Neil
Clark writes:
Talk about quick on the draw.
No sooner had Russian planes taken off to bomb ISIS
terrorists and their associates in Syria, claims made by the West’s anti-Russia
lobby started to flood in – only to be repeated in much of the western
mainstream media.
Russia wasn‘t really targeting ISIS but “moderate rebels”
and its strikes killed scores of innocent civilians (unlike US strikes during
which we only get “collateral damage”).
We’ve seen lots of tweets attacking Russia and pictures of
injured children and people being pulled out of buildings posted online.
Now there’s two possible explanations for the lightning
fast way this new chapter in the “information war” against Russia has been
launched.
The first is that the anti-Russian lobby have fantastic
sources in Syria and know exactly who has been killed in air strikes moments
after the bombs are dropped, or, in some cases possess clairvoyant powers and
know who the victims will be even before the bombs fall.
Also, that there are people on the ground with excellent
high-speed Wi-Fi connections in a war zone who are able to post videos online
of victims of Russian attacks with an alacrity that makes Usain Bolt look like
a veritable slowcoach.
The second alternative explanation is that the accusations
and allegations that we’ve seen were already written up – filed and saved – and
ready to be posted online as soon as Russia’s parliament authorized the use of
military force in Syria, in order to discredit the operation.
Although air strikes, even if planned with surgical
precision can kill civilians – which is of course the number one reason for
opposing them – I know which explanation I find the more plausible.
Media monitoring group Media Lens warned us what to expect:
And as usual the Lensers, derided and denigrated by members
of the elite journos’ club – who have been proven wrong about just about
everything (Iraqi WMDs anyone?) – were bang on the money.
The hypocrisy we‘ve seen in the last day or so – even by
the standards of the endless war lobby – has been truly breathtaking.
“Those big bad Russians launching air strikes in a foreign
country. Why, it’s outrageous! Only the US and its allies are allowed to do
that!”
People who were screeching for more ‘intervention’ against
ISIS in Syria on Tuesday, found themselves all against ‘intervention’ against
ISIS in Syria on Wednesday – when it was Russia doing the intervening.
The amount of neocon moaners that went from loving bombs
yesterday to hating them today is quite something.
The Pentagon suspended the train & equip program
because we couldn't find moderates. But now we're told moderates abound
& are under attack.
Conversely ISIS, which we were told was everywhere in Syria
up to Tuesday, is nowhere – or at least not in the areas where the Russians are
bombing.
Those who have been silent on civilians’ deaths caused by
the Saudi assault on Yemen, or on civilians’
deaths caused by US-led bombing of Iraq and Syria, are,
bursting with ‘outrage’ over alleged civilian deaths caused by Russian
air-strikes – even before such deaths are confirmed.
.@medialens Watch and see also how they suddenly develop an incredible
ability to count & care about civilian casualties of Russian actions!
Then there’s the question of why
Putin is intervening.
Russia, we are told is launching air strikes in Syria not because it genuinely wants to beat ISIS, but because it has “selfish interests” in the region.
Of course, western motives for destabilizing Syria and backing violent ‘rebels’ to kill Syrian soldiers and overthrow the Syrian government are never selfish, but only benign and humanitarian.
When the US and its allies bomb Syria, it‘s to be lauded, when Russia does it – then it’s a sign of the Bear’s sinister attempt to increase its influence in the region.
Russia having an ally in the Middle East – why it’s appalling! – only the US is allowed to have allies in an area where there is so much oil!
It shouldn’t need to be said after
the blatant lies we were told about Iraq, Libya and Syria up to now, but we
need to take negative western claims about Russian actions in Syria, not with a
pinch of salt, but with a huge barrow-load of the white stuff.
No ISIS in Al-Rastan in Homs province? Well, ‘activists’, cited by the BBC, told us that was the case after Russian air strikes.
But, as Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) pointed out, that didn’t appear to be the situation last week, when AFP, citing the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights told us that seven men had been shot dead by ISIS in Al-Rastan after they had been accused of being homosexuals.
What this shows – and there are plenty of other examples – is that western news channels are happy to cite unnamed ‘activists’, without even the most cursory checks of whether the claims they make are correct if those claims show Russia, or indeed, any other “official enemy” in a bad light.
Of course, it’s a very different story if claims are made against the US or its allies.
Remember that high profile coverage of claims made by unnamed ‘activists’ about civilian casualties caused by western air-strikes? No, me neither.
US media, overnight, has developed an intense concern about
targeting precision, accuracy of bombing claims, identity of airstrike victims
US-led coalition: 2,579 air strikes in
Syria. Russia: 8. Watch the media now fill up with bitter outrage about Russian
killing. And 'ours'?
Unsurprisingly, Interpreter
Magazine, the “special project” of Khodorkovsky’s Institute of Modern
Russia, has been at the forefront of the propaganda campaign to
discredit Russia’s Syrian intervention.
“Today Russia launched airstrikes against multiple targets
in Syria, but while it’s clear that non-ISIS rebels and possibly civilians have
been killed, it’s unclear whether ISIS was even a target at all,” the
magazine wrote.
In fact the Russian Defense Ministry reported hitting 12
targets belonging to ISIS on Thursday.
What Putin has done – and this is the reason why the “Get
Russia” brigade are so angry – is call the western elite’s bluff on fighting
ISIS.
For all their condemnation of Islamic State atrocities, the
US and its closest allies’ number one aim has been to remove from power the
secular Syrian government which has been fighting ISIS and other radical
terrorist groups backed by the west.
We know, thanks to WikiLeaks, that the US plans for “regime
change” in Syria predate the Arab Spring, and in fact goes back to at least
2006. And this “regime change” plan has nothing to do with ‘democracy
promotion’, but everything to do with old-fashioned imperialism.
“To the rulers of the world in Washington and Europe,
Syria’s true crime is not the oppressive nature of its government but its
independence from American and Israeli power – just as Iran’s true crime is its
independence, and Russia’s true crime is its independence … In an
American-owned world, independence is intolerable.”
Russia’s intervention in Syria, as my fellow RT OpEdge
columnist John Wight has pointed out is likely to be game changer.
This nonsense about #Russia targeting so-called moderate rebels or #ISIS in #syria is a diversion. Russia's intervention is a game changer.
By tilting the balance against the serial regime changers,
who have wreaked so much havoc around the world in recent years, there is an
increased chance that Syria’s secular government will be able to recapture
chunks of its territory and that the country will retain its independence.
That will please genuine anti-imperialists and
anti-fascists, who believe that the Syrian people alone should decide who
governs them and not the US, Britain or France, but anger those who have been
hell-bent on bringing Syria to heel for its defiance – however much death and
destruction such a neo-con inspired policy has caused.
The fact is that those who were clamoring for more western
intervention in Syria – purportedly against ISIS – but in reality to get the Assad
government removed, have been outmaneuvered.
Having seen the western elite talk up the threat from ISIS,
(whose rise, let’s not forget was welcomed by the anti-Assad powers “in order to isolate the Syrian
regime”) citizens of western countries are now expected to regard the
Russians as villains for taking action against an enemy we were told had to be
defeated.
Clearly, for those behind the new information war, we‘re
meant to forget what our leaders have been telling us about ISIS all year.
We’re meant to have brains the size of a pea and memories
that don’t go back for more than a few days.
The latest propaganda assault to get us to hate Russia for
fighting against terrorism in Syria is not only laughable, it’s deeply
insulting to our intelligence.
No comments:
Post a Comment