Showing posts with label Al-Jazeera. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Al-Jazeera. Show all posts

Wednesday, May 4, 2011

SYRIA: Who is Behind The Protest Movement? Fabricating a Pretext for a US-NATO "Humanitarian Intervention"

May 3, 2011

There is evidence of gross media manipulation and falsification from the outset of the protest movement in southern Syria on March 17th.

The Western media has presented the events in Syria as part of the broader Arab pro-democracy protest movement, spreading spontaneously from Tunisia, to Egypt, and from Libya to Syria.

Media coverage has focussed on the Syrian police and armed forces, which are accused of indiscriminately shooting and killing unarmed "pro-democracy" demonstrators. While these police shootings did indeed occur, what the media failed to mention is that among the demonstrators there were armed gunmen as well as snipers who were shooting at both the security forces and the protesters.

The death figures presented in the reports are often unsubstantiated. Many of the reports are "according to witnesses". The images and video footages aired on Al Jazeera and CNN do not always correspond to the events which are being covered by the news reports.


Alawite Map

There is certainly cause for social unrest and mass protest in Syria: unemployment has increased in recent year, social conditions have deteriorated, particularly since the adoption in 2006 of sweeping economic reforms under IMF guidance. The IMF's "economic medicine" includes austerity measures, a freeze on wages, the deregulation of the financial system, trade reform and privatization. (See IMF  Syrian Arab Republic — IMF Article IV Consultation Mission's Concluding Statement, http://www.imf.org/external/np/ms/2006/051406.htm, 2006)

With a government dominated by the minority Alawite (an offshoot of Shia Islam), Syria is no "model society" with regard to civil rights and freedom of expression. It nonetheless constitutes the only (remaining) independent secular state in the Arab world. Its populist, anti-Imperialist and secular base is inherited from the dominant Baath party, which integrates Muslims, Christians and Druze.

Moreover, in contrast to Egypt and Tunisia, in Syria there is considerable popular support for President Bashar Al Assad. The large rally in Damascus on March 29, "with tens of thousands of supporters" (Reuters) of President Al Assad is barely mentioned. Yet in an unusual twist, the images and video footage of several pro-government events were used in an utterly twisted fashion by the Western media to convince international public opinion that the President was being confronted by mass anti-government rallies.

Tens of thousands of Syrians gather for a pro-government rally at the central bank square in Damascus March 29, 2011. (Reuters Photo)

Syrians display a giant national flag with a picture of Syria's President Bashar al-Assad during a
pro-government rally at the central bank square in Damascus March 29, 2011. (Reuters Photo)

The "Epicenter" of the Protest Movement: Daraa: A Small Border Town in southern Syria

What is the nature of the protest movement? From what sectors of Syrian society does it emanate? What triggered the violence?


What is the cause of the deaths?

The existence of an organized insurrection composed of armed gangs involved in acts of killing and arson has been dismissed by the Western media, despite evidence to the contrary.

The demonstrations  did not start in Damascus, the nation's capital. At the outset, the protests were not integrated by a mass movement of citizens in Syria's capital.

The demonstrations started in Daraa, a small border town of 75,000 inhabitants, on the Syrian Jordanian border, rather than in Damascus or Aleppo, where the mainstay of organized political opposition and social movements are located. (Daraa is a small border town comparable e.g. to Plattsburgh, NY on the US-Canadian border).

The Associated Press report (quoting unnamed "witnesses" and "activists") describes the early protests in Daraa as follows:

   The violence in Daraa, a city of about 300,000 near the border with Jordan, was fast becoming a major challenge for President Bashar Assad, .... Syrian police launched a relentless assault Wednesday on a neighborhood sheltering anti-government protesters [Daraa], fatally shooting at least 15 in an operation that began before dawn, witnesses said.

   At least six were killed in the early morning attack on the al-Omari mosque in the southern agricultural city of Daraa, where protesters have taken to the streets in calls for reforms and political freedoms, witnesses said. An activist in contact with people in Daraa said police shot another three people protesting in its Roman-era city center after dusk. Six more bodies were found later in the day, the activist said.

   As the casualties mounted, people from the nearby villages of Inkhil, Jasim, Khirbet Ghazaleh and al-Harrah tried to march on Daraa Wednesday night but security forces opened fire as they approached, the activist said. It was not immediately clear if there were more deaths or injuries. (AP, March 23, 2011, emphasis added)

The AP report inflates the numbers: Daraa is presented as a city of 300,000 when in fact its population is 75,000;  "protesters gathered by the thousands", "casualties mounted".

