Photobucket

Censorship & Anti-Syria Imperialism at Lenin's Tomb [Updated]

by: fairleft

Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 12:27:50 PM EST


Richard Seymour of Lenin's Tomb makes an uninformed and odd interpretation -- especially in light of the very recent overthrow of Libya by Western imperialist forces -- of the internal struggle in Syria, and ends up backing "without conditions or prevarication" the regime overthrow effort that is very very likely effectively controlled by the West and its Gulf dictatorship allies Saudi Arabia and Qatar. And then he can't stand the heat he gets for his take. He writes:

The struggle in Syria is ... an open war of movement between, for the most part, the most advanced sections of the popular classes and a narrow state capitalist oligopoly which has always dealt with the surplus of political opposition by jailing it or killing it. In that struggle ... I situate myself on the side of the popular opposition. Not in an undifferentiated manner, and not without confronting the political problems (of eg sectarianism, pro-imperialism etc) that will tend to recur amid sections of the opposition to any of these regimes. But without conditions or prevarication.

Not that I blame Seymour for being uninformed, since that's what we all are in reference to Syria. Some of us react with caution when we're in that state, but Seymour has apparently decided to guess an authentic popular revolution has a reasonable chance of prevailing inside Syria, -- despite the strong similarities, including their identical outside money and support, between this rebellion and the one last year (that we now know so much more about) in Libya -- and throws his support behind those he thinks, maybe, are the 'real' revolutionaries.

I reacted to his possibly unwitting foolishness and was quickly banned from the site. Regarding the blockquote above I commented:

fairleft :: Censorship & Anti-Syria Imperialism at Lenin's Tomb [Updated]
Isn't "tend to recur" a bit weak in the present context, only months after the overthrow of Libya by the West? Screw "tend to recur," we can be sure what is recurring and will recur is close to the Libyan story. Who will have the guns and money? The U.S./Saudi/Qatari backed forces. Who will have logistics, mobility and immediate control over state media? The U.S./Saudi/Qatari backed forces. On the periphery looking in -- pissed as hell -- will be the honest and populist revolutionists. Yet you support the revolution "without conditions or prevarication" but if you think just a little you know that the winners will be the U.S./Saudi/Qatar. Why?

[UPDATE: The preceding has been deleted by Seymour, perhaps because his imperial highness couldn't handle the four recommendations it received.] To the preceding Seymour responded confidently and with name-calling:

This isn't analysis on your part, it's bar stool ranting. These are not the trends that have been dominant. The only situation in which they will become dominant is if the popular forces collapse under a regime onslaught.

How Seymour knows which "trends have been dominant" in a situation of near-complete news blackout, I don't know. I myself am just making educated guesses based on the Libyan nightmare and Syria reports such as the following:

According to former Central Intelligence Agency officer Philip Giraldi, writing in the current issue of The American Conservative magazine:

"Unmarked NATO warplanes are arriving at Turkish military bases close to Iskenderum on the Syrian border, delivering weapons from the late Muammar Gaddafi's arsenals as well as volunteers from the Libyan Transitional National Council who are experienced in pitting local volunteers against trained soldiers, a skill they acquired confronting Gaddafi's army. Iskenderum is also the seat of the Free Syrian Army, the armed wing of the Syrian National Council. French and British special forces trainers are on the ground, assisting the Syrian rebels while the CIA [Central Intelligence Agency] and US Spec Ops are providing communications equipment and intelligence to assist the rebel cause, enabling the fighters to avoid concentrations of Syrian soldiers."

Giraldi adds that the CIA analysts themselves are "skeptical regarding the approach to war", as they know that the frequently cited United Nations account of civilians killed is based largely on rebel sources and uncorroborated. The CIA has "refused to sign off on the claims" of mass defections from the Syrian Army. Likewise, accounts of pitched battles between deserters and loyal soldiers "appear to be a fabrication, with few defections being confirmed independently."

I admit to placing more trust in Philip Giraldi than I do in Libyan warmonger propaganda outlets like CNN or the BBC. Maybe that is the basis for my disagreement with Lenin's Tomb on our educated guesses about the basic facts inside Syria.

A minute earlier I had commented at the Tomb:

What Seymour welcomes will involve many thousands of civilians dying. And for what?

Seymour missed the reference to the Frederick Varley World War One painting and responded:

And for what?, you ask. This sort of question, posed this way, displays a complete lack of imagination.

Photobucket

Name-calling continued, I was charged with being a 'neo-Stalinist', whatever that is ... and then I responded to Seymour again:

The 'radical social change' if this effort succeeds will be a regime installed by the U.S./Saudi/Qatar. The forces in their command have an overwhelming military/logistical/money advantage compared to the independent popular anti-regime Syrian forces. We just saw the same movie in Libya 6-9 months ago, so it's extraordinary that you can't see that.

I admit to over-confidence in my prediction, but does anyone here want to bet against me? We saw this movie just a handful of months ago ...

Anyway, that was just about enough and my further comments were banned, so I was not allowed to respond to this Shawn Whitney silliness:

Absolutely right. We ought to shout from the rooftops that the Syrian people are foolish to fight for democracy when clearly the price of that struggle will be high and its success is uncertain.

Come to think of it, I hereby renounce my support for all movements for social change for exactly the same reason.

Do these kinds of comments remind you of some U.S. right-wing TV shoutfest? My response:

You seem to know so much about what is going on inside Syria, even what the revolutionaries' unspoken motives are, even when those motives conflict with what they have said. My guess though is that you're wrong, and this is just what it looks like, the U.S. and reactionary subordinate regimes doing some empire expansion at the expense of Syrian civilians and those few revolutionaries who are not clued into what's really going on. Those who are naive must be very few because this is so similar to what the imperial center did to Libya. ...

I also added another comment that was banned, in which I asked for a de-coarsening of the rhetoric at the site, or at least a reduction in the lies and ad hominem attacks, in what could've been a discussion about an 'information-poor' topic over which honest progressives and leftists can disagree.

My experience reading and commenting at that Lenin's Tomb diary reminds me of what someone said recently about how pro-war propagandists deal with the left. They're not interested in turning leftists and progressives en masse into imperial war supporters, but simply in sewing enough confusion, especially among our commanding heights, to debilitate a mass antiwar effort. It worked very well last year regarding Libya (read Alex Cockburn's The "Left" and Libya), and if 'Seymour duped' is an important sign then it is working well in the Syrian context.

Tags: (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

Off-topic, ain't Rocky Anderson great? (0.00 / 0)

February 07, 2012
Getting the Money Out of Politics
Rocky Anderson: "Overthrow the Dictatorship of Money"
by STEVEN HIGGS

The American people are disgusted with Congress, hold President Barack Obama in low regard and are ready for fundamental change. They understand that voting for Democrats and Republicans simply reaffirms a failed system and accomplishes little more than moving its players around. ...

Obama, he noted, started and ended this year's State of the Union speech with a militaristic, cheerleading appeal, seemingly channeling George W. Bush. The president claimed that, through the tragic, wasteful and illegal war of aggression in Iraq, the U.S. is safer and more respected around the world.

"If the American people, like donkeytale, still buy that, after all the disclosures about the debacle of that war and the lies that led us into it, I really fear for this country," Anderson said.

http://www.counterpunch.org/20...



For attractive lips, speak words of kindness, For lovely eyes, seek out the good in people, For a slim figure, share your food with the hungry. -- A-Hep

Rocky didn't actually mention 'tale in his comment, (0.00 / 0)

I added that JUST FOR FUN!!

For attractive lips, speak words of kindness, For lovely eyes, seek out the good in people, For a slim figure, share your food with the hungry. -- A-Hep

[ Parent ]
Even better fun, as an anecdote to your dreary series of liberal economists for President: (0.00 / 0)
http://latimesblogs.latimes.co...

The comedian has vowed to legalize marijuana and has asked President Obama on Twitter to freeze foreclosures. To show she's not all business, she started blending both her passions together, tweeting "Madonna amazing really loved her show...they say Romney will pick Fairleft 4 vice" on Superbowl Sunday.


[ Parent ]
She didn't actually say that Romney wants Fairleft for veep (0.00 / 0)
Romney really wants Fairleft for Ass of Paid Internet Fakes..

Romney wants to model his program after Putin's, where Reft has gained much valuable experience by having his head up Vladimir's ass.


[ Parent ]
Whoops, meant Asst. Sec. of Paid Internet Fakes (0.00 / 0)
Freudian slip...

[ Parent ]
Oops, Freudian slip there....meant "Asst. Undersecretary of Paid Internet Fakes" (0.00 / 0)
[:o)

[ Parent ]
Whoops, internet moving to slowly....repeating myslef. (0.00 / 0)
[:o)

[ Parent ]
Haven't had time to read up on the opinions over at Lenins (5.00 / 1)
but I'm sitting up in a hotel room watching CNN about to puke. Theyre literally on a mission to get us ready for a Syria attack. Susan RIce was just on...and of course Wolf is at the helm. The word "carnage" has been used about 20 times in the past hour and now they're saying 7,000 dead. And of course Hala Gorani and Arwa Damon are the bitches on the spot....from their 5 star hotels in neighboring countries of course. Susn Rice says "Assad, you have to hand over power in a peaceful way".

Theyve been repeating the same sentence or two evry 5 minutes, no exaggeration. (The "carnage in Syria" phrase)


It's hard being stuck somewhere being force fed that crap. (0.00 / 0)

Dreading airports and dentists' and doctors' offices.

For attractive lips, speak words of kindness, For lovely eyes, seek out the good in people, For a slim figure, share your food with the hungry. -- A-Hep

[ Parent ]
You two loosers (0.00 / 0)
Crack me up.

The CIA snuck Russian tanks into Syria and they are shelling Homs to sow the pretxt for an "imperliast" takeover by "counter revaotuitionaires"

Uou can't feuel the fake left.

Haha@!

RIOITUTESS!  


Drooling for those Tomahawks again, are we? (0.00 / 0)
Not to worry, they're engorging themselves as we speak.

[ Parent ]
Predictably, this one's good for you too: (0.00 / 0)

The diary makes the point very strongly that this is a fact-poor environment, not dissimilar to the Libya scenario. What matters now is who you trust, based on their track records. The West and its propaganda outlets have an exceptionally poor record, a record of outright lies and distortion, when it comes to reporting on neocon and neoliberal regime-change crusades. Right? And what do you do with that fact? Disbelieve Giraldi and believe CNN, the New York Times, and the BBC?

http://my.firedoglake.com/fair...

For attractive lips, speak words of kindness, For lovely eyes, seek out the good in people, For a slim figure, share your food with the hungry. -- A-Hep


[ Parent ]
Unpredictably, I believe Girardi, CNN, NYT, BBC, O'Reilly, Wolf, Lizzie and Pepe, Granma, Pravda, RT, all media (0.00 / 0)
should be allowed in and given full and free access to report on the ground from Syria.

Oh, wait BBC has a guy on the ground. One. And he is saying Russian made tanks are shelling residential neighborhoods. But don't believe him, he's an outlier. So is Girardi, I believe both reports! Send in more media! From everywhere in the world!

Send in the regiment of youth bloggers paid by Putin to troll the Russian internet! Maybe you can get a job there! You have a vvery impressive record pimping the Iranian, Russian, Libyan and Syrian press reports! Hired!

Predictably, you distort and twist and play the Syria crisis as a media mirage in order to evade the plain fact that people have been dying at the hands of the regime for months, the escalation has stepped up and a civil war is already under way.

Oh, yeah, and that you back the authoritarian regime (again).


[ Parent ]
The propaganda services will propagandize from Syria, they won't "report." (0.00 / 0)

I don't understand why that isn't obvious to you, with the recent media hysteria anti-Qaddafi crusade so recently in memory.

For attractive lips, speak words of kindness, For lovely eyes, seek out the good in people, For a slim figure, share your food with the hungry. -- A-Hep

[ Parent ]
So, then, it is true you don't yourself believe in SANA's propaganda and you were (a (0.00 / 0)
The media was shut out of Lybia too, your ridiculously phony assertion that they were given "fairly free access" to the contrary notwit.

But let the record reflect: on a free speech blog, both Laura (the proprietress) and now Fairleft (her pet monkey wrench) proclaim in unison that they do not believe in free speech.


[ Parent ]
I give more credence to sources that were or are similar to those that turned out to be accurate about the Libyan regime change operation (0.00 / 0)

than I do to sources that turned out to be lying hysterical "we want blood" civilian-killing propaganda holes on Libya. I don't know where SANA fits in that scheme, but I'm not reading it so far.

