Thanks to Weissman for reminding me of why I was so disturbed by Amy Goodman's
reporting on the White Helmets the other day. I knew she was not telling the
whole story and I couldn't remember what the whole story was. But I had read,
and posted, Blumenthal's article about them and the fact that they are
associated with Jihadists and funded by the US. They're not, as she reported, a
spontaneous civil society response to the war. And I do remember that several
years ago, sseveral times, she had a woman, purporting to represent the
peaceful, secular opposition to Assad on her program. But at least back then,
she also had Patrick Coburn on the same program, whose report of what was
happening was completely opposite to what the woman was saying. So I had a hint
that perhaps she wasn't who she said she was. Amy, who certainly knows Max
Blumenthal's work, managed to omit any mention of his reporting on the White
Helmets.
Miriam
Weissman writes: "Clinton continues to play down the Saudi, Qatari, and covert
parts of her plans for Syria. What she plays up is her focus on Vladimir Putin
and the Russians. She does this to discredit Donald Trump as a Putin puppet,
shamefully echoing America's long history of red-baiting."
Former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham-Clinton. (photo: AP)
Why President Hillary Will Not Stop the Slaughter in Syria
By Steve Weissman, Reader Supported News
23 October 16
I 'm going to continue to push for a no-fly zone and safe havens within
Syria,” Hillary Clinton repeated again in the third presidential debate. “Not
only to help protect the Syrians and prevent the constant outflow of refugees,
but to, frankly, gain some leverage on both the Syrian government and the
Russians so that perhaps we can have the kind of serious negotiation necessary
to bring the conflict to an end and go forward on a political track.”
Clinton has pushed a no-fly zone and safe havens in Syria since the early days
of her campaign in the Democratic primaries. But over the last month her
remarks have revealed why these measures have little chance of ending the
slaughter in Syria, whether in Aleppo or elsewhere in the hideously ravaged
country.
“The situation in Syria is catastrophic,” she said in the second debate. “Every
day that goes by, we see the results of the regime, by Assad in partnership
with the Iranians on the ground and the Russians in the air, bombarding places,
in particular Aleppo, where there are hundreds of thousands of people, probably
about 250,000 people still left. And there is a determined effort by the
Russian Air Force to destroy Aleppo in order to eliminate the last of the
Syrian rebels who are really holding out against the Assad regime.”
Clinton was telling part of the truth, and masking the rest. Crushing Aleppo as
it earlier crushed the Chechen rebels in Grozny, Russia and its Syrian allies
were refusing to pull their punches just because the rebels were using a
quarter of a million civilians in east Aleppo as human shields. But Clinton
never mentioned that American and coalition air forces similarly killed
thousands of human shields in conquering Fallujah and will likely kill many
thousands more in their current attempt to capture Mosul. The Saudis have been
doing the same in Yemen, enabled by weapons, refueling, intelligence, and
increasingly direct participation from Britain and the United States. Horrific
in the extreme, the medieval-like siege of Aleppo follows the modern logic of
asymmetric warfare ‒ the rich and powerful have air forces while the rebels
generally do not, though they are beginning to use drones.
Like most mainstream American pols and pundits, Clinton also failed to mention
that the rebels – armed and supported by the US, Qatar, and the Saudis ‒ have
fired back, killed civilians, cut off the water supply, and done extensive
damage to west Aleppo, which Assad’s forces now hold. Nor did she admit that as
many as 900 of the rebels “holding out” in east Aleppo were militants of the
former Jabhat al-Nusra, which ostensibly separated from al-Qaeda in July and
rebranded itself as Jabhat Fatah al-Sham. Nor did she explain why Washington’s
Saudi and Qatari allies had also funded the Islamic State (ISIS), or how her
making the fight against Assad a priority over fighting ISIS ensured that the
slaughter would go on and on, as the Sunni kingdoms of the Gulf continue to
pursue their Washington-backed campaign to force regime change in Syria.
