Tulsi: Trump: Stop hiding Saudi role in 911 and protecting Al Qaeda

You know, I misunderstood. Hope, it is.

With all due respect, this thread should probably be in "Russia Related" as well.

The defenses of Assad, the labeling of all Syrians fighting against the Assad regime as "terrorists", the smearing of the White Helmets - it all is tied in with defending Russia's reputation and, by extension, Trump.

There's a big overlap between the Assad-helping sources and sources which criticize the Russia investigation in this country.  See, e.g., Max Blumenthal.

There's no other logical reason why self-described "progressives" would be disparaging claims that Assad is a murderous dictator who gasses his own people.  If there is, happy to hear it.

nohero said:
With all due respect, this thread should probably be in "Russia Related" as well.
The defenses of Assad, the labeling of all Syrians fighting against the Assad regime as "terrorists", the smearing of the White Helmets - it all is tied in with defending Russia's reputation and, by extension, Trump.
There's a big overlap between the Assad-helping sources and sources which criticize the Russia investigation in this country.  See, e.g., Max Blumenthal.
There's no other logical reason why self-described "progressives" would be disparaging claims that Assad is a murderous dictator who gasses his own people.  If there is, happy to hear it.

 The worldview of "progressives" is an interesting aspect of this, I think.  The Soviet Union is not only long gone but it, and its block of allies and dependents, were never what they pretended to be, or what dewy eyed western progressives dreamed them to be.  Yet the pro-Assad camp seems to be motivated in part by some vague nostalgia or delusion that Russia, Syria and like countries still somehow vaguely represent a progressive front.

bub said:
The worldview of "progressives" is an interesting aspect of this, I think.  The Soviet Union is not only long gone but it, and its block of allies and dependents, were never what they pretended to be, or what dewy eyed western progressives dreamed them to be.  Yet the pro-Assad camp seems to be motivated in part by some vague nostalgia or delusion that Russia, Syria and like countries still somehow vaguely represent a progressive front. 

 I wouldn't go that far, or read more into it.  I think domestic politics is the driver in this.  

To defend  "Sola Hillary "as the only explanation for the 2016 election results, any other factor (including whatever Russia did) has to be severely beaten back.  And from there, it's a short trip to "Leave Russia Alone" with respect to Ukraine and Syria.

Kavanaugh proponents are already taking advantage of the groundwork laid in attacking the "MSM" to dismiss any reporting that threatens his confirmation.  It remains to be seen whether any of the posters here on MOL who support the talking points against the Russia investigation, Ukraine and the Syrian opposition also join them re: Kavanaugh.

nohero said:
With all due respect, this thread should probably be in "Russia Related" as well.
The defenses of Assad, the labeling of all Syrians fighting against the Assad regime as "terrorists", the smearing of the White Helmets - it all is tied in with defending Russia's reputation and, by extension, Trump.
There's a big overlap between the Assad-helping sources and sources which criticize the Russia investigation in this country.  See, e.g., Max Blumenthal.

Tulsi Gabbard, Seymour Hersh, Jeffrey Sachs, etc, seek to defend Trump and Russia's reputation, according to @nohero.

This is McCarthyism 101 where dissent is equated with serving a foreign "enemy."

nohero said:

There's a big overlap between the Assad-helping sources and sources which criticize the Russia investigation in this country.  See, e.g., Max Blumenthal.

 There's a reason for that. The Russia investigation and the Assad gasses his own people mantra are based on allegations that don't stand up to scrutiny (critical thinking).

nohero said:

There's no other logical reason why self-described "progressives" would be disparaging claims that Assad is a murderous dictator who gasses his own people.  If there is, happy to hear it.

 Here are several reasons:

https://www.truthdig.com/articles/syrias-alleged-sarin-gas-attack-questioning-a-flawed-investigation/

https://www.truthdig.com/articles/a-shocking-lack-of-intelligence-in-our-missile-strike-on-syria/

https://www.welt.de/politik/ausland/article165905578/Trump-s-Red-Line.html

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/syria-chemical-attack-gas-douma-robert-fisk-ghouta-damascus-a8307726.html

One question -- Do you oppose Trump's "Red Line" if an alleged chemical weapons attack takes place in Syria?