For attractive lips, speak words of kindness, For lovely eyes, seek out the good in people, For a slim figure, share your food with the hungry. -- A-Hep

[ Parent ]
More evasion. Show me the examples, he said again. (0.00 / 0)
Otherwise,all you are saying over and over again is that agree with anyone who already shares your opinion.

Vague innuendo isn't persuasive.



[ Parent ]
I have and you haven't shown me a damn thing. (0.00 / 0)

And, as I repeatedly emphasize, Syria is an information-poor story. We all know that, and as always with our 'free press', we expect to find out the truth after it doesn't matter, i.e., after the regime-change effort has either succeeded or failed.

For attractive lips, speak words of kindness, For lovely eyes, seek out the good in people, For a slim figure, share your food with the hungry. -- A-Hep

[ Parent ]
Also, can you link to examples of media reports of this occurring either in Syria or Libya: (0.00 / 0)
the recent media hysteria anti-Qaddafi crusade so recently in memory

And explain how the media has been "hysterical" with respect to both Qadaffy and Assad in the examples that you provide?

I'm not accepting "everybody knows", repeated endlessly as a valid answer.



[ Parent ]
Read Lizzie Phelan, you have the link. (0.00 / 0)

Read Alex Cockburn on Counterpunch on the mainstream media on Libya fiasco, I provided those links a few comments ago. Read Laura's comment above, I trust her and my impression. Read Glenn Greenwald on the Libyan regime change's human rights record here: http://www.salon.com/2012/01/2...

Oh, and here's Glenn Greenwald lining up your Libya rhetoric with your 'interventionists during the Iraq war' rhetoric:

Just as Iraq War opponents were accused of being "objectively pro-Saddam" and harboring indifference to The Iraqi People, so, too, were opponents of the Libya War repeatedly accused of being on Gadaffi's side (courtesy of Hillary Clinton, an advocate of both wars) and/or exuding indifference to the plight of Libyans.

http://www.salon.com/2011/08/2...

For attractive lips, speak words of kindness, For lovely eyes, seek out the good in people, For a slim figure, share your food with the hungry. -- A-Hep


[ Parent ]
I didnt ask for what I alreadyI know are the sources from where your totally unoriginal BS originates, (0.00 / 0)
I asked for examples of the media reports that you claim were anti-Qadaffy hysteria.

Repeating the same false meme over and over again doesn't make it any more true.

Back up your bullshit with factual basis.



[ Parent ]
Read those sources and others that show how all the mainstream media pretend the "activists say" stuff (0.00 / 0)

(i.e., the stuff said by regime-change operatives) is the gospel truth.

For attractive lips, speak words of kindness, For lovely eyes, seek out the good in people, For a slim figure, share your food with the hungry. -- A-Hep

[ Parent ]
"Do these kinds of comments remind you of some U.S. right-wing TV shoutfest?" (0.00 / 0)

Your comments remind me of some U.S. right-wing TV shoutfest. You might actually be real comfortable over at Lenin's Tomb, especially now that Seymour is becoming a solid and stupid 'humanitarian' imperialist. Defend him and his 'for what?' civilian-killing regime change operations in your usual style, don't change a thing.

For attractive lips, speak words of kindness, For lovely eyes, seek out the good in people, For a slim figure, share your food with the hungry. -- A-Hep

[ Parent ]
Here is an interesting piece regarding different reporting, state prescribed and independent (0.00 / 0)
http://www.jadaliyya.com/pages...

Check out the videe....different takes for leftist fakes...


From the article: (4.50 / 2)
These media games are designed to portray Syria as a land of confusion, where the truth is elusive, undefined, impossible to verify, and impossible to know. But even a subject as ugly and divisive as sectarianism can be treated in a sensitive and honest way, like in two of Anthony Shadid's recent articles, released back-to-back. The first examines the current sectarian rifts in Homs, and the second is a historical account of the Arab Christian experience, bleakly offering a warning and a lesson. Shadid serves grim reality alongside hope grounded in history. He, is not afraid to "speak truth to the people" as Rosen says. But this truth (and proof) of rising sectarianism comes after months well-rounded reporting, thus legitimizes the source and the the story. So here is the truth: it should not be disputed that the Alawites have suffered a brutal history of abuse and atrocities in pre-Assad Syria; that there are sectarian rifts in the society (although heavily propagated by the regime); that there is an armed element to the uprisings; that supporters of the regime do exist and not every pro-regime demonstrator was threatened, bussed in, or paid to wave the flag. It is wrong (and not smart) for the opposition to deny any of these facts. It is also true that both sides are afraid, but there is a significant difference: one side is afraid of an uncertain future, and the other is afraid it will not survive another day in the present.

While the media speculates the "inevitable" civil war, and Assad's thugs move from attacks on the streets to attacks on university campuses, and the Free Syrian Army adds more names to its roster of defected soldiers and boldly escalates the scale of their attacks on regime buildings, the opposition marches on, nameless and faceless. Amara's film zooms in close to show the heart of this revolution: the people. She understands the importance Rosen's concept of "hanging out" with the people. She visits their kitchens; eats iftar with them on the floor; she walks in protests; and even descends into a grave in al-Rastan where defected soldier, Fadi al-Kassem was being buried after security forces killed him. She invents creative ways of filming her subjects while concealing their identities, exposing only torsos, hands, knees, backs of legs. She artfully frames her shots through mesh, closed windows, and holes in doors. Heads are filmed from the back or covered, and faces are blurred.

Except the mothers. The mothers face the camera. Because they have nothing more to lose. Amara followed one mother whose son had been buried in the same park-turned-graveyard in Hama. Shrouded in black with her face exposed, she sat on the ground caressing the dirt, and she told Amara, "I've been sleeping for ten days over his grave. What shall I say? Where is my voice going to reach?" Amara asked her, "Would you like me to cover your face?" She replied in anger, "Don't cover it. Because I'm not afraid. I'm not afraid of him, even if he wants to come and cut me to pieces, him and his party. They've slaughtered us for forty-two years and silenced our tongues. My children's father was taken in the '80s, hung in Tadmor by the dog Hafez al-Assad." She moved her hand over the ground again, "I wish they were here and we were eating this beautiful dirt; instead of being under it. Instead of being dead." This mother refuses to live with the secret any longer. Is this what is takes to completely break the barrier of fear?



[ Parent ]
z (4.00 / 1)
Amara followed one mother whose son had been buried in the same park-turned-graveyard in Hama."I've been sleeping for ten days over his grave. What shall I say? Where is my voice going to reach?" Amara asked her, "Would you like me to cover your face?" She replied in anger, "Don't cover it. Because I'm not afraid. I'm not afraid of him, even if he wants to come and cut me to pieces, him and his party. They've slaughtered us for forty-two years and silenced our tongues. My children's father was taken in the '80s, hung in Tadmor by the dog Hafez al-Assad." She moved her hand over the ground again, "I wish they were here and we were eating this beautiful dirt; instead of being under it. Instead of being dead."

and LJ the Fake NA responds thusly:

"stop hemming and hawing"

"heehaw heehaw"

==


[ Parent ]
Who is Amal Hanano? (3.00 / 1)

Oh, we're not allowed to know, I see. She is not in Syria, by the way.

Amal Hanano is the pseudonym of a Syrian-American writer. She has published a series of essays on the Syrian revolution at Jadaliyya.com. Follow her on Twitter: @AmalHanano.
 

For attractive lips, speak words of kindness, For lovely eyes, seek out the good in people, For a slim figure, share your food with the hungry. -- A-Hep

[ Parent ]
http://twitter.com/AmalHanano (3.00 / 1)

Seems to be a full-time anti-Assad propagandist and says only the Syrian government has killed any Syrians:

In case you haven't noticed Syrians are not safe and not secure. They are dying at the hands of the regime, only.


For attractive lips, speak words of kindness, For lovely eyes, seek out the good in people, For a slim figure, share your food with the hungry. -- A-Hep

[ Parent ]
That's very interesting information, (0.00 / 0)
and I'm glad you brought it to the thread.  It's important to know one's sources.  Precisely why it is so important to have so many reporting on the events, do you see?  Imagine Syria as a free speech zone.  Don't you agree such an intelligent and independent people would eventually be able to get their truth out to the world - via social media if need be?

Of course Syrians are not safe and secure at present.  Would you deny it?  I highly doubt, though, that it is the case than they are dying at the hands of the regime, only.  In that I would certainly agree with your skepticism.

Nonetheless, she knows Syria intimately, from the background information you supply.  Personally, I would listen with respect to someone such as that, even as I might hold my own counsel.  I would certainly not dismiss such information out of hand.

Again, I try:  Would it be your contention that past events in Hama have no bearing at all on present events in Syria?  Does the history of the nation have no relation to which Syrians appear to be choosing which nations to approach?  Or does that really appear to you to be a random and completely outside-the-country manipulated process?

Why would you seek to discredit a source that writes something as intelligent and fair as this:

So here is the truth: it should not be disputed that the Alawites have suffered a brutal history of abuse and atrocities in pre-Assad Syria; that there are sectarian rifts in the society (although heavily propagated by the regime); that there is an armed element to the uprisings; that supporters of the regime do exist and not every pro-regime demonstrator was threatened, bussed in, or paid to wave the flag. It is wrong (and not smart) for the opposition to deny any of these facts.

Above all, for heaven's sake, did you notice her own contempt for the media's speculation?

Her viewpoint appears legitimate to me because it is informed by knowing the country and by nuance that indicates familiarity with the culture.  That is not to say it contains the entire unvarnished truth.  But to dismiss as propaganda the filmed reporting of mothers mourning over graves in towns where atrocities undeniably occurred seems incredible to me.  And to say so is not to throw my support to the United States Armed Forces coming in and starting an even more destructive war.

Meanwhile, I continue to note Russia and China are involved, too.  I happen to think Russia's position is reasoned but extremely poorly carried through.  It would have been better had it been articulated MUCH earlier.  As long as those two powers are involved, however, you surely cannot believe the US and its "lackeys" on the UN Security Council such as Pakistan (!), Azerbaijan (!) and Togo are going to ride roughshod over the present government of Syria.  

And of course that monolith League of Arab States, Somalia to Morocco, Yemen to Lebanon, Sudan to Palestine, has no right to an opinion either.  Or no?

At this point, what you appear to be arguing is moot, since Humpty Dumpty cannot be put together again at any rate.  So what now?


[ Parent ]
All of your questions depend on misunderstanding what I wrote. (0.00 / 0)

You likely skipped the parts where I said Syria is an information poor environment. However, it is an undeniable fact that atrocities are being committed on both sides of this civil war. Another undeniable fact is that you and I do not know who started the civil war, and it is the civil war that is killing soldiers and civilians on both sides. A final undeniable fact is that, similar to what happened in Libya, the only side open to peace, negotiations and compromise is the Syrian government, with support and counsel from Russia.

An undeniably strong likelihood, by the way, is that -- because we just saw this play out in Libya last year with the usual operatives well exposed -- the civil war was caused by outside Western operatives who assured the rebels of lots of money and other support if they went forward with an armed struggle.

What now: fight for peace and a Syria that doesn't become a clone of Saudi Arabia. (My take from what I've read is that the religious Sunni Muslim majority in Syria, and heavily Sunni regions and towns, are the lead forces in the rebellion.) Do not sit in a politically correct stupor as the imperial media darlings fight the imperial media villains. That's a pro-war and pro-death stupor.

For attractive lips, speak words of kindness, For lovely eyes, seek out the good in people, For a slim figure, share your food with the hungry. -- A-Hep


[ Parent ]
I discredited her but you didn't notice that. (0.00 / 0)

I'll repeat and add bold. The anonymous author wrote that only the Syrian government has killed any Syrians:

In case you haven't noticed Syrians are not safe and not secure. They are dying at the hands of the regime, only.

She may know Syria intimately, but she is lying in the above. We should give little credibility to  sources pulling for one side and lying about the other.

For attractive lips, speak words of kindness, For lovely eyes, seek out the good in people, For a slim figure, share your food with the hungry. -- A-Hep


[ Parent ]
No, I did see that, (0.00 / 0)
and acknowledged it in my comment.  I think.  If not (I thought it was clear), I acknowledge it now.

At any rate, I cannot entirely accept this as true:

We should give little credibility to  sources pulling for one side and lying about the other.

Who is determining the "lying?"  I thought nobody was able to report accurately under the current conditions.  How can we then ascertain "lying?"  Because we say so?

Taken to its extreme, this would imply "fair and balanced" reporting: that is, anyone who holds any opposing viewpoint to the established consensus must be recognized as holding a legitimate viewpoint.

