The Deep State War Heats Up :ph34r:

[Deranged Rhino]

Another Dangerous Rush to Judgment in Syria

https://consortiumnews.com/2017/04/05/another-dangerous-rush-to-judgment-in-syria/

 

"With the latest hasty judgment about Tuesday’s poison-gas deaths in a rebel-held area of northern Syria, the mainstream U.S. news media once more reveals itself to be a threat to responsible journalism and to the future of humanity. Again, we see the troubling pattern of verdict first, investigation later, even when that behavior can lead to a dangerous war escalation and many more deaths.

 

Before a careful evaluation of the evidence about Tuesday’s tragedy was possible, The New York Times and other major U.S. news outlets had pinned the blame for the scores of dead on the Syrian government of Bashar al-Assad. That revived demands that the U.S. and other nations establish a “no-fly zone” over Syria, which would amount to launching another “regime change” war and would put America into a likely hot war with nuclear-armed Russia.

 

(snip)

 

While it’s hard to know at this early stage what’s true and what’s not, these alternative explanations, I’m told, are being seriously examined by U.S. intelligence. One source cited the possibility that Turkey had supplied the rebels with the poison gas (the exact type still not determined) for potential use against Kurdish forces operating in northern Syria near the Turkish border or for a terror attack in a government-controlled city like the capital of Damascus.

 

(snip)

 

On Tuesday, the Times assigned two of its most committed anti-Syrian-government propagandists to cover the Syrian poison-gas story, Michael B. Gordon and Anne Barnard.

 

Gordon has been at the front lines of the neocon “regime change” strategies for years. He co-authored the Times’ infamous aluminum tube story of Sept. 8, 2002, which relied on U.S. government sources and Iraqi defectors to frighten Americans with images of “mushroom clouds” if they didn’t support President George W. Bush’s upcoming invasion of Iraq. The timing played perfectly into the administration’s advertising “rollout” for the Iraq War.

 

Of course, the story turned out to be false and to have unfairly downplayed skeptics of the claim that the aluminum tubes were for nuclear centrifuges, when the aluminum tubes actually were meant for artillery. But the article provided a great impetus toward the Iraq War, which ended up killing nearly 4,500 U.S. soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.

(snip)

Gordon was a co-author of another bogus Times’ front-page story on April 21, 2014, when the State Department and the Ukrainian government fed the Times two photographs that supposedly proved that a group of Russian soldiers – first photographed in Russia – had entered Ukraine, where they were photographed again.

However, two days later, Gordon was forced to pen a retraction because it turned out that both photos had been shot inside Ukraine, destroying the story’s premise. [see Consortiumnews.com’s “NYT Retracts Russian-Photo Scoop.”]

Gordon perhaps personifies better than anyone how mainstream journalism works. If you publish false stories that fit with the Establishment’s narratives, your job is safe even if the stories blow up in your face. However, if you go against the grain – and if someone important raises a question about your story – you can easily find yourself out on the street even if your story is correct."

(snip)

One might have thought that the evidence of one staged attack would have increased skepticism about the other incidents, but the U.N. investigators apparently understood what was good for their careers, so they endorsed a couple of other alleged cases despite their inability to conduct a field investigation. [see Consortiumnews.com’s “UN Team Heard Claims of Staged Chemical Attacks.”]

Now, that dubious U.N. report is being leveraged into this new incident, one opportunistic finding used to justify another. But the pressing question now is: Have the American people come to understand enough about “psychological operations” and “strategic communications” that they will finally show the skepticism that no longer exists in the major U.S. news media?

Edited April 6, 2017 by Deranged Rhino

[Deranged Rhino]

**********************

Kissinger and the CIA discussed ways to limit Congressional access to information regarding the Agency’s activities

 

https://www.muckrock.com/news/archives/2017/apr/05/kissinger-CIA-leaks/

[Tiberius]

Another Dangerous Rush to Judgment in Syria

https://consortiumnews.com/2017/04/05/another-dangerous-rush-to-judgment-in-syria/

 

"With the latest hasty judgment about Tuesday’s poison-gas deaths in a rebel-held area of northern Syria, the mainstream U.S. news media once more reveals itself to be a threat to responsible journalism and to the future of humanity. Again, we see the troubling pattern of verdict first, investigation later, even when that behavior can lead to a dangerous war escalation and many more deaths.

