The so-called White Helmets” pretends to be a non-political aid organisation but in fact is a political construct.
In its on-the-ground activity, it acts as a disaster and relief civil defense organisation for Al Quaeda fighters in Syria. Its links with these terrorist groups were shown by their operations and bases connected with Al Nusra buildings in east Aleppo – and also by the fact it transferred out of Aleppo and into Idlib province together with the terrorist fighters when that city was liberated.
A genuine, neutral, civil defense organisation would have stayed in place.
But the White Helmets also plays an important role internationally in the propaganda campaign against Syria. It campaigned for a “no-flight” zone in Syria and continually promotes an anti-government message. It is often centrally involved in anti-Syria stories about the use of chemical weapons, the bombing of hospitals, etc. The videos they disseminate are often suspect – there have been several cases where they have been exposed at manufacturing false events.
I have written about the White Helmets previously – see these articles:
The above video is timely. With the current attempts by the Syrian Arab Army and its allies to liberate Idlib province and Gouta (near Damascus), the anti-Syria propaganda has again swung into action – and the White Helmets have again become more active in this propaganda.
I emailed the Syria Campaign and asked if the annual audit for the White Helmets was available online. I’ve managed to look at an annual report for the Red Cross, but there is absolutely nothing for the WHs
Odd,I would have thought, when the donations from wealthy countries like the US and the EU run in to the millions.Why this lack of responsible accounting
No reply of course. But would it be an idea to ask for the report from our firefighter who went to
Turkey to train the White Helmets, as he would surely have been required to compile one
reenmacFrancesca, when you copy/paste text from one format and place it onto another, you get the odd non justified text which we can see in your comment. I wonder why we see this in your comment?
I was curious about the White Helmets from my reading of this blog. I had no prior bias one way or the other. I took a look at FACT CHECK, a reliable source, and this is what I found:
“Syrian Rescue Organization ‘The White Helmets’ Are Terrorists?
? UNPROVEN”
“The group has come under suspicion from those who support Assad. The Russian-funded television station, RT (formerly Russia Today), regularly posts stories casting doubt on the motives of the group (the Russian government supports the Assad regime).
“The rumors reappeared in April 2017, blaming the White Helmets directly for a deadly gas attack in Syria.
“Proof the White Helmets ‘Staged’ a Chemical Attack in Syria?
X FALSE
“photographs from a film set about a man staging a chemical attack are being used by conspiracy theorists (and Russian state media) as evidence that a chemical attack was actually staged.” https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/is-this-proof-white-helmets-staged-chemical-attack/
POLITIFACT agrees:
“So, was the chemical attack a hoax orchestrated to draw the United States into Syria’s civil war?
“Amnesty International UK’s Syria Campaign Manager Kristyan Benedict said:
“This sinister propaganda video (of a kidnapped White Helmet volunteer who was forced to confess on video) is a reminder of the ‘information war’ that the Syrian and Russian governments are operating alongside the physical horrors of their airstrikes and sieges in this dreadful conflict.
I trust Politifact, Snopes Fact Check, and Amnesty International as sources and your readers should too. I hope I will not hear that these three sources are involved in a disinformation conspiracy, or are also working with the “head choppers” (which, by the way, is a phrase often used by Russian propaganda TV, RT, and, apparently, mindlessly parroted by followers of that network).
reenmac, I didn’t refer to a copy/paste. I questioned your non-justified margins, a phenomenon when text is copy/pasted from one format to another. For example:
“No reply of course. But would it be an idea to ask for the report from our firefighter who went to
Turkey to train the White Helmets . . . ”
Now, these are two consecutive sentences which should flow seamlessly in meaning and in form. But it does not. There should not be a break between the words “to” and “Turkey.” This is what happens when you copy/paste something that has already been written . . and then post it onto another format.
I simply asked, “I wonder why we see this in your comment?”
Well it seems you could be my tutor on these matters
I certainly don’t make any claims to being a smooth writer, your comments on copy/pasting and margins are new to me, but clearly you are expert on such things
I wonder how that comes about?
AAh, I see, the break in the sentence, …. thats caused by clumsy use of the keyboard.
My suspicion of the White Helmets comes from journalists who have investigated their origins and current political/religious alliances, studies of photos published in social media, their lack of accreditation with the International civil defence organisation based in Switzerland, and their misleading claims about impartiality
I prefer not to outsource my scepticism to bogus sites like Snopes and politicised branches of Amnesty
David, to say you “trust Politifact, Snopes Fact Check, and Amnesty International as sources and your readers should too” is simply to admit to confirmation bias, to outsourcing your own ability to critically assess situations and to encourage others to stop thinking.
I strongly urge people to beware of such sources, such unthinking “fact-checking.” I encourage people to think for themselves – look at the facts for themselves.
Otherwise, we get the incredible situation of a number of OPCW national representatives who boycotted the recent session organised by the Russian and Syrian representatives where people from Douma gave their own testimonies about the “chemical incident.” This also reflects the way the UNSC ambassadors for the FUKUS regimes always walk out of SC meetings when the Syrian ambassador gives his reports.
it is incredible to me that in their statement these OPCW national representatives crudely argue for blindly accepting the claims of the jihadi-aligned White Helmets and Syrian American Medical Society. They accept the lies that the video they promoted showed a chemical attack while rejecting the evidence of patients and doctors who were seen in the film! That is incredible bias.
There is ample evidence that the White Helmets and SAMS are not objective sources of information or simple humanitarian workers. Even the fact that when areas like Aleppo and Ghouta were liberated these organisations got on the buses together wither their comrades in arms (the head choppers) and moved to Idlib.
Come on people – start thinking for yourselves. Don’t be taken in by those who wish to do that thinking for yoiu and ask you to undergo self-censorship.
The apparent break in continuity is an annoying problem with wordpress.com. It infuriates me and whenever it happens I search for the code causing it but cannot find it.
The more general problem of large breaks occurs when pdf documents are copied and pasted. This can be overcome by pasting as unformatted text.
I find the best way to check copypasta is to do a google search on the suspect text – this will often show the sources of the pasted text – and also often reveals that such text is copy/pasted by many people. It’s a common trick with anti-fluoride people – copypasta of copypasta of copypasta . . .
The reason I believe reenmac’s text was copy/pasted from a text using another format is because this has happened to me also. The way I overcome the awkward appearance that occurs is to go through the text, place the cursor at the beginning of the second line of the break, backspace (which will conjoin the two words), and then apply a space between the words. It’s a little time-consuming, but it improves the appearance of the text.
Moreover, when I do copy/paste from another source, I try to provide a link or some other documentation indicating these are not my own words, and whose they are.
What I find so odd about reenmac’s comment is that it is written in the First Person, implying these are reenmac’s own words. Why would you copy/paste your own words? Why not just write it on the format provided?
I don’t know, maybe it was written on an i-phone or a blackberry, or some weird gizmo where this phenomenon occurs. Maybe the Enter key was inadvertently struck a few times — It just struck me as very odd.
The reason it is written in the first person ,David, is because generally when I am describing an action I have taken, I refer to myself in the first person.
How about you?
Why don’t you try writing to the Syria Campaign yourself, on the link they provide, for an annual audit for the White Helmets
The small bit of text you find so suspicious refers to the fact that our NZ govt donated $100,000 of taxpayers money and paid for a firefighter to conduct a WH workshop in Turkey
We’ve had absolutely no feedback from that
I’d like a little bit of accountability there.
Regarding the White Helmets and looking at sources reporting about them:
Ken, I had never heard about the White Helmets, and the controversies surrounding them, before reading your blog. So, at this stage of investigation I am doing a superficial over-view of the situation. I’m not looking at actual words written by these people (although I have), I am simply looking at the controversy – what is being said about them.
Face it, unless you actually go to Syria and physically observe what these people (white helmets) are doing on the ground, to some degree you are relying on facts (or not) presented by other people who are reporting about them. Therefore, you must make a judgment call about the sources themselves.
When I look at a source reporting on a controversy I ask myself two things: A.) Has the source done its homework? B.) Is the source biased, or relatively fair & balanced?
In this thread I have relied on four sources to reach a conclusion. 1.) Open Parachute. 2.) Snopes Fact Check. 3.) Politifact, and 4.) Amnesty International
1.) Open Parachute. Has OP done its homework? For what Open Parachute does, yes it has. You professionally present your sources with links that are easily verified, and you present your arguments at great length.
Is Open Parachute a biased blog? Absolutely. For example, you have written countless essays on the conflict in Syria, but rarely, if ever at all, have you criticized the Assad regime. Nor could you find it in yourself that the Russian Air Force has created collateral damage (innocent human lives) with its air strikes. It is unrealistic to assume this has not occurred.
You have written countless essays about Syria, and you rightly say, “Don’t be taken in by those who wish to do that thinking for you and ask you to undergo self-censorship.”
You are critical of “self-censorship” and yet you are guilty of it. How do I know this? Because you, yourself, were unaware of a collection of damning photos that have achieved such global fame that they have been publicly exhibited at such prominent locations as The U.N. Headquarters in New York, the US Congress, The Holocaust Museum in Washington DC, the European Parliament in Brussels, the UK Houses of Parliament in London, the RHA Gallery in Dublin, and The Clinton School for Public Service to name a few.
And yet, until three days ago you were unfamiliar them. You have yet to read a HRW Report documenting their validity. How is this possible?
The problem with Open Parachute is that it relies on sources that only confirm its political biases. Anyone with an open mind who did a superficial, broad spectrum, search for information on the Syrian conflict would have, at some point, been made aware of the Caesar photos. Anyone who has written countless essays about Syria Should have been aware of them. But someone who only looks at pro-Assad/pro-Russian material would have never known of their existence.
Open Parachute does its homework, but it is completely biased. It is so biased, in fact, that it often parrots catch-phrases which are commonly heard on Russian propaganda TV, RT. For example, Open Parachute didn’t coin the phrase “head-choppers.” (That’s a dead giveaway.)
2.) Snopes Fact Check. Does Fact Check do its homework? Absolutely. “Jan Harold Brunvand, a folklorist who has written a number of books on urban legends and modern folklore, considered the site so comprehensive in 2004 that he decided not to launch one of his own to similarly discuss the accuracy or various legends and rumors” https://web.archive.org/web/20040812075515/http://www.nationalreview.com/seipp/seipp200407210830.asp
Is Snopes biased? They don’t seem to be: “Do the Snopes.com articles reveal a political bias? We reviewed a sampling of their political offerings, including some on rumors about George W. Bush, Sarah Palin and Barack Obama, and we found them to be utterly poker-faced. David does say that the site receives more complaints that it is too liberal than that it is too conservative. Nevertheless, he says, “We apply the same debunking standards to both sides.” https://www.factcheck.org/2009/04/snopescom/
3.) Politifact. Does Politifact do its homework? They seem to.
For example, The Myth that Nazis used Fluoride. Politifact looked at such sources as the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, checked with an expert in the German medical community, including Holocaust-era experimentation, contacted Christopher Bryson, who denied the myth while nonetheless mentioning Nazis “less than 10 times,” in his 2004 book. So they must have read the book. Politifact also contacted the authors of “The Fluoride Wars.”
Finally, Politifact tracked down a self-published booklet entitled, “”Fluoridation: Mind Control of the Masses?” written by Ian E. Stephens, and in the booklet, “we meet government research worker Charles Eliot Perkins, who at the end of World War II purportedly learned from a big German chemical producer that it had developed a plan to fluoridate occupied countries.”
Is Politifact biased? In this highly polarized political climate, it receives criticism of bias from conservatives & liberals alike. However, when one looks at Politifact’s “Lie of the year,” both liberal & conservative presidents have been named. In 2010 & 2013, Obamacare was the Lie of the year. In 2015, “Various statements by Donald J. Trump.”
So Politifact goes both ways. It’s not biased, and it does its homework.
4.) Amnesty International. Does Amnesty do its homework? It’s an irrelevant question because AI isn’t a fact-checking organization, news service, or even an opinion blog.
More importantly, is it biased? I checked its report on the controversial country of Syria, its 2017-2018 Report. The report didn’t hold back. Everyone received criticism for killing civilians, including U.S. airstrikes, IS forces, the Syrian government, Russian airstrikes, Syrian airstrikes. Based on this report, I would say that AI is not biased against any one particular group.
Conclusion: When I see a comment on an opinion blog, which gets an absolute FAIL for bias, warning people to beware of sources which show themselves at least attempting to be fair, I have to wonder why.
This is your comment: “I strongly urge people to beware of such sources, such unthinking “fact-checking.” I encourage people to think for themselves – look at the facts for themselves.”
On the issue of the Syrian White Helmets . . .
Yes, do look at the facts themselves. On one hand we have an opinion-blog writer who sounds like a talking bird who has been left in a room with Russian propaganda TV playing all day, who repeats catch-phrases like “head choppers.” (He didn’t coin the phrase. Obviously, he heard it from somewhere and is repeating it like a parrot.) Yes, look at that, and then look at the people he is trying to warn you about, organizations which at least attempt a fair and balanced, unbiased approach, and who have done their homework.
David, you are of course welcome to your opinions on my blog – and I am mature enough to recognise the possible and probable motivations and biases underlying your opinion. However, the sensible thing for a mature person is to avoid my blog if it gives you such problems and you find the material so useless and biased.
That is up to you.
An aspect I never seem to get through to you is the importance of evidence. You rely on the conclusions of others – reject them if they don’t confirm your bias and cite them if they do. You never dig any deeper and consider the actual evidence used by the sources you cite, or consider evidence from alternative sources.
The respectability of an organisation or source is meaningless – it is the evidence that counts.
As a scientist, I find that approach naive and rather childish. I respect a lot of scientists but I never, never, accept their conclusions as facts simply because of that respect. I look at the evidence behind their conclusions. All good scientists operate this way (although I concede in writing up their work citations are often used in a mechanical way).
It does not matter how much Ia respect a scientist – if I find flaws in their logic or evidence which do not support their conclusion I do not hesitate from drawing different conclusions. Scientists just love to show previously reported work is wrong – that is how we make progress. And how we win respect for ourselves.
So I really do find reliance on “fact checking” sites or “humanitarian” organisations rather childish. What about considering the evidence used by those sites and organisations and other evidence you can find.
It is shocking to me that you rely only on my posts (and you reject them) and “fact checking” sites or amnesty international for your conclusions about the White Helmets.
If nothing else you should be up to date with the White Helmet’s videos regarding the alleged chemical incident in Douma and the evidecne from the patients and doctors present in the white helmets videos (presented at the OCW in The Hague and elsewhere). The conclusions from this evidecne are completely opposite and this gives you a chance to make a judgment about the reliability of the White Helmets.
And there is plenty of other material around. You may not be aware of it but most of the information you probably access comes via the White Helmets, the SAMS and the media organisations in Idlib, Ghouta and Aleppo – all affiliated with the jihadis, terrorists, head choppers, etc.
There is plenty of evidence showing the funding of these organisations by the USA, UK, NATO (and, unfortunately, NZ). There is plenty of evidence showing the links between all these organisations and groups like the Atlantic Council.
You say:
“Face it, unless you actually go to Syria and physically observe what these people (white helmets) are doing on the ground, to some degree you are relying on facts (or not) presented by other people who are reporting about them. Therefore, you must make a judgment call about the sources themselves.”
And that is absolutely true. That is where critical thinking and intelligence (and consideration of real evidence) comes in.
