Syrian boy’s image shamelessly exploited for West’s war agenda
By Finian Cunningham | RT | August 21, 2016
How many times have we seen this before? Western media selectively focusing on, or distorting, human suffering in order to fulfill a base political agenda – war – for powerful interests.
It is no coincidence Western media fevered with images of a five-year-old boy, pulled from rubble in Aleppo after an alleged air strike by Syrian government or Russian forces – and the very next day US warplanes were scrambled over northern Syria reportedly to ward off Syrian Su-24 fighter bombers.
American political analyst Randy Martin at crookedbough.com told this author: “This is a prelude to an all-out war in Syria – one that would inevitably bring American and Russian forces into direct confrontation.”
Martin says a warmongering cabal in Washington wants an “existential showdown” with Russia. This “war party” comprises hawkish think-tanks, military corporations, the Pentagon and CIA whose world view is predicated on American total domination. “They are counting on Hillary Clinton for president,” says the analyst. “And a war with Russia in Syria is an opportunity for this cabal which Clinton seems more than willing to accommodate.”
Perversely, the image of a suffering child is being exploited to solicit an outcome entailing many, many more children suffering.
It is no coincidence either that last week saw Western media reports alleging that thousands of detainees have died during incarceration in Syrian prisons.
https://www.rt.com/news/356600-aleppo-children-hospital-situation/video/
There were also reports claiming that since President Vladimir Putin ordered Russian military intervention in Syria last September his forces have “killed more civilians than terrorists” belonging to the Islamic State and other extremists. The latter claim was based on figures from the so-called Syrian Network for Human Rights, which, according to reliable sources, is a political front for Western governments. Tellingly, the UK-registered network refers to Russia as the “Russian regime”.
The unmistakable context is to further discredit and demonize the elected government of Syria and its foreign allies, which then gives pretext for further Western intervention in the country – intervention that under any normal, rational perspective would be viewed as illegal aggression.
Several alternative media observers have questioned the validity of the now-iconic image of the five-year-old boy, named as Omran Daqneesh. Commentators at the OffGuardian site, for example, have pointed to anomalies in the video footage suggesting that it was staged for propaganda effect. The so-called Aleppo Media Center that fed the images to Western outlets is evidently embedded with the proscribed terror group, Fatah al Sham (previously Jabhat al Nusra).
Other observers noted that the self-declared “photojournalist” Mahmoud Raslan has also been spotted in selfies posted on social media in which he cheerfully enjoys the company of militants belonging to the Nour al Din al Zinki – the very same individuals who last month posted a video of themselves decapitating a 12-year-old boy near Aleppo.
The Russian Ministry of Defense refuted claims that its aircraft were involved in the Aleppo blast. Major General Igor Konashenkov said Russian forces were not operating in the eastern district of Qaterji on the day of the alleged strike. He also said that footage of the blast site indicated it most likely was caused by a mortar shell, which could have been fired by anti-government militants. This is consistent with claims that such militants are holding civilians in eastern Aleppo as hostages and human shields.
The politicization of an image purporting to show a little boy with bloodied head, covered in dust becomes obvious when we step back from this emotive singular focus. Why do Western media outlets not give the same prominence to thousands of children who have been killed or maimed by the anti-government militants or US warplanes?
Why, we should ask, is this particular image made “iconic”? What about the countless children suffering in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Mali and elsewhere where Washington and its Western allies have waged dubious wars and invasions?
In the same week that the image of five-year-old Omran was plastered all over Western channels, in Yemen US-backed Saudi warplanes bombed a school killing 10 children. Where were their images on Western media?
Almost invariably, Western media focus on human suffering is hardly as simple as relaying the story that meets the eye. Russia was right this week to denounce the “cynical manipulation” of images as an attempt to score political points and orchestrate public sentiments.
Notorious incidents recall how Western media have actually engaged in not just “selective focus” and “omission” but fabrication. Recall the image of the emaciated girl whom Western media claimed was from an enclave in Syria besieged by “regime forces” in a policy of starving rebel-held populations. Turns out the little girl is Lebanese, unrelated to the Syrian conflict.
Or remember the Houla massacre that occurred in May 2012? Over 100 villagers were butchered in that attack and Western media rushed to assign blame on militia supporting the Assad government. Turned out that it was Western-backed mercenaries who perpetrated the atrocity, with the aim of incriminating the Syrian government.
Perhaps the most notorious “false flag” massacre was that of the chemical weapon attack on the Damascus suburb of East Ghouta in August 2014. Images of children suffocating were broadcast across the Western media. Again, it later emerged that it was US-backed Jaish al Islam militants who likely carried out the massacre in a deliberate attempt to prompt Obama’s “red line” for American air strikes on Syria.
Shameless Western media manipulation over Syria’s conflict – as with so many others, for example, Gaddafi’s “imminent butchering of Benghazi” which served as a pretext for NATO bombing of Libya and overthrow of its government in 2011 – is always correlated with a desired policy shift.
The Houla massacre back in 2012 happened only days before the UN security council was to meet on ramping up sanctions on the Assad government. The East Ghouta atrocity was around the time Washington was looking for a red line excuse to impose its military directly in Syria.
The image of the boy from Aleppo falls into the same pattern of expediting political objective.
The battle for Aleppo marks a last stand by the Western-backed militants. Their likely defeat by Syrian, Russian, Iranian and Hezbollah forces portends the end of a six-year war that Washington and its allies covertly embarked on for the illegal purpose of regime change. As many as 400,000 Syrians have died in this Western-fomented war.
Washington desperately wants to thwart the Russian-backed offensive, which is putting paid to its regime-change scheme.
Western outcry for ceasefires and No-Fly Zones are animated by emotive images of children suffering. But the real, underlying concern is to afford respite to the West’s proxies in Aleppo and to stave off terminal defeat.
Much more than this, however, is the perplexing sign that Washington wants to go to war in Syria, as US analyst Randy Martin and others point out.
Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has already stated that she will escalate American involvement in Syria. Her backers in the CIA and Pentagon are also advocating “killing Russians” and supplying anti-aircraft missiles to their jihadist proxies.
In this prelude to war, we can therefore expect many more such images of children shamelessly exploited to condition the public to accept Washington’s despicable agenda.
Read more:
‘Aleppo child survivor image will be used as propaganda for more war – not less’
Footage Of Boy In Aleppo Is Opportunistic, Vile Propaganda From Western Media
By Brandon Turbeville – Activist Post – August 19, 2016
It’s August, 2016 and the Western mainstream press is parading yet another injured child in front of a population of normally uncompassionate audiences in order to drum up support for some type of NATO military action against the secular government of Bashar al-Assad.
The picture of a little boy, seemingly injured in some type of bombing incident, sitting alone in an orange chair in the back of an ambulance, blood stains on his face and covered in dust from cracked concrete also comes in video form, footage that lasts for about two minutes, showing the boy being carried to a well-equipped ambulance (with English writing on some of the equipment). The boy’s story is also accompanied by “heart wrenching” stories from “activists” in east Aleppo alleging the crimes of the Syrian government and the horrific situation in the area.
The story as presented in the Western press goes as follows:
The video shows a child after he was pulled from rubble in Aleppo, a Syrian city that has been devastated by constant bombardment. A man carried the boy away from the rubble after a suspected Russian or Syrian regime airstrike in the neighborhood of rebel-held Qaterji. He placed him in an orange seat, and the boy brushed his eye and face after the man walked away.
