Contrasting U.S. Media Coverage of Two Besieged Cities

Horhey · Mar 19, 2017

"Worthy and unworthy victims". Victims of the U.S. and its allies are marginalized, smeared, or ignored. Victims of U.S. enemies are covered extensively and enjoy enormous, albeit, insincere sympathy (crocodile tears, obviously).

Contrasting Tales of Two Besieged Cities – Consortiumnews

The U.S.-backed offensive to retake Iraq’s Mosul from the Islamic State is inflicting hardships on civilians, but the Western media treats this humanitarian crisis differently than the recent one in Aleppo, Syria, notes Steven Chovanec.

By Steven Chovanec

During the Syrian army’s offensive to retake the eastern part of Aleppo from the insurgent opposition, the Western media portrayed the assault as if Russia and Syria were carrying out a campaign primarily aimed at killing and harming civilians. The humanitarian crisis dominated headlines while key facts, such as Al Qaeda’s domination of the opposition forces and the way in which the militants had brutally conquered the city’s civilians, were marginalized or not reported at all.

A similar military offensive being carried out by the U.S. and its allies in the Iraqi city of Mosul reveals the hypocritical nature of Western news outlets, which portray their own countries’ actions as targeting only Islamic State terrorists and scrupulously avoiding harm to civilians.

There is no doubt that the siege in eastern Aleppo resulted in a humanitarian crisis for the civilian population trapped within the warzone. As the Washington Institute’s Fabrice Balanche described: “What the United Nations is describing [about] the humanitarian situation is correct: hospitals destroyed, people living in shelters, women and children trapped in the rubble, and so on.”

Yet in reality the destruction waged upon Aleppo was hardly different from what is now being done in Mosul as the U.S.-led coalition carries out a similar campaign of counterinsurgency and siege warfare.

Currently the Iraqi army, backed by U.S. airstrikes, is conducting a violent and brutal assault on the western parts of Mosul city in order to drive out the Islamic State. A whole population of civilians is trapped within an ongoing warzone and cut off from food supplies and basic necessities as the military offensive hits heavily populated areas killing civilians while destroying important infrastructure in the process, including hospitals.

Yet, while Western officials and media pundits vehemently condemned the Syrian assault on Aleppo, they are largely silent — or congratulatory and supportive — as the U.S. and its partners lay waste to the more heavily populated city of Mosul.

A senior Iraqi politician told veteran journalist Patrick Cockburn that “the Iraqi armed forces will eventually capture west Mosul … but the city itself will be destroyed in the fighting,” pointing to the massive destruction already inflicted upon eastern Mosul which was recently captured by the U.S.-backed forces.

So, even though the current U.S.-led siege has resulted in a larger humanitarian crisis in purely quantitative terms, the outcry over it is largely nonexistent. The trauma is reported on, but selectively, while the full extent of the civilian catastrophe is hidden from view.

For instance, The New York Times dedicated only two major stories to the offensive this month, yet flooded its pages with heartrending stories during the siege of Aleppo. In addition, coalition actions in Mosul that result in civilian casualties, like the destruction of hospital complexes, are depicted as justified or unintentional, compared to the portrayal of Syrian and Russian strikes in east Aleppo as intentional war crimes when similar complexes were hit or civilians killed.

Similarly, justifications for civilian suffering — scoffed at and ridiculed when made by Russia and Syria — are used without irony or shame to defend U.S. actions. Whereas the West’s media treated civilians in Aleppo as the targeted victims of the Russian-Syrian attacks, civilians in Mosul are described as “human shield” victims of Islamic State terrorists who also hoard food supplies and prevent civilians from escaping.

This is not to say that these accusations against the Islamic State are false, but similar Russian-Syrian claims against the Al Qaeda-dominated rebels in east Aleppo were brushed aside as lies and propaganda.

A Dire Situation

Without doubt, the conditions on the ground in ISIS-held western Mosul are dire. Aid groups warn that the situation has been deteriorating rapidly following a U.S.-backed coalition airstrike that destroyed the last remaining bridge leading out of the city, trapping the population and preventing supplies from entering. The coalition justified the attack as necessary to cut off ISIS from supply lines, but that also had drastic humanitarian implications.

“Humanitarian conditions in the west of the city are deteriorating after supply routes were cut off in November when the east of the city was recaptured,” Oxfam reported. “An estimated 750,000 people are trapped in western Mosul without any safe means of escape from the latest military offensive.”

The result is that “up to 750,000 people in western Mosul city are estimated to remain largely inaccessible to humanitarians,” the U.N. warned, while “serious concerns remain for the protection of civilians in the west of the city, where food, water, medicine and fuel are running low.”

Patrick Cockburn, one of the few honest Western journalists reporting on the region, noted that “already shelling and airstrikes are causing heavy casualties among families sheltering in cellars or beneath the stairs in their houses.”

Writing for Middle East Eye, Nafeez Ahmed quoted Ross Caputi, a Marine veteran of the Iraq War, describing “horror stories about civilian casualties coming out of Mosul. An aid worker friend of mine was trying to recruit volunteer doctors to work in a surgical unit in Erbil, where many of the more serious cases were being redirected. She told me that the situation is worse than it’s being portrayed in the media.”

Even more startling is evidence that the first week of March was characterized by a severe rise in civilian deaths as a result of U.S.-coalition actions, at the same time when major news outlets had drastically reduced coverage on the topic.

“The US-led coalition fighting the Islamic State may have killed hundreds of civilians” in the first week of March alone, according to open source data compiled by Airwars, which estimates that “between 250 and 370 civilians have been killed” since March 1. Nafeez Ahmed explained this is “exponentially higher than the US count of just 21 civilian deaths from bombing since November 2016.”

Yet, instead of highlighting the humanitarian crisis and placing blame on U.S. and Iraqi forces for the misery, the Western media has portrayed the operation as assiduously avoiding harm to civilians. For example, the coalition strike severing the bridge was described as a victory against ISIS, while the humanitarian implications were downplayed or ignored.

One report described the destruction of the bridge as “a historic setback for the Islamic State as the terror group loses its grip on its Iraqi hub of Mosul,” with no mention of the harm to civilians. Another stated “American-led airstrikes damaged all five bridges last year in a bid to isolate the militants in Mosul.”

