by Scott Creighton
How many times have I read some BS article over at AntiWar based on “activists say” propaganda related to Libya or Syria? AntiWar purports to be a dissident alternative news site standing opposed to the globalist’s wars of aggression, but like Democracy Now! or the ANSWER coalition AntiWar always seems to get it wrong JUST at the wrong time. And 9 times out of 10these pathetic “alternative” propaganda offerings are written by Jason Ditz.
Today there is a fine example of the “good work” being done by Jason. On who’s behalf he’s toiling is up to you to decide.
Today the meeting between Russia and Hillary Clinton is taking place on the subject of what to do with the Syrian conflict Hillary has been stoking for her multinational corporate friends and banker buddies.
With all the info out there showing that the so-called “Free Syrian Army” (ie: the “opposition”) is actually a terrorist organization made up of several for-profit roaming terrorists (“rebels”) from various countries and since we all know that Turkey deliberately flew a jet at extremely low altitudes into Syrian airspace hoping for a confrontation, a little ani-Syrian rhetoric would be very useful as a propaganda tool right now. Useful in the sense that it would help gin up support for an armed incursion to force regime change.
And right on time, Jason Ditz steps up to the plate.
His article runs the headline: Syria Masses Tanks on Turkey Border as Tensions Soar
“Syria has now sent some 170 tanks to the Turkish border, just northwest of Aleppo, in an effort to fortify the area against a possible Turkish incursion.” Jason Ditz
Want to know where he garners this information? The Times of Israel.
Want to know their source for the story? “Unconfirmed reports” from the Free Syrian Army
“The Assad regime has massed approximately 170 tanks near the Turkish border, according to an unconfirmed report on Friday by a general in the Free Syrian Army.” Times of Israel
Why would Jason simply report as fact unconfirmed information straight from an Israeli establishment rag especially when he and everyone else knows how volatile the situation is right now?
Israel has a great deal to profit from regime change in Syria. Ditz should understand that. Hell, they are already searching for oil and LNG resources in Golan. Read: Israel, NATO’s Little Helper: The Overlooked Player in the Syrian Destabilization Campaign
Is Jason Ditz of AntiWar nothing more than a Hasbara megaphony?
Filed under: Uncategorized
Yes, Ditz is a megaphony and so is everyone else at antiwar.com. I mean seriously, did we expect they wouldn’t co-opt a site with a name like that? Thats prime online real estate. Great article Scott. Love seeing fake “alternative media” controlled ops called out.
Hey look: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjQdB0C6ypo&feature=player_embedded
It is time to become friends for peace – Everybody just wishes for you to join in too Scott; quit beeing such a party pooper!
Selective protesting at its finest…
We are seeing the same shit all over the place.
When people only pick it up in certain areas or times, you know something is up…
spot on, stopped going to antiwar because of his bs
Scott, I posted a link to your article on his story and a Thomas L. Knapp replied calling your piece a “slur”. I tired to respond but for whatever reason cannot at this point. Perhaps he will level his criticisms here instead of there.
Chris,
What happened when you tried to respond at Antiwar.com? I just went through our spam filters, recent comments that were deleted for any reason, etc., and did not find anything from you.
Here’s the comment sequence you’re referring to at Antiwar.com:
1) You ask “Is DItz a megaphony?” and link to this blog post.
2) I reply:
—-
The short answer is “no.”
The longer answer is: In the headline, and in the the first, third and fourth paragraphs of a four-paragraph article, Ditz clearly places the border buildup in the context of Turkish, not Syrian, saber-rattling. He also links directly to the source, rather than hiding it under “activists say” rhetoric.
Creighton’s slur isn’t just a stretch. It’s something that requires a complete break with fact and reality to even come close to treating as believable.
—–
I’m not sure what “criticisms” you’re suggesting I “level.” Creighton tried to put over a whopper, you threw it into the ring, I squished it. No biggie.
Regards,
Tom Knapp
I tried to copy and paste some of the article actually, and that didn’t go through so I didn’t even bother with a follownup reply.
As far as “squishing a whopper” I’ll let Scott defend himself and only say that you did no such thing in my opinion. Scott is right about the “source” that is used by Ditz.
Mr. Knapp:
Hello. Welcome to American Everyman.
Don’t worry, this won’t take long.