I acknowledge such a concern in the cases of Iraq and Afghanistan even as I wonder about its consequences in the case of Nazi Germany, Stalinist gulags or the American slavery system, which at one time was the "oil" of its day, economically speaking.

Britain was leaning toward recognizing the Confederacy.  Had a slave living within the jurisdiction of the Confederacy advocated for rebellion, do you feel you would have advocated on behalf of Empire or perhaps encouraged him to continue his rebellion, even if it served the needs of a nascent empire?

Perhaps you might have told him to wait, even while forbidding the world's media from covering his plight in whatever way they saw fit. Plantation owners might not have been friendly to modern media.  It's true we don't know.  Perhaps we should have been respectful to their own history of repression, as predominantly Scots-Irish.

We all have stories to tell.  Of course the Confederacy was suppressed by the Union.  Their suppression resulted in an imperialist ethic that affected the 20th century and beyond.

Would it then be your position that it would have been better for the world had the Confederacy won, because of the many wonderful people who undoubtedly fought for it, even as the powers of the day sought to gain influence in its ascendancy?

Do you perhaps see where I might be going with this?


[ Parent ]
Seymour on target here: (3.00 / 1)
"Global military power and 'the great game' now trump 'class forces' within declining dictatorships every time."

This is glib. In principle, military power can always overrun unarmed masses. In practice, politics decides the chances of this happening. The Egyptian military backed by imperialism could have atomised the masses in Tahrir. But the relations of class forces and the political organisation of workers in alliance with the petty bourgeoisie led to the disintegration of the regime. Whether US imperialism can coopt the Syrian revolt precisely depends on the organisation of class forces. If the Syrian regime succeeds in dismantling the popular alliance opposed to it with massacres in Homs etc, then the voices calling for an alliance with imperialism are strengthened, and their chances of forming the nucleus of a new regime are increased. This is exactly what happened in Libya.

Worse than glib, your argument conflates a rational anti-imperialism with an abysmal a priori defence of police states under assault from popular forces.



Seymour confuses regime change funded and ultimately controlled by the U.S./Saudi/Qatar with a rebellion by "popular forces." (0.00 / 0)

Particularly stupid when the operation is modeled so closely after the Libyan regime change operation, which 'for what?' devastated Libya economically and 'for what?' killed thousands of civilians and soldiers on both sides.

For attractive lips, speak words of kindness, For lovely eyes, seek out the good in people, For a slim figure, share your food with the hungry. -- A-Hep

[ Parent ]
Seems also that your Giraldi story is also part and parcel of the usual fried fakeleft internet bullshit games: (4.00 / 1)
The always magnificent Ondelette pwns Failreft compeletely here:

Can you find one article that corroborates Philip Giraldi without any trace back at all to Giraldi? Just one. Because Giraldi's piece in American Conservative cites exactly No One for any of his "facts" about 1) "unmarked NATO planes", 2) French and British trainers, 3 CIA and US special forces operatives, and 4) Turkish forces ready to invade. He makes claims that the notion of the UN casualties are false, but there have been large numbers of deaths, because the Syrian Arab Red Crescent has been busy and has used large numbers of body bags. Likewise there have been reports of people brought in to hospitals. Those two are not "activist" reports.

There is corroboration for Libyans leaving Libya to fight alongside the FSA, but no corroboration for them arriving that I've seen (which doesn't mean they haven't). The number given was 600. The rest of what's in Giraldi's article occurs in no other articles that don't cite his, as far as I know, and he cites zero sources, and does not appear to have been in either Syria or Turkey during the time period in question.

His statements are being quoted all over the world, so you will have no trouble finding them on Iranian TV, in the Russian press, on Global Research, and in other fora. But you will find, if you look closely, that they all use almost identical sentence structure because, they are paraphrasing or quoting Mr. Giraldi, only. Since he cited no sources, it amounts to a re-recitation of horseshit until someone corroborates.

Reft, as always when his fakery gets busted, goes into full evasion mode by throwing up smokescreen after smokescreen of voluminous links which have nothing to do at all with Giraldi's piece. As a side note, some other fake lefty stalwart then throws out the totally fried Webster Tarpley as a news source (RIOTOUS), he of the PrisonPlanet regular guesting duties (now also joined on Alex Jones guest list by none other than fake leftist demi-God Pepe Escobar...whose recent lying in support of the regime propaganda Ondelette, as well as a poster on Lenin's blog which I reported here, also busted).

And of course she then destroys Reft with a simple declarative:

In other words, no one has confirmation of Giraldi's contentions at all. I thought not.

Reft comes back with his now thoroughly beaten down cliche BS: "well, we can't know whats really going on, so therefore we must back the regime's take at face value and season with any and all other non-verified fried regime sympathiser propaganda that we can dig up" schtick, to which O simply destroys here (not that thats very hard to do):

This is where we disagree. I have the same sources as I had with Libya, in which I also maintained a neutral stance, and you also did not. Let's take, for instance, the issue of mistreatment of black Africans in Libya. I was aware of the issue long before NATO involvement there. When the protests were still largely peaceful except in Benghazi, when there was the beginning of massing of aid groups at the borders. UNHCR and IOM had more access than other groups in Tripoli and other places, because Libya was a place of asylum for refugees. Many of those refugees were some of the same black Africans who were among the mistreated, and they were reported by those two groups as being locked in their homes and having trouble with food and water.

I even said something about it here, at FDL, and got ignored. This was long before there was a security council resolution, long before the tenor here was anti-protest in Libya and was suddenly pro-Qaddafi because people here were opposing the NATO action. I was tracking the progress of the aid groups, and reading their reports. I'm doing the same with Syria. But when I comment here, and say what I've found from reading those groups, which I read whether or not the country ends up in the news, I get all sorts of blow back from people like yourself who tell me who I can trust and blah blah blah about there being a news deficit and yell and scream about neocon neoliberal and yammer yammer.

No. Those news sources are what I read secondarily, after I've read my neutral parties. And you know what? Sometimes they agree and sometimes not. But Giraldi is out there all by himself with no documentation at all and nobody corroborating. So I call bullshit. Too conspiracy theory and too conveniently packaged to fit what you want to hear. And not consistent with the tenor of the protests and the way they've progressed according to the neutral sources. And too warlike to early, too. Most sources that are neutral are far from saying this is an organized armed conflict. Really biased ones are right in there saying it is. And that would include Giraldi. And he has no backup. So I say crap.

That's the real difference. You call the sources by which side you're on. I'm not taking sides and want all sides to cease and desist. Because I'm worried about the 1.5 million refugees there, originally, but also because there's no way to uncrack this egg.

That chick is a fake-left fried internet false meme killing machine.

I think I'm in love.

http://my.firedoglake.com/fair...

Say g'night, "Fair" "Left."

Your fried schtick now been pantsed across three blogs (at least) in the past few days.

You just love getting beaten up, don't you sweetie?


The woman didn't read the diary, where I said prominently that we can't confirm this stuff till (0.00 / 0)

after it doesn't matter. Syria like Libya when it mattered, is a fact-poor environment. It's all about the track record of the information sources. The track record of the imperial propagandists is spectacularly poor when it comes to truth. But, just like in Libya, where the critical U.S./Western involvement in the armed rebellion, essentially from its beginning, is now well known, I predict confidently that similar 'revelations' will occur after it doesn't matter anymore in Syria.

For attractive lips, speak words of kindness, For lovely eyes, seek out the good in people, For a slim figure, share your food with the hungry. -- A-Hep

[ Parent ]
Ondelettes old home was Salon, which "she" had to leave after (3.00 / 1)
diarrhea dumping of "thoughts" about Libya. There may be only 4 or 5 smart posters at Greenwalds, and they may be semi-nuts, but at least they dont take shit from professional bullshiters..

[ Parent ]
Generally a very positive reaction to this diary at myfdl, wouldn't you admit?! (0.00 / 0)


For attractive lips, speak words of kindness, For lovely eyes, seek out the good in people, For a slim figure, share your food with the hungry. -- A-Hep

[ Parent ]
Which proves what, other than an example of groupthink? (0.00 / 0)


[ Parent ]
If you respect those who commented, (0.00 / 0)

it indicates you've written a nice, useful diary. Since you seem to respect only fake noom and socrates . . .

For attractive lips, speak words of kindness, For lovely eyes, seek out the good in people, For a slim figure, share your food with the hungry. -- A-Hep

[ Parent ]
I respect and disrespect based solely on comment quality (0.00 / 0)
I respect no one for using debunked, fried internet hokum to defend their dubious position of ignoring the murderous repression of popular dissent by authoritarian dick taters.

Your statement that I seem to respect only noom and socrates is yet another example of your inability to be honest, even when examples of my respect for many bloggers comments, including even yours once in a greatly receding (because of your downwardly polarised spiral) contradicting your false assertion is all over this blog, including in this thread.


[ Parent ]
How do you know "murderous repression of popular dissent" is what is actually going on? (0.00 / 0)

Have you been in Syria so you are able to corroborate that contention for me? If not why are you saying anything at all about Syria?

Why do you think the Syria scenario is very similar to what the Benghazi rebels said was going on in Libya, when we all know now what those rebels said was lies? Do you learn from the past or just repeat the 'mistakes', if they advance U.S. imperialism?

For attractive lips, speak words of kindness, For lovely eyes, seek out the good in people, For a slim figure, share your food with the hungry. -- A-Hep


[ Parent ]
The Arab League report for one among many. (0.00 / 0)
Even tho Pepe tried to claim it said otherwise. The link is in this thread. There is You Tube aerial footage of Homs which shows hundreds of houses damaged in bomb attacks corroborated by the few media members on the ground there, who also report hundreds of deaths.

I'm on cell today, but there are links to the footage on Guardian's Middle East blog.

Your second question must be a typo, since you are the one making the correlation between Benghazi and Homs, not me. There is ample evidence, corroborated by video footage, Amnesty confirmed that (altho Lizzie Phelan lied about their confirmation, as well) the Lybian Security Forces attacked and killed unarmed lybian protestors during February 2011.

Why are you unwilling to support the  ending of the state media blackout in Syria? Afraid that your symping for the ruling elite based on the ruling elite's propaganda will expose you as a Fake Leftist, yet again?

Or are you now trending farther right against Freedom of Speech unless it is what you wish to see and hear (support for authoritarian dick taters)?


[ Parent ]
The Arab League condemns violence on both sides, (5.00 / 1)

and definitely does not say either side is "murderous."

(But, yes, repression of an armed rebellion is happening, and both sides are doing things that get civilians killed. Who inspired this armed rebellion that results in so many civilians killed, and who is giving it support and inspiration? For what?)

And, you read the imperial press.

So, you have no corroboration.

No, there is no corroboration of the charges made by the Benghazi rebels. There is no video footage confirming their assertions. Look at the video they say corroborates their version of events. It shows scared, isolated, random African immigrant security guards firing off random rounds without any casualties shown.

Why do you think allowing CNN, New York Times, UK Guardian and Al Jazeera propagandists direct access to Syria will rsults in improvement in the quality of reporting from Syria? With the wholescale pro-regime-change lying we saw from them in Libya?

For attractive lips, speak words of kindness, For lovely eyes, seek out the good in people, For a slim figure, share your food with the hungry. -- A-Hep


[ Parent ]
"And you read the imperial press so you have no confirmation" (0.00 / 0)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/worl...

http://www.columbia.edu/~haube...

The Arab League report made a lot of points, most of which have been corroborated by the "imperial press." Read the link I supplied in the comment above from the one reporter on the ground, who had to be smuggled in. Watch the video of the tank firing into a residential neighborhood. This is first hand reporting. Its is corroborated by the endless series of explosions in the neighborhood.

The reporter made the point that there are reprisals against the Government forces and that these were weak attacks (kalashnikovs against tanks) that served to self-justify the Government's brutal shelling of residential neighborhoods. The report quoted a man who was in sympathy with the regime and became angered at the Free Syrian Army for putting his family in line for Assad's military to take revenge.

I'm not afraid of allowing all world media to view the events in Syria from all sides. I'm not afraid of a messy, complicated truth. There are more than two sides at work here, as the AL report describes.

I am for freedom of speech, which includes freedom of the press. Why are you and Assad against press freedom?

There is an armed opposition that has developed in response to the Syrian Government's murderous repression of peaceful protestors for several months. There is still an unarmed opposition peacefully demonstrating against all odds. There are civilians caught in the crossfire. Some are Assad loyalists, some are troops. Baba Omer has become a war zone, thanks to the Government's insistent, heavy shelling.

