Tulsi: Trump: Stop hiding Saudi role in 911 and protecting Al Qaeda

paulsurovell said:

South_Mountaineer said:

They're civilian rescuers who save people bombed by the Syrian government.  You're smearing them because they work where the rebels are -- which is kind of the point of being civilian rescuers who save people bombed by the Syrian government.  Not to mention the deliberate bombing BY the Syrian government OF those civilian rescuers.

 Scott Ritter speaks truth to power. Yes, he acknowledges the heroism of the White Helmets and he cites estimates of how many people they've rescued. You would like that to be the end of the story, but it's not. Ritter also says this about the White Helmets play another role -- and it's a fact, not a smear:
https://www.truthdig.com/articles/the-white-helmets-and-the-inherent-contradiction-of-americas-syria-policy/

. . . the United States is the No. 1 funder and facilitator of one of the most effective recruiting tools by terrorists inside Syria today—the White Helmets."

 This Scott Ritter article sure is an eye-opener on the White Helmets and propaganda in desperate need of an objective fact-check.

There is no escaping the reality that, for all of their heroic rescue work, the White Helmets function as an effective propaganda arm of the anti-Assad movement. There is a symbiotic, hand-in-glove relationship between the anti-Assad rhetoric of the ostensibly “neutral and impartial” White Helmets and the policy objectives of their funders, a relationship that embodies the notion of a quid pro quo relationship between the two. With their training, equipment and logistical sustainment underwritten exclusively by donations from Western governments (primarily the U.S. and U.K.), the White Helmets serve as a virtual echo chamber for American and British politicians and officials.

Without casting aspersions on the heroism of its members in rescuing Syrian civilians, without this propagandist value the White Helmets would not receive donations on the scale that they currently enjoy. The recent denial of an entry visa into the United States by the Department of Homeland Security to the head of the White Helmets, Raed Saleh, serves as a case in point, underscoring the sensitivity that surrounds the White Helmets and their close proximity to entities—Al Nusra Front and Islamic State—that have been officially deemed as terrorist. The White Helmets are useful only so long as they stay on message, and that message is delivered through a narrative constructed from carefully edited imagery put out by the White Helmets themselves. Simply put, if the White Helmets turn off their cameras, America will turn off the money.

The messaging of the White Helmets is not serendipitous, but rather part of a deliberate strategy that imbues every aspect of their work. The images and videos depicting the work of the White Helmets inside Syria are exclusively self-produced and distributed. Even a recent documentary film distributed by Netflix (not surprisingly titled “The White Helmets”) had to rely on the White Helmets for the film shot inside Syria (Khaled Khatib, the White Helmet media activist, was trained by the film’s cinematographer on how to operate the specialized camera used in the film). The only entity allowed to tell the White Helmets story are the White Helmets themselves, and in this they have been very successful—their work has garnered them the attention, support and admiration of numerous organizations, parties and luminaries outside Syria (Russia and Iran, allies of Assad, being the notable exceptions).

nan said:

 This Scott Ritter article sure is an eye-opener on the White Helmets and propaganda in desperate need of an objective fact-check.

 What is there to be fact-checked? Ritter’s position is that the West and Al Qaeda are exploiting the White Helmets’ work for propaganda purposes, and that the White Helmets exploit the West for funding in return. Meanwhile, “the heroism of its members in rescuing Syrian civilians” continues.

I couldn’t tell if even Ritter was arguing for that work to stop just because others were making hay off it.

DaveSchmidt said:

nan said:
 This Scott Ritter article sure is an eye-opener on the White Helmets and propaganda in desperate need of an objective fact-check.

 What is there to be fact-checked? Ritter’s position is that the West and Al Qaeda are exploiting the White Helmets’ work for propaganda purposes, and that the White Helmets exploit the West for funding in return. Meanwhile, “the heroism of its members in rescuing Syrian civilians” continues.
I couldn’t tell if even Ritter was arguing for that work to stop just because others were making hay off it.