At least one of the ruined bridges was captured recently by Iraqi government forces. But U.S. Air Force Col. (and spokesman for the coalition) John Dorrian made it clear that bridges would be fully repaired “only after defeating ISIS,” choosing to intensify the humanitarian crisis by continuing a debilitating siege on the almost one million residents who are trapped.

Perhaps the destruction of bridges and siege warfare are warranted to isolate and defeat the Islamic State, yet when main news outlets deliberately hide the humanitarian implications of such actions and portray them merely as military victories without connection to the human suffering, they are engaged in manipulation of public perceptions which mobilizes support for state actions rather than objectively informing public opinion of the reality of the situation.

Stephen Gowanz summed up the nature of this media bias: “the United States and its allies have been practicing siege warfare in the Levant and beyond for years, and continue to do so. It’s just that US-led siege warfare has been concealed behind anodyne, even heroic, labels, while the siege warfare of countries Washington is hostile to, is abominated by Western state officials crying crocodile tears.”

Manufactured Consent

The reason for this hypocrisy is that the primary function of mass media in “free societies” is to serve as a system of propaganda. Under this “propaganda model” view of the media, one would expect Western coverage of the Mosul crisis to take for granted that the U.S. is carrying out its efforts in the service of benevolent ideals, with the goal of defending civilians from aggression and terrorism while making painstaking efforts to limit casualties.

On the other hand, in the Aleppo case, one would expect Western media to act in the opposite fashion, taking for granted that civilian lives are treated with contempt and that motives are inherently suspicious or malevolent, while context and rational understanding of actions are marginalized or disregarded altogether.

When comparing coverage of these two stories, we see that this is exactly what you find, namely indignation directed at “enemy” military operations over civilian suffering and sympathy for U.S. and allied military assaults with the civilian casualties downplayed or rationalized.

Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky explain in their extensive study on media propaganda, Manufacturing Consent, that “while this differential treatment occurs on a large scale, the media, intellectuals, and public are able to remain unconscious of the fact and maintain a high moral and self-righteous tone. This is evidence of an extremely effective propaganda system.”

The question is how does this occur when the news media is not openly controlled by a state bureaucracy as in a totalitarian system but nonetheless achieves similar outcomes. An institutional analysis reveals that there exist various factors inherit within the structure of the media which essentially serve as a filter which sifts out inconvenient facts while propagating other information that is in accordance with the interests of the institution.

The basic structure of Western media is that the outlets themselves are powerful corporations with a profit-making goal. The product that they are selling are audiences, mostly wealthier and privileged people, as consumers of advertisements paid for by other major corporations. Given this reality, it’s not surprising that the news product reflects a worldview that is in alignment with corporate interests and prejudices, such as the military defense contractors and the military itself whose ads line the pages of major Western journals and consume significant ad time on TV.

It is in the interests of these pro-military entities for audiences to get a positive image of the U.S. military while creating an adverse image for foreign villains who can be collectively despised. It’s also understood that American audiences want to feel good about what the U.S. military is doing abroad, rather than being challenged with unpleasant truths.

Herman and Chomsky explain that this phenomenon of slanted reporting “is normally not accomplished by crude intervention, but by the selection of right-thinking personnel and by the editors’ and working journalists’ internalization of priorities and definitions of news-worthiness that conform to the institutions policy.”

The result is an extremely skewed media picture, which is determined by which side of the geopolitical struggle certain actions occur. In the cases of Mosul and Aleppo, the similarities of the tragedies that have devastated the two cities serve to further highlight the very dissimilar way in which the two stories have been reported.
Click to expand...

moon · Mar 19, 2017

It's well worth tuning in to RT to get a balanced view.
https://www.rt.com/usa/

Monster Zero · Mar 19, 2017

Thanks for posting this Steven Chovanec article, Horhey.

I'm so glad you posted it not because it is good, but because it encapsulates everything that is currently wrong with Progressive Media, and why I've largely turned a deaf ear to websites like Information Clearing House and Progressives as a whole like Glen Greenwald. A) It takes on obvious facts - Aleppo, Syria, Iraq’s Mosul disasters of U.S. or Greenwalds Trump Coup pieces and spins them. B) using quoted sources - from the questionable to the documented frauds - (i.e.) Oxfam, Washington Institute’s Fabrice Balanche, Stephen Gowans,Patrick Cockburn, Nafeez Ahmed, Noam Chomsky, The New York Times, who all cancel each other out with their previous Syria 'sectarian war' lies, BS routine, or blaming the Saudis. C) while "humanitarian crisis dominated headlines while key facts, such as Al Qaeda’s domination of the opposition forces" is the NO DUH lead of the Syria catastrophe U.S. war crime, the story wastes 5 paragraphs of our time telling us
what WE ALREADY KNEW: the NYT/MSM suck. D) Even the summation is incorrect: (apparently because it's appealing to a niche audience who want to forget that Chomsky, Ahmed, Cockburn, Gowans, all establishment paid hacks spent 8 years spinning that Syria was 'sectarian' or the Saudis fault, like Yemen, BOTH OF WHICH ARE U.S. led wars by Pres. Obama as is the invasion of Iraq) Chovanec states - "In the cases of Mosul and Aleppo, the similarities of the tragedies that have devastated the two cities serve to further highlight the very dissimilar way in which the two stories have been reported," and the reason is clear, Chovanec reads the wrong sources, from the top to bottom of this article, all discredited establishment paid hacks like Chomsky, who in 2016 endorsed the election of Hillary, the Syria butcher who got arms, training, and funding for al Nusra / FSA / ISIS along with her Democrat Obama, and the other Democrat Party cronies who lied and covered it up, until objective unbiased sources exposed it beyond all reasonable doubt.
E) Chovanec only proves one thing with this article, that Progresive media is just a focus group of the Democrats, and like Information Clearing House, TruthOut, CorsortiumNews, Newsbud (Boiling Frogs), Code Pink, Wikileaks, Intercept, Snowden, Democracy Now, are tools of the establishment whose days are over with.

