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

paulsurovell said:
Actually, it's on the spectrum of the censorship, book-burning, Big Brother mentality that demonizes views that dissent from the official narrative. Kind of like the way you see things.

 LMAO

@nohero: "Well, that's funny, because I happen to have the author of that New York Times article right here."

Janine di Giovanni: " I saw what you were saying. You know nothing of what's going on there.  It's not about regime change. It's about saving civilian lives. If you can not see that, you are more moronic and complicit than those you support."

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:
 The short answer is that @nohero assumes that Al Qaeda is not responsible for the breakdown of the demilitarized zone cease-fire agreement.
This is typical of @nohero because his position is based on denial of the fact that Al Qaeda dominates the remaining regime-change forces and controls Idlib and that he is opposed to the regime forces attacking Al Qaeda in support of Trump's declaration.
Sympathy for civilians apparently doesn't include the civilians terrorized and killed by the Al Qaeda forces in Syria. In fact, in the op-ed piece cited there is no mention of Al Qaeda in Idlib.
I wonder why.

Somebody got royally spanked, by the author of the NY Times article about Assad's war crimes in Idlib, on the Twitter for making that argument.
https://twitter.com/janinedigi/status/1137006295993724930?s=20

South_Mountaineer said:
@nohero: "Well, that's funny, because I happen to have the author of that New York Times article right here."
Janine di Giovanni: " I saw what you were saying. You know nothing of what's going on there.  It's not about regime change. It's about saving civilian lives. If you can not see that, you are more moronic and complicit than those you support."

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:
 The short answer is that @nohero assumes that Al Qaeda is not responsible for the breakdown of the demilitarized zone cease-fire agreement.
This is typical of @nohero because his position is based on denial of the fact that Al Qaeda dominates the remaining regime-change forces and controls Idlib and that he is opposed to the regime forces attacking Al Qaeda in support of Trump's declaration.
Sympathy for civilians apparently doesn't include the civilians terrorized and killed by the Al Qaeda forces in Syria. In fact, in the op-ed piece cited there is no mention of Al Qaeda in Idlib.
I wonder why.

Somebody got royally spanked, by the author of the NY Times article about Assad's war crimes in Idlib, on the Twitter for making that argument.
https://twitter.com/janinedigi/status/1137006295993724930?s=20

 

I pointed out to Janine that her concern over civilian lives seemed selective since she hasn't expressed similar concern over Syrian civilian lives lost from massive bombing a short distance away at the hands of Trump, May and Macron (Raqqa)

Janine has an agenda behind her selective humanitarianism: regime-change, the pursuit of which will prolong and increase the amount of civilian suffering and death in Syria.

She blocked me after I posted a couple of links (which I'll share later) and this:

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2019/04/syria-unprecedented-investigation-reveals-us-led-coalition-killed-more-than-1600-civilians-in-raqqa-death-trap/

ridski said:

paulsurovell said:
Actually, it's on the spectrum of the censorship, book-burning, Big Brother mentality that demonizes views that dissent from the official narrative. Kind of like the way you see things.

 LMAO
 

For the record my only communication with Janine was to respond to comments she made on a thread I was on, which I'll share later.

paulsurovell said:
For the record my only communication with Janine was to respond to comments she made on a thread I was on, which I'll share later.

 No need. I read it. Still lmao.

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:
 The short answer is that @nohero assumes that Al Qaeda is not responsible for the breakdown of the demilitarized zone cease-fire agreement.
This is typical of @nohero because his position is based on denial of the fact that Al Qaeda dominates the remaining regime-change forces and controls Idlib and that he is opposed to the regime forces attacking Al Qaeda in support of Trump's declaration.
Sympathy for civilians apparently doesn't include the civilians terrorized and killed by the Al Qaeda forces in Syria. In fact, in the op-ed piece cited there is no mention of Al Qaeda in Idlib.
I wonder why.

Somebody got royally spanked, by the author of the NY Times article about Assad's war crimes in Idlib, on the Twitter for making that argument.
https://twitter.com/janinedigi/status/1137006295993724930?s=20

 Oh that is just BRUTAL.   

OUCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

vv

For good measure. 

PVW said:
And on consensus -- how do we define this?

I just saw this and I thought of your question:

https://www.un.org/press/en/2018/ga12086.doc.htm?link_id=6&can_id=adf112a108ce7fc38882c5f852188117&source=email-cuba-embargo-denounced-at-un-violates-sovereignty-and-freedom-of-travel&email_referrer=email_559457&email_subject=cuba-embargo-denounced-at-un-violates-sovereignty-and-freedom-of-travel

By a recorded vote of 189 in favour to 2 against (Israel, United States), with no abstentions, the Assembly adopted the resolution titled “Necessity of ending the economic, commercial and financial embargo imposed by the United States of America against Cuba” (document A/73/L.3).

paulsurovell said:

For the record my only communication with Janine was to respond to comments she made on a thread I was on, which I'll share later.

“That does not justify the killing of civilians, but ...”

“It doesn’t justify Idlib but ...”

... but I exposed another hyprocrite! I win!

So here's the twitter exchange between me and Janine Di Giovanni. She wrote a piece about Syrian govt and Russian attacks on Idlib without mentioning that Al Qaeda's control of Idlib -- in violation of the cease-fire agreement between Russia and Turkey -- was the determining factor behind the attacks. Like most regime-change advocates, Ms. Di Giovanni likes to airbrush the role of Al Qaeda as a factor in these attacks, which is similar to the role of ISIS in the US-French-UK attacks in Raqqa.

Not surprisingly, what seemed to push Janine over the edge was the Jeffrey Sachs video which blames the continued insurrection on the CIA and calls on Trump to get out of Syria. That was the real spanking.

Here are the various links that Di Giovanni couldn't take:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/04/13/jeffrey_sachs_to_president_trump_please_get_us_out_of_syria_weve_done_enough_damage.html

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2019/04/syria-unprecedented-investigation-reveals-us-led-coalition-killed-more-than-1600-civilians-in-raqqa-death-trap/

https://lobelog.com/the-real-plight-of-idlibs-civilians/

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/26/world/middleeast/syria-war-idlib.html

.

"Award Winning NY Times author refuses to go galloping with an idiot, blocks him on twitter"

In this corner...

Janine di Giovanni is an author, foreign correspondent, a 2019 Guggenheim Fellow , and a current Senior Fellow at Yale University's Jackson Institute for Global Affairs. Prior to that, she was an Edward R. Murrow fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.

She is a regular contributor to The Times, Vanity Fair, Granta, The New York Times, and The Guardian. She is a consultant on Syria for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and a Senior Policy Manager/Advisor at the Centre for Conflict, Resolution and Recovery for the School of Public Policy at Central European University.

Di Giovanni has written a number of books and made two long format documentaries for the BBC. She is herself a subject in the documentary films No Man's Land (1993), Bearing Witness (2005) and 7 Days in Syria (2015).

In 2013, di Giovanni was named one of the 100 most influential people in the world of armed violence by the organization Action on Armed Violence (AOAV). She has won various other awards: National Magazine Award, Amnesty International Award, Granada Television's What the Papers Say Foreign Correspondent of the Year, Spear's (UK) Book Awards: Memoir of the Year, The Nation Institute National Headliner Award, Courage in Journalism Award, and Hay medal for prose. In 2019, she received the Guggenheim Fellowship.

In the other corner:

Guy on couch sitting at his computer staring at google results, a kale and carrot smoothie on the end table, and a 45,000 long page storyboard that he adds to with each new "idiotic" post.  

di Giovanni comes out jabbing, her opponent counters by swinging in every direction possible....di Giovanni has had enough and IT'S OVAH!

"I can't read your idiocy any longer"

paulsurovell said:

Not surprisingly, what seemed to push Janine over the edge was the Jeffrey Sachs video which blames the continued insurrection on the CIA and calls on Trump to get out of Syria. That was the real spanking.

It's pretty clear that she was very specific, that  what "put her over the edge" (just another one of Paul's insults) was Paul himself - ranting about Trump and the CIA, and not holding Assad accountable for his government's war crimes.

sbenois said:
 
"Award Winning NY Times author refuses to go galloping with an idiot, blocks him on twitter"


 
In this corner...