 If someone were to argue here that the White Helmets should stop rescuing people, and stop showing how Assad's forces are targeting civilians, I would disagree.

nan said:

 This Scott Ritter article sure is an eye-opener on the White Helmets and propaganda in desperate need of an objective fact-check.

 Note, too, that the article is almost exactly two years old. Whatever was desperately needed has probably been addressed somewhere by now.

DaveSchmidt said:

nan said:
 This Scott Ritter article sure is an eye-opener on the White Helmets and propaganda in desperate need of an objective fact-check.

 What is there to be fact-checked? Ritter’s position is that the West and Al Qaeda are exploiting the White Helmets’ work for propaganda purposes, and that the White Helmets exploit the West for funding in return. Meanwhile, “the heroism of its members in rescuing Syrian civilians” continues.
I couldn’t tell if even Ritter was arguing for that work to stop just because others were making hay off it.

 The White Helmets make all their own videos.  That's not an objective source.  We don't know how much is real and how much is staged.  

nohero said:

DaveSchmidt said:

nan said:
 This Scott Ritter article sure is an eye-opener on the White Helmets and propaganda in desperate need of an objective fact-check.

 What is there to be fact-checked? Ritter’s position is that the West and Al Qaeda are exploiting the White Helmets’ work for propaganda purposes, and that the White Helmets exploit the West for funding in return. Meanwhile, “the heroism of its members in rescuing Syrian civilians” continues.
I couldn’t tell if even Ritter was arguing for that work to stop just because others were making hay off it.

 If someone were to argue here that the White Helmets should stop rescuing people, and stop showing how Assad's forces are targeting civilians, I would disagree.

 No one argued for anything other than not taking propaganda at face value.  If the WH is making all their own videos, we cannot be sure they are real and not staged.  Since they are in favor of regime change, they are not neutral.  One should be skeptical, don't you think?   

DaveSchmidt said:

nan said:
 This Scott Ritter article sure is an eye-opener on the White Helmets and propaganda in desperate need of an objective fact-check.

 Note, too, that the article is almost exactly two years old. Whatever was desperately needed has probably been addressed somewhere by now.

 You got some new information showing the WH's to be neutral and only interested in rescuing people?

The "White Helmets are faking it" nonsense has been repeated in multiple threads, for nearly a year now.  About a month ago on this thread, it came up again.

nohero said:

bub said:
It may not be A Russian documentary but . . . 
https://medium.com/@Brian_Whit/vanessa-beeley-the-syrian-conflicts-goddess-of-propaganda-2c84f850dba4

 We've discussed Ms. Beeley before.  Back in December, I quoted from an article that debunked her and her smears..

Russian state media and a network of supportive alternative news sites continue to cast doubt on investigators’ findings, describing it as “illogical” and “deliberately staged” by militants. The alt-right site Infowars repeated the conspiracy theory, describing the attack as staged by the White Helmets, who were described as an “al-Qaida affiliated group funded by George Soros”. The White Helmets have never received funding from George Soros or any of his foundations.

Some of the most vocal sceptics of the UN’s investigation include the blogger Vanessa Beeley, the daughter of a former British diplomat who visited Syria for the first time in July 2016; a University of Sydney senior lecturer, Timothy Anderson, who described the April chemical attack as a “hoax”; and Eva Bartlett, a Canadian writer and activist who said the White Helmets staged rescues using recycled victims – a claim that’s been debunked by Snopes and Channel 4 News.

   The same two posters, Ms. Nan and Mr. Surovell, keep returning to those smears, as if the earlier refutations never happened.  It's "tiresome", to use a word that Mr. Surovell apparently doesn't like hearing from me.

As noted in the quote, George Soros is apparently the bogeyman funding the White Helmets and helping them support Al Qaeda.  Mr. Soros is also apparently funding anti-Kavanaugh protestors that the GOP calls an "angry mob".  Mr. Soros certainly does keep himself busy, at least in the eyes of conspiracy theorists.

nan said:

 You got some new information showing the WH's to be neutral and only interested in rescuing people?