Looking dazed, he then wiped the blood and debris on the seat. After the airstrike, which reportedly shook the northern Syrian city Wednesday night during a call to prayer, the boy was rescued from the rubble that was once his home. Mahmoud Raslan, a photojournalist who captured the image, told the Associated Press that emergency workers and journalists tried to help the child, identified as 5-year-old Omran Daqneesh, along with his parents and his three siblings, who are 1, 6 and 11 years old. “We were passing them from one balcony to the other,” Raslan said, adding: “We sent the younger children immediately to the ambulance, but the 11-year-old girl waited for her mother to be rescued. Her ankle was pinned beneath the rubble.”
Omran was taken to a hospital for a wound on his head.
. . . . .
“This picture of a wounded Syrian boy captures just a fragment of the horrors of Aleppo,” read a Telegraph headline about the picture. The International Business Times said: “Heartbreaking video of little boy dragged from Aleppo rubble shows Syrian children’s suffering.”
. . . . .
The haunting image was also shared by David Miliband, former British foreign secretary and now president and chief executive of the International Rescue Committee. At least 400,000 people have died and millions have been displaced as the Syrian conflict has stretched on for years.
It is rather clear that the child is being used as a stage prop. After being passed to the medical “attendants,” little Omran is placed in an orange chair facing the camera and immediately left alone. He is not treated, no one else is being lifted into the ambulance, and no one is even in the vehicle with him. Instead, he is left to face the “activists” outside the vehicle and their cameras for what seems like too long a time to be anything other than a photo op for the “activists” videotaping him.
While some more discerning alternative media outlets are questioning the credibility of the footage – suggesting that the entire affair was simply staged by “activists” (meaning terrorists and terrorist supporters like the White Helmets) for propaganda purposes – one need not go so far in order to destroy the narrative being pushed by Western outlets. It is, of course, quite possible that the footage was simply created from beginning to end by propagandists but there is also no shortage of injured and dying children in Syria. Thus, the possibility that this footage is completely real and merely seized upon by the propagandists is incredibly real as well. It is even possible that the child was injured as a result of errant bombs dropped by Syrian or Russian planes. Generally, however, when children are killed or injured by American bombs or by bearded freaks receiving a paycheck from the U.S. government, those children are simply labeled “collateral damage” or “unfortunate realities of war.” Even if the bombing targets were intentionally civilian areas, the results are excused. When children are unintentionally injured by a Syrian or Russian plane – despite have taken all the appropriate measures to avoid these types of incidents – the Western press refers to the results as “crimes against humanity,” “intentional targeting of civilians,” and Assad “killing his own people.”
It should also be noted that, while all of the above may be the source of the child’s injuries, it is just as likely that his injuries came as a result of the men seen handling him. After all, America’s “rebels” have long killed children in the most grotesque manner, even beheading a young boy on camera in recent weeks.
But regardless of the nature of the child’s injuries, the photo and the footage is clearly a propaganda stunt. At best, it was seized by propagandists in the West and their foot soldiers in “rebel held” areas of Syria, ) i.e. terrorist support operations such as the White Helmets). One need only examine the “photographer” and this push by mainstream outlets to see that little Omran is being used as the latest bit of war porn propaganda, designed to create sympathy and moral outrage in an audience devoid of both until they are told to have one or the other by mass media outlets.
Mahmoud Raslan, “Activist,” “Journalist,” Terrorist
Raslan describes himself to be a “Syrian media activist,” which, in and of itself, is a red flag to anyone who has studied the Syrian crisis. In the world of Western media, anyone defining themselves as an “activist” in Syria should immediately be translated to mean “terrorist.” Calling “terrorists” “activists” has been an important mode of operation by the Western media since day one in Syria since “activists” can be quoted while actual terrorists are not seen as credible enough in the minds of the general public. In other words, “activist” is merely a moniker assumed by terrorists when propaganda outfits need “on the ground” confirmation of what they are already peddling.
Raslan, the “Syrian media activist” certainly fits the bill. Despite being hailed a true journalist or selfless “activist,” Raslan’s terror-supporting history is easily revealed via social media. Raslan has repeatedly made public statements praising terrorists and suicide bombers. In a post on Raslan’s facebook page (translated by The Canary) reads:
With the suicide fighters, from the land of battles and butchery, from Aleppo of the martyrs, we bring you tidings of impending joy, with God’s permission
Another post reads:
Thousands of suicide fighters and tens of booby-traps are being prepared for the great battle in Aleppo, the first battle where I see men weeping because they can’t participate on account of the number of attackers.
Raslan’s Twitter page is full of pictures and footage of him standing next to captured Syrian tanks, marching with terrorists flying the French mandate flag (white, black, and green), taking selfies with terrorists, and celebrating terrorist victories. His Twitter page alone carries a cover photo that says “Stop Russia.” Why would anyone want to stop Russia from bombing terrorists unless they themselves were terrorists? This is a question more and more Americans should be asking themselves.
Videos on Raslan’s social media also show celebrations with other terrorists, praising suicide bombers on camera.
As Miri Wood writes in her article, “Oscar Nominations For War Porn With Child Has New Nomination,” “That one woman with a Twitter account can immediately expose this heinous relationship, while paid msm reporters cheer this scum, if further indictment of the criminal intentions of western media against the Syrian Arab Republic.”
Wood and Afraa Dagher continue by writing,
True, Gray Boy might not be the best competition for Aylan, but how many drowned babies’ bodies that have been desecrated by repositioning for maximum emotional impact are we to expect?
Besides,
Aylan’s defiled corpse was needed to propagate the myth of the external Syrian refugee — part of the plan to strategically depopulate the country (which is why msm neglected to mention Aylan’s father was the human trafficking boat ‘captain’) — while Gray Boy is to be used for an increased bombing campaign against Syria, by the same NATO forces which have funded terrorism in the SAR, and which obliterated Libya in 2011.
As Mnar A. Muhawesh of Mint Press News stated,
Since when does the corporate or mainstream media care about the people of Syria let alone the children of Syria? The answer is never. Watching CNN anchors cry crocodile tears over the Aleppo boy lifted from rubble serves one purpose only: to play with our emotions to justify more US intervention. MEDIA and their pundits are now calling for the US to help these people, as if our actions haven’t done enough damage. And by help, they mean bomb. But, I have been poking around to find the original source of this video of the heart-wrenching Syrian boy. It brought me to tears and I’m seeing everyone post about it. CNN cited the original source as coming from the Aleppo Media Center. The website is in Arabic but I read it, and it’s a pro rebel website referring to Al-qaeda rebels that behead civilians as “revolutionaries”. I doubt many people looked up the original source, but I did and it wasn’t hard to find. What the media is not telling us is that many parts of Aleppo is currently occupied by Al-qaeda rebels including al-Nusra Front and Noor alzinki — including the area this boy is from.
. . . . .
Consider this: CNN and other media and NGO’s that are funded by NATO county’s like the US and the UK have embedded reporters, rescue workers and doctors in al-Qaeda held areas like we see with the White Helmets. These are the sources the media is using for interviews and sources for information to control the narrative. But the Assad government is bombing the Al-qaeda held areas. Three years ago the media referred to these areas as al-qaeda held. Today, they’re referring to these same terrorists as “opposition” . These groups are starving the areas they occupy and hog up all aid sent into the areas set to them for civilians. This gives these institutions an opportunity to show the West how the Assad government and the Syrian army are airstriking “opposition” held areas without the context that these are al- qaeda held or that many times the Al-qaeda rebels are starving the population. Doesn’t the US want to get rid of Al-qaeda and ISIS? You’d think that but instead, they are defending them to the world and legitimizing them. These “sources” are simply controlling the narrative Indeed, the award-winning performance of CNN news anchor Kate Bolduan crying, hyperventilating, and indignantly insinuating that someone should “do something” to stop these airstrikes against terrorist forces has caught the attention of many people who couldn’t find Syria on a map before or after her report. But we haven’t see Bolduan crying for any other Syrian children over the course of the last five years. Did she cry over the young boy beheaded by America’s “moderate” rebels? Did she cry at any other child’s death at the hands of the “rebels?” There is no shortage of dead children in Syria and certainly no shortage of them killed in the most horrific and sadistic ways by the “activists” and “rebels” her employer has been pimping to the American people since day one. So why the tears for this child?