Or do you support Trump?

bub said:

nohero said:
With all due respect, this thread should probably be in "Russia Related" as well.
The defenses of Assad, the labeling of all Syrians fighting against the Assad regime as "terrorists", the smearing of the White Helmets - it all is tied in with defending Russia's reputation and, by extension, Trump.
There's a big overlap between the Assad-helping sources and sources which criticize the Russia investigation in this country.  See, e.g., Max Blumenthal.
There's no other logical reason why self-described "progressives" would be disparaging claims that Assad is a murderous dictator who gasses his own people.  If there is, happy to hear it.

 The worldview of "progressives" is an interesting aspect of this, I think.  The Soviet Union is not only long gone but it, and its block of allies and dependents, were never what they pretended to be, or what dewy eyed western progressives dreamed them to be.  Yet the pro-Assad camp seems to be motivated in part by some vague nostalgia or delusion that Russia, Syria and like countries still somehow vaguely represent a progressive front.

 Per my response to @nohero -- do you include:

Tulsi Gabbard

Jeffrey Sachs

Scott Ritter

Seymour Hersh

among your "pro-Assad" voices motivated by "some vague nostalgia or delusion" that Russia and Syria represent a "progressive front?"

nohero said:

bub said:
The worldview of "progressives" is an interesting aspect of this, I think.  The Soviet Union is not only long gone but it, and its block of allies and dependents, were never what they pretended to be, or what dewy eyed western progressives dreamed them to be.  Yet the pro-Assad camp seems to be motivated in part by some vague nostalgia or delusion that Russia, Syria and like countries still somehow vaguely represent a progressive front. 

 I wouldn't go that far, or read more into it.  I think domestic politics is the driver in this.  
To defend  "Sola Hillary "as the only explanation for the 2016 election results, any other factor (including whatever Russia did) has to be severely beaten back.  And from there, it's a short trip to "Leave Russia Alone" with respect to Ukraine and Syria.
Kavanaugh proponents are already taking advantage of the groundwork laid in attacking the "MSM" to dismiss any reporting that threatens his confirmation.  It remains to be seen whether any of the posters here on MOL who support the talking points against the Russia investigation, Ukraine and the Syrian opposition also join them re: Kavanaugh.

The MSM deserves to be criticized on its Kavanaugh coverage for failing to highlight the threat that he poses for labor, the environment, voting rights, big money in politics and civil liberties.

The MSM's coverage of Russia also evokes the same criticism, because in addition to pushing conflict with Russia, the MSM has failed to report on Trump's threat to labor, the environment, voting rights, big money in politics and civil liberties.

So yes, MSM coverage of both stories is flawed.

paulsurovell said:

bub said:

nohero said:
With all due respect, this thread should probably be in "Russia Related" as well.
The defenses of Assad, the labeling of all Syrians fighting against the Assad regime as "terrorists", the smearing of the White Helmets - it all is tied in with defending Russia's reputation and, by extension, Trump.
There's a big overlap between the Assad-helping sources and sources which criticize the Russia investigation in this country.  See, e.g., Max Blumenthal.
There's no other logical reason why self-described "progressives" would be disparaging claims that Assad is a murderous dictator who gasses his own people.  If there is, happy to hear it.

 The worldview of "progressives" is an interesting aspect of this, I think.  The Soviet Union is not only long gone but it, and its block of allies and dependents, were never what they pretended to be, or what dewy eyed western progressives dreamed them to be.  Yet the pro-Assad camp seems to be motivated in part by some vague nostalgia or delusion that Russia, Syria and like countries still somehow vaguely represent a progressive front.

 Per my response to @nohero -- do you include:
Tulsi Gabbard
Jeffrey Sachs
Scott Ritter
Seymour Hersh
among these "pro-Assad" voices motivated by "some vague nostalgia or delusion" that Russia and Syria represent a "progressive front?"

