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

Patrick Cockburn assesses the agreement between Russia and Turkey to establish a demilitarized zone in Idlib:

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/syrian-ceasefire-turkey-russia-erdogan-putin-trump-a8548871.html

Doubts about the accord are understandable because, if it is implemented, the anti-Assad groups in Idlib will be defanged militarily. They will see a demilitarised zone policed by Russia and Turkey eat into their territory, “radical terrorist groups” removed, and heavy weapons ranging from tanks to mortars withdrawn. The rebels will lose their control of the two main highways crossing Idlib and linking the government held cities of Aleppo, Latakia and Hama.

There is a striking note of imperial self-confidence about the document in which all sides in the Syrian civil war are instructed to come to heel. This may not happen quite as intended because it is difficult to see why fighters of al-Qaeda-type groups like Hayat Tahrir al-Sham should voluntarily give up such military leverage as they still possess. The Syrian government has said that it will comply with the agreement but may calculate that, in the not so long term, it will be able to slice up Idlib bit by bit as it did with other rebel enclaves.

paulsurovell said:

Not sure what point you're making.

 What I’m suggesting is that you’ve said more than “the WH must cooperate with AQ in order to operate in areas they control.”

DaveSchmidt said:

paulsurovell said:

Not sure what point you're making.

 What I’m suggesting is that you’ve said more than “the WH must cooperate with AQ in order to operate in areas they control.”
:

Of course I've said more, and it's all on this thread. Still not sure what point you're making.

paulsurovell said:
Still not sure what point you're making.

PVW noted that you had accused White Helmets of working alongside Al Qaeda. You replied that you had said WH must cooperate with AQ. I chimed in that you had gone further than that. I may have added a “Phooey.” Or a “Pshaw.” I forget.

Anyway, that was the only point: that if all you had said was that WH cooperated with AQ, your assertion might have passed without much, if any, pushback.

DaveSchmidt said:

paulsurovell said:
Still not sure what point you're making.

PVW noted that you had accused White Helmets of working alongside Al Qaeda. You replied that you had said WH must cooperate with AQ. I chimed in that you had gone further than that. I may have added a “Phooey.” Or a “Pshaw.” I forget.
Anyway, that was the only point: that if all you had said was that WH cooperated with AQ, your assertion might have passed without much, if any, pushback.

I don't see pushback as a bad thing. It often helps clarify an issue. What I've written on the White Helmets is itself pushback against the MSM narrative.

If a little pushback has clarified that this comment — “what I’ve said is that the WH must cooperate with AQ in order to operate in areas they control” — shortchanged your reproaches of the White Helmets, then huzzah.

DaveSchmidt said:
If a little pushback has clarified that this comment — “what I’ve said is that the WH must cooperate with AQ in order to operate in areas they control” — shortchanged your reproaches of the White Helmets, then huzzah.

Stay tuned.

paulsurovell said:

I don't see pushback as a bad thing. It often helps clarify an issue. What I've written on the White Helmets is itself pushback against the MSM narrative.

 What specific "MSM narrative" are you "pushing back" at?  Is it the narrative that the White Helmets don't fake footage?  Is it the narrative that they're noncombatants and not terrorists?  Or something else?

South_Mountaineer said:

paulsurovell said:
I don't see pushback as a bad thing. It often helps clarify an issue. What I've written on the White Helmets is itself pushback against the MSM narrative.

 What specific "MSM narrative" are you "pushing back" at?  Is it the narrative that the White Helmets don't fake footage?  Is it the narrative that they're noncombatants and not terrorists?  Or something else?

The narrative that supports the goal of regime-change in Syria and the various distortions and omissions that are used to promote that goal. The failure to report the truth about casualties, downplaying the role of Al Qaeda and omission of dissenting views by experts and reporters on the alleged Syrian chemical attacks, are three of the main themes.  The role of the White Helmets is a secondary issue that falls under the MSM's downplaying the role of Al Qaeda.

paulsurovell said:

South_Mountaineer said:

paulsurovell said:
I don't see pushback as a bad thing. It often helps clarify an issue. What I've written on the White Helmets is itself pushback against the MSM narrative.

 What specific "MSM narrative" are you "pushing back" at?  Is it the narrative that the White Helmets don't fake footage?  Is it the narrative that they're noncombatants and not terrorists?  Or something else?

