Dissecting the Propaganda on Syria

The American public is so inundated with propaganda on the Syrian conflict that a rational policy that could minimize the death toll is almost impossible to formulate, a problem addressed by Rick Sterling.

By Rick Sterling

At the recent annual convention of Veterans for Peace, VFP Vice President Jerry Condon said The U.S. peace movement has been demobilized by disinformation on Syria.”

This disinformation and propaganda on Syria takes three distinct forms. The first is the demonization of the Syrian leadership. The second is the romanticization of the opposition. The third form involves attacking anyone questioning the preceding characterizations.

Syrian women and children refugees at Budapest railway station. (Photo from Wikipedia)

Syrian women and children refugees at Budapest railway station. (Photo from Wikipedia)

There is a recent article which exemplifies all three of these forms. It is titled “Anti-Imperialism and the Syrian Revolution” by Ashley Smith of the International Socialist Organization (ISO). It’s a remarkable piece of misinformation and faulty analysis. Because it is clear and well written, it is likely to mislead people who are not well informed on the facts regarding Syria. Hence the importance of critically reviewing it.

Technique 1: Demonize the enemy … “the Syrian regime and its brutal dictator”

Smith starts off posing the question: Are you with the Syrian revolution or the brutal Assad dictatorship? The way he frames it, it’s not a difficult choice: viva la revolution!

But Smith’s article is a tale devoid of reality. His bias is shown as he criticizes the Left for ignoring “Assad’s massacre of some 400,000 Syrians.” That framing, which is common in the Western mainstream media, blames all the deaths in the Syrian conflict on President Bashar al-Assad, including the 100,000 to 150,000 Syrian soldiers and allies.

In other words, Smith deems Assad responsible for everything, including the killing of Syrian soldiers by the armed opposition. This opposition, which is financed and armed by Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey and the U.S., includes extreme jihadist groups, including Al Qaeda’s longtime affiliate and the Islamic State. Yet, none of the leaders supplying these rebels – in defiance of international law – bears any blame for the death and devastation of Syria, according to Smith’s construct.

Another example of false propaganda is the discussion of the chemical weapons attack that took place on Aug. 21, 2013, near Damascus. Neoconservatives and much of the mainstream media speak of this event as “proving” Assad’s brutality – “killing his own people” – as well as the “failure” of President Obama to enforce his “red line” against the use of chemical weapons. Smith aligns with the neocons and MSM, saying “Barack Obama came under pressure to intervene militarily in Syria after the regime carried out a chemical weapons attack in a suburb of Damascus in 2013, but he backed a Russian-brokered resolution that protected Assad.”

In reality, the overwhelming evidence now points to the sarin gas attack being carried out by an opposition group with the goal of forcing the U.S. to directly attack the Syrian government. Soon after the event, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, consisting of former U.S. intelligence officials, issued a statement reporting “the most reliable intelligence shows that Bashar al-Assad was NOT responsible for the chemical incident.”

Later on, Seymour Hersh wrote two lengthy investigative articles pointing to Jabhat al Nusra, Al Qaeda’s affiliate, with Turkish support being culpable. Investigative journalist Robert Parry exposed the Human Rights Watch analysis blaming the Syrian government as a “junk heap of bad evidence,” which was disproved when aeronautical experts concluded that the one rocket found to carry sarin had a much shorter range than the HRW analysis required.

The controversial map developed by Human Rights Watch and embraced by the New York Times, supposedly showing the flight paths of two missiles from the Aug. 21 Sarin attack intersecting at a Syrian military base.

The controversial map developed by Human Rights Watch and embraced by the New York Times, supposedly showing the flight paths of two missiles from the Aug. 21, 2013 sarin attack intersecting at a Syrian military base. But aeronautical experts later concluded that the only rocket found to carry sarin (on the right side of the map) had a much shorter range.

In the Turkish parliament, Turkish deputies presented documents showing that Turkey provided sarin precursor chemicals to Syrian “rebels.” A detailed examination and analysis by whoghouta.blogspot.com, possibly the most comprehensive compilation of data regarding the sarin attack, concluded that “The only plausible scenario that fits the evidence is an attack by opposition forces.”

So, why does Ashley Smith assert the Syrian government’s guilt as flat fact when the evidence seems to go in a very different direction?