Bolduan’s carefully scripted performance and excellent follow-through should earn her a serious acting job one day. But we would kindly ask she leave journalism to someone else.
Little Omran is unfortunately the rehash of baby Aylan, a child for whom Western audiences wept and wailed for days, becoming more and more willing to allow the West to increase its intervention in Syria and allow hordes of non-Syrian immigrants into their country but who, only a year later, would scarcely warrant a head scratch at the familiarity of the name. But it would be virtually impossible to ask any American to recount the name of the little girl killed by Obama’s rebels in Lattakia, car bombed to death by “moderates” and democracy-loving Sharia fanatics, around the same time as baby Aylan. Why? Because not one mainstream media outlet reported her death.
Indeed, some children are more equal than others and children killed by America’s terrorists aren’t worthy of even a mention by the mainstream press. Forgive me if I am unconvinced and unmoved by CNN’s crying anchors or America’s temporary fickle and hypocritical moral outrage.
What Should We Do About Crimea?
By Ron Paul | August 21, 2016
Is Crimea about to explode? The mainstream media reports that Russia has amassed troops on the border with Ukraine and may be spoiling for a fight. The Russians claim to have stopped a Ukrainian sabotage team that snuck into Crimea to attack key infrastructure. The Russian military is holding exercises in Crimea and Russian President Vladimir Putin made a visit to the peninsula at the end of the week.
The Ukrainians have complained to their western supporters that a full-scale Russian invasion is coming, and Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko said he may have to rule by martial law due to the Russian threat.
Though the US media pins the blame exclusively on Russia for these tensions, in reality there is plenty of blame to go around. We do know that the US government has been involved with “regime change” in Ukraine repeatedly since the break up of the Soviet Union. The US was deeply involved with the “Orange Revolution” that overthrew elected president Viktor Yanukovych in 2005. And we know that the US government was heavily involved in another coup that overthrew the same elected Yanukovych again in 2014.
How do we know that the US was behind the 2014 coup? For one, we have the intercepted telephone call between US Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and US Ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt. In the recording, the two US officials are plotting to remove the elected government and discussing which US puppet they will put in place.
You would think such undiplomatic behavior could get diplomats fired, but sadly in today’s State Department it can actually get you promoted! Nuland is widely expected to get a big promotion – perhaps to even Secretary of State – in a Hillary Clinton administration, and Geoffrey Pyatt has just moved up to an Ambassadorship in Athens.
Ambassador Pyatt can’t seem to control himself: Just as tensions were peaking between Russia and Ukraine over Crimea this month, he published a series of Tweets urging Ukraine to take back Crimea. Is this how our diplomats overseas should be acting? Should they be promoting actions they know will lead to war?
When the mainstream media discusses Crimea they are all lock-step: that’s the peninsula Putin annexed. Never do they mention that there was a referendum in which the vast majority of the population (who are mostly ethnic Russians) voted to join Russia. The US media never reports on this referendum because it produced results that Washington doesn’t like. How arrogant it must sound to the rest of the world that Washington reserves the right to approve or disapprove elections thousands of miles away – meanwhile we find out from the DNC hacked files that we don’t have a lot of room to criticize elections overseas.
What should we do about Ukraine and Russia? We should stop egging Ukraine on, we should stop subsidizing the government in Kiev, we should stop NATO exercises on the Russian border, we should end sanctions, we should return to diplomacy, we should send the policy of “regime change” to the dustbin of history. The idea that we would be facing the prospect of World War III over which flag flies above a tiny finger of land that most US politicians couldn’t find on a map is utterly ridiculous. When are we going to come to our senses?
Casuistry
By Thomas S. Harrington | CounterPunch | August 19, 2016
Casuistry, which one dictionary defines as “specious, deceptive, or oversubtle reasoning, especially in questions of morality” is, rightly or wrongly, inextricably linked to the history of Jesuit order of the Catholic Church. And the rise of the Jesuit order is deeply enmeshed with the Counter-Reformation, a set of measures designed to roll back the spread of Protestantism in Europe during the late 16th and early 17th centuries. The control center of the movement was Spain, the world-striding superpower of that historical moment.
Rightfully fearful that Protestantism’s rejection of long-standing modes of clerical privilege and the Church’s “right” to collect vast sums of money from parishioners would undermine their ability to bully and bribe Italian, French, Dutch and German potentates into compliance with their political demands, the Spanish Monarchy undertook an endless series of military adventures against “heretics” across the Continent in the years between 1530 and 1648. This military thrust was accompanied by a well-organized propaganda campaign in which the highly educated Jesuits priests played a crucial role.
Appearing morally and intellectually reasonable while serving as a convinced advocate for the systematic subjugation of other people and their animating ideals is not a simple task. In the long run it is, in fact, an impossible one. No amount of argument can convince a person or group of persons who see them selves as suffering under the boot of another that their bondage is a good and necessary thing. What such a rhetorical posture can do, for a time at least, is convince the subjects of the hegemonic country of, if not the inherent nobility of their bloody mission, its generally benign nature.
A key, if generally unstated, goal of the 16th and 17th century Jesuits was to insure that the highly problematic matter of Rome’s corruption, and the brutal Imperial designs of the Spanish monarchy that lay behind it, never be allowed to occupy the center zone of what then passed for “public” discourse.
When confronted by the emergent Protestant movements about the clear violations of Christian morality practiced by the Church of Rome, they responded with complex disquisitions on the largely circumstantial nature of all moral reasoning. By constantly parsing the intricacies of how overarching moral rules should, or should not, be applied in each particular circumstance (and teaching others to do the same), they very effectively prevented the emergence within the Church, and by extension in the leadership class of the Spanish Empire, of a frank discussion of the quite real and deeply-felt grievances of their many enemies.
I am reminded of all this when I read or watch the news after every so-called “terrorist” attack against a US or European target. Within minutes of the violence, mainstream journalists, begin intense speculation about what particular ethnic group the assailant came from, how he or she became “radicalized” (as if the desire to kill was akin to some sort of contagious moral flu) and whether the “West’s” latest stand-in for PURE EVIL™ (e.g. Al-Qaeda, ISIS, ISIL) was behind the act.
What will almost never be talked about are the many very good reasons a person from the vast region stretching from Morrocco in the west, to Pakistan in the east, have to be very angry at, and to feel highly vengeful toward, the US, its strategic puppeteer Israel, and their slavishly loyal European compadres like France, Germany and Great Britain.
There is never any talk of that group of august “democracies” long-standing penchant for implanting, then staunchly supporting, ruthless and deeply corrupt regimes in that region.
No talk of the very long Algerian experience of French colonialism, nor the US and French- backed coup of that country’s government in 1992 which led to a civil war that left 200,000 people dead.
No talk of the coup against the legally elected president of Egypt in 2013, nor the cold-blooded massacres carried out by his US-backed successor upon hundreds of that same president’s followers.
No talk of the decision of the US to back elements of ISIS in order to cynically extend a Syrian Civil War that was on its way to peace—albeit an imperfect one—by means of a Syrian government victory by late 2013.
No talk of the planned destruction of Libya in 2011 and its enormous effects on the stability of life in that once wealthy country as well as all of northern Africa.
No talk of the US-Israeli nullification of the results of the Palestinian elections of 2006, Israel’s coldly planned siege of Gaza nor the “shoot-fish-in-a barrel” assaults on that benighted enclave by Israel in 2006, 2008, 2012 and 2014.