First, “slur”? Really? Let’s address my “slur” and whatever connotations that word carries with it when discussing anything to do with Israeli policy. This is not a “slur’ it’s an effort to expose Jason Ditz’ disingenuous reporting based on “activists say” journalism.
I don’t care if he actually typed the words “activists say” in his article, fact is he is certainly smart enough to understand that doing so would greatly diminish his credibility. What he does instead is report what “activists say” as given fact WITHOUT mentioning where that information came from NOR bringing up the fact that they are unconfirmed reports from the “activists” which he again is reporting as fact.
Just so you know, other publications are also reporting this information as fact; institutions like al Jazeera (from Qatar reporting from Turkey), Gulf News (from Dubai) and of course the Times of Israel article (I guess you know where they are from). Great journalistic company for Jason and AntiWar, huh?
Let’s take a look at what you call “squishing” my “whopper”
So, in your opinion, the title of Jason’s article clearly points to Turkey as the aggressor in this developing “conflict”. Here’s the article title: “Syria Masses Tanks on Turkey Border as Tensions Soar”
seems to me that the inference is that Syria is massing tanks on the border and that is causing tensions to soar. Explain to me how that implicates Turkey because frankly, I don’t see it.
As to the other paragraphs you mention in your comment…
The two nations aren’t on a “collision course” as you put it… Turkey is provoking a Syrian response so that it can be used to justify a NATO regime change operation like the one in Libya. But you guys missed that when it mattered so why should anyone expect you to get this now? Making this claim is something like trying to argue there is a “civil war” in Syria. There isn’t. But this limited hangout meme allows for the so-called antiwar left (and right) to justify some kind of intrusion on humanitarian reasons (you know that because you have written it yourself before). This “collision course” rhetoric does much the same thing. It’s easier to get the Obama supporting left behind an intervention if they feel all out war is being hastened to by both sides than it is to get them behind another illegal invasion of a sovereign state. One would think that you would understand that, being a former Libertarian vice presidential candidate and all.
What Jason is doing is couching tacit support for the Assad regime change by using carefully selected innuendo and seriously limited discussion of the facts on the ground. Why didn’t Jason mention the source of the information he was reporting as fact? Why didn’t he mention that Israel has a great deal to benefit from a forced regime change in Syria while he was almost quoting the Times of Israel article verbatim (the title was almost exactly the same as Jason’s)?
Let me give you an example of how limited hangout persuasion works. And to make it easier for you, I will use one of your own articles as an example.
Here is just some of what Mr. Knapp wrote on the subject of Syria just a little while ago:
What you do is carefully frame demonetization of the targeted ruler be it Gadhafi or Assad or whomever (Hugo next? Putin perhaps?) within the construct of exposing what most of your readers already know: that (in the case of your article) John McCain and Joe LIEberman are all out warmongering zealots. That way the dissident left or right still walks away with important disinformation while you can mask your intentions by claiming to be exposing or even admonishing the like of McCain ect.
It’s not really new. Same was done quite extensively in the run-up to the Iraq invasion and occupation by the so-called antiwar left. There were no WMDs BUT Saddam WAS a monster… blah blah blah
I’d like to take the time to go over the fact that the Ba’ath Party is in fact socialist in nature, not fascist as you claim, but I guess that is your libertarian (neoliberal, business first) leanings at work.
Don’t even get me started on how you compared Assad to Saleh in Yemen and the ruling families in Saudi Arabia an Jordan… but then the Shah of Iran? Are you fucking shitting me? You compare Assad to the Shah of Iran? Holy Shit…. talk about a “complete break with fact”
You do realize of course that Assad is implementing serious reforms in Syria. The opposition is now in power in Parliament and the new constitution is in place? You do of course understand (as you mention in your article) that the VAST majority of the Syrian people support Assad and even more support his government now that the reforms are taking place and the FSA terrorists have been killing and kidnapping civilians?
I mean, these things you do understand don’t you?
In short Mr. Knapp, you’ve failed to adequately justify Jason’s horribly slanted article. In fact, another one just popped up on “Anti”War’s website with little anti-Assad innuendo laced in it again…
In that case you have not one but TWO bits of deliberate misinformation subtly passed on to your “dissident” readers which supports the globalist agenda: 1. Assad committing atrocities and 2. the non-existant “civil war”
Assad did not commit the recent atrocities and there is no civil war taking place in Syria, thank you and “Anti” War very much.