 No. I was trying to be helpful in pointing out that there may be two years’ worth of objective material out there that could address this desperate need you raised, if you decided you wanted to look for it.

Ritter, for one, specifically stated that he wasn’t casting aspersions on what the White Helmets did in the field. I suppose it’s possible that his statement was just window dressing. Otherwise, it didn’t sound like he went as far as you in questioning whether their footage was faked.

nan said:

nohero said:
If someone were to argue here that the White Helmets should stop rescuing people, and stop showing how Assad's forces are targeting civilians, I would disagree.

 No one argued for anything other than not taking propaganda at face value.  If the WH is making all their own videos, we cannot be sure they are real and not staged.  Since they are in favor of regime change, they are not neutral.  One should be skeptical, don't you think?   

 See my post prior to this one for links to where we've already talked about this, over the course of some months.  I've nothing further to add.

nohero said:
The "White Helmets are faking it" nonsense has been repeated in multiple threads, for nearly a year now.  About a month ago on this thread, it came up again.

nohero said:

bub said:
It may not be A Russian documentary but . . . 
https://medium.com/@Brian_Whit/vanessa-beeley-the-syrian-conflicts-goddess-of-propaganda-2c84f850dba4

 We've discussed Ms. Beeley before.  Back in December, I quoted from an article that debunked her and her smears..

Russian state media and a network of supportive alternative news sites continue to cast doubt on investigators’ findings, describing it as “illogical” and “deliberately staged” by militants. The alt-right site Infowars repeated the conspiracy theory, describing the attack as staged by the White Helmets, who were described as an “al-Qaida affiliated group funded by George Soros”. The White Helmets have never received funding from George Soros or any of his foundations.

Some of the most vocal sceptics of the UN’s investigation include the blogger Vanessa Beeley, the daughter of a former British diplomat who visited Syria for the first time in July 2016; a University of Sydney senior lecturer, Timothy Anderson, who described the April chemical attack as a “hoax”; and Eva Bartlett, a Canadian writer and activist who said the White Helmets staged rescues using recycled victims – a claim that’s been debunked by Snopes and Channel 4 News.

   The same two posters, Ms. Nan and Mr. Surovell, keep returning to those smears, as if the earlier refutations never happened.  It's "tiresome", to use a word that Mr. Surovell apparently doesn't like hearing from me.
As noted in the quote, George Soros is apparently the bogeyman funding the White Helmets and helping them support Al Qaeda.  Mr. Soros is also apparently funding anti-Kavanaugh protestors that the GOP calls an "angry mob".  Mr. Soros certainly does keep himself busy, at least in the eyes of conspiracy theorists.

 I am not an expert on George Soros or his funding (did not hear that he funded the WH), but he did make his fortune over in Russia during the 1990's when vulture capitalists were buying up huge assets for pennies on the dollar and the Russian people were starving. I have heard that the Russians remember that and hate him.  I have also heard about one of the Russian Oligarch, Khordakovsky who funded the Magnitsky act being invoved with Soros, possibly to work on overthrowing Putin and replacing him with Khordakovsky.  I have not looked into this but, it is possible that Soros is somehow involved with this one, unlike the 100's of other things he is accused of funding, because he did make money in Russia and is anti-Putin and motivation for wanting to make more money in Russia looks possible.  Always good to be a skeptic and wait for real evidence, but sometimes theories turn out to be true.  It's not as nutty as saying he funded the first women's march (which I marched in and am still waiting for the check--come on George!).

nohero said:

nan said:

nohero said:
If someone were to argue here that the White Helmets should stop rescuing people, and stop showing how Assad's forces are targeting civilians, I would disagree.

 No one argued for anything other than not taking propaganda at face value.  If the WH is making all their own videos, we cannot be sure they are real and not staged.  Since they are in favor of regime change, they are not neutral.  One should be skeptical, don't you think?   