 

Before a careful evaluation of the evidence about Tuesday’s tragedy was possible, The New York Times and other major U.S. news outlets had pinned the blame for the scores of dead on the Syrian government of Bashar al-Assad. That revived demands that the U.S. and other nations establish a “no-fly zone” over Syria, which would amount to launching another “regime change” war and would put America into a likely hot war with nuclear-armed Russia.

 

(snip)

 

While it’s hard to know at this early stage what’s true and what’s not, these alternative explanations, I’m told, are being seriously examined by U.S. intelligence. One source cited the possibility that Turkey had supplied the rebels with the poison gas (the exact type still not determined) for potential use against Kurdish forces operating in northern Syria near the Turkish border or for a terror attack in a government-controlled city like the capital of Damascus.

 

(snip)

 

On Tuesday, the Times assigned two of its most committed anti-Syrian-government propagandists to cover the Syrian poison-gas story, Michael B. Gordon and Anne Barnard.

 

Gordon has been at the front lines of the neocon “regime change” strategies for years. He co-authored the Times’ infamous aluminum tube story of Sept. 8, 2002, which relied on U.S. government sources and Iraqi defectors to frighten Americans with images of “mushroom clouds” if they didn’t support President George W. Bush’s upcoming invasion of Iraq. The timing played perfectly into the administration’s advertising “rollout” for the Iraq War.

 

Of course, the story turned out to be false and to have unfairly downplayed skeptics of the claim that the aluminum tubes were for nuclear centrifuges, when the aluminum tubes actually were meant for artillery. But the article provided a great impetus toward the Iraq War, which ended up killing nearly 4,500 U.S. soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.

(snip)

Gordon was a co-author of another bogus Times’ front-page story on April 21, 2014, when the State Department and the Ukrainian government fed the Times two photographs that supposedly proved that a group of Russian soldiers – first photographed in Russia – had entered Ukraine, where they were photographed again.

However, two days later, Gordon was forced to pen a retraction because it turned out that both photos had been shot inside Ukraine, destroying the story’s premise. [see Consortiumnews.com’s “NYT Retracts Russian-Photo Scoop.”]

Gordon perhaps personifies better than anyone how mainstream journalism works. If you publish false stories that fit with the Establishment’s narratives, your job is safe even if the stories blow up in your face. However, if you go against the grain – and if someone important raises a question about your story – you can easily find yourself out on the street even if your story is correct."

(snip)

One might have thought that the evidence of one staged attack would have increased skepticism about the other incidents, but the U.N. investigators apparently understood what was good for their careers, so they endorsed a couple of other alleged cases despite their inability to conduct a field investigation. [see Consortiumnews.com’s “UN Team Heard Claims of Staged Chemical Attacks.”]

Now, that dubious U.N. report is being leveraged into this new incident, one opportunistic finding used to justify another. But the pressing question now is: Have the American people come to understand enough about “psychological operations” and “strategic communications” that they will finally show the skepticism that no longer exists in the major U.S. news media?

Why are you blaming the media instead of Rex and Donald, Haley, the UN and the rest of the non-media for saying it was Syria?

[GG]

Love how the article is framed that efforts to stop the slaughter of 100,000's would lead to the end of humanity. BTW, establishing a no-fly zone in Syria wouldn't lead to a nuclear war with Russia, if Russia doesn't fly in the no-fly zone. A pretty simple concept.

[Deranged Rhino]

https://twitter.com/SamSacks/status/850166028738973696

[Tiberius]

Love how the article is framed that efforts to stop the slaughter of 100,000's would lead to the end of humanity. BTW, establishing a no-fly zone in Syria wouldn't lead to a nuclear war with Russia, if Russia doesn't fly in the no-fly zone. A pretty simple concept.