But, nice effort there.
Do me a favor… next time you wish to “squish” my writing, why don’t you do yourself a favor and go back over to your online marketing website, pose for another “bad ass” photo op, and remind yourself what you actually do for a living?
Didn’t you run for Vice President and congress in the same year at the same time? Funny how all of these Libertarians complain about “big guberment” till they’re blue in the face and yet they are constantly trying to get on the payroll. After all, your business partner in your marketing website has been running for some kind of office for,what?, 16 years or so? What about that Kokesh guy? How bout that libertarian Rand Paul teaming up with Mitt? How’s that working out for you guys? But that’s a different story for a different day.
Regards
Scott Creighton
ps: are you associated with Freedom Works?
pps: If you are interested Mr. Knapp, read Cartalucci’s latest article “Propagandists Sell “Vigilante” Solution for Syria“. Unlike what you do over at “Anti”War, this article accurately describes what is happening in Syria. What you pretend to be, he is.
Awesome take down. Well deserved.
I would like to see the same analysis on Juan Cole, Angry Arab, Josh Landis, and Chris Hedges.
Thanks. I’ve actually done one on Chris Hedges a while back. He was praising Cornell West for coming out so strongly against Obama and as we see now, West is back on the Obamawagon… My issue with West was pretty simple:
West’s problem with Obama seemed to stem from his being snubbed by the anointed one after doing some 60 campaign gigs for him (or something like that according to West). Obviously Hedges shirks journalistic responsibility on other issues, important issues, though I do like reading his writings over at Truthdig every now and then. Used to repost them here… no longer.
chirp chirp. Gotta be honest, I was really hoping to see your reply Mr. Knapp. Not up to it?
If you’re still there, could you explain to me the difference between a “leftwing libertarian”(which you claim to be) and a “rightwing” one? Besides social issues I mean. Basically every Libertarian Ive ever met has said you’re not a legitimate “Libertarian” if you are not %100 doctrinaire. Perhaps I’m just being ignorant here, it wouldn’t be the first time.
“What Jason is doing is couching tacit support for the Assad regime change in my imagination.”
There, fixed — and shortened — that for ya.
No, I am not associated with Freedom Works.
No, nobody at Antiwar.com has ever in any way suggested that US, UN or NATO military or political intervention in Syria is or ever will be supportable, no matter how feverishly you fantasize otherwise.
Those are the facts. The problematic thing about facts is that they’re facts whether like them or not.
Antiwar (dot) com is such a fraud!
Syria Masses Tanks on Turkey Border as Tensions Soar
US Downplays ‘Measured’ Turkish Threats
by Jason Ditz, June 29, 2012
First of all, I remember. I made a very simple list of the blogs that reported the Dennis Kucinich effort to impeach George W. Bush for starting the war against Iraq. I waited four days for the blogs to report this, and then after very carefully scanning these blogs, I made a simple list of which ones reported it a which didn’t.
/¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
From Wikipedia, (the “non-profit” encyclopedia (a private asset) built by volunteers)
On June 10, 2008, Kucinich introduced 35 articles of impeachment against President George W. Bush on the floor of the House of Representatives.[124][125][126] On June 11, the resolution was referred to the House Judiciary Committee.
Calling it “a sworn duty” of Congress to act, co-sponsor Robert Wexler stated: “President Bush deliberately created a massive propaganda campaign to sell the war in Iraq to the American people and the charges detailed in this impeachment resolution indicate an unprecedented abuse of executive power.”[127]
On July 10, 2008, Kucinich introduced an additional article of impeachment accusing Bush of misleading Congress into war.
\____________________
Antiwar (dot) com was one of the ones that remained silent over a four day period. Why was such a thing ignored there? I searched carefully. I posted my results on some blog. Maybe Antiwar (dot) com will invent a story about it after all this time. But I looked very carefully at the time, and that story just was not there.
I began to lose trust in Antiwar (dot) com, and after about two weeks, deleted it from my bookmarks (without further comment). They lost my trust.
And what is it with the Antiwar (dot) com article that is titled:
“Syria Masses Tanks on Turkey Border as Tensions Soar”
Let’ see:
/¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
http://www.worldnewstribune.com/2012/06/28/turkey-orders-buildup-on-syrian-border-changes-rules-of-engagement/
Turkey orders buildup on Syrian border, changes rules of engagement
Special to WorldTribune.com
ANKARA — The Turkish military has been ordered to prepare for a
shooting war along the border with Syria.