No talk of the ongoing Saudi—and therefore US-approved—war on Yemen, nor the ruthless Saudi march on Bahrain in 2011 in which several dozen people died and thousands of democracy activists were tortured and/or carted off to prison.
No talk of the 18-year Israeli—and therefore, US-backed—occupation of Southern Lebanon nor Israel’s 1993, 1996 and 2006 assaults upon that same country.
Oops, I almost forgot. There is no talk of the small matter the calculated US destruction of Iraq, pre-invasion Libya’s rival as the Arab world’s most wealthy and socially progressive state.
But hey, why talk about all that off-putting stuff when you can boil it all down to neat tales of personal ideological contamination, Svengali-like recruiters lurking in mosques, and that old standby, the development of an urgent need to bang virgins in the hereafter.
It seems the media believes that the delicate imperial mind must be left free from understanding the effects of the actions for which it regularly cheers and prays.
The best way to insure this? Casuistry, as the old saying goes, “Pure casuistry”.
Thomas S. Harrington is a professor of Iberian Studies at Trinity College in Hartford, Connecticut and the author of the recently released Livin’ la Vida Barroca: American Culture in a Time of Imperial Orthodoxies.
MSM promotes dodgy docs as well as child-exploitation in drive for war
By Catte | OffGuardian | August 20, 2016
Overshadowed by the recent attempts to create a faux media storm out of an unverified video produced by the pro-terrorist “Aleppo Media Center”, a recent article in the Guardian by Patrick Wintour reminds us that, when it comes to war-propaganda, the media doesn’t just do child-exploitation to order – it also promotes dodgy documents without question or analysis.
Wintour’s piece focuses on the – as usual – uncorroborated open letter to President Obama allegedly written by a group of doctors in terrorist-controlled eastern Aleppo, calling for US “intervention” to “stop the bombardment of hospitals in the besieged city by the Russian-backed Syrian air force”, and is another shining example of spineless obedience to an intellectually bankrupt narrative.
The article doesn’t give the text of the letter in full, but here it is:
Dear President Obama,
We are 15 of the last doctors serving the remaining 300,000 citizens of eastern Aleppo. Regime troops have sought to surround and blockade the entire east of the city. Their losses have meant that a trickle of food has made its way into
eastern Aleppo for the first time in weeks. Whether we live or die seems to be dependent on the ebbs and flows of the battlefield.We have seen no effort on behalf of the United States to lift the siege or even use its influence to push the parties to protect civilians.
For five years, we have faced death from above on a daily basis. But we now face death from all around. For five years, we have borne witness as countless patients, friends and colleagues suffered violent, tormented deaths. For five years, the world has stood by and remarked how ‘complicated’ Syria is, while doing little to protect us. Recent offers of evacuation from the regime and Russia have sounded like thinly-veiled threats to residents – flee now or face annihilation ?
Last month, there were 42 attacks on medical facilities in Syria, 15 of which were hospitals in which we work. Right now, there is an attack on a medical facility every 17 hours. At this rate, our medical services in Aleppo could be completely destroyed in a month, leaving 300,000 people to die.
What pains us most, as doctors, is choosing who will live and who will die. Young children are sometimes brought into our emergency rooms so badly injured that we have to prioritize those with better chances, or simply don’t have the equipment to help them. Two weeks ago, four newborn babies gasping for air suffocated to death after a blast cut the oxygen supply to their incubators. Gasping for air, their lives ended before they had really begun.
Despite the horror, we choose to be here. We took a pledge to help those in
need.Our dedication to this pledge is absolute. Some of us were visiting our families when we heard the city was being besieged. So we rushed back – some on foot because the roads were too dangerous. Because without us even more of our friends and neighbors will die. We have a duty to remain and help.
Continued US inaction to protect the civilians of Syria means that our plight is being wilfully tolerated by those in the international corridors of power. The burden of responsibility for the crimes of the Syrian government and its Russian ally must therefore be shared by those, including the United States, who allow them to continue.
Unless a permanent lifeline to Aleppo is opened it will be only a matter of time until we are again surrounded by regime troops, hunger takes hold and hospitals’ supplies run completely dry. Death has seemed increasingly inescapable. We do not need to tell you that the systematic targeting of hospitals by Syrian regime and Russian warplanes is a war crime. We do not need to tell you that they are committing atrocities in Aleppo.
We do not need tears or sympathy or even prayers, we need your action. Prove that you are the friend of Syrians.
Yours,
1 Dr. Abu Al Baraa, Pediatrician
2 Dr. Abu Tiem, Pediatrician
3 Dr. Hamza, Manager
4 Dr. Yahya, Pediatrician and head of Nutrition Program
5 Dr. Munther, Orthopedics
6 Dr. Abu Mohammad, General Surgeon
7 Dr. Abu Abdo, General Surgeon
8 Dr. Abd Al Rahman, Urologic Resident
9 Dr. Abu Tareq, ER Doctor
10 Dr. Farida, OBGYN
11 Dr Hatem, Hospital Director
12 Dr. Usama, Pediatrician
13 Dr. Abu Zubeir, Pediatrician
Even while admitting that “it has not been possible to verify the names of all the doctors listed in the letter,” Wintour doesn’t investigate or even interrogate its authenticity. His only comment on the subject is an airy claim that “[the] account tallies with evidence given by US doctors to the UN after a working visit to Aleppo’s hospitals in the past fortnight.”
He doesn’t quite dare say this offers any kind of validation (because of course it doesn’t), he simply hopes his readers will take it that way while he turns to his real task, which is sanctifying the West’s strategic fears for the loss of a corridor to eastern Aleppo as a sudden rush of humanitarian concern for the fate of the civilians living there. His casual assumption that only Western-led forces and Western-led humanitarians will have the decency to treat civilians with respect is almost Victorian in its colonial appropriation of moral ascendancy.
Wintour doesn’t ask why a group of disinterested doctors on the ground in Aleppo would write a letter that exactly mirrors the dishonest and incomplete western narrative, and repeats discredited or unsubstantiated claims such as the “systematic targeting of hospitals by Syrian regime and Russian warplanes.” He doesn’t ask why they would dismiss the recent offer from Russia and the Syrian government for safe conduct out of the war zone as “a thinly-veiled threat” rather than welcome it as a way of saving valuable lives. He doesn’t ask why a group of humanitarians would condemn Russia and the Syrian government for “crimes” because they have been bombing Aleppo, while saying nothing about the fact the US is also bombing Aleppo.
Neither does he mention that the supposed medics’ primary demand – for a “permanent lifeline” to Aleppo – is exactly what the “rebels” (ie Al Nusra terrorists) have been fightng for in recent weeks, in order to break the “siege” of eastern Aleppo by government forces and put pressure on government-held western Aleppo. Keeping this corridor “permanently” open would make the difference between success or failure for the rebels/terrorists in this key strategic area.
So, naturally these fifteen concerned medical professional have that item at the top of their list, over and above a ceasefire, or indeed an evil Russian evacuation of civilians, or evil Russian aid drops.Wouldn’t anyone rather die than accept help from America’s ‘enemies”? Wouldn’t anyone welcome slaughter when it’s wrapped in a US flag?
Wintour doesn’t state the obvious – that this letter is pushing an agenda that has nothing to do with alleviating human suffering. He doesn’t point out that it reads like a Washington fantasy version of reality. On the contrary he’s more than happy to exist in that fantasy where US intervention is a humanitarian response to the imploring of care-ravaged doctors, and for the purposes of saving people from evil Putin and his sidekick Assad. The letter must be endorsed because it in turn endorses the delusional dreamworld of moral righteousness where most western journalists spend most of their time these days. The only place their consciences don’t trouble them.
