In a speech today at Damascus University, President Bashar al-Assad vowed to hold onto power at all costs, saying he will strike with an “iron fist” against the opposition and said the unrest would only end with them being crushed and when his regime “defeats the conspiracy.”
Assad went on to blame the international media for the violence in his country, saying that the effort has “failed” and that his final “victory” is near. He went on to claim that “over sixty T.V. channels in the world are devoted to” plotting against him.
Of course international opponents have railed against Assad during the crackdown, and some nations, notably Turkey, have made no secret of their efforts at backing opposition factions, particularly those in favor of international military intervention.
Yet the pro-democracy protests appear to have gotten their start as a real expression of opposition to the Ba’athist regime, with protesters in the city of Daraa coming out in relatively small numbers, and those numbers growing in the face of regime attacks.
Even the claims of international media outlets reporting excessive death tolls are largely a problem of Assad’s own making, as restrictions on foreign media have given the very outlets Assad is condemning a perfectly valid excuse for citing opposition groups for the figures, particularly when the Syrian state media has often pretended that the public protests weren’t even happening.
Indeed, Assad had a perfect test case for this in the 2009 post-election protests in Iran, not to mention Israel’s 2009 ban on journalists entering the Gaza Strip. Both nations wound up, like Assad, railing against international media coverage.
Given the criticisms that have already been voiced elsewhere regarding your coverage of Syria, although they have been prevented from appearing upon your site itself, I can only conclude that you have a collective vested interest in regime change in Syria which contradicts your declared desire to encourage a US policy of non-intervention in the affairs of other countries. Possibly this collective vested interest of yours reflects the requirements of your so-called "angels".
It's all Assad's fault. If only he let those nice disinterested people from the New York Times, CNN, the BBC, Al Jazeera and Haaretz into his country to see what is really going on there, they wouldn't have been forced to rely on the London/Paris/DC-based and -backed opposition for their unintentionally skewed reporting. Nevertheless, it's reassuring that we have a site like Antiwar.com to make sense of it all for us.
The direction Antiwar.com is taking on the Middle East is very worrying. It seems to support the imperialist, interventionist policies of the West, despite what it proclaims. Have the zionists got hold of Antiwar.com?
I don't think that's it. If you look at another branch of the Mises.org family, Lew Rockwell.com, you will find among other people the Christian post-millennialist Gary North. Post-mil's are fundamentalist Calvinists who believe the opposite of the pre-mil's, who are the Christian zionist mob. Gary North is often referred to as a Dominionist, though I can't say whether that is exactly correct or not. He is, or at least was, involved with something called The Council for National Policy, which actually combines both pre-mil's and post-mil's. I don't for a moment want to suggest that people like him control the entire Mises.org family, but the fact that he is a permanent fixture at Lew Rockwell.com tells me a lot.
After all the lies and the manipulation that are in the nature of the western media, do you think we can believe the criminal Fawning Corporate Media? They have been, after all, the enablers of the assassins in Washington, Tel Aviv, London and Paris.
Jason Ditz should be banned from Antiwar.com
http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2012/01/08/antiwa…
Antiwar.com has become pro-imperialist. Stop giving money to Antiwar.com!!!
So someone is suddenly pro-imperialist if they take issue with a regime gunning down its own people?
Just imagine that Assad was a US puppet as opposed to being in "the resistance."
I assure you – to the Syrians being shot at and tortured is makes no bloody difference.
He went on to claim that “over sixty T.V. channels in the world are devoted to” plotting against him.
Including Jason Ditz and "antiwar".com. What a joke!
http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2012/01/08/antiwa…
In the US recently we have had two large and widespread citizen protest against the government. Within the "Occupy Wall Street" movement could easily have been found 1% who could have been instigated by a large and well fonded and organized outside interventionist org to start shooting and bombing police and solders. Within the "Tea Party" there was an even greater percentage of same type. How would the US "authorities" have responded?
This would prove what? That the US should be bombed, invaded, destroyed and occupied by an Empire and it's henchmen who want to rule and rob the USA?
As for being blackmailed into allowing Empire's media stooges and shills into their nation to instigate, lie and drum for Imperial war against themselves, I'm glad to see that some of the targeted nations are wising up and refusing that nefarious devise. More should do so. There is plenty of real news coming out of Syria (and Libya, etc.) for any that honestly want to discern truth.
