Photobucket

Clinton & Al Qaeda vs. Syria

by: fairleft

Mon Feb 13, 2012 at 09:38:32 AM EST


In the latest war on Syria news , 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. Both leaders are quoted in our news from the warfront below:

"We have to redouble our efforts outside of the United Nations with those allies and partners who support the Syrian people's right to have a better future," Al-Zawahri said. "Assad must go."

Clinton urged Muslim states, including Iraq, Lebanon and Jordan, to come to the aid of Syrian protesters.

"We are trying to start a process of political transition," Al-Zawahri said. "The failure to do so will increase the risk of a brutal civil war."

"If we want freedom, we must be liberated from this regime. If we want justice, we must retaliate against this regime," Clinton said.

fairleft :: Clinton & Al Qaeda vs. Syria
Oops, check that, all the quotes by Clinton should be Al-Zawahri's and the ones by Zawahri should be Clinton.

But you get the picture. The suicide bombers of Damascus have now officially allied themselves with what Western propaganda has presented as an entirely peaceful movement for democracy. The move by al Qaeda is also another very helpful teaching point, that the Syrian rebellion does or will boil down to religious sectarianism and favoritism, noting that the rebellious towns are mostly and al Qaeda is entirely Sunni. The following from the Irish Times is also helpful for understanding what is going on, in my 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."

So then, 'For What?' -- the point of all the civilian and military deaths produced by an uncompromising armed rebellion and Western surge for regime change -- seems to be getting answered.

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

Actually Zawahiri's statement was mostly a warning (0.00 / 0)
to the Syrians to resist foreign involvement in their struggles. It definitely wasn't a rah-rahing of the insta-revolution, as the spin is going. I haven't seen an honest, un-twisted article on Zawahiri's statement, yet.

 


It was that, but definitely also what I write. (0.00 / 0)

I don't think al Qaeda is talking about peacefully joining the peaceful protesters in their peaceful struggle against the Syrian government. And it is asking al Qaeda fighters to join the struggle.

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 disagreeing (3.00 / 1)
But they'll highlight what they will, wont they?

My own opinion about the release is that Zawahiri, in giving the proverbial green light, wanted to make generally clear that whomever the west considers to be "Al-Qaida" had nothing to do with the initial uprising or these recent larger, profesional bombings which are being pinned on, of course, "Al-Qaida".

The contents of "Al Qaida" communiques rarely vary, aside from maybe Bin Laden's old speeches. They always seek to reinforce the idea that resistance to America and its lackey of the week is still a just and heroic cause, as evidenced by the west's history of deviltry in the region, and so on, and so on.


[ Parent ]
Angry Arab from a few days ago (0.00 / 0)
Lousy BBC take on Aleppo bombings

It is amazing, if you think about it.  I posted down about the incredible account told by Riyad Al-As`ad of the Free Syrian Salafite Army about the Aleppo bombings: how he admitted that they were there and shooting at "shabbihah" at the center, but that they left, and the bombing occurred after they had left. So the "Shabbihah" of the regimes bombed themselves to blame them.  This account is being told with a straight face by Western media, and the BBC.  The BBC added its own flavor: they talked to a man in Aleppo who said: that he heard loud explosions and building shook and...that the regime was behind it to deter protesters. He was not even asked for evidence. Just like that.  They then turned to their correspondent, Jim Muir who is "monitoring developments in Syria from Beirut (just as I am monitoring developments in Syria from Modesto, California--so my take is as valid as his).  Muir said that the bombings were the work of "intelligence networks" and that they are inconsistent with the "bulk" and "mainstream" uprising in Syria which is--he said--peaceful.  Kid you not.  Protesters now hail the two Armies (there is the Free Syrian Army and the new Syrian Supreme Military Council) and the main opposition group, Syrian National Council just last week said that it "elevated" its coordination with the Free Syrian Army, and our Jim Muir is still under the impression that the uprising is peaceful.   Muir added that since the bombings "appear to be" the work of intelligence networks, they have to be blamed on the regime.  I kid you not. The man has been in the Middle East for years, and he surely must have heard of various organizations (secular and religious) that resort to car bombs or bombings in general.  Finally, when he talks about "intelligence network" is he implying that there are no hostile intelligence network operating in Syria?  I mean, the enemies of the regime in the region are not even discreet or shy.  And how did NATO fight its way in Libya: peaceful protests too.  Please answer us, Mr. Muir.  