Meanwhile, the Twitter account known as @TheLemniscat took a look at the names of the letter’s signatories and made these annotations…
https://twitter.com/theLemniscat/status/764052010404503552?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
The fact six of these alleged doctors have signed with only their last name is maybe slightly odd, as is the fact six others are namesakes of prominent members of ISIS and al Qaeda, and one has the same name as a well-known shop. But until the signatories can be positively identified that’s about all we can say. Then again identifying them should not be too difficult, given that several of them identify as paediatricians and, as Moon of Alabama points out, the “last pediatrician” in rebel-held Aleppo was supposed to have been killed weeks ago. If these guys are the real deal they must have turned up in the rebel-held part of Aleppo since April, and they are likely the only paediatricians working there. How hard could it be to track them down? Has anyone tried?
Regardless of the deeper realities of the letter it’s the absolute abdication of scepticism by the Western media coverage that continues to be the real issue.
Imagine if an open letter appeared calling for the Russian government to “stop US bombardment of hospitals”, signed by fifteen alleged but unverified “doctors”, six of whom refused to give a first name, another six of whom were the namesakes of prominent terrorists and one who signed himself with the Syrian equivalent of “T K Maxx”.
What would the Guardian say about that? How many column inches of scorn would Walker, Harding et al rightly pour on a document with such clear potential for being a clumsy fraud? How would Wintour’s article have read then? How many veiled or direct suggestions of Kremlin fakery would he have made? How much Twitter mileage would the MSM and its obedient pundits have gotten out of those coincidental names?
Yet about the shortcomings of this letter they have been entirely and unforgivably silent.
Jennifer Rubin: Hillary Must Stop Peace With Iran at All Costs!
By Daniel McAdams | Ron Paul Institute | August 18, 2016
After anxiously and incessantly angling for a hardcore neoconservative to take the Republican presidential nomination, the Washington Post’s online blogger Jennifer Rubin has made the long journey home. Rebuffed by Republican voters who selected Donald Trump as their candidate, Rubin’s gunpowder breath is now desperately seeking Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton’s ear.
Her message? This damned Iran deal is improving US/Iran relations and that is completely intolerable. “Hillary: Please bomb something over there,” Rubin screeches, in her latest installment of the neocon chronicles.
Why is Rubin so hot and bothered? Well, Secretary of State John Kerry has dared to encourage some business investment in Iran after the nuclear deal has begun paying dividends in more stable relations. Doing business is always preferable to sanctions and blockades because it makes war less likely. Each side has too much to lose when there are economic interests at stake so each side will act with more caution. As when a Chinese incident with a US spy plane led the damaged US plane to land in China, yet both sides realized that economic relations were sufficiently important that the potentially volatile situation needed to be carefully walked back from the brink of conflict.
War kills economic opportunities for the average people on both sides, but it also produces unique financial opportunities for the specially connected. Like the people around Jennifer Rubin.
Rubin is given a little corner of Washington’s “paper of record,” but she is either so ill-formed when it comes to the basic situation in Syria that one wonders why she has such a platform when surely there are plenty of better-informed high school students who could fill the slot… or she is purposely obfuscating from her little perch in which case the Washington Post is a witting party to her deception.
For example she writes this:
This week we have also learned that as many as 100,000 Iranian-backed militia members are fighting in Iraq…
But she does not inform her readers that these Iranian militia members are in fact fighting ISIS in Iraq. In other words, they are helping us defeat our sworn enemy. While Washington is pained to admit it, even John Kerry said not long ago that having so many additional fighters taking on ISIS in Iraq is “helpful” to America’s efforts to defeat ISIS.
Rubin would clearly prefer an ISIS victory to accepting the assistance of an Iran that also views the establishment of an anti-Iranian jihadist Caliphate in its backyard an existential threat.
Again Rubin plays fast and loose with the truth when she writes:
Russia is expanding its alliance with Iran and influence in Syria in unprecedented ways. Russian planes are now taking off directly from Iran to bomb Syrian targets…
What she does not tell us once again is that those Russian planes are bombing ISIS and al-Qaeda (those guys who attacked us on 9/11). Does anyone else wonder why she objects to the Russians bombing ISIS and al-Qaeda? Particularly as the US seems to be letting them get away at every possible opportunity.
What is to be done, in the mind of Rubin?
[R]ather than pleading with Russia, we can make clear that we will be establishing a new policy of direct action against the Assad regime, including establishment of safe havens. Vladimir Putin has had a risk-free policy of aggression up to now; that should change.
So, Rubin would have the US attack a Syrian government that has fought for five years against a foreign, radical jihadist insurgency and directly confront a Russia that has the same enemy in the process.
Who’s side is she on? Ours or the terrorists’?
Evidently we can partner with Stalin to defeat Hitler but we dare not partner with Putin to defeat ISIS and al-Qaeda. The neocons are clearly high on their own vapors. Rubin is first in line for neocon bong hits.
Alarm over the public loss of trust in science
By Judith Curry | Climate Etc. | August 18, 2016
A blast of fresh air from the new Editor-in-Chief of Science. “Science editor-in-chief sounds alarm over falling public trust. Jeremy Berg warns scientists are straying into policy commentator roles.”
You may recall my previous article that bemoaned what was going on with the journal Science — Editor-in-Chief Marcia McNutt’s op-ed that was published in Science : Beyond the two-degree inferno. If you read my post on this (at the link), I can’t recall much that has disturbed me more than McNutt’s overt alarmisn and advocacy in the context of her role as Editor-in-Chief of Science.
A summary of my concerns:
… my main concern is this – the editorial was published in Science and written by McNutt who is the CHIEF EDITOR for Science. Science, along with Nature, has far and away the highest impact factor of any scientific journals on the planet – Science matters. Like Nature, Science sends out for review only a small fraction of the submitted papers. Apart from the role the Chief Editor may have in selecting which papers go out for review or eventually get published, this essay sends a message to the other editors and reviewers that papers challenging the consensus are not to be published in Science. Not to mention giving favored status to papers by activist authors that sound the ‘alarm’ – pal review and all that. After all, ‘the time for debate has ended.’
Well, Marcia McNutt has moved on, she is now President of the National Academy of Sciences. I have a separate set of concerns about that one, but at least she is no longer involved in the arbitration of published scientific research in the U.S.’s premier science journal.
There is a new Editor-in-Chief at Science: Jeremy Berg. See the press release from Science [link]. Excerpts:
Jeremy Berg, a biochemist and administrator at the University of Pittsburgh (Pitt) in Pennsylvania, will become the next editor-in-chief of Science magazine on 1 July. A former director of the National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS) who has a longstanding interest in science policy.
Times Higher Education has a new article on this: Science Editor-in-Chief Sounds Alarm Over Falling Public Trust.
Well the title certainly caught my attention. Lets take a look at what Jeremy Berg has to say about his new position. Excerpts from the Times article:
As the new editor-in-chief of Science, a highly selective journal that still has the controversial power to make scientific careers, the biochemist and former University of Pittsburgh senior manager is worried about an apparent rejection of science by some parts of the public – and thinks that academics should look closely at how their own behaviour may have contributed.
“One of the things that drew me to this position… is there’s a crisis in public trust in science. I don’t pretend to have answers to that question but it is something that I care deeply about.”
Berg acknowledges that society’s confidence in science does “wax and wane” over time but thinks that, this time, things are different.
In the US, “scientists have been labelled as another special interest group”, he says.
Part of this is down to the polarisation of American politics and the rise of an anti-intellectual spirit, Berg thinks. His fears echo Atul Gawande, an American health writer, who earlier this year told graduating students at the California Institute of Technology that “we are experiencing a significant decline in trust in scientific authorities”.