Janine di Giovanni is an author, foreign correspondent, a 2019 Guggenheim Fellow , and a current Senior Fellow at Yale University's Jackson Institute for Global Affairs. Prior to that, she was an Edward R. Murrow fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.
She is a regular contributor to The Times, Vanity Fair, Granta, The New York Times, and The Guardian. She is a consultant on Syria for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and a Senior Policy Manager/Advisor at the Centre for Conflict, Resolution and Recovery for the School of Public Policy at Central European University.
Di Giovanni has written a number of books and made two long format documentaries for the BBC. She is herself a subject in the documentary films No Man's Land (1993), Bearing Witness (2005) and 7 Days in Syria (2015).
In 2013, di Giovanni was named one of the 100 most influential people in the world of armed violence by the organization Action on Armed Violence (AOAV). She has won various other awards: National Magazine Award, Amnesty International Award, Granada Television's What the Papers Say Foreign Correspondent of the Year, Spear's (UK) Book Awards: Memoir of the Year, The Nation Institute National Headliner Award, Courage in Journalism Award, and Hay medal for prose. In 2019, she received the Guggenheim Fellowship.


In the other corner:


Guy on couch sitting at his computer staring at google results, a kale and carrot smoothie on the end table, and a 45,000 long page storyboard that he adds to with each new "idiotic" post.  


di Giovanni comes out jabbing, her opponent counters by swinging in every direction possible....di Giovanni has had enough and IT'S OVAH!
"I can't read your idiocy any longer"

 An "award-winning journalist" who is a shill for the establishment. They are a dime a dozen.

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:

Not surprisingly, what seemed to push Janine over the edge was the Jeffrey Sachs video which blames the continued insurrection on the CIA and calls on Trump to get out of Syria. That was the real spanking.

It's pretty clear that she was very specific, that  what "put her over the edge" (just another one of Paul's insults) was Paul himself - ranting about Trump and the CIA, and not holding Assad accountable for his government's war crimes.

 She wrote an article that talked about bombing but omitted the reason for the bombing. That's journalistic malpractice. And when confronted on her selective humanitarianism she had a melt-down and ran away.

The article was about the tactic of bombing hospitals, and she explains why. But please, continue to justify the bombing of hospitals, Peace Activist.

Nothing like having an award winning NY Times journalist basically tell you that you have blood on your hands.   

Peace activist indeed.

OUCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It doesn’t justify the tactic of bombing hospitals, but civilians are still only a fraction of the deaths in Syria’s war.

ridski said:
The article was about the tactic of bombing hospitals, and she explains why. But please, continue to justify the bombing of hospitals, Peace Activist.

The article doesn't discuss the "tactic of bombing hospitals" because it doesn't discuss why the hospitals have been bombed:

https://www.patreon.com/posts/peter-fords-on-27455053?utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=postshare

[ by former UK Amb to Syria Peter Ford ]

22 health facilities have been attacked: the government say this is because the jihadis are using them as bases, which is almost certainly true based on experience in other now liberated areas.

Edited to Add: Using a hospital as a military base is a war crime.

DaveSchmidt said:
It doesn’t justify the tactic of bombing hospitals, but civilians are still only a fraction of the deaths in Syria’s war.

Actual quote:

It doesn't justify Idlib but it shows that those who express concern about Idlib who did not show equal concern about Raqqa are hypocrites and there is an agenda behind the hypocrisy -- regime-change war which is the cause of the death and destruction.

https://phr.org/issues/health-under-attack/attacks-in-syria/heavy-bombardment-by-u-s-and-coalition-forces-devastate-hospitals-in-raqqa/

Between June and September of 2017, U.S. and coalition forces were seeking to wrestle the city of Raqqa from ISIS control. The city’s health care system was not spared the intense fighting and continuous bombardment which demolished hospitals and clinics. Field sources told Physicians for Human Rights (PHR) that any civilian gathering in Raqqa at the time appeared to be interpreted as a military target for aerial bombing or shelling. They said that, as a result, residents stopped attempting to even rescue their injured from the rubble.