Nice summary of why CNN/BBC should no longer be called news media. (0.00 / 0)

At least in reference to U.S./Western regime change crusades, they're propaganda outlets.

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 ]
Ah yes, the angry Californian reporting his opinion from a bedroom in his mama's house in Modesto. Solid stuff upon which to enflame the whiteysphere. (0.00 / 0)
Here is Jim Muir's latest report on BBC. Please point out the "lies and propaganda" contained therein. Thank you in advance for some actual thinking and reasoning in lieu of further infoboob eruptions of the virally spread herdist variety.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/worl...


[ Parent ]
Lame. Absolutely embarrassing "takedown" (4.00 / 2)
Asad is an enemy of the whiteysphere if there ever was one. Just give it up dued.

And Muir's lukewarm rehashing of the timeline of "official events" could have been written by any CNN-watching 8th grader. Funny how he put "Analysis:" right in the headline, so you'd know it was an "analysis". The only even pundit-like passage in that article is the overdone bitchery about Russia - Muir, in typical newsfossil fashion, ties it all up as ... get this.... a leftover Cold War alliance - Riotous!

And of course he closes with the standard rallying cry of immediate "UN" intervention. Not so riotous.


[ Parent ]
They must bomb and kill many more Syrians to liberate it for that bright future as a young, attractive, stylish and free Western secular democracy. (4.00 / 2)

That's the line and, after it gets over the shock and cognitive dissonance, the Western 'media' will definitely ignore those Saudi-funded Sunni Islamic fundamentalist fighters and suicide bombers.

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 ]
yep because by then it will be IRANIRANIRAN :( (0.00 / 0)
very depressing. And no one ever gets that sort of particularily stylish western democracy pony that they're promised.

I just got back from NewOrleans and the buzz on the street there, verbatim, is "things are falling apart". Complete strangers were very much keen to discuss it, there wasn't much of the usual standoffishness you get from regular people while in an unfamiliar city.  The whole country might be ready to start talking, but maybe its alraedy too late. Something is bound to happen with Iran.....I was too young for the oil crisis but I've seen what happens(violence) when one gas station runs out during a hurricane, and that's surely nothing in comparison to what will happen.

So I'm not sure how the media will jump around our own various domestic regional crises that are lined up, but they'll need a tactic that differs from their current foreign "coverage" tactics, for sure. I'm actually really curious ... the novelty of it all. How sick huh, the things that pique my curiousity these days.


[ Parent ]
chances r goode (0.00 / 0)

Iran will blow itself up.

An Iranian man was critically injured by his own bomb in a series of blasts, raising fears he and two countrymen accomplices had planned an attack just a day after operations against Israeli diplomats in India and Georgia.

=

The man blew both his legs off when he tried to escape police by throwing a grenade at pursuing officers, but it bounced off a tree and he was caught by the full force of the blast.

Two other Iranians fled on foot and one was arrested later at Bangkok's international Suvarnabhumi airport as he tried to leave the country. Thai intelligence and security forces continued their hunt for the third man.

Four Thais, three men and a woman, were injured in the explosions which took place in a rented house and on a busy road in the south-east of the city shortly after lunchtime.

Thailand's foreign minister is to ask the Iranian embassy to investigate the identities of the three men to discover what they were doing in the country and whether they had any links to terrorist groups.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...

LJ the Fake NA: "Vee must protect zee mega billionaire ayatollahs and holocaust denying Ajad at all cost! Zay must get zee bomb!"

==


[ Parent ]
wow (0.00 / 0)
Four Thais, three men and a woman, were injured in the explosions which took place in a rented house and on a busy road in the south-east of the city shortly after lunchtime.

after perusing around the nets it turns out these three iranian stooges blew up the rented house after accidentally detonating a bomb being made for a larger-scale attack. Then, upon escape, one of them threw a grenade at Thai police, but it boomeranged off a tree, separating him from his legs.

=


[ Parent ]
New Orleans is such an open city, (0.00 / 0)

luv the people down there. I hope you're right and that people are generally getting 'it' and it's not just a norlins (and other enlightened places) thing.