Smith also accuses the Syrian government of widespread torture. His main example is the case of Syrian Canadian Maher Arar who was arrested by U.S. authorities in collusion with Canadian officials, then “rendered” to Syria for interrogation in 2002. Arar was beaten during the initial weeks of his interrogation in Syria. After ten-months imprisonment, Syrian authorities determined he was not a terrorist and sent him back to Canada, where he received an official apology and $10 million from the Canadian government.

The Arar case is clearly one where several governments deserve criticism, including Syria, Canada and the United States, which at the time was conducting its own torture program against other alleged terrorists. Yet, Syria is the only country that has been singled out for violent retribution. Smith is not advocating invasions of the United States and Canada for their roles in the abuse of Arar.

Other cases implicating Syria are more complicated. The most highly publicized accusations about torture come from a person known as “Caesar,” who has been presented to the public as a defecting Syrian photographer who had 55,000 photos documenting 11,000 Syrians tortured by the Assad regime.

Given the Western mainstream media’s overwhelming hostility toward the Syrian government, only the Christian Science Monitor was skeptical about the “Caesar” presentation, describing it as “a well timed propaganda exercise.” In the past year, it has been discovered that nearly half the photos show the opposite of what is claimed. The Caesar story is essentially a fraud funded by Qatar with “for hire” lawyers giving it a professional veneer and massive mainstream media promotion.

While Western media routinely refers to Assad as a dictator, he was actually elected and remains popular with the majority of Syrians, many of whom fear the consequences of his potential overthrow by radical jihadists. Many Syrians also long for the restoration of order after five years of violent rebellion largely funded and supplied by outsiders.

Although not wealthy, Syria was largely self-sufficient with a semi-socialist state apparatus including free health-care, free education and large industries 51 percent owned by the state. In response to legitimate demands from the initial political protests, the Assad government pushed through reforms which ended the one-party system. There are now political parties across the political spectrum, including a genuine “moderate opposition.” A June 2014 election confirmed Assad’s popularity despite the insistence of the outside-backed rebels – and the Western mainstream media – that the balloting was a sham.

Technique 2: Romanticize the opposition … “the Syrian Revolution”

Ashley Smith echoes mainstream media which portrays the conflict as a “civil war” which began with peaceful democracy-loving Syrian revolutionaries who were ruthlessly repressed by a brutal regime.

In reality, there was a violent faction from the start. In the first protests in Deraa, seven police were killed. Two weeks later there was a massacre of 60 security forces in Deraa.

Journalist James Foley shortly before he was executed by an Islamic State operative.

Journalist James Foley shortly before he was executed by an Islamic State operative.

In Homs, an eyewitness recounted the situation: “From the start, the protest movements were not purely peaceful. From the start I saw armed demonstrators marching along in the protests, who began to shoot at the police first. Very often the violence of the security forces has been a reaction to the brutal violence of the armed rebels.”

In the first two months, hundreds of police and security forces were killed. Yet, Smith, like the West’s mainstream media, ignores this reality because it clashes with the desired image of white-hatted protesters being victimized by a black-hatted government.

Smith and others like him listen to claims from Americans and British citizens and mistakenly believe they are listening to real Syrians. Some of these supposed experts left Syria as children and some have never lived in Syria. Thus you have fantasy portrayals such as “Burning Country: Syrians in Revolution and War.”

A more realistic picture is given by a Syrian who still lives in Aleppo. He writes under the name “Edward Dark” and describes how he and his friends quickly regretted the take-over of Aleppo by armed groups in summer 2012.

He describes one friend’s reaction as the reality was hitting home: How could we have been so stupid? We were betrayed!” And another says: Tell your children someday that we once had a beautiful country, but we destroyed it because of our ignorance and hatred.”

Edward Dark incidentally is a harsh critic of President Assad and the Baath Party. He was also naive regarding the role of U.S. Ambassador Robert Ford in stirring up the conflict. But Dark’s description of early protesters and the arrival of an armed opposition rings true and is more authentic than the portrayals from Yassin-Kassab and Al Shami.

Many of the idealized “Syrian revolutionaries” promoted by the authors of “Burning Country” are trained and paid agents of the U.S. and U.K. The Aleppo Media Center, which produces many of the videos, is a U.S. creation. The White Helmets, which purport to be Syrian, independent and unarmed first responders, is another creation of the U.S. and U.K. The banner boys from Kafranbel are another Western-funded operation. In her memoir about her time as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton boasts of providing “training for more than a thousand activists, students, and independent journalists” (p. 464).