The report is silent on the death of policemen which in the West invariably makes the front page of the tabloids.

The deaths of the policemen are important in assessing what actually happened. When there are police casualties, this means that there is an exchange of gunfire between opposing sides, between policemen and "demonstrators".

Who are these "demonstrators" including roof top snipers who were targeting the police.

Israeli and Lebanese news reports (which acknowledge the police deaths) provide a clearer picture of what happened in Daraa on March 17-18. The Israel National News Report (which cannot be accused of being biased in favor of Damascus) reviews these same events as follows:

   Seven police officers and at least four demonstrators in Syria have been killed in continuing violent clashes that erupted in the southern town of Daraa last Thursday.

   .... On Friday police opened fire on armed protesters killing four and injuring as many as 100 others. According to one witness, who spoke to the press on condition of anonymity, "They used live ammunition immediately -- no tear gas or anything else."

   .... In an uncharacteristic gesture intended to ease tensions the government offered to release the detained students, but seven police officers were killed, and the Baath Party Headquarters and courthouse were torched, in renewed violence on Sunday. (Gavriel Queenann, Syria: Seven Police Killed, Buildings Torched in Protests, Israel National News, Arutz Sheva, March 21, 2011, emphasis added)

The Lebanese news report, quoting various sources, also acknowledges the killings of seven policemen in Daraa: They were killed  "during clashes between the security forces and protesters... They got killed trying to drive away protesters during demonstration in Dara’a"

The Lebanese Ya Libnan report quoting Al Jazeera also acknowledged that protesters had "burned the headquarters of the Baath Party and the court house in Dara’a"  (emphasis added)

These news reports of the events in Daraa confirm the following:

   1. This was not a "peaceful protest" as claimed by the Western media. Several of the "demonstrators" had fire arms and were using them against the police:  "The police opened fire on armed protesters killing four".

   2. From the initial casualty figures (Israel News), there were more policemen than demonstrators who were killed:  7 policemen killed versus 4 demonstrators. This is significant because it suggests that the police force might have been initially outnumbered by a well organized armed gang. According to Syrian media sources, there were also snipers on rooftops which were shooting at both the police and the protesters.

What is clear from these initial reports is that many of the demonstrators were not demonstrators but terrorists involved in premeditated acts of killing and arson. The title of the Israeli news report summarizes what happened:  Syria: Seven Police Killed, Buildings Torched in Protests.

The Daraa "protest movement" on March 18 had all the appearances of a staged event involving, in all likelihood, covert support to Islamic terrorists by Mossad and/or Western intelligence. Government sources point to the role of radical Salafist groups (supported by Israel)

Other reports have pointed to the role of Saudi Arabia in financing the protest movement.

What has unfolded in Daraa in the weeks following the initial violent clashes on 17-18 March, is the confrontation between the police and the armed forces on the one hand and armed units of terrorists and snipers on the other which have infiltrated the protest movement.

Reports suggest that these terrorists are integrated by Islamists. There is no concrete evidence as to which Islamic organizations are behind the terrorists and the government has not released corroborating information as th who these groups are.


Hizb ut-Tahrir anti-Assad rally in Tripoli, Lebanon
 (40 km from Syrian border), April 22, 2011.

Hizb ut-Tahrir is banned in Syria

Both the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood (whose leadership is in exile in the UK) and the banned Hizb ut-Tahrir (the Party of Liberation), among others have paid lip service to the protest movement. Hizb ut Tahir (led in the 1980s by Syrian born Omar Bakri Muhammad) tends to "dominate the British Islamist scene” according to Foreign Affairs. Hizb ut Tahir is also considered to be of strategic importance to Britain's Secret Service MI6. in the pursuit of Anglo-American interests in the Middle East and Central Asia. (Is Hizb-ut-Tahrir another project of British MI6? | State of Pakistan).

Syria is a secular Arab country, a society of religious tolerance, where Muslims and Christians have for several centuries lived in peace.

Hizb ut-Tahrir (the Party of Liberation) is a radical political movement committed to the creation of an Islamic caliphate. In Syria, its avowed objective is to destabilize the secular state.

Since the Soviet-Afghan war, Western intelligence agencies as well as Israel's Mossad have consistently used various Islamic terrorist organizations as "intelligence assets". Both Washington and its indefectible British ally have provided covert support to "Islamic terrorists" in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Kosovo and Libya, etc. as a means to triggering ethnic strife, sectarian violence and political instability.

