest in crowd control weaponry and tactics the IDF uses on Palestinians – will start cracking skulls at the drop of a hat.
So, my message to bevin wasn’t meant to be so snide, it’s just that if you want to talk about the true situation of the US I think it’s probably helpful to darken one’s outlook a few degrees. In other countries there may be some glimmers but in the US, it’s been dismal for decades and getting worse.

Posted by: JSorrentine | Sep 27 2013 15:36 utc | 92

Well from middle to finish, anyway.
The first part goes a long way toward explaining why the Yanks and “Israelis” use fact-free ad hominem against Iran … the facts are too awful to think about let alone talk about. i.e. attacking Iran would redefine the meaning of blowback, Iran having had close to a quarter of a century to prepare…
Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Sep 27, 2013 10:36:37 AM | 88
Well I have always maintained, from at least 2005 anyway, that the US has no real intention of open warfare with Iran.
Iran is a very convenient boogey-man for the US.
Threats of War can be a very convenient smokescreen, as we can see now with Syria.
Walk loudly and carry a big stick

Posted by: hmm | Sep 27 2013 18:07 utc | 94

Re #93: It’s not in fact Aangirfan who says “Sam Lewthwaite is MI5/6” in such an assured tone, but a certain Paul Coker. It may very well be true, but I can’t stand people saying things like that without feeling the need to offer any evidence. I might as well do a David Icke and say that she’s a reptilian shape-shifter from the lower fifth dimension. After all, no one can prove me wrong, and in the absence of any concept of evidence, I don’t have to try to prove I’m right. It’s just a matter of who is the best bluffer.

Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Sep 27 2013 19:26 utc | 96

Hey.Maybe I’ll be like Peace Pilgrim. It could happen.

Posted by: tsisageya1 | Sep 27 2013 19:50 utc | 98

Any of the purported “terror” attacks since the inception of the Global War on Terror should be considered bullshit from the beginning by everyone until legitimate evidence is presented to the public at large – shoe bomber/Daniel Pearl, underwear bomber, christmas tree bomber, Boston bomber, bomber this, bomber that, and then there are all the other “color” stories, Pat Tillman, Jessica Lynch….
I stated in the Hersh thread that people worldwide have to begin to see and frame the Global War on Terror as the largest act of illegal aggressive war since WWII and with it they have to understand how much more massive, profound and sophisticated the propaganda that accompanies it is compared to the olden days.
TPTB are literally rewriting the historical narrative of mankind by littering it with “incidents/events” of their own making and then using them to push their agenda, not just once or twice but every hour of every day. Surely, this kind of stuff – false flags – isn’t new, what is new is the scope. There is not an endpoint this time, that is the hard part for some to wrap their mind’s around. Every lie feeds into the next one and thus none of them can ever be retracted.
That is part of the reason why no one of “respected” status dares to step out of line and call bullsh!t; TPTB have laid claim – and even directly stated this – to reality itself and to call bullsh!t is to label yourself in denial of “reality”.
Oh it’s really all so clever and works well when there is no one on the horizon to challenge that “reality”.
This Syria business MAY be a first chink in that armor. We shall see.

Posted by: JSorrentine | Sep 27 2013 20:08 utc | 100