Why do the enemies of Syria create such organizations? Partly as a way to channel money and support to the armed opposition. Also to serve as propaganda tools to confuse Western populations and generate political support for the real goal: “regime change.”

For example, the White Helmets mostly work in areas dominated by the Syrian affiliate of Al Qaeda. Unlike legitimate organizations such as the Red Crescent, they never work in areas controlled by the government. And they are also active on the propaganda front, continually pushing for U.S./NATO intervention via a “no fly zone.”

In contrast with the romanticized depiction of the rebels by Ashley Smith and the authors of “Burning Country,” the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency offered a much more accurate assessment in August 2012: “EVENTS ARE TAKING A CLEAR SECTARIAN DIRECTION. THE SALAFIST, THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD AND AQI [Al Qaeda in Iraq, which evolved into the Islamic State] ARE THE MAJOR FORCES DRIVING THE INSURGENCY IN SYRIA.”

Technique 3: Attack Anyone who Questions the Dogma as “an Assad supporter.”

Ashley Smith does not criticize NATO and the Gulf states that are violating international law and the U.N. charter by funding and supplying a proxy army to attack Syria. Instead, he criticizes groups on the Left who oppose this aggression. That is a sign of how far off track the International Socialist Organization and similar pro-regime-change groups on the Left are. They took similar positions regarding the West’s violent “regime change” in Libya and have evidently learned nothing from that disaster. Ashley Smith might want to tour Libya and savor the “revolution” that he promoted there.

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

Smith’s theme with respect to Syria (that it was a simple case of a peaceful and popular uprising against a brutal dictator) is the same narrative promoted by neoconservatives and the mainstream media. Like the neocons and the MSM, Smith also smears progressives who question the U.S. government’s storyline, who believe the Syrian people – not outsiders – should decide if “Assad must go” and who think a negotiated peace, followed by elections, is the best recipe for the shattered nation.

Yet, Smith criticizes the British Stop the War coalition for having “adapted to Assad supporters” and for “giving a platform to allies of the dictatorship,” specifically “regime apologist Mother Superior Agnes Mariam.” It seems that anyone who presents evidence that contradicts the West’s official narrative is immediately dismissed as an “apologist” and apparently isn’t even supposed to be allowed to speak.

Smith is also misinformed about who was responsible for Mother Agnes’s appearance in London. The Palestinian-Lebanese nun who has lived in Syria for more than 20 years was hosted on the tour by Syria Solidarity Movement and was then invited to speak at a Stop the War rally. To his great discredit, the keynote speaker Jeremy Scahill, who is closely aligned with ISO, threatened to withdraw from the conference if Mother Agnes spoke.

Scahill has done great journalistic work exposing Blackwater and Drone Warfare, but that does not excuse his complicity leading to blackmail regarding a woman who has shown immense courage in promoting reconciliation and peace in Syria. But that action is typical of some misguided “socialist” groups as well as the Muslim Brotherhood and their allies.

Mother Agnes was verbally attacked and abused by these groups throughout her tour, which otherwise met with great success. She consistently says that Syria needs reform, but you don’t achieve reform by destroying the country.

Ashley Smith goes on to criticize the U.S. Peace Council for recently sending a delegation to Syria and having the audacity to talk with “Assad and his henchmen.” In this regard, Smith sounds like the right-wing hawks who denounced Jane Fonda for going to North Vietnam in the 1970s. With his dogmatic and closed-minded view, one has to wonder what kind of “international socialism” does he represent?

Smith also criticizes Green Party candidates Jill Stein and Ajamu Baraka for “remaining silent about Putin’s and Assad’s atrocities.” This is another measure of how far off track the ISO is. They evidently are not aware of international law or they don’t care about it. The Assad government has a right to defend itself against terrorist attacks which are sponsored, funded and supplied by foreign governments.

Syria also has a right to request help from Russia and Iran. But with tunnel-vision dogma, Ashley Smith and ISO do not care. They seem to be supporting, instead of opposing, imperialist aggression, violations of international law, and the death and destruction that these actions have caused.

Smith disparages the Syrian government and people who have continued to fight against the forces of sectarianism promoted by NATO, Israel and the Gulf monarchies. Smith and ISO would do well to send some people to see the reality of Syria. They would find it very different than their fevered imagination or what they have been led to believe by fake Syrians and Muslim Brotherhood dogmatists.

Genuine progressives are not “Assad supporters,” but are opponents of imperialist aggression and supporters of international law, which says it’s the right of Syrians to determine who leads them. That would mean real Syrians, not those raised in or paid by the West.