The staged protest movement in Syria is modelled on Libya. The insurrection in Eastern Libya is integrated by the Libya Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) which is supported by MI6 and the CIA. The ultimate objective of the Syria protest movement, through media lies and fabrications, is to create divisions within Syrian society as well as justify an eventual "humanitarian intervention".


Armed Insurrection in Syria

An armed insurrection integrated by Islamists and supported covertly by Western intelligence is central to an understanding of what is occurring on the ground.

The existence of an armed insurrection is not mentioned by the Western media. If it were to be acknowledged and analysed, our understanding of unfolding events would be entirely different.

What is mentioned profusely is that the armed forces and the police are involved in the indiscriminate killing of protesters.

The deployment of the armed forces including tanks in Daraa is directed against an organized armed insurrection, which has been active in the border city since March 17-18.

Casualties are being reported which also include the death of policemen and soldiers.

In a bitter irony, the Western media acknowledges the police/soldier deaths while denying the existence of an armed insurrection.

The key question is how does the media explain these deaths of soldiers and police?

Without evidence, the reports suggest authoritatively that the police is shooting at the soldiers and vice versa the soldiers are shooting on the police. In a April 29 Al Jazeera report, Daraa is described as "a city under siege".

   "Tanks and troops control all roads in and out. Inside the city, shops are shuttered and nobody dare walk the once bustling market streets, today transformed into the kill zone of rooftop snipers.

   Unable to crush the people who first dared rise up against him - neither with the secret police,  paid thugs or the special forces of his brother's military division - President Bashar al-Assad has sent thousands of Syrian soldiers and their heavy weaponry into Deraa for an operation the regime wants nobody in the world to see.

   Though almost all communication channels with Deraa have been cut, including the Jordanian mobile service that reaches into the city from just across the border, Al Jazeera has gathered firsthand accounts of life inside the city from residents who just left or from eyewitnesses inside who were able to get outside the blackout area.

   The picture that emerges is of a dark and deadly security arena, one driven by the actions of the secret police and their rooftop snipers, in which soldiers and protestors alike are being killed or wounded, in which cracks are emerging in the military itself, and in which is created the very chaos which the regime uses to justify its escalating crackdown. (Daraa, a City under Siege, IPS / Al Jazeera, April 29, 2011)

The Al Jazeera report borders on the absurd. Read carefully.

"Tanks and troops control all roads in and out",  "thousands of Syrian soldiers and their heavy weaponry into Daraa"

This situation has prevailed for several weeks. This means that bona fide protesters who are not already inside Daraa cannot enter Daraa.

People who live in the city are in their homes: "nobody dares walk ... the streets". If nobody dares walk the streets where are the protesters?

Who is in the streets? According to Al Jazeera, the protesters are in the streets together with the soldiers, and both the protesters and the soldiers are being shot at by "plain clothes secret police", by "paid thugs" and government sponsored snipers.

The impression conveyed in the report is that these casualties are attributed to infighting between the police and the military.

But the report also says that the soldiers (in the "thousands") control all roads in and out of the city, but they are being shot upon by the plain clothed secret police.

The purpose of this web of media deceit, namely outright fabrications  --where soldiers are being killed by police and  "government snipers"-- is to deny the existence of armed terrorist groups. The later are integrated by snipers and "plain clothed terrorists" who are shooting at the police, the Syrian armed forces and local residents.

These are not spontaneous acts of terror; they are carefully planned and coordinated attacks. In recent developments, according to a Xinhua report (April 30, 2011), armed "terrorist groups" "attacked the housing areas for servicemen" in Daraa province, "killing a sergeant and wounding two".

While the government bears heavy responsibility for its mishandling of the military-police operation, including the deaths of civilians, the reports confirm that the armed terrorist groups had also opened fire on protesters and local residents. The casualties are then blamed on the armed forces and the police and the Bashar Al Assad government is portrayed by "the international community" as having ordered countless atrocities.

The fact of the matter is that foreign journalists are banned from reporting inside Syria, to the extent that much of the information including the number of casualties is obtained from the unverified accounts of "witnesses".

It is in the interest of the US-NATO alliance to portray the events in Syria as a peaceful protest movement which is being brutally repressed by a "dictatorial regime".