The government said it was prepared for a border war with Syria in wake
of the downing of a Turkish Air Force fighter-jet.
Turkey has deployed tanks to its border with Syria as Prime Minister Recep Erdogan announced that Syria is a “threat” to the Turkish government’s security.
Prime Minister Recep Erdogan said he revised the rules of engagement for the Turkish military amid its buildup along the Syrian border.
“The rules of engagement of the Turkish armed forces have changed,”
Erdogan said. “Any risk posed by Syria on the Turkish border, any military element that could pose a threat, will be considered a threat and treated as a military target.”
Erdogan has also ordered a military buildup along Turkey’s 900-kilometer border with Syria. Since June 26, dozens of U.S.-origin M-60A3 main battle tanks, armored personnel carriers and artillery batteries have amassed along Turkey’s southeastern border.
\____________________
Gee. That’s a bit different than the
Antiwar (dot) com headline:
“Syria Masses Tanks on Turkey Border as Tensions Soar”
Are they really “antiwar”? Not so much, huh?
“Antiwar (dot) com was one of the ones that remained silent over a four day period.”
If by “silent over a four day period,” you mean “mentioned at least as early as the second day of that four-day period (http://www.antiwar.com/mcgovern/?articleid=12976), and on the fourth day of that four-day period (http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=12989)and possibly earlier than either in that four-day period,” you’re absolutely right.
If by chance you meant something else, not so much.
Okay, it is 3:20 am EST. It took you less than five minutes to invent that lie. There was no story there then. I know; I was watching. You just created that.
How many feet are you underground?
Excellent reply, Blues…
Mr. Knapp tells me that hes “been waiting 11 years” for evidence of 9/11 being an “inside job”. Ive been waiting for 11 years for evidence that “al qaeda” did it. Still waiting. I don’t like the “inside job” phrase that much as it appears it was both an “inside” and “outside” job but you get the point. This is the level of cognitive dissonance you are dealing with here. Why am I not surprised that another Antiwar.com person is completely tone deaf on 9/11?
I’m also not surprised that they didn’t push the Bush impeachment angle hard(or at all really). Gotta stay “credible” or something like that right? Like ignoring the main reason that war has been going on for the last decade and accepting “big governments” claims about the attack without an ounce of skepticism right? As far as I’m concerned if you accept the 9/11 lies you own the wars as much as any common neocon cheerleader or MSM jackass. Nibble around the edges but reinforce the biggest lie, the lie that keeps on giving to the warmongers. Really fucking helpful.
Don’t know about Jason Ditz’ being a hasbara tool; I think he’s just not very analytical. But I can tell you one “highly respected” commentator who is a Zionist propagandist – Uri Avnery. A fanatic supporter of the NATO aggression against Libya, he then smoothly moved on to condemning Russia and China for not allowing an invasion of Syria, and has gone completely silent on the collapse of Libya into anarchy.
I can also tell you of a hasbara website: Paola Pisci’s Uruk Net.
Mr. “rationalreview” Knapp:
The first rule of influence peddling troll debate tactics is to constantly refer to one’s own argument as the “rational” side of the debate.
I notice that you came back here but you don’t really address any of the criticisms leveled at you, Jason, and AntiWar as a whole with this simple and dishonest exception…
“No, nobody at Antiwar.com has ever in any way suggested that US, UN or NATO military or political intervention in Syria is or ever will be supportable, no matter how feverishly you fantasize otherwise.” “rationalreview”
Well, that’s not what I said. what I said was that you and your cobloggers at AntiWar gin up support for the NATO “humanitarian interventions” by constantly promoting the disinformation that the neo-liberals and neo-cons use to justify their imperialist agenda. And I proved that quite convincingly by 1. showing Jason repeating “activists say” reports as fact 2. other writers claiming Assad is responsible for atrocities committed by FSA 3. your ranting screed posted at Counterpunch which dishonestly calls Assad “fascist” and putting him the the company of US puppets like Mubarak and laughably the Shah of Iran (just to name a few) 4. your comment that Assad “deserved” be to be removed from power 5. other writer at AntiWar calling this regime change operation a “civil war” in Syria 6. Antiwar’s apparent refusal to acknowledge Assad’s efforts to enact serious reform in the country and the majority support he receives from Syrians themselves.