 I wasn't thinking of you not them.  Are you suggesting that those people are conservative leaning Assad apologists?  I don't think so.

bub said:

paulsurovell said:

bub said:

nohero said:
With all due respect, this thread should probably be in "Russia Related" as well.
The defenses of Assad, the labeling of all Syrians fighting against the Assad regime as "terrorists", the smearing of the White Helmets - it all is tied in with defending Russia's reputation and, by extension, Trump.
There's a big overlap between the Assad-helping sources and sources which criticize the Russia investigation in this country.  See, e.g., Max Blumenthal.
There's no other logical reason why self-described "progressives" would be disparaging claims that Assad is a murderous dictator who gasses his own people.  If there is, happy to hear it.

 The worldview of "progressives" is an interesting aspect of this, I think.  The Soviet Union is not only long gone but it, and its block of allies and dependents, were never what they pretended to be, or what dewy eyed western progressives dreamed them to be.  Yet the pro-Assad camp seems to be motivated in part by some vague nostalgia or delusion that Russia, Syria and like countries still somehow vaguely represent a progressive front.

 Per my response to @nohero -- do you include:
Tulsi Gabbard
Jeffrey Sachs
Scott Ritter
Seymour Hersh
among these "pro-Assad" voices motivated by "some vague nostalgia or delusion" that Russia and Syria represent a "progressive front?"

 I wasn't thinking of you not them.  Are you suggesting that those people are conservative leaning Assad apologists?  I don't think so.

 Those are my sources and what I've written reflects their views.  Scott Ritter is a conservative. Tulsi, Jeffrey and Seymour are progressives.  All four are truth-seekers, not afraid to challenge establishment power.

msm bad - Putin good

We know the mantra Paul.  RT needs to hire you.

paulsurovell said:

bub said:

paulsurovell said:

bub said:

nohero said:
With all due respect, this thread should probably be in "Russia Related" as well.
The defenses of Assad, the labeling of all Syrians fighting against the Assad regime as "terrorists", the smearing of the White Helmets - it all is tied in with defending Russia's reputation and, by extension, Trump.
There's a big overlap between the Assad-helping sources and sources which criticize the Russia investigation in this country.  See, e.g., Max Blumenthal.
There's no other logical reason why self-described "progressives" would be disparaging claims that Assad is a murderous dictator who gasses his own people.  If there is, happy to hear it.

 The worldview of "progressives" is an interesting aspect of this, I think.  The Soviet Union is not only long gone but it, and its block of allies and dependents, were never what they pretended to be, or what dewy eyed western progressives dreamed them to be.  Yet the pro-Assad camp seems to be motivated in part by some vague nostalgia or delusion that Russia, Syria and like countries still somehow vaguely represent a progressive front.

 Per my response to @nohero -- do you include:
Tulsi Gabbard
Jeffrey Sachs
Scott Ritter
Seymour Hersh
among these "pro-Assad" voices motivated by "some vague nostalgia or delusion" that Russia and Syria represent a "progressive front?"

 I wasn't thinking of you not them.  Are you suggesting that those people are conservative leaning Assad apologists?  I don't think so.

 Those are my sources and what I've written reflects their views.  Scott Ritter is a conservative. Tulsi, Jeffrey and Seymour are progressives.  All four are truth-seekers, not afraid to challenge establishment power.

 Thanks for the admission on 3 out of 4.  As for Ritter, he's something of an outlier.  He has a military background but has for decades now been a strident anti-war anti-intervention voice.  I can't find anything about his views on other subjects to gauge his politics as conservative, liberal or anything else.

paulsurovell said:

The MSM deserves to be criticized on its Kavanaugh coverage for failing to highlight the threat that he poses for labor, the environment, voting rights, big money in politics and civil liberties.

 I think a good part of that is due to the Pro-Choice organizations driving the anti-Kavanaugh narrative.