The Mission reported a third source of violence (Al Qaeda-inspired?) that appeared to be attacking the Government forces and loyalist targets.

Terrorists have the capability of making single bombing attacks that can produce horrific violence. Only the government has the ability to produce the number of bombings as were directed into Homs.

Now Zawahiri confirms his support for the uprising. Unsurprising given the unabalanced political power and sectarian nature of the Syrian population, another artifact of the past decades' of Arab repression that will soon be swept aside into the dustbin of history.

And not necessarily to the benefit of the US and Israel, which makes your weird, unverified and unsourced insistence that the Syrian (and Lybian) conflict was an invention in the imperialist west all the more ridiculous, based as it is entirely on state regime (and their hired lackeys) propaganda.

There is no doubt at all that Syrian tanks are shelling residential neighborhoods and killing civilians, even after they earlier agreed with AL monitors to pull back from Homs.

Immediately on returning from Homs, the Head of the Mission met with the Government and insisted
that it withdraw military vehicles from the city, put an end to acts of violence, protect civilians, lift the
blockade and provide food.
He further called for the two sides to exchange the bodies of those killed.
16. At that meeting, the Syrian side agreed to withdraw all military presence from the city and residential
areas except for three army vehicles that were not working and had been surrounded, and one that had been
taken from the Army by armed groups. The Syrian side requested the Mission's assistance to recover and
remove those vehicles in exchange for the release of four individuals, the exchange of five bodies from each
side, the entry of basic foods for families in the city, and the entry of sanitation vehicles to remove garbage. It
was agreed at the end of the meeting that the Mission would conduct another visit to Homs on the following
day in the company of General Hassan Sharif, the security coordinator for the Government side.

The observer mission was itself attacked.

In Latakia and Deir Al-Zor, the Mission faced difficulties from Government loyalists. In Latakia,
thousands surrounded the Mission's cars, chanting slogans in favour of the President and against the Mission.
The situation became out of control and monitors were attacked. Two sustained light injuries and an armoured
car was completely crushed.

Although it welcomed the Mission and its Head and repeatedly emphasized that it would not impose
any security restrictions that could obstruct the movement of the Mission, the Government deliberately
attempted to limit the observers' ability to travel extensively in various regions. The Government also
attempted to focus the attention of the Mission on issues in which it is interested.

The Mission communicates with the various groups by mobile phones and facsimile machines
connected to the local Syrian telephone network. Occasional cuts in service prevent the Mission from
communicating with the groups.
59. The Mission was equipped with 10 Thuraya satellite phones. Such devices are hard to use inside
buildings owing of the difficulty in obtain a satellite signal. As a result, ordinary phones and fax machines,
which are not considered secure communications equipment, were used to send daily reports, instead.
60. The communication equipment the Qatari observers brought with them was held at the Jordanian
border, despite demands made by the Head of the Mission to the Syrian authorities to permit entry of that
equipment. That notwithstanding, the amount of equipment would not have been enough to meet the needs of
all sites and station.
61. The Mission does not have portable two-way radios for communication between team members. The
Chinese Embassy provided 10 such radios as a gift to the Mission. They were used in three sectors only.
62. Internet service is unavailable in some regions, and in other areas it is intermittent, including in the
capital.
63. There are no cameras attached to the vehicles used by the Mission, which would facilitate observers'
work in dangerous areas.

In some cities, the Mission sensed the extreme tension, oppression and injustice from which the Syrian
people are suffering. However, the citizens believe the crisis should be resolved peacefully through Arab
mediation alone, without international intervention. Doing so would allow them to live in peace and complete
the reform process and bring about the change they desire. The Mission was informed by the opposition,
particularly in Daraa, Homs, Hama and Idlib, that some of its members had taken up arms in response to the
suffering of the Syrian people as a result of the regime's oppression and tyranny; corruption, which affects all
sectors of society; the use of torture by the security agencies; and human rights violations.

The Mission admitted that its task was incomplete and that they need additional, better trained, younger and fit to move about freely. The events of the past week probably don't occur if the Arab League has monitors in Homs.

Under the Protocol, the Mission's mandate is one month. This does not allow adequate time for
administrative preparations, let alone for the Mission to carry out its task. To date, the Mission has actually
operated for 23 days. This amount of time is definitely not sufficient, particularly in view of the number of
items the Mission must investigate. The Mission needs to remain on the ground for a longer period of time,
which would allow it to experience citizens' daily living conditions and monitor all events. It should be noted
that similar previous operations lasted for several months or, in some cases, several years.

They weren't in Homs this past week, were they?


[ Parent ]
Correction: "Quoted a man who was in sympathy with the rebellion" (0.00 / 0)


[ Parent ]
A "third" source of violence (4.00 / 1)
 
That has got to be the thickest statement I've heard yet. It's even worse than reports out of Homs(via CNN) of the hospitals only having gauze to treat decapitations. Which trumped the "They're torturing babies, many babies" from the prior week.

Your third source of violence would be the manifestations of the dirty work of the instigators, who were obviously backed and encouraged by foreign parties, a la Libya. If you give a group of struggling young men the vision of future power and wealth you can make them risk everything, literally everything. Especially if their cause is ultimately just, WHICH NO ONE IS DENYING.

It was cute that they called one of the attacks on Aleppo a "suicide bombing", that all ties it in so nicely. They've thought ahead after making the mistake in Libya of not compartmentalizing "al quaida" from the "rebels". Definitely ups the righteousness level and then people like Greenwald have one less point to make about the heinousness of it all.

Looks like you got your "war" for the "people".  


[ Parent ]
looks more like your war against the people (4.00 / 1)
Whose cause is "ultimately just, which no one is denying", whatever that means beyond your admission that the regime rots and deserves to be cast out but only when.....when.... When?

You support the people only as long as they operate in a perfectly moral universe free from contamination with "outside forces" who would imclude other Arabs, Al Qaeda types, the Western sympathasisers both left and right (excluding of course the Fake Left), the entire range of the outside influences that will always be present in reality (meaning you deny any realistic solution other than "status quo") but at least you acknowledge a faint whiff of your twisted reality, unlike your pet monkey wrench. He's still trying to deny that the Syrian Military is bombing defenseless Syrians in their homes. He believes the poor, defenseless regime is vanquishing the imperialists living in the rubble of Baba Omer and won't listen to any other explanation.

As for the "third force" that was contained in the Arab League report so they are providing the thickness. I had no idea who they were talking about. Much of the actual news in that report was cited cryptically. Appsarently, the monitors made no attempt to define this force, probably because it is not obviously definable.

But you go ahead and tell me with complete certainty that you know exactly what's going down. What a laugh watching the groupthinkers of the Fake Left buy and repeat verbatim the same tired tropes of the Syrian PTB.

While people die right in front of youon camera undefended at the hands of the govt.

People whose cause is "ultimately just, no one is denying that."

Whatever, looser.  


[ Parent ]
I don't believe youve really lost all intuitive and rational sense, (3.00 / 2)
unless youve always been insane. Ijust don't get into the new decadances, one being the fetish of arguing on the internet for increasingly violent US hegemony.

[ Parent ]
You fricken hypocrite (0.00 / 0)
You obviously make the rounds at right wing kook sites then regurgitate it here. You're a dickhead, because there's no word nuance in your dictionary. People power gets abused in Iran and Syria or wherever. Then you and your totally exposed right woos left pal support that. Your Huey Long schtick gave away the shop. Isn't it time for you to delete this blog, since you and fairleft have utterly failed? Will you ever realise you have been doing dirty work for fascism then board up that embarrassing display?  

[ Parent ]
You're naive. (0.00 / 0)

Especially now, 6 months after Western imperialism overthrew Qaddafi, it's naive to pretend the same effort isn't being made in Syria. But you call a civil war generated, heavily backed and ultimately controlled by Western imperialism 'people power'.

For attractive lips, speak words of kindness, For lovely eyes, seek out the good in people, For a slim figure, share your food with the hungry. -- A-Hep

[ Parent ]
No, you like the warmonger Ondelette? (3.00 / 1)
So fucking typical. Always up arguing the finer points of gross chicanery. And doing it in only 5000 words per post. Fucking puke. So now it's posting at FDL? It's been shamed from nearly every other relevant site I guess.


[ Parent ]
No, according to your pet monkey wrench just above, she is atypical (0.00 / 0)
The fact that she was banned at Salon means nothing to anybody except you, I guess, who must spend a lot of time reading comments at Salon? Do you have various posters categorised with examples of their political positions, or are you just making shit up again to deflect from her excellent articulation of the fraudalent basis of your "peace....in our time" nihilism?

RIOTOUS!

Besides, Byron was also banned at Salon.

That fact makes him no more of a "war monger" than the also banned Ondelette.

Here is some more Ondelette, who claims she is a dude, or at least "not a lady":

Your guy, Giraldi, is being cited by the Assad regime for an excuse for his violence, that makes you what? It went from the pages of the American Conservative to the U.S. blogosphere to Pravda and IRNA to SANA to the official excuses of the Syrian Government. As far as I can tell, the story has zero corroboration.

They are laying siege to some neighborhoods of Homs right now. Kind of like Gaza 2009. Supposedly they won't let food or the Red Crescent or the ICRC in, although that is unconfirmed. It's your baby, built on the back of that story you are calling "prophetic". Just remember that when the Israelis laid siege in Gaza, the world rightly called it criminal and dripping in blood. That story and its consequences are your baby, prophet.

http://my.firedoglake.com/dame...


[ Parent ]
Ondelette is certain about almost anything negative about the Syrian regime, (0.00 / 0)

and attacks and discounts anything negative about those on the other side of the civil war. In fact, she's apparently attacking the Giraldi report not because it doesn't have corroboration -- what of her anti-regime 'reports' have corroboration? -- but simply because the Syrian regime cites it in its self-defense. Doesn't this "you're already convicted and can't be allowed to defend yourself" narrative remind you of the anti-Iraq hysteria just before our invasion there? Such axe-to-grind ideologues should not be trusted. In fact, her 'reporting' sounds a lot like the dire 'siege of Benghazi' lies that led directly to the thousands of civilians killing NATO onslaught against Libya.

For attractive lips, speak words of kindness, For lovely eyes, seek out the good in people, For a slim figure, share your food with the hungry. -- A-Hep

[ Parent ]
She's asking you to show corroboration for an article you posted (4.00 / 1)
And used as justification for your untenable position of 'disbelief in the MSM equates to automatic belief in anything that supports your false stance', which is same as Russia/China: Assad is a bulwark against imperialist aggression (false), the popular dissent is a tool of imperialist aggression (false), and therefore leftists must approve Assad's violent suppression of the popular dissent, now featuring a military shelling and blockade of residential areas of his own country (true depiction of the fake left position)

As for your sympathy with the "poor regime's" ability to defend itself, fine, just note the regime is and has been defending itself thru the same propaganda methods that you deploy, as well as through violent attacks on unarmed people that you quietly endorse, while calling anyone who doesn't endorse state sponsored violence a "war monger."

Ondelette did cite the sources for her research, including the Red Crescent. So even here, you make false claims.

In fact, lately, nearly every utterance you and Laura make is false and/or deceptive, beside the point, illogical and/or intellectually incoherent.


[ Parent ]
There's never been a point in arguing (3.00 / 1)
truthfully, logically, and thoroughly with certain people....with fuzzy equine ears.
The only people I argue with are those not in possession of the facts. Just because youve never seen that side of me doesnt mean it doesnt exist.

This blog is not my personal megaphone, though I know Ive said that b4. Actually these days I spend mpst time irl with real people, because you know, its about to get really real, really quick.  


[ Parent ]
She wants me to corroborate a report by ex-CIA operative Giraldi about activities taking place along the Syria-Turkey border. (0.00 / 0)

You don't find anything very funny, perhaps insanely funny, about that request?

Anyway, I begin the dairy by noting Syria is an information-poor news environment. For rational people that doesn't lead to crediting everything the opposition says (for example the material you blockquote) and attacking everything that makes the opposition look bad. And, if you/she didn't learn a little from Libya, where nearly everything the opposition (and intl imperial media) said turned out to be lies and nearly everything the government (and people like Giraldi) said turned out to be true, then, again, you/she aren't being rational, are we?