I, at least, have considered evidence coming from independent journalists like Vanessa Beeley who is often in Syria, is currently in Damascus and reporting from Douma. She visited Aleppo many times. She has reported on the links between the White Helmets and Al Nusra (often their buildings are alongside each other) and the way members of the White Helmets act as rescuers during part of their day but moonlight as terrorist fighters.
She has also reported on the genuine Syrian Civil Defence – the body affiliated to the international organisation. The body whose name has been stolen by the White Helmets in the terrorist-controlled areas. The body whose equipment, vehicles, etc., has been stolen by this NATO financed White Helmets in the areas controlled by the head choppers.
Her evidence is of infinitely more value than any of your “fact checking” sites. I avoid such excuses for non-thinking like the plague – on all matters. I am not impressed with their articles on fluoride – but then I probably have a deeper understanding of the science than their writers do. I would certainly not rely on them for scientific information – and more so I would not rely on them for political arbitrations.
“On one hand we have an opinion-blog writer who sounds like a talking bird who has been left in a room with Russian propaganda TV playing all day, who repeats catch-phrases like “head choppers.” (He didn’t coin the phrase. Obviously, he heard it from somewhere and is repeating it like a parrot.)”
My response:
I hope you aren’t using the words “talking bird” and “parrot” in the way the anti-science trolls use it to attack me. If so, that is rather cheap 🙂
No, I did not coin the word “head choppers” – at least I don’t think so. It is a term commonly used in social media when discussing terrorists who do literally chop off heads of their captives. You might find it offensive – it is meant to be. Like any other sensible person I am not upset that I sue offensive words to describe them -after all, this term pales beside the words they use to describe you and me.
I am absolutely sure that I did not pick this term up from any of the mainstream sources I use. Al Jazeera most often uses the term “activists” or “the opposition” to describe their head chopper mates. Westen media tend to use words like “rebel” or “anti-regime forces.” RT-America (which I do occasionally watch) uses the term “militants.”
I obviously do not watch the “Russian propaganda TV playing all day” that you do. Could you tell me the name of the channel and if you think it is available in NZ? I would try to watch it. I think the term “militant” is too mild (and offensive to many nationalities who use it as a positive term to describe political activists) and I like the idea of a mainstream media source using a more honest term. In many ways, I find RT-America too “respectable,” tame and American in style so would like something better and more honest. I just wish we had access to English language versions of some of the more lively Russian channels which appear to promote very lively debates where almost anything seems to go.
David, thank you for the link to the Herald re: the NZ firefighter.
How on earth did you think I was made aware of this back in 2016?
I read the same article, I don’t need to read it again
I have written to the Minister whose responsibility this was,Peter Dunne, but was passed on to Murray McCully.
I asked for a full account and have so far not received a reply, apart from the usual office generated acknowledgement
It seems you have found sources on Syria you are comfortable with
I am more comfortable with long time ME journalists like Robert Fisk and Patrick Cockburn, who have stood the test of time.
Why on earth do you so persistently haunt the pages of a site you have no confidence in?
Reenmac, I know Ken may have vilified the media in your mind, but part of its job is to hold those accountable who are there to serve you, the public. If you haven’t asked the NZHerald for a follow-up on its story, then you haven’t pursued every avenue, and you shouldn’t be complaining that you haven’t received a response.
Why do I haunt the pages of this site? Is that what I am doing? Not quite. I am attempting to hold someone accountable who has tried to de-legitimize an institution which provides the essential service, the free-flow of information. History has shown us that whenever a third-world, Nazi, Stalinist or any other thug dictator imposes himself upon a society, one of the first things to go is the Free Press. You should be terrified when Dr. Perrott says things like, “I strongly urge people to beware of such sources . .”
Why do I haunt the pages of this site? If Dr. Perrott is becoming tired of defending his incomplete, one-sided view of reality, perhaps you should ask him why he still does it.
“part of its job is to hold those accountable who are there to serve you, the public.”
So true – but also true is that the mainstream media (or its western component) just does not do that these days. Journalists act as stenographers rather than journalists. Worse, they attack independent journalists who are doing this job. See my article Mainstream media-political alliance gets vindictive.
The recent alleged “chemical” incident in Douma and the illegal missile attack on Syria by the FUKUS regimes illustrate the fact that the mainstream media has abandoned this role.
The FUKUS regimes claimed they were attacking Syrian chemical weapons manufacturing and storage areas. Those regimes lied, they knew they were lying (they would have had the OPCW monitoring evidence and they would never have attacked areas where the release of chemicals would lead to thousands of deaths – as in the case of the research centre in Damscus (see The “heart of the Syrian chemical weapons programme” destroyed? The western mainstream media simply and uncritically repeated these lies (although some did question the illegality of the attack).
Information from the OPCW is easily available. Independent journals and social media were reporting this evidence yet none of the mainstream media reported this. The only exceptions were RT and Sputnik – mainstream media but not western.
Similarly the visit of the OPCW team to Douma. The US and UK OPCW representative lied by claiming that the OPCW said their access was prevented by the Russians and Syrians. The US representative claimed that the Russian military was destroying evidence. In fact, the OPCW General Secretary referred to access problems – the UN security team, would not let them in because of demonstrations (civilians were demanding aid from the UN, I think) and gunfire from remaining terrorists. The UN team was eventually able to ensure security and the Syrians and Russians helped in this. In fact, the team was there only because the Syrians and Russians officially requested it of the OPCW – and access was only possible becuase the area had been liberated. The terrorists would never have allowed the team in.
Also, regarding reporting of this incident. The mainstream media (including RT and Sputnik) widely reported the White Helmets propaganda videos and claims. However, the western media has generally not reported material from non-Jihadi sources. For example Robert Frisk’s report (I am intimately connected to this locally as my daughter is a media studies academic and raised the nom-reporting of Frisk’s article with local media. They quickly provided a report – but with the expected guide to readers to dismiss it as unreliable – doctors he interviewed had referred to “terrorists.” I suspect my daughter’s success was because of her job – I don’t think you or I would have that influence with the media).
Other western media (not mainstream – although from social media I got the impression that had reporters in the area) also interviewed patients and doctors – in general, their reports are only available (in the west) on social media. They are not carried by western mainstream media.
The testimony of 17 patients and doctors in The Hague (made possible by the Russian and Syrian OPCW representatives) has been mentioned by mainstream media but not reported in any detail (except RT which broadcast sections of the video testimony). The (western) tone has generally been dismissive – implying even that the Syrian patients and doctors had been manipulated). The presence of one of the children from the White Helmet’s video relating his experience was attacked by western media – who did not criticise the White Helmets use of children by the jihadis – in the white helmets video, the Aleppo boy, Bana, etc.
The FUKUS regime representatives at the OPCW and their allies boycotted (anmd later attacked) the event where the Syrians related their experiences.
Now, the chemical incident and the illegal missile attack by the FUKUS regimes were highly important incidents which the (western) mainstream media absolutely failed to report properly.
I, myself, would not know what has been going on regarding these events if I wore the blinkers you advocate and refused to use social media and alternative media sources for my information.
I went to the source for follow up
I don’t depend on the media for predigested information.
The trouble is that the media doesn’t take the powers that be to account, the news sources in general repeat what govt says and reinforces, rather than subject to rigorous questioning and analysis.
If I want information I have to learn to navigate between all the avenues available rather than passively accept MSM.
I find it interesting that the Syrians and the Russians have always offered unhindered evacuation to the armed militants, even putting on air conditioned buses.This was never offered in Mosul
When Aleppo was liberated , out of a probably overestimated population of 250,000, 35,000 militants plus family opted to evacuate to Idlib, and the White Helmets went with them
By far the majority of civilians chose to go to govt protected West Aleppo, and many have since returned to their houses in the East
As Robert Fisk mentioned, in Douma, the WH left with the militants
Idlib by now must be an absolute bastion of democracy and equality, as its where the “rebels ” have congregated …but is it?
First of all, no, I am not using words like parrot the way I have seen anti-science people use it against you. I agree, that is childish. However, the fact that you employ the vocabulary coming from only one side of this issue is evidence (there’s that word) that you are guided to sources by your own biases.
Your quote: “No, I did not coin the word “head choppers” – at least I don’t think so. It is a term commonly used in social media . .”
Well, maybe the social media in which you tend to immerse yourself.
Further evidence (more evidence, imagine that) of your narrow approach, at least to the Syrian issue, is the fact that you had never heard of the now globally recognized Caesar photographs, at least until I brought the collection to your attention. Why exactly is that? Even a superficial balanced look at the sources would have made you aware of the photos.
Your quote: “It is shocking to me that you rely only on my posts (and you reject them) and “fact checking” sites or amnesty international for your conclusions about the White Helmets.”
I never said I rely only on your posts and “fact checking” posts. As you will see in my next statement will explain.
Your quote: “If nothing else you should be up to date with the White Helmet’s videos regarding the alleged chemical incident in Douma, . .”
What makes you think I’m not? In fact, you should KNOW that I am up to date with it. Your statement is further evidence (there’s that word again) that YOU don’t look at all the evidence, especially that which challenges your biases. If you had looked at the links I had provided you would have seen that the Politifact link discussed the Staged Video in depth. AND POLITIFACT USED NO FEWER THAN 30 SOURCES, many from the Alternative media you love to tout, and Politifact provided links to each.
So when you criticize fact-checking sources as being incomplete and superficial, you have provided more evidence that you think more with your biases than you do with your brain. You criticize sources that you yourself haven’t looked at, and then you warn other people to beware of them. .
Moreover, if nothing else, YOU should be up to date with the White Helmet’s video of the staged chemical attack. The fact that you are not is more evidence (there sure is a lot of evidence pointing to your narrow approach, isn’t there) that you don’t use a broad-spectrum approach when investigating an issue.
“There is plenty of evidence showing the funding of these organisations by the USA, UK, NATO (and, unfortunately, NZ). “
You forgot Canada, the Netherlands, Japan, and other online donations. So what.
“I, at least, have considered evidence coming from independent journalists like Vanessa Beeley who is often in Syria, . .”
Again, so what. Just because someone is in Syria doesn’t mean they are biased and one sided. Would it carry any weight with you if I were to say, ‘I at least, have considered evidence coming from other journalists like Richard Engal who is not only often in Syria, but he has put himself in such danger that he has actually been kidnapped in Syria.’? Your boastful comments are meaningless.
Has Vanessa Beeley been kidnapped in Syria? Or does she mostly stay in the safe places?
If you had read my comment, you will have seen that the evidence supports my conclusion that you do not use a broad-spectrum approach in your search for political truth, and you are led by your biases to sources you deem acceptable, all while criticizing sources with which you feel you would disagree, if you actually looked at them.
reemac, you say:
“Idlib by now must be an absolute bastion of democracy and equality, as its where the “rebels ” have congregated …but is it?”
I had often wondered at the wisdom of the Syrian government settling liberated areas in this way – often felt they were letting the head choppers off too lightly.
But maybe they know what they are doing. A bit of weeding out by the different jihadi forces themselves may reduce the opposition to more manageable levels when the time comes to liberate Idlib.
Of course, one of the downsides is that some of these jihads then travel through Turkey into Europe and do their handiwork there.
I suppose while the various groups in Idlib are killing each other they aren’t able to mount concerted attacks on other Syrian territories
I think there is a recognition that not all militants are ardently opposed
to Assad (whoops, there goes that annoying “return ” function pitching in that leads David to believe I’m some sort of bot or propagandist) and where there is huge unemployment young men will join up wherever to put food on the table for their families.
Interesting, David, you refer to the “staged chemical attack” in Douma. Even I haven’t gone that far – preferred to describe it as alleged. Why have you decided it was “staged?”
I don’t know why you think I am not up to date with the White Helmet’s videos – I have watched the mainstream media presentations.
I think the reports from the independent journalists in Duoma, and the later testimony of patients and doctors in the video, do indicate the video of the hosing of patients at the hospital is “staged” – not in the sense of acting out, as people were responding to a real event. But in the sense that the White Helmets manufactured panic by rushing in yelling about a chemical attack and then taking over hoses etc. Although the situation was made worse by the presence of non-specialist workers in the hospital (most medics had left the war zone by the humanitarian corridors so non-specialist were being employed).
I think there is still some confusion to come with the other videos – dead bodies, etc. Personally, I think there could have been the release of chlorine gas, or something similar, by the White Helmets and their head chopper friends (placement of canisters suggest this). Chemical stores, including chloride, were found in Ghouta after liberations.If the bodies have been located and sampled these may show poisoning and you can be sure the mainstream media will blame Syria and Russia. On the other hand, these could be bodies of dead children and families murdered by the head choppers and gather together. The stacking and movement of the bodies in the videos suggest this possibility. Something similar was apparent in the videos from Khan Shaykhun last year – and there were also reports of a number of children that had previously gone missing supporting the idea of previous murders.
Those head choppers are real bastards.
I am sure Vanessa has never been kidnapped – these head choppers would not have allowed her to live – even as a sex slave. Those who captured her would have been rewarded for her death far more than they could have got selling her.
As for boasting – come off it. I am a mature adult and don’t indulge in such childishness.
reenmac – I think your point about “militants” or fighters going to whatever group will pay th=em is so true. After all the alternative is lounging about in a refugee camp.
I understand that significant numbers of jihadi fighters do opt to stay when areas are liberated – to have their residence legalised. or, very often, to join the army.
It seems strange but in these situations I guess money has a bigger effect than any ideological loyalty.
And yet you’ve never explained why someone with an open mind, you know like a parachute, who looks at all evidence critically and intelligently, has never heard of the Caesar photos until a few days ago, you know, when I brought them to your attention.
the Caesar photos are pretty typical of what happens when a massive PR campaign is employed to prove an enemy utterly evil and thus deserving of annihilation
Ken, you have the patience of a saint
I’m not on Facebook, I managed to remove myself from it totally, otherwise I’d be “sharing” your posts widely
As it is I do link to Open Parachute in emails, particularly amongst friends with enquiring minds
I have not had time yet to undertake any searches myself on these photos but this looks interesting.
I agree the photos are horrible – I hate looking at such things. The same with the White Helmet’s videos of dead children.
Interesting thing about Facebook. My daughter has told me today she is not seeing my political posts there. I also notice that I do not get much in the way of referrals to my blog’s political posts from Facebook – far more from Twitter. Yet referrals my scientific blog posts get more facebook referrals than Twitter ones.
It looks like Facebook has given into the pressure exerted at the US Senate hearings and are downgrading political material.
That is what has been happening very recently with Craig Murrays blog over in the UK https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/04/blocked-by-facebook-and-the-vulnerability-of-new-media/
The attack on information that hasn’t gone through the official filters is going to become more desperate
I guess plenty of leverage can be asserted on all these IT giants who don’t pay tax…as long as they behave..
I find searching for references on Google, unless you know exactly what you’re looking for, is becoming more difficult
reenmac says, “Ken, you have the patience of a saint”
Doesn’t it bother you that this guy is so biased he can’t even bring himself to admit that the Russian air force has created collateral damage (accidental killing of civilians) in Syria?
David, don’t put words in my mouth – especially lies.
I have never denied collateral damage has resulted from either Syrian or Russian military activity in Syria. Why would I? Collateral damage and civilian deaths are inevitable in these situations – especially as the head choppers purposely use civilians (usually of a different and hated religious persuasion) as human shields. Even putting them in cages as was shown in Ghouta.
However, it is interesting to compare the work of the Russians (and especially the Russian military police and conflict resolution people) with that of the US and their NATO partners.