Ashley Smith’s Inaccurate Overall Analysis

Ashley Smith gives a very inaccurate analysis of the overall geopolitical situation in Syria and beyond. He says “The U.S. has been seeking a resolution that might push Assad aside, but that above all maintains his regime in power.” He goes on to say “U.S. policy from the beginning has been to preserve the core of Assad’s state.” Smith believes “the U.S. has retreated in general from outright regime change as its strategy in the Middle East.”

Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi shortly before he was killed on Oct. 20, 2011, in Sirte, Libya.

Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi shortly before he was killed on Oct. 20, 2011, in Sirte, Libya.

But that U.S. claim is more window-dressing than reality, just as the United States insisted that its goal in Libya in 2011 was simply to protect innocent civilians in the country’s east, not “regime change.” However, once the Obama administration got the U.N. Security Council’s permission to provide that protection, the veil was dropped and a massive bombing campaign was directed against Libya’s military with the clear objective of “regime change,” which was achieved with Muammar Gaddafi’s capture, torture and murder.

In Syria, the reality is even clearer. The U.S. and its allies, Israel and Saudi Arabia, have been pushing for “regime change” in Syria for over a decade. In 2005, CNN host Christiane Amanpour expressed the situation bluntly in an interview with Assad:

“Mr. President, you know the rhetoric of regime change is headed towards you from the United States. They are actively looking for a new Syrian leader. They’re granting visas and visits to Syrian opposition politicians. They’re talking about isolating you diplomatically and, perhaps, a coup d’etat or your regime crumbling. What are you thinking about that?”

In 2007, Seymour Hersh wrote about the destabilization efforts in his article “The Redirection”. In 2010, Secretary of State Clinton spoke of “changing Syria’s behavior” and threatened President Assad is making decisions that could mean war or peace for the region. …. We know he’s hearing from Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas. It is crucial that he also hear directly from us, so that the potential consequences of his actions are clear.”

Secretary Clinton selected Robert Ford to become U.S. Ambassador to Syria after he had served as the chief political officer in Iraq for Ambassador John Negroponte. And, who was John Negroponte? In the 1980s, he was Ambassador to Honduras overseeing the Nicaraguan Contras and El Salvador death squads. Negroponte’s arrival in Iraq in 2004 led to the so-called “El Salvador option,” i.e., the unleashing of sectarian death squads in Iraq.

Since the conflict in Syria began in 2011, the U.S. has spent many billions of dollars trying to overthrow the Syrian government or force it to change policies. The supply of sophisticated and deadly weaponry to the rebels continues.

In April 2016, it was reported that the U.S. recently supplied 994 TONS of sophisticated rocket launchers, anti-tank and other heavy weapons to “moderate rebels” who ally with Syria’s Al Qaeda affiliate (Jabhat al Nusra recently renamed Jabhat Fatah al Sham).

Smith’s theory that the U.S. is intent on “preserving” the Syrian state and the U.S. has “given up” on regime change is not supported by the facts. He continues his faulty analysis by saying “the U.S. is solely and obsessively focused on defeating this counterrevolutionary force (ISIS) in Iraq and Syria” and “the Obama administration has struck a de facto alliance with Russia.”

This is more theory without evidence. The U.S. coalition was doing little to stop ISIS until the group began chopping off the heads of Western hostages in the summer of 2014. Even then, the U.S. coalition offered no help to the Syrian military when ISIS crossed the open desert to attack and occupy Palmyra.

The coalition similarly looked the other way as ISIS daily sent hundreds of trucks filled with oil from eastern Syria into Turkey. It was not until Russia entered the scene in support of Syria one year ago, that the U.S. coalition got embarrassed into actually attacking ISIS in a meaningful way.

As to a “de facto alliance,” that is what Russia has implored the U.S. to do, largely without response. In the past two weeks, the U.S. has warned Russian and Syrian planes not to attack U.S. ground forces inside Syria and refused to come to an agreement with Russia that “moderate rebels” working with acknowledged terrorists are not “moderate” and should be targeted.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton delivers remarks at a United Nations Security Council Session on the situation in Syria at the United Nations in New York on Jan. 31, 2012. [State Department Photo]

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton delivers remarks at a United Nations Security Council Session on the situation in Syria at the United Nations in New York on Jan. 31, 2012. [State Department Photo]

In effect, the Obama administration is trying to prevent the collapse of its “regime change” project by stalling and delay. Perhaps, the goal is to keep the project alive for a more aggressive U.S. policy under President Hillary Clinton, who continues to talk about a “no fly zone” and a “safe zone,” code words for a direct U.S. military invasion of Syria.