But researchers are not entirely blameless for this rising hostility, thinks Berg. Too often they have gone beyond explaining the scientific situation and ventured into policy prescriptions, notably in the case of climate change, he thinks. “The policy issues should be informed by science, but they are separate questions,” he says. “Scientists to some degree, intentionally or otherwise, have been mashing the two together,” he adds, and urges scientists to be more “transparent” about “where the firmness of your conclusions end”.
But some in the scientific community argue that high-profile journals such as Science are partly to blame for the very overhyping of results that Berg decries.
A paper published in 2011 made waves after it found that there was a correlation between journal impact factors (JIFs) – which measure average paper citation rates over the past two years and are highest for prestigious journals such as Science, Nature and Cell – and the rate of retractions. Science had the second highest rate of retractions among the journals studied, below only the New England Journal of Medicine.
JC reflections
Wow. I haven’t been so heartened by statements from ‘establishment’ science in a long time. What is really astonishing is that Science chose Berg, who represents a marked change from the advocacy/activism of McNutt.
Berg gives me some optimism that ‘establishment’ science may move in the direction to address some of the issues raised in my recent post The Troubled Institution of Science.
I look forward to reading Jeremy Berg’s future op-eds in Science.
NYT Touts Honduras as Ad for ‘American Power’–Leaving Out Support for Murderous Coup Regime
By Jim Naureckas | FAIR | August 17, 2016
“How the Most Dangerous Place on Earth Got Safer” was the headline over the lead article in the New York Times‘ “Week in Review” (8/11/16), with the teaser reading, “Programs funded by the United States are helping transform Honduras. Who says American power is dead?”
The New York Times‘ “faith in American power.”
The piece never really got around to explaining, though, how Honduras became the most dangerous place on Earth. That’s American power, too.
Reporter Sonia Nazario returned to Honduras after a three-year absence to find
a remarkable reduction in violence, much of it thanks to programs funded by the United States that have helped community leaders tackle crime…. The United States has not only helped to make these places safer, but has also reduced the strain on our own country.
Nazario described US-funded anti-violence programs in a high-crime neighborhood in the Honduran city San Pedro Sula:
The United States has provided local leaders with audio speakers for events, tools to clear 10 abandoned soccer fields that had become dumping grounds for bodies, notebooks and school uniforms, and funding to install streetlights and trash cans.
She offered the results of this and similar programs as evidence that “smart investments in Honduras are succeeding” and “a striking rebuke to the rising isolationists in American politics,” who “seem to have lost their faith in American power.”
But Nazario failed to explain how American power paved the way for the shocking rise in violence in Honduras. In the early 2000s, the murder rate in Honduras fluctuated between 44.3 and 61.4 per 100,000—very high by global standards, but similar to rates in neighboring El Salvador and Guatemala. (It’s not coincidental that all three countries were dominated by violent, US-backed right-wing governments in the 1980s—historical context that the op-ed entirely omitted.) Then, in June 2009, Honduras’ left-leaning President Manuel Zelaya was overthrown in a military coup, kidnapped and flown out of the country via the joint US/Honduran military base at Palmerola.
The US is supposed to cut off aid to a country that has a military coup—and “there is no doubt” that Zelaya’s ouster “constituted an illegal and unconstitutional coup,” according to a secret report sent by the US ambassador to Honduras on July 24, 2009, and later exposed by WikiLeaks. But the US continued most aid to Honduras, carefully avoiding the magic words “military coup” that would have necessitated withdrawing support from the coup regime.
Internal emails reveal that the State Department pressured the OAS not to support the country’s constitutional government. In her memoir Hard Choices, Hillary Clinton recalled how as secretary of State she worked behind the scenes to legitimate the new regime:
In the subsequent days [following the coup] I spoke with my counterparts around the hemisphere, including Secretary Espinosa in Mexico. We strategized on a plan to restore order in Honduras, and ensure that free and fair elections could be held quickly and legitimately, which would render the question of Zelaya moot.
With a corrupt, drug-linked regime in place, thanks in large part to US intervention, murder in Honduras soared, rising to 70.7 per 100,000 in 2009, 81.8 in 2010 and 91.4 in 2011—fully 50 percent above the pre-coup level. While many of the murders involved criminal gangs, much of the post-coup violence was political, with resuscitated death squads targeting journalists, opposition figures, labor activists and environmentalists—of whom indigenous leader Berta Cáceres was only the most famous.
At one point, it seemed like Nazario was going to acknowledge the US role in creating the problems she gives “American power” credit for ameliorating. “We are also repairing harms the United States inflicted,” she wrote—but the explanation she gives for that was strangely circumscribed:
first by deporting tens of thousands of gangsters to Honduras over the past two decades, a decision that fueled much of the recent mayhem, and second by our continuing demand for drugs, which are shipped from Colombia and Venezuela through Honduras.
No mention of the US supporting Honduras’ coup, or the political murders of the US-backed regime.
At one point, three-quarters of the way through the lengthy piece, Nazario did acknowledge in passing the sinister role the US plays in Latin America:
It will take much more than this project to change the reputation of the United States in this part of the world, where we are famous for exploiting workers and resources and helping to keep despots in power.
Surely it’s relevant that some of the despots the US helped keep in power were in the country she’s reporting from, and that this led directly to the problem she’s writing about? But she dropped the idea there, moving on immediately to talk about the US’s interest in reducing the flow of child refugees.
The most troubling part of the op-ed is that it didn’t feel the need to acknowledge or even dispute the relationship between US support for the coup and Honduras’ shocking murder rate. The New York Times covered much of this ground, after all, in an op-ed by Dana Frank four years ago (1/26/12). Now, however, that information is down the memory hole—leaving the Times free to tout donations of trashcans and school uniforms as an advertisement for American power.
Open Letter Of Aleppo Doctors Is Easily Torn Apart – Bottom Of The Barrel Propaganda
By Brandon Turbeville | Activist Post | August 16, 2016
In 2016, we have become accustomed to relatively childish and easily deconstructed propaganda narratives that are circulated by the U.S. State Department and its mainstream media mouthpieces in order to discredit the Syrian government and drum up support for a NATO-led war on the secular government of Bashar al-Assad.
From scares related to chemical weapons (later demonstrated to be the work of NATO’s terrorists), unproven and largely discredited claims that Assad is “killing his own people” or even that Assad is “supporting ISIS” has become the order of the day in American media. Recently, however, the State Department, office of origin of the “Ghaddafi is handing out Viagra to rapists” propaganda line, has issued yet another pathetic propaganda ploy against the Syrian government – an alleged letter written by alleged doctors alleging that the Syrian military is encircling Aleppo in order to allegedly kill civilians.
Are you sick of the word allegedly yet? Imagine how Syrians must feel. The only truth in the propaganda narrative of the West is that the Syrian military is encircling Aleppo. Beyond that, it has been demonstrated over and over again that Assad’s forces are not targeting innocent civilians. Neither have the doctors in question been confirmed as actually being doctors or even that the letter was written by whoever these individuals might turn out to be. In other words, the whole story of the letter is merely a . . . well, allegation.
Still, the letter has been reported by the Guardian and a host of other Western mainstream media outlets as fact that conveniently tugs at the heartstrings. The letter is being referred to as the Open Letter Of Aleppo Doctors.
In reality, the letter is a semi-carefully crafted act of pro-war propaganda which calls on the United States and the West to “do something” and includes accusations against the Russian and Syrian governments as well as claims of Assad’s (and Russia’s) alleged targeting of hospitals. The letter even has incubator babies for extra effect!