Raqua is a real mess. It has not been de-mined yet. The civilian toll was high and Syrians in the area are now revolting against the US proxies who now have control.
Mosul in Iraq was a similar disaster.
In Syria, we have seen how the Russia negotiators work to establish humanitarian corridors and guaranteed safe exit of rebel fighters, together with their families. Civilians in large numbers are able to exit the war zones when the head chopper snipers are neutralised. Withdrawal of these civilians helps the Russians and SAA complete the liberation by making it harder for the head choppers to hide behind residents. After liberation, Russian de-mining experts move in so that safety can be established for returning residents. As a result, many thousands have already returned to Ghouta and many more have returned to east Aleppo where reconstruction is underway.
War is horrible and civilian deaths and suffering is inevitable. At least the SAA (who after all are fighting to defend their own people) and the Russian forces are doing their best to mitigate the situation.
David
I don’t think Ken has ever denied collateral damage at the hands of any army or airforce. Its pretty well inevitable in any war
Yet another reason to avoid war at all costs
I apologize. I guess the impression came from the fact that, in an earlier thread, while you were accusing the U.S. of civilian casualties, I asked you about collateral damage inflicted by the Russian air force. And while you didn’t specifically say that Russia was not guilty, you couldn’t bring yourself to admit that they were either.
Do you know what “whataboutism” is? I ask about Russian collateral damage, and you say, ‘what about . . .” For example:
“However, it is interesting to compare the work of the Russians (and especially the Russian military police and conflict resolution people) with that of the US and their NATO partners.” That is classic whataboutism.
Show me the list of civilian casualties caused by Russian air strikes. You know, since you are now saying that it does happen.
And the U.S. hasn’t become infamous for the murders of its own journalists when unflattering information is printed. It is interesting to compare the list of murdered journalists in Russia to those murdered in the United States, and the reasons for those murders. For example, the most recent journalist (an anchor really) in the U.S. was murdered in 2015 by a former colleague. It was a domestic dispute. The Most recent in Russia was in 2018. A journalist died from injuries sustained after falling out of a window (a very common cause of death among Russian journalists). He was a Russian journalist who “regularly wrote on crime, corruption, and the recent involvement of Russian mercenaries in Syria.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_journalists_killed_in_Russia#2018 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_journalists_killed_in_the_United_States
Ken, your comment: “However, it is interesting to compare the work of the Russians (and especially the Russian military police and conflict resolution people) with that of the US and their NATO partners.”
David, your constant labelling of discussions as “whataboutism” is hypocritical of you. Your contribution here is classic “whataboutery” and Gish galloping. After all, the subject of this article is the White Helmets and how they are linked in with the head choppers. They are also liberally financed and directed by your country.
So now we are talking about collateral damage and Russian commercial developments in the reconstruction of a liberated Syria!
You have apologised for the lie about me – but are not really sorry because you go on the repeat you misinformation and attack me.
You now put it on me to “Show [you]the list of civilian casualties caused by Russian air strikes. ” You know full well that neither the forces fighting to liberate Syria from terrorists (the SAA and Russian aerospace forces) or the NATO and US countries who are in Syria illegaly publish lists of civilians killed. All we really have to go on is the personal testimony of survivors and that testimony for Raqqa and Mosul is pretty damning. The US/NATO record is not balanced by the humanitarian work and facilities that it is in the case of the Russian Federation – humanitarian corridors, facilitation of aid convoys, medial and surgical teams, food aid, etc., etc. Not to mention the extremely important work of the conciliation forces and military police.
Hell, the US has not even de-mined the cities they helped liberate.
Yes, it seems very unlikely that US firms will profit from the reconstruction of a liberated Syria. Why should they after the inhuman activity of their forces which are still illegally in that country? Why should they when they have had a policy of regime change which would have created a hell hole that we now see in Libya as a result of NAT’s regime change policy?
It is perfectly understandable for Syria to call on Russian firms to help reconstruction. I can only hope their work will eventually extend to the eastern areas where most of Syria’s oil and mineral deposits lie but which are currently in the hands of US proxy forces and elements of ISIS.
Political commentators are suggesting that the long-term plan of the USA is to enforce a break-up of Syria, to carve off these oil- and mineral-rich areas. I cannot imagine the US allowing Russian companies to get involved in the reconstruction and exploitation of the oil in minerals if that happens.
Syria is a sovereign country with a legitimate government. The UN recognises the geographical and political unity of the country even if your country doesn’t
Perhaps we should get back to discussing the “White Helmets” – or do you agree with my characterisation of them?
David, perhaps more US journalists would actually die if they were doing their job instead of acting as stenographers for establishment handouts. Perhaps more would die if they actually investigated what is really going on behind the scenes in the US political/media/intelligence establishment at the moment instead of treating their readers and viewers like mushrooms. The real crime and corruption endemic to the US.
Journalists who report on crime and corruption do risk their lives. But why cover up the fact that the objects of investigation are likely to be the murderers? The Russian Federation has an (admitted) problem with corruption. It also has a problem with violent crime historically linked to the anarchy of the Yeltsin era and the war in Chechnya. Russia has also lost journalists working in danger spots like Ukraine and Syria.
David, you really should try reading more independent sources employing real journalists instead of stenographers. Then you might get some idea of why the world is like it is instead of adhering to some sort of myth depending on the mantras “Russia did it” and “Putin did it.”
Complete hypocrisy: “Syria is a sovereign country with a legitimate government. The UN recognises the geographical and political unity of the country even if your country doesn’t”
Crimea was part of a sovereign country with a legitimate government. The UN recognized the geographical and political unity of Ukraine, even if you didn’t.
Fair warning. That parachute is so closed you won’t permit the possibility of that fact, and that very hard ground is getting closer every day. I’d pull the cord if I were you.
” It also has a problem with violent crime historically linked to the anarchy of the Yeltsin era and the war in Chechnya.”
Irrelevant. Yeltsin was not the President in 2018 when the journalist I cited, Maksim Borodin, was thrown out of his window in 2018 for reporting on mercenaries in Syria, and corruption in Russia. But thanks for the example of gish galloping.
Do you do not understand history? The criminal anarchy of the 90s simply did not stop with the resignation of Yeltsin on New Year’s Eve, 1999.
Things have improved a lot since the election of Putin (one of the reasons for his overwhelming support) – but problems still exist. One simply needs to follow news reports to see evidence of people (including quite highly placed businesspersons and politicians) prosecuted for corruption. Putin himself in his last marathon Q&A lamented at the difficulty of eradicating this problem – referring specifically to the corrupt officials who enabled the criminal Rodchekov to take charge of the Moscow anti-doping lab.
Also, the involvement of ex-military and ex-KGB and the crimes of the oligarchs has left its residue. And not only in the Russian Federation – the UK has also paid for their willingness to give refuges to these criminals.
You say “was thrown out of his window in 2018 for reporting on mercenaries in Syria, and corruption in Russia.” Do you have forensic and legal evidence for this or is it simply a product of prejudice? Who threw him out the window? Who produced the evidence of motive?
“David, you really should try reading more independent sources employing real journalists instead of stenographers.”
Funny you should say that, because, regarding the Caesar photos, one of the first things I read was the same link Reenmac provide. But the arguments in it are so speculative and in-concrete that I would think even you would be able to see through that one. Although I doubt you will argue against it, since it supports your pre-conceived biases.
Your quote: “Then you might get some idea of why the world is like it is instead of adhering to some sort of myth depending on the mantras “Russia did it” and “Putin did it.”
Funny you should say that too, because I have some idea of the reality of the world. I have seen people blown apart by terrorists. Have you? I have spent years in a real war zone living like an animal. Have you?
While you rant on about the head-choppers and all your other terrorists, you know, because of what you have critically and intelligently gleaned on social media sites, I have actually seen, first hand, what it involves.
So before you try to hit me with one of your tiny little put-downs, maybe you should spend some time in the real world, then maybe you might get some idea of why the world is like it is instead of adhering to some sort of myth depending on the mantras “Russia is innocent” “Putin holds the higher moral ground” and my favorite, “its an atrocity if it is NATO backed, but it’s propaganda if it offends my prejudices.”
My statement on the legitimacy of the Syrian government and the UN support for its territorial integrity is simply a matter of fact. It is often repeated in the preamble to UNSC resolutions on Syria.
It is also a fact that the US/NATO has installed its proxies in the east of Syria where the minerals and oils are (one of the reasons ISIS was so strong there – and guess who they traded oil with?)
Regarding Crimea – the UN General Assembly resolution is not binding. Voting reflects the relative power and arm-twisting endemic to this organisation. This year the US has been very vocal about the consequences for any nation which does not support their political stance. As the Russian ambassador said to the US ambassador (who he seems to be extremely friendly with) You don’t have friends, you have people who are afraid to vote against you.”
The legal situation of the return of Crimea to the Russian Federation can be debated. Territorial integrity is a UN principle – often thrown away by NATO and the US (consider Kosovo). Another principle is the right of peoples to determine their own destiny and nationhood (denied the people of Kosovo, by the way). That principle was very evident in the vote of the Crimeans to return to Russia – of that there is no doubt. The use of the new bridge to Crimea by road traffic starting this month will only reinforce Crimean support for the return.
I am sure both principles could be debated in international forums but I think the Russians, including the Crimeans, are clear that the current situation will not be allowed to change.
But are you seriously going to use the voluntary return of Crimea to Russia as support for what the US intentions seem to be – the partition of Syria so that the legitimate government loses access to its oil and mineral deposits? And local Syrian Arabs be dominated by Kurds? That is simply the regime change policy in a modified form.
Ken, reading back over your comments again, (and I don’t know how I missed it the first time) this jumped out at me:
“perhaps more US journalists would actually die if they were doing their job instead of acting as stenographers for establishment handouts. Perhaps more would die if they actually investigated what is really going on behind the scenes in the US political/media/intelligence establishment at the moment instead of treating their readers and viewers like mushrooms.”
“Journalists who report on crime and corruption do risk their lives.”
You said this in response to the high number of journalists killed in Russia. You are saying that fewer U.S. journalists are murdered than their Russian counterparts because they aren’t doing their jobs. They aren’t risking their lives by reporting on corruption.
You know, I can’t think of another country, other than the United States, (and maybe you can) in which two journalists brought down the holder of the highest office of government by reporting on the crime and corruption coming out of that office. That was in the 1970s.
Maybe you can think of another country where this has happened. Has it ever happened in Russia?
Today, when journalists report on corruption at the highest level of government, their work is called “Fake News.” (Ok, Morley Safer was called a Communist – even though he was Canadian) The free press is de-legitimized. The President of the United States has gone to war with the 4th Estate. So did Nixon . . we’ll have to wait to see how this plays out today.
So, to recap, the great reporters of corruption, Woodward & Bernstein are still alive. Morley Safer died of natural causes more than 40 years after the end of the Vietnam War.
You say, “Journalists who report on crime and corruption do risk their lives.” I suppose that’s true if the journalist lives in a country in which the environment is such that the free-flow of information allows for its brutal stifling. And what allows for that environment to exist?
Sorry, reading this again, I said this wrong: ” I suppose that’s true if the journalist lives in a country in which the environment is such that the free-flow of information allows for its brutal stifling.”
The paragraph should have read:
“You say, “Journalists who report on crime and corruption do risk their lives.” I suppose that’s true if the journalist lives in a country in which the environment, the cultural & political environments, allow, and maybe even encourage, the brutal stifling of the free flow of information. And what allows for that environment to exist?
Your quote: “But are you seriously going to use the voluntary return of Crimea to Russia as support for what the US intentions seem to be – the partition of Syria so that the legitimate government loses access to its oil and mineral deposits?”
No, I used the example of the illegal annexation of Crimea to highlight your hypocrisy. You said, “Syria is a sovereign country with a legitimate government. The UN recognises the geographical and political unity of the country even if your country doesn’t”
Now all of a sudden you are concerned with what the U.N. recognizes as a political entity. Crimea was part of a sovereign country with a legitimate government, which was recognized by the U.N. It was illegally annexed by Russia and was, in fact, condemned by the vast majority of U.N. states.
Even in your comment you attempt to justify that illegal action taken by Russia.
Regarding Syria, I would never speak out in defense of the actions of my country if it chose to pursue the path which you say it intends.
” Crimea was part of a sovereign country with a legitimate government, which was recognized by the U.N. It was illegally annexed by Russia and was, in fact, condemned by the vast majority of U.N. states.”
The legitimate, elected government of Ukraine had just been overthrown, illegally. The president had fled for his life. Neo-Fascist and ultranationalist gangs were advancing on Crimea and had already attempted a takeover of the Crimean parliament in the way they had also attempted, and often succeeded, in many cities.
The people of Crimea overwhelmingly chose to reunite with the Russian Federation – and the history of Crimea ever since the breakup of the USSR had been one attempt after another for reunification, independence or autonomy. Crimea was one of the tragedies Russian speakers faced with the disorderly collapse of the USSR.
Yes, the Crimean vote was condemned by many countries – I remind you of the United Nation’s US ambassador’s statement threatening countries which don’t vote the way the US wants. Despite these US wishes a very large proportion of UN states do not recognise Kosovo – so this situation is not all that unusual. I think the Crimean people vastly prefer their current situation to what the illegal regime in Kiev was offering. They had undergone years of neglect and are now seeing improvements resulting from the reunification and their improved economics and cultural situation.
Yes, one can go on about territorial integrity – and it is important. But it is dishonest to ignore or reject that other principle of national rights and aspirations. (Often expressed in referendums, but, unfortunately, not in the case of Kosovo). That is why I say under international law where these two principles may counter each other, the situation in Crimea is debatable.
Of course, there are many Russians, Ukrainians, Byelorussions, Kazakhs, etc. who would have preferred that the principle of territorial integrity had not been overlooked when it came to the breakup of the USSR. Despite referenda supporting retention of a reduced USSR entity the presidents and the Russian Fedewration., Beloruss and Ukraine made a decision to go ahead with separation of their countries. A decision probably precipitated by the attempted coup in the Russian Federation (as well as the interest of power groups in those countries), but nevertheless, a decision resulting in abandoning territorial integrity at a time when the referendum showed the people did not want it. Many people argue that if the will of the people had been followed at the time their positions may have been better now – but who is to know. One thing is for sure we would not now be arguing about Crimea.
As for Syria – the US is threatening territorial integrity and it ignoring the aspirations of the Syrian people at the same time. Even the Kurds, who will strongly argue for some sort of autonomy in a federal type structure, have not insisted on partition. Partition pressure is coming from NATO – for their own selfish reasons, not unconnected with the oil and mineral deposits in eastern Syria and the region. It has nothing to do with the wishes of the Syrian people.
The situation in east Syria is nothing like that in Crimea and it is disingenuous to argue that it is.
Please . . your hypocricy is seething through your pores. “Yes, the Crimean vote was condemned by many countries – I remind you of the United Nation’s US ambassador’s statement threatening countries which don’t vote the way the US wants. Despite these US wishes a very large proportion of UN states do not recognise Kosovo – so this situation is not all that unusual.”
Show me anything from the U.N. which supported Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea. . . Waiting . . .
After all, you said, “The UN recognises the geographical and political unity of the country (Syria) even if your country doesn’t” So we have established your criteria. Then please show me anything from the U.N. which didn’t recognize the geographical and political unity of Ukraine prior to Russia stealing part of its territory, Crimea. . . Waiting. . .