And yes, I think it's fair to say that concern about hospital bombing by supporters of regime-change in Syria has been selective and hypocritical.

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:

Not surprisingly, what seemed to push Janine over the edge was the Jeffrey Sachs video which blames the continued insurrection on the CIA and calls on Trump to get out of Syria. That was the real spanking.

It's pretty clear that she was very specific, that  what "put her over the edge" (just another one of Paul's insults) was Paul himself - ranting about Trump and the CIA, and not holding Assad accountable for his government's war crimes.

 Here, tell me where Jeffrey Sachs is "ranting"

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/04/13/jeffrey_sachs_to_president_trump_please_get_us_out_of_syria_weve_done_enough_damage.html

paulsurovell said:

ridski said:
The article was about the tactic of bombing hospitals, and she explains why. But please, continue to justify the bombing of hospitals, Peace Activist.

The article doesn't discuss the "tactic of bombing hospitals" because it doesn't discuss why the hospitals have been bombed:
https://www.patreon.com/posts/peter-fords-on-27455053?utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=postshare
[ by former UK Amb to Syria Peter Ford ]

22 health facilities have been attacked: the government say this is because the jihadis are using them as bases, which is almost certainly true based on experience in other now liberated areas.

Edited to Add: Using a hospital as a military base is a war crime.

So Paul's story is that Assad says the hospitals were legitimate targets, so the bombing was okay.  Well, if Assad says so, then it must be true.    

Paul's "source" is Peter Ford, director of the "British Syrian Society", a pro-Assad group set up by Assads father-in-law, Dr. Fawaz Akhras.  Their job is to make excuses for Assad.

"Mr Ford wrongly blamed opposition forces for an attack on a UN aid convoy when an investigation proved it was either Russian or Syrian Government aircraft."

"In 2012 Sir Andrew Green, another former British ambassador to Syria and then co-chairman of the society, quit after emails showed Dr Akhras had advised Assad on how to rebut evidence of civilians apparently being tortured."

paulsurovell said:

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:

Not surprisingly, what seemed to push Janine over the edge was the Jeffrey Sachs video which blames the continued insurrection on the CIA and calls on Trump to get out of Syria. That was the real spanking.

It's pretty clear that she was very specific, that  what "put her over the edge" (just another one of Paul's insults) was Paul himself - ranting about Trump and the CIA, and not holding Assad accountable for his government's war crimes.

 Here, tell me where Jeffrey Sachs is "ranting"

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/04/13/jeffrey_sachs_to_president_trump_please_get_us_out_of_syria_weve_done_enough_damage.html

 In the year-old video of Jeffrey Sachs, he is not defending the Assad government's bombings in Idlib. 

Paul is, and that's the rant, as shown by an honest reading of what's on the Twitter.

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:

ridski said:
The article was about the tactic of bombing hospitals, and she explains why. But please, continue to justify the bombing of hospitals, Peace Activist.

The article doesn't discuss the "tactic of bombing hospitals" because it doesn't discuss why the hospitals have been bombed:
https://www.patreon.com/posts/peter-fords-on-27455053?utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=postshare
[ by former UK Amb to Syria Peter Ford ]

22 health facilities have been attacked: the government say this is because the jihadis are using them as bases, which is almost certainly true based on experience in other now liberated areas.

Edited to Add: Using a hospital as a military base is a war crime.

So Paul's story is that Assad says the hospitals were legitimate targets, so the bombing was okay.  Well, if Assad says so, then it must be true.    
Paul's "source" is Peter Ford, director of the "British Syrian Society", a pro-Assad group set up by Assads father-in-law, Dr. Fawaz Akhras.  Their job is to make excuses for Assad.
"Mr Ford wrongly blamed opposition forces for an attack on a UN aid convoy when an investigation proved it was either Russian or Syrian Government aircraft."
"In 2012 Sir Andrew Green, another former British ambassador to Syria and then co-chairman of the society, quit after emails showed Dr Akhras had advised Assad on how to rebut evidence of civilians apparently being tortured."