You failed to address any of this.
Instead, Jason Ditz today continues his propaganda citing a Jang Group article claiming that more generals defected to Turkey bringing along with them some 290+ people fleeing the “civil war’ in Syria.
“A group of 293 Syrians, mostly women and children fleeing the civil war, arrived in Turkey’s Reyhanli today. The group included dozens of Syrian soldiers as well, including a general and several other officers.” Jason Ditz “Anti”War
Here is the source for Jason’s unconfirmed information which comes straight from the Turkish government…
http://www.thenews.com.pk/article-57105-85-Syrian-soldiers,-including-a-general,-defect-to-Turkey-
Jason fails to mention the source used by the Jang story is the Anatolia news agency, the Turkish state propaganda rag.
You can go here and read what the Pakistanis think of Jang Group “news”
http://criticalppp.com/archives/11632
And you can go here and read yet another review of the Jang Group “news” that Jason cites for his latest article…
“I am getting quite fed up with the planted, biased, illiterate, and highly unprofessional so-called reporting by the The News International. Its current owner Mir Shakil ur Rehman was not above cheating in the exams. More about this in a moment.”
http://www.stateofpakistan.org/the-jang-group-how-low-the-standards-would-fall
This is Jason’s latest antiwar effort? To regurgitate Turkish and US propaganda repeatedly?
You know, after reading your weak, trollish, replies, I have to say I am more confident than I ever was as to the legitimacy of my original conclusions on Ditz and AntiWar in general.
Loman,
You write:
—–
The first rule of influence peddling troll debate tactics is to constantly refer to one’s own argument as the “rational” side of the debate.
—–
Maybe so, but that’s not what I’m doing. The nick references a newsletter I publish, nothing more.
Furthermore, trolls start arguments. I didn’t start this one, you did. I’m just finishing it.
—–
I notice that you came back here but you don’t really address any of the criticisms leveled at you, Jason, and AntiWar
—–
Unsupported assertion is not “criticism.” It’s just unsupported assertion.
—–
what I said was that you and your cobloggers at AntiWar gin up support for the NATO “humanitarian interventions” by constantly promoting the disinformation that the neo-liberals and neo-cons use to justify their imperialist agenda. And I proved that
—–
Um, no. Not even close.
—–
quite convincingly by 1. showing Jason repeating “activists say” reports as fact
—–
If by “show” you mean “falsely assert in the face of contrary fact,” you are absolutely right. Ditz frequently — as a matter of fact, almost always — puts “activists” in square quotes, notes that these “activists” are London-based, US-backed and unreliable, and cites other sources to either back up or dispel the claims involved.
—–
2. other writers claiming Assad is responsible for atrocities committed by FSA
—–
Other unnamed writers in other unspecified articles? “Proved,” huh?
“your ranting screed posted at Counterpunch which dishonestly calls Assad ‘fascist’ and putting him the the company of US puppets like Mubarak and laughably the Shah of Iran (just to name a few)”
Assad is a Ba’athist and run’s a Ba’athist “united front” regime. It’s not especially controversial to class Ba’athism as a variant of fascism. If you have a problem with that, take it up with Aflec, not with me.
—–
your comment that Assad “deserved” be to be removed from power
—–
Do the math here. I’m an anarchist. I support removal of ALL “leaders” from power.
—–
other writer at AntiWar calling this regime change operation a “civil war” in Syria
—–
While there is obviously foreign intervention involved and foreign support for the Syrian rebels, it’s delusional to pretend that what’s going on in Syria is not also a civil war.
Antiwar.com’s job involves getting to the truth as much as possible, not just blindly accepting the Assad regime’s propaganda in preference to NATO’s/the US’s … or yours. And frankly, the whole basis for your claim is that Ditz linked to the first version of a Reuters article that he came across, and that that version happened to be Israeli. Paranoid much?
Just because you have a trollish influence peddling newsletter which probably parrots disinfo like you do elsewhere doesn’t mean that you don’t engage in these types of disingenuous arguments.
Take for instance what you do with the rest of your comment:
You continue with the same tactic… claiming your argument is “rational’ while ours is “delusional” and “paranoid. It’s dismissive and dishonest.
Speaking of honesty, I did provide a link in the earlier comment to the article in which another writer at “Anti”War claims Assad is responsible for the atrocities in Syria.