By your own criteria, since the U.N. recognized the valid sovereignty of Ukraine, Russia committed an international crime. And by non-binding resolution, the U.N. agrees.
You are a complete hypocrite. Any chance that parachute will open any time soon?
No, David, it is not my criteria – it is part of the UN criteria as expressed in the UNSC resolutions on Syria. Resolutions your country did not veto – although clearly violates.
Perhaps you should provide some sort of document from the UN that “didn’t recognize the geographical and political unity” of Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia or the USSR? If I were to be silly I would add “waiting?”
Perhaps I should ask for your justification (I suggest impossible) for the US military presence and activity in Syria, construction of bases and arming local militia. This is not sanctioned by the UN or any international law. How can you justify it? “Waiting?”
I notice you run away from mentioning the crisis and coup that Ukraine went through in 2014. The role your country played in this – to the extent of “fuck the EU” when the EU had arbitrated a democratic solution on February 24. You also ignore that the Crimeans clearly got what they had always wanted – there is no credible opposition within Crimea to the return.
Crimes were certainly being committed in Ukraine and Crimea at the time – but how many lives were lost during the period when the government of Crimea organised and carried out the referendum. And what was the reaction of the people to the result. (How many lives were lost by the illegal armed attacks on the people of Donbass and bombing of its cities by the junta – in complete violation of the Ukrainian constitution?)
This international political in Crimea act was one of the most peaceful and welcomed (by its residents) the world has ever seen – whatever the results mean for the political and economic elites running your country and controlling your political partys and media. And the Crimean people are extremely thankful to have avoided the tragedy that the people in Donbass suffered – and are still suffering.
In the end, it is the wishes and plight of the people that matter to me.
So what David?
“international crimes” are two a penny these days
If we want to guage the
‘international community'”s attitude to international crime , it could be summed up by ho hum when it comes to those war crimes committed by certain countries.. that go unpunished.For example, the US led war of aggression on Iraq,the US bombing of Syria and many others
When it comes to Crimea, bloodless, and welcomed by the population , oh the horror the horror
Can you point to me any example of the US invading any country without massive bloodshed and continued resistance
Crimea returning to Russia was without blood spilt, and rapturously welcomed .Crimea is now much better off under Russian rule, even with the spiteful sanctions.One could argue the original ceding of Crimea to Ukraine was illegal anyway
Kosovo on the other hand was wrenched from Serbia after non stop bombing and utter carnage for 78 days with no regard for civilian lives
Kosovo may have an obscenely huge US base but its economy is hopeless , its a centre for trafficking of drugs, arms and human organs. Great way to express humanitarianism eh?
So pardon me if I don’t have much regard for the very selective outrage you express
“In the end, it is the wishes and plight of the people that matter to me.”
Great. This is your New criteria. A lot of Mexicans, probably most, want to become U.S. citizens. By your criteria – which has nothing to do with international law – the United States should illegally annex Mexico. Your criteria, not mine.
Could you please cite the statute from the vast catalog of International Law which stipulates that it is legal for a sovereign nation to steal the territory of another legally recognized sovereign nation because even a majority of that population may wish to become citizens of the criminal nation?
Here’s Reenmac going off on the Whataboutism: “Can you point to me any example of the US invading any country without massive bloodshed and continued resistance” Yeah, what about the stuff the U.S. does?
Dude, you will get no argument from me about the sins of my country. You are wasting our time by bringing them up. This isn’t about Iraq; this isn’t about crimes in the Ukraine, this isn’t about Kosovo . . more Whataboutism (you people would have nothing to say if not for whataboutism). I won’t defend the idea of the U.S. trying to split up Syria. I won’t defend Iraq. Why would you try to bring up these moot points with me? You are wasting everyone’s time on these points.
This is about Ken’s blatant hypocrisy.
First Ken said, “Syria is a sovereign country with a legitimate government. The UN recognises the geographical and political unity of the country even if your country doesn’t”
He has established his criteria, why he believes no foreign nation should take action to partition it. No argument from me. I totally agree.
However, when the sovereignty of Ukraine and the illegal theft of its internationally recognized territory, Crimea, is raised, all of a sudden the argument has changed. Now, its about the will of the people. Don’t the Kurds have a say about their own destiny, just as you say the Crimeans did?
Ken, this is about your hypocrisy. Admit you have a problem, admit you made a mistake. We’re all human, we all make mistakes, and we all evolve in our thinking. There is no shame in that. In fact, to change one’s thinking is a badge of honor, it is a sign of true growth. But the first step is admission. Then maybe we can all get on with our lives.
David
Whataboutism is just a handy tool for those attempting to delegitimise others who point out the double standards of the ruling coalition aka “the international community”
If you can’t recognise that their concerns for international law are entirely self serving and hypocritical I give up on you
Whatever Russia has done vis a vis Crimea and Ukraine is infinitesimal in the larger scheme of things, so I’m not really inclined to get in a righteous lather about it.
By all means , champion international law, I wish it was respected by all countries, but the most egregious breaches have been perpetrated by western nations, the very ones who make such a song and dance and point the finger at others
Bang on about hypocrisy all you like , the western nations are fair reeking of it, and until we sort out our own deficits we should leave others well alone.
Don’t be a fool, David. I do not establish “criteria.”
As far as Syria is concerned it is up to the Syrian about how they organise their future political and regional structures.
At the moment no credible Syrian group is arguing for partition. There will be debates about a federal structure but it should be possible to organise one that takes the aspiration of all the national components into account in the same way that the secular organisation in Syria provides a place for all belief groups.
In Ukraine, the proponents of a monolithic political structure came to power in the 2014 coup and have suppressed the alternative democratic forces arguing for a more representative political structure. They have been pushing an ultranationalist, pro-fascist, policy ever since. This has caused dissatisfaction with national minorities like Russians, Hungarians and Poles. At some stage, this will have to be resolved or the country will either break up further or become even more corrupt and undemocratic. The Minsk agreement provided a good basis for resolving this issue constitutionally – pity that the crowd in Kiev refuse to carry out the agreements – and the US supports and encourages them in this.
To quote (in an amended form) the statement of the UK defence Minister I wish the US would just shut up and go away. That would solve many of the world’s problems.
Reenmac, for the second time now (I guess you missed it the first time), I agree. I wish international law was respected by all countries also. I will be the first one to admit the sins of my country.
Russia certainly isn’t. In Russia journalists who report on corruption have a nasty habit of ending up dead. I don’t know . . did you guys put it in the press when you were raping the Maori, stealing their land, and making them learn English? (It’s just a question.) Do you enjoy living in your home on land which was taken away from another culture without their consent? Don’t point your finger at me when your whole existence is dependent on the rape and destruction of another culture.
To my knowledge, the U.S. has never illegally annexed / stolen territory belonging to another sovereign nation recognized by the international community. Russia has. I’m willing to admit that my home used to belong to another people whose land was taken away from them. There is nothing I can do about that now . . but at least I can admit it.
That’s the difference. Ken doesn’t admit Russia is guilty of anything. Ken tries to make excuses for the high rate of murders of journalists who report on corruption in Russia. Ken tries to justify the illegal annexation of sovereign territory belonging to another culture. Ken is only willing to admit atrocities occur in Syria if they fall into the category of being Western / NATO backed.
Ken: “Perhaps I should ask for your justification (I suggest impossible) for the US military presence and activity in Syria, construction of bases and arming local militia. . . Waiting?”
I don’t justify it. I never have.
“Don’t be a fool, David. I do not establish “criteria.”
No you don’t. But you did for this argument. As you condemned a possible U.S. intent to partition Syria, your criteria for condemning such intent was:
” “The UN recognises the geographical and political unity of the country (Syria) even if your country doesn’t”
But when we apply that same criteria to Ukraine . . all of a sudden the criteria changes. Your dazzling display of back-peddling and hypocrisy must confuse even you.
“Perhaps we could get back to discussing the White Helmets, or do you agree with my characterization of them?”
No I don’t. In fact, most of the world doesn’t. While you claim that this organization is “liberally funded” by my country, which may be true, you neglect to add countries like Japan, Netherlands, New Zealand, U.K., Denmark, Germany, and Canada. Look out! It might be NATO backed . .
I am reading about a campaign of disinformation which, apparently, you have joined.
David, I am afraid your desire to play the man rather than the ball leads you to an incredible round of misinformation and attribution of claims to me that are completely unjustified.
I do not in any way use the criteria of UN recognition of territorial integrity in their resolutions on Syria to justify my condemnation of the US illegal presence in Syria or its likely plans for partition. If the USA was playing a positive role, supporting the people of Syria, etc., I, of course, would support it. But it isn’t. Partition of Syria is not in the interests of any Syrians and is not supported by any credible Syrian organisations. The US is not at all interested in the wishes of the Syrians – it, and its friends in NATO, are more interested in the oil and mineral deposits and preventing a free and independent Syria from exerting influence in the region to harm the perceived US interests.
The UN is not some sort of utopian body which can deliver to us unquestionable principles (or criteria)principles from god-given heights. It is a multinational organisation and its resolutions reflect that, and the interests of all those nations.
Tthe intelligent person does not blindly use such resolutions as moral criteria – or naively accept that these resolutions really represent the underlying motives of the nations involved.
As for the White Helmets – I have never, ever, suggested that the US is the only government funding that body as you imply. Read my articles on that orgnaisation>>
So, having cleared that up can I now assume yoiu do accept my characterisation of them as being in a close alliance, even integration, with the terrorist groups in Syria? And that they also act as a propaganda arm promoting false flag operations such as the “chemical incident” in Douma?
David, again playing the man rather than the ball you completely misrepresent me with the claims:
“Ken tries to make excuses for the high rate of murders of journalists who report on corruption in Russia.”
Wherever have I “made excuses” for the murder of journalists or for corruption?
I condemn all such murders of Russian journalists – as well as other like, say, for example, the US citizen Seth Rich. I condemn corruption (in Russia, the USA, UK or anywhere) – it needs to be exposed.
You mistake me providing a bit of history that helps explain the corruption these reporters (and investigators like Rich) may have been looking into and exposing for somehow “making excuses!”
Come off it. Give up the personal hostility and deal with information.
reenmac says, “Well , there you go David, guess you won’t be wasting any more of your time on Ken’s blog then eh?”
Odd, I would have thought the same about you. A parachute only works if it is open . . you know, . . like a mind. You, however, seem offended by an alternate point of view. This is a characteristic of a closed mind. An open mind does not try to make an alternate viewpoint go away, but rather seeks out alternate points of view to challenge it and foster growth. For example, this would be something a close-minded person would say: “I wish the US would just shut up and go away.” See how that works?
So I find it ironic that you are attracted to a blog that is supposedly dedicated to an open mind and alternate points of view. Something’s wrong somewhere. There are only one of two possibilities happening here. Either this blog isn’t really dedicated to tolerant and broad minded thinking, or you can’t comprehend what you are reading.
Ken: “I do not in any way use the criteria of UN recognition of territorial integrity in their resolutions on Syria to justify my condemnation of the US illegal presence in Syria or its likely plans for partition.”
You don’t? Well you said it. Do you understand the meaning of the words you use, or do you hope that if you keep denying what you said, eventually someone will come to believe it?
Ken: “Political commentators are suggesting that the long-term plan of the USA is to enforce a break-up of Syria, to carve off these oil- and mineral-rich areas. I cannot imagine the US allowing Russian companies to get involved in the reconstruction and exploitation of the oil in minerals if that happens. (Why?)
Syria is a sovereign country with a legitimate government. The UN recognises the geographical and political unity of the country even if your country doesn’t.”
Talking to you, Ken, is like trying to talk to Jello. You don’t remember what you said . . If you do remember what you said, you lie and say you didn’t say it. In the end, all that really matters to you is the “rightness” of Russia and its allies, and the wrongness of those who threaten that viewpoint. You’re as corrupt and polluted as the Russian propaganda that you bathe in daily to soothe your own aching bias.
Let’s do this again. That was fun.
“Wherever have I “made excuses” for the murder of journalists or for corruption?”
How about right here:
David says: “. . . the journalist I cited, Maksim Borodin, was thrown out of his window in 2018 for reporting on mercenaries in Syria, and corruption in Russia.”
Ken responds: “You say “was thrown out of his window in 2018 for reporting on mercenaries in Syria, and corruption in Russia.” Do you have forensic and legal evidence for this or is it simply a product of prejudice?”
So, you’re saying this Russian journalist who reported on corruption in Russia and unethical behavior in Syria just happened to fall out of his window? What would be the forensic evidence that you are asking for? Fingerprints on a splattered body?
And again – Ken: “David, perhaps more US journalists would actually die if they were doing their job instead of acting as stenographers for establishment handouts. Perhaps more would die if they actually investigated what is really going on behind the scenes in the US political/media/intelligence establishment at the moment instead of treating their readers and viewers like mushrooms. The real crime and corruption endemic to the US.
Journalists who report on crime and corruption do risk their lives. But why cover up the fact that the objects of investigation are likely to be the murderers?”
Here you’re saying that murders of journalists who report on corruption is a normal occurrence and is to be expected. The reason it happens in Russia, and not in the U.S,. is that U.S. journalists don’t really report on corruption . . they just take “official” hand-outs from the government.
Not only is that a lie (U.S. journalists report MORE on the crimes of their country than Russian journalists) but it diminishes the sacrifices that have been made by Russian journalists who try to provide legitimate information to the Russian people. Moreover, to imply that it is normal for a journalist to be murdered because he / or she reports on corruption, is nothing less than making an excuse for the murder of that journalist.
So this is another proven lie from you: “Wherever have I “made excuses” for the murder of journalists or for corruption?” And since you’ve decided that a question can be a lie (do I need to copy/paste that too?) that was a lie.
And the example of your excuses for the murders of Russian journalists that I have provided came only from this thread. There are so many more examples.
Ken, I don’t know what the problem is with you. Maybe you’re just so old, and your viewpoints are so set-in-stone that you are incapable of digesting any criticism of the Russian Federation. Maybe you are having age problems and you just can’t remember what you have said. Maybe it’s an ego thing with you . . maybe you just refuse to believe that a mere mortal like me who has had a post-graduate education at one of the premier Universities in the United States can be right on an issue and prove you wrong.
Whatever your problem, I suggest either you open your mind or change hobbies. You are losing whatever little credibility you may have left.
Open Parachute 
I emailed the Syria Campaign and asked if the annual audit for the White Helmets was available online. I’ve managed to look at an annual report for the Red Cross, but there is absolutely nothing for the WHs
Odd,I would have thought, when the donations from wealthy countries like the US and the EU run in to the millions.Why this lack of responsible accounting
No reply of course. But would it be an idea to ask for the report from our firefighter who went to
Turkey to train the White Helmets, as he would surely have been required to compile one
LikeLike
reenmacFrancesca, when you copy/paste text from one format and place it onto another, you get the odd non justified text which we can see in your comment. I wonder why we see this in your comment?
I was curious about the White Helmets from my reading of this blog. I had no prior bias one way or the other. I took a look at FACT CHECK, a reliable source, and this is what I found:
“Syrian Rescue Organization ‘The White Helmets’ Are Terrorists?
? UNPROVEN”
“The group has come under suspicion from those who support Assad. The Russian-funded television station, RT (formerly Russia Today), regularly posts stories casting doubt on the motives of the group (the Russian government supports the Assad regime).
“The rumors reappeared in April 2017, blaming the White Helmets directly for a deadly gas attack in Syria.
