HOW PUPPETS IN THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA CONTINUE TO DISGRACE THE PROFESSION OF JOURNALISM

 

An article on The Guardian website this morning, written by Martin Chulov asks, What could the US target in Syria and how is Russia likely to react?

It refers to the US bombing of Shayrat Airbase last year in response to a chemical attack on the town of Khan Sheikhoun that had been attributed to the Syrian government.

That chemical attack, which was widely found to be a false flag by numerous accounts, including in an article by renowned investigative journalist Seymour Hersh, poses the question: why is such an irresponsible and moronic article published on The Guardian website, supposedly a reputable news source?

Also disturbing is the author's style of writing as he muses about this potential airstrike on Syria. It's as though he's describing a video game, or casually and giddily going over some plans for an excursion with a pathetic sense of importance: The US maintains a naval battle group in the eastern Mediterranean, well stocked with over-the-horizon missiles....Striking from the west poses fewer problems all around. French jets could hit Syrian targets after taking off from French airfields. If Britain joins the fray, it has a base on nearby Cyprus, a short hop from Syria.... The opposition pipe dream remains the ousting of the regime.

How Chulov writes about the West's eagerness to bomb Syria reflects the overall attitude of Americans and their friends in how wholly detached they are from the concept of moral responsibility and integrity. Most journalists today, and especially those in the mainstream media consistently reveal themselves to be nothing more than propaganda tools in a frenzy. They demean a profession and its purpose while foreign journalists who are committed to telling truths in the countries of which these Western journalists promote destruction  are killed.

Palestinian journalist Yasir Murjata killed by the IDF earlier this month. (Mohammed Talatene/AP)

Are chemical attacks by the evil Bashar al-Assad the new weapons of mass destruction and evil Saddam Hussein? These howls for war and bombings to be spearheaded by the barbaric US drown out any rationality that could remind these warmongers of the repercussions, like what had followed after the destruction of Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Afghanistan. The only person in the mainstream media that's actually speaking out as the voice of reason against these hawks is Tucker Carlson, a political commentator on Fox News.

From Carlson's segment on Syria :

"All the geniuses tell us that Assad killed those children. But do they really know that? Of course they don't really know that. They're making it up. They have no real idea what happened. Actually, both sides in the Syrian civil war possess chemical weapons. How would it benefit Assad using chlorine gas last weekend – well, it wouldn't. Assad's forces were winning the war in Syria...That's good news for Assad, and about the only thing he could do to reverse it and to hurt himself would be to use poison gas against children. Well he did it anyway, they tell us. He's that evil! Please. Keep in mind this was the same story they told us last April. Do you remember that?....Two months ago the Secretary of Defense admitted that actually, we still have no proof that Assad used sarin gas last year. The story, it turns out was propaganda. It was designed to manipulate Americans, just like so much of what they say."

Anyone with a conscience should be applauding Carlson – nevermind that he works for Fox, that actually makes it more impressive – for rising above all of the puppets in the media and showing integrity that was once central to journalism and reporting, and now, like all things considered sacred, utterly profaned due to American propaganda, widespread corruption and bloodlust.

WHILE THE WORLD BURNS UNDER WESTERN IMPERIALISM, WESTERNERS TWEET ABOUT IT

So Syria looks like the next Muslim majority country to be soon relegated to a failed state, a decision that Western governments take upon themselves to be the only reasonable solution, ignoring the sovereignity of those nations, their leaders, ways of life, populations, and brazen hypocrisy when it comes to their own treatment of their own societies.

Aleppo today.

Donald Trump, the clown that many Americans had no choice but to vote into office because their only other option was a revolting criminal, is now set on playing the part of World Police. Of course, there's no difference between him and his predecessors – from Barack Obama, to George W. Bush, to Bill Clinton – most US Presidents, with the exception of Jimmy Carter, tend to blend together to the point of unnecessary distinction as they gleefully drop bombs on civilians, destroy other nations, and neglect their own population – 23 million of which live at or under the poverty line in the US.

Nikki Haley, the infantile modern-day slavewoman and US Ambassador to the completely-useless-and-for-show-only United Nations tried to shame Russia in response to the alleged recent chemical attacks in Syria, referring to them as, "the Russian regime, whose hands are all covered in the blood of Syrian children." 