The narrative that supports the goal of regime-change in Syria and the various distortions and omissions that are used to promote that goal. The failure to report the truth about casualties, downplaying the role of Al Qaeda and omission of dissenting views by experts and reporters on the alleged Syrian chemical attacks, are three of the main themes.  The role of the White Helmets is a secondary issue that falls under the MSM's downplaying the role of Al Qaeda.

The White Helmets can't be that much of a secondary issue, since your own post says that you're writing about them as "pushback".  So your answer confirms that since you think "the role of Al Qaeda" is downplayed, you are pushing back on the position that the White Helmets DON'T fake footage -- calling it fake footage is one of the claims of the Syrian government and others who say the rebels are just terrorists.  You're also pushing back on the position that the White Helmets really are noncombatants who are there to rescue people, and not terrorists making up stories about the Syrian government bombings.  I think you're falling for the propaganda that the Syrian government and its supporters want you to fall for.

South_Mountaineer said:

paulsurovell said:

South_Mountaineer said:

paulsurovell said:
I don't see pushback as a bad thing. It often helps clarify an issue. What I've written on the White Helmets is itself pushback against the MSM narrative.

 What specific "MSM narrative" are you "pushing back" at?  Is it the narrative that the White Helmets don't fake footage?  Is it the narrative that they're noncombatants and not terrorists?  Or something else?

The narrative that supports the goal of regime-change in Syria and the various distortions and omissions that are used to promote that goal. The failure to report the truth about casualties, downplaying the role of Al Qaeda and omission of dissenting views by experts and reporters on the alleged Syrian chemical attacks, are three of the main themes.  The role of the White Helmets is a secondary issue that falls under the MSM's downplaying the role of Al Qaeda.

The White Helmets can't be that much of a secondary issue, since your own post says that you're writing about them as "pushback".  So your answer confirms that since you think "the role of Al Qaeda" is downplayed, you are pushing back on the position that the White Helmets DON'T fake footage -- calling it fake footage is one of the claims of the Syrian government and others who say the rebels are just terrorists.  You're also pushing back on the position that the White Helmets really are noncombatants who are there to rescue people, and not terrorists making up stories about the Syrian government bombings.  I think you're falling for the propaganda that the Syrian government and its supporters want you to fall for.

Scott Ritter wrote a long analysis of the White Helmets in 2016 that I recommend reading in full. Here's an excerpt:

https://www.truthdig.com/articles/the-white-helmets-and-the-inherent-contradiction-of-americas-syria-policy/

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).

A Magnet for Terror

The compelling way in which the White Helmets document the horrors of the Syrian civil war enables people like Samantha Power to score political points at the United Nations and elsewhere. But the message is a double-edged sword, as it also ably shines a spotlight on the very actions the anti-Assad forces use to justify their resistance—especially Al Nusra Front and Islamic State, in both of whose territory the White Helmets freely operate. As U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry has said, “There is no one who has done more to make Syria a magnet for terrorism than Bashar al-Assad.” Or put another way, the United States is the No. 1 funder and facilitator of one of the most effective recruiting tools used by terrorists inside Syria today—the White Helmets.

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reports that less than half of the fatalities from Russian bombing in Syria over the last 3 years have been civilians. The SOHR estimates total killed by Russian bombs and artillery at 18,096, of which 7,988 were civilians, the remainder were rebel fighters. US coalition bombing has killed 3,300 Syrian civilians, according to the SOHR.

This report will likely go down as another MSM omission, because it undermines the MSM narrative Russia deliberately targets civilians, because if that were true, far more than 7,988 would have been killed over three years.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/russia-strikes-on-syria-kill-18000-including-7988-civilians-monitor/

Your empathy for those 8000 killed and their families is deeply moving. If anyone suggests your posts are callous attempts to justify violence, ignore them. If someone says you hold more ire toward the MSM--or suggests that such shorthand is lazy and meaningless--than you do the murderers, pay them no mind.

War is peace.

paulsurovell said:

The compelling way in which the White Helmets document the horrors of the Syrian civil war enables people like Samantha Power to score political points at the United Nations and elsewhere. But the message is a double-edged sword, as it also ably shines a spotlight on the very actions the anti-Assad forces use to justify their resistance—especially Al Nusra Front and Islamic State, in both of whose territory the White Helmets freely operate. As U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry has said, “There is no one who has done more to make Syria a magnet for terrorism than Bashar al-Assad.” Or put another way, the United States is the No. 1 funder and facilitator of one of the most effective recruiting tools used by terrorists inside Syria today—the White Helmets.