Horhey · Mar 20, 2017

Monster Zero said: ↑

Thanks for posting this Steven Chovanec article, Horhey.

I'm so glad you posted it not because it is good, but because it encapsulates everything that is currently wrong with Progressive Media, and why I've largely turned a deaf ear to websites like Information Clearing House and Progressives as a whole like Glen Greenwald. A) It takes on obvious facts - Aleppo, Syria, Iraq’s Mosul disasters of U.S. or Greenwalds Trump Coup pieces and spins them. B) using quoted sources - from the questionable to the documented frauds - (i.e.) Oxfam, Washington Institute’s Fabrice Balanche, Stephen Gowans,Patrick Cockburn, Nafeez Ahmed, Noam Chomsky, The New York Times, who all cancel each other out with their previous Syria 'sectarian war' lies, BS routine, or blaming the Saudis. C) while "humanitarian crisis dominated headlines while key facts, such as Al Qaeda’s domination of the opposition forces" is the NO DUH lead of the Syria catastrophe U.S. war crime, the story wastes 5 paragraphs of our time telling us
what WE ALREADY KNEW: the NYT/MSM suck. D) Even the summation is incorrect: (apparently because it's appealing to a niche audience who want to forget that Chomsky, Ahmed, Cockburn, Gowans, all establishment paid hacks spent 8 years spinning that Syria was 'sectarian' or the Saudis fault, like Yemen, BOTH OF WHICH ARE U.S. led wars by Pres. Obama as is the invasion of Iraq) Chovanec states - "In the cases of Mosul and Aleppo, the similarities of the tragedies that have devastated the two cities serve to further highlight the very dissimilar way in which the two stories have been reported," and the reason is clear, Chovanec reads the wrong sources, from the top to bottom of this article, all discredited establishment paid hacks like Chomsky, who in 2016 endorsed the election of Hillary, the Syria butcher who got arms, training, and funding for al Nusra / FSA / ISIS along with her Democrat Obama, and the other Democrat Party cronies who lied and covered it up, until objective unbiased sources exposed it beyond all reasonable doubt.
E) Chovanec only proves one thing with this article, that Progresive media is just a focus group of the Democrats, and like Information Clearing House, TruthOut, CorsortiumNews, Newsbud (Boiling Frogs), Code Pink, Wikileaks, Intercept, Snowden, Democracy Now, are tools of the establishment whose days are over with.
Click to expand...

You've taken off from the planet.

Monster Zero · Mar 20, 2017

Horhey said: ↑

You've taken off from the planet.
Click to expand...

Then you explain it to me genius, OK ?

How is the re-invasion of Iraq not Obama -Hillarys fault ?

How is the invasion of Libya not Obama -Hillarys fault ?

Who got arms, training, and funding for al Nusra / FSA / ISIS, if not Obama-Hillary?

Who got arms, training, and funding for the LIFG (Libya Fighting Group) if not Obama-Hillary?

...

“The Terrorists R Us.” The Islamic State “Big Lie”

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky
Global Research, December 24, 2016

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-te...criminalization-of-the-united-nations/5404146

Who is Behind Wikileaks?

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky
http://www.globalresearch.ca/who-is-behind-wikileaks-2/22389

Giftedone · Mar 21, 2017

Horhey said: ↑

"Worthy and unworthy victims". Victims of the U.S. and its allies are marginalized, smeared, or ignored. Victims of U.S. enemies are covered extensively and enjoy enormous, albeit, insincere sympathy (crocodile tears, obviously).
Click to expand...

Good post ... I read Manufacturing Consent some - "Political Economy of the Mass Media" 30 years ago - also read Necessary Illusions "Thought control in a Democratic Society"

In watching the media spin and spin for 30 years, I can honestly say I have never seen it this bad. It used to be "all the news that is fit to print". Now there is just no news at all in the mainstream media.

Monster Zero · Mar 21, 2017

Giftedone said: ↑

Good post ... I read Manufacturing Consent some - "Political Economy of the Mass Media" 30 years ago - also read Necessary Illusions "Thought control in a Democratic Society"

In watching the media spin and spin for 30 years, I can honestly say I have never seen it this bad. It used to be "all the news that is fit to print". Now there is just no news at all in the mainstream media.
Click to expand...

Yeah -

too bad all the so-called "Progressives" like Chomsky and Michael Moore put their reputations on the line defending, and trying to elect Hillary the warmonger.

So now that after 8 years of Obama wars, maybe the anti-war Left in America will finally realize that Progresive media is just a focus group of the Democrat Party, to be used, lied to, and exploited during election time.

...

Giftedone · Mar 21, 2017

Monster Zero said: ↑

Yeah -

too bad all the so-called "Progressives" like Chomsky and Michael Moore put their reputations on the line defending, and trying to elect Hillary the warmonger.

So now that after 8 years of Obama wars, maybe the anti-war Left in America will finally realize that Progresive media is just a focus group of the Democrat Party, to be used, lied to, and exploited during election time.
...
Click to expand...

That is unfortunate. I did not realize Chomsky was shilling for Hillary ?

Horhey · Mar 22, 2017

Giftedone said: ↑

Good post ... I read Manufacturing Consent some - "Political Economy of the Mass Media" 30 years ago - also read Necessary Illusions "Thought control in a Democratic Society"

In watching the media spin and spin for 30 years, I can honestly say I have never seen it this bad. It used to be "all the news that is fit to print". Now there is just no news at all in the mainstream media.
Click to expand...

It's a little better, actually. See post #1 for some of the most appalling examples.

Giftedone · Mar 22, 2017

Horhey said: ↑

It's a little better, actually. See post #1 for some of the most appalling examples.
Click to expand...

Not sure what you mean by a little better. The most appalling example was left out of your narrative.

The administration under Rotten Ronald Reagan supported death squad dictators (and the terrorism and genocide committed) in El Salvador, Guatemala and Indonesia.

The media hid this from US citizens calling some of these groups (such as the Sandinista's in Nicaragua) - Freedom Fighters while the other side was characterized as Gurrilla's

In Syria - Obama (in conjunction with Saud, Turkey and others) supported the radical Islamist Jihadists (including Al Qaeda/Al Nursra, ISIS, Islamic Front and other Islamist groups of the same ilk)

This led to the worst humanitarian crisis so far this decade (500,000 killed and counting), the refugee crisis, and the rise of the modern incarnation of ISIS.