 See my post prior to this one for links to where we've already talked about this, over the course of some months.  I've nothing further to add.

Right, and I've talked about it as well and posted evidence against them.  I don't think Snopes or Wikipedia or the Guardian are valid as the last word on the White Helmets.  We are not going to agree on that, but eventually things will come out and we shall see.  I don't see how you can not be at least somewhat skeptical after all that has been posted.  Is there no doubt in your mind?

nan said:

 I am not an expert on George Soros or his funding (did not hear that he funded the WH), but he did make his fortune over in Russia during the 1990's when vulture capitalists were buying up huge assets for pennies on the dollar and the Russian people were starving. I have heard that the Russians remember that and hate him. 

You’re right, you’re not an expert on George Soros. He did not “make his fortune over in Russia during the 1990s.” He was already worth more than $100 million (nearly $300 million in today’s dollars) by 1981.

DaveSchmidt said:

nan said:

 I am not an expert on George Soros or his funding (did not hear that he funded the WH), but he did make his fortune over in Russia during the 1990's when vulture capitalists were buying up huge assets for pennies on the dollar and the Russian people were starving. I have heard that the Russians remember that and hate him. 

You’re right, you’re not an expert on George Soros. He did not “make his fortune over in Russia during the 1990s.” He was already worth more than $100 million (nearly $300 million in today’s dollars) by 1981.

 I don't know much about him, but he is very anti-Putin and he came up a lot when I was reading about Russia in the 1990's.  This is one of the articles I was thinking about:

The Harvard Boys Do Russia

https://www.thenation.com/article/harvard-boys-do-russia/

Anne Williamson, a journalist who specializes in Soviet and Russian affairs, details these and other conflicts of interest between H.I.I.D.’s advisers and their supposed clients–the Russian people–in her forthcoming book, How America Built the New Russian Oligarchy. For example, in 1995, in Chubais-organized insider auctions of prime national properties, known as loans-for-shares, the Harvard Management Company (H.M.C.), which invests the university’s endowment, and billionaire speculator George Soros were the only foreign entities allowed to participate. H.M.C. and Soros became significant shareholders in Novolipetsk, Russia’s second-largest steel mill, and Sidanko Oil, whose reserves exceed those of Mobil. H.M.C. and Soros also invested in Russia’s high-yielding, I.M.F.-subsidized domestic bond market.

Even more dubious, according to Williamson, was Soros’s July 1997 purchase of 24 percent of Sviazinvest, the telecommunications giant, in partnership with Uneximbank’s Vladimir Potanin. It was later learned that shortly before this purchase Soros had tided over Yeltsin’s government with a backdoor loan of hundreds of millions of dollars while the government was awaiting proceeds of a Eurobond issue; the loan now appears to have been used by Uneximbank to purchase Norilsk Nickel in August 1997. According to Williamson, the U.S. assistance program in Russia was rife with such conflicts of interest involving H.I.I.D. advisers and their U.S.A.I.D.-funded Chubais allies, H.M.C. managers, favored Russian bankers, Soros and insider expatriates working in Russia’s nascent markets.

DaveSchmidt said:

nan said:

 You got some new information showing the WH's to be neutral and only interested in rescuing people?

 No. I was trying to be helpful in pointing out that there may be two years’ worth of objective material out there that could address this desperate need you raised, if you decided you wanted to look for it.
Ritter, for one, specifically stated that he wasn’t casting aspersions on what the White Helmets did in the field. I suppose it’s possible that his statement was just window dressing. Otherwise, it didn’t sound like he went as far as you in questioning whether their footage was faked.

 I think in two years there is more awareness about propaganda surrounding Syria and arms deals and the reality of the "moderate" rebel.  Back then people just said you were a crazy conspiracy theorist for even doubting the White Helmets sincerity--and they made that award winning movie.  I think there is more open questioning now.  Do you now have some doubts, yourself?  At all?  Seems to be an obvious fairy tale to think they are as pure as driven snow or the color of their hats.  

nan said:

 I think in two years there is more awareness about propaganda surrounding Syria and arms deals and the reality of the "moderate" rebel.  Back then people just said you were a crazy conspiracy theorist for even doubting the White Helmets sincerity--and they made that award winning movie.  I think there is more open questioning now.  Do you now have some doubts, yourself?  At all?  Seems to be an obvious fairy tale to think they are as pure as driven snow or the color of their hats.  