 Prove Peter Ford, former UK Amb to Syria wrong

Edited to addd:

From the article you excerpted:

The BBC yesterday defended its use of Mr Ford as a commentator on events in Syria.

A spokesperson for the broadcaster said: "When Peter Ford has appeared on various BBC outlets this year his particular viewpoint has been signposted in the introduction in terms the audience will understand, for example he has been variously described as a 'long term critic of Western Policy', or part of 'a dwindling group who still think Bashar al-Assad is the solution to Syria'."

paulsurovell said:

ridski said:
The article was about the tactic of bombing hospitals, and she explains why. But please, continue to justify the bombing of hospitals, Peace Activist.

The article doesn't discuss the "tactic of bombing hospitals" because it doesn't discuss why the hospitals have been bombed:
https://www.patreon.com/posts/peter-fords-on-27455053?utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=postshare
[ by former UK Amb to Syria Peter Ford ]

22 health facilities have been attacked: the government say this is because the jihadis are using them as bases, which is almost certainly true based on experience in other now liberated areas.

Edited to Add: Using a hospital as a military base is a war crime.

 “Bashar al-Assad attacks medical facilities to break the will of the people — and to destroy evidence of his war crimes.”

It’s the byline of the article.

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:

Not surprisingly, what seemed to push Janine over the edge was the Jeffrey Sachs video which blames the continued insurrection on the CIA and calls on Trump to get out of Syria. That was the real spanking.

It's pretty clear that she was very specific, that  what "put her over the edge" (just another one of Paul's insults) was Paul himself - ranting about Trump and the CIA, and not holding Assad accountable for his government's war crimes.

 Here, tell me where Jeffrey Sachs is "ranting"

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/04/13/jeffrey_sachs_to_president_trump_please_get_us_out_of_syria_weve_done_enough_damage.html

 In the year-old video of Jeffrey Sachs, he is not defending the Assad government's bombings in Idlib. 
Paul is, and that's the rant, as shown by an honest reading of what's on the Twitter.

 Janine Di Giovanni fled the thread and blocked me after seeing Jeffrey Sachs's powerful rebuttal of regime-change which motivates her selective concern about hospital bombings in Syria.

She has a right to disagree with Ford's view that Al Qaeda used the hospitals as military bases, but when she pretends that Assad is not targeting Al Qaeda and omits that in her article, she is acting as a propagandist, not a journalist.

I know it's asking a lot, but you might want to stretch your limited intellectual curiosity to consider the possibility that while it is obvious that Assad is a brutal and ruthless dictator, that the narratives that he bombs hospitals and uses chemical weapons just to intimidate people might actually be the same kind of misleading war propaganda as the Kuwait-incubator-babies and Saddam-people-shredder stories that media hacks like Janine Di Giovanni pushed to incite the public in the first and second Iraq wars:

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1990-09-17-mn-488-story.html

. . . refugees reported that incubators for premature babies were confiscated by Iraqi troops and the babies inside were piled on the floor and left to die . . .

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2004/feb/25/iraq.iraqandthemedia

ridski said:

paulsurovell said:

ridski said:
The article was about the tactic of bombing hospitals, and she explains why. But please, continue to justify the bombing of hospitals, Peace Activist.

The article doesn't discuss the "tactic of bombing hospitals" because it doesn't discuss why the hospitals have been bombed:
https://www.patreon.com/posts/peter-fords-on-27455053?utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=postshare
[ by former UK Amb to Syria Peter Ford ]

22 health facilities have been attacked: the government say this is because the jihadis are using them as bases, which is almost certainly true based on experience in other now liberated areas.

Edited to Add: Using a hospital as a military base is a war crime.

 
 “Bashar al-Assad attacks medical facilities to break the will of the people — and to destroy evidence of his war crimes.”
It’s the byline of the article.
 

Doesn't explain why Assad is attacking Idlib, not a discussion.

Did Trump, Macron and May destroy the hospitals in Raqqa to "break the will of the people?"

paulsurovell said:
Doesn't explain why Assad is attacking Idlib, not a discussion.
Did Trump, Macron and May destroy the hospitals in Raqqa to "break the will of the people?"