However Clare McCaskill says she is a "no"vote because of "big money in politics".

Let me add that the Republicans who hold the Majority agree with him on all those issues. The only thing that will sway Collins and Murkowski to vote "no" is abortion.

bub said:

paulsurovell said:

bub said:

paulsurovell said:

bub said:

nohero said:
With all due respect, this thread should probably be in "Russia Related" as well.
The defenses of Assad, the labeling of all Syrians fighting against the Assad regime as "terrorists", the smearing of the White Helmets - it all is tied in with defending Russia's reputation and, by extension, Trump.
There's a big overlap between the Assad-helping sources and sources which criticize the Russia investigation in this country.  See, e.g., Max Blumenthal.
There's no other logical reason why self-described "progressives" would be disparaging claims that Assad is a murderous dictator who gasses his own people.  If there is, happy to hear it.

 The worldview of "progressives" is an interesting aspect of this, I think.  The Soviet Union is not only long gone but it, and its block of allies and dependents, were never what they pretended to be, or what dewy eyed western progressives dreamed them to be.  Yet the pro-Assad camp seems to be motivated in part by some vague nostalgia or delusion that Russia, Syria and like countries still somehow vaguely represent a progressive front.

 Per my response to @nohero -- do you include:
Tulsi Gabbard
Jeffrey Sachs
Scott Ritter
Seymour Hersh
among these "pro-Assad" voices motivated by "some vague nostalgia or delusion" that Russia and Syria represent a "progressive front?"

 I wasn't thinking of you not them.  Are you suggesting that those people are conservative leaning Assad apologists?  I don't think so.

 Those are my sources and what I've written reflects their views.  Scott Ritter is a conservative. Tulsi, Jeffrey and Seymour are progressives.  All four are truth-seekers, not afraid to challenge establishment power.

 Thanks for the admission on 3 out of 4.  As for Ritter, he's something of an outlier.  He has a military background but has for decades now been a strident anti-war anti-intervention voice.  I can't find anything about his views on other subjects to gauge his politics as conservative, liberal or anything else.

 One aspect of Ritter's military background is chief weapons (including chemical weapons) inspector for the UN in Iraq during the pre-war period, He knows something about chemical weapons in the Middle East.

As far as his politics, this Democracy Now! excerpt is 10 years old, but I suspect it still speaks to his politics:

Scott Ritter’s recent articles have focused on Iran. His latest piece on Iran, published earlier this summer on http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20080729_acts_of_war/ >Truthdig.com, is called “Acts of War.” It begins with the lines: “The war between the United States and Iran is on. American taxpayer dollars are being used, with the permission of Congress, to fund activities that result in Iranians being killed and wounded, and Iranian property destroyed. This wanton violation of a nation’s sovereignty would not be tolerated if the tables were turned and Americans were being subjected to Iranian-funded covert actions that took the lives of Americans, on American soil, and destroyed American property and livelihood.” Those are his words.

Scott Ritter is also a registered Republican and is here in St. Paul during the Republican National Convention.

Welcome to Democracy Now!

SCOTT RITTER: Not as a delegate.

AMY GOODMAN: Not as a delegate. You’re outside the convention.

SCOTT RITTER: So to speak.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, why are you here?

SCOTT RITTER: Well, first of all, I’ve been invited. I’ve been invited by various groups, concerned citizens who want to talk about the issues of war, the issues of, you know, the future, the military. One of the first groups that I spoke with were Veterans for Peace, Iraq Veterans Against the War. They had a — they had their annual gathering here. It was a thrill and a privilege to — and you were there, as well — to be with these men and women who have served their country so proudly and who have expressed their dismay over the policies of the United States of America. And I was honored to be in their company.

AMY GOODMAN: And what about in the company of, well, thousands of Republican delegates who are here in St. Paul? You are a Republican. How have you seen your party change?