The letter reads:
Dear President Obama,
We are 15 of the last doctors serving the remaining 300,000 citizens of eastern Aleppo. Regime troops have sought to surround and blockade the entire east of the city. Their losses have meant that a trickle of food has made its way into eastern Aleppo for the first time in weeks. Whether we live or die seems to be dependent on the ebbs and flows of the battlefield.
We have seen no effort on behalf of the United States to lift the siege or even use its influence to push the parties to protect civilians. For five years, we have faced death from above on a daily basis. But we now face death from all around. For five years, we have borne witness as countless patients, friends and colleagues suffered violent, tormented deaths. For five years, the world has stood by and remarked how ‘complicated’ Syria is, while doing little to protect us. Recent offers of evacuation from the regime and Russia have sounded like thinly-veiled threats to residents – flee now or face annihilation ?
Last month, there were 42 attacks on medical facilities in Syria, 15 of which were hospitals in which we work. Right now, there is an attack on a medical facility every 17 hours. At this rate, our medical services in Aleppo could be completely destroyed in a month, leaving 300,000 people to die.
What pains us most, as doctors, is choosing who will live and who will die. Young children are sometimes brought into our emergency rooms so badly injured that we have to prioritize those with better chances, or simply don’t have the equipment to help them. Two weeks ago, four newborn babies gasping for air suffocated to death after a blast cut the oxygen supply to their incubators. Gasping for air, their lives ended before they had really begun. Despite the horror, we choose to be here. We took a pledge to help those in need.
Our dedication to this pledge is absolute. Some of us were visiting our families when we heard the city was being besieged. So we rushed back – some on foot because the roads were too dangerous. Because without us even more of our friends and neighbors will die. We have a duty to remain and help. Continued US inaction to protect the civilians of Syria means that our plight is being wilfully tolerated by those in the international corridors of power. The burden of responsibility for the crimes of the Syrian government and its Russian ally must therefore be shared by those, including the United States, who allow them to continue.
Unless a permanent lifeline to Aleppo is opened it will be only a matter of time until we are again surrounded by regime troops, hunger takes hold and hospitals’ supplies run completely dry. Death has seemed increasingly inescapable. We do not need to tell you that the systematic targeting of hospitals by Syrian regime and Russian warplanes is a war crime. We do not need to tell you that they are committing atrocities in Aleppo.
We do not need tears or sympathy or even prayers, we need your action. Prove that you are the friend of Syrians.
The letter was signed by the following names:
Dr. Abu Al Baraa, Pediatrician
Dr. Abu Tiem, Pediatrician
Dr. Hamza, Manager
Dr. Yahya, Pediatrician and head of Nutrition Program
Dr. Munther, Orthopedics
Dr. Abu Mohammad, General Surgeon
Dr. Abu Abdo, General Surgeon
Dr. Abd Al Rahman, Urologic Resident
Dr. Abu Tareq, ER Doctor
Dr. Farida, OBGYN
Dr Hatem, Hospital Director
Dr. Usama, Pediatrician
Dr. Abu Zubeir, Pediatrician
Dr. Abu Maryam, Pediatric Surgeon
Dr. Abo Bakr, Neurologist
Of course, the doctors are calling for war and, in this, there is no question. They want the U.S. to intervene directly in Syria and no doubt “liberate” Syria and spread the “democracy” that has left every other “liberated” country the burning heaps of rubble and savagery that they are today. They are calling for the forces of Bashar al-Assad to be defeated so that “rebels,” aka al-Qaeda, al-Nusra (excuse me, Jobhat Fatah al-Sham), Ahrar al-Sham, ISIS, etc. can take over take over the city and impose their pre-historic Sharia rule over civilized people, all with the requisite amount of rape, murder, torture, and pedophilia to go along with “rebel” liberation. Nice work, docs.
But, perhaps I should sarcastically congratulate the State Department instead? After all, there is little evidence these doctors actually exist. Even the Guardian itself was quick to point out that “It has not been possible to verify the names of all the doctors listed in the letter.”
Proving the names of the letter writers is no doubt a difficult task. After all, most of these doctors are pediatricians and, the Telegraph as well as a number of other mainstream outlets told us that the last pediatrician in Aleppo was killed on April 28 (by Assad’s forces of course – rebel bullets are incapable of harming doctors even if they wanted to). Thus, they will truly be difficult to track down.
Not only that, but the names of the doctors who signed on to the letter appear to also be names of well-known terrorists. One name is not even that of a person, but a well-known parlor in Aleppo. What significance this has remains to be seen but, needless to say, we must getting very close to the bottom of the barrel of propaganda narratives.
As Ali Ornek writes for Moon Of Alabama :
We are used to quite a lot of warmongering propaganda against Syria. The “last hospital in Aleppo gets destroyed” – week after week after week, reports by Physicians For Human Rights on Syria turn out to be scams, videos and pictures of “children rescued” by the U.S./UK payed media group “White Helmets” are staged.
. . . . .
Our “western” and Gulf governments pay a lot of our taxpayer money for such anti-Syrian warmongering. The “White Helmets” alone receive $60 million. We should at least demand better fakes and more plausible lies for such large expenditures of our money.
There are three options to consider after analyzing the latest FAIL! of the U.S. propaganda machine. Either the State Department is running out of money, Americans are so dumbed down that cheap narratives such as this one actually work, or the war machine is simply throwing everything against the wall in its march toward Syria and its Path To Persia.
Hollywood’s Revenge on Dissident Historian David Irving
By Michael Hoffman | RevisionistHistory | August 15, 2016
In late September the Zionists will once again advance their cartoon version of history by means of Hollywood, their “court” of first resort. Tinseltown is the ideal venue for projecting fantasies disguised as historical truth and trying and convicting heretics and dissidents. The target in question is English historian David Irving, author of more than 20 best-selling history books and the leading military historian of National Socialist Germany.
In the year 2000 he brought to trial a libel suit in London against Deborah Lipstadt, a dreary thought cop from Emory University in Georgia who has made it her life’s work to dream up a new category of heretic (“Holocaust denier”), reflective of the hysteria and megalomania of the religion of Holocaustianity, of which she is high priestess. The hobby horse of one obscure professor soon became a marching order for the media of the entire western world. The story behind that chilling Orwellian perversity is itself deserving of a book-length study.
Thanks to Deborah, many writers and historians now bear the career-withering “ holocaust denier” stigmata, branded both by new media (Google search engine, Wikipedia) and the senile print media. Imagine if every atheist who was a chemist, astronomer, geographer, novelist or sculptor, who did not believe that Jesus Christ rose from the dead, would have to endure going through life perpetually branded by the media as a “Resurrection-denier”?
Of course in our modern world one may deny the central tenet of Christendom all one likes. Hollywood director James Cameron lavishly funds the Resurrection denial of Israeli activist Simcha Jacobvici. In the Israeli state there is a tourist trade based on selling maps and taking tours of what the Israelis describe as the tomb where the bones of Jesus rot, but Cameron and co. bear no contumely for it.
Acting as his own attorney, Irving went it alone against Lipstadt and her team of lawyers and researchers in the masonic courts of injustice, for which Britian is notorious. In spite of a few failings (chiefly in deciding not to call German-American chemist/historian Germar Rudolf as a witness), Irving mounted a magnificent defense against a legal team consisting of lawyers for England’s aristocracy, funded by the bottomless pockets of movie mogul Steven Spielberg, and with the Israeli ambassador seated in the courtoom with his retinue of gun-toting bodyguards — in case the presiding judge didn’t get the message about which way the verdict should go.
Unfortunately, there is no revisionist book about the Irving trial as there is for the show trial of Ernst Zündel in Canada. In the breach, on September 30 Hollywood will tender “Denial,” its mendacious spin on the ignominious Lipstadt, who was so cowardly she hid behind her high-priced lawyers and refused to take the stand and endure Mr. Irving’s cross-examination (it will be interesting to see how the film will handle this embarrassing, self-indicting fact).