 The easiest thing in the world is to raise questions and sow doubts, about almost anything. (If you’ve ever tried discussing climate change with a denier, you’ll get my drift.) It’s why we — being no experts — should take care in choosing the sources of information we trust. The sources I trust satisfy me that the White Helmets don’t have to be as pure as the driven snow in order to put to rest questions and doubts about their authenticity, motives and methods.

DaveSchmidt said:
This is how Ritter explains that assertion: (1) The White Helmets are not neutral actors but, rather, are decidedly and vocally anti-Assad. (2) This jibes with the goals of their Western benefactors, who are motivated to promote their work. (3) This promotion plays into the hands of the Qaeda-affiliated Nusra Front, which also shares that goal.
In other words, the White Helmets chose a side (or had a side chosen for them, according to Ritter’s account). Their heroics have been praised around the world. That makes them a recruiting vehicle for terrorists. Lesson: Either the White Helmets should have shut up, or the governments and Oscar-winning documentarians of the West should have.
That’s quite different from any implication that the White Helmets are serving as an active propaganda front for Al Qaeda.
Side note: Ritter, too, appears to like the phrase “hand in glove,” although he applies it to the White Helmets and the West, not WH and AQ: There is a symbiotic, hand-in-glove relationship between the anti-Assad rhetoric of the ostensibly “neutral and impartial” White Helmets and the policy objectives of their funders, a relationship that embodies the notion of a quid pro quo relationship between the two.

The "heroics" of the White Helmets are not the reason why Ritter and others (see Seymour Hersh video below) call the WH a propaganda organization. It's the sketchy videos they produce on Assad's alleged use of chemical weapons and the exploitation of their heroics to call for regime-change and an escalation of the war.

Ritter goes a lot further than you give him credit for on this:

Heroism, it seems, can cover myriad sins, even the collaboration with a designated terrorist group to fight a common enemy . . . 

[ . . . ]

There is no escaping the reality that, for all of their heroic rescue work, the White Helmets function as an effective propaganda arm of the anti-Assad movement

DaveSchmidt said:

paulsurovell said:

 Scott Ritter speaks truth to power. 

 Who knew, after all this time, that you were a fellow punster?

She must know that he's a pundit.

DaveSchmidt said:

nan said:

 I think in two years there is more awareness about propaganda surrounding Syria and arms deals and the reality of the "moderate" rebel.  Back then people just said you were a crazy conspiracy theorist for even doubting the White Helmets sincerity--and they made that award winning movie.  I think there is more open questioning now.  Do you now have some doubts, yourself?  At all?  Seems to be an obvious fairy tale to think they are as pure as driven snow or the color of their hats.  

 The easiest thing in the world is to raise questions and sow doubts, about almost anything. (If you’ve ever tried discussing climate change with a denier, you’ll get my drift.) It’s why we — being no experts — should take care in choosing the sources of information we trust. The sources I trust satisfy me that the White Helmets don’t have to be as pure as the driven snow in order to put to rest questions and doubts about their authenticity, motives and methods.

 I beg to differ. It's much easier to ride with the conventional view than to raise questions and sow doubts.

DaveSchmidt said:
“So what’s the comeback, now that I set it up?”
A recommendation of “A Mathematician Reads the Newspaper,” by John Allen Paulos. 
After all these estimates, errors and efforts to compare civilian kill rates in two different wars, it would shed light on the larger point: How innumeracy runs rampant, and why an awareness of its pitfalls, rather than a compulsion to push a narrative, could explain decisions not to report SOHR updates and other soft data as if they were hard news.