“Whatever their motives may be, we found no credible evidence that the White Helmets are linked to terrorist organizations. The accusations seem to be levied at the group based on political motivations, not evidence.” https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/syrian-rescue-organization-the-white-helmets-are-terrorists/
AND
“Proof the White Helmets ‘Staged’ a Chemical Attack in Syria?
X FALSE
“photographs from a film set about a man staging a chemical attack are being used by conspiracy theorists (and Russian state media) as evidence that a chemical attack was actually staged.” https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/is-this-proof-white-helmets-staged-chemical-attack/
POLITIFACT agrees:
“So, was the chemical attack a hoax orchestrated to draw the United States into Syria’s civil war?
“We found no credible evidence of it. ” http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/apr/07/unproven-online-theories-doubting-syrian-gas-attac/
AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL accuses pro-Russian & Syrian media of using the White Helmets as part of a political information campaign:
“Both the Syrian government and parts of Russian state-controlled media have been operating a long-running campaign questioning the authenticity of the White Helmets’ operations, including claiming that its rescue videos have been staged.” https://www.amnesty.org.uk/press-releases/syria-new-campaign-over-missing-member-white-helmets-shown-sinister-video
“Amnesty International UK’s Syria Campaign Manager Kristyan Benedict said:
“This sinister propaganda video (of a kidnapped White Helmet volunteer who was forced to confess on video) is a reminder of the ‘information war’ that the Syrian and Russian governments are operating alongside the physical horrors of their airstrikes and sieges in this dreadful conflict.
“The White Helmets have acted heroically in places like Aleppo, saving countless lives during some of the most savage Syrian and Russian bombardments.” https://www.amnesty.org.uk/press-releases/syria-new-campaign-over-missing-member-white-helmets-shown-sinister-video
I trust Politifact, Snopes Fact Check, and Amnesty International as sources and your readers should too. I hope I will not hear that these three sources are involved in a disinformation conspiracy, or are also working with the “head choppers” (which, by the way, is a phrase often used by Russian propaganda TV, RT, and, apparently, mindlessly parroted by followers of that network).
LikeLike
Where is the copy/paste in the comment you refer to ?
LikeLike
reenmac, I didn’t refer to a copy/paste. I questioned your non-justified margins, a phenomenon when text is copy/pasted from one format to another. For example:
“No reply of course. But would it be an idea to ask for the report from our firefighter who went to
Turkey to train the White Helmets . . . ”
Now, these are two consecutive sentences which should flow seamlessly in meaning and in form. But it does not. There should not be a break between the words “to” and “Turkey.” This is what happens when you copy/paste something that has already been written . . and then post it onto another format.
I simply asked, “I wonder why we see this in your comment?”
I hope this answers your question.
LikeLike
Well it seems you could be my tutor on these matters
I certainly don’t make any claims to being a smooth writer, your comments on copy/pasting and margins are new to me, but clearly you are expert on such things
I wonder how that comes about?
AAh, I see, the break in the sentence, …. thats caused by clumsy use of the keyboard.
My suspicion of the White Helmets comes from journalists who have investigated their origins and current political/religious alliances, studies of photos published in social media, their lack of accreditation with the International civil defence organisation based in Switzerland, and their misleading claims about impartiality
I prefer not to outsource my scepticism to bogus sites like Snopes and politicised branches of Amnesty
LikeLiked by 1 person
David, to say you “trust Politifact, Snopes Fact Check, and Amnesty International as sources and your readers should too” is simply to admit to confirmation bias, to outsourcing your own ability to critically assess situations and to encourage others to stop thinking.
I strongly urge people to beware of such sources, such unthinking “fact-checking.” I encourage people to think for themselves – look at the facts for themselves.
Otherwise, we get the incredible situation of a number of OPCW national representatives who boycotted the recent session organised by the Russian and Syrian representatives where people from Douma gave their own testimonies about the “chemical incident.” This also reflects the way the UNSC ambassadors for the FUKUS regimes always walk out of SC meetings when the Syrian ambassador gives his reports.
it is incredible to me that in their statement these OPCW national representatives crudely argue for blindly accepting the claims of the jihadi-aligned White Helmets and Syrian American Medical Society. They accept the lies that the video they promoted showed a chemical attack while rejecting the evidence of patients and doctors who were seen in the film! That is incredible bias.
There is ample evidence that the White Helmets and SAMS are not objective sources of information or simple humanitarian workers. Even the fact that when areas like Aleppo and Ghouta were liberated these organisations got on the buses together wither their comrades in arms (the head choppers) and moved to Idlib.
Come on people – start thinking for yourselves. Don’t be taken in by those who wish to do that thinking for yoiu and ask you to undergo self-censorship.
LikeLike
The apparent break in continuity is an annoying problem with wordpress.com. It infuriates me and whenever it happens I search for the code causing it but cannot find it.
The more general problem of large breaks occurs when pdf documents are copied and pasted. This can be overcome by pasting as unformatted text.
I find the best way to check copypasta is to do a google search on the suspect text – this will often show the sources of the pasted text – and also often reveals that such text is copy/pasted by many people. It’s a common trick with anti-fluoride people – copypasta of copypasta of copypasta . . .
LikeLike
Regarding the copy/paste:
The reason I believe reenmac’s text was copy/pasted from a text using another format is because this has happened to me also. The way I overcome the awkward appearance that occurs is to go through the text, place the cursor at the beginning of the second line of the break, backspace (which will conjoin the two words), and then apply a space between the words. It’s a little time-consuming, but it improves the appearance of the text.
Moreover, when I do copy/paste from another source, I try to provide a link or some other documentation indicating these are not my own words, and whose they are.
What I find so odd about reenmac’s comment is that it is written in the First Person, implying these are reenmac’s own words. Why would you copy/paste your own words? Why not just write it on the format provided?
I don’t know, maybe it was written on an i-phone or a blackberry, or some weird gizmo where this phenomenon occurs. Maybe the Enter key was inadvertently struck a few times — It just struck me as very odd.
LikeLike
The reason it is written in the first person ,David, is because generally when I am describing an action I have taken, I refer to myself in the first person.
How about you?
Why don’t you try writing to the Syria Campaign yourself, on the link they provide, for an annual audit for the White Helmets
The small bit of text you find so suspicious refers to the fact that our NZ govt donated $100,000 of taxpayers money and paid for a firefighter to conduct a WH workshop in Turkey
We’ve had absolutely no feedback from that
I’d like a little bit of accountability there.
LikeLike
Regarding the White Helmets and looking at sources reporting about them:
Ken, I had never heard about the White Helmets, and the controversies surrounding them, before reading your blog. So, at this stage of investigation I am doing a superficial over-view of the situation. I’m not looking at actual words written by these people (although I have), I am simply looking at the controversy – what is being said about them.
Face it, unless you actually go to Syria and physically observe what these people (white helmets) are doing on the ground, to some degree you are relying on facts (or not) presented by other people who are reporting about them. Therefore, you must make a judgment call about the sources themselves.
When I look at a source reporting on a controversy I ask myself two things: A.) Has the source done its homework? B.) Is the source biased, or relatively fair & balanced?
In this thread I have relied on four sources to reach a conclusion. 1.) Open Parachute. 2.) Snopes Fact Check. 3.) Politifact, and 4.) Amnesty International
1.) Open Parachute. Has OP done its homework? For what Open Parachute does, yes it has. You professionally present your sources with links that are easily verified, and you present your arguments at great length.
Is Open Parachute a biased blog? Absolutely. For example, you have written countless essays on the conflict in Syria, but rarely, if ever at all, have you criticized the Assad regime. Nor could you find it in yourself that the Russian Air Force has created collateral damage (innocent human lives) with its air strikes. It is unrealistic to assume this has not occurred.
You have written countless essays about Syria, and you rightly say, “Don’t be taken in by those who wish to do that thinking for you and ask you to undergo self-censorship.”
You are critical of “self-censorship” and yet you are guilty of it. How do I know this? Because you, yourself, were unaware of a collection of damning photos that have achieved such global fame that they have been publicly exhibited at such prominent locations as The U.N. Headquarters in New York, the US Congress, The Holocaust Museum in Washington DC, the European Parliament in Brussels, the UK Houses of Parliament in London, the RHA Gallery in Dublin, and The Clinton School for Public Service to name a few.
And yet, until three days ago you were unfamiliar them. You have yet to read a HRW Report documenting their validity. How is this possible?
The problem with Open Parachute is that it relies on sources that only confirm its political biases. Anyone with an open mind who did a superficial, broad spectrum, search for information on the Syrian conflict would have, at some point, been made aware of the Caesar photos. Anyone who has written countless essays about Syria Should have been aware of them. But someone who only looks at pro-Assad/pro-Russian material would have never known of their existence.
Open Parachute does its homework, but it is completely biased. It is so biased, in fact, that it often parrots catch-phrases which are commonly heard on Russian propaganda TV, RT. For example, Open Parachute didn’t coin the phrase “head-choppers.” (That’s a dead giveaway.)
2.) Snopes Fact Check. Does Fact Check do its homework? Absolutely. “Jan Harold Brunvand, a folklorist who has written a number of books on urban legends and modern folklore, considered the site so comprehensive in 2004 that he decided not to launch one of his own to similarly discuss the accuracy or various legends and rumors” https://web.archive.org/web/20040812075515/http://www.nationalreview.com/seipp/seipp200407210830.asp
Is Snopes biased? They don’t seem to be: “Do the Snopes.com articles reveal a political bias? We reviewed a sampling of their political offerings, including some on rumors about George W. Bush, Sarah Palin and Barack Obama, and we found them to be utterly poker-faced. David does say that the site receives more complaints that it is too liberal than that it is too conservative. Nevertheless, he says, “We apply the same debunking standards to both sides.” https://www.factcheck.org/2009/04/snopescom/
And:
“Fact-checking the fact-checkers: Snopes.com gets an ‘A’” https://www.networkworld.com/article/2235277/data-center/data-center-fact-checking-the-fact-checkers-snopes-com-gets-an-a.html
3.) Politifact. Does Politifact do its homework? They seem to.
For example, The Myth that Nazis used Fluoride. Politifact looked at such sources as the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, checked with an expert in the German medical community, including Holocaust-era experimentation, contacted Christopher Bryson, who denied the myth while nonetheless mentioning Nazis “less than 10 times,” in his 2004 book. So they must have read the book. Politifact also contacted the authors of “The Fluoride Wars.”
Finally, Politifact tracked down a self-published booklet entitled, “”Fluoridation: Mind Control of the Masses?” written by Ian E. Stephens, and in the booklet, “we meet government research worker Charles Eliot Perkins, who at the end of World War II purportedly learned from a big German chemical producer that it had developed a plan to fluoridate occupied countries.”
And that’s where the myth likely originated. Yes. I would say Politifact does its homework. http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2011/oct/06/critics-water-fluoridation/truth-about-fluoride-doesnt-include-nazi-myth/
Is Politifact biased? In this highly polarized political climate, it receives criticism of bias from conservatives & liberals alike. However, when one looks at Politifact’s “Lie of the year,” both liberal & conservative presidents have been named. In 2010 & 2013, Obamacare was the Lie of the year. In 2015, “Various statements by Donald J. Trump.”
Several statements by Hillary Clinton have registered as “False” on the Truth-o-meter http://www.politifact.com/personalities/hillary-clinton/
However, when compared to Donald Trump, Clinton has received only 2 “Pants on Fire” awards, compared to Trump receiving 80. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/lists/people/comparing-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-truth-o-met/
So Politifact goes both ways. It’s not biased, and it does its homework.
4.) Amnesty International. Does Amnesty do its homework? It’s an irrelevant question because AI isn’t a fact-checking organization, news service, or even an opinion blog.
More importantly, is it biased? I checked its report on the controversial country of Syria, its 2017-2018 Report. The report didn’t hold back. Everyone received criticism for killing civilians, including U.S. airstrikes, IS forces, the Syrian government, Russian airstrikes, Syrian airstrikes. Based on this report, I would say that AI is not biased against any one particular group.
And, I stand corrected, Amnesty International appears to do its homework. https://www.amnesty.org/en/countries/middle-east-and-north-africa/syria/report-syria/
Conclusion: When I see a comment on an opinion blog, which gets an absolute FAIL for bias, warning people to beware of sources which show themselves at least attempting to be fair, I have to wonder why.
This is your comment: “I strongly urge people to beware of such sources, such unthinking “fact-checking.” I encourage people to think for themselves – look at the facts for themselves.”
On the issue of the Syrian White Helmets . . .
Yes, do look at the facts themselves. On one hand we have an opinion-blog writer who sounds like a talking bird who has been left in a room with Russian propaganda TV playing all day, who repeats catch-phrases like “head choppers.” (He didn’t coin the phrase. Obviously, he heard it from somewhere and is repeating it like a parrot.) Yes, look at that, and then look at the people he is trying to warn you about, organizations which at least attempt a fair and balanced, unbiased approach, and who have done their homework.
LikeLike
reenmac, Here is a news article about the New Zealand firefighter who was sent to Turkey to help train the White Helmets Regarding the White Helmets and looking at sources reporting about them: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11736336
Why don’t you contact the NZHerald about this story, ask them would do a follow-up about the firefighter, and ask about the money. It’s what they do.
LikeLike
David, you are of course welcome to your opinions on my blog – and I am mature enough to recognise the possible and probable motivations and biases underlying your opinion. However, the sensible thing for a mature person is to avoid my blog if it gives you such problems and you find the material so useless and biased.
That is up to you.
An aspect I never seem to get through to you is the importance of evidence. You rely on the conclusions of others – reject them if they don’t confirm your bias and cite them if they do. You never dig any deeper and consider the actual evidence used by the sources you cite, or consider evidence from alternative sources.
The respectability of an organisation or source is meaningless – it is the evidence that counts.
As a scientist, I find that approach naive and rather childish. I respect a lot of scientists but I never, never, accept their conclusions as facts simply because of that respect. I look at the evidence behind their conclusions. All good scientists operate this way (although I concede in writing up their work citations are often used in a mechanical way).
It does not matter how much Ia respect a scientist – if I find flaws in their logic or evidence which do not support their conclusion I do not hesitate from drawing different conclusions. Scientists just love to show previously reported work is wrong – that is how we make progress. And how we win respect for ourselves.
So I really do find reliance on “fact checking” sites or “humanitarian” organisations rather childish. What about considering the evidence used by those sites and organisations and other evidence you can find.
It is shocking to me that you rely only on my posts (and you reject them) and “fact checking” sites or amnesty international for your conclusions about the White Helmets.
If nothing else you should be up to date with the White Helmet’s videos regarding the alleged chemical incident in Douma and the evidecne from the patients and doctors present in the white helmets videos (presented at the OCW in The Hague and elsewhere). The conclusions from this evidecne are completely opposite and this gives you a chance to make a judgment about the reliability of the White Helmets.
And there is plenty of other material around. You may not be aware of it but most of the information you probably access comes via the White Helmets, the SAMS and the media organisations in Idlib, Ghouta and Aleppo – all affiliated with the jihadis, terrorists, head choppers, etc.
There is plenty of evidence showing the funding of these organisations by the USA, UK, NATO (and, unfortunately, NZ). There is plenty of evidence showing the links between all these organisations and groups like the Atlantic Council.
You say:
And that is absolutely true. That is where critical thinking and intelligence (and consideration of real evidence) comes in.