The Syrian government may be autocratic. It is certainly not a model of democracy but neither is the US administration, which is characterized by rampant corruption, the derogation of civil liberties under the Patriot legislation, the legalisation of torture, not to mention its "bloodless" "humanitarian wars":

   "The U.S. and its NATO allies have, in addition to U.S. Sixth Fleet and NATO Active Endeavor military assets permanently deployed in the Mediterranean, warplanes, warships and submarines engaged in the assault against Libya that can be used against Syria at a moment's notice.

   On April 27 Russia and China evidently prevented the U.S. and its NATO allies from pushing through an equivalent of Resolution 1973 against Syria in the Security Council, with Russian deputy ambassador to the UN Alexander Pankin stating that the current situation in Syria "does not present a threat to international peace and security." Syria is Russia's last true partner in the Mediterranean and the Arab world and hosts one of only two Russian overseas naval bases, that at Tartus. (The other being in Ukraine's Crimea.)" (Rick Rozoff,   Libyan Scenario For Syria: Towards A US-NATO "Humanitarian Intervention" directed against Syria? Global Research, April 30, 2011)

The ultimate purpose is to trigger sectarian violence and political chaos within Syria by covertly supporting Islamic terrorist organizations.

What lies ahead?

The longer term US foreign policy perspective is "regime change" and the destabilization of Syria as an independent nation-state, through a covert process of "democratization" or through military means.

Syria is on the list of "rogue states", which are targeted for a US military intervention. As confirmed by former NATO commander General Wesley Clark the "[The] Five-year campaign plan [includes]... a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia and Sudan" (Pentagon official quoted by General Wesley Clark).

The objective is to weaken the structures of the secular State while justifying an eventual  UN sponsored "humanitarian intervention". The latter, in the first instance, could take the form of a reinforced embargo on the country (including sanctions) as well as the freezing of Syrian bank assets in overseas foreign financial institutions.

While a US-NATO military intervention in the immediate future seems highly unlikely, Syria is nonetheless on the Pentagon's military roadmap, namely an eventual war on Syria has been contemplated both by Washington and Tel Aviv.

If it were to occur, at some future date, it would lead to escalation. Israel would inevitably be involved. The entire Middle East Central Asian region from the Eastern Mediterranean to the Chinese-Afghan border would flare up.

Michel Chossudovsky is an award-winning author, Professor of Economics (Emeritus) at the University of Ottawa, Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) and Editor of globalresearch.ca. He is the author of The Globalization of Poverty and The New World Order (2003) and America’s “War on Terrorism” (2005). He is also a contributor to the Encyclopaedia Britannica. His writings have been published in more than twenty languages.  He spent a month in Syria in early 2011.

Read about Osama Bin Laden in Michel Chossudovsky's international best-seller America's "War on Terrorism".(also available in pdf format).

_____________________________________

Submitted to PalestineFreeVoice by Global Reserach
 _______________________________________________

 "Palestine is the heart of Arab countries" - PalestineFreeVoice
River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

Media Lies and Misinformation on Bin Laden


Corporate media manipulators love a big story they can hype, distort and falsify to attract large audiences, unaware they're getting managed news, not truth.

Moreover, the bigger the event, the worse the reporting, and no matter how often they're fooled, madding crowds rely on proved unreliable sources like US cable and broadcast TV, as well as corporate broadsheets and popular magazines publishing rubbish not fit to print.

After Obama's May day announcement, round-the-clock coverage now features "story one" ad nauseam, cheerleading the death of a dead man with no one allowed on to refute it.

A previous article did, accessed through the following link:

http://sjlendman.blogspot.com/2011/05/lies-damn-lies-and-bin-ladens-death.html

Separating fact from fiction, it explained:

(1) Significant facts from David Ray Griffin's important book titled, "Osama Bin Laden: Dead or Alive?" In it, he provided objective and testimonial evidence of his December 2001 death, likely from kidney failure, not a special forces hit squad getting their man then or now.

(2) Forensic evidence that post-9/11 videos and audios were fake.

(3) Bin Laden's role as a CIA asset, as well as called "Enemy Number One," using him advantageously both ways.

(4) Also, reports of his 2001 hospitalizations in Pakistan and Dubai where (in July) the emirate's CIA station chief visited him in his hospital room. Why not if he was a valued asset, his likely status until his natural, not violent, death.

Nonetheless, Western politicians and media, notably America's, never miss a chance to report fiction, not fact, especially on headline news like bin Laden's death, a decade after it happened.