ISIS was a small insignificant group in Iraq prior to the war. Arming and support of the Islamist Jihadists by various nation states allowed these Jihadists to take over most of Syria from 2011 to 2013. It was in 2013 that some of these Jihadists decided to form an Islamic State - IS-ISIL/ISIS.

They then moved into Iraq (the dog got off the leash). It then became necessary to create a few necessary illusions/false narratives. These Islamist Jihadists suddenly became "Moderate Rebels".

Prior to this the NYTimes had interviewed rebels who stated categorically that they were all fighting to instill Strict Sharia/Theocracy as the law of the land/political system. Not that we did not already know this. This was the whole call to Jihad - the fight against "secularism".

What ever Assad's faults (and the were many), Syria was secular. They did not have Sharia. They had freedom of religion - Christian Generals in Assad's army. There was drinking alcohol and dancing in Bars. Women could wear skirts and normal bathing suits and did not have to ask permission from a man to be educated.

Those fighting for Assad were fighting to keep individual rights and freedoms - against the Islamist's who hate individual rights and freedoms and want to force their religious beliefs on others through violence/Jihad.

In the case of Reagan - the terrorists were in other countries and limited to those countries. In the case of Syria - the people Obama was supporting (Al Qaeda and those of the same ideology) was the same group that did 911.

We have this debate over the term "radical Islam" (which is a generalization because not all Muslims are Islamist's) yet the media will not educate the people on the difference between a Muslim and a Muslim who is an Islamist.

Taliban, Al Qaeda, ISIS, Islamic Front, Muslim Brotherhood, Boko Haram, Al Shabaab and various others - All share the same Saudi inspired Salafi Islamist ideology.

Saud has been exporting this ideology all over the world for decades.

This "inconvenient truth" is somehow - not news ? Despite the fact that 911 Families have brought a lawsuit to sue Saud for 911.

The fact that Obama/Hillary were arming and supporting Al Qaeda - the group that actually did the 911 job - Is this not news ?

Monster Zero · Mar 22, 2017

Giftedone said: ↑

That is unfortunate. I did not realize Chomsky was shilling for Hillary ?
Click to expand...

http://www.oilempire.us/soros.html

Left Wing Gatekeepers - on prog media in general, a broad view:

LA weekly had an interesting article years ago 'Pacifica Radio Slides Into The Abyss' noting a steep ratings decline for kpfk 90.7 los angeles - which is good news - the people are not fooled by Snowden again reading from cue cards in video clips - real activists don't have to - or they are familiar with Goodmans rehearsed pre-fab agit-prop as she relies mostly on no name, faceless astroturf State Dept. / CFR or Washington think tank Soros affiliated groups. Code Pinks website for example you will struggle to find any mention of Allepo, Nader another DN regular failed to critique Democrats on the fake war on ISIS in Syria, indeed al nusra/ ISIS are ubiquitous acting in concert, trading US weapons and supplies, the much beloved David Swanson, of 'war is a crime.org', and 'talk nation radio' appeared on 90.7 los angeles - 'Connect the Dots' just prior to election but his comments -about 20 minutes worth - were so innocuous and toned down they were worthless as David and host Ms Layla Garrett tried to make a point about Hillarys war record but ultimately said next to nothing. The same often happens with Arundati Roy or Chomsky who personally refuse to name names in the ruthless executions of US policy or tap into the emotions of audience members, instead speaking in dull emotionless tones - sans any impassioned vocal inflection whatsoever- watching the Establishment financed 'Free Speech TV' a sham DC Foundation funded front of a cable network is like watching a network managed by non-emotive Stepford Wives who act as per instructed, and like another featured guest Julian Assange, show very liittle genuine heartfelt empathy or anger or outrage toward the criminal leaders of US imperialism.

contrast this with a utube search i did when i typed 'glenn greenwald isis' into the search box there. the top 3 greenwald videos i watched describing the origins of isis, and the policy of syria and iraq executed by the democrat party to be grossly inaccurate as greenwald appeated on fox news and democracy now in 2 of the 3 videos - i was shocked see glenn lay the responsibilty of isis creation largely on factors external to the u.s./ and bush - it was inexcusable disinfo.

Will "Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Glenn Greenwald of The Intercept" Glen Greenwald ever admit Wikileaks is a tool of the 'Deep State' ?

(i.e.) And Obama and Hillary are busy providing financing, medical aid, air cover, and weapons supplies to the enemy - Al Nusra, ISIS and Al Queda.next - which wikileaks eventually validated but only a month prior to the election. other blogs had the same info for over 5 years!

and more to the point we have the ministry of fear (aka the u.s. tv radio msm) engaging in its usual disinfo.what are they offering us today in the syria lies two- step dance - i ask myself ? is it providing cover up today for hillary and obama by emphasizing turkey, quatar, and the saudis? is the ministry of fear giving us syria terrorist alphabet soup name change game to conceal democrat party guit of war crimes ? is the ministry of fear merely erasing history again ? is the u.s. govmnt state propagandists clouding the issue intentionally again by censorig facts like american predator drone that was spotted by the russians when the syria aid convoy was bombed ? this much is clear - the u.s. media cannot be trusted - at all.