For attractive lips, speak words of kindness, For lovely eyes, seek out the good in people, For a slim figure, share your food with the hungry. -- A-Hep


[ Parent ]
Laura and Fakeleft are completely ignorant (0.00 / 0)
Phil Garardi or wtf his name is is a go to guy for internet convolution. It's no surprise an internet piece of shit like fairleft would be supporting an ex-CIA shithead now pumping out internet disinfo. Fairleft used to run interference for CIA loving Markos Moulitsas while attacking Francis Holland. This is typical of the fake left on the internet. A lot of dickheads talking, but no one with a brain is listening. Fuck this nonsense. Seriously, fairleft and laura are human forms of garbage. They are neo-nazis. It's kind of obvious. The term white trash comes to mind.

[ Parent ]
Philip Giraldi, ex-CIA counterterrorism chief (thats oxymoronic right there), (5.00 / 1)
was also a foreign policy advisor to Ron Paul in 2008.

A quick run-through of American Conservative shows that it is enraptured by Ron Paul.

Here we see again, the claims made by certain parties who wish to be considered "leftist," while relying time and again on rightwing, reactionary ideology for their arguments, as supplied to them through the magic of deceptive internet meme-planting.

The "clever ones" (oxymoron alert) buy it time and again, and then riotously point to the approval from their fellow duped and spun polarised cohort as evidence that the rightist ideology they are spinning is "correct."

"Might makes right" is the essence of any thought process that correlates popularity with the truth. Rightism, iow.

Sig Heil, Fraulein Laura Johann and Sgt. Fairleft Schultz.


[ Parent ]
Philip Giraldi is a dick, period (5.00 / 1)
Yep, he's a right woos left, disinfo garbage kookster. Haha, I am having the last laugh as my conspiracy theory to prove certain conspiracy theory as bunk has come to fruition as conspiracy fact.

I've a new post almost ready, and Giraldi is mentioned. That dude has been tight with Sibel Edmonds and Brad Friedman. It's not my friggen fault I figured out internet scams. I am the classic case of the messenger neing wrongly shat on.

As for the court thingie, it has officially become a circus, the biggest laughingstock of a proceeding since McCarthy went on his communist witch hunt. There's a new judge, and he threw out my motions. I just want the thing to end with no more censorship.

It's not like the truth hasn't been revealed. Rupp knew what he was doing. The new dude uhm, I think he also did the ambulance chasing schtick, and apparently according to him the threshold for one being a public figure is very high. I officially give up on that racket of a court.


[ Parent ]
Your motions need to be made in the form of an appeal of the default judgment (4.00 / 1)
You probably don't want to bother, at this point, and I don't blame you.

However, the injunction still lives, and Kimberlin can continue filing motions against you forever, ad nauseum, as he desires.

"Permanent" is a very long time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...


[ Parent ]
It's tough to care when the Judge doesn't (4.00 / 1)
That case is now complete bullshit. The # od judges is probably up to five, with only one apparently noticing it's 100% frivolous. The new judge doesn't have a fucking clue. The new judge allows proven perjury to go unpunished. He smirks at law which establishes the writ service was unconstituional. And if by chance he starts fucking with me as either Mr. Censor or Mr. Let's turn an innocent blogger into a criminal, then there's your proof fascism is alive and well in Maryland.

[ Parent ]
Giraldi likes Paul, therefore Giraldi is unreliable? (2.00 / 1)

That's your argument?

For attractive lips, speak words of kindness, For lovely eyes, seek out the good in people, For a slim figure, share your food with the hungry. -- A-Hep

[ Parent ]
Giraldi is writing "journalism" that is unsourced, unverified, and unconfirmed (5.00 / 1)
Thats my argument.



[ Parent ]
Dude (0.00 / 0)
There's no point in trying to have reasonable debate with such a wackadoodish kook.

[ Parent ]
How do you know his reports are unsourced? (0.00 / 0)

Anyway, as I've said many times here, reports like Giraldi's IN LIBYA turned out to be right, and reports by the mainstream corporate pro-imperial propagandists like CNN/BBC/alJazeera turned out to be lies. So, if you were rational, you would tend to believe Giraldi before you would believe CNN/BBC/alJazeera and similar. But you are not rational so you don't do that.

For attractive lips, speak words of kindness, For lovely eyes, seek out the good in people, For a slim figure, share your food with the hungry. -- A-Hep

[ Parent ]
What you are suggesting isn't rational. It isn't logical. And how do I know his report was unsourced? (0.00 / 0)
Because, uhhh, his article doesn't, uhhhhm, contain sources. Its not been verified anywhere else for the past three months. Virally spreading the exact same rumours all over the internet doesn't make them true.

When are you fried Fake Left propagandists going to grow up and realise this simple fact? Until you do expect no one outside your tiny spun and polarised reactionary herd to take your BS seriously.

http://www.theamericanconserva...

Now, in the same vein of spreading nonsense, please point me to primary sources for this statement:

reports by the mainstream corporate pro-imperial propagandists like CNN/BBC/alJazeera turned out to be lies

"Primary source" means linking to the "lying reports" themselves, and pointing out the lies, not a link to some other fried idiot also saying "the media reports lies".

And if you believe that reporting the rebels side of the story with statements that the story lacks confirmation (due to state repression of the media) is reporting lies, then the solution is simple. Let all the media freely into Syria to report what is going on on the ground.

You back state censorship of the media and then complain when the press reports unconfirmed opposition statements.

Twisted totalitarian mindset there, Reft.



[ Parent ]
Giraldi definitely didn't reveal his sources, if he has them. (0.00 / 0)

Does that help, moron?

I gave you a long list of sources for the statement you blockquote. Within those ten or so diaries, published in places that have been consistently reliable (especially compared to mainstream 'news' propaganda) on Iraq and and the Middle East over the last ten years, are numerous direct references to primary sources. I guess you didn't notice that, or just didn't read any of those very helpful articles.  

For attractive lips, speak words of kindness, For lovely eyes, seek out the good in people, For a slim figure, share your food with the hungry. -- A-Hep


[ Parent ]
A longwinded way of saying you aint got nothing....but fried opinion forming your fried opinion. (0.00 / 0)
"Primary source" means linking to the "lying reports" themselves, and pointing out the lies, not a link to some other fried idiot also saying "the media reports lies".

I anticipated your non-responsiveness, as usual.

But I'm the moron.....what does that make you?

Sub-moronic?


[ Parent ]
No, I have everything & I explained this all before. (0.00 / 0)

I have said multiple time that trusting news, for rational people, is based on those sources track records. (NONE OF US have access to primary sources, dumbo.) The recent track record of BBC/CNN/AlJazeera is a trail of lies that got thousands of people killed so the West could establish a compliant regime in Libya. There were alternative sources that have turned out to be accurate on what was really going on and what would happen after the regime change took place.

Now, on Syria, I place some trust in the latter's take, and little to no trust in the former. But I say up front and repeatedly that Syria is a fact-poor environment.

You, on the other hand, place your trust in the lying scumbag media who brought us regime change 'FOR WHAT?' in Libya. AND, you apparently think you know what is going on inside Syria, and you're certain that the regime change media is right that almost all of the blame and human rights violations are on the government side. Amazing that a rational person could do all that without being aware of how stupid he is being.

For attractive lips, speak words of kindness, For lovely eyes, seek out the good in people, For a slim figure, share your food with the hungry. -- A-Hep


[ Parent ]
You make this assertion over and over (0.00 / 0)
reports by the mainstream corporate pro-imperial propagandists like CNN/BBC/alJazeera turned out to be lies

but produce not a single lying report, all of which should be readily available on the CNN/BBC/Al Jazeera websites for you to blockquote and highlight the lies.

All you do is repeat the same assertions over and over, when pressed for your evidence to back up your assertions you produce other opinions writers making the same assertions. Finally, when that fails, you make more assertions, colour them with your reasons for making the assertions and why you instead choose to believe pure state media (and their flunkies') fabrications as a matter of course, resort to name calling (typical when you have nothing), and still fail to produce the "lying reports (AKA news articles)" themselves, upon which your argument is based.



[ Parent ]
That's because what happened/is happening in Libya is common knowledge (0.00 / 0)
Only an unpracticed troll still demands "links".

Why r u slipping?


[ Parent ]
And I've posted a long list of excellent sources here (0.00 / 0)

http://pffugeecamp.com/showCom...

and here

http://pffugeecamp.com/showCom...

In response you've got CNN, the BBC, and anonymous Syrian 'activists' who sound a lot like the anonymous Benghazi 'activists' who filled interventionist propaganda airtime in the run-up to the Libya regime overthrow.

But if you don't like what Cockburn, Phelan, Greenwald and so on are reporting, fine. You go on getting fooled by the obviously lying imperial propaganda, and I'll keep searching out folks with good accuracy track records.

BTW, and one more source, whoever is reporting from Syria for the Irish Times seems pretty damn honest and independent, in my humble opinion:

The struggle for territory is accompanied by looting by militiamen and criminals, and by kidnappings of Sunnis by Alawites and vice-versa. Some victims are exchanged, some ransomed, others tortured and killed, their bodies dumped on waste ground. According to my diplomatic source, more than 100 Alawite women have been abducted, held for long periods and raped, tortured and slain. Alawites have retaliated by kidnapping and abusing Sunni women.

The source remarks that, in rebel-held Sunni neighbourhoods of Homs, mainly fundamentalist militants have the full support of the populace and even the "old families" who harbour long-standing animosities towards the secular regime. "It is an Islamist uprising to reassert the supremacy of Muslims over infidels," he said. "Sunnis [elsewhere] do not admit what is happening in Homs. The opposition has used religion to incite people in the streets. While the opposition accuses the regime of exploiting the threat of sectarian warfare to turn people against the rebels, the government's only hope is to keep playing the secular card."

http://www.irishtimes.com/news...

For attractive lips, speak words of kindness, For lovely eyes, seek out the good in people, For a slim figure, share your food with the hungry. -- A-Hep


[ Parent ]
Phelan, Greenwald, Cockburn arent reporting anything. They are bloggers making commentary (0.00 / 0)
You assert that BBC/Al J and CNN are reporting lies.

Show me those BBC/Al J/CNN lies. Link/blockquote/Highlight in bolded italics.  

From what onsite reporting I have read from BBC and Irish Times and Guardian correlates closely with what the Arab League reported cryptically. I'm for all of them to be allowed inside Syria and more.

The Arab League needs to go back in with better prepared, better equipped monitors and given the freedom to move about and report clearly what they see. They were highly critical of themselves and the Syrian Govt in their first report regarding their inability and lack of freedom.

Assad, like Qadaffy before him, should become open and transparent wrt the battle field developments and both its sectarian and state repressive components.

The media is making do with the limited ability it has by smuggling reporters inside the country. Your constant carping about the media is a distraction from the real issues, one of the most germane being state media censorship assisting, not preventing an escalation of the conflict.


[ Parent ]
as eye say (0.00 / 0)
is it any wonder Israel has armed itself to the teeth given it's surrounded by these violent, maniacal regimes and fundamentalist Islamist movements of all stripes.

whoever is reporting from Syria for the Irish Times seems pretty damn honest

yer finally catching on to what Israelis have known, lived and suffered from for decades.

bout time


[ Parent ]
Here, allow me to help. Can you point out the lies and propagandain this BBC article? (4.00 / 1)
[ Parent ]
"You are not rational" (0.00 / 0)
Incorrect.

I am not rationalising. Big, big difference and in fact, thats exactly what you are doing.

1.Attempt to explain or justify (one's own or another's behavior or attitude) with logical, plausible reasons, even if these are not true.


[ Parent ]
You are not rational because you continue to believe in (0.00 / 0)

'news' sources that have been consistently non-reliable in their Middle East coverage over the past decade. When you have the option of reading and tentatively believing in news sources that have been much more reliable and truthful.

For attractive lips, speak words of kindness, For lovely eyes, seek out the good in people, For a slim figure, share your food with the hungry. -- A-Hep

[ Parent ]
Hey asshole (2.00 / 1)
I don't need a Giraldi, a Garibaldi, a Ghiradelli, or a Giraffe to explain whats bloody obvious to any person who doesn't spend their waking hours googling pictures of pwoggie activists who turned them down for a job 10 years ago.

Who's completely ignorant? The ones who seek out state-approved propaganda, for their own argument's sake alone....this is a very sadistic course of life, to use a word which you seem to feel passionately about.


[ Parent ]
Make some sense, ya dirty rotten idjit (0.00 / 0)
You fricken have been praising Huey Long and now comes both of you supporting another totalitarian. The bottom line is both you and fairleft have a hard on for right wing kook theories. You get busted time and time again. Deal with that, you mindless wench.

