Syria: Two "Big Dogs" Face Off, Tarpley vs. Kaplan on Press TV

People interested in developments in Syria should take a look at an online interview that took place on Press TV recently. Webster Tarpley faced off against journalist Lee Kaplan in a discussion of the accusations that the regime of Bashar al Assad has used poison gas against his own people and the news that Israeli and Jordanian troops are being trained by US advisors for an incursion into Syria to assist anti-Assad forces in that country. The possibility that US air support in the way of cruise missile attacks on Syrian chemical warfare installations is being cosidered by the Obama administration also comes into the discussion.

The discussian seems a little one sided to begin with. Press TV seems to give more time to Mr. Tarpley than to Mr. Kapalan, and the moderator obviously is more sympathetic to Mr. Tarpley's point of view, but toward the end of it, there is a very good exchange of views between the two guests.

Mr. Kaplan is very much an opponent of the Assad regime and gives a clear statement of the position of the Americans, their NATO allies and Israel on the Syrian situation. This is good because Tarpley, for once, is facing off against a capable debater, who can stand up to him and deliver what is essentially the American "official position" on these matters.

The disadvantage of this, in my opinion, is that the weakness of the American position on these matters is made very clear. But the discussion is a spirited exchange and well worth watching.

The discussion can be seen at the following URL:

tarpley.net...

I think the bottom line in all this is that all developments in the Middle East have to be viewed against the backround of a statement made, several years ago by former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Wesley Clark, commenting on American strategic intentions at the time of the Iraq war, intentions that were revealed to the high command of the US military at the time of 9/11.



Clearly, Mr. Tarpley would acknowledge the importance of General Clark's revelation, but Mr. Kaplan, in my opinion is trotting out a fraudulent storyline, meant to be fed to the American public to disguise what is really behind developments in the Middle East. The issues that he raises may be more or less valid. There may be flase flag events included as part of the mix or not, but these specifics really don't matter.

America is pursuing a strategy of gaining control of resources in that region and anyone standing in their way will be removed by hook or by crook.

That is what is really going on.

Not many people will know who Webster Tarpley is, but those of us in the 9/11 truth movement do know who he is. He aligns himself with the 9/11 no-plane/tv-fakery hoax crowd. And because of that, he has zero credibility, and should never be taken seriously.

And, he most-definitely is not a "big dog".

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Not many people will know who Webster Tarpley is, but those of us in the 9/11 truth movement do know who he is. He aligns himself with the 9/11 no-plane/tv-fakery hoax crowd. And because of that, he has zero credibility, and should never be taken seriously.

Nope.

Anyone's position on "no planes", "TV fakery" is irrelevant to this situation. You sound like the "Ayatollah" of the truth movement. Orthodoxy only, please.

And, he most-definitely is not a "big dog".

Wrong again. The villains of this piece are starting to take Tarpley seriously and they should. He is one of very few serious thorns in their side. I admit that some of his political judgements are fanciful. The idea that Obama could fire Kerry is not grounded in an understanding of why Kerry is where he is, but that sort of thing aside, Tarpley is right about what the US is up to and is largely right about 9/11, in my opinion.

Originally posted by ipsedixit
Anyone's position on "no planes", "TV fakery" is irrelevant to this situation.

It's relevant to his credibility. If he believes in and advertises a deliberate and proven hoax concerning 9/11, then he has no credibility on any other subject, period.

Originally posted by ipsedixit
Tarpley is right about what the US is up to and is largely right about 9/11, in my opinion.

You're entitled to your opinions, no matter how incorrect and misplaced they may be. However, he can't be "right" if he advertises a particular hoax concerning 9/11. That gives him zero credibility on all subjects, no matter how many times someone says "nope" and "wrong".

reply to post by _BoneZ_

With all due respect, I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on this.

2nd.

With Britain and particulary France making such categorical statements about the chemical attack in Syria, the French particularly saying that military intervention is immanent, I think that some deal must have been done with the Russians on Syria.

I think the Russian government is prepared to stand aside in this matter and allow the Americans to force the ouster of Assad in the manner the ouster of Gaddafi was accomplished in Libya, that is through NATO delivered air support for another pick-up truck army aimed at Damascus.

If this is what is going on, I think it is a strategic mistake on the part of the Russians, who, in my opinion, have been (forgive the country boy analogy) stepping into the cow pies more frequently these days. Giving sanctuary to Edward Snowden is an example. Snowden is anathema to Putin's government. If he were Russian and had done that to Russia, he would be living in obscurity in the States under an assumed identity, in fear for his life.

I think the real reason Russia shielded him was to get out from under the PR cloud that has been hanging over them ever since the assassination (by polonium) of Alexander Litvinenko, the renegade FSB agent who wrote two books accusing Vladimir Putin of murder and mayhem in a quest for power and in the interests of keeping power.

I think we are going to get NATO military intervention in Syria, probably in September. The Russians will be responsible for this, ultimately.

If they were serious about preventing it, there would be substantial Russian forces in Syria already.

If the Russians were serious and smart people, which they normally are, they would have graciously traded Snowden for Viktor Bout amid much gratitude from the Obama administration and then would have launched joint military "exercises" with the Syrian Army in Syria, putting a couple of regiments of Soviet (oops!!!), er, Russian tanks on the main roads to Damascus.

Points on the board for the State Department, who are running the table in the Middle East, notwithstanding their postures of "grave concern" and "growing alarm".

Sure enough, the Russians have folded.

ca.news.yahoo.com...

Lavrov added that if the US chooses to go to war without an enabling resolution from the UN Security Council – as it did in Kosovo and Iraq – it will be an illegal action that can only stoke the forces of anarchy that are already tearing the Middle East apart.

"To us, it looks as though [George W.] Bush, [Dick] Cheney and [Donald] Rumsfeld never left the White House," says Alexei Pushkov, chair of the State Duma's international affairs committee.

"It's basically the same policy, as if US leaders had learned nothing and forgotten nothing in the past decade. They want to topple foreign leaders they regard as adversaries, without even making the most basic calculations of the consequences. An intervention in Syria will only enlarge the area of instability in the Middle East and expand the scope of terrorist activity. I am at a complete loss to understand what the US thinks it is doing," he says.

Well, Sergei, I am at a complete loss to understand how such a statement could come from your mouth. I hope that you are speaking "diplomatic speak" and that you know full well what is going on, or are you smoothing the way for your next big cop-out, Russian failure to support Iran.