Clinton’s allies in Congress have recently initiated HR5732 which will escalate economic and financial sanctions against Syria and suggests the implementation of a “no fly zone.”

Ashley Smith claims that much of the U.S. Left has been avidly supporting “oppressive regimes” such as Syria and Iran and mocks those on the Left who suggested the Iranian “green movement” was U.S.-influenced. His mockery is exposed as ignorance by none other than Hillary Clinton herself.

In her book, Hard Choices, Clinton recounts how the State Department arranged for Twitter to postpone a system upgrade which would have taken the social media giant offline at a critical time, right after the 2009 Iranian election. Clinton and her team were actively promoting the protests in Iran.

Dangerous Times Ahead

Some Middle East analysts have made the faulty analysis that Israel is not involved in the aggression against Syria. In reality, Israeli interests are at the core of the U.S. policy against Syria. Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Michael Oren was explicit:  “The initial message about the Syrian issue was that we always wanted Bashar Assad to go.” He also said “bad guys supported by Iran” are worse than “bad guys not supported by Iran.” In other words, Israel preferred chaos and Al Qaeda to a stable independent Syria.

Saudi Arabia is the other key U.S. ally seeking to overthrow the Syrian government. With its close connections to the oil industry, the military industrial complex and Wall Street, Saudi Arabia has enormous influence in Washington. It has been mercilessly bombing Yemen for the last 18 months and continues funding and promoting the proxy war against Syria with no noticeable objection from Washington.

Both Saudi Arabia and Israel seek the same thing: breaking the resistance alliance which runs from Iran through Syria to Lebanon. They are in alliance with U.S. neoconservatives who still dream of “a new American Century” in which the U.S. fights multiple wars to enforce its “exceptional” and sole supremacy. This strategy systematically violates international law, as it does in fueling the war against Syria.

Though the tide has been turning against the “regime change” forces in Syria, they have not given up and may even escalate. That possibility is enhanced by propagandistic accounts such as the one by Ashley Smith.

Rick Sterling is an investigative journalist and member of Syria Solidarity Movement. He can be contacted at [email protected]

23 comments for “Dissecting the Propaganda on Syria

  1. Donald
    September 7, 2016 at 16:02

    I agree that much of what we read in the press is propaganda, but this is just propaganda on the other side. Not a single acknowledgement of any atrocity by the Syrian government. Sorry, but this is just as insultingly stupid as anything one reads in the mainstream press. Very disappointing to see so many antiwar types who think that they have to oppose US supported crimes by supporting those committed by others.

    • Nuar Gladstein
      September 7, 2016 at 19:40

      Yes!! Thank you!!

    • Gregory Herr
      September 7, 2016 at 22:35

      Well at least you understand that there are “US supported crimes”. Wouldn’t want you to be “insultingly stupid”.

      What’s this about “so-called peace activists” and “antiwar types”? I didn’t know it was a “type” to be anti-war. Well, if it is, I’m glad I’m that type.

  2. David G
    September 7, 2016 at 11:42

    “Clinton’s allies in Congress have recently initiated HR5732 which will escalate economic and financial sanctions against Syria and suggests the implementation of a ‘no fly zone.'”

    That bill, btw, is named the “Caesar Syria Civilian Protection Act of 2016” after the PR fraud that Rick Sterling also mentions.

  3. Nuar Gladstein
    September 7, 2016 at 10:54

    Half my family are frm Syria. They lived there for 7-8 generations, & when the conflict broke out & really began to get serious (2013ish) they were fortunate enough to be able to leave, & relocate to other places. (Jordan, Lebanon, Qatar, Kuwait, Etc…)
    That being said, living there, seeing & actually experiencing events in Syria, they would all have MUCH to disagree w/ you about in this article. (This article where you claim to be speaking about what’s truly going on there, & how the people really feel.. But missed the mark by a long ways w/ every Syrian who I know – which is a great many ppl!
    If you want I will contact them, & if it’s OK w/ them then you can contact them & hear for yourself what I’m talking about.. That way you don’t have to jst take my word for it.
    I’ll jst sat this:
    The Assad regime IS brutal, hated, & feared.. It oppresses large chunk of the population.
    The tragedy of Aug 2013 is STILL believed by everyone there, Damascus area, to be Assads doing.
    They DESPERATELY wanted the US to come help in fall 2013, but we didn’t. (Our Congress wasn’t having it.. And then Syria rose to Assads defense.) MANY felt betrayed when we didn’t. That failure to act caused some to team up w/ extremist groups.. But there WERE MANY REBELS fighting a good fight, for real reasons, before ISIS came in & everything got even worse. It WAS peaceful protests at the begining.. Then a little boy was killed by Assads forces, triggering violence.
    Russia plays an insidious role in all this too.. Always has. (And there airstrikes + Assads have killed 1000s of innocents.)
    This isn’t all some conspiracy propaganda like your presenting it as. These are real ppl who these things are really happening to.. It’s very upsetting to read someone suggesting otherwise because this is one of those things where I have insider knowledge & I actually KNOW not to be true as you presented it.