[ Parent ]
huh? you lost me there (0.00 / 0)


[ Parent ]
It would aid your recovery if you try to find one time I've been "busted." (0.00 / 0)


For attractive lips, speak words of kindness, For lovely eyes, seek out the good in people, For a slim figure, share your food with the hungry. -- A-Hep

[ Parent ]
she wasnt banned at Salon dumbass (2.00 / 1)
she was SHUNND and rightfully so, but only after 20,000 20,000 word comments. Youse guys are troopers!

[ Parent ]
oops.. meant "she" (1.00 / 1)


[ Parent ]
Just so you know, the censorship thesis of your article is false, like most of your recent schtick (0.00 / 0)
Those comments you claim were banned are posted.

There have been 105 comments total listed for several days, about a week.

Yours are among them. Posted one week ago.

Fairleft

I suppose it's pointless, and I'm certainly guilty of getting with the ugliness and cheap laughs prevalent here, but this site could use some de-coarsening of rhetoric. Did Robert suggest that Russia is not imperialist? No. Did I suggest the Syrian people were foolish to fight for democracy? No. One cure for coarse rhetoric is simply to answer the points made by your opponent, instead of working on how you can twist his or her words, or just make things up, in order to make fun of your opponent. Syria is complex -- what is going on inside the country is unclear, who is doing what is unclear, much about the motives of participants is unclear -- and a matter over which honest progressives and socialists can respectfully disagree.

Like
Reply
1 week ago
in reply to Shawn Whitney
1 Like

******

Fairleft

You seem to know so much about what is going on inside Syria, even what the revolutionaries' unspoken motives are, even when those motives conflict with what they have said. My guess though is that you're wrong, and this is just what it looks like, the U.S. and reactionary subordinate regimes doing some empire expansion at the expense of Syrian civilians and those few revolutionaries who are not clued into what's really going on. Those who are naive must be very few because this is so similar to what the imperial center did to Libya.

And, uh, yeah, there is imperial rivalry but it is not 'intense' within the Middle East. The U.S. is the sole superpower, Israel and Iran are important regionally, but Russia and China are only important because they can tie up the U.S.-subordinate UN. So there is no great game or U.S./USSR rivalry for local revolutionaries to exploit. Recent and present reality is either to resist (with help from several non-superpower allies) or get with U.S. hegemony. U.S. hegemony, which is what you unwittingly support because you can't figure out the preceding basics, will suck in Syria.

Like
Reply
1 week ago
in reply to Shawn Whitney
1 Like

You probably jumped the gun, but for the sake of your own credibility, which you have worked OT to extinguish here of late, you may wish to acknowledge that a great deal of your dairy is based on a mistaken premise.


However this bit probably qualifies as the projection alert of all time (0.00 / 0)
One cure for coarse rhetoric is simply to answer the points made by your opponent, instead of working on how you can twist his or her words, or just make things up, in order to make fun of your opponent.

I hope for your sake you were staring into the mirror when you posted that comment.

RIOTOUS!


[ Parent ]
Playing games with my comments, fine. (1.00 / 1)
I checked the day I wrote this, which was more than a day after I wrote those two comments, and subsequent comments were posted, including one responding to one of my posts, but neither of my comments were posted. Checked again a couple days later and nothing.

Good to see you're on the ball by checking 8 or 9 days after I posted my comment to see whether it has been posted now, when it doesn't matter, in that now dead discussion. You're probly the only person to read them on the Tomb.

For attractive lips, speak words of kindness, For lovely eyes, seek out the good in people, For a slim figure, share your food with the hungry. -- A-Hep


[ Parent ]
If "playing games" means refuting your inaccuracies with proof, challenging you to provide verification for your obvious, outright frhetorical fraud, (5.00 / 1)
And inability to admit your dishonesty by correcting your BS when its shown to be false, then yes, I'm playing games.

And pitching a shut out.


[ Parent ]
Only a true fucktard would lie like that (5.00 / 1)
Fairleft could be some form of right wing operative. Maybe he's trying to flush out crazies but is incompetent.

[ Parent ]
Only true morons could misunderstand plain English like u & tale. (2.00 / 1)

I was VERY obviously NOT saying 'tale was playing games with my comments and was saying Lenin's Tomb was playing games. But you (sincerely) and he (probly insincerely) didn't understand that?

For attractive lips, speak words of kindness, For lovely eyes, seek out the good in people, For a slim figure, share your food with the hungry. -- A-Hep

[ Parent ]
Is there a Supertroll University, like you know? (5.00 / 1)
Maybe donkeytale and Lenin's Digs are in cahoots. Dig deeper, my friend. And don't forget to utilise the secret decoder ring. HAHAHA!!!!

[ Parent ]
More evidence of RMD (2.00 / 1)

.... reading miscomprehension disorder.

For attractive lips, speak words of kindness, For lovely eyes, seek out the good in people, For a slim figure, share your food with the hungry. -- A-Hep

[ Parent ]
You haven't refuted (you know what the word means?) anything, (2.00 / 1)

your challenges were fully met, and you haven't mentioned any rhetorical fraud until just now.

But no, you misunderstood, I was (obviously) saying not you but Lenin's Tomb was playing games with my comments, disappearing them when it mattered, letting people attack me and not allowing me to reply, and then reappearing my responses a week after everyone had gone on to the next diary.


For attractive lips, speak words of kindness, For lovely eyes, seek out the good in people, For a slim figure, share your food with the hungry. -- A-Hep


[ Parent ]
You have failed to produce a single BBC/Al J/CNN report and explained how/why the article is a lie. (5.00 / 1)
Not one. All you can post is other people making the same assertions. This isn't evidence to back your assertion,. Its more assertions to cover your rhetorical fraud.

Or as Laura just admitted she is doing, you are hallucinating what you are reading and fraudently terming it something else, altogether. This is indeed an example of rhetorical fraud.

AKA Orwellianism.

The fact that rhetorical fraud is widely practiced on the internet doesn't excuse you from copying it, even as clumsily as you do.

You based this diary on the premise that you were censored at Lenin's Tomb. However, you were not censored.. Once I showed how your statement was untrue,  you now switch to saying games were played, comments disappeared/re-appeared, you were attacked and not allowed to reply.

Did you ever go back and check to see if your comments were posted? Doesnt sound like you did.

I saw 105 comments on that thread for about a week. Your comments are/were included in the 105. Now, there apparently is some kind of glitch in blogger that is noted in other comments, which has obscured some users views.

Hence, this diary is based on rhetorical fraud, up until the point that you update it and admit that the comments were posted, that there is the possibility of a glitch, etc>

The only cure for dishonesty is honesty. Try it sometime.


[ Parent ]
I've provided 12-13 articles and one video that do that. (2.00 / 1)


For attractive lips, speak words of kindness, For lovely eyes, seek out the good in people, For a slim figure, share your food with the hungry. -- A-Hep

[ Parent ]
"You have failed to produce a single BBC/Al J/CNN report and explained how/why the article is a lie." (5.00 / 1)


[ Parent ]
"I've provided 12-13 articles and one video that do that." (0.00 / 0)


For attractive lips, speak words of kindness, For lovely eyes, seek out the good in people, For a slim figure, share your food with the hungry. -- A-Hep

[ Parent ]
Not a single BBC/Al J/CNN article, nor an actual analysis of their lies with their words showcased. (0.00 / 0)
Perhaps because, unlike Laura who lamely tried to analyse a BBC article and only showcased her own delusionality, you are well aware of your own dishonesty when repeating such propogandandistic tripe, over and over?

[ Parent ]
More Fairleft rhetorical fraud: "U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has allied the U.S. with al Qaeda leader Ayman Al-Zawahri in the effort to overthrow the Syrian government of Bashir Assad" (5.00 / 1)


[ Parent ]
They're on the same side so they're allies. Your confusion is solved. (2.00 / 1)


For attractive lips, speak words of kindness, For lovely eyes, seek out the good in people, For a slim figure, share your food with the hungry. -- A-Hep

[ Parent ]
Really? They are on the same side? (5.00 / 1)
And your evidence of this is what?

Because Bush ordered the 9/11 attacks?

I guess this must be more war mongering from the MSM, then, reporting lies:

Ayman al-Zawahiri, global head of al-Qaeda since the death of Osama bin Laden last May, issued the call to arms in an eight-minute video entitled Onwards, Lions of Syria posted on an Islamist website.

Egyptian-born Zawahiri urged Muslim states, including Iraq, Lebanon and Jordan, to come to the aid of Syrian protesters, who he called on not to ally themselves with the Western powers or the Arab League.

"Our people in Syria, don't rely on the West or the United States or Arab governments and Turkey", Zawahiri said. "You know better what they are planning against you. Our people in Syria, don't depend on the Arab League and its corrupt governments supporting it".

http://www.smh.com.au/world/al...

OK, I get it. He just said that to throw the media off the scent. He really meant the opposite because he's CIA.

Got it.



[ Parent ]
The dude's caught lying (3.00 / 1)
There was no censorship, yet he leaves his libel up for all to see. This is shameful. I am thoroughly disgusted with these failreftian shenanigans.

[ Parent ]
I socratised his ass pretty good, eh Champ? (5.00 / 1)
ALso came up with a new label for the entire looser cohort wrt Syria:

The Fake Leftist Foreign Legion.


[ Parent ]
Don't put yourself down. (1.00 / 1)


For attractive lips, speak words of kindness, For lovely eyes, seek out the good in people, For a slim figure, share your food with the hungry. -- A-Hep

[ Parent ]
Yeah, that characterisation was gratuitous. (3.00 / 1)
But still, it was true.

You based your diary on a false premise, made several false claims and don't have the courage to correct the record now that you were shown to be inaccurate.

Why am I not surprised.


[ Parent ]
Well, tell me what those false premises and false claims are, (0.00 / 0)

I'm all ears!

For attractive lips, speak words of kindness, For lovely eyes, seek out the good in people, For a slim figure, share your food with the hungry. -- A-Hep

[ Parent ]
1. That you were censored and banned at Lenin's Tomb (5.00 / 1)
2. That your censorship/banning (which I have shown did not in fact occur) resulted from your assertion that Seymour is an "anti-Syrian imperialist" and/or the fact that you recvd 4 reccs for one of your comments.

Since neither premise is true, you should concede as much in an update or rewrite your diary altogether.

BTW, some posters there have commented on some Google-update related issues in the Blooger software that are causing comments not to appear at all times.

I myself saw the 105 (now 106) comment Syrian thread show 0 comments for awhile one day. So something weird seems to be happening with the comment threads.

I think I made a comment there that same week as you which took 1-2 days to appear, and I believe this all that happened to you, as well.

So there, I have even provided you with a graceful escape.



[ Parent ]
I almost missed this one (4.00 / 1)
Fairleft is so boring, it's tough to stick it out too long when he's involved. He's a broken down punching bag who should create a new username and start over. Once he admits to having been brainwashed by the internet, perhaps then he can be deprogrammed. It will be a long recovery time for him and Laura. They may not ever heal. They are in some deep denial.

[ Parent ]
You flimsily allege those two things, don't you think?? (2.00 / 1)

1. You admit you looked at the site one week after the alleged deletion of my comments occurred. (I did not say I was 'banned', by the way, I said 'Censorship ... at Lenin's Tomb'.) When you noted that my comments had apparently been unbanned a week after they were made, and several days after they no longer mattered, I wrote that since they no longer mattered, since that was now a dead unvisited discussion, mebbe Lenin decided to un-censor them. That seems reasonable, so I don't see what you've done; you certainly haven't 'shown' anything.

2. My diary is of course speculative. Your "2." is extremely bend-over-backwards speculative in defense of censorship. I waited two days plus and then posted my allegation of censorship. You know the deal with deleting and un-deleting and general fucking around by assholes with comments, how that went at Jack's Place, so as usual I suspect you're arguing here with me just to argue.

Generally, get over yourself, you're not as good at arguing as I am. But you're a winner, I'm sure, in many other walks of life! And smarter and cooler and better at donkeytalizing than Socrates will ever be at Socratizing.

For attractive lips, speak words of kindness, For lovely eyes, seek out the good in people, For a slim figure, share your food with the hungry. -- A-Hep


[ Parent ]
Fairleft is a fabulist (0.00 / 0)
He gets busted time and time again making up stuff or having bizarre world views. He's clearly the Alex Jones of the Left, which uhm, basically means he is on the right except for once in a while he's a people fighter, that is if they have white skin or are against Joooos. It's also lame of him to act holier than thou in regards to Jack, when he was in the forefront of attacking Francis Holland at My Left Wing. Maybe Fairleft is paid to post. Or maybe he's simply retarded from drug use or something that happened, like his mom drank too much booze while pregnant.