Examples of Media Misreporting

Several May 2 New York Times articles provide painful reading, including Mark Mazzetti, Helene Cooper and Peter Baker's headlined, "Behind the Hunt for Bin Laden," saying:

"For years, the agonizing search for (him) kept coming up empty. Then last July, Pakistanis working for the (CIA) drove up behind a white Suzuki navigating the bustling streets near Peshawar, Pakistan," and discovered, after checking its license, that it belonged to his "most trusted courier...."

Claiming he lead them to bin Laden's location, it said:

"79 American commandos in four helicopters descended on (it). Shots rang out....Of the five dead, one was a tall, bearded man with a bloodied face and a bullet in his head."

Bin Laden's manhunt ended, said the writers, when he was identified, then quickly buried at sea to hide the evidence, though under English common law most often, no body means no killing or crime. In other words, without proof, prosecutorial allegations are baseless.

Nonetheless, Mazzetti, Cooper and Baker recounted a decade-long fantasy, including detainee interrogations in secret Eastern Europe prisons, widespread surveillance, wiretaps, satellite images and more before tracking bin Laden to a Abbottabad, Pakistan compound and killing him.

No matter that none of it was true and much more. International and constitutional law prohibit sending uninvited military forces to another country for any reason.

Moreover, no one suspected of any crime may be summarily executed with no arrest, no due process, no no judicial fairness, and no trial. Just a bullet, bomb or slit throat, Washington's version of summary judgment besides torture and imperial wars as official policies.

These topics were ignored in major media reports, focused solely on killing a decade earlier dead man.

On May 2, Times writers Scott Shane and Robert Worth headlined, "Even Before Al Qaeda Lost Its Founder, It May Have Lost Some of Its Allure," saying:

Bin Laden had "long been removed from managing terrorist operations and whose popularity with Muslims worldwide has plummeted in recent years," calling him a "violent extremis(t) without saying he was replaced after his 2001 death so, of course, his influenced waned. Out of sight, out of mind, especially when dead.

A May 2 Times editorial headlined, "The Long-Awaited News," saying:

"The news that (he'd) been tracked and killed by American forces filled us, and all Americans, with a great sense of relief....(but we must) remember that the fight against extremists is far from over."

Noting years of painstaking "vigilance and persistence," it praised Obama for "show(ing) that he is a strong and measured leader. His declaration on Sunday night that 'justice has been done' was devoid of triumphalism."

In fact, he affirmed continuity of America's war on terror - state terror, including four imperial wars and numerous proxy ones, expending enormous sums while popular needs go begging.

Ignoring truth, he repeated lies endorsed shamelessly by America's media, notably by Times correspondents, op-ed contributors, and editorial writers with comments like:

"Bin Laden's death is an extraordinary moment for Americans and all who have lost loved ones in horrifying, pointless acts of terrorism."

Unmentioned was decades of US and Israeli-sponsored state terrorism responsible for millions of deaths, destruction and human suffering. Earlier, noted scholar/activist Eqbal Ahmad (1934 - 1999) called it:

"illegal violence, (including) torture, (attacking and bombing) villages, destruction of entire peoples, (and) genocide," adding, "Who will define the parameters of terrorism, or decide where terrorists lurk? Why, none other than the United States, (its leading practitioner) which can from the rooftops of the world set out its claim to be the sheriff, judge and hangman, all at one and the same time."

So while rhetorically supporting equal justice and democratic values, Washington spurns international and constitutional law, using brute force to assert might over right, all the while proclaiming just cause reasons for its actions.

No wonder Ahmad called America "a troubled country," sowing "poisonous seeds" globally, saying "(s)ome have ripened and others are ripening (with no) examination of (what they've) sown," adding that "(m)issiles won't solve the problem." In other words, violence assures more of it, but don't expect America's media to explain.

On May 2, Washington Post writers Greg Miller and Joby Warrick headlined, "Bin Laden discovered 'hiding in plain sight,' " recounting the same fantasy as Times writers, saying:

"The commandos swept methodically through (his) compound's main building, clearing one room and then another" until they got their man. Sounding more like bad fiction, they said the operation was secretly planned for months, culminating with Sunday's assault, adding bin Laden wasn't hiding in a cave after all.

A WP editorial headlined, "Possible consequences of the bin Laden coup," saying:

"There are multiple reasons to celebrate" his death, including loss of Al Qaeda's leader, the prowess of US intelligence and military, and that the "prime (9/11) author (finally was) brought to justice."