[Deranged Rhino]

Love how the article is framed that efforts to stop the slaughter of 100,000's would lead to the end of humanity. BTW, establishing a no-fly zone in Syria wouldn't lead to a nuclear war with Russia, if Russia doesn't fly in the no-fly zone. A pretty simple concept.

 

To GG, committing war crimes and killing Syrian soldiers is something worth celebrating. To GG, who cares so deeply about the slaughter of innocents in Syria he overlooks, ignores and (by extension) tacitly supports the 5 year plan to destabilize the region and prolong the bloodshed by funding and training AQ and ISIS fighters to do the dirty work on the ground in Syria.

 

GG cares so much about protecting innocent people and "wishing people better lives" that he actively sides with the very people who killed 3,000 Americans, behead children and supports their ascension in Syria over Assad.

 

GG considers this noble.

 

But can't get a positive from a negative. You can't replace a bad guy with worse guys and say you're doing it to "stop the slaughter of 100,000s" with a straight face... unless you're GG of course.

 

Thanks for expertly demonstrating why your chosen philosophy is ignorant, backwards, and fundamentally anti-American in nature.

*********************************************************

Food for thought:

 

Former DIA colonel Patrick Lang's take on the events of the past few days in Syria:

 

Donald Trump’s decision to launch cruise missile strikes on a Syrian Air Force Base was based on a lie. In the coming days the American people will learn that the Intelligence Community knew that Syria did not drop a military chemical weapon on innocent civilians in Idlib. Here is what happened.

1. The Russians briefed the United States on the proposed target. This is a process that started more than two months ago. There is a dedicated phone line that is being used to coordinate and deconflict (i.e., prevent US and Russian air assets from shooting at each other) the upcoming operation.

The United States was fully briefed on the fact that there was a target in Idlib that the Russians believes was a weapons/explosives depot for Islamic rebels.

The Syrian Air Force hit the target with conventional weapons. All involved expected to see a massive secondary explosion. That did not happen. Instead, smoke, chemical smoke, began billowing from the site. It turns out that the Islamic rebels used that site to store chemicals, not sarin, that were deadly. The chemicals included organic phosphates and chlorine and they followed the wind and killed civilians.

There was a strong wind blowing that day and the cloud was driven to a nearby village and caused casualties.

We know it was not sarin. How? Very simple. The so-called “first responders” handled the victims without gloves. If this had been sarin they would have died. Sarin on the skin will kill you. How do I know? I went through “Live Agent” training at Fort McClellan in Alabama.

 

https://gosint.wordpress.com/2017/04/07/former-dia-colonel-us-strikes-on-a-syria-based-on-a-lie/

**********************************************

More food for thought:

 

Gabbard: US attack on Syrian airfield 'short-sighted,' reckless

 

“It angers and saddens me that President Trump has taken the advice of war hawks and escalated our illegal regime change war to overthrow the Syrian government. This escalation is short-sighted and will lead to more dead civilians, more refugees, the strengthening of al-Qaeda and other terrorists, and a possible nuclear war between the United States and Russia."

 

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/327743-dem-rep-us-attack-on-syrian-airfield-short-sighted-reckless

Edited April 7, 2017 by Deranged Rhino

[GG]

Yup, killing 70 members of Assad's executioners is the same as murdering 500,000 civilians in Greggy's book.

 

The Deep State is coming for you people. Stockpile the Spam.

[Deranged Rhino]

Yup, killing 70 members of Assad's executioners is the same as murdering 500,000 civilians in Greggy's book.

 

 

It's not. Never said it was. I said the claim that you care about stopping the slaughter of civilians in Syria is laughably untrue.

 

If it were, you wouldn't be putting your support behind AQ and ISIS executioners who, when/if they are successful in overthrowing Assad will be every bit as murderous as he was. Only they'll be doing it for Jihad rather than Assad's secularist slaughter. This is the choice you're knowingly making and loudly supporting -- and it has nothing to do with stopping the slaughter or protecting innocent lives.