[ Parent ]
Dude, it's not called socratisation for nothing (4.00 / 1)
Get something through your thick skull. You may find this hard to believe, but you are what is referred to as a trollbuser. Picture the highlander, but insead of swords, our weapon is the pen keyboard.

And of course as we blog in live time, Captain Laura von Schnitzelface refuses to frontpage your new masterpiece. Shame on her!


[ Parent ]
I prefer being down in steerage, among the trollbusers meslef (0.00 / 0)
Before the movie's over all be drowned anyway.

[ Parent ]
Aye Laddie (5.00 / 1)
Live to fight another day. I hear you, brother. I am close to announcing my retirement from Major League Trollbusting. I wouldn't mind a coaching or media position though.  

[ Parent ]
Market yourself. Put a portfolio together. (0.00 / 0)
Feature your DL picture, not your jock pose on the back porch. Contact PNN.

Let me know if you need any advice.

 


[ Parent ]
The U.S. and al Qaeda support the same side in the Syrian civil war. PERIOD. (2.00 / 1)

That's obvious and your blockquote is off-topic and doesn't contradict it. Yes moron, we all know al Qaeda and the U.S. (appear to [added for the conspiratorally minded]) disagree on many things, including on what would be the best result of the civil war, but nevertheless and from (possibly [added for the conspiratorally minded]) different motives, they support the same side.

Are you gonna tell me now that Tojo and Hitler, or Stalin and Roosevelt, weren't on the same side in World War II just because they had radically different goals and values and probly despised each other?


For attractive lips, speak words of kindness, For lovely eyes, seek out the good in people, For a slim figure, share your food with the hungry. -- A-Hep


[ Parent ]
Supporting the same side (which even here is very debatable) and being allied are two very different things (4.00 / 1)
although your weaselly worded attempt is clearly to "align" the two, because you believe it is a clever, salient point that you are making.

Sorry, dude. It's neither.

The Hitler/Tojo and FDR/Stalin comparisons are inapt, of course. Apples and oranges even if Al Qaeda and the US were formally allied, as those pairs you mentioned actually were. BTW, Hitler/Stalin were also formally allied. Assad/Putin are formally allied today.

So what? You would actually be more intelligent aligning Al Qaeda with the US over 9/11, which you want to do but are afraid for some reason. It fits a logical sequence of conspirality that you hint at wrt Syria but since you won't engage it you are simply playing games, uncleverly, as per usual.

There can be (and often are) more than two sides involved in a revolutionary conflict, Reft. Study the Russian Revolution, for instance. You would know that the movement in Syria is growing increasingly complex as the regime falters.

If you read Paul Wood's report from inside Homs or even the Arab League monitor's report, who were also in Homs, you would understand this complexity. Instead, you wish to bury your head in the sand and believe what you want to believe, which net equals "support the regime at all costs".

I know your mind has a difficult time with more than binary concepts. In fact, you normally even make a mental hash out of duality.

I will agree with you that Hillary is awful, easily the worst SOS in memory, murderously damaging at worst and completely ineffectual at best. Thank G.O.D. she is retiring at the end of this term.

But if they bring in another dismal choice, like Leon Panetta at Defense, I won't be happy about it.

How about Roseanne for SOS?

Or "Yves Smith"?


[ Parent ]
Poor move ... al·lied: joined by treaty, agreement, _or_ common cause. (dictionary dot com) (2.00 / 1)


For attractive lips, speak words of kindness, For lovely eyes, seek out the good in people, For a slim figure, share your food with the hungry. -- A-Hep

[ Parent ]
They may have (superficially) a common cause (3.00 / 1)
but they are not "joined."

At least according to al-Zawahiri and, uhhhm, everybody else in the world who disbelieves the US Govt/Al Qaeda co-conspirator theories that have been floating around the infoboobtubes for years, y'know, that 9/11 was an inside job, that Bin laden was a CIA sock puppet, etc.

As I stated, you are playing a game with this idea of co-conspiracy, but since you have not actually committed to it, you are simply making a not so clever game of guilt by (superifical) common interest.

For you, the dissimilarities between Al Q and the US don't matter because your overarching desire (perhaps your only desire) is to see the maintenance of Iranian (and Hizbollah) influence protected in the Middle East by keeping Assad's regime in place, no matter how many people die in the process.

But this also means that the Syrian struggle, as you are now finally beginning to admit, isn't so much about US/West-dominated imperialism (since imperialism will remain a fact of life in Syria regardless of which side wins) but more about a sectarian struggle for justice, where ten percent of the population (Alawite shia) has dominated the political, state security and economic systems over the 90% (mostly sunni) for 40 years.

If anything like majority rule through liberal democracy is allowed, Iran's influence becomes greatly diminished overnight. This is probably the prospect that bothers you. Perhaps the only thing that bothers you.

Which is weird, since the sunni-led, and/or coalition ruling alternative won't be any more favourably disposed towards Israel, and in fact may become even more militantly aligned against Israel, depending upon who ultimately assumes power.



[ Parent ]
A common cause joins them, to put the definition in active voice. (0.00 / 0)

The common cause is toppling Assad.

The U.S. and the U.S.S.R. had a common cause during WWII, toppling Hitler. What to replace Hitler with was not relevant to whether or not the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. were allied. Exactly the same here.

For attractive lips, speak words of kindness, For lovely eyes, seek out the good in people, For a slim figure, share your food with the hungry. -- A-Hep


[ Parent ]
A "common cause" which is very debatable (and of course you offer nothing over which to debate) (0.00 / 0)
is not evidence that they are "joined". To be joined requires a link.

And to establish this link requires more than Fact Free Fantasy Fairleft Bar Stool Ranting.

Something similar to this might help you make your argument:

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/ar...


[ Parent ]
I think we can all agree on one thing (0.00 / 0)
Fairleft is a meathead.

[ Parent ]
A common cause which is not debatable at all. (0.00 / 0)

The only goal of the U.S./Israel is ouster of Assad and removal of a key Iran ally. Both the U.S. and Al Qaeda would be happy if -- after the long and very bloody civil war that Al Qaeda's and the U.S.'s efforts will cause -- a Saudi-style extreme Sunni dictatorship is installed in Assad's place.

For attractive lips, speak words of kindness, For lovely eyes, seek out the good in people, For a slim figure, share your food with the hungry. -- A-Hep

[ Parent ]
If only the mainstream media wasn't CIA controlled.... (0.00 / 0)
You'd be on Meet the Press every fricken Sunday. Bet on it. You reulez, Failreft! [oO:p>

[ Parent ]
U.S. is allied with Al Qaeda -- "al·lied: joined by ... common cause." (2.00 / 1)

Debate over, I win, only socrates non-sequitirs left.

For attractive lips, speak words of kindness, For lovely eyes, seek out the good in people, For a slim figure, share your food with the hungry. -- A-Hep

[ Parent ]
Only authoritarian-loving loosers quit the debate when they have lost and declare themselves the victors (3.00 / 1)
Loook up the meaning of the word "joined," then provide evidence of US/Al Qaeda "joint" participation in Syria.

And now you are sliding Saudi into the joint equation?

Not reading Atimes anymore? Guess, then, you better add China into the mix....

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/M...

If only the world was as simple as the mind of Mr. 4F...

Repeating the same ignorance (rooted in a lack of basic comprehension of English language and word meanings) over and over isnt analysis, its more bar stool ranting by fact free fantasy fairleft.

Unfortunately, a Socrates-Fairleft political debate is the meta equivalent of two bar stool ranters squaring off in a skid row back alley.

Both too drunk to land an effective blow.


[ Parent ]
Unlike fairleft, I don't act like I am Mr. Political Science (0.00 / 0)
Hence, there was no need to lumpen me into his fake proletariat schtick. pun intended. [0o:w#

[ Parent ]
Fairleft is allied with Stormfront--"allied: joined by common cause (0.00 / 0)
That is, both FL and neo-nazis have a common cause, which is extolling the populist rhetoric of Huey Long.

Therefore, to spin his own "logic" back on him, Fairleft is joined with white supremacist hate groups.

I've known it along. Thanks for confirming it.


[ Parent ]
McCarthyism: equating a person with a group because the group and person have one position in common. (0.00 / 0)

On an entirely different matter, both Al Qaeda and the U.S. govt are aiding, in words, deeds and operatives, the armed Syrian rebellion.

For attractive lips, speak words of kindness, For lovely eyes, seek out the good in people, For a slim figure, share your food with the hungry. -- A-Hep

[ Parent ]
you have yet to demonstrate they are operating "jointly" (0.00 / 0)
And refuse to even so state in your comment, a tacit admission of dishonesty.

Therefore, you have failed to demonstrate an "alliance."

Two straight diaries based entirely on false premises which you know were false.

Lies, iow. Like this new "idea" that debate exposing your dishonesty somehow equates to "McCarthyism."

Doubling down on dishonesty only makes you appear to be more dishonest.  


[ Parent ]
"al·lied: joined by ... common cause." (0.00 / 0)

Nope, says nothing about "operating jointly."

For attractive lips, speak words of kindness, For lovely eyes, seek out the good in people, For a slim figure, share your food with the hungry. -- A-Hep

[ Parent ]
uhhh, yes it does. its in the definition, looser. Look up the meaning of the verb "join" (5.00 / 1)
To join means there is a connection. An alliance requires a connection. As in your US/USSR alliance, there was a legal document known as the Lend/Lease act of 1941. There were also joint appearances between the leaders at Tehrana and Yalta where the alliance was demonstrated. Otherwise, both the US and USSR could have fought Germany separayely, on separate fronts independently of each other without being allies.

You refuted your own argument above and yet you are still repeating it. This is a characteristic of a bar stool ranter.

You already claimed that you are not allied with Stormfront even though you share a common cause: Huey Long.

Or are you now willing to admit that you are a neo-nazi in order to erroneously claim using the same distorted illogic that the US and Al Qaeda are allies?


[ Parent ]
Down goes failreft, down goes fairleft (0.00 / 0)
Oh man, that was devastating. There hasn't been this big of a beatdown since TLNL and myself took care of Big Al Giordano at DFQ2.

Fakey is probably some skinhead looooser. I bet he's never gotten to know any black folks. He tried to run off Francis Holland from My Left Wing. What a disgrace to America.

And then that pimple of a blog owner, Laura, just so happens to agree with him on every little piece of Michael Rivero What Really Happened nonsense.

Fricken it's the height of stupidity that such douchebags get suckered in by the extreme right. Maybe some day there will truly be a kookpocalypse, and those two will be the first to face judgement from I suppose Geraldo Rivera. [oO:g%


[ Parent ]
sadly, they are not alone in their duped spunness. (5.00 / 1)
See also "Germans, Good 1930s" and "Stalinists, Neo-, 1930s". Something about bad economic times makes the average Joe more susceptible to rightwing authoritarian BS.

Fairleft takes the fact that there others in the whiteysphere who think just like he and Laura (imagine that)as evidence that his views are correct.

AKA "logical fallacy."

Only thing proven is that Fairleft is a foremost whiteysperical masterbator of fallacial argument.

(:oO


[ Parent ]
That's truth proper (0.00 / 0)
We could come up with a huge list, not just pertaining to the totalitarianism which emerged in the 1930's. Too bad the resident numbnuts are so caught up in "current events," they are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past. (h/t George Santayana)

Here are a few examples. There is also Jones, Alex. Or all those idiots who made up 90% of the Amerikkkaners kissing GW's butt right after the Trade Towers fell. There's Fakey's example of McCarthyism. There are the bootlickers who make excuses for cops and Amerikkka: Cops are great. You can't blame 'em all for a few bad eggs. This is the greatest country since sliced bread was invented. If you don't like it, why dontcha move to France.

Fricken makes me think of Orson Welle's War of the Worlds or P.T. Barnum's claim there is a dumbass fucker born every minute.

]-7:)>



[ Parent ]
They are "joined" by their common cause stupid. (0.00 / 0)

That's what the definition means.

For attractive lips, speak words of kindness, For lovely eyes, seek out the good in people, For a slim figure, share your food with the hungry. -- A-Hep

[ Parent ]
That is what the definition means, yes, but (0.00 / 0)
Unless you know something the rest of the world (except perhaps for Blues) doesn't know, the US and Al Qaeda don't fit the definition. You haven't established how they are "joined".

Ergo, the US and Al Qaeda are not allies.

He said to the bewildered, illiterate dumbass for the fourth time.

Simply having a common cause doesn't automatically ally two or more nations or individuals.

There has to be an alliance demonstrated, through a "joining" together. I know this is exceedingly difficult for you, so I'm not giving up.