Wrapping herself in the holy cloth of humanitarianism, Clinton has also kept a
tight lip about one of the more telling aspects of the campaign. The White
Helmets, who were loudly touted for this year’s Nobel Peace Prize, turn out to
have a highly suspect relationships with the jihadis, as the tireless Max
Blumenthal recently documented. The White Helmets also played a central role in
providing the heart-rending photograph of five-year-old Omran Daqneesh and
eyewitness testimony and other purported evidence that the Russians and/or
Syrians bombed the UN’s humanitarian aid convoy.
As most Western media have conveniently failed to report, a “former” British
intelligence officer, James Le Mesurier, created and still runs the White
Helmets operation, and most of the funding comes from USAID, the British
Foreign Office, and a host of Western nations. Welcome to the world of
humanitarian aid.
Clinton continues to play down the Saudi, Qatari, and covert parts of her plans
for Syria. What she plays up is her focus on Vladimir Putin and the Russians.
She does this to discredit Donald Trump as a Putin puppet, shamefully echoing
America’s long history of red-baiting. But even more disturbing, she is
building public support for either a new Cold War with Russia, or a very hot
one.
In the third and final debate, host Chris Wallace asked Clinton about her plans
to impose a no-fly zone in Syria. “President Obama has refused to do that
because he fears it’s going to draw us closer or deeper into the conflict,”
Wallace reminded her. “And General Joseph Dunford, the chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, says you impose a no-fly zone, chances are you're going to get
into a war ‒ his words ‒ with Syria and Russia.”
“If you impose a no-fly zone and a Russian plane violates that,” asked Wallace,
“does President Clinton shoot that plane down?”
This was one of the most consequential questions of the debate, and Clinton
ducked it completely, sounding more like Trump and his hopes of doing a deal
with Putin. “I think we could strike a deal and make it very clear to the
Russians and the Syrians that this was something that we believe was in the
best interests of the people on the ground in Syria, it would help us with our
fight against ISIS,” she said.
Is Clinton suddenly pulling back from the war-like ways that our country’s
foreign policy elite and some of our military mavens, like Gen. David Petraeus,
now favor? Or, as seems far more likely, is she simply side-stepping any
discussion of a likely military conflict with a nuclear-armed Russia? Either
way, the American people need to know, as do the Syrians.
________________________________________
A veteran of the Berkeley Free Speech Movement and the New Left monthly
Ramparts, Steve Weissman lived for many years in London, working as a magazine
writer and television producer. He now lives and works in France, where he is
researching a new book, Big Money and the Corporate State: How Global Banks,
Corporations, and Speculators Rule and How to Nonviolently Break Their Hold.
Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to
republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported
News.
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
Former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham-Clinton. (photo: AP)
http://readersupportednews.org/http://readersupportednews.org/
Why President Hillary Will Not Stop the Slaughter in Syria
By Steve Weissman, Reader Supported News
23 October 16
'm going to continue to push for a no-fly zone and safe havens within Syria,”
Hillary Clinton repeated again in the third presidential debate. “Not only to
help protect the Syrians and prevent the constant outflow of refugees, but to,
frankly, gain some leverage on both the Syrian government and the Russians so
that perhaps we can have the kind of serious negotiation necessary to bring the
conflict to an end and go forward on a political track.”
Clinton has pushed a no-fly zone and safe havens in Syria since the early days
of her campaign in the Democratic primaries. But over the last month her
remarks have revealed why these measures have little chance of ending the
slaughter in Syria, whether in Aleppo or elsewhere in the hideously ravaged
country.
“The situation in Syria is catastrophic,” she said in the second debate. “Every
day that goes by, we see the results of the regime, by Assad in partnership
with the Iranians on the ground and the Russians in the air, bombarding places,
in particular Aleppo, where there are hundreds of thousands of people, probably
about 250,000 people still left. And there is a determined effort by the
Russian Air Force to destroy Aleppo in order to eliminate the last of the
Syrian rebels who are really holding out against the Assad regime.”