 

You've made your choice abundantly clear. You support war crimes, you cheer the bombing of Syrian troops -- and completely ignore the funding, support, and partnership formed on the battlefield with America's number one enemy in the war on Terror. Men who behead children, drown people in acid, burn people alive, are thirsty to slaughter secularists and christains alike in Syria once Assad is gone... that's who you back.

 

So stop lying to yourself. You don't care about the 100,000s of civilian deaths in Syria. You don't care about "wishing for people for better lives". You support the regime change agenda regardless of who you have to work with to get it because you believe the neocon agenda in the region is in the best interest of the United States. At least be honest with us about your true motivation.

 

Thanks again for proving why your philosophy is fundamentally flawed.

[GG]

 

It's not. Never said it was. I said the claim that you care about stopping the slaughter of civilians in Syria is laughably untrue.

 

If it were, you wouldn't be putting your support behind AQ and ISIS executioners who, when/if they are successful in overthrowing Assad will be every bit as murderous as he was. Only they'll be doing it for Jihad rather than Assad's secularist slaughter. This is the choice you're knowingly making and loudly supporting -- and it has nothing to do with stopping the slaughter or protecting innocent lives.

 

You've made your choice abundantly clear. You support war crimes, you cheer the bombing of Syrian troops -- and completely ignore the funding, support, and partnership formed on the battlefield with America's number one enemy in the war on Terror. Men who behead children, drown people in acid, burn people alive, are thirsty to slaughter secularists and christains alike in Syria once Assad is gone... that's who you back.

 

So stop lying to yourself. You don't care about the 100,000s of civilian deaths in Syria. You don't care about "wishing for people for better lives". You support the regime change agenda regardless of who you have to work with to get it because you believe the neocon agenda in the region is in the best interest of the United States. At least be honest with us about your true motivation.

 

Thanks again for proving why your philosophy is fundamentally flawed.

 

Even ignoring the wild ass assumptions in the preamble, why pray tell, do neocons believe that regime change is sometimes necessary? Seems to me that you're happy to waive your conspiracy banner as the pretext for more brown people dying, because... police state.

[DC Tom]

More food for thought:

 

Gabbard: US attack on Syrian airfield 'short-sighted,' reckless

 

“It angers and saddens me that President Trump has taken the advice of war hawks and escalated our illegal regime change war to overthrow the Syrian government. This escalation is short-sighted and will lead to more dead civilians, more refugees, the strengthening of al-Qaeda and other terrorists, and a possible nuclear war between the United States and Russia."

 

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/327743-dem-rep-us-attack-on-syrian-airfield-short-sighted-reckless

 

The !@#$ is this bull ****? Is she insane?

[Deranged Rhino]

 

Even ignoring the wild ass assumptions in the preamble,

 

No assumptions made. Going by your own words you've celebrated war crimes, celebrated killing Syrian soldiers in this very thread -- while ignoring the realities of the conflict on the battlefield because they're uncomfortable to you.

 

Your team has been arming and funding AQ and ISIS fighters to do the dirty work on the ground. They're the chosen ones to replace Assad -- and you support them blindly by pretending that's not the reality.

 

Like I said, try being honest about what your true motivations are. It's not stopping the slaughter, since you've been actively cheering actions that have prolonged that slaughter -- and in fact will ultimately make the slaughter even worse should AQ/ISIS prevail. And then you made an ignorant statement about no fly zones only requiring Russian aircraft to abide by it -- ignoring the necessary step of taking out Russian and Syrian AD sites before any no fly zone could be instituted... details matter when discussing issues like this, don't they?

 

You're either being willfully ignorant of the realities of the policies you're advocating for, or you're full of shite.

 

It's a binary choice.

********************************************

 

Haley right now laying into Iran and Russia re Syria.

Edited April 7, 2017 by Deranged Rhino

[meazza]

 

The !@#$ is this bull ****? Is she insane?

 

Consider who posted it.

 

No assumptions made. Going by your own words you've celebrated war crimes, celebrated killing Syrian soldiers in this very thread -- while ignoring the realities of the conflict on the battlefield because they're uncomfortable to you.

 

Your team has been arming and funding AQ and ISIS fighters to do the dirty work on the ground. They're the chosen ones to replace Assad -- and you support them blindly by pretending that's not the reality.

