reply to post by ludwigvonmises003
Ah so you practice self-censorship and willful ignorance.
Those are common tactics of the mind-controlled as Chomsky points out.
The video shows the UN observers on the ground. There is footage that shows the massacred infants and women and elderly all lined up in the houses.
There are numerous interviews of family members. There is footage of the actual government attacks occurring.
Now that's only the first 11 minutes of the report.
As I previously posted -- the other news organizations have already admitted that the German article is not accurate.
I'm not writing this for you btw - because it's obvious you've already made your mind up -- or at least self-censorship and willful ignorance.
The government says that people from outside attacked Houla but it's pointed out Houla is already surrounded by government "security forces" so
that no one can enter unless first having to pass through the security forces.
So then the UN report states that the Syrian government never investigated the event on the scene while the opposition groups arrived to care for and
take care of the attacked victims. The survivors fled to anti-government parts of the town.
So then the news report confirms the video and the witness testimony that it was the government security forces at the water tank hill that did the
attack -- a government base and also the national hospital. The attacks were on the "demonstration area" of the anti-government demonstrations.
The massacre sites were close to the government bases. Then satellite photos show the actual government barricades blocking in the area that was
attacked. It's impossible that any anti-government forces could "dislodge" the government forces.
The strategy of the attack was to try to get the alawite communities to turn against the sunni communites in Houla.
Now does this mean that the U.S., Qatar, etc. are not supporting the FSA? Of course not. Does it mean that Al Jazeera does not have propaganda? Of
course not.
previous reports about CENTCOM's efforts claimed that the project used "fake online identities" to engage with online supporters of terror,
something which journalism professor Jeff Jarvis lambasted as "clumsy". In the Post article, counter-terrorism expert Evan Kohlmann also questioned
the effectiveness of such efforts in a place like Yemen, where internet penetration is approximately 1.8 per cent. "CENTCOM's engagement efforts
seem like straight-up propaganda." The State Department has also engaged with online extremists via a multilingual Digital Outreach Team. That
effort, too, has at times veered toward the absurd; in 2007, Palestinian blogger Haitham Sabbah reported being targeted by a member of the team after
writing a blog post about US and Israeli state violence in the Middle East. Although the State Department's team explicitly acknowledged their
government employer, it is not clear that CENTCOM's is as transparent. So while both ventures raise questions about effectiveness, CENTCOM's
"engagement" efforts seem like straight-up propaganda.
So here you have the Electronic Freedom Foundation writing an op-ed in Al
Jazeera -- it's not like the op-ed page of the WSJ
So we need to keep an open mind about the media - Noam Chomsky's media analysis is spot-on and yet Noam Chomsky routinely relies on sources from the
very propaganda he has exposed. In other words any propaganda can be turned against itself -- no better documentation that the words that the
supposed "target" has spoken themselves.
As has been pointed out - actually Israel prefers the Assad regime compared to the possibility of fundamentalist Islamists taking over. So for the
U.S. to support Al Qaeda elements -- this is giving their support to the Arab regimes over the Israeli regime.
The point being that Al Qaeda was created by the CIA anyway and so to rely on "outing" Al Qaeda is a "false flag" operation -- It's really Al
CIA-da. There has to be fundamentalist terrorists in order to justify the escalation of the military state.
So to support the FSA military operation is no different than to support the Assad regime which previously backed U.S. imperialism.
It's just like Saddam was no longer needed even though he was a U.S. ally and the same with Noreiga, etc.
There is a real justice movement in Syria that is nonviolent but is being used by both sides as supposed victims of the other side.