This from a person who back in December said of a nation that for the past forty-so years has thrived on the ethnic cleansing and exploitation of Palestinians and their lands: "Israel has been forced to live under constant security threats like virtually no other country in the world. It should not have to live that way." That quote was pulled from this Haaretz article, in which it also described Haley as a darling of AIPAC, and noted her obsession with the Isreali state.

From The Guardian article :

British prime minister, Theresa May, said: “We are working urgently with our allies to assess what has happened. But, we are also working with our allies on any action that is necessary.” 

French president, Emmanuel Macron agreed that a strong joint response was urgently needed.

Does all of this sound familiar? Western allies getting together to show concern for specific populations of the world, in places where they have vested interests, and after all of their illegal interventions and world-policing that sets countries on fire – this is the unconcealed strategy of modern day Western imperialism.

And yet we still have people like this guy, a political scientist he says, who makes it known to readers in the first line in his article that he's coming from a well-reasoned, educated standpoint : "Earlier this week when I argued that the United States has an ethical obligation to intervene in Syria...". I laughed after reading that line, and scanned the rest of the unremarkable write-up in which the author, Joseph Amodeo refers to the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) mandate of the UN Charter in an exeedingly feverish endorsement of US military intervention. War mongers are rampant in the US, be it in politics, the mainstream media, or even pseudo-intellectuals who write op-eds, so this isn't really anything new. 

The author writes, "I believe that we are now at a point where military intervention is no longer an option, but rather a necessity to bring an end to the harm being perpetrated against the Syrian people by Bashar al-Assad’s regime." It's so cute how this guy tries to pretend that he cares for the Syrian people. Imagine if he encouraged that same regard towards the Americans who've long been on the receiving end of their government's policies. His endorsement of war masquerading as concern for Syrians simply translates to : come on, let's do some real damage already!!! He follows with, "In Kosovo, the United States and NATO forces undertook a 78-day bombardment, which resulted in no western casualties." 

Bombing civilian areas and infrastructure – just another day for NATO. (Kosovo)

And how many civilian casualties did the US and NATO cause with their overzealous bombing? Funny that Amodeo neglects to mention this crucial point that is central to the R2P mandate (after going on about the harm being done to Syrians) because according to the Human Rights Watch report, about 500 casualties were counted in ninety separate NATO attacks. Additionally, "more than half the deaths occurred as a result of attacks on illegitimate or questionable targets." What little I know about R2P I learned from a course in International Law I took in college, so how is it that I can see why R2P is problematic while a college professor of political science is drooling at the mouth, while using words like "ethical" and "necessity" to justify more bombarding of a state already so devastated?

Listen, it's only fine if the West shows up in your country and kills anyone that gets in their way, because that's the price to pay for democracy and freedom.

Critics of R2P have argued that intervention could set a dangerous precedent by allowing powerful states to breach the sovereignty of the less powerful, as is demonstrated time and time again by the US and its allies. What this is really, is Western imperialism masquerading as humanitarian intervention, with NATO overstepping its authority and violating international humanitarian law with conceit. Remember when a US aerial bombing of a mosque in Aleppo back in 2017 caused 43 civilian casualties? Because of faulty intelligence that had them believe they were targeting an al Qaeda meeting? And how the US Defense Department first tried denying it, and then finally shrugged and said it was legal even though it was clearly a war crime? 

Aleppo mosque bombing by US air strike.

Amodeo stupidly insists, "We cannot merely watch as the crisis in Syria spirals into further attacks on Syrian citizens and, in turn, draws the United States and the international community into an even deeper threat to global security," ignoring the fact that the United States is why most of the world is in a fucking mess. Because it can't stop intervening for self-interest, greed, power, natural resources and through violent, unbridled attacks, murdering anyone in their path, be it through open savagery or secret wars. 

What do Americans do about the continuous destruction of other lands and its people by its all-powerful government? They do nothing. It's almost as if even Americans are afraid of their leaders. Because deep down they know just how wicked and unconscionable the authorities are, and it's much easier to tweet about the depravity of their government, and comment enthusiastically on news stories than try to actually take action for all of humanity. That is called passivity, and also cowardice.