    • Zachary Smith
      September 7, 2016 at 11:21

      Goodness gracious – who would have known that Assad was the root of all evil in Syria.

      “brutal” “hated” “feared” ” oppresses”

      Combine that with Evil Russia and Cowardly US Congress, and poor Syria really got the shaft.

      Odd thing though, you didn’t say much about the people who chop off heads and post the pictures on the internet. People who put pilots and entire families in metal cages and burn them alive. People who use chain saws to chop humans in half.

      For some strange reason Assad’s Syria has managed to survive the hordes of religious fanatics swarming in from all over the world. The death tolls have been high, but his army continues to fight against the US and Saudi supported “good terrorists”. With Russia’s assistance, they’re slowly beginning to win. Could that looming victory be what chaps your ***?

      A disinterested person might well suspect that you’re posting here to provide a perspective not exactly related to reality.

      • Donald
        September 7, 2016 at 16:05

        It cuts both ways. I never understood why people feel the need to take sides in some other country’s civil war. Obviously all factions are slaughtering innocent people, but both our mainstream propagandists and our so called peace activists lie about it.

        • Gregory Herr
          September 7, 2016 at 22:22

          Well Donald, there are those of us who feel a sense of humanity towards others, regardless of proximity. I don’t necessarily feel a need to “take a side” in a given scenario or situation, but I do feel compelled at times to question what is right and what is wrong…to stand for the well-being of general populations and to rail against what I perceive as transgressions against our common humanity. What has been visited upon the people of Syria is unspeakable,
          Besides, it’s not a civil war, the ramifications run far deeper than that, and my government is involved.
          It is not obvious that all “factions,” as you say, are slaughtering innocent people. Simplistic polar dichotomizations that you affix and then pretend to be above doesn’t cut it.

  4. Jerad
    September 7, 2016 at 01:38

    The choice for the next president of the United States is really quite simple for anyone who is tired of the warmongering globalists who have ruled both major parties for the last few decades. Obviously, either Trump or Clinton will be the next US president. Of the two, only Trump has spoken out against military interventionism and foolish attempts at nation building and regime change. Trump is the only one of the two who has called for an end to trade agreements and immigration policies which do nothing but hurt the average US worker.
    Naturally, there are those who will insist that Trump might be okay on foreign and military policy but that he is too much of a bigot because of his immigration plans. However, if you look past the hyperbolic rhetoric, Trump is merely calling for the existing immigration laws to be enforced. As for the Islamic immigration ban, which Trump has since walked back, well, there is nothing wrong with a nation attempting to choose which immigrants they feel will best fit into their society and culture. After all, how many Muslim nations would allow mass Christian immigration to their lands?

    • Rikhard Ravindra Tanskanen
      September 9, 2016 at 13:43

      MASS Islamic immigration? Where di you get that idea?

  5. Wobblie
    September 6, 2016 at 17:52

    Boy there seems to be a never ending supply of gullible morons who will always for their gov’s lies.

    That’s Charlie Brown, kick the ball. This time Lucy will hold it in place.


  6. D5-5
    September 6, 2016 at 17:17

    “Both Saudi Arabia and Israel seek the same thing: breaking the resistance alliance which runs from Iran through Syria to Lebanon. They are in alliance with U.S. neoconservatives who still dream of ‘a new American century’ in which the U.S. fights multiple wars to enforce its ‘exceptional’ and sole supremacy. This strategy systematically violates international law, as it does in fueling the war against Syria.”

    Very happy to see discussion of US intentions (additional to resource war issues) explained in this article. This helps get beyond the simplistic and naïve view the war is all about support of an “Arab spring.”