I think John would agree that the constant media mantra "500,000 Killed in Syria" needs to be fleshed out in terms of (a) its accuracy and (b) its component parts. And I'm sure that he would agree that the choice of which numbers to publish and which numbers to omit has to do with the emphasis, viewpoint -- or narrative -- that a newspaper wants to put forward.

I recall an earlier debate on whether the Dutch government decision to cut funding from the White Helmets and others had to do with more than accounting issues. Not sure if this article was cited, but I did a Google Translation of the Dutch-language article from the daily Volkskrant:

https://www.volkskrant.nl/nieuws-achtergrond/nederland-stopt-steun-aan-syrische-oppositie-wegens-gebrekkig-toezicht-op-hulpprojecten-britse-organisatie-ontkent-kritiek-~bda7b84e/

The Netherlands is stopping support for Syrian opposition due to inadequate supervision of aid projects; British organization denies criticism While the Idlib offensive is about to begin in Syria, the Netherlands is stopping support for rescue workers from the White Helmets. Almost all other support to opposition groups in Syria appears to have ended unexpectedly. Ana van Es 10 September 2018, 20:02 Minister Stef Blok (Foreign Affairs, VVD) and Sigrid Kaag (Development Cooperation, D66) shut down the money supply after a critical report from their own officials at Foreign Affairs.

According to the report, the Netherlands has not always exercised sufficient supervision of aid projects in the opposition area in Syria. There is a danger that rescue workers and police officers paid by the Netherlands will have ties with terror organizations such as the Syrian Al Qaeda subsidiary Hayat Tahrir al Sham. The heaviest criticism is focused on the White Helmets, the internationally celebrated rescue workers who pluck after bombing and shelling in the rebel area. According to their own task, more than 250 emergency workers have since been killed in this work.

The White Helmets were nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize in 2016. Previously they gained world fame after a Netflix documentary. The then minister Bert Koenders praised the rescue workers as 'incredibly courageous people'. In recent days, the White Helmets were, according to their Twitter account, at risk for their own lives, storing civilian victims in the rubble of Idlib. But according to the report of Foreign Affairs, which was sent to the Lower House on Friday, the supervision of the work of the White Helmets is 'below level'. There is a danger that Dutch money intended for the rescue workers may fall into the hands of extremist groups or be used for illegal trade.

It is the first time that a Western government states that there are problems with the project. The Syrian regime and Russia have accused the rescue workers for years of cooperation with terrorists and the staging of attacks with chemical weapons, but this is seen by western governments and independent investigators as a disinformation campaign by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and his Russian ally Putin. Now that the political opposition in Syria with the approaching Idlib offensive is in danger of being wiped off the map, according to Minister Blok there is no choice but to stop the aid to the White Helmets as quickly as possible. The rescue workers are still eligible for about 188 thousand euros in already committed subsidy [ . . . ]

nan said:

nohero said:

nan said:

nohero said:
If someone were to argue here that the White Helmets should stop rescuing people, and stop showing how Assad's forces are targeting civilians, I would disagree.

 No one argued for anything other than not taking propaganda at face value.  If the WH is making all their own videos, we cannot be sure they are real and not staged.  Since they are in favor of regime change, they are not neutral.  One should be skeptical, don't you think?   

 See my post prior to this one for links to where we've already talked about this, over the course of some months.  I've nothing further to add.

Right, and I've talked about it as well and posted evidence against them.  I don't think Snopes or Wikipedia or the Guardian are valid as the last word on the White Helmets.  We are not going to agree on that, but eventually things will come out and we shall see.  I don't see how you can not be at least somewhat skeptical after all that has been posted.  Is there no doubt in your mind?

See my post prior to the one you quoted.  Whatever "posted evidence" you claim is, in a word, garbage.  It was pointed out to you, but you keep returning to it.  Sorry to use the term "garbage", but when you challenge me "Is there no doubt in your mind?" I may as well be clear about why what you posted doesn't create doubt at all.

We can't be certain, but we can use our heads to not let garbage be part of what we consider.