Indeed. An armed mob in the street, backed by foreign powers, is "democracy"? Words have no meaning in that case. How about we count the number of people who have demonstrated in favor of the regime — oh, they don't count because they don't represent "democracy"!
I cannot believe this "news writer" is allowed to continue this affront day after day.
How about in the name of transparency we see the names of the "angels" who always seem to miraculously kick in a few hundred grand to keep this website afloat?
It is quite interesting to see Jason Ditz channel Hillary Clinton on a daily basis
See here an excellent example:
http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/11/u-s-blas…
Yet somehow we are supposed to give money to Antiwar.com to "fight against the warmongers" in the regime?
What a pathetic series of responses. Some people simply cannot break out of their “America vs the world”, just as neo-cons refuse to get beyond their notions of “Islamists vs America”.
When protestors take to the streets of Egypt, Bahrain or Tunisia the anti-war left fawns over them. They encourage them to take down the puppets of America and reclaim their rights! They sob and moan over the horrors of living in a police state…
Yet when people rise up in an anti-US regime like Syria then all of a sudden these same people forget all about tyranny and dictatorship – even one with a track-record of murder and torture as bad as that of the Baath party.
All that matters to these clowns is that an enemy of America is facing a threat, and that can only mean that the CIA is behind all of it! It’s as if they can think of no reason why the Sunnis of Syria would take issue with having to live under a brutal regime led by minority Shiites.
No, screw ALL that – all that matters to these posters is that America and Israel might benefit should Assad fall. They can think of nothing else.
How is this juvenile mentality any different than that of the neocon freaks who think we should he kept Ben Ali and Mubarak in power because real democracy might result in an Islamic regime, and to hell with the people who suffer as a result?
Being against US military action is fine – I am opposed to US/NATO involvement as well – but don’t let your hatred of US policy blind you to other realities.
If you lived under Assad you’d probably want rid of him too. It’s silly to expect the Syrian people to live according to your geopolitical beliefs,
Much like Bulgaria and Albania in the early 90's, Egypt currently, or Ecuador from the 60's onward, nothing is what it seems; Assad is no angel and many of those "democracy protesters" aren't. The wider implications here are regional instability in an area already under tremendous tectonic strain. How many more apple carts do you want to spill, when we have pieces of the others still waiting to be picked up? Islam isn't the enemy, it's a tool like any other religion. Like the FBI using the NOI to go after Malcolm Little (or if you prefer, El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz) or the "American Jihad" in Aghanistan from '79 to '92. These guys are far more evil and sinister than most people can comprehend. Yes, it's that bad…
Take care,
Jan, I personally have literally dozens of articles on my blog explaining in depth, not just how the propaganda is being constructed, but what is actually going on in Syria. I am not going to provide URLs for you, because unlike the staff of antiwar.com, I am not paid to fetch and carry information for other people. But, in general, just think about the disingenuous way in which the media profess to find it impossible to decide 'which side is telling the truth'. If you seriously believe that the Assad govt has spent the last year or so blowing up and shooting its own subjects just in order to give itself a pretext for repressing them, then you need to go out right now and buy a textbook on logic. Make sure it has plenty of examples of nonsensicality, starting at the elementary level.
But in one way, I agree with you: people who post comments here are in general rather sheep-like. I mean, they post clone responses, in droves, one after another. When John Glazer posted his erroneous article about Israel breaking its prisoner exchange deal, last week, they posted in droves about how dreadful Israel was. You couldn't tell one comment from the next. This only ended when I posted a comment containing the actual facts and the article was removed. The other side of this is that, if one posts a comment that requires them to do some independent thinking and research, and to question their own assumptions, they just ignore it, as in my remarks about Gary North, earlier in this thread, which are intended to make people question the supposed opposition between the different brands of US 'conservatism' (none of which are in any classical sense conservative at all, but that's another story),
I would suggest to antiwar that they get rid of the thumbs up, thumbs down rating system. This brings out the most conformist and herd-like aspects of everybody, because they desire lots of pluses and fear lots of minuses. And really, these people are conformist enough already. OK?
I agree that it's not a simple matter of a regime gunning down unarmed people. There has indeed been an armed component to the uprising from early-on, and the Alawites have good reason to fear for their safety should the regime fall.
But I'm stunned at how left-wing posters are rushing to the defence of a regime that has a 40 year track-record of brutality towards its domestic opponents. And all because it opposes Israel and the US. That's all this is about. Syria is part of the "anti-imperial resistance" and so the Sunnis are expected to "take one for the team," so-to-speak.
People here honestly expect the Sunnis of Syria to suffer under a hostile regime for the sake of anti-US geopoltics. It's the sort of vile tripe I'm used to hearing from neocons when they explain that 80 million Egyptians should suffer so that the chosen people can sleep easier at night.
Wow, Jan – really? Your comment is like a troop of straw men; dressed as clowns and riding on the back of a giant Red Herring.
I wonder why your censored my two comments on this thread. Can you please point to an editorial policy that would exclude my previous critical comments? Thank you.
I see whenever I am trying to comment on antiwar.com I receive a message "This comment has been deleted by the administrator."
Can you please explain this?
Thank you.
I see whenever I am trying to comment on antiwar.com I receive a message "This comment has been deleted by the administrator."
Please inform whether I have been banned or whether this is a technical glitch. Every time I try to comment my submission is immediately deleted.
Thank you,
David
Please explain editorial policy here. Thank you.
The policy is that unless you're posting advertisements and being super obscene its fine. The automated monitoring system is unfortunately extremely skeptical of posters who don't have Intense Debate accounts and often puts them in the queue as suspicious even though they're totally fine, and a few times a day someone goes through and approves them.
Jason, while you're online, why don't you tell us all what the situation is with Sibel Edmonds posting here? Is she or is she not teling the truth when she says she is being prevented from doing so?
I only have access to the news.antiwar.com moderation and not the other stuff, but she's not on the banned list (which for the news section is only a handful of people who posted ads for Canadian pharmacies and whatnot).
Thanks for that, Jason. I am sure she will be glad to hear that. By the way, we're giving your Mr Knapp a regular roasting over at Maidhc Ó Cathaill's Passionate Attachment blog, here: http://maidhcocathail.wordpress.com/2012/01/09/an…
Mr Knapp seems to be under the impression that Sibel and her Boiling Frogs site are conducting a circulation war against AntiWar.com. The rest of us, on the other hand, are more inclined to the view that she is trying, in her own small way, to prevent World War Three from breaking out.
🙂
Please inform whether I have been banned or whether this is a technical glitch. Every time I try to comment my submission is immediately deleted.
Jason Ditz is a french phrase meaning "Tool of the imperialist scum."
Well done, Mr. Ditz. We'll be certain that anti-war gets another of our generous yet nefarious donations.
You may think it's funny, but I just installed a ClustrMaps hit counter, map widget and tracker on my blog, which shows the locations of all visitors, or at least, of the servers that connect them to the web, and the first thing I noticed was that in the last 48 hours, my blog had been read on four different computers served through "US Armed Forces Europe, Middle East, & Canada (AE)". I don't think these are just bored GIs kiilling time.
Who said anything about being funny. I'm just letting our good friend Mr. Ditz know that all is going according to plan. As for your recent light up on your blogs, I'd suspect either the Freemasons or the Illuminati are having a little fun with you. They're such cards.
Your sarcasm rather reminds me of that of Thomas L Knapp, another of the moderators here, who is given to similarly irrelevant answers to critics, such as "Pull down your hem, dear, your agenda's showing," or "Perhaps you should cut down on the crack." Things that actually have nothing to do with the issues whatsoever.
The issue at hand here is focused paranoia. You come onto a site titled anti-war.com. It is reasonable to assume that the chief problem some of the staff have with war is the body count. You then act suspicious when an article that casts a mass murderer you happen to fancy in a negative light shows up. You also rail against censorship in comments that are clearly allowed. The most rational answer for why some critical comments are allowed and others are not is most simply, automated systems. Otherwise, all critical comments would be removed. I am not a a staff member for anti-war.com, nor have I ever been. That isthe relevat answer, you will ignore it an continue living in your bizarre world of black helicopters and CA intrigues on a non-for-porfit site. That is why most people give you flippant answers, because you are by your nature, flippant.
I don't live in a "bizarre world of black helicopters and CIA intrigues." You seem to be obsessed by the CIA. It isn't the case that "most people give me flippant answers." The dismissive and insulting responses by Thomas L Knapp that I quoted were not addressed to me but to others. Whatever I am, I wouldn't say that I am "by my nature, flippant." You seem to be confusing me with someone else. And incidentally, the number of visitors to my blog from "US Armed Forces Europe, Middle East, & Canada (AE)" since I installed the tracking system four days ago is now up to twelve. Probably they are from CYBERCOM, which has nothing whatever to do with the CIA.