So it's the fault of the truth-tellers that fighters are recruited to oppose a murderous regime.  And here I thought that the murderous regime and its enablers would be the ones at fault.

dave23 said:
Your empathy for those 8000 killed and their families is deeply moving. If anyone suggests your posts are callous attempts to justify violence, ignore them. If someone says you hold more ire toward the MSM--or suggests that such shorthand is lazy and meaningless--than you do the murderers, pay them no mind.
War is peace.

 You seem to have overlooked the 3,000 killed by your tax dollars. Lack of empathy?

paulsurovell said:

dave23 said:
Your empathy for those 8000 killed and their families is deeply moving. If anyone suggests your posts are callous attempts to justify violence, ignore them. If someone says you hold more ire toward the MSM--or suggests that such shorthand is lazy and meaningless--than you do the murderers, pay them no mind.
War is peace.

 You seem to have overlooked the 3,000 killed by your tax dollars. Lack of empathy?

No, Mr. dave23 did not.  He just didn't go along with your "whataboutism".

By the way, since you haven't responded to Mr. dave23 yet, I have time to add a request.  Please enlighten us with the basis for your expert opinion as to how many civilians would have been killed if the "MSM" position about Russian bombing isn't correct, as you stated here:

paulsurovell said:

This report will likely go down as another MSM omission, because it undermines the MSM narrative Russia deliberately targets civilians, because if that were true, far more than 7,988 would have been killed over three years.

paulsurovell said:

dave23 said:
Your empathy for those 8000 killed and their families is deeply moving. If anyone suggests your posts are callous attempts to justify violence, ignore them. If someone says you hold more ire toward the MSM--or suggests that such shorthand is lazy and meaningless--than you do the murderers, pay them no mind.
War is peace.

 You seem to have overlooked the 3,000 killed by your tax dollars. Lack of empathy?

 It wasn't my point, as you know. I'm more tired of the war-by-proxy than you'll ever be.

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:
The compelling way in which the White Helmets document the horrors of the Syrian civil war enables people like Samantha Power to score political points at the United Nations and elsewhere. But the message is a double-edged sword, as it also ably shines a spotlight on the very actions the anti-Assad forces use to justify their resistance—especially Al Nusra Front and Islamic State, in both of whose territory the White Helmets freely operate. As U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry has said, “There is no one who has done more to make Syria a magnet for terrorism than Bashar al-Assad.” Or put another way, the United States is the No. 1 funder and facilitator of one of the most effective recruiting tools used by terrorists inside Syria today—the White Helmets.

So it's the fault of the truth-tellers that fighters are recruited to oppose a murderous regime.  And here I thought that the murderous regime and its enablers would be the ones at fault.

It's rather circular -- PR by WH helps AQ recruit fighters for more war thus more PR and more recruiting etc.

If you care about the Syrian people, this is the solution:

dave23 said:

paulsurovell said:

dave23 said:
Your empathy for those 8000 killed and their families is deeply moving. If anyone suggests your posts are callous attempts to justify violence, ignore them. If someone says you hold more ire toward the MSM--or suggests that such shorthand is lazy and meaningless--than you do the murderers, pay them no mind.
War is peace.

 You seem to have overlooked the 3,000 killed by your tax dollars. Lack of empathy?

 It wasn't my point, as you know. I'm more tired of the war-by-proxy than you'll ever be.

 You made a good point -- you did what you accused me of doing. Not the first time.

paulsurovell said:

dave23 said:

paulsurovell said:

dave23 said:
Your empathy for those 8000 killed and their families is deeply moving. If anyone suggests your posts are callous attempts to justify violence, ignore them. If someone says you hold more ire toward the MSM--or suggests that such shorthand is lazy and meaningless--than you do the murderers, pay them no mind.
War is peace.

 You seem to have overlooked the 3,000 killed by your tax dollars. Lack of empathy?

 It wasn't my point, as you know. I'm more tired of the war-by-proxy than you'll ever be.

 You made a good point -- you did what you accused me of doing. Not the first time.