'It' no. 1 is the insanity of an austerity drive in order to solve the massive since 2008 'unemployment and crappy jobs even if you are employed' problem. I hope that people are just not buying the 'moderate' Obama's "some austerity is great, but not too much" vs. the Republicans' "extreme austerity and discipline is the only solution to our economic crisis." Mebbe there's still enough of us Keynesians seeping through the media shouting loudly enough that either of those 'solutions' feels to many to be simply insane, which leads to the feeling you write about.

'It' no.2 is hopefully that the rank imperialism of the Libya obscenity, particularly the celebratory beating murder of Qaddafi and Clinton's sickening reaction, enough of that was allowed through the managed media to generate a normal reaction of complete disgust and some awareness of what we were actually fighting for. I think or hope many more now are disgusted with what we're doing in the Middle East, and maybe more sympathetic to 'getting' what it basically is, corporate imperialism by any means necessary. Especially with the bloody new regime change campaign against Syria, to apparently be followed by a bloody regime operation against Iran. Lots of blood being spilled, and normal people ask why and are not getting good enough answers. So, the feeling that there is some sort of sanity/morality breakdown at the commanding heights.

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 forgot perhaps the most glaring projection alert of your cough analytical cough career here: (0.00 / 0)
Here is a pretty good dialogue about Syria, from people who actually, y'know, might have some clue about Syria, but from different polarities:

http://qifanabki.com/2012/02/1...

Nadim Shehadi:

Josh was also right in saying from the very beginning back in January 2011 that the revolts would never happen in Syria because the army would stand by the regime and would not hesitate to shoot at the demonstrators, which is in fact what happened.

Violence has always been part of the argument and we have seen this in all the revolts be it Tunis, Egypt, Libya, Bahrain, Yemen or Syria. The message there is that any alternative to the regime is much worse than the regime or even too horrible to even contemplate changing the regime. The regime's power relies on maintaining that illusion and on us not being able to see beyond them.

Josh Landis response:

Dear Nadim,

You write: "This is the idea of power that I see Josh trying to maintain in many of his statements on Syria and this has become a genre echoed by others."

You are correct that I have since the beginning believed that there is "no soft landing" for the Assad regime and that it would fight the kind of war that it is now fighting. This is what I wrote in the first article I published about the uprising, and, in fact, in a book review of Nikolaos van Dam's second edition of his book in the 1990s for the International Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, when I first used the phrase, "there is no soft landing for the Assad regime." This is what I understood van Dam essentially argued in his book, which I concurred with at the time. Here is how I concluded the review:

Van Dam is not optimistic about the prospects for meaningful economic reform in Syria or the possibility of a Velvet Revolution in the future. He points out the Asad's anti-corruption campaigns have been ineffectual because the President refuses to discipline his security chiefs, many of whom are the worst offenders. He doubts that the country can make a peaceful transition to a post-Asad government, because Asad has allowed his regime to become ossified. No purges have been carried out and few top personnel have been changed in the last 25 years. Consequently, no new generation has been groomed for power or schooled in the art of government. Only the President's son, Bashar, seems to be in line to inherit authority from his father. Other members of Asad's inner circle have likewise been grooming their sons to succeed them. He notes that the Sunni majority has not given up its "negative attitude towards Alawi religion and Alawis in general," and adds that he finds it "very difficult to imagine a scenario in which the present narrowly based, totalitarian regime... can be peacefully transformed into a more widely based democracy.

The key to Asad's success has been his ability to rule through his metaphorical village. Whether the dynastic principle that Asad and his men have been pushing will catch on in Syria is an open question. Van Dam gives us little reason to believe that Syria is developing either the political institutions or broader national identity that may someday replace the parochial loyalties and narrow prejudices which now define politics in Syria.

My bleak view of the situation in Syria has guided my analysis from the beginning. I suspect the war that is now beginning to grip Syria will last some years before it is over. So far, I believe my pessimistic view has unfortunately been justified.

Many have suggested that my analysis is motivated by some "idea of power" that I am trying to promote or belief in the regime's goodness. I would argue the opposite. It is because of my understanding of the regime's use of patrimonial loyalties that I have been frightened of the outcome. Others have suggested that my marriage to an Alawi (which was well after I wrote the book review quoted above) changed or guided my views. I would suggest that my ideas were well established before falling in love with Manar and that my subsequent intimate knowledge of the Alawi community only confirmed by belief that Syria's sectarian problems were deep and not easily finessed. Of course living in Lebanon for years during the civil war as Christian and Muslim killed each other laid the foundation for my understanding of identity politics in the Levant. I was living in Damascus during the Hama uprising and brutal suppression of the revolt, which also colored my views.