It brought "a rare moment of common celebration and relief in a divided America. But (it's) not clear to what degree al-Qaeda's operations will be affected by the loss of its leader." It may, in fact, strengthen its resolve. History shows dead militants often inspire followers.

Ignoring illegal operations on foreign soil, it worried most about ending or curtailing them prematurely, no matter the toll in human life and neglect for popular domestic needs. For now, celebratory joy takes precedence, even for false reasons.

A Wall Street Journal editorial headlined "Victory in Abbottabad," saying:

Killing bin Laden "doesn't end the war against Islamic terror (note the racism), but it is a crucial and just victory that is rightfully cause for celebration."

Ignoring daily US war crimes, including killer drones murdering civilians, it railed against "combatants who hide in the world's dark corners, who rarely fight in the open and who attack innocents far from any conventional battlefield."

Praising Obama, it called it "a moment to salute George W. Bush....a vindication of (his war on terror, intelligence, and) interrogation policies," torturing innocent victims to extract false confessions and information about things they know nothing about, including bin Laden's alleged whereabouts.

His death, said the writer, "is a measure of justice for the thousands he killed (and) a warning to others who would kill Americans that they will meet the same fate, no matter how long it takes or where they try to hide."

This and other accounts like it, sadly, is what passes for corporate opinion in America, endorsing state terror and vilifying those against it.

Huffington Post contributor Michael Calderone headlined "Network Anchors Head to Ground Zero for Bin Laden Coverage," saying:

They never miss a chance to misreport major news, including the three broadcast anchors: NBC's Brian Williams, ABC's Diane Sawyer, and CBS' Katie Couric (an entertainer impersonating a newsperson) "host(ing) an expanded, one-hour May 2 edition of their nightly broadcasts from" Ground Zero.

Several cable channels joined them, including CNN and Fox, reporting fiction about a decade earlier dead man.

Time magazine's cover story featured bin Laden's full-page image with a pronounced red X crossing him out, highlighting what didn't happen to the detriment of readers believing inaccurate reporting.

Al Jazeera was just as bad with stories like one headlined, "Obama says world safer without Bin Laden," saying:

He "claimed responsibility for planning the September 11 attacks on New York and Washington," providing no corroborating evidence. In fact, in David Ray Griffin's writings, he said:

"(T)here is no good evidence that bin Laden had planned or even specifically authorized the 9/11 attacks." Those believing it cite his misinterpreted September 2001 Al Jazeera interview, rejoicing in the attacks but denying knowledge or responsibility.

Griffin said one of his aides confirmed that he had "no information or knowledge about the attack(s)" but he "thanked Almighty Allah and bowed before him when he heard this news." Days later he told Al Jazeera:

"I stress that I have not carried out this act, which appears to have been carried out by individuals with their own motivation."

During two subsequent October 2001 interviews, he praised the "vanguards of Islam (who) destroyed America," but again admitted no knowledge or responsibility.

Al Jazeera now claiming it is a lie.

BBC aired the same misinformation as did America's National Public Radio (NPR) and Public Broadcasting (PBS), calling his death a blow to Al Qaeda. So did Democracy Now, ignoring bin Laden's decade earlier natural, not violent, death.

Nation magazine editor Katrina vanden Heuvel also swallowed the big lie, headlining her article, "With Osama bin Laden Dead, It's Time to End the 'War on Terror,' " that was entirely bogus from inception, saying:

"Today, President Obama and his team have a chance to reset our fight against terrorism," vanden Heuvel not condemning its lawlessness, America's imperial wars, a president with no credibility, a falsely reported 9/11 event, and that the only relevant terror is what Washington unleashes globally against nonbelligerent nations.

Instead, she praised Obama's "humane and sober" position, calling it "a relief to hear in his words reminders of" a brief post-9/11 period before America went to war in Afghanistan, then Iraq, undertakings Nation magazine supported at the time and still stops short of rejecting.

A Final Comment

On May 2, Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting's Peter Hart headlined, "Bush's Palpable Persistence in Pursuit of bin Laden," suggesting he stopped looking, knowing he died, quoting him saying in March 2002:

"Who knows if he's hiding in some cave or not. We haven't heard from him in a long time....I don't know where he is. I really just don't spend that much time on him, to be honest with you."

Washington Monthly's Steve Benen offered more evidence of no interest in pursuing him, saying:

"In July 2006, we learned that the Bush administration closed its unit that had been hunting bin Laden," reported also by New York Times writer Mark Mazzetti on July 4, saying the CIA ceased all efforts last year pursuing him.