Conversely, by your errant reading of the definition, then, you are an ally of Stormfront, because you both extol the virtues of Huey P. Long, which is your "common cause."

Hence, you have proven that you are an ally of neo-nazi skinheads.

You are allied with the Tea Party because of your common stance against illegal immigration.

So, to recap with a statement based on logical construction, if Al Qaeda is an ally of the US, then Fairleft is an ally of Neo-Nazis and the Tea Parties.

Congratulations.

Thanks for proving correct my previous assertions about you, about which I had made tongue-in-cheek.

If you wish a more pertinent example to prove you wrong, let's look at the Russian Revolution, where two factions, the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks shared a common cause, toppling the czarist regime, but they were not allies, in fact they were enemies in the bid to seize power.

Not. Allies. He. Said. For. The. Fifth. Time.


[ Parent ]
"That is what the definition means, yes..." (0.00 / 0)

So, you're saying you disagree with the dictionary meaning of "allied"? In that case, I'll stop repeating the dictionary meaning to you, and stop talking about how the the U.S. and Al Qaeda are joined by a (dictionary phrase) common cause, cuz obviously that ain't working for you.

For attractive lips, speak words of kindness, For lovely eyes, seek out the good in people, For a slim figure, share your food with the hungry. -- A-Hep

[ Parent ]
The following would help if you were sincerely confused: (0.00 / 0)

Here is the definition from freedictionary.com:

join ... 2. To put or bring into close association or relationship: two families that were joined by marriage; join forces.

Note the sample sentence. Does the fact that two families are 'joined' by marriage means that the two families from that day forward will act jointly? Do your family and your wife's family back in Korea act jointly? Similarly, the fact that Al Qaeda and the U.S. are 'joined' by the common cause of overthrowing the Syrian government does not mean that with the 'joining' they will now 'act jointly'. So now you understand that "joined by a common cause" does not, of course mean that the two parties will act jointly stupid.

Does that help? Of course not ...

For attractive lips, speak words of kindness, For lovely eyes, seek out the good in people, For a slim figure, share your food with the hungry. -- A-Hep


[ Parent ]
To be clear then, are you arguing (0.00 / 0)
in favor of or against "alliance" or "joining?"  Both?

Can you explain your distinction on a grander scale - say, Germany and the USSR in 1939 as opposed to 1943?


[ Parent ]
I'm arguing in favor of "allied" (0.00 / 0)


For attractive lips, speak words of kindness, For lovely eyes, seek out the good in people, For a slim figure, share your food with the hungry. -- A-Hep

[ Parent ]
this helps alot, thanks (0.00 / 0)
1. Marriage is a legal act chosen by two individuals, either through a legal instrument (state issued license) or through custom (common law).

2. Marriage requirse mutual agreement between the two parties. So does an alliance. They must choose to "join forces."

3. In certain repressive old-fashioned societies, a marriage must be approved by mutual agreement of the families, typified by a financial transaction ( IE, a dowry).

4. In modern times and societies, families are not legally bound through the marriage of family members.

5. In fact, families may choose to disavow the intended nuptials, either by acting jointly (that would be an alliance, by definition) or separately. (See "Juliet, Romeo and" for details). In the old days and in current repressive socities, the families who do not approve the wedding did not allow it. In modern society, where the families retain no legal rights or obligations in the wedding contract, disapproving families can disavow the wedding, choose not to attend, ostracise the couple from their lives, cut them from the will, never have any relations with the couple or members of the other family "in-law." There is no implicit alliance formed thru marriage. Marital relations and family alliances require an explicitly mutual understanding and joint participation (they must choose to "join forces,"as your definition clearly states but which you ignore.

6. So, in summation, any alliance requires a mutual agreement, either thru a legal device or thru custom,  among the parties, IE they must choose to "join forces,"

7. In the absence of an explicit mutual agreement, which in the case of the US and Al Qaeda you have failed to demonstrate, no alliance exists.

8. What does exiat wrt Al Qaeda and the US regards Syria, until proven otherwise, is a mere coincidence of common cause not cemented into an alliance thru mutual agreement.


[ Parent ]
"common cause," in contrast, is not a marriage, but it also creates (0.00 / 0)

the sense of being allied. The same point with a little variation: a "common cause" is not a treaty, or an agreement, but it nonetheless according to dictionary.com creates a sense of begin "allied."

al·lied: joined by treaty, agreement, or common cause. (dictionary dot com)

So, it ain't me saying the above, it's the dictionary meaning of "allied". Opposing the dictionary is you.


For attractive lips, speak words of kindness, For lovely eyes, seek out the good in people, For a slim figure, share your food with the hungry. -- A-Hep


[ Parent ]
They are not joined by common cause. They are not joined at all (0.00 / 0)
People, nations and organisations are not inanimate objects (your mind is the exception that proves the rule).

Humans and certainly the US and Al Qaeda would have to choose to be joined in an alliance.

Now, let's attack the other non-sequitor in your argument, for which there appears to be zero concurrence anywhere, including your Neo-Stalinist propaganda sources: to whit: do the US and Al Qaeda share a "common cause" in Syria.

Of course, they do not. Al Qaeda wants a fundamentalist jihadist state while the US wants a western_style republican govt with regular elections, freedom of speech and expression, equality for women and a secular, capitalist society.

Is this what you believe Al Qaeda wants?

Of course not. So not only have two not joined in a common cause, they do not share a common cause. Wrap your pea brain around that fact and see how many times it perseverates inanimately around that...

(:o)


[ Parent ]
You are joining yourself to boring (0.00 / 0)
You've made your point. No one except Laura thinks fairleft knows what he's talking about. They might even be the same person.

This was a KO back in round 1. You were Tysonesque and destroyed peabrain in under a minute.

What you should do is try to help him figure out a proper medication for his mental illness.

Or maybe he is faking that. What I mean is he is either trying to flush out crazies or is a crazy. Maybe he has flushed himself out.

Open Letter to Fairleft: Dude, I know deep down you are a nice guy whether deluded or faking deluded for a paid position. If it's the former, rework with your psychiatrist a new med. For the latter, haha, get retrained. You stink as a disinfo agent!


[ Parent ]
Do they have a a common cause? Yes. (4.00 / 1)

Therefore they are joined by that common cause. Therefore they are allied, according to the dictionary.

You disagree with the dictionary, and I respect that.

For attractive lips, speak words of kindness, For lovely eyes, seek out the good in people, For a slim figure, share your food with the hungry. -- A-Hep


[ Parent ]
LMAO (4.00 / 1)
Do they have a a common cause? Yes. (0.00 / 0)

Therefore they are joined by that common cause. Therefore they are allied, according to the dictionary.

"The Mighty Oz Fact Free Fantasy Fairleft has spoken (ignore that man behind the curtain furiously working the levers of his illogical, falsely assertive schtick)

RIOTOUS!



[ Parent ]
Hahahaha (0.00 / 0)

By the way, Brett Kimberlin aka Speedway Bomber has filed a motion to take over control of DFQ2.

It's been a hassle, but I'm definitely proud of what I did. Someone had to do it. The truth hurts. This is what any notorious criminal showing no remorse should expect, if they reinvent themselves the way he did. Michael Connell was never threatened by Karl Rove.

Brad Friedman is what is referred to as a loooooser. I don't care who publishes him. Salon and Mother Jones ultimately look very stupid for having done so. It wasn't just that Connell hoax either. Brad Friedman of BradBlog equals self-serving, internet convolution, period.


[ Parent ]
See now, this is the kind of thing (4.00 / 1)
I don't understand at all.

Even if this person could take over your website, what would prevent you from creating a similar site?  What would be the point?  Harassment alone?  Why bother?  Expense?

Speaking of Mother Jones, this is an awfully interesting piece of journalism that doesn't make them look stupid at all.

Just wanted to throw that in here.


[ Parent ]
Thanks for the response, Vox Humana (0.00 / 0)
He's desperate to portray me as a defaming cyberstalker. He probably wants the Thrilla in Vanilla taken down, because it shows what kind of frivolous lawsuit the whole thingie was.

I proved he perjured himself. I've a lot of good stuff in there.

Remember how DFQ got slimed by Daily Kos? It's deja vu time.

Mother Jones is fine, from what I recall. I think I even used to have a subscription back in the day. The Progressive was another one I used to read a bit.

They are obviously unaware of what Brad Friedman has been up to since 2004.

There's other stuff going on in the background, even things having nothing to do with me. It would blow your mind. It's gonna eventually come out in the wash, though. Problem is fellow victims are too dogmatic and probably turn off potential support. It's too bad folks can't leave dogma out of it and simply show the facts.  


[ Parent ]
You've lost cuz you're arguing against the dictionary. (0.00 / 0)

Unfair fight and all that, my condolences.

For attractive lips, speak words of kindness, For lovely eyes, seek out the good in people, For a slim figure, share your food with the hungry. -- A-Hep

[ Parent ]
Keep proving yourself a dishonest nitwit, dude. Srsly, keep it up.....bar stool ranting at its finest (0.00 / 0)
al-li-ance (-lns)
n.
1.
a. A close association of nations or other groups, formed to advance common interests or causes: an alliance of labor unions opposing the bill.
b. A formal agreement establishing such an association, especially an international treaty of friendship.

http://www.thefreedictionary.c...

Then there is the fact of your illogical deductive reasoning that the dictionary's definition of an alliance, in and of itself does not prove that there is an alliance, or even any common interest, between the US and Al Qaeda wrt Syria.

You have yet to point out any specific evidence of an alliance between the US and Al Qaeda wrt Syria.

An alliance requires a connection. A common cause isnt a connection, and in this instance there is, in fact, no common cause demonstrated.



[ Parent ]
AP propaganda: Syria "undeterred by Western and Arab pressure to halt the carnage" (0.00 / 0)

even though it is Syria that offers a ceasefire if both sides respect it, an offer the armed rebellion refuses, and even though it is Syria where citizens vote on a new constitution that will devolve power from the Allawites and the Assads. And even though the deaths on both sides, even according to the rebels, is relatively even. The casualty figures provided by the government are not reported.

http://news.yahoo.com/death-to...

The preceding presents itself as a news report, but any fair-minded person will see it as propaganda for one side in the civil war.

For attractive lips, speak words of kindness, For lovely eyes, seek out the good in people, For a slim figure, share your food with the hungry. -- A-Hep


More on the Syrian Observatory, which AP is so sure is correct that it doesn't say "according to activists (i.e., the armed rebels)" anymore (0.00 / 0)

The Syrian Observatory of Human Rights, in particular, is reportedly funded through a Dubai-based fund with pooled (and therefore deniable) Western-Gulf money (Saudi Arabia alone has, according to Elliot Abrams  allocated US$130 billion to "palliate the masses" of the Arab Spring).

What appears to be a nondescript British-based organization, the Observatory has been pivotal in sustaining the claims of the mass killing of thousands of peaceful protesters using inflated figures, "facts", and often exaggerated claims of "massacres" and even recently "genocide".

Although it claims to be based in its director's house, the Observatory has been described as the "front office" of a large media propaganda set-up run by the Syrian opposition and its backers. The Russian Foreign Ministry  stated starkly:

The agenda of the [Syrian] transitional council [is] composed in London by the Syrian Observatory of Human Rights ... It is also there where pictures of 'horror' in Syria are made to stir up hatred towards Assad's regime.

The Observatory is not legally registered either as a company or charity in the United Kingdom, but operates informally; it has no office, no staff and its director is reportedly awash with funding.

It receives its information, it says, from a network of "activists" inside Syria; its English-language website is a single page with al-Jazeera instead hosting a minute-by-minute live blog page for it since the outset of protests.

http://www.counterpunch.org/20...

For attractive lips, speak words of kindness, For lovely eyes, seek out the good in people, For a slim figure, share your food with the hungry. -- A-Hep


[ Parent ]
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


Search




Advanced Search


Cliques ci-dessous
Penny
Land Destroyer
Lizzy Phelan
Arthur Silber
Mondoweiss
NarcoNews
uruknet
Glenn Greenwald
War Is Business
Lenin
3arabawy
Dissident Voice
Arabist
Francis L Holland
Angry Arab
Seymour Hersh
Left I
electronic intifada
WildWildLeft
The History Blog
Gallery Of The Absurd
reel newz
jewssansfrontieres
AntiWar
CounterPunch
Asia Times
World Socialist
Socialist Worker
Chris Jordan
John Pilger
In Gaza
Moon Of Alabama
Coteret
RT
Voltaire Net

Nothing here is endorsed by the admin, not even her own bullshit. And you'll be lucky if she's even watching yours.
Powered by: SoapBlox