Here’s my favorite…
Hee. That’s a joke right? Need I remind you that you ran for Vice President at the same time you ran for congress. Is that how you propose to remove “all leaders” from power? To take their jobs and paychecks? By the way, do you support removing Ron and Rand Paul from office?
Really? hmmm. I guess in all of your vast understanding of the low intensity wars waged over the past 100 years, you would call them all “civil wars”? Which ones were and which ones were not? Ever read Kitson’s book on the subject?
Talk about “pretending”…
Well, if by “Assad’s propaganda” you are referring to the German study showing the Houla Massacre was conducted by the FSA or say Hillary Clinton’s admission that the rebels are being assisted by al Qaeda, or the original observers mission exposing the terrorism conducted by the FSA and their various mercenary groups, I would say you are correct.
But the facts on the ground are pretty obvious: the United States wanted Syria and Libya regime changed years ago (Google 7 countries in 5 years) and this low intensity warfare operation was created by the West and NATO to that end. Call it what you want, but this is no “civil war” and I come to that conclusion looking at all the evidence not just “Assad propaganda”
Actually the unconfirmed quote about 170 Syrian tanks approaching the Turkish border comes from a Reuters article but the article Jason quoted and linked to was the one run by David Horovitz, Times of Israel. So it wasn’t a “Reuters article” as you claimed. Obfuscate much?
Uh, how many more links and direct quotes does it take to get through to someone like you?
Yeah, he used to. But as is evidenced by his latest article, the one I wrote about originally, he doesn’t even tell his readers where these “facts” come from. Instead he repeats the activist’s unconfirmed report as fact and simply puts a one word link to the article at the Times of Israel.
Thus he reports “activists say” journalism as fact second hand without telling his readers where the information came from.
get it?
Anyway, I have to give you this much, at least you came back and tried to address some of the criticisms leveled at you and Raimondo’s website.
It’s a shame really. I used to have a great deal of respect for Justin and the work he does. How long have you been associated with the site by the way?
Thanks for stopping by.
Lowman,
You write:
—–
Just because you have a trollish influence peddling newsletter which probably parrots disinfo
—–
Actually, a typical newsletter blurb/link to a story on Syria in my newsletter typically looks something like this:
Syria: Opposition claims more than 100 deaths in Homs
posted by Thomas L. Knapp
February 9, 2012
Imperial Valley Press
Posted in News
“Diplomats on Thursday were seeking new approaches to remedy the worsening conflict in Syria as opposition activists reported that government shelling and attacks had killed more than 100 people, most of them in the embattled city of Homs.” [editor's note: Most mainstream media coverage of the Syria situation apparently relies on claims from "activists" who, upon closer examination, seem to be non-Syria-based employees of US-funded "Non-Government Organizations." My advice: Take it all with a grain of salt - TLK] (02/09/12)
http://bit.ly/xNtxXX
—–
Need I remind you that you ran for Vice President at the same time you ran for congress. Is that how you propose to remove “all leaders” from power? To take their jobs and paychecks?
—–
That was in 2008. I’ve since abandoned electoral politics.
—–
By the way, do you support removing Ron and Rand Paul from office?
—–
Not only do I support removing them from office in general as politicians, but as individuals in particular I wouldn’t piss on either one of them if they were on fire.
—–
How long have you been associated with the site by the way?
—–
I guess it depends on what you mean by “associated.” I’ve been reading the site and covering its content in libertarian newsletters since the late 1990s, donating money to it for nearly as long, and doing some small work for it (editing the Backtalk letters column, moderating comments, etc.) for a couple of years. I’m not part of the group for whom it is a full-time job, nor do I work out of its office in San Francisco. IIRC, the only three people who work there regularly whom I’ve met are Justin Raimondo (once, when he gave a speech in St. Louis right before the US invasion of Iraq), Scott Horton (once at a libertarian event in Austin, Texas) and Angela Keaton (a number of times, as we both used to be involved in the Libertarian Party; neither of us are now).
Now see there… we can agree on something.
You should read some of my stuff on them… especially the stuff about “Little Entitled Randie”
Did you ever read Kitson’s “Low Intensity Operations” book?