At this point, there is no going back for the opposition and I do not believe that the regime can right itself, as I explained in my - "The Regime is Doomed" - article.

I have tried to explain from the beginning how I believed events will unfold. If they are scary, it is because I think they are scary and will be scary and unhappy for some time to come. You are right to point out that I misjudged Syrians when I argued that I thought the Arab Spring would not blossom or take root in Syria. I can only hope that in the end things will work out for the best. Syria needs a new form of government. You note that my faith is weak, and in that, I confess, without pride or smugness, you are correct.



[ Parent ]
Donkey and establishment academics and think tanks "will definitely ignore those Saudi-funded Sunni Islamic fundamentalist fighters and suicide bombers." (0.00 / 0)

Except for that, your experts' wordy generalizations don't conflict with my pithier ones. And, as you know hopefully by now, at the beginning of the dairy you are 'criticizing', I said that Syria is an information-poor environment.

But by far the most important taboo topic in the Middle East is the billions of dollars directed out from Saudi Arabia and the Gulf into the bank accounts of Sunni Muslim fundamentalists throughout the region of both the terrorist and non-terrorist variety. But it's a taboo to talk about in the Western press and by establishment experts, so as usual mainstream-publishable experts either don't recognize its influence or pretend not to recognize its influence.

Nadim Shehadi btw is with Chatham House, the quintessential establishment NGO in Britain. See its panel of senior advisors or wtf here (http://www.chathamhouse.org/about-us/psa) and note here (http://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/AR10-11.pdf), pp. 36-38, its heavily corporate funding. For fun read the comments after the inept Shehadi article below -- I'll provide one example -- in the establishment/corporate media Guardian:  

How about we find a middle ground and agree to refer to the opposition as "The Grey Fighting Gooses."

All contingent on them agreeing to rename "Syria" to "Snackosaurus Rex" after their victory

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comm...

Yeah, a Chatham House expert! This is also funny:

PR firm funding

The investigation also found that a Chatham House seminar on democratic reform in Bahrain was funded by a lobbyist working for the Kingdom.

The seminar, entitled 'Democratic Institutions and Community Relations in Bahrain,' was subsequently criticised by the London-based Bahrain Human Rights Monitor for the 'propagandistic' language of its speakers.

One speaker at the event criticised the British government for granting asylum to Bahraini dissidents - who he said were 'good for nothings - and described Bahrain as a 'shining symbol of internationalism'.

A few months later the Kingdom launched a crackdown on suspected dissidents, ahead of fiercer repression that followed uprisings across North Africa and the Middle East in 2011.

Chatham House has admitted the seminar was funded by Apex Communications, which was working for the Kingdom of Bahrain at that time. [But argued that TIMES are hard, IT WAS GOOD MONEY, and, by the way, "We're for sale at bargain rates to the highest bidder."]

http://www.thebureauinvestigat...

I'm guessing similar dictatorship-excusing Chatham House bullshit and lies seminars are arranged and heavily funded by all the big money Gulf Sunni Muslim states... And so it goes with your establishment/corporate experts. Have fun in fantasyland, 'tale.

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 arent making nor refuting an argument, Reft. Anybody can play your game: Paul Krugman (0.00 / 0)
is a mainstream academic who works for the leading imperial media outlet and teaches at Princeton, which receives grants and funding from the US regime.

Therefore, following your logic, he is wrong about his analysis of the world economy and the need for more Keynesian stimulus. Because it doesnt matter what he knows or what he writes, its all about who employs him.

Criticise their words, Reft, and you might (although likely not) gain some credibility with your own.

Your guesses and assumptions are like assholes and imerialism in the global age of the infoboobtubes.

Everbody has one.  


[ Parent ]
You forgot perhaps the most glaring projection alert of your cough analytical cough career here: (0.00 / 0)
Lame. Absolutely embarrassing "takedown"

Now, setting aside your 5th grade level book report, that is, if the 5th grader is sniffing turpentine while doing her homewerk, lets get to your two actual comments remotely based on something resembling what was actually contained in the article (and not wholly inside your fake leftist detachment from reality).