By Jonathan Marshall
"Only 6 percent of Americans surveyed in a new national poll say they have a lot of confidence in the media — a result driven by a widespread perception that news stories are one-sided or downright inaccurate. That finding came to mind as I heard New Yorker editor David Remnick introduce an April 17 segment on Syria on the New Yorker Radio Hour."

https://alethonews.wordpress.com/2016/04/20/how-the-new-yorker-mis-reports-syria/

While my judgement of various authors in the prog. media may seem unduly harsh - (i.e.) rob parry, rob fisk, or ray mcgoverns letter to obama re: restoring relations w/ russia, or gareth porters splitting the obvious facts of obama hillarys broad based support a wide range of terror groups - notice the abrupt name change of ISIS again - to IS so readers will not connect the dots of democrat terror - al Nusra has now changed its name - who cares what to - like the daesh tag for example is a subtle device to conceal the origins, atrocities, histories and brutality muilations, cut throat blood letting, so the CIA falsely termed 'moderates' can be cloaked in legitimacy and this also serves the pres. obamas, hillarys culpability in protecting al Nusra/ ISIS from failed cease fire agreements because kerry /obama wanted al Nusra/ ISIS not to be targeted by Russian airstrikes. Look at how Porter tries to split the alphabet soup of jihadis when al Nusra/ ISIS/ al queda groups are obviously ubiquitous w/ FSA being caught doing the same atrocities, abuses as al Nusra according to syrian victims civillians. and it is worth noting ray mcgovern still esculpates obama from responsibilty - as a 'reluctant warrior' (ray mcgovern) in a den of wolves of advisers - my eye - this is too preposterous a proposition from a pres. obama who plays golf 15 minutes after his syria war announcement. - likewise sy hersh bolstering the bin laden killing hoax to stay in good standing with his stature is too convenient, - as is robert parrys sticking to the official story of Sept. 11th is absurd, who knows what hidden allegiances to war 'intelligence profs. for sanity' - veterans of the intel groups binney, ann wright, or collen rowley still have have such 'dignified' reverence for our democrat party killers like obama who obviously approved and planned the syria false flag after the white house blamed assad for the faked ghouta chemical warfare incident - in fact - the transcript of the false flag plan - said 'approved by washington'.

And it also shows how heart rending are the effects of coercion when anti-war liberals like cindy sheehan were silenced, blackmailed, and threatened to withdraw financial support from the cindy soapbox and/or marches if she spoke out against DEMOCRAT PARTY wars started or continued under obama, according to her own podcast. This is the contradiction, co-option, betrayal of the anti-war Left Gatekeepers - Mike Malloy turning down the volume to unintelligible of a caller named 'Blue' from Australia knocking 'progressive voices' former air america radio hosts for not protesting against Obama war of Lbya vocally on the airwaves, Mike even cut an old arabic lady caller for saying 'your a democrat, so what?' as she questioned obamas iraq imperialist motivations, or callers being knocked off the air when he speaks about 9/11, or on Randi Rhodes about Af-Pak, the voting public was stamped out verbally ON OUR OWN PUBLIC AIRWAVES. it is no wonder cindy sheehan and others have asked 'what anti-war movement?' in an article by brent bozell.

.................l

listen to this horrid program as an example:

"This Can’t Be Happening – 01.25.17

Dave does a show on Flynn, the Russians, and the Deep State, with prairie radical Michael Caddell out of Kansas."

http://prn.fm/cant-happening-01-25-17-2/

tell dave he must have dropped too much acid in the 60's. its paranoid scapegoating of trump, and an apalling endorsement of the mockingbird press,in this episode dave lindorff and fiend endorse deep state actions, vs. white house even while admiitting its a felony - again - it is no wonder cindy sheehan and others have asked 'what anti-war movement?' in an article by brent bozell. prn.fm and the bulk of anti-war media has turned itself into (after the retirement of steve lendman) to be at the very least nothing but a focus group for warmonger democrat party ( i.e. electioneering ) or at its worst cointelpro -they are completely out of touch w/ mainstream liberals, are ineffectual establishment pr shills, and will be regarded as govmnt astroturf like amy goodman!

If you take into account the CBS, CNN, NBC, and NYT, and their fake news hype of the Pres. Trump immigration policy with gross sensationalism, mis-reporting, and the same news networks fake news saturation coverage of the false charges, lacking clear proof, of 'Russia hacking' the 2016 election, it has all the hallmarks and appearances of an orchestrated Mockingbird type program from rogue elements of the CIA.

Alex Jones is a clown, a performer, a circus geek. a faux librtarian, possibly cointelpro

- but speaking of slight of hand misdirection news propaganda tactics -

Doesn't ICH - (information clearing house) include Fisk, Pat Cockburn, NYT, al Jazeera, Tom Hartman, Amy Goodman, Ed Snowden, Juan Cole, Chomsky, Hedges, Abby Martin, and other CIA linked foundation and/or Left cover Democrat Party apologists while truth tellers Steve Lendman and Land Destroyer, and Brandon Turbeville are mostly censored, or left out?

And how do we account for Sibel Edmonds, James Corbett dismissal of Putin as a thug, and their attacks on Paul Craig Roberts columns, (Boiling Frogs podcast I linked previously ) Corbett dismissed Putin saying -"there are no good guys in Syria" which illustrate Russia defending itself against U.S. backed death squads - that is totally BS
propaganda by Corbett because you cannot compare Obama - Hillary using blood slitting death squads to cut the throats of Syria civillians, mutilating, raping women and men, setting car bombs and booby traps, to what Putin does bombing ISIS!

F-bombs on Corbett and his Boiling Frogs Eyeopener show ... arseface!

( andwhen demonizing Putin is the standard MSM modus op / tactic?)

who peddles the most disinfo uh-hem the constant london syria obseratory at ICH or Jones? HRW or Jones? Who is CIA foundation FUNDED- AMY GOODMAN, or JONES ? who is astroturf politics limited hangout AMY GOODMAN, or JONES ?

A.

Is it not true that in order to stop a war you first must correctly indentify its origins? So, why do you blame Israel for the Syria caranage MORE than you BLAME or hold Democrat Party office holders in the WH, DLC DEMOCRATS in Congress, for the paasage of arming Syria terrorists, and authorizing airstrikes, plus Obamas executive order ordering the arming of Syria 'rebels' as reported by the NYT some years ago?

B.

syria anti-war comments disallowed at common dreams, abby martin bradblog, democrat underground, op-ed news, reader supported news,mike malloy, tom hartman, aletho news, ich , deleted my steve lendman and finian cuningham news links and other factual syria democrat war crimes - not attack pieces like this, but said websites deleted simple headlines and links to double tap drone strike news clips - do you see how fake and extensive the mockingbird press is and how it extends to prog. blogs ?