And as Mr. DaveSchmidt pointed out already, you're completely misinformed about George Soros.  I would only add that there is "garbage evidence" out there which makes all the claims that you've been hoodwinked by about him, especially the part about earning his fortune in the collapse of the Soviet Union.  Also, before you mention it, he was not a Nazi collaborator.

nan said:

 I am not an expert on George Soros or his funding (did not hear that he funded the WH), but he did make his fortune over in Russia during the 1990's when vulture capitalists were buying up huge assets for pennies on the dollar and the Russian people were starving. I have heard that the Russians remember that and hate him.  

With all due respect, an argument that consists of "let me use a machine translation and then explain to you the meaning of the words" isn't going to be given much weight, FYI.

paulsurovell said:
I recall an earlier debate on whether the Dutch government decision to cut funding from the White Helmets and others had to do with more than accounting issues. Not sure if this article was cited, but I did a Google Translation of the Dutch-language article from the daily Volkskrant:
https://www.volkskrant.nl/nieuws-achtergrond/nederland-stopt-steun-aan-syrische-oppositie-wegens-gebrekkig-toezicht-op-hulpprojecten-britse-organisatie-ontkent-kritiek-~bda7b84e/

The Netherlands is stopping support for Syrian opposition due to inadequate supervision of aid projects; British organization denies criticism While the Idlib offensive is about to begin in Syria, the Netherlands is stopping support for rescue workers from the White Helmets. Almost all other support to opposition groups in Syria appears to have ended unexpectedly. Ana van Es 10 September 2018, 20:02 Minister Stef Blok (Foreign Affairs, VVD) and Sigrid Kaag (Development Cooperation, D66) shut down the money supply after a critical report from their own officials at Foreign Affairs.

According to the report, the Netherlands has not always exercised sufficient supervision of aid projects in the opposition area in Syria. There is a danger that rescue workers and police officers paid by the Netherlands will have ties with terror organizations such as the Syrian Al Qaeda subsidiary Hayat Tahrir al Sham. The heaviest criticism is focused on the White Helmets, the internationally celebrated rescue workers who pluck after bombing and shelling in the rebel area. According to their own task, more than 250 emergency workers have since been killed in this work.

The White Helmets were nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize in 2016. Previously they gained world fame after a Netflix documentary. The then minister Bert Koenders praised the rescue workers as 'incredibly courageous people'. In recent days, the White Helmets were, according to their Twitter account, at risk for their own lives, storing civilian victims in the rubble of Idlib. But according to the report of Foreign Affairs, which was sent to the Lower House on Friday, the supervision of the work of the White Helmets is 'below level'. There is a danger that Dutch money intended for the rescue workers may fall into the hands of extremist groups or be used for illegal trade.

It is the first time that a Western government states that there are problems with the project. The Syrian regime and Russia have accused the rescue workers for years of cooperation with terrorists and the staging of attacks with chemical weapons, but this is seen by western governments and independent investigators as a disinformation campaign by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and his Russian ally Putin. Now that the political opposition in Syria with the approaching Idlib offensive is in danger of being wiped off the map, according to Minister Blok there is no choice but to stop the aid to the White Helmets as quickly as possible. The rescue workers are still eligible for about 188 thousand euros in already committed subsidy [ . . . ]

paulsurovell said:

DaveSchmidt said:
“So what’s the comeback, now that I set it up?”
A recommendation of “A Mathematician Reads the Newspaper,” by John Allen Paulos. 
After all these estimates, errors and efforts to compare civilian kill rates in two different wars, it would shed light on the larger point: How innumeracy runs rampant, and why an awareness of its pitfalls, rather than a compulsion to push a narrative, could explain decisions not to report SOHR updates and other soft data as if they were hard news.

I think John would agree that the constant media mantra "500,000 Killed in Syria" needs to be fleshed out in terms of (a) its accuracy and (b) its component parts. And I'm sure that he would agree that the choice of which numbers to publish and which numbers to omit has to do with the emphasis, viewpoint -- or narrative -- that a newspaper wants to put forward.