Along with David Ray Griffin's important work, it's more proof of bin Laden's 2001 death, putting a lie to Obama's announcement and shameless journalists repeating it.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/.
posted by Steve Lendman @ 1:17 AM

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

Friday, April 29, 2011

“Aljazeera” Channel Merchandises the “Arabic Spring”: From Bahrain to Syria

Qatar use Al-jazeera as a blakmailing tool

The Qatari "Aljazeera" Channel has renounced the professional standards it claims to possess; this was once it decided, with prior planning and determination, to strangle the Bahraini uprising at the level of its media and to keep secret the massacres that the royal family "Al Khalifa" is committing against the people of their country. Hereupon, most of those astonished by this surprising fact have tried to dwarf the reasons beyond such renouncement and restrict it within two limits; the first is that the State of Qatar (the Channel's owner) has commitments to fulfill as regards its neighbors of the Gulf Cooperation Council, and this prevents it, thus, from exposing the Bahraini events with at least a neutral eye of media.

As for the second reason, it has been related to the level of the doctrinal recruitment of this Channel's staff, which is a recruitment that holds hatred and rancor for the Shiites that constitute the great majority of the Bahraini people.

It's actually silly to reckon to such explanations, especially when Qatar (that owns this Channel), has used the Channel as a political instrument to grow more dominant and break the regional equations in order to acquire roles and locations in these equations, which do not meet with the strategic capabilities of this humbly sized and populated country in comparison with the other players in the regional arena. In fact, there are other situations and previous times when "Aljazeera" Channel performed its media share honorably - totally disregarding what is said today as respects the Bahraini situation. The media performance of "Aljazeera" did embarrass very much Qatar when it came to its gulf neighbors and caused tension at the level of diplomatic relations (as was the case with Kuwait, Bahrain, and Saudi Arabia) in the past.

"Aljazeera" would respond to that by saying it had a media policy independent from the Qatari State and not submissive to the government (despite the fact that none is ready to reckon this allegation as correct or take it seriously). Likewise, it is unbelievable that the doctrinal belonging of "Aljazeera's" staff is the reason beyond the renouncement, for the renouncement has come in the context of a mission that "Aljazeera" impossibly has no relation with and that is the exposure of the Bahraini uprising as a doctrinal one.

Anyway, in case "Aljazeera" has to a certain extent succeeded at shadowing what is going on in Bahrain concerning the oppressive and inhumane acts, then the Bahraini rebels, in spite of the expensive price of torture, coercion, and martyrdom they have paid, have highlighted (through exposing "Aljazeera's" stance towards their uprising) the attempts that are taking place at the black chambers of international capitals and the "role" of some regional capitals to encompass the Arabic revolutions and place barriers and obstacles ahead of their flow or seek to exploit these revolutions to protect the gulf crowns and treasuries at a side and lessen their dangers for the "Israeli" security and the Western interests at another side.

Definitely, the attempts at this level are countless, and the sides orchestrating these attempts are today on a feverish race to gain the American approval to accredit them. At this level, the racers are clearly using all that they have (whether it's their provisions or reserves) to show their political, diplomatic, military, security, and media potentials and competencies to win the American prize. It is not confidential that for a period of time, Qatar has been allured by the game of playing the major roles and showing at the stage of the grandest events to please its ambitions, which over exceed Qatar's strategic need as a small country.

Therefore, it has decided to enter the competition for the American accreditation, even if this competition places Qatar into a crowdedness with countries like Turkey and those of the European Union or even if this might bring Qatar into antipathetic relations with Syria and Iran; yet, even if this brings about the envy among Qatar, Riyadh, and the other Gulf capitals. However, Qatar is not going to miss this chance, particularly when it sees that it is the most capable of accomplishing the list of the American conditions and wishes at these critical times the region is going through. The wishes can be summarized as such:

- Isolating the influence of the Arabic revolutions and the uprising climates they provoke in the Nation's atmosphere away from the "Israeli" security, in addition to maintaining the present security equations that ensure the sustenance of the Western interests and their expansion in the area
- Holding control over these revolutions and redirecting them in a manner serving the Western policies in general and the American ones in particular; this means creating barriers and obstacles to prevent revolutions from breaking out in the remaining countries of what used to be called the "Arabic Moderation Camp"; in the meantime, cloning revolutionary models (specifically the Libyan model) at the States of the withstanding and resisting axis, even if this means doctrinal riots (as is the case of Syria today)

- Diverting the change produced by the Arabic revolutions towards the direction that serves the continuation of the "Israeli"-American project that failed in both the July Aggression and the Gaza War; this means continuing to partition the Islamic World and divide it into combating doctrines (Sunnites and Shiites), in addition to altering the priorities of the Arabic world from the "Israeli" enmity to the antagonizing of Iran and the resistance movements in Lebanon and Iraq.