SCOTT RITTER: Well, I’m a registered Republican, but like most Americans, if we’re honest, I can’t claim to have been born into, you know, being a political person. You turn eighteen, you register to vote, you pick a party. My father was career military. I picked the Republican Party, because of the reputation that it had for being the party of national defense. This was the time of the Cold War. We were stationed overseas, and the military was an all-consuming reality.

I’ve retained my Republican registration, but what I’ve found as I’ve grown politically is that rather than identify myself as a Republican or an anti-Democrat, I’ve come to identify myself as an American. An American, first and foremost. And I’ve warned the Republicans — I’ve done this in Congress, I’ve done this when I speak to them — that this war in Iraq — and I said this before we invaded — will destroy the Republican Party. And it has.

Here in Minnesota, watching the Republican National Convention convene, watching what occurred yesterday, wasn’t a celebration of patriotism. Yesterday was a celebration of a unilateralist vision of an America that has lost track, that has deviated from the course of ideals and values that are set forth in the Constitution, a Constitution, by the way, these men and women who served in the military took an oath to uphold and defend with their lives, a constitution that our political leadership has done the same. How can one claim to be a proud American and watch what occurred in St. Paul yesterday, this wanton abuse of the term “patriotism”?

AMY GOODMAN: What do you mean?

SCOTT RITTER: Again, they hijack it. If you’re not in support of the war, you’re not patriotic. If you’re not in support of holding Iran to account in accordance with the terms set forth by the Republican Party, you’re not a patriot. If you’re not in support of defining America along the terms that the Republican Party, in its very narrow-minded manner, seeks to define America, you’re not a patriot.

You know, America is bigger than the Republican Party, and I think the Republicans might find this out this coming election, that there are people out there that aren’t going to automatically vote Republican on the ballot, not only because they believe in something else, but because it’s hard to see what the Republicans believe in today that can be legitimately aligned with the values and ideals of this great nation.

jamie said:
msm bad - Putin good
We know the mantra Paul.  RT needs to hire you.

Is Jeffrey Sachs bad? Tulsi Gabbard? Seymour Hersh? Scott Ritter? The Nation?

Are they all tools of Russia?

Don't want to get side tracked on Ritter but he kinda talked himself out of the significance of his Republican registration at age 18 in the stuff you posted.   You're really stretching to paint him as a conservative.    

nohero said:
With all due respect, this thread should probably be in "Russia Related" as well.
The defenses of Assad, the labeling of all Syrians fighting against the Assad regime as "terrorists", the smearing of the White Helmets - it all is tied in with defending Russia's reputation and, by extension, Trump.
There's a big overlap between the Assad-helping sources and sources which criticize the Russia investigation in this country.  See, e.g., Max Blumenthal.
There's no other logical reason why self-described "progressives" would be disparaging claims that Assad is a murderous dictator who gasses his own people.  If there is, happy to hear it.

 Agreed.   Time to bury this one.

Trump's UN speech -- the subtext. By Max Blumenthal:

paulsurovell said:

The primary allegation against the White Helmets is that in addition to providing rescue services, they function as a PR agency for the rebels (controlled by Al Qaeda).  Two of their PR functions are to provide professional, media/savvy video footage to advocate regime-change war by the West against Assad and to provide videos of purported chemical weapons attacks on civilians, especially children. The authenticity of the chemical weapons videos have been challenged by US intelligence experts and old-school real journalists like Seymour Hersh and Robert Fisk.
Max Blumenthal has written an extensive profile of the White Helmets which makes these points. As I recall, he doesn't call them "terrorists."
Max is a fearless young journalist, whose father Sid, is ironically, sometimes described as Hillary Clinton's best friend. Some of the Wikileaks emails showed Sid recommending that Hillary read some of Max's stuff.