Low Intensity Operations: Subversion, Insurgency and Peacekeeping
Look, the plan is too turn Syria into a collection of micro-states the way they broke up Yugoslavia (al Qaeda again) and Libya. Turkey certainly stands to gain some ground as does Israel (they are already looking for oil and natural gas in occupied Golan inspite of how illegal that is). They intend to chop up all the state owned industries (there are lots of them for a “fascist” state wouldn’t you say?) and to privatize the state owned and controlled central bank system and oil industry.
this is in no way a “civil war”. The US and Ambassador Ford have been working on this since March of last year when this “uprising” began. They call it the El Salvador option. or something like that.
Blindly accepting the word of NIST and the US government though? Hell yeah, “anarchists” are all about that I guess.
And you support the removal of all “leaders” from power? By what means? Like how we got Saddam out of power? Or are you more for a Ghadaffi type scenario in Syria?
Ditz should be more discerning in who he links to. Just “happened to be Israeli” isnt a good enough excuse. Think they would be biased much?(to say nothing of Reuters itself) Nothing paranoid about that, its called common sense. And the excuse that its ok to peddle MSM pro-war press releases because Ditz “almost always” uses quotes around the word “activists” is fucking ridiculous. As if that provides the proper context. How about not posting the disinfo at all?
With its 9/11 blind spot and its waffling and doublespeak on issues like Syria “Antiwar” should probably be called “kind of sort of anti-war,at least more than CNN”, but I guess that doesn’t sound as good. Controlled opposition much? Or at the very least toothless opposition.
possibly the best response I have seen all day.
I haven’t read Kitson’s book, but I’ll put it on my list.
I have no doubt whatsoever that the Syrian “opposition” is US/NATO-backed, and that like the Libya adventure, the “color revolutions,” etc., it was pre-planned as policy (although it almost certainly did hook into existing whatever nascent internal insurgency was available).
I’m not sure where you think we disagree on that. Our argument is about whether Ditz “parrots” or “blindly accepts” US/NATO/Israeli propaganda on the subject in his reportage. You say he does, I say he doesn’t. The difference in our arguments is that in order for yours to work, you have to redact 3/4 of every article he writes so that you can pretend he didn’t point out that the statement you’re quoting is questionable, etc.
As far as Antiwar.com’s “line,” so to speak, that’s the nut of the matter. Antiwar.com opposes US military adventurism abroad, period, no matter what form it takes or what excuses are offered for it. Apparently your opposition is predicated on a particular critique and falls apart if that critique comes into question. That, in turn, leads you to defend the critique rather than the position.
Chris, you write:
“And you support the removal of all ‘leaders’ from power? By what means?”
By authentic revolution from the bottom up — certainly not through the intervention of other states.
“Like how we got Saddam out of power?”
I’m not sure who the “we” is you’re referring to. I marched in the streets against the 2003 invasion. I did serve as a Marine infantry NCO in the 1991 war, but I was young and ignorant then.
“By authentic revolution from the bottom up — certainly not through the intervention of other states.”
Does help from a lazy and/or co-opted media(including those who claim to be “alternative”) in selling pro-war talking points count as “intervention”? I guess its not “state” intervention but it sure adds to the support for these “humanitarian interventions” by states. Manipulation from the outside, including through media, does not make for an “authentic revolution” but would certainly be a part of any fake one waged by states. Wouldn’t you agree?
“I’m not sure who the “we” is you’re referring to. I marched in the streets against the 2003 invasion. I did serve as a Marine infantry NCO in the 1991 war, but I was young and ignorant then.”
I was referring to the United States and its “allies” invading and occupying a country in part for “regime change” as opposed to the more hands off but just as unjustifiable approach of taking out Ghadafi in the manner that NATO/US did. You said that you “support the removal of all leaders” and I was just trying to get a feel for how you think that should happen and if that includes publishing disinfo to help with that cause.
As far as serving in the 1991 war at least you can admit your mistake in one area. Better than nothing I guess.
Jason Ditz Of AntiWar-Com Runs Down Dog, Just Drives Away
Gee that sounds pretty bad, huh? But 15 paragraphs down further in the story it explains that the dog’s owner happened to be emerging from his trailer with a shotgun. How do you like that story, Jason?
But in the June 12, 2008 AntiWar story “Jail Time for Tenet?” (in the first link you provided) (but on June 10, 2008, Kucinich introduced 35 articles of impeachment against President George W. Bush on the floor of the House of Representatives) Kucinich’s 35 article impeachment motion is mentioned 15 paragraphs down in the story! And it took two days to even appear there!