To render its regional role greater and receive the American signature for this role, Qatar relies on its credit, which enables it to do so. In fact, it has accumulated this credit through the past era, and this credit can be exposed as such:

• Since Washington D.C. wants to continue the "Arabic Spring" in the remaining Arabic countries similarly to the Libyan model (currently dragging Syria to trap it in this model), it sees that supporting the Qatari role is beneficial and can be used later on as an international and regional mediator upon the long Qatari expertise in regard to this domain; Qatar has gained this expertise through leading mediations in several internal conflicts in different Arabic countries, among which are its mediation in the Lebanese-Lebanese conflict (the Doha Agreement), its mediation in Yemen (between Sana'a and the Houthis), and the agreement it has made between Khartoum and the rebels of Darfur.

• Making use of Qatar's media capabilities through "Aljazeera" Channel or the media means that it owns in more than an Arabic country, especially when both of the internal and external Qatari media claim to have inspired the Arabic revolutions and to have been the main reason beyond their breaking out and success

• Making use of Qatar's diplomatic competency and qualifications at this level, regarding its branched relations with most of the parts involved in the ongoing, regional conflict, whereby Qatar has relations with Iran, Syria, the Gulf States, "Israel", the Islamic disciplines (particularly the Salafis), and the non-governmental organizations that are active in several Arabic countries

• Its role concerning passing the Western desires directly while treating the Libyan case, dissimilarly to the hesitation of the American allies in such situations, whereby in the "London Meeting", Qatar broke all nationalistic interdictions "and supported the international military interference after it had provided the official Arabic cover for that." It also called for "arming processes of the Libyan opposition and sought to encourage the States of the Libyan neighborhood to share the interference process against Libya".

While Washington D.C. is facing confusion and hesitation in dealing with the flowing regional hesitations, research centers leak sayings that "all of these stances have created a growing American realization that the Qatari diplomacy will be better for the United States as long as all diplomacies of the other American allies oppose the American intentions and drives when it comes to international interference against another Arabic side." The leaks also say that "the problem that will face Washington D.C. is how to encourage Riyadh to accept the diplomatic and regional Qatari power and how to find an alternative role for Riyadh that keeps its regional weight, whereby no Qatari diplomacy arises at the expense of the Saudi Arabian one."

Hereupon, it is easy to understand the stance of "Aljazeera" Channel towards the Bahraini uprising (or towards what is going on in Syria), whereby the media shadowing that it has practiced to cover up the savagery of Al Khalifa's Bedouin governorship (or its practice that is counter to the Syrian incidents) has aimed at Doha's reaching to a double satisfaction of both Riyadh and Washington D.C. to convince Saudi Arabia of accepting the new Qatari role as the United States undertakes finding an alternative role that keeps Riyadh's regional weight, whereby no Qatari diplomacy arises at the expense of the Saudi Arabian one."

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

Thursday, April 28, 2011

Ben Jeddo: Targeting Syria Is to Target the Resistance

Apr 28, 2011

Beirut, (SANA) – The Journalist Ghassan Ben Jeddo on Thursday stressed that targeting Syria means targeting the resistance, expressing support to Syria's pan-Arab stance and hoping the situation would be stable to start a national dialogue serving the interest of the Syrian people.

In a statement to the Lebanese As-Safir newspaper, Ben Jeddo said "those who participated in any region of the world, without exceptions, in escalating tension will bear the responsibility before God.

Ben Jedo revealed his concerns about the situation in the region as a whole in the next stage, fearing sectarian and ethnic seditions.

He said "he won't stay in al-Jazeera channel although his job contract provides for working two months after submitting the resignation.

As-Safir published the resignation of Ben Jeddo last Saturday. Ben Jeddo said the reason behind his resignation was that al Jazeera professionalism resorted to gutter journalism, which has turned Al Jazeera from a media source to the operations room for incitement and mobilization.

In a statement to the Tunisian newspaper el-Shorouk, Ben Jeddo attributed his resignation from al-Jazeera TV to the way the channel is dealing with the events in the region including Syria.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian