It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
There were ample reasons at the time to be suspicious that this was a scam (perpetrated on (not by) Engel and his fellow captives) to blame Assad for the abduction. There was skepticism expressed by some independent analysts — although not on NBC News. The truly brilliant political science professor and blogger As’ad AbuKhalil (who I cannot recommend enough be read every day) was highly skeptical from the start about the identity of Engel’s captors, just as he was about the pro-intervention case in Syria and the nature of the “Free Syrian Army” generally (in August 2012 he told me: “Syria is one of the biggest propaganda schemes of our time. When the dust settles, if it does, it will be revealed”).
On December 18 — the day the Engel story became public — Professor AbuKhalil published an email from “a knowledgeable Western journalist” pointing out numerous reasons to doubt that the kidnappers were aligned with Assad, including the fact that prior kidnappings had been falsely attributed to pro-Assad forces. He argued that the Engel abduction “seems very much like a setup, like the kidnappers wanted him to think he was taken by Shiites.” AbuKhalil himself examined the video and wrote:
I looked at the video and it is so clearly a set up and the slogans are so clearly fake and they intend to show that they were clearly Shi’ites and that they are savages. If this one is believable, I am posing as a dentist.
Of course, I am not saying that Engel was [in] on this plot. I think that they were really kidnapped but that the kidnappers of the Free Syrian Army typically lied to them about their identity, which has happened before.
Other knowledgeable bloggers raised all sorts of questions about whether Engel’s captors were actually Sunni rebels posing as pro-Assad soldiers.
As it turns out, that seems to be exactly what happened. Last night, Engel posted a new statement on the NBC News website stating that, roughly one month ago, he had been contacted by The New York Times, which “uncovered information that suggested the kidnappers were not who they said they were and that the Syrian rebels who rescued us had a relationship with the kidnappers.” That inquiry from The NYT caused him to re-investigate the kidnapping, and he concluded that “the group that kidnapped us was Sunni, not Shia” and that “the group that freed us” — which he had previously depicted as heroic anti-Assad rebels — actually “had ties to the kidnappers.”
That’s all fair enough. Nobody can blame Engel — a courageous reporter, fluent in Arabic — for falling for what appears to be a well-coordinated ruse. Particularly under those harrowing circumstances, when he and his fellow captives believed with good reason that their lives were in immediate danger, it’s completely understandable that he believed he had been captured by pro-Assad forces. There is no real evidence that Engel did anything wrong in recounting his ordeal.
But the same is most certainly not true of NBC News executives. In writing his new account, Engel does not mention the most important and most incriminating aspect of The New York Times reporting: that NBC officials knew at the time that there was reason to be highly skeptical of the identity of the captors, but nonetheless allowed Engel and numerous other NBC and MSNBC reporters to tell this story with virtually no questioning.
originally posted by: Greathouse
I had to go back and grab my first reply to you. The only statement I have made is about fox and its credibility. I have asked you to prove me wrong and show me three articles critical of rupert murdoch since fox's inception. Yet all you have done is Bob and weave around my question.
So again I'm going to ask you to quote me three articles critical of rupert murdoch from fox . If you failed to do so, it will be evident that you're opinion is biased.
I will leave you one out. That is if you admit fox is controlled by murdoch.
originally posted by: dreamingawake
Shared shortly before yours but may not be an issue because of different forums?
Here's the video from where the ZeroHedge article is based:
Chairman Royce Questions Witnesses at Hearing on Confronting Russia's Weaponization of Information
originally posted by: Greathouse
a reply to: AdamuBureido
Thank you for truly showing what an unbiased media is. The fact that all these events you talk about come out into the open in mainstream media completely validates my position on RT. By the simple fact that these things are talked about and discussed in mainstream media, but they are covered up by RT,. After all you had an anchor woman for RT come out and tell it like it is only to have the propaganda machine work in overdrive to discredit her.
That is my opinion on the matter. Now answer the question I repeatedly ask for. Show me three articles critical of Putin since RT's inception prove to me that RT is not biased.
originally posted by: BornAgainAlien
a reply to: Greathouse
I said, "I don`t mind correcting crap."
I only told you, don`t respond to me when you don`t want to read anything else as your own truth.