  7. Ted Tripp
    September 6, 2016 at 16:10

    Great article! Also, I vaguely remember something about a pipeline that Syria refused passage that also contributes to the anti-Assad sentiment. Does anyone know anything about this?

  8. Zachary Smith
    September 6, 2016 at 12:22

    In effect, the Obama administration is trying to prevent the collapse of its “regime change” project by stalling and delay. Perhaps, the goal is to keep the project alive for a more aggressive U.S. policy under President Hillary Clinton, who continues to talk about a “no fly zone” and a “safe zone,” code words for a direct U.S. military invasion of Syria.

    That’s exactly the case! They’re Waiting For Hillary to arrive on the scene to escalate, and maybe even start WW3. But all in a good cause, of course.

    I was pleased to discover the warmongering ISO outfit wasn’t on my bookmarks. In fact, a real socialist site which I do sometimes look at has this to say about the ISO:

    To put the matter bluntly, the ISO is aligned with, and conducts propaganda on behalf of, factions within the AFL-CIO and the Democratic Party, as well as an array of NGOs and foreign policy think tanks, which are dissatisfied with the Obama administration’s failure to confront Russian backing for Assad and complete the destruction of his regime. The ISO’s specific job is to legitimize and generate broader support for US escalation by portraying the CIA-organized regime-change operation as a “revolution.”


    Like with the infamous National Socialist German Workers’ Party, you can’t judge an organization by their name.

    The ISO is merely a propaganda outfit agitating for wars of choice.

  9. Tom Welsh
    September 6, 2016 at 12:21

    Funny how someone like Ashley Smith of the International Socialist Organization can be so determinedly and unequivocally on the side of the Empire? That doesn’t sound at all like a socialist position to me.

    • David G
      September 6, 2016 at 20:11

      I was baffled when I saw that piece at Counterpunch.org. I guess if you put “socialist” somewhere in your letterhead, the eds there don’t look at the content too closely.

      But there’s certainly precedent for prominent U.S. socialists/communists to be secretly co-operating with the government—thinking of Jay Lovestone.

  10. September 6, 2016 at 12:11

    Thank you.

    The US holocaust is grotesque. I doubted the poison gas story when I learned it happened only a few miles from president Assad’s home.

    Clear writing like this helps confused people like me. I have moved Jeremy Scahill to my dust bin file along with the likes of Paul Krugman.

    • D5-5
      September 6, 2016 at 18:40

      I believe I’m correct in that Assad had also invited chemical weapons inspectors in to Syria at the time of this attack, adding to the implausibility that he was responsible. I followed it closely, aided particularly by Consortium News and Robert Parry’s reporting, and have since been amazed, repeatedly, at how the “moral idiocy” (to quote another article appearing today) by mainstream reporting continues on this event with its lies, and no doubt will continue. Obama was very close to escalation with his “red line” stuff, and we should thank Putin for his role in talking Obama out of what could have been another terrible mistake.

      • Nuar Gladstein
        September 7, 2016 at 19:35

        No, the narrative you presented is not correct. Syria did not “invite” the weapons inspectors in, offering that gesture willingly or nor were they the first to suggest it.
        John Kerry put it out there 1st, suggesting that if Syria allowed weapons inspectors in then air-strikes could be avoided. Syria was not happy to do so initially, & it wasn’t until Russian officials reasoned with Assad that they agreed.
        Furthermore, the findings that were later published in the UN report did NOT vindicate Syrian government. Based on all the evidence & intel available the inspectors believed that it WAS in fact the Assad regime who perpetrated the attacks in late Aug. 2013. It couldnt be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, too much time had passed, artillery had been moved all around, etc. But they donly know for certain that the rockets which launched came frm Russia, & the Sarina was frm Syria’s stockpile. The amount of Sarin used was so great that its not believed ito must have come frm the state, because no rebel groups or militants were in possession of such a large supply. They know the attack was launched FRM a location which was tightly controlled by Syrian Government (they held it securely, no rebels were inside the parameter), & its target was a suburb held by the rebels. — Of course it was families, women, children who were massacred in the attacks. Seeking shelter frm the rocket fire & shelling they slept down in basements & bunkers.. And it was so cold at that time, in the middle of the night, that the cold air caused the Sarin gas to lower quickly penetrating down to the shelter areas where the ppl were.