I, at least, have considered evidence coming from independent journalists like Vanessa Beeley who is often in Syria, is currently in Damascus and reporting from Douma. She visited Aleppo many times. She has reported on the links between the White Helmets and Al Nusra (often their buildings are alongside each other) and the way members of the White Helmets act as rescuers during part of their day but moonlight as terrorist fighters.
She has also reported on the genuine Syrian Civil Defence – the body affiliated to the international organisation. The body whose name has been stolen by the White Helmets in the terrorist-controlled areas. The body whose equipment, vehicles, etc., has been stolen by this NATO financed White Helmets in the areas controlled by the head choppers.
Her evidence is of infinitely more value than any of your “fact checking” sites. I avoid such excuses for non-thinking like the plague – on all matters. I am not impressed with their articles on fluoride – but then I probably have a deeper understanding of the science than their writers do. I would certainly not rely on them for scientific information – and more so I would not rely on them for political arbitrations.
LikeLike
David – you say of me:
My response:
I obviously do not watch the “Russian propaganda TV playing all day” that you do. Could you tell me the name of the channel and if you think it is available in NZ? I would try to watch it. I think the term “militant” is too mild (and offensive to many nationalities who use it as a positive term to describe political activists) and I like the idea of a mainstream media source using a more honest term. In many ways, I find RT-America too “respectable,” tame and American in style so would like something better and more honest. I just wish we had access to English language versions of some of the more lively Russian channels which appear to promote very lively debates where almost anything seems to go.
LikeLike
David, thank you for the link to the Herald re: the NZ firefighter.
How on earth did you think I was made aware of this back in 2016?
I read the same article, I don’t need to read it again
I have written to the Minister whose responsibility this was,Peter Dunne, but was passed on to Murray McCully.
I asked for a full account and have so far not received a reply, apart from the usual office generated acknowledgement
It seems you have found sources on Syria you are comfortable with
I am more comfortable with long time ME journalists like Robert Fisk and Patrick Cockburn, who have stood the test of time.
Why on earth do you so persistently haunt the pages of a site you have no confidence in?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Reenmac, I know Ken may have vilified the media in your mind, but part of its job is to hold those accountable who are there to serve you, the public. If you haven’t asked the NZHerald for a follow-up on its story, then you haven’t pursued every avenue, and you shouldn’t be complaining that you haven’t received a response.
Why do I haunt the pages of this site? Is that what I am doing? Not quite. I am attempting to hold someone accountable who has tried to de-legitimize an institution which provides the essential service, the free-flow of information. History has shown us that whenever a third-world, Nazi, Stalinist or any other thug dictator imposes himself upon a society, one of the first things to go is the Free Press. You should be terrified when Dr. Perrott says things like, “I strongly urge people to beware of such sources . .”
Why do I haunt the pages of this site? If Dr. Perrott is becoming tired of defending his incomplete, one-sided view of reality, perhaps you should ask him why he still does it.
LikeLike
David, you say of the media:
So true – but also true is that the mainstream media (or its western component) just does not do that these days. Journalists act as stenographers rather than journalists. Worse, they attack independent journalists who are doing this job. See my article Mainstream media-political alliance gets vindictive.
The recent alleged “chemical” incident in Douma and the illegal missile attack on Syria by the FUKUS regimes illustrate the fact that the mainstream media has abandoned this role.
The FUKUS regimes claimed they were attacking Syrian chemical weapons manufacturing and storage areas. Those regimes lied, they knew they were lying (they would have had the OPCW monitoring evidence and they would never have attacked areas where the release of chemicals would lead to thousands of deaths – as in the case of the research centre in Damscus (see The “heart of the Syrian chemical weapons programme” destroyed? The western mainstream media simply and uncritically repeated these lies (although some did question the illegality of the attack).
Information from the OPCW is easily available. Independent journals and social media were reporting this evidence yet none of the mainstream media reported this. The only exceptions were RT and Sputnik – mainstream media but not western.
Similarly the visit of the OPCW team to Douma. The US and UK OPCW representative lied by claiming that the OPCW said their access was prevented by the Russians and Syrians. The US representative claimed that the Russian military was destroying evidence. In fact, the OPCW General Secretary referred to access problems – the UN security team, would not let them in because of demonstrations (civilians were demanding aid from the UN, I think) and gunfire from remaining terrorists. The UN team was eventually able to ensure security and the Syrians and Russians helped in this. In fact, the team was there only because the Syrians and Russians officially requested it of the OPCW – and access was only possible becuase the area had been liberated. The terrorists would never have allowed the team in.
Also, regarding reporting of this incident. The mainstream media (including RT and Sputnik) widely reported the White Helmets propaganda videos and claims. However, the western media has generally not reported material from non-Jihadi sources. For example Robert Frisk’s report (I am intimately connected to this locally as my daughter is a media studies academic and raised the nom-reporting of Frisk’s article with local media. They quickly provided a report – but with the expected guide to readers to dismiss it as unreliable – doctors he interviewed had referred to “terrorists.” I suspect my daughter’s success was because of her job – I don’t think you or I would have that influence with the media).
Other western media (not mainstream – although from social media I got the impression that had reporters in the area) also interviewed patients and doctors – in general, their reports are only available (in the west) on social media. They are not carried by western mainstream media.
The testimony of 17 patients and doctors in The Hague (made possible by the Russian and Syrian OPCW representatives) has been mentioned by mainstream media but not reported in any detail (except RT which broadcast sections of the video testimony). The (western) tone has generally been dismissive – implying even that the Syrian patients and doctors had been manipulated). The presence of one of the children from the White Helmet’s video relating his experience was attacked by western media – who did not criticise the White Helmets use of children by the jihadis – in the white helmets video, the Aleppo boy, Bana, etc.
The FUKUS regime representatives at the OPCW and their allies boycotted (anmd later attacked) the event where the Syrians related their experiences.
Now, the chemical incident and the illegal missile attack by the FUKUS regimes were highly important incidents which the (western) mainstream media absolutely failed to report properly.
I, myself, would not know what has been going on regarding these events if I wore the blinkers you advocate and refused to use social media and alternative media sources for my information.
LikeLike
I went to the source for follow up
I don’t depend on the media for predigested information.
The trouble is that the media doesn’t take the powers that be to account, the news sources in general repeat what govt says and reinforces, rather than subject to rigorous questioning and analysis.
If I want information I have to learn to navigate between all the avenues available rather than passively accept MSM.
I find it interesting that the Syrians and the Russians have always offered unhindered evacuation to the armed militants, even putting on air conditioned buses.This was never offered in Mosul
When Aleppo was liberated , out of a probably overestimated population of 250,000, 35,000 militants plus family opted to evacuate to Idlib, and the White Helmets went with them
By far the majority of civilians chose to go to govt protected West Aleppo, and many have since returned to their houses in the East
As Robert Fisk mentioned, in Douma, the WH left with the militants
Idlib by now must be an absolute bastion of democracy and equality, as its where the “rebels ” have congregated …but is it?
http://www.syriahr.com/en/?p=86103
LikeLike
A couple of things, Ken.
First of all, no, I am not using words like parrot the way I have seen anti-science people use it against you. I agree, that is childish. However, the fact that you employ the vocabulary coming from only one side of this issue is evidence (there’s that word) that you are guided to sources by your own biases.
Your quote: “No, I did not coin the word “head choppers” – at least I don’t think so. It is a term commonly used in social media . .”
Well, maybe the social media in which you tend to immerse yourself.
Further evidence (more evidence, imagine that) of your narrow approach, at least to the Syrian issue, is the fact that you had never heard of the now globally recognized Caesar photographs, at least until I brought the collection to your attention. Why exactly is that? Even a superficial balanced look at the sources would have made you aware of the photos.
Your quote: “It is shocking to me that you rely only on my posts (and you reject them) and “fact checking” sites or amnesty international for your conclusions about the White Helmets.”
I never said I rely only on your posts and “fact checking” posts. As you will see in my next statement will explain.
Your quote: “If nothing else you should be up to date with the White Helmet’s videos regarding the alleged chemical incident in Douma, . .”
What makes you think I’m not? In fact, you should KNOW that I am up to date with it. Your statement is further evidence (there’s that word again) that YOU don’t look at all the evidence, especially that which challenges your biases. If you had looked at the links I had provided you would have seen that the Politifact link discussed the Staged Video in depth. AND POLITIFACT USED NO FEWER THAN 30 SOURCES, many from the Alternative media you love to tout, and Politifact provided links to each.
So when you criticize fact-checking sources as being incomplete and superficial, you have provided more evidence that you think more with your biases than you do with your brain. You criticize sources that you yourself haven’t looked at, and then you warn other people to beware of them. .
Moreover, if nothing else, YOU should be up to date with the White Helmet’s video of the staged chemical attack. The fact that you are not is more evidence (there sure is a lot of evidence pointing to your narrow approach, isn’t there) that you don’t use a broad-spectrum approach when investigating an issue.
“There is plenty of evidence showing the funding of these organisations by the USA, UK, NATO (and, unfortunately, NZ). “
You forgot Canada, the Netherlands, Japan, and other online donations. So what.
“I, at least, have considered evidence coming from independent journalists like Vanessa Beeley who is often in Syria, . .”
Again, so what. Just because someone is in Syria doesn’t mean they are biased and one sided. Would it carry any weight with you if I were to say, ‘I at least, have considered evidence coming from other journalists like Richard Engal who is not only often in Syria, but he has put himself in such danger that he has actually been kidnapped in Syria.’? Your boastful comments are meaningless.
Has Vanessa Beeley been kidnapped in Syria? Or does she mostly stay in the safe places?
If you had read my comment, you will have seen that the evidence supports my conclusion that you do not use a broad-spectrum approach in your search for political truth, and you are led by your biases to sources you deem acceptable, all while criticizing sources with which you feel you would disagree, if you actually looked at them.
LikeLike
reemac, you say:
“Idlib by now must be an absolute bastion of democracy and equality, as its where the “rebels ” have congregated …but is it?”
I had often wondered at the wisdom of the Syrian government settling liberated areas in this way – often felt they were letting the head choppers off too lightly.
But maybe they know what they are doing. A bit of weeding out by the different jihadi forces themselves may reduce the opposition to more manageable levels when the time comes to liberate Idlib.
Of course, one of the downsides is that some of these jihads then travel through Turkey into Europe and do their handiwork there.
LikeLike
I suppose while the various groups in Idlib are killing each other they aren’t able to mount concerted attacks on other Syrian territories
I think there is a recognition that not all militants are ardently opposed
to Assad (whoops, there goes that annoying “return ” function pitching in that leads David to believe I’m some sort of bot or propagandist) and where there is huge unemployment young men will join up wherever to put food on the table for their families.
LikeLike
Interesting, David, you refer to the “staged chemical attack” in Douma. Even I haven’t gone that far – preferred to describe it as alleged. Why have you decided it was “staged?”
I don’t know why you think I am not up to date with the White Helmet’s videos – I have watched the mainstream media presentations.
I think the reports from the independent journalists in Duoma, and the later testimony of patients and doctors in the video, do indicate the video of the hosing of patients at the hospital is “staged” – not in the sense of acting out, as people were responding to a real event. But in the sense that the White Helmets manufactured panic by rushing in yelling about a chemical attack and then taking over hoses etc. Although the situation was made worse by the presence of non-specialist workers in the hospital (most medics had left the war zone by the humanitarian corridors so non-specialist were being employed).
I think there is still some confusion to come with the other videos – dead bodies, etc. Personally, I think there could have been the release of chlorine gas, or something similar, by the White Helmets and their head chopper friends (placement of canisters suggest this). Chemical stores, including chloride, were found in Ghouta after liberations.If the bodies have been located and sampled these may show poisoning and you can be sure the mainstream media will blame Syria and Russia. On the other hand, these could be bodies of dead children and families murdered by the head choppers and gather together. The stacking and movement of the bodies in the videos suggest this possibility. Something similar was apparent in the videos from Khan Shaykhun last year – and there were also reports of a number of children that had previously gone missing supporting the idea of previous murders.
Those head choppers are real bastards.
I am sure Vanessa has never been kidnapped – these head choppers would not have allowed her to live – even as a sex slave. Those who captured her would have been rewarded for her death far more than they could have got selling her.
As for boasting – come off it. I am a mature adult and don’t indulge in such childishness.
LikeLike
reenmac – I think your point about “militants” or fighters going to whatever group will pay th=em is so true. After all the alternative is lounging about in a refugee camp.
I understand that significant numbers of jihadi fighters do opt to stay when areas are liberated – to have their residence legalised. or, very often, to join the army.
It seems strange but in these situations I guess money has a bigger effect than any ideological loyalty.
LikeLike
Ken, you’d better open that parachute pretty soon. You are getting closer to the ground with every passing day. 🙂
LikeLike
And yet you’ve never explained why someone with an open mind, you know like a parachute, who looks at all evidence critically and intelligently, has never heard of the Caesar photos until a few days ago, you know, when I brought them to your attention.
LikeLiked by 1 person
the Caesar photos are pretty typical of what happens when a massive PR campaign is employed to prove an enemy utterly evil and thus deserving of annihilation
Click to access CaesarPhotoFraudReport_v6.compressed.pdf
Ken, you have the patience of a saint
I’m not on Facebook, I managed to remove myself from it totally, otherwise I’d be “sharing” your posts widely
As it is I do link to Open Parachute in emails, particularly amongst friends with enquiring minds
LikeLike
And sorry , some of those “Caesar” photos are pretty horrible
LikeLike
Thanks for the Syrian Solidarity link reenmac.
I have not had time yet to undertake any searches myself on these photos but this looks interesting.
I agree the photos are horrible – I hate looking at such things. The same with the White Helmet’s videos of dead children.
Interesting thing about Facebook. My daughter has told me today she is not seeing my political posts there. I also notice that I do not get much in the way of referrals to my blog’s political posts from Facebook – far more from Twitter. Yet referrals my scientific blog posts get more facebook referrals than Twitter ones.
It looks like Facebook has given into the pressure exerted at the US Senate hearings and are downgrading political material.
LikeLike
That is what has been happening very recently with Craig Murrays blog over in the UK
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/04/blocked-by-facebook-and-the-vulnerability-of-new-media/
The attack on information that hasn’t gone through the official filters is going to become more desperate
I guess plenty of leverage can be asserted on all these IT giants who don’t pay tax…as long as they behave..
I find searching for references on Google, unless you know exactly what you’re looking for, is becoming more difficult
LikeLike
reenmac says, “Ken, you have the patience of a saint”
Doesn’t it bother you that this guy is so biased he can’t even bring himself to admit that the Russian air force has created collateral damage (accidental killing of civilians) in Syria?
LikeLike
David, don’t put words in my mouth – especially lies.
I have never denied collateral damage has resulted from either Syrian or Russian military activity in Syria. Why would I? Collateral damage and civilian deaths are inevitable in these situations – especially as the head choppers purposely use civilians (usually of a different and hated religious persuasion) as human shields. Even putting them in cages as was shown in Ghouta.
However, it is interesting to compare the work of the Russians (and especially the Russian military police and conflict resolution people) with that of the US and their NATO partners.
Raqua is a real mess. It has not been de-mined yet. The civilian toll was high and Syrians in the area are now revolting against the US proxies who now have control.
Mosul in Iraq was a similar disaster.