Clinton was telling part of the truth, and masking the rest. Crushing Aleppo as
it earlier crushed the Chechen rebels in Grozny, Russia and its Syrian allies
were refusing to pull their punches just because the rebels were using a
quarter of a million civilians in east Aleppo as human shields. But Clinton
never mentioned that American and coalition air forces similarly killed
thousands of human shields in conquering Fallujah and will likely kill many
thousands more in their current attempt to capture Mosul. The Saudis have been
doing the same in Yemen, enabled by weapons, refueling, intelligence, and
increasingly direct participation from Britain and the United States. Horrific
in the extreme, the medieval-like siege of Aleppo follows the modern logic of
asymmetric warfare ‒ the rich and powerful have air forces while the rebels
generally do not, though they are beginning to use drones.
Like most mainstream American pols and pundits, Clinton also failed to mention
that the rebels – armed and supported by the US, Qatar, and the Saudis ‒ have
fired back, killed civilians, cut off the water supply, and done extensive
damage to west Aleppo, which Assad’s forces now hold. Nor did she admit that as
many as 900 of the rebels “holding out” in east Aleppo were militants of the
former Jabhat al-Nusra, which ostensibly separated from al-Qaeda in July and
rebranded itself as Jabhat Fatah al-Sham. Nor did she explain why Washington’s
Saudi and Qatari allies had also funded the Islamic State (ISIS), or how her
making the fight against Assad a priority over fighting ISIS ensured that the
slaughter would go on and on, as the Sunni kingdoms of the Gulf continue to
pursue their Washington-backed campaign to force regime change in Syria.
Wrapping herself in the holy cloth of humanitarianism, Clinton has also kept a
tight lip about one of the more telling aspects of the campaign. The White
Helmets, who were loudly touted for this year’s Nobel Peace Prize, turn out to
have a highly suspect relationships with the jihadis, as the tireless Max
Blumenthal recently documented. The White Helmets also played a central role in
providing the heart-rending photograph of five-year-old Omran Daqneesh and
eyewitness testimony and other purported evidence that the Russians and/or
Syrians bombed the UN’s humanitarian aid convoy.
As most Western media have conveniently failed to report, a “former” British
intelligence officer, James Le Mesurier, created and still runs the White
Helmets operation, and most of the funding comes from USAID, the British
Foreign Office, and a host of Western nations. Welcome to the world of
humanitarian aid.
Clinton continues to play down the Saudi, Qatari, and covert parts of her plans
for Syria. What she plays up is her focus on Vladimir Putin and the Russians.
She does this to discredit Donald Trump as a Putin puppet, shamefully echoing
America’s long history of red-baiting. But even more disturbing, she is
building public support for either a new Cold War with Russia, or a very hot
one.
In the third and final debate, host Chris Wallace asked Clinton about her plans
to impose a no-fly zone in Syria. “President Obama has refused to do that
because he fears it’s going to draw us closer or deeper into the conflict,”
Wallace reminded her. “And General Joseph Dunford, the chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, says you impose a no-fly zone, chances are you're going to get
into a war ‒ his words ‒ with Syria and Russia.”
“If you impose a no-fly zone and a Russian plane violates that,” asked Wallace,
“does President Clinton shoot that plane down?”
This was one of the most consequential questions of the debate, and Clinton
ducked it completely, sounding more like Trump and his hopes of doing a deal
with Putin. “I think we could strike a deal and make it very clear to the
Russians and the Syrians that this was something that we believe was in the
best interests of the people on the ground in Syria, it would help us with our
fight against ISIS,” she said.
Is Clinton suddenly pulling back from the war-like ways that our country’s
foreign policy elite and some of our military mavens, like Gen. David Petraeus,
now favor? Or, as seems far more likely, is she simply side-stepping any
discussion of a likely military conflict with a nuclear-armed Russia? Either
way, the American people need to know, as do the Syrians.
A veteran of the Berkeley Free Speech Movement and the New Left monthly
Ramparts, Steve Weissman lived for many years in London, working as a magazine
writer and television producer. He now lives and works in France, where he is
researching a new book, Big Money and the Corporate State: How Global Banks,
Corporations, and Speculators Rule and How to Nonviolently Break Their Hold.
Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to
republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported
News.
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize ;
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