You sez:

The only even pundit-like passage in that article is the overdone bitchery about Russia - Muir, in typical newsfossil fashion, ties it all up as ... get this.... a leftover Cold War alliance - Riotous!

The article sez:

Russsian role

But these are wrinkles that could be smoothed out quickly under the pressure of time, events and a strong will from outside powers.

And even if not, if the drive for an international consensus over Syria is abandoned, there is a strong danger from Russia's viewpoint that the existing level of clandestine outside support to opposition rebels will be greatly stepped up, plunging the country into chaos and fragmentation, and clinching Moscow's loss of its most important Arab ally.

The Russian calculation may be that it is better to use its undoubted influence with Damascus - with which it has a strategic relationship going back decades into Cold War and Soviet times - to play a leading role in brokering a Syrian settlement within an international consensus.

That is presumably why President Dmitry Medvedev, in conversations with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan this week, continued to propose the Security Council as the proper forum for elaborating an agreed strategy, despite the Russian-Chinese veto.

Even the Syrian National Council, despite fury at the veto, has not ruled out a Russian role.

"Russia remains a potential mediator," the SNC said in its latest statement. "[But it must] first use its influence on the regime in order to stop the killings immediately."

"A negotiated transition can only come afterwards, and will need to encompass the stepping aside of the head of the regime, a demand for which thousands of Syrians have died."

These two key demands are likely to be the focus of intense scrutiny as all sides consider their options under the pressure of events on the ground.

They imply that the regime has been defeated and must step aside - something that it is not ready to concede, apparently supported by Moscow.

Hmmmmmmmm.

Then you sez:

And of course he closes with the standard rallying cry of immediate "UN" intervention. Not so riotous.

When the article sez:

If there is to be a chance of a peaceful transition, a Russian role might be vital in persuading the regime to give ground - something Moscow would likely only do if it were convinced that a balanced outcome, rather than a Western-dictated formula removing Syria from its sphere of influence, would result.

Other formulae being explored, such as the idea of an enhanced, joint UN-Arab League observer mission and the appointment of a special envoy, would imply an international consensus and agreement to stabilise the situation.

A UN observer mission could not be mounted without a resolution from the Security Council, which Russia and China would have to approve.

It could also not be deployed without Syrian approval, because observers are not mandated or equipped to fight their way in or impose anything, just to monitor, report, and hope that their presence has a calming and restraining effect.

As the powers consider all these complexities, the killing on the ground goes on, with every drop of blood shed - on either side - making a solution and eventual reconciliation more difficult.

Really rousing rallying cry there, Laura. Thanks for this.

Here's your doo rag. I re-dipped it for you.


[ Parent ]
Looks like we speak different languages (4.00 / 1)


[ Parent ]
It looks a lot more like your are hallucinating what you are reading. (2.00 / 1)


[ Parent ]
I heard that report (0.00 / 0)
and had a similar reaction to his.  That report just didn't seem believable - that the regime would bomb its own supporters to claim a ramp up in violence, appearing to justify further attacks on itself as well as its enemies.

I don't think that that necessarily successfully argues that all information from the "mainstream media" has that sort of bias - even less that the Average American Citizen couldn't sort through those sorts of claims, given enough information and recent experience.

The media (all media, ultimately, including ours here) is interested in controversy and conflict.  The media's raison d'etre (especially here!) is furthered by excitement and violence and clear lines drawn in the sand.

The BBC (or anyone else in a media outlet) will only "take sides" as long as it sells.  Darfur, anyone...?  I don't even say that as a cynic, merely an observer of somewhat long standing of this phenomenon.  Parts of the truth will inevitably be in all accounts.  Falsehoods, deliberate or otherwise, too.  The reader bears a certain responsibility NOT to shut out any voices one does not wish to hear because they are inconvenient to one's narrative, and NOT to give too much credence to a second- or third-hand source.

Caveat emptor.

Semper.


[ Parent ]
Of course (4.00 / 2)
You should listen to everything, I mean everything. THe more you listen, the more the truth's bound to stand out - if you're aware of the regional facts, if you know the history, and are as well able to divine the current real motivations of the involved parties, no amount of propaganda from any side can fool.

I'm not saying that certain outlets should be shunned in a general sense - I'm all for propaganda analysis. But if you're still uninformed of the basics of a conflict you're laible to fall for any story they're willing to tell...for their ratings, yes, but more importantly, for their employers' interests.