        I still had family living in Damascus at the time.. And there was NO QUESTION in anyone’s mind at the time about who perpetrated the attacks.
        (My family, btw, aren’t “fake Syrians” as the author of this article asserts ppl who don’t share his narrative are. They’ve been living there for generations, hundreds of yrs, & they continued to live there until one by one they were able to flee & relocate after the conflict intensified, between 2012 & 2014, & a few are there still.
        And they all abhor the Assad regime, they actually experienced his atrocious brutality. They have lost friends, loved ones, homes. It’s REAL for them, not jst an idea. And they have NO lover for Russia either, because it’s Russia who helps Assad retain the power & control he has to neglect oppress & brutalize the Syrian ppl who are not in his elite ruling sect. They view Russia & Assad as warlords who they’re dealing w/ coming frm one side, while the grotesque abominable terrorist group ISIS is coming frm the other. Tragically the people of Syria, jst normal ppl, families, civilians, have become trapped in the middle.
        Lastly I’ll say that I know for a fact that the majority of thevery ppl, civilians who were suffering & being slaughtered by Assad.. Well these ppl WANTED the US TO intervene. Desperately, they wanted our help at that time [fall 2013]. And when we didn’t intervene, when we opted for the weapons inspectors agreement between Russia Assad the UN & us.. They felt incredibly betrayed, forgotten, dismissed, by this country [us, the USA] who’s always meddling in the ME when it suits US to, but not when they ACTUALLY NEEDED HELP.
        Most the Syrians I know started resenting, despising, not trusting the US, at that point.)

        I respect SOME of the contributors in the Syrian Solidarity Movement, like Eva Bartlett.. But the author of this piece, no, not so much. His article presents an inaccurate narrative that is jst as bad as the MSM narratives espousing the opposite kind of info which he’s critical of. Both assume the position that THEY KNOW WHAT’S REALLY GOING ON.. And then paint a picture which is very skewed to bolster positions they ALREADY held.
        Jst because someones telling the story differently, doesn’t mean that THEY are the beacon of truth.

        • b.grand
          September 7, 2016 at 21:16

          Nuar, nice try, but….

          You may be representing the view of your in-laws, but you’ve blown your expert insider status in the first few lines by misrepresenting Kerry and his role. This was all out in the open, no secret, so maybe your memory is faulty.

          Kerry was asked (in public) if anything could prevent US air strikes. Kerry replied, if Syria gives up all chem. weapons. It was a throwaway remark, sarcastic, something he was sure would never happen. But Sergei Lavrov picked up on it and held him to it. Lavrov went straight to Assad and arranged it, and Kerry couldn’t back out.

          This was actually a big relief for Obama who had gotten himself in a corner with the Red Line business, and also he’d heard from the Pentagon (Gen. Dempsey, et al) that the evidence was poor and the risk was worse. But even though the Russians had helped him out, he (or his handlers) hated them for it. (You know how it is.)

          You have also conflated the (coincidence?) of the UN inspectors being in Damascus at the time of the Ghouta attack with the much earlier negotiations for the removal of the chem. weapons. There was no reluctance from Assad to have the inspectors there.

          As for your hatred of Assad, these sorts of emotional but weak (vague, non-specific) allegations are annoying to me. I would like more factual evidence for what life in Syria was like between 2000 and 2011, but I’m not getting it from you. It would also have to be scaled up, not just your family. For example, there are people in the US who hate Obama (because he’s Black, or they think he’s a Muslim) and there are people who (justifiably) are afraid of the Police in the US. There are all sorts of disgruntled people, and some of them probably want to burn the place down. But I don’t think we have Canadians covertly fomenting a violent revolution, or implying that they would finance one.

    • Villainesse
      September 7, 2016 at 07:32

      It sucks having to ‘red flag’ previously admired thinkers! The media destruction of Bernie’s campaign certainly made clear some who’s words were bought. And then Bernie himself completed the sale of his own soul before purchasing his swanky summer mansion. If not technical corruption, we must now accuse Bernie of the moral type as he clings to his nemeses from the DNC to protect his own Senatorial seat.

      Neoliberalcon Hillary is most likely to soon lead us into WWIII at the behest of Zionist Israel and with the help of her neocons and the Zionist AIPac that controls Congress. Her direction of the anti-diplomatic State (of War) Department has proven her abilities and joy in spreading death, destruction and oppression around the world.

  11. joe
    September 6, 2016 at 11:44

    This is a great article. I wish the US population would not be so easily manipulated by our government propaganda. Our government needs to spend regime change money at home to help it citizens.

Comments are closed.