 Your point of emphasis that "less than half" of those killed were civilians and that the media are big and bad made your intent clear.

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:

dave23 said:
Your empathy for those 8000 killed and their families is deeply moving. If anyone suggests your posts are callous attempts to justify violence, ignore them. If someone says you hold more ire toward the MSM--or suggests that such shorthand is lazy and meaningless--than you do the murderers, pay them no mind.
War is peace.

 You seem to have overlooked the 3,000 killed by your tax dollars. Lack of empathy?

No, Mr. dave23 did not.  He just didn't go along with your "whataboutism".
By the way, since you haven't responded to Mr. dave23 yet, I have time to add a request.  Please enlighten us with the basis for your expert opinion as to how many civilians would have been killed if the "MSM" position about Russian bombing isn't correct, as you stated here:

paulsurovell said:

This report will likely go down as another MSM omission, because it undermines the MSM narrative Russia deliberately targets civilians, because if that were true, far more than 7,988 would have been killed over three years.

 

Not an expert, but it seems reasonable that if the Russian Air Force had deliberately targeted civilians for three years it would have killed more than 7.3 civilians per day (7,988 civilians / 1095 days).

Your cold-blooded calculations--and the deliberate avoidance of discussing Assad's killing of civilians--reminds me of you dismissal of Human Rights Watch's work on this topic because it didn't fit your narrative.

dave23 said:

paulsurovell said:

dave23 said:

paulsurovell said:

dave23 said:
Your empathy for those 8000 killed and their families is deeply moving. If anyone suggests your posts are callous attempts to justify violence, ignore them. If someone says you hold more ire toward the MSM--or suggests that such shorthand is lazy and meaningless--than you do the murderers, pay them no mind.
War is peace.

 You seem to have overlooked the 3,000 killed by your tax dollars. Lack of empathy?

 It wasn't my point, as you know. I'm more tired of the war-by-proxy than you'll ever be.

 You made a good point -- you did what you accused me of doing. Not the first time.

 Your point of emphasis that "less than half" of those killed were civilians and that the media are big and bad made your intent clear.

Right. I stated two facts: (1) less than half of those killed by Russian bombs were civilians and (2) this is unlikely to be reported in the media.

(1) suggests Russia targets rebel fighters embedded with civilians (2) suggests Americans are being misled by Media regime-change narrative that Russia targets civilians.

dave23 said:
Your cold-blooded calculations--and the deliberate avoidance of discussing Assad's killing of civilians--reminds me of you dismissal of Human Rights Watch's work on this topic because it didn't fit your narrative.

 Statistics are cold. But they help bring out the truth.  And the latest SOHR casualty figures speak volumes about what is happening in Syria and their omission by the MSM speaks volumes about its coverage.

I keep missing this regime-change narrative you go on and on about. The number of civilians killed has been reported. I just think that the spin you want--that it's "only" half, as if their lives don't matter--is not being emphasized enough to your liking. 

dave23 said:
I keep missing this regime-change narrative you go on and on about. The number of civilians killed has been reported. I just think that the spin you want--that it's "only" half, as if their lives don't matter--is not being emphasized enough to your liking. 

 Where were these numbers reported?

paulsurovell said:

dave23 said:
I keep missing this regime-change narrative you go on and on about. The number of civilians killed has been reported. I just think that the spin you want--that it's "only" half, as if their lives don't matter--is not being emphasized enough to your liking. 

 Where were these numbers reported?

A quick search shows Business Insider the Independent specifically cite the organization and their brand new report. (It came out yesterday, but your outrage has been there longer.)

Looking forward to your seeing the "MSM's narrative" about regime change.

Be About Protecting Russia.

This discussion is very close to going into the Alternate new and Russia subforum.  Show your support be liking this post.

dave23 said:

paulsurovell said:

dave23 said:
I keep missing this regime-change narrative you go on and on about. The number of civilians killed has been reported. I just think that the spin you want--that it's "only" half, as if their lives don't matter--is not being emphasized enough to your liking. 

 Where were these numbers reported?

A quick search shows Business Insider the Independent specifically cite the organization and their brand new report. (It came out yesterday, but your outrage has been there longer.)
Looking forward to your seeing the "MSM's narrative" about regime change.

 Right, ignored by the MSM.