[ Parent ]
Well-worded. Brava! (0.00 / 0)
I do prefer lukewarm to ice-cold in this instance, from anyone who participates.

And I happen to think both you and Mr. keytale have some good points on this topic, given what we currently know.

I still say it isn't so much about propaganda as it is about money. Do let's identify the proper adversary in a conflict.

Nonetheless, I have to say the default in either case goes to the more reports (and even opinions) the better.

Sunshine, disinfectant and all that.


[ Parent ]
The big corporate media is not mainly about what sells. (0.00 / 0)

It's too important for that. Traditional notions of individualist capitalism might imply what you say, but the main game of large-scale corporate capitalism is acquiring and expanding government-like power or getting the government to rule ever more perfectly in accord with corporate interests. Their media is essential in formally democratic countries to winning and advancing that power game.

The former necessarily means there are forbidden topics and perspectives and also semi-required narratives. CNN/BBC and the rest must advance and honor both the taboos and the 'normal' corporate-globalism-preferred narratives. They have to even when they sometimes do their jobs honestly and on a story or several paragraphs (not enough to disturb the nearly unanimous overall narrative) veer from normal corporate globalist narratives/ideology/propaganda.

I was impressed by the following interview with Mahdi Nazemroaya, an alternative media reporter who was in Tripoli during the final murderous assaults on the city (he states that he talked to the International Red Cross and they said 3,000 died in two days of the final NATO bombardment). His understanding from working with and next to the mainstream corporate media is that it is very integrated; i.e., since there is going to be only one unified mainstream take, the various giant networks and newspapers might as well be more efficient by working together and getting on the same page about the various tasks involved in advancing whatever narrative will be imposed on reality.

Mahdi Nazemroaya

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 ]
"Western politicians and media are not yet fighting World War III, but they are talking themselves into it." (0.00 / 0)

'Road to Damascus... and on to Armageddon?'

Insightful as hell, the usual by Diana Johnstone:

Western politicians and media are not yet fighting World War III, but they are talking themselves into it. And their actions speak even louder than words... notably to those who are able to understand where those actions are leading.  Such as the Russians. The West's collective delusion of grandeur, the illusion of the power to "make reality", has a momentum that is leading the world toward major catastrophe.  And what can stop it?

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


Monitor this, Mr. Professor Angry Californian (0.00 / 0)
A band of CIA agents marauding in Damascus

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

CIA Killers let loose into the crowd

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


[ Parent ]
Silber pwns more pwogocrat pap (5.00 / 1)
                         
(Matt Taibbi in his latest article) "I'm not defending Achmedinejad, I think he's nuts and a monstrous dick and I definitely don't think he should be allowed to have nuclear weapons..."

He shouldn't be allowed to have nuclear weapons? Ahmadinejad is going to stock all those terrible nuclear weapons in his very own personal Closet of Worldwide Destruction? And then, some night when he's had a few too many drinks or because he's pissed off about not getting his favorite dessert, he's going to haul out a missile and hurl it at some unsuspecting country? And he shouldn't be allowed to have these weapons? Who's going to enforce that prohibition, Taibbi -- you and what military? Oh, that's right: that would be the United States military.

http://powerofnarrative.blogsp...


Got anything less formulaic?Cockburn? Taibbi? Silber? (0.00 / 0)
What?

No Basel Mohaisen?

Leonid I. Donkeytalevitch?

Nyet?


[ Parent ]
Er...Taibbi * is * formulaic, I dont really follow him. But Silber? (5.00 / 1)
I would think he'd be just the sort of codger you could relate to. You know you could drop the yuppie moneygrubbing schtick any day now. You're not planning on spawning again, right? And isnt the frau frugal? Cant you sell your vacation hovel or wtf?



[ Parent ]
Too much of a bitch (4.00 / 1)
Plus, He's terribly old news. Marisacat hagged for him simply years ago, darling.

Everbody knows.

Nah, he's alright. I'm just a bit out of sorts. See, Basel and Lizzie co-authored a piece, and it was pretty darn excellent propaganda. I take it back. What was I smoking? Fairleft cannit do ot better. Not by a dammed site.

Lizzie and Basel. Basel and Lizzie.

A match made in Berchtesgaden.


[ 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