In Syria, we have seen how the Russia negotiators work to establish humanitarian corridors and guaranteed safe exit of rebel fighters, together with their families. Civilians in large numbers are able to exit the war zones when the head chopper snipers are neutralised. Withdrawal of these civilians helps the Russians and SAA complete the liberation by making it harder for the head choppers to hide behind residents. After liberation, Russian de-mining experts move in so that safety can be established for returning residents. As a result, many thousands have already returned to Ghouta and many more have returned to east Aleppo where reconstruction is underway.
War is horrible and civilian deaths and suffering is inevitable. At least the SAA (who after all are fighting to defend their own people) and the Russian forces are doing their best to mitigate the situation.
LikeLike
David
I don’t think Ken has ever denied collateral damage at the hands of any army or airforce. Its pretty well inevitable in any war
Yet another reason to avoid war at all costs
LikeLike
I apologize. I guess the impression came from the fact that, in an earlier thread, while you were accusing the U.S. of civilian casualties, I asked you about collateral damage inflicted by the Russian air force. And while you didn’t specifically say that Russia was not guilty, you couldn’t bring yourself to admit that they were either.
Do you know what “whataboutism” is? I ask about Russian collateral damage, and you say, ‘what about . . .” For example:
“However, it is interesting to compare the work of the Russians (and especially the Russian military police and conflict resolution people) with that of the US and their NATO partners.” That is classic whataboutism.
The only difference I see is that the United States admits it when it makes mistakes. Russia does not. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/white-house-releases-its-count-of-civilian-deaths-in-counterterrorism-operations-under-obama/2016/07/01/3196aa1e-3fa2-11e6-80bc-d06711fd2125_story.html?utm_term=.5e9b6c0a2107
Show me the list of civilian casualties caused by Russian air strikes. You know, since you are now saying that it does happen.
And the U.S. hasn’t become infamous for the murders of its own journalists when unflattering information is printed. It is interesting to compare the list of murdered journalists in Russia to those murdered in the United States, and the reasons for those murders. For example, the most recent journalist (an anchor really) in the U.S. was murdered in 2015 by a former colleague. It was a domestic dispute. The Most recent in Russia was in 2018. A journalist died from injuries sustained after falling out of a window (a very common cause of death among Russian journalists). He was a Russian journalist who “regularly wrote on crime, corruption, and the recent involvement of Russian mercenaries in Syria.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_journalists_killed_in_Russia#2018
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_journalists_killed_in_the_United_States
LikeLike
Ken, your comment: “However, it is interesting to compare the work of the Russians (and especially the Russian military police and conflict resolution people) with that of the US and their NATO partners.”
Ok, let’s look at the work the Russians are doing in Syria: “Russia Is Taking Over Syria’s Oil And Gas” https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Russia-Is-Taking-Over-Syrias-Oil-And-Gas.html
I can’t wait to hear the “whataboutism” on this one.
LikeLike
David, your constant labelling of discussions as “whataboutism” is hypocritical of you. Your contribution here is classic “whataboutery” and Gish galloping. After all, the subject of this article is the White Helmets and how they are linked in with the head choppers. They are also liberally financed and directed by your country.
So now we are talking about collateral damage and Russian commercial developments in the reconstruction of a liberated Syria!
You have apologised for the lie about me – but are not really sorry because you go on the repeat you misinformation and attack me.
You now put it on me to “Show [you]the list of civilian casualties caused by Russian air strikes. ” You know full well that neither the forces fighting to liberate Syria from terrorists (the SAA and Russian aerospace forces) or the NATO and US countries who are in Syria illegaly publish lists of civilians killed. All we really have to go on is the personal testimony of survivors and that testimony for Raqqa and Mosul is pretty damning. The US/NATO record is not balanced by the humanitarian work and facilities that it is in the case of the Russian Federation – humanitarian corridors, facilitation of aid convoys, medial and surgical teams, food aid, etc., etc. Not to mention the extremely important work of the conciliation forces and military police.
Hell, the US has not even de-mined the cities they helped liberate.
Yes, it seems very unlikely that US firms will profit from the reconstruction of a liberated Syria. Why should they after the inhuman activity of their forces which are still illegally in that country? Why should they when they have had a policy of regime change which would have created a hell hole that we now see in Libya as a result of NAT’s regime change policy?
It is perfectly understandable for Syria to call on Russian firms to help reconstruction. I can only hope their work will eventually extend to the eastern areas where most of Syria’s oil and mineral deposits lie but which are currently in the hands of US proxy forces and elements of ISIS.
Political commentators are suggesting that the long-term plan of the USA is to enforce a break-up of Syria, to carve off these oil- and mineral-rich areas. I cannot imagine the US allowing Russian companies to get involved in the reconstruction and exploitation of the oil in minerals if that happens.
Syria is a sovereign country with a legitimate government. The UN recognises the geographical and political unity of the country even if your country doesn’t
Perhaps we should get back to discussing the “White Helmets” – or do you agree with my characterisation of them?
LikeLike
David, perhaps more US journalists would actually die if they were doing their job instead of acting as stenographers for establishment handouts. Perhaps more would die if they actually investigated what is really going on behind the scenes in the US political/media/intelligence establishment at the moment instead of treating their readers and viewers like mushrooms. The real crime and corruption endemic to the US.
Journalists who report on crime and corruption do risk their lives. But why cover up the fact that the objects of investigation are likely to be the murderers? The Russian Federation has an (admitted) problem with corruption. It also has a problem with violent crime historically linked to the anarchy of the Yeltsin era and the war in Chechnya. Russia has also lost journalists working in danger spots like Ukraine and Syria.
David, you really should try reading more independent sources employing real journalists instead of stenographers. Then you might get some idea of why the world is like it is instead of adhering to some sort of myth depending on the mantras “Russia did it” and “Putin did it.”
LikeLike
Complete hypocrisy: “Syria is a sovereign country with a legitimate government. The UN recognises the geographical and political unity of the country even if your country doesn’t”
Crimea was part of a sovereign country with a legitimate government. The UN recognized the geographical and political unity of Ukraine, even if you didn’t.
Have a looksey: “The UN General Assembly also passed the related Resolution 71/205 in December 2016, entitled “Situation of human rights in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol (Ukraine)”. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_68/262
Fair warning. That parachute is so closed you won’t permit the possibility of that fact, and that very hard ground is getting closer every day. I’d pull the cord if I were you.
LikeLike
” It also has a problem with violent crime historically linked to the anarchy of the Yeltsin era and the war in Chechnya.”
Irrelevant. Yeltsin was not the President in 2018 when the journalist I cited, Maksim Borodin, was thrown out of his window in 2018 for reporting on mercenaries in Syria, and corruption in Russia. But thanks for the example of gish galloping.
LikeLike
Do you do not understand history? The criminal anarchy of the 90s simply did not stop with the resignation of Yeltsin on New Year’s Eve, 1999.
Things have improved a lot since the election of Putin (one of the reasons for his overwhelming support) – but problems still exist. One simply needs to follow news reports to see evidence of people (including quite highly placed businesspersons and politicians) prosecuted for corruption. Putin himself in his last marathon Q&A lamented at the difficulty of eradicating this problem – referring specifically to the corrupt officials who enabled the criminal Rodchekov to take charge of the Moscow anti-doping lab.
Also, the involvement of ex-military and ex-KGB and the crimes of the oligarchs has left its residue. And not only in the Russian Federation – the UK has also paid for their willingness to give refuges to these criminals.
You say “was thrown out of his window in 2018 for reporting on mercenaries in Syria, and corruption in Russia.” Do you have forensic and legal evidence for this or is it simply a product of prejudice? Who threw him out the window? Who produced the evidence of motive?
LikeLike
“David, you really should try reading more independent sources employing real journalists instead of stenographers.”
Funny you should say that, because, regarding the Caesar photos, one of the first things I read was the same link Reenmac provide. But the arguments in it are so speculative and in-concrete that I would think even you would be able to see through that one. Although I doubt you will argue against it, since it supports your pre-conceived biases.
Your quote: “Then you might get some idea of why the world is like it is instead of adhering to some sort of myth depending on the mantras “Russia did it” and “Putin did it.”
Funny you should say that too, because I have some idea of the reality of the world. I have seen people blown apart by terrorists. Have you? I have spent years in a real war zone living like an animal. Have you?
While you rant on about the head-choppers and all your other terrorists, you know, because of what you have critically and intelligently gleaned on social media sites, I have actually seen, first hand, what it involves.
So before you try to hit me with one of your tiny little put-downs, maybe you should spend some time in the real world, then maybe you might get some idea of why the world is like it is instead of adhering to some sort of myth depending on the mantras “Russia is innocent” “Putin holds the higher moral ground” and my favorite, “its an atrocity if it is NATO backed, but it’s propaganda if it offends my prejudices.”
You know nothing of the real world.
LikeLike
My statement on the legitimacy of the Syrian government and the UN support for its territorial integrity is simply a matter of fact. It is often repeated in the preamble to UNSC resolutions on Syria.
It is also a fact that the US/NATO has installed its proxies in the east of Syria where the minerals and oils are (one of the reasons ISIS was so strong there – and guess who they traded oil with?)
Regarding Crimea – the UN General Assembly resolution is not binding. Voting reflects the relative power and arm-twisting endemic to this organisation. This year the US has been very vocal about the consequences for any nation which does not support their political stance. As the Russian ambassador said to the US ambassador (who he seems to be extremely friendly with) You don’t have friends, you have people who are afraid to vote against you.”
The legal situation of the return of Crimea to the Russian Federation can be debated. Territorial integrity is a UN principle – often thrown away by NATO and the US (consider Kosovo). Another principle is the right of peoples to determine their own destiny and nationhood (denied the people of Kosovo, by the way). That principle was very evident in the vote of the Crimeans to return to Russia – of that there is no doubt. The use of the new bridge to Crimea by road traffic starting this month will only reinforce Crimean support for the return.
I am sure both principles could be debated in international forums but I think the Russians, including the Crimeans, are clear that the current situation will not be allowed to change.
But are you seriously going to use the voluntary return of Crimea to Russia as support for what the US intentions seem to be – the partition of Syria so that the legitimate government loses access to its oil and mineral deposits? And local Syrian Arabs be dominated by Kurds? That is simply the regime change policy in a modified form.
LikeLike
Ken, reading back over your comments again, (and I don’t know how I missed it the first time) this jumped out at me:
“perhaps more US journalists would actually die if they were doing their job instead of acting as stenographers for establishment handouts. Perhaps more would die if they actually investigated what is really going on behind the scenes in the US political/media/intelligence establishment at the moment instead of treating their readers and viewers like mushrooms.”
“Journalists who report on crime and corruption do risk their lives.”
You said this in response to the high number of journalists killed in Russia. You are saying that fewer U.S. journalists are murdered than their Russian counterparts because they aren’t doing their jobs. They aren’t risking their lives by reporting on corruption.
You know, I can’t think of another country, other than the United States, (and maybe you can) in which two journalists brought down the holder of the highest office of government by reporting on the crime and corruption coming out of that office. That was in the 1970s.
And I can’t think of another country, other than the U.S., in which a journalist (Morley Safer) filmed and broadcast war crimes committed by his own country. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/controversial-report-changed-war-coverage-in-america/
Maybe you can think of another country where this has happened. Has it ever happened in Russia?
Today, when journalists report on corruption at the highest level of government, their work is called “Fake News.” (Ok, Morley Safer was called a Communist – even though he was Canadian) The free press is de-legitimized. The President of the United States has gone to war with the 4th Estate. So did Nixon . . we’ll have to wait to see how this plays out today.
So, to recap, the great reporters of corruption, Woodward & Bernstein are still alive. Morley Safer died of natural causes more than 40 years after the end of the Vietnam War.
You say, “Journalists who report on crime and corruption do risk their lives.” I suppose that’s true if the journalist lives in a country in which the environment is such that the free-flow of information allows for its brutal stifling. And what allows for that environment to exist?
LikeLike
Sorry, reading this again, I said this wrong: ” I suppose that’s true if the journalist lives in a country in which the environment is such that the free-flow of information allows for its brutal stifling.”
The paragraph should have read:
“You say, “Journalists who report on crime and corruption do risk their lives.” I suppose that’s true if the journalist lives in a country in which the environment, the cultural & political environments, allow, and maybe even encourage, the brutal stifling of the free flow of information. And what allows for that environment to exist?
LikeLike
Your quote: “But are you seriously going to use the voluntary return of Crimea to Russia as support for what the US intentions seem to be – the partition of Syria so that the legitimate government loses access to its oil and mineral deposits?”
No, I used the example of the illegal annexation of Crimea to highlight your hypocrisy. You said, “Syria is a sovereign country with a legitimate government. The UN recognises the geographical and political unity of the country even if your country doesn’t”
Now all of a sudden you are concerned with what the U.N. recognizes as a political entity. Crimea was part of a sovereign country with a legitimate government, which was recognized by the U.N. It was illegally annexed by Russia and was, in fact, condemned by the vast majority of U.N. states.
Even in your comment you attempt to justify that illegal action taken by Russia.
Regarding Syria, I would never speak out in defense of the actions of my country if it chose to pursue the path which you say it intends.
LikeLike
David, really!
The legitimate, elected government of Ukraine had just been overthrown, illegally. The president had fled for his life. Neo-Fascist and ultranationalist gangs were advancing on Crimea and had already attempted a takeover of the Crimean parliament in the way they had also attempted, and often succeeded, in many cities.
The people of Crimea overwhelmingly chose to reunite with the Russian Federation – and the history of Crimea ever since the breakup of the USSR had been one attempt after another for reunification, independence or autonomy. Crimea was one of the tragedies Russian speakers faced with the disorderly collapse of the USSR.
Yes, the Crimean vote was condemned by many countries – I remind you of the United Nation’s US ambassador’s statement threatening countries which don’t vote the way the US wants. Despite these US wishes a very large proportion of UN states do not recognise Kosovo – so this situation is not all that unusual. I think the Crimean people vastly prefer their current situation to what the illegal regime in Kiev was offering. They had undergone years of neglect and are now seeing improvements resulting from the reunification and their improved economics and cultural situation.
Yes, one can go on about territorial integrity – and it is important. But it is dishonest to ignore or reject that other principle of national rights and aspirations. (Often expressed in referendums, but, unfortunately, not in the case of Kosovo). That is why I say under international law where these two principles may counter each other, the situation in Crimea is debatable.
Of course, there are many Russians, Ukrainians, Byelorussions, Kazakhs, etc. who would have preferred that the principle of territorial integrity had not been overlooked when it came to the breakup of the USSR. Despite referenda supporting retention of a reduced USSR entity the presidents and the Russian Fedewration., Beloruss and Ukraine made a decision to go ahead with separation of their countries. A decision probably precipitated by the attempted coup in the Russian Federation (as well as the interest of power groups in those countries), but nevertheless, a decision resulting in abandoning territorial integrity at a time when the referendum showed the people did not want it. Many people argue that if the will of the people had been followed at the time their positions may have been better now – but who is to know. One thing is for sure we would not now be arguing about Crimea.
As for Syria – the US is threatening territorial integrity and it ignoring the aspirations of the Syrian people at the same time. Even the Kurds, who will strongly argue for some sort of autonomy in a federal type structure, have not insisted on partition. Partition pressure is coming from NATO – for their own selfish reasons, not unconnected with the oil and mineral deposits in eastern Syria and the region. It has nothing to do with the wishes of the Syrian people.
The situation in east Syria is nothing like that in Crimea and it is disingenuous to argue that it is.