 I never claimed it did. Assad is attacking hospitals. The byline explains why. Your second line is a different argument.

ridski said:

paulsurovell said:
Doesn't explain why Assad is attacking Idlib, not a discussion.
Did Trump, Macron and May destroy the hospitals in Raqqa to "break the will of the people?"

 I never claimed it did. Assad is attacking hospitals. The byline explains why. Your second line is a different argument.

 Yeah, I guess if you pretend that Assad is just attacking civilians and that there is no opposing military force, one could say that's an "explanation."

But I think "propaganda" or "covering for Al Qaeda" are more accurate, and the second line helps us to understand why.

paulsurovell said:

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:

ridski said:
The article was about the tactic of bombing hospitals, and she explains why. But please, continue to justify the bombing of hospitals, Peace Activist.

The article doesn't discuss the "tactic of bombing hospitals" because it doesn't discuss why the hospitals have been bombed:
https://www.patreon.com/posts/peter-fords-on-27455053?utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=postshare
[ by former UK Amb to Syria Peter Ford ]

22 health facilities have been attacked: the government say this is because the jihadis are using them as bases, which is almost certainly true based on experience in other now liberated areas.

Edited to Add: Using a hospital as a military base is a war crime.

So Paul's story is that Assad says the hospitals were legitimate targets, so the bombing was okay.  Well, if Assad says so, then it must be true.    
Paul's "source" is Peter Ford, director of the "British Syrian Society", a pro-Assad group set up by Assads father-in-law, Dr. Fawaz Akhras.  Their job is to make excuses for Assad.
"Mr Ford wrongly blamed opposition forces for an attack on a UN aid convoy when an investigation proved it was either Russian or Syrian Government aircraft."
"In 2012 Sir Andrew Green, another former British ambassador to Syria and then co-chairman of the society, quit after emails showed Dr Akhras had advised Assad on how to rebut evidence of civilians apparently being tortured."

Click to Read More

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:

ridski said:
The article was about the tactic of bombing hospitals, and she explains why. But please, continue to justify the bombing of hospitals, Peace Activist.

The article doesn't discuss the "tactic of bombing hospitals" because it doesn't discuss why the hospitals have been bombed:
https://www.patreon.com/posts/peter-fords-on-27455053?utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=postshare
[ by former UK Amb to Syria Peter Ford ]

22 health facilities have been attacked: the government say this is because the jihadis are using them as bases, which is almost certainly true based on experience in other now liberated areas.

Edited to Add: Using a hospital as a military base is a war crime.

So Paul's story is that Assad says the hospitals were legitimate targets, so the bombing was okay.  Well, if Assad says so, then it must be true.    
Paul's "source" is Peter Ford, director of the "British Syrian Society", a pro-Assad group set up by Assads father-in-law, Dr. Fawaz Akhras.  Their job is to make excuses for Assad.
"Mr Ford wrongly blamed opposition forces for an attack on a UN aid convoy when an investigation proved it was either Russian or Syrian Government aircraft."
"In 2012 Sir Andrew Green, another former British ambassador to Syria and then co-chairman of the society, quit after emails showed Dr Akhras had advised Assad on how to rebut evidence of civilians apparently being tortured."

 Prove Peter Ford, former UK Amb to Syria wrong
Edited to addd:
From the article you excerpted:

The BBC yesterday defended its use of Mr Ford as a commentator on events in Syria.

A spokesperson for the broadcaster said: "When Peter Ford has appeared on various BBC outlets this year his particular viewpoint has been signposted in the introduction in terms the audience will understand, for example he has been variously described as a 'long term critic of Western Policy', or part of 'a dwindling group who still think Bashar al-Assad is the solution to Syria'."

“Former British Ambassador to Syria” isn’t the important fact about him, considering that was over a decade ago, and considering his current activities (as the BBC properly describes).  And the quote from the article I excerpted doesn’t matter, since the article Paul relies on doesn’t note his ties.

I have no reason to doubt that the Assad regime is telling Peter Ford to repeat the government claim that the health facilities being bombed are being used for military purposes.  So I can't "prove that wrong", but that's irrelevant.