I doubt that you're interested in peering out of your comfort zone and challenging what you've been told about Syria and the White Helmets, but in case you are, these are Max's main works on the subject:

https://www.alternet.org/world/inside-shadowy-pr-firm-thats-driving-western-opinion-towards-regime-change-syria
https://www.alternet.org/grayzone-project/how-white-helmets-became-international-heroes-while-pushing-us-military

There's a lot of ground covered in those two articles, but I'll start with noting just one thing here -- you've accused the WH of working intimately in support of Al Queda. In doing so, you see to go much further than Blumenthal does. There are three references to AQ in the first article:

"Among the opposition groups that promoted The Syria Campaign’s anti-UN report was Ahrar Al-Sham, a jihadist rebel faction that has allied with Al Qaeda in a mission to establish an exclusively Islamic state across Syria."

...

"Abu Sulaiman Al-Muhajir, the Australian citizen serving as a top leader and spokesman for Al Qaeda’s Syrian offshoot, Jabhat Fateh Al-Sham, took a special interest in the boy. "I cannot get conditioned to seeing injured/murdered children," Al-Muhajir wrote on Facebook"

...

"This September 24, Al-Zenki formally joined forces with the jihadist Army of Conquest led by Al Qaeda-established jihadist group, Jabhat Fateh Al-Sham. For its part, The Syria Campaign coordinated the release of a statement with Raslan explaining away his obvious affinity with Al-Zenki."

"Far from the gaze of most Western media consumers, videos and photographs have surfaced on news sites and social media accounts sympathetic to the Syrian government showing White Helmet members boasting about discarding the body parts of Syrian troops in dumpsters, posing triumphantly on the corpses of Syrian soldiers, joining fighters accosting an alleged political opponent, waving the flag of Al Qaeda affiliate Jabhat Al-Nusra alongside jihadist fighters, and carrying weapons. While it would seem unfair to tar an entire group with the actions of a few scofflaws, more than a few of the images depict events that are disturbingly real."

Of all the references, only the one in the second article directly links the WH to AQ, and even this direct link comes with the [grudging] acknowledgment that this is an instance of taking singular instances and to make a judgement about an entire group.

The gloves apparently hang rather loosely on those hands.

PVW said:

paulsurovell said:

The primary allegation against the White Helmets is that in addition to providing rescue services, they function as a PR agency for the rebels (controlled by Al Qaeda).  Two of their PR functions are to provide professional, media/savvy video footage to advocate regime-change war by the West against Assad and to provide videos of purported chemical weapons attacks on civilians, especially children. The authenticity of the chemical weapons videos have been challenged by US intelligence experts and old-school real journalists like Seymour Hersh and Robert Fisk.
Max Blumenthal has written an extensive profile of the White Helmets which makes these points. As I recall, he doesn't call them "terrorists."
Max is a fearless young journalist, whose father Sid, is ironically, sometimes described as Hillary Clinton's best friend. Some of the Wikileaks emails showed Sid recommending that Hillary read some of Max's stuff.

I doubt that you're interested in peering out of your comfort zone and challenging what you've been told about Syria and the White Helmets, but in case you are, these are Max's main works on the subject:

https://www.alternet.org/world/inside-shadowy-pr-firm-thats-driving-western-opinion-towards-regime-change-syria
https://www.alternet.org/grayzone-project/how-white-helmets-became-international-heroes-while-pushing-us-military

 
There's a lot of ground covered in those two articles, but I'll start with noting just one thing here -- you've accused the WH of working intimately in support of Al Queda. In doing so, you see to go much further than Blumenthal does. There are three references to AQ in the first article:
"Among the opposition groups that promoted The Syria Campaign’s anti-UN report was Ahrar Al-Sham, a jihadist rebel faction that has allied with Al Qaeda in a mission to establish an exclusively Islamic state across Syria."
...
"Abu Sulaiman Al-Muhajir, the Australian citizen serving as a top leader and spokesman for Al Qaeda’s Syrian offshoot, Jabhat Fateh Al-Sham, took a special interest in the boy. "I cannot get conditioned to seeing injured/murdered children," Al-Muhajir wrote on Facebook"
...
"This September 24, Al-Zenki formally joined forces with the jihadist Army of Conquest led by Al Qaeda-established jihadist group, Jabhat Fateh Al-Sham. For its part, The Syria Campaign coordinated the release of a statement with Raslan explaining away his obvious affinity with Al-Zenki."