Your second link “Conyers: Stop the War Crimes” appeared on June 14, 2008, does not mention Kucinich in the title, and comes four days later, after “Representatives have voted to refer the Articles of Impeachment… to the House Judiciary Committee for appropriate action.” A tad slow on the draw, huh? So it really wasn’t covered.
The WorldTribune article “Turkey orders buildup on Syrian border, changes rules of engagement” came out on June 28th, 2012. And said (as documented above):
/¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Erdogan said. “Any risk posed by Syria on the Turkish border, any military element that could pose a threat, will be considered a threat and treated as a military target.”
Erdogan has also ordered a military buildup along Turkey’s 900-kilometer border with Syria. Since June 26, dozens of U.S.-origin M-60A3 main battle tanks, armored personnel carriers and artillery batteries have amassed along Turkey’s southeastern border.
\____________________
But your article on AntiWar (dot) com. titled “Syria Masses Tanks on Turkey Border as Tensions Soar” came out on June 29, 2012. It did mention that “Turkey deployed a number of tanks to their border with Syria” down in the story, but your title would mislead anyone who only read that title.
Any sensible writer would simply admit that those big titles were improper, and promise to do better in the future. But no, you have to call Scott a troll for starting an “argument.”
This is a reason why I stopped reading the disinfo at AntiWar-Com a long time ago. You’re not very smart, I gather.
[300 words of verbiage demonstrating that you not only read Antiwar.com, but read it carefully and closely, to this very day, elided]
“This is a reason why I stopped reading the disinfo at AntiWar-Com a long time ago.”
Please email me a head shot. I want to put it in the dictionary I’m compiling, next to the term “cognitive dissonance.”
Ah jeez…
You have been presented scores of examples and the corresponding links proving that you and various writers at antiwar continuously repeat proven disinfo as fact. I showed you where jason took “activist said” journalism and reported it as fact. You claim to justify your previous call to remove Assad from power because you’re an anarchist. And your comment justifying Jason’s article was downright dishonest. And of course you continue with your trollish debate tactics.
And you pretend to be proving yourpoint?
It’s not a civil war
Syria is not responsible for the escalation with Turkey
Assad is not a fascist
Assad is not the one commiting atrocities in Syria
This destabilization capaign is run by the West
The obvious task of antiwar is to support the NATO propaganda while opposing involvement. That way even the dissidents will believe the lies.
If you think for a minute that you have “won” this little debate you need to post your own “headshot” on your cognitive dissidence page.
“Please email me a head shot.” Oh I’ll get right on it!
“[300 words of verbiage demonstrating that you not only read Antiwar.com, but read it carefully and closely, to this very day, elided] — hey, you’re missing a period.
I only read the two links to it you provided to bolster your baseless claims. Then I went to the site to find your “Who We Are” page to discover that you are their “Research Editor.” I do visit perhaps once a month or so to seek out signs of intelligent life there. What a ridiculous accusation! (But you cannot refute anything I pointed out, unless you are bitter enough to retroactively insert some fake new article.)
You could have simply claimed you screwed up somehow, but instead you accused Scott of trolling, and cited all manner of irrelevant diatribe. How sad.
Would someone please email this whole thread to Raimondo? I hate to think this guy is the best defense “Anti”War has. Perhaps Raimondo can clue us in to why not so subtle propaganda is now being spoon fed to his readers
Scott, when you talk about Hasbara propaganda, you’re missing one of the elephants in the room: Paola Pisi’s fanatically anti-Syria propaganda site, Uruk Net, which you site as an A1 News Source for reasons unknown to me.
Here is Paola Pisi on the Syrian shootdown:
“al-assad says it was in Syrian airspace, Turkey says it was in international airspace, In any case no country in the world shoots a plane only coz it violates its air space for a few minutes “.
This and other anti-Syrian propaganda peddled by this woman can be accessed here:
http://www.facebook.com/uruknet/posts/262929557141430
they do of they are flying UNDER the radar and loook like israelis
Maidic O’Caithil, NiqNaq, and Sibel Edmonds have been on their case since Libya. They have been nothing but obtuse and or offensive in their response. Scout around you should find mega threads at Passionate Attachment.
He’s just the next pseudoanalyst
LOL…. here’s another one!
sorry, I just couldn’t resist…..