Doesn't seem like you've read any of Professor Paulos' work.  Numbers do have to be given context, that's for sure.  But that's not a defense of what you've written with your number mumbo jumbo (or "Gish Gallop" as Mr. Sbenois keeps reminding).

paulsurovell said:

DaveSchmidt said:

nan said:

 I think in two years there is more awareness about propaganda surrounding Syria and arms deals and the reality of the "moderate" rebel.  Back then people just said you were a crazy conspiracy theorist for even doubting the White Helmets sincerity--and they made that award winning movie.  I think there is more open questioning now.  Do you now have some doubts, yourself?  At all?  Seems to be an obvious fairy tale to think they are as pure as driven snow or the color of their hats.  

 The easiest thing in the world is to raise questions and sow doubts, about almost anything. (If you’ve ever tried discussing climate change with a denier, you’ll get my drift.) It’s why we — being no experts — should take care in choosing the sources of information we trust. The sources I trust satisfy me that the White Helmets don’t have to be as pure as the driven snow in order to put to rest questions and doubts about their authenticity, motives and methods.

 I beg to differ. It's much easier to ride with the conventional view than to raise questions and sow doubts.

I think that in 2018, any sensible media consumer knows that it's very easy to sow doubts with little actual evidence to back it up.  There are too many to list, but I'll mention Trump's Muslim and immigrant scare tactics and the depressing number of people who embrace his dark lies.

Just want to chime in here and say congratulations to our two Bernie/Jill Davidians for their victory in getting Kavanaugh onto the Supreme Court.   Women all across the country thank you.

paulsurovell said:
I recall an earlier debate on whether the Dutch government decision to cut funding from the White Helmets and others had to do with more than accounting issues. Not sure if this article was cited, but I did a Google Translation of the Dutch-language article from the daily Volkskrant:
https://www.volkskrant.nl/nieuws-achtergrond/nederland-stopt-steun-aan-syrische-oppositie-wegens-gebrekkig-toezicht-op-hulpprojecten-britse-organisatie-ontkent-kritiek-~bda7b84e/

That was unnecessary. English is widely spoken in the Netherlands. The August government report, which I believe I mentioned before, is available in that language.

paulsurovell said:

And I'm sure that he would agree that the choice of which numbers to publish and which numbers to omit has to do with the emphasis, viewpoint -- or narrative -- that a newspaper wants to put forward.

 Your certainty about Dr. Paulos’s concurrence aside, those three terms aren’t synonyms.

DaveSchmidt said:

nan said:
 This Scott Ritter article sure is an eye-opener on the White Helmets and propaganda in desperate need of an objective fact-check.

 What is there to be fact-checked? Ritter’s position is that the West and Al Qaeda are exploiting the White Helmets’ work for propaganda purposes, and that the White Helmets exploit the West for funding in return. Meanwhile, “the heroism of its members in rescuing Syrian civilians” continues.
I couldn’t tell if even Ritter was arguing for that work to stop just because others were making hay off it.

 This was my read, too. I was confused by Nan's interpretation.

paulsurovell said:

The "heroics" of the White Helmets are not the reason why Ritter and others (see Seymour Hersh video below) call the WH a propaganda organization. It's the sketchy videos they produce on Assad's alleged use of chemical weapons and the exploitation of their heroics to call for regime-change and an escalation of the war.
Ritter goes a lot further than you give him credit for on this:

Heroism, it seems, can cover myriad sins, even the collaboration with a designated terrorist group to fight a common enemy . . . 

[ . . . ]

There is no escaping the reality that, for all of their heroic rescue work, the White Helmets function as an effective propaganda arm of the anti-Assad movement

 And what, according to Ritter, is that collaboration? How, according to Ritter, does the propaganda function? I can’t speak for Ritter the way you spoke for Paulos, but I’m reading him differently from the way you are, which I hope I’ve already explained.