In the second article, there is one references:
"Far from the gaze of most Western media consumers, videos and photographs have surfaced on news sites and social media accounts sympathetic to the Syrian government showing White Helmet members boasting about discarding the body parts of Syrian troops in dumpsters, posing triumphantly on the corpses of Syrian soldiers, joining fighters accosting an alleged political opponent, waving the flag of Al Qaeda affiliate Jabhat Al-Nusra alongside jihadist fighters, and carrying weapons. While it would seem unfair to tar an entire group with the actions of a few scofflaws, more than a few of the images depict events that are disturbingly real."

Of all the references, only the one in the second article directly links the WH to AQ, and even this direct link comes with the [grudging] acknowledgment that this is an instance of taking singular instances and to make a judgement about an entire group.


The gloves apparently hang rather loosely on those hands.

Thanks for reading and "proving me wrong."

Yes, in these pieces Max focuses on the funding, politics and public relations role of the White Helmets' parent organization, The Syria Campaign, emphasizing its calls for regime-change, which explain why the White Helmets operate only in rebel controlled areas.

His references to actual joint efforts between Al Qaeda and the White Helmets are anecdotal, not based on in-depth reporting, as you note. But that's because reporters who go into Al Qaeda areas tend to get captured. Which is part of the reason why I argue that a group operating inside an Al Qaeda area must cooperate with the Al Qaeda authorities.

 But that's because reporters who go into Al Qaeda areas tend to get captured. Which is part of the reason why I argue that a group operating inside an Al Qaeda area must cooperate with the Al Qaeda authorities.

 Unlike in government controlled area where freedom of the press reigns supreme:

https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-press/2016/syria

paulsurovell said:Yes, in these pieces Max focuses on the funding, politics and public relations role of the White Helmets' parent organization, The Syria Campaign, emphasizing its calls for regime-change, which explain why the White Helmets operate only in rebel controlled areas.

 The White Helmets, a civil defense rescue group, "operate only in rebel controlled areas" because the Syrian government and government services are not in those areas.  In fact, they operate because the Syrian government is dropping bombs on those areas.  It has nothing to do with the funding, and they wouldn't be needed in areas controlled by the Syrian government.

I think you know that.

[Edited to add] And hospital personnel work in locations where more deaths occur than in the average business environment.  You wouldn't draw a conclusion about them being more inclined to cause someone's death than the average worker.

bub said:

 But that's because reporters who go into Al Qaeda areas tend to get captured. Which is part of the reason why I argue that a group operating inside an Al Qaeda area must cooperate with the Al Qaeda authorities.

 Unlike in government controlled area where freedom of the press reigns supreme:
https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-press/2016/syria

 The Associated Press apparently has an office in Damascus:

https://www.apnews.com/d6e16c3ccf3d4d93bd0c763ed83a3cab

Here's an interesting article from the AP that notes that the International Committee of the Red Cross, the Syrian Arab Red Crescent and "NGOs such as Oxfam" are also operating in Damascus. Gives you a different perspective on Syria than we get from the MSM:

https://www.apnews.com/d6e16c3ccf3d4d93bd0c763ed83a3cab

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:Yes, in these pieces Max focuses on the funding, politics and public relations role of the White Helmets' parent organization, The Syria Campaign, emphasizing its calls for regime-change, which explain why the White Helmets operate only in rebel controlled areas.

 The White Helmets, a civil defense rescue group, "operate only in rebel controlled areas" because the Syrian government and government services are not in those areas.  In fact, they operate because the Syrian government is dropping bombs on those areas.  It has nothing to do with the funding, and they wouldn't be needed in areas controlled by the Syrian government.
I think you know that.
[Edited to add] And hospital personnel work in locations where more deaths occur than in the average business environment.  You wouldn't draw a conclusion about them being more inclined to cause someone's death than the average worker.