The fact ISIS / Al Nusra hasn't been deafeated yet, after over 20,000 airstrikes should be a red flag warning to the American people, and serious news readers everywhere that 'we the people' aren't being told the truth.

Horhey · Mar 22, 2017

Giftedone said: ↑

Not sure what you mean by a little better.
Click to expand...

The media has always pushed the establishment narrative, no matter the consequences. What I meant was at least now the internet exists. People no longer have to depend on the establishment papers or TV news. The results (from another thread):

The corporate media is all about suppressing the left. In 1988, ABC chief White House correspondent Sam Donaldson admitted in his book that:

The press, myself included, traditionally sides with authority and the establishment.
Click to expand...

Notice the assumptions throughout the article. The organized left are portrayed as a troublesome subversive group that must not be permitted to succeed. As Cenk observes, the article essentially tells progressives to "bow your head" to the establishment.

Democrats Beware: Sanders 'Movement' Turns to Midterms, NBC News

With Democrats facing tough prospects in the midterm elections, will they also have to worry about primary challenges from their left flank?

But the more radical strain, which led hundreds of Sanders delegates to walk out of the Democratic National Convention in protest last summer, is still present on the left and emboldened by the loss of Hillary Clinton and their belief that "Bernie would have won."

While they've yet to prove they are capable of being any kind of a force to be reckoned with, a handful of groups that grew out of the Sanders movement have already begun issuing primary threats against Democratic incumbents.

Another new group staffed by ex-Sanders aides, Justice Democrats, has less clear plans.

If they are able to follow through, the result would likely be a mass of underfunded token candidates, not necessarily serious challengers. But that may still be enough to make their point that members of Congress should not run unopposed in primaries.

But for Justice Democrats' founder, liberal media personality Cenk Uygur, what seems to matter most is inflicting damage on the Democratic Party.

Critics say Uygur's slash-and-burn approach to the Democratic Party is little more than an opportunist attempt to corner the media market for disaffected liberals, and that now he and his ilk are trying to do the same for politics.
Click to expand...

Offensive to say the least.

Ninian · Mar 22, 2017

Horhey said: ↑

"Worthy and unworthy victims". Victims of the U.S. and its allies are marginalized, smeared, or ignored. Victims of U.S. enemies are covered extensively and enjoy enormous, albeit, insincere sympathy (crocodile tears, obviously).
Click to expand...

Thank you for the article. It... Gives the fuel for thoughts.

Giftedone · Mar 22, 2017

Monster Zero said: ↑

on prog media in general, a broad view:

The fact ISIS / Al Nusra hasn't been deafeated yet, after over 20,000 airstrikes should be a red flag warning to the American people, and serious news readers everywhere that 'we the people' aren't being told the truth.
Click to expand...

This is from Chomsky in 2016:

Also, it’s necessary to cut off the flow of arms, as much as possible, to everyone. That means to the vicious and brutal Assad regime, primarily Russia and Iran, to the monstrous ISIS, which has been getting support tacitly through Turkey, through—to the al-Nusra Front, which is hardly different, has just the—the al-Qaeda affiliate, technically broke from it, but actually the al-Qaeda affiliate, which is now planning its own—some sort of emirate, getting arms from our allies, Qatar and Saudi Arabia. Our own—the CIA is arming them. We don’t know at what level; it’s clandestine. As much as possible, cut back the flow of arms, the level of violence, try to save people from destruction. There should be far more support going simply for humanitarian aid. Those who are building some sort of a society in Syria—notably, the Kurds—should be supported in that effort
Click to expand...

He does call out both sides but, I agree that he is definitely on the sidelines - at least in this paragraph.

He is not really shilling for Hillary though:

Each time(terrorism), it spreads. By now, it’s all over the world. It’s all over Africa, Southeast Asia, South Asia, everywhere you look. Take the bombing of Libya, which Hillary Clinton was strongly in favor of, one of the leaders of, smashed up Libya, destroyed a functioning society. The bombing sharply escalated the level of atrocities by a large factor, devastated the country, left it in the hands of warring militias, opened the door for ISIS to establish a base, spread jihadis and heavy weapons all through Africa, in fact, into the Middle East. Last year, the—according to U.N. statistics, the worst terror in the world was in West Africa, Boko Haram and others, to a considerable extent an offshoot of the bombing of Libya.
Click to expand...

https://www.democracynow.org/2016/5/17/noam_chomsky_on_syria_conflict_cut

This is classic Chomsky -

Monster Zero · Mar 22, 2017

Like well known folks Lindorff and other Liberals - people seem to forget:

it was the DNC who torpedoed Bernard Sanders in the primary

( and rigged it )

Monster Zero · Mar 22, 2017

Giftedone said: ↑

This is from Chomsky in 2016:

He does call out both sides but, I agree that he is definitely on the sidelines - at least in this paragraph.

He is not really shilling for Hillary though:

https://www.democracynow.org/2016/5/17/noam_chomsky_on_syria_conflict_cut

This is classic Chomsky -
Click to expand...

'classic Chomsky' yes - I did not know there was such a thing.

One lecture Q/A broadcast on 90.7 Roy of Hollywood and others, Noam dodged the audience question of whether 'Iraq was genocide' answering saying 'the term genocide has been politicized'. Chomsky also dodged on 90.7 Roy of Hollywood same broadcast some months before the election, an arabic questioner who tried to get Noam to comment on 'the Big Lie' was Obama to blame for Syria, and (etc.) the question everybody knows the answer to - Michel Chossudovsky writes about who created ISIS/ al Nusra (article above). Noam dodged it.

Michel is the superior intellect I'd say.

Monster Zero · Mar 23, 2017

More BS from so called anti-war "Progressive Voices"
as Democrat Party SHILL Mike Malloy tries in vain to convince
listeners BEFORE THE ELECTION Hillary is some innocent victim of the media ...

Monster Zero · Mar 23, 2017

The Eye Opener - hold onto your hats - this GETS UGLY !

From Sibel - who I used to hold in high esteem ... no longer ...

Here Sibel and Corbett attack Paul Craig Roberts and Russia -

(i.e.) Putin / Assad the only ones, and the Syrian / Russian army killing the al Nusra death squad butchers in Syria who

are cutting up women after raping them, or shooting them and putting innocent non combatants / Syrians in a ditch !