The part of the slim and good-looking Irving of that era is played by Timothy Spall, a chubby thespian with a flaccid jaw who typically portrays villains. The role of the plain-looking Prof. Lipstadt is undertaken by the glamorous Rachel Weisz, who is usually cast as a heroine.
This is a morality play in a shades-of-gray world. When Christians endeavor to slay a dragon we are told to lighten up, don’t be a fanatic, embrace diverse viewpoints. When the Zionists prepare to slay a revisionist reptile, existential factors are banished and a pure struggle between cosmic good and evil takes center stage.
We will soon place online a video of a speech this writer delivered at Mr. Irving’s “Real History” Cincinnati conference more than a decade ago, concerning Lipstadt’s use of the theological term “Amalek” to denigrate him.
In 2006, when that speech was first placed on Google’s fledgling online video channel, friends of Lipstadt had it removed. She stated afterward: “The video, which was a virulent attack on me by Hoffman, was introduced by David Irving. I am sorry the video is gone. It was such a blatant example of the venomous hatred these folks feel towards Jews. It also was a prime illustration of their delusional conspiracy theories. I had used it in a number of speeches to illustrate their thinking.”
Needless to say, there was absolutely “no hatred toward Jews” in the video. Deb can’t seem to refrain from recklessly spouting this “Jew hater” trope. It’s a Pavlovian response to any informed criticism of a Judaic academic that is accurate — and wounding because it is accurate. By ominously terming Irving “Amalek,” Prof. Lipstadt rendered him, in terms of rabbinic theology, a target for extermination (how ironic). Pointing this out is only “Jew hate” in a Wonderland world where any defiance of the impostures of the Holy People is automatically suspect; again we observe the relentless megalomania.
The trailer for the movie “Denial”
Hoffman’s extensive archive on the libel trial, dating from January 11, 2000 to April 21, 2000
The Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust (CODOH) maintains its own archive on Lipstadt/Irving
Lipstadt’s book, Denying the Holocaust is demolished by Carlo Mattogno
Featured Video
Trump: “Iran Will Submit, We Won the War” /Lt Col Daniel Davis
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
Israel Is A Genocidal Society
The Israeli Political Spectrum From The “Liberal Left” To The Far Right, Is United In Genocide
The Dissident | May 5, 2026
… The fundamental issue of Israel is not Benjamin Netanyahu, but the fact that Israel is overwhelmingly a bloodthirsty, war-ready, genocidal society.
Historian Zachary Foster has documented that the overwhelming majority of Jewish Israelis have supported every Israeli war since the 2006 invasion of Lebanon, writing:
2006
86% of the Israeli adult population justified “the IDF operation in Lebanon against Hizbollah,” or 2006 Lebanon War, in which Israel killed 1,191 people, the vast majority civilians according to HRW (Note that the % of Jewish Israelis who supported the war was even higher)2008-2009
82% of the Israeli public thought that the 2008-9 war on Gaza was justified (in which Israel killed 1,417 Palestinians, the vast majority civilians.) Note that the % of Jewish Israelis who supported the war was even higher2012
90% of Israeli Jews supported war on Gaza ( in which Israel killed 160 Palestinians, 66% civilians)2014
95% of Jewish Israelis believed the war on Gaza was justified (in which Israel killed 2,310 Palestinians, 70% civilians)2021
72% of Israelis believed the war on Gaza should continue (as of May 21) after Israel had already killed 250 Palestinians in Gaza, vast majority civilians. The % of Jewish Israelis who supported killing more Palestinians was much higher.2024
A January poll found 95% of Jewish Israelis thought the Israeli military was using either the “appropriate” amount of force or “too little” force in Gaza at a time when Israel had already killed >25,700 Palestinians in Gaza.2024
In September, 90% of Jewish Israelis supported the war on Lebanon (in which Israel killed 800+, including hundreds of civilians)2025
In March, 82% of Israeli Jews supported the forced expulsion of residents of Gaza, Israel’s main goal in it’s genocide & war on Gaza.2025
In June, 82% of Jewish Israelis supported the war on Iran known as the “twelve day war”2026
On March 4, 93% of Israeli Jews expressed support for the war on Iran. 97% of “right-wing” Jewish Israelis support it, compared with 93% in the center and 76% on the left.
The overwhelming majority of Jewish Israelis also have openly genocidal views towards Palestinians.
Polls in Israel have shown that:
- 84% of the (Israeli )public gives the IDF an excellent or very good grade regarding the moral conduct of the army
- 75% of Jewish Israelis agree with the idea that ‘there are no innocents in Gaza.’
- A vast majority of Israeli Jews – 79 percent – say they are ‘not so troubled’ or ‘not troubled at all’ by the reports of famine and suffering among the Palestinian population in Gaza.
The fundamental problem in Israel is Zionism, not Benjamin Netanyahu. – Full article
Blog Roll
Aletho News- U.S. Blockade Against Cuba Must End Immediately: China
- Trump’s Bogus Claims About Progress in Talks with Iran Just Made Some Insider a Lot of Money
- US Superpower Myth Shattered w/ Trita Parsi
- Iran War Reality BITES – SPIN HARDER /Lt Col Daniel Davis & Mario Nawfal
- German arson case: Antisemitism commissioner’s inner circle now top suspects after police raids
- The FCC Wants Your ID Before You Get a Phone Number
- Texas has an Israel Investment Problem
- British journalist faces ‘anti-terror probe’ after Iran visit, reporting on US-Israeli crimes
- Trump’s ’Project Freedom’ just got blown out of the water. What now?
- Cuba, Nicaragua, Mexico – Pentagon Reportedly Eyeing Targets in Latin America
- If Americans Knew
- Israeli Paper Admits That The Mossad Astroturfed The January Riots In Iran.
- Prominent Christian Zionist Group Is Lobbying U.S. Lawmakers on Israel—Without Revealing It’s Funded by Israel
- Ex-US spy for Israel runs for office on platform of ethnic cleansing in Gaza – Daily Update
- An All-American Retort to Israel’s Invasion of Lebanon
- How Dr. Adam Hamawy’s experience as a surgeon in Gaza inspired him to run for Congress
- Under Trump, Green Card Seekers Face New Scrutiny for Views on Israel
- With World Distracted by War, Extremist Settlers Intensify Attacks in West Bank
- Israel’s brutality toward Gaza flotilla activists – 3 articles
- “Spitting and humiliation are daily. People are afraid to walk in Jerusalem with Christian symbols.”
- How the US-Israel Relationship Weakens America and Harms the World
- No Tricks Zone
- New Study: Declining Trends In 1980-2023 Tropical Cyclone Frequency, Accumulated Energy
- 46 IPCC Scientists Break Rank, Publicly Challenge Long-Standing Dogmatic Climate Claims
- Another Study Links Warming To Cloud Forcing, Shortwave Radiation, Natural Atmospheric Circulation
- Wind Energy Is Toxic, Hazardous To Human Health, Scientific Review Shows
- Oversupply Of Volatile Solar Energy Leads To Record NEGATIVE Prices!
- New Study: Extreme Heat Records, Heatwaves, Extreme Cold Records Declining Across US Since 1899
- It’s The Cold, Stupid! Cold 20 Times More Lethal Than Heat, Multiple Studies Show
- European Institute For Climate And Energy: “Climate Debate is Seldom About Science”
- New Study: The Climate May Be 5 Times More Sensitive To Solar Forcing Than Commonly Assumed
- EV Industry Reached $70 Billion In Losses In 2024 Due To Delusional Green Ideologies
Aletho News 