The White Helmets were created and are able to go into rebel areas because their parent -- which advocates regime-change -- wants them there to help the rebels. Without the funding and other forms of assistance (documented in Max Blumenthal's pieces above) they wouldn't be there.

There are AP offices all over the world including North Korea.  Give me some examples of home grown Syrian based press being allowed to take anti-government positions (including before this civil war).  

paulsurovell said:

Yes, in these pieces Max focuses on the funding, politics and public relations role of the White Helmets' parent organization, The Syria Campaign, emphasizing its calls for regime-change, which explain why the White Helmets operate only in rebel controlled areas.
His references to actual joint efforts between Al Qaeda and the White Helmets are anecdotal, not based on in-depth reporting, as you note. But that's because reporters who go into Al Qaeda areas tend to get captured. Which is part of the reason why I argue that a group operating inside an Al Qaeda area must cooperate with the Al Qaeda authorities.

Accusing the WH of working alongside AQ is a heavy charge. You're comfortable letting anecdotes bear the weight?

PVW said:

paulsurovell said:

Yes, in these pieces Max focuses on the funding, politics and public relations role of the White Helmets' parent organization, The Syria Campaign, emphasizing its calls for regime-change, which explain why the White Helmets operate only in rebel controlled areas.
His references to actual joint efforts between Al Qaeda and the White Helmets are anecdotal, not based on in-depth reporting, as you note. But that's because reporters who go into Al Qaeda areas tend to get captured. Which is part of the reason why I argue that a group operating inside an Al Qaeda area must cooperate with the Al Qaeda authorities.

Accusing the WH of working alongside AQ is a heavy charge. You're comfortable letting anecdotes bear the weight?

 What I've said is that the WH must cooperate with AQ in order to operate in areas they control. The reason I use the word "anecdotal" in contrast to "in-depth reporting" is to emphasize -- as Blumenthal does -- that these incidents can't be used to characterize the entire organization.  But neither can they be ignored.

bub said:
There are AP offices all over the world including North Korea.  Give me some examples of home grown Syrian based press being allowed to take anti-government positions (including before this civil war).   

 I'm not aware of any.

paulsurovell said:

What I've said is that the WH must cooperate with AQ in order to operate in areas they control. 

Phooey. Putting aside what “work hand-in-glove with” means to most people, or your reiteration of the allegation that they function as a Qaeda PR agency, I take it you’re still considering the possibility you raised below?

The White Helmets work in areas controlled by Al-Qaeda rebel factions, hand-in-glove with the Al-Qaeda rebels. Does their cooperation go beyond saving lives of civilians?

Since the White Helmets are supported by the US government, which is currently protecting Al-Qaeda in Syria (see the OP) and is cooperating with Al-Qaeda in Yemen, it's not far-fetched to consider the possibility.

DaveSchmidt said:

paulsurovell said:

What I've said is that the WH must cooperate with AQ in order to operate in areas they control. 

Phooey. Putting aside what “work hand-in-glove with” means to most people, or your reiteration of the allegation that they function as a Qaeda PR agency, I take it you’re still considering the possibility you raised below?

The White Helmets work in areas controlled by Al-Qaeda rebel factions, hand-in-glove with the Al-Qaeda rebels. Does their cooperation go beyond saving lives of civilians?

Since the White Helmets are supported by the US government, which is currently protecting Al-Qaeda in Syria (see the OP) and is cooperating with Al-Qaeda in Yemen, it's not far-fetched to consider the possibility.

Sure, let's put the "hand-in-glove" expression aside.

Not sure what point you're making.

Are you suggesting that the White Helmets don't have to cooperate with Al-Qaeda to operate in areas that they control?

Are you suggesting that the White Helmets, Al Qaeda and US government don't have a shared goal of regime-change in Syria?

Are you suggesting that the White Helmets do not engage in public relations activity that promotes that shared goal?

My answers to these questions, if asked of me, would be No, No and No (sorry for the double negatives), informing my answer of Yes to your question of me.

Gish

Gish

Gish

Gallop!