Sibel calls Putin as 'a scumbag' like good little Project Mockingbird pets they are, Corbett agrees w/ her

The Final Stage of Erdogan's Takedown - BFP Eyeopener

( at around 18 min 43 sec )

felonius · Mar 23, 2017

Horhey said: ↑

"Worthy and unworthy victims". Victims of the U.S. and its allies are marginalized, smeared, or ignored. Victims of U.S. enemies are covered extensively and enjoy enormous, albeit, insincere sympathy (crocodile tears, obviously).
Click to expand...

Its media fascism.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/fake-news-and-donald-trump.500391/

Horhey · Mar 23, 2017

Giftedone said: ↑

He is not really shilling for Hillary though:

Click to expand...

Monster Zero said: ↑

'classic Chomsky' yes - I did not know there was such a thing.

One lecture Q/A broadcast on 90.7 Roy of Hollywood and others, Noam dodged the audience question of whether 'Iraq was genocide' answering saying 'the term genocide has been politicized'. Chomsky also dodged on 90.7 Roy of Hollywood same broadcast some months before the election, an arabic questioner who tried to get Noam to comment on 'the Big Lie' was Obama to blame for Syria, and (etc.) the question everybody knows the answer to - Michel Chossudovsky writes about who created ISIS/ al Nusra (article above). Noam dodged it.
Click to expand...

The premise of your criticism of Chomsky is simply not accurate. The invasion of Iraq was raw aggression and it resulted in over 500,000 Iraqis being killed, much of them by the U.S. military, but it cannot be called "genocide" because it doesn't meet the standard by any definition. The U.S. military did not intentionally seek to exterminate an entire race or group of people. If they had attempted to wipe out the Sunni population, for example, then it could be termed "genocide". U.S. forces did, however, go Vietnam on Fallujah in 2004, meaning that they treated it as a "free fire zone", but was exchanged for the phrase "weapons free zone." Thousands of Sunni civilians were slaughtered.

And no, the United States did not intentionally create ISIS. The United States does not control or provide direct support to ISIS or Al Nusra. But U.S. furnished weapons do sometimes end up in their hands. That's what critics mean when they say 'stop arming terrorists'. The CIA does not direct jihadist activities, which is why there is no equivalency with Reagan's terrorist wars in Central America. There, U.S. mercenary forces were actually trained, supplied, and directed by U.S. agents and advisers.

Moonglow · Mar 23, 2017

Monster Zero said: ↑

Thanks for posting this Steven Chovanec article, Horhey.

I'm so glad you posted it not because it is good, but because it encapsulates everything that is currently wrong with Progressive Media, and why I've largely turned a deaf ear to websites like Information Clearing House and Progressives as a whole like Glen Greenwald. A) It takes on obvious facts - Aleppo, Syria, Iraq’s Mosul disasters of U.S. or Greenwalds Trump Coup pieces and spins them. B) using quoted sources - from the questionable to the documented frauds - (i.e.) Oxfam, Washington Institute’s Fabrice Balanche, Stephen Gowans,Patrick Cockburn, Nafeez Ahmed, Noam Chomsky, The New York Times, who all cancel each other out with their previous Syria 'sectarian war' lies, BS routine, or blaming the Saudis. C) while "humanitarian crisis dominated headlines while key facts, such as Al Qaeda’s domination of the opposition forces" is the NO DUH lead of the Syria catastrophe U.S. war crime, the story wastes 5 paragraphs of our time telling us
what WE ALREADY KNEW: the NYT/MSM suck. D) Even the summation is incorrect: (apparently because it's appealing to a niche audience who want to forget that Chomsky, Ahmed, Cockburn, Gowans, all establishment paid hacks spent 8 years spinning that Syria was 'sectarian' or the Saudis fault, like Yemen, BOTH OF WHICH ARE U.S. led wars by Pres. Obama as is the invasion of Iraq) Chovanec states - "In the cases of Mosul and Aleppo, the similarities of the tragedies that have devastated the two cities serve to further highlight the very dissimilar way in which the two stories have been reported," and the reason is clear, Chovanec reads the wrong sources, from the top to bottom of this article, all discredited establishment paid hacks like Chomsky, who in 2016 endorsed the election of Hillary, the Syria butcher who got arms, training, and funding for al Nusra / FSA / ISIS along with her Democrat Obama, and the other Democrat Party cronies who lied and covered it up, until objective unbiased sources exposed it beyond all reasonable doubt.
E) Chovanec only proves one thing with this article, that Progresive media is just a focus group of the Democrats, and like Information Clearing House, TruthOut, CorsortiumNews, Newsbud (Boiling Frogs), Code Pink, Wikileaks, Intercept, Snowden, Democracy Now, are tools of the establishment whose days are over with.
Click to expand...

Progressive media? This type of reporting has been done for centuries, it's a matter of us vs. them mentality....it's even in the Bible, fer Christ sake..

truth and justice · Mar 23, 2017

I see someone straight away blamed Obama. The US foreign policy does not change with changing governments. The bombings in Iraq have been on-going since the first gulf war. Mosul is currently being flattened using US bombs and Iraqi Shia army. The US backed Iraqi government does not particularly care about the civilians in Mosul primarily because they are majority Sunni and closely related to the Kurds. We have the US backed Sunni Saudis bombing Shia Yemeni civilians, we have US backed Shia Iraqis bombing Sunni Iraqi civilians. US seem to be regularly switching sides in Syria. During the Iran/Iraq war, the US secretly supported Iran in order to prolong the war. Now US constantly growling at Iran. The US desires constant turmoil in the middle east

Afghanistan is still being bombed:why?
https://www.thebureauinvestigates.c...-of-us-air-and-drone-strikes-afghanistan-2017

Giftedone · Mar 23, 2017

Monster Zero said: ↑

'classic Chomsky' yes - I did not know there was such a thing.