LikeLike
Please . . your hypocricy is seething through your pores. “Yes, the Crimean vote was condemned by many countries – I remind you of the United Nation’s US ambassador’s statement threatening countries which don’t vote the way the US wants. Despite these US wishes a very large proportion of UN states do not recognise Kosovo – so this situation is not all that unusual.”
Show me anything from the U.N. which supported Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea. . . Waiting . . .
After all, you said, “The UN recognises the geographical and political unity of the country (Syria) even if your country doesn’t” So we have established your criteria. Then please show me anything from the U.N. which didn’t recognize the geographical and political unity of Ukraine prior to Russia stealing part of its territory, Crimea. . . Waiting. . .
By your own criteria, since the U.N. recognized the valid sovereignty of Ukraine, Russia committed an international crime. And by non-binding resolution, the U.N. agrees.
You are a complete hypocrite. Any chance that parachute will open any time soon?
LikeLike
No, David, it is not my criteria – it is part of the UN criteria as expressed in the UNSC resolutions on Syria. Resolutions your country did not veto – although clearly violates.
Perhaps you should provide some sort of document from the UN that “didn’t recognize the geographical and political unity” of Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia or the USSR? If I were to be silly I would add “waiting?”
Perhaps I should ask for your justification (I suggest impossible) for the US military presence and activity in Syria, construction of bases and arming local militia. This is not sanctioned by the UN or any international law. How can you justify it? “Waiting?”
I notice you run away from mentioning the crisis and coup that Ukraine went through in 2014. The role your country played in this – to the extent of “fuck the EU” when the EU had arbitrated a democratic solution on February 24. You also ignore that the Crimeans clearly got what they had always wanted – there is no credible opposition within Crimea to the return.
Crimes were certainly being committed in Ukraine and Crimea at the time – but how many lives were lost during the period when the government of Crimea organised and carried out the referendum. And what was the reaction of the people to the result. (How many lives were lost by the illegal armed attacks on the people of Donbass and bombing of its cities by the junta – in complete violation of the Ukrainian constitution?)
This international political in Crimea act was one of the most peaceful and welcomed (by its residents) the world has ever seen – whatever the results mean for the political and economic elites running your country and controlling your political partys and media. And the Crimean people are extremely thankful to have avoided the tragedy that the people in Donbass suffered – and are still suffering.
In the end, it is the wishes and plight of the people that matter to me.
LikeLike
So what David?
“international crimes” are two a penny these days
If we want to guage the
‘international community'”s attitude to international crime , it could be summed up by ho hum when it comes to those war crimes committed by certain countries.. that go unpunished.For example, the US led war of aggression on Iraq,the US bombing of Syria and many others
When it comes to Crimea, bloodless, and welcomed by the population , oh the horror the horror
Can you point to me any example of the US invading any country without massive bloodshed and continued resistance
Crimea returning to Russia was without blood spilt, and rapturously welcomed .Crimea is now much better off under Russian rule, even with the spiteful sanctions.One could argue the original ceding of Crimea to Ukraine was illegal anyway
Kosovo on the other hand was wrenched from Serbia after non stop bombing and utter carnage for 78 days with no regard for civilian lives
Kosovo may have an obscenely huge US base but its economy is hopeless , its a centre for trafficking of drugs, arms and human organs. Great way to express humanitarianism eh?
So pardon me if I don’t have much regard for the very selective outrage you express
LikeLiked by 1 person
“In the end, it is the wishes and plight of the people that matter to me.”
Great. This is your New criteria. A lot of Mexicans, probably most, want to become U.S. citizens. By your criteria – which has nothing to do with international law – the United States should illegally annex Mexico. Your criteria, not mine.
Could you please cite the statute from the vast catalog of International Law which stipulates that it is legal for a sovereign nation to steal the territory of another legally recognized sovereign nation because even a majority of that population may wish to become citizens of the criminal nation?
Here’s Reenmac going off on the Whataboutism: “Can you point to me any example of the US invading any country without massive bloodshed and continued resistance” Yeah, what about the stuff the U.S. does?
Dude, you will get no argument from me about the sins of my country. You are wasting our time by bringing them up. This isn’t about Iraq; this isn’t about crimes in the Ukraine, this isn’t about Kosovo . . more Whataboutism (you people would have nothing to say if not for whataboutism). I won’t defend the idea of the U.S. trying to split up Syria. I won’t defend Iraq. Why would you try to bring up these moot points with me? You are wasting everyone’s time on these points.
This is about Ken’s blatant hypocrisy.
First Ken said, “Syria is a sovereign country with a legitimate government. The UN recognises the geographical and political unity of the country even if your country doesn’t”
He has established his criteria, why he believes no foreign nation should take action to partition it. No argument from me. I totally agree.
However, when the sovereignty of Ukraine and the illegal theft of its internationally recognized territory, Crimea, is raised, all of a sudden the argument has changed. Now, its about the will of the people. Don’t the Kurds have a say about their own destiny, just as you say the Crimeans did?
Ken, this is about your hypocrisy. Admit you have a problem, admit you made a mistake. We’re all human, we all make mistakes, and we all evolve in our thinking. There is no shame in that. In fact, to change one’s thinking is a badge of honor, it is a sign of true growth. But the first step is admission. Then maybe we can all get on with our lives.
LikeLike
David
Whataboutism is just a handy tool for those attempting to delegitimise others who point out the double standards of the ruling coalition aka “the international community”
If you can’t recognise that their concerns for international law are entirely self serving and hypocritical I give up on you
Whatever Russia has done vis a vis Crimea and Ukraine is infinitesimal in the larger scheme of things, so I’m not really inclined to get in a righteous lather about it.
By all means , champion international law, I wish it was respected by all countries, but the most egregious breaches have been perpetrated by western nations, the very ones who make such a song and dance and point the finger at others
Bang on about hypocrisy all you like , the western nations are fair reeking of it, and until we sort out our own deficits we should leave others well alone.
LikeLike
Don’t be a fool, David. I do not establish “criteria.”
As far as Syria is concerned it is up to the Syrian about how they organise their future political and regional structures.
At the moment no credible Syrian group is arguing for partition. There will be debates about a federal structure but it should be possible to organise one that takes the aspiration of all the national components into account in the same way that the secular organisation in Syria provides a place for all belief groups.
In Ukraine, the proponents of a monolithic political structure came to power in the 2014 coup and have suppressed the alternative democratic forces arguing for a more representative political structure. They have been pushing an ultranationalist, pro-fascist, policy ever since. This has caused dissatisfaction with national minorities like Russians, Hungarians and Poles. At some stage, this will have to be resolved or the country will either break up further or become even more corrupt and undemocratic. The Minsk agreement provided a good basis for resolving this issue constitutionally – pity that the crowd in Kiev refuse to carry out the agreements – and the US supports and encourages them in this.
To quote (in an amended form) the statement of the UK defence Minister I wish the US would just shut up and go away. That would solve many of the world’s problems.
LikeLike
Reenmac, for the second time now (I guess you missed it the first time), I agree. I wish international law was respected by all countries also. I will be the first one to admit the sins of my country.
The difference between me and Ken is that I am willing to admit the U.S. has committed crimes. U.S. media has filmed it & broadcast their own war crimes. Show me another country that has been this transparent about its sins: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/controversial-report-changed-war-coverage-in-america/
Russia certainly isn’t. In Russia journalists who report on corruption have a nasty habit of ending up dead. I don’t know . . did you guys put it in the press when you were raping the Maori, stealing their land, and making them learn English? (It’s just a question.) Do you enjoy living in your home on land which was taken away from another culture without their consent? Don’t point your finger at me when your whole existence is dependent on the rape and destruction of another culture.
To my knowledge, the U.S. has never illegally annexed / stolen territory belonging to another sovereign nation recognized by the international community. Russia has. I’m willing to admit that my home used to belong to another people whose land was taken away from them. There is nothing I can do about that now . . but at least I can admit it.
That’s the difference. Ken doesn’t admit Russia is guilty of anything. Ken tries to make excuses for the high rate of murders of journalists who report on corruption in Russia. Ken tries to justify the illegal annexation of sovereign territory belonging to another culture. Ken is only willing to admit atrocities occur in Syria if they fall into the category of being Western / NATO backed.
Ken is a hypocrite.
LikeLike
Ken: “Perhaps I should ask for your justification (I suggest impossible) for the US military presence and activity in Syria, construction of bases and arming local militia. . . Waiting?”
I don’t justify it. I never have.
“Don’t be a fool, David. I do not establish “criteria.”
No you don’t. But you did for this argument. As you condemned a possible U.S. intent to partition Syria, your criteria for condemning such intent was:
” “The UN recognises the geographical and political unity of the country (Syria) even if your country doesn’t”
But when we apply that same criteria to Ukraine . . all of a sudden the criteria changes. Your dazzling display of back-peddling and hypocrisy must confuse even you.
“Perhaps we could get back to discussing the White Helmets, or do you agree with my characterization of them?”
No I don’t. In fact, most of the world doesn’t. While you claim that this organization is “liberally funded” by my country, which may be true, you neglect to add countries like Japan, Netherlands, New Zealand, U.K., Denmark, Germany, and Canada. Look out! It might be NATO backed . .
I am reading about a campaign of disinformation which, apparently, you have joined.
LikeLike
Well , there you go David, guess you won’t be wasting any more of your time on Ken’s blog then eh?
LikeLike
David, I am afraid your desire to play the man rather than the ball leads you to an incredible round of misinformation and attribution of claims to me that are completely unjustified.
I do not in any way use the criteria of UN recognition of territorial integrity in their resolutions on Syria to justify my condemnation of the US illegal presence in Syria or its likely plans for partition. If the USA was playing a positive role, supporting the people of Syria, etc., I, of course, would support it. But it isn’t. Partition of Syria is not in the interests of any Syrians and is not supported by any credible Syrian organisations. The US is not at all interested in the wishes of the Syrians – it, and its friends in NATO, are more interested in the oil and mineral deposits and preventing a free and independent Syria from exerting influence in the region to harm the perceived US interests.
The UN is not some sort of utopian body which can deliver to us unquestionable principles (or criteria)principles from god-given heights. It is a multinational organisation and its resolutions reflect that, and the interests of all those nations.
Tthe intelligent person does not blindly use such resolutions as moral criteria – or naively accept that these resolutions really represent the underlying motives of the nations involved.
As for the White Helmets – I have never, ever, suggested that the US is the only government funding that body as you imply. Read my articles on that orgnaisation>>
So, having cleared that up can I now assume yoiu do accept my characterisation of them as being in a close alliance, even integration, with the terrorist groups in Syria? And that they also act as a propaganda arm promoting false flag operations such as the “chemical incident” in Douma?
LikeLike
David, again playing the man rather than the ball you completely misrepresent me with the claims:
Wherever have I “made excuses” for the murder of journalists or for corruption?
I condemn all such murders of Russian journalists – as well as other like, say, for example, the US citizen Seth Rich. I condemn corruption (in Russia, the USA, UK or anywhere) – it needs to be exposed.
You mistake me providing a bit of history that helps explain the corruption these reporters (and investigators like Rich) may have been looking into and exposing for somehow “making excuses!”
Come off it. Give up the personal hostility and deal with information.
LikeLike
reenmac says, “Well , there you go David, guess you won’t be wasting any more of your time on Ken’s blog then eh?”
Odd, I would have thought the same about you. A parachute only works if it is open . . you know, . . like a mind. You, however, seem offended by an alternate point of view. This is a characteristic of a closed mind. An open mind does not try to make an alternate viewpoint go away, but rather seeks out alternate points of view to challenge it and foster growth. For example, this would be something a close-minded person would say: “I wish the US would just shut up and go away.” See how that works?
So I find it ironic that you are attracted to a blog that is supposedly dedicated to an open mind and alternate points of view. Something’s wrong somewhere. There are only one of two possibilities happening here. Either this blog isn’t really dedicated to tolerant and broad minded thinking, or you can’t comprehend what you are reading.
LikeLike
Ken: “I do not in any way use the criteria of UN recognition of territorial integrity in their resolutions on Syria to justify my condemnation of the US illegal presence in Syria or its likely plans for partition.”
You don’t? Well you said it. Do you understand the meaning of the words you use, or do you hope that if you keep denying what you said, eventually someone will come to believe it?
Ken: “Political commentators are suggesting that the long-term plan of the USA is to enforce a break-up of Syria, to carve off these oil- and mineral-rich areas. I cannot imagine the US allowing Russian companies to get involved in the reconstruction and exploitation of the oil in minerals if that happens. (Why?)
Syria is a sovereign country with a legitimate government. The UN recognises the geographical and political unity of the country even if your country doesn’t.”
Talking to you, Ken, is like trying to talk to Jello. You don’t remember what you said . . If you do remember what you said, you lie and say you didn’t say it. In the end, all that really matters to you is the “rightness” of Russia and its allies, and the wrongness of those who threaten that viewpoint. You’re as corrupt and polluted as the Russian propaganda that you bathe in daily to soothe your own aching bias.
Let’s do this again. That was fun.
“Wherever have I “made excuses” for the murder of journalists or for corruption?”
How about right here:
David says: “. . . the journalist I cited, Maksim Borodin, was thrown out of his window in 2018 for reporting on mercenaries in Syria, and corruption in Russia.”
Ken responds: “You say “was thrown out of his window in 2018 for reporting on mercenaries in Syria, and corruption in Russia.” Do you have forensic and legal evidence for this or is it simply a product of prejudice?”
So, you’re saying this Russian journalist who reported on corruption in Russia and unethical behavior in Syria just happened to fall out of his window? What would be the forensic evidence that you are asking for? Fingerprints on a splattered body?
And again – Ken: “David, perhaps more US journalists would actually die if they were doing their job instead of acting as stenographers for establishment handouts. Perhaps more would die if they actually investigated what is really going on behind the scenes in the US political/media/intelligence establishment at the moment instead of treating their readers and viewers like mushrooms. The real crime and corruption endemic to the US.
Journalists who report on crime and corruption do risk their lives. But why cover up the fact that the objects of investigation are likely to be the murderers?”
Here you’re saying that murders of journalists who report on corruption is a normal occurrence and is to be expected. The reason it happens in Russia, and not in the U.S,. is that U.S. journalists don’t really report on corruption . . they just take “official” hand-outs from the government.
Not only is that a lie (U.S. journalists report MORE on the crimes of their country than Russian journalists) but it diminishes the sacrifices that have been made by Russian journalists who try to provide legitimate information to the Russian people. Moreover, to imply that it is normal for a journalist to be murdered because he / or she reports on corruption, is nothing less than making an excuse for the murder of that journalist.
So this is another proven lie from you: “Wherever have I “made excuses” for the murder of journalists or for corruption?” And since you’ve decided that a question can be a lie (do I need to copy/paste that too?) that was a lie.
And the example of your excuses for the murders of Russian journalists that I have provided came only from this thread. There are so many more examples.
Ken, I don’t know what the problem is with you. Maybe you’re just so old, and your viewpoints are so set-in-stone that you are incapable of digesting any criticism of the Russian Federation. Maybe you are having age problems and you just can’t remember what you have said. Maybe it’s an ego thing with you . . maybe you just refuse to believe that a mere mortal like me who has had a post-graduate education at one of the premier Universities in the United States can be right on an issue and prove you wrong.
Whatever your problem, I suggest either you open your mind or change hobbies. You are losing whatever little credibility you may have left.
LikeLike