 

Like I said, try being honest about what your true motivations are. It's not stopping the slaughter, since you've been actively cheering actions that have prolonged that slaughter -- and in fact will ultimately make the slaughter even worse should AQ/ISIS prevail. And then you made an ignorant statement about no fly zones only requiring Russian aircraft to abide by it -- ignoring the necessary step of taking out Russian and Syrian AD sites before any no fly zone could be instituted... details matter when discussing issues like this, don't they?

 

You're either being willfully ignorant of the realities of the policies you're advocating for, or you're full of shite.

 

It's a binary choice.

********************************************

 

Haley right now laying into Iran and Russia re Syria.

 

[FireChan]

 

Consider who posted it.

 

Can we take a break from the action to ask WTF were they thinking with that line? Did no one notice that in editing?

[meazza]

Can we take a break from the action to ask WTF were they thinking with that line? Did no one notice that in editing?

 

The whole prequel saga is a blur to me.

 

Like a bad car crash.,

[Deranged Rhino]

Good article, worth checking out: The Spoils of War: Trump Lavished With Media and Bipartisan Praise For Bombing Syria

 

Relevant for GG's faux outrage over Syrian civilians being slaughtered:

 

7. The fraud of humanitarianism works every time for (and on) American elites.

In the last two months, Trump has ordered a commando raid in Yemen that has massacred children and dozens of innocent people, bombed Mosul and killed scores of civilians, and bombed a mosque near Aleppo that killed dozens. During the campaign, he vowed to murder the family members of alleged terrorists. He shut America’s doors to Syrian refugees, and is deporting people who have lived in the U.S. since childhood despite committing no crimes.

Given all that, could American elites possibly believe him when he says that he is motivated by humanitarianism – deep-seated anger over seeing Syrian children harmed – in bombing Syria? Yes, they could, and they are. That’s because American elites always want to believe – or at least want others to believe – that the U.S. bombs countries over and over not out of aggression or dominance but out of love, freedom, democracy and humanitarian concern.

The U.S. Government does not wage war, and the U.S. military does not blow things up, out of humanitarianism. It does so when it believes there is some benefit to be obtained for itself. Again, Federalist 4 warned us: “nations in general will make war whenever they have a prospect of getting anything by it.”

If humanitarianism is what motivated the U.S. in Syria, it would take in massive numbers of refugees, but it hasn’t. If humanitarianism is what motivated the U.S. bombing of Libya, it would have given large amounts of aid to that country in the aftermath to help it deal with the ensuing anarchy and misery, but it didn’t. That’s because humanitarianism is the pretext for U.S. wars, not the actual motive.

But the psychological comfort of believing that the only reason your government bombs more countries by far than any other is because your country is just so uniquely devoted to humanitarian love is so powerful that it overrides all rational faculties. That’s why all wars – even the most malicious and aggressive – are wrapped in humanitarian packaging. And no matter how many times we see that this packaging is a lie – in Vietnam, in Iraq, in Libya – we keep wanting to believe that, this time, our bombs will be filled with love, help and freedom.

******************************************************

The sign language guy is my favorite part of this clip:

 

Edited April 7, 2017 by Deranged Rhino

[TakeYouToTasker]

Nations survive by making examples of other nations.

[Deranged Rhino]

Nations survive by making examples of other nations.

 

You think last night's attack made an example?

 

It was a pretty restrained attack. Lobbing cruise missiles at an empty target is about as low risk as it gets.

[GoBills808]

If I'm hearing this correctly the Russian defense guys were forewarned?

 

I agree with DR as far as on the face of it it's a low risk move. I just wonder who benefits from the US getting more involved in Syria after the approach we've taken the last year or so...

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

You think last night's attack made an example?

 

It was a pretty restrained attack. Lobbing cruise missiles at an empty target is about as low risk as it gets.

I do. That was the purpose of the bombing.

 

Certain things will not be tolerated, there will be repercussions, and Assad was made to understand exactly that.

Edited April 7, 2017 by TakeYouToTasker