One lecture Q/A broadcast on 90.7 Roy of Hollywood and others, Noam dodged the audience question of whether 'Iraq was genocide' answering saying 'the term genocide has been politicized'. Chomsky also dodged on 90.7 Roy of Hollywood same broadcast some months before the election, an arabic questioner who tried to get Noam to comment on 'the Big Lie' was Obama to blame for Syria, and (etc.) the question everybody knows the answer to - Michel Chossudovsky writes about who created ISIS/ al Nusra (article above). Noam dodged it.

Michel is the superior intellect I'd say.
Click to expand...

Global Research is a good site... I go there often. They have been on top of the Syrian Conflict since the beginning.

Greataxe · Mar 23, 2017

Horhey said: ↑

The premise of your criticism of Chomsky is simply not accurate. The invasion of Iraq was raw aggression and it resulted in over 500,000 Iraqis being killed, much of them by the U.S. military, but it cannot be called "genocide" because it doesn't meet the standard by any definition. The U.S. military did not intentionally seek to exterminate an entire race or group of people. If they had attempted to wipe out the Sunni population, for example, then it could be termed "genocide". U.S. forces did, however, go Vietnam on Fallujah in 2004, meaning that they treated it as a "free fire zone", but was exchanged for the phrase "weapons free zone." Thousands of Sunni civilians were slaughtered.

And no, the United States did not intentionally create ISIS. The United States does not control or provide direct support to ISIS or Al Nusra. But U.S. furnished weapons do sometimes end up in their hands. That's what critics mean when they say 'stop arming terrorists'. The CIA does not direct jihadist activities, which is why there is no equivalency with Reagan's terrorist wars in Central America. There, U.S. mercenary forces were actually trained, supplied, and directed by U.S. agents and advisers.
Click to expand...

Because the Islamic state is largely Sunni, and Sunni ISIS fighters are in traditional Kurdish territory, the best strategy is to go to house to house and find out who is who from long time residents in Mosul as the army encircles the invaded area.

Any male ISIS fighter caught there needs immediate execution. The risks are too high for recidivism. Women and children can be bussed to holding camps until the fighting is finished in Iraq. Firm rules need to be set on insurgent fighters. All fighters need to wear distinct uniforms. Any fighter caught out of uniform is an enemy combatant/spy and is to be shot on sight. Also, any adult aged 16+ found with a obvious weapon of war: belt-fed machine gun, grenade, RGP, IED, mortars, etc---should be shot at once. Certainly true for homes with found with these weapons.

If the forces fighting ISIS treated ISIS fighters like they were Nazis and Nazi partisans in WW 2---then the war would be over fast.

Giftedone · Mar 23, 2017

Horhey said: ↑

And no, the United States did not intentionally create ISIS. The United States does not control or provide direct support to ISIS or Al Nusra. But U.S. furnished weapons do sometimes end up in their hands. That's what critics mean when they say 'stop arming terrorists'. The CIA does not direct jihadist activities, which is why there is no equivalency with Reagan's terrorist wars in Central America. There, U.S. mercenary forces were actually trained, supplied, and directed by U.S. agents and advisers.
Click to expand...

No offense but, you are speaking out of ignorance.

The US (in conjunction with Saud, Qatar, Turkey and others) armed and supported radical Islamist's including (Al Qaeda/Al Nusra, ISIS, Islamic Front and those of the same ilk).

There is no "Moderate Rebel" opposition of any significance. They are all Islamist's (and if they are not Islamist's they sure as heck are not telling anyone in general or they are not really involved much in the war.

The "moderate rebel" false narrative is a made up lie to.

Once it came out that the US was arming the rebels in Syria - this lie became necessary.

Sure - much of the arming and supporting was done "indirectly" through Saud and others. I hope you are not suggesting that this somehow makes arming Al Qaeda - or other Salafi Islamist Jihadists OK. It does not matter whether you call them "Al Qaeda - ISIS - Al Nusra, Taliban, Islamic Front, Martyrs for Allah Brigade and so on .... If they are - Salafi Islamist Jihadists - it is the same thing under a different name.

Each of these groups has the same ideology - they all hate individual rights and freedoms/ "Secularism" and want Strict Sharia/Theocracy to be the law of the land/Political system and they want to force this religious belief on others through physical violence / Jihad.

That is the whole call to Jihad in Syria. Arming the Syrian Rebels us supporting Salafi Islamist Jihadists and the imposition of Strict Sharia/Theocracy on the freedom loving people of Syria.

The Moderates - are the ones fighting for Assad. Do you understand ? We are on the wrong friggen side in this conflict.

That Saddam was a bad guy did not justify killing over 100,000 Iraqi's and destroying Iraq
That Assad was a bad guy (not as bad as Saud - and pretty much the same as many other leaders in the middle east) is not justification for killing 500,000 people, destroying Syria, creating the refugee crisis and the modern incarnation of ISIS.

You have not researched this issue in any depth.

Log in or Sign up

Contrasting U.S. Media Coverage of Two Besieged Cities

Horhey Well-Known Member

moon Well-Known Member

Monster Zero Well-Known Member

Horhey Well-Known Member

Monster Zero Well-Known Member

Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

Monster Zero Well-Known Member

Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

Horhey Well-Known Member

Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

Monster Zero Well-Known Member

Horhey Well-Known Member

Ninian Banned

Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

Monster Zero Well-Known Member

Monster Zero Well-Known Member

Monster Zero Well-Known Member

Monster Zero Well-Known Member

felonius Active Member

Horhey Well-Known Member

Moonglow Well-Known Member

truth and justice Well-Known Member

Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

Greataxe Well-Known Member Past Donor

Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

Contrasting U.S. Media Coverage of Two Besieged Cities

Horhey Well-Known Member

moon Well-Known Member

Monster Zero Well-Known Member

Horhey Well-Known Member

Monster Zero Well-Known Member

Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

Monster Zero Well-Known Member

Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

Horhey Well-Known Member

Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

Monster Zero Well-Known Member

Horhey Well-Known Member

Ninian Banned

Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

Monster Zero Well-Known Member

Monster Zero Well-Known Member

Monster Zero Well-Known Member

Monster Zero Well-Known Member

felonius Active Member

Horhey Well-Known Member

Moonglow Well-Known Member

truth and justice Well-Known Member

Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

Greataxe Well-Known Member Past Donor

Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

Share This Page

Useful Searches