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

Unless I'm missing something, Tulsi Gabbard invoked the attack here on 9/11 to argue that Assad should be allowed to bomb and gas the cr*p out of as many civilians as he wants.


nohero said:
Unless I'm missing something, Tulsi Gabbard invoked the attack here on 9/11 to argue that Assad should be allowed to bomb and gas the cr*p out of as many civilians as he wants.

 Allowed to bomb the US supported terrorists who currently hold the city.  You missed that part.  


nan said:


nohero said:
Unless I'm missing something, Tulsi Gabbard invoked the attack here on 9/11 to argue that Assad should be allowed to bomb and gas the cr*p out of as many civilians as he wants.
 Allowed to bomb the US supported terrorists who currently hold the city.  You missed that part.  

 No I didn't miss the part about bombing terrorists.  I may have missed the part where Assad's bombs strike with such surgical precision that there won't be "collateral damage" among the refugees and other civilians seeking shelter in that city.

When support for invading Iraq was being "sold" by the Bush administration, one of the arguments by right-wing pundits was that it didn't matter how many Iraqis we bombed, they're all Arabs/Muslims and complicit with Saddam Hussein.  I get the same vibe from Tulsi Gabbard's comments.


nohero said:


nan said:

nohero said:
Unless I'm missing something, Tulsi Gabbard invoked the attack here on 9/11 to argue that Assad should be allowed to bomb and gas the cr*p out of as many civilians as he wants.
 Allowed to bomb the US supported terrorists who currently hold the city.  You missed that part.  
 No I didn't miss the part about bombing terrorists.  I may have missed the part where Assad's bombs strike with such surgical precision that there won't be "collateral damage" among the refugees and other civilians seeking shelter in that city.
When support for invading Iraq was being "sold" by the Bush administration, one of the arguments by right-wing pundits was that it didn't matter how many Iraqis we bombed, they're all Arabs/Muslims and complicit with Saddam Hussein.  I get the same vibe from Tulsi Gabbard's comments.

 The city is held by terrorists.  We are supposed to be against terrorists, right?  That's what 9/11 was all about, right?  So it turns out that the US has been selling arms to the groups that attacked us on 9/11 and now they are holding the city of Idlib.  The people being called "rebels" are really terrorists. This is what Tulsi Gabbard is saying.

So, do you think, should the Syrians attack Idlib--which is their right since it is their country-- to rid the world of a LOT of terrorists, the US should attack the Syrian army?  Do you think we should protect the terrorists and destroy the army that is attacking them?  Cause that is what is being proposed.  Also, it might start WW3. Are you up for that?


And in other Syrian news, the Netherlands is ending support for the White Helmets, who they found were not as George Clooney portrayed them.


The Dike Breaks - Netherland Ends Support For "White Helmets" Terrorist Propaganda

http://www.moonofalabama.org/2018/09/netherland-ends-support-for-white-helmets-terrorist-propaganda-scam.html

The Netherland just announced that it is ending its support for al-Qaeda's propaganda gang, the "White Helmets". It also ends its support for the so called Free Syrian Police. Last week the Netherlands shut down its "non lethal" support for the Free Syrian Army after Dutch news organizations found that members of these groups were accused of terrorism by their General Prosecutor.

nan said:
And in other Syrian news, the Netherlands is ending support for the White Helmets, who they found were not as George Clooney portrayed them.

The Dutch analysis found difficulties and flaws in tracking the funding, not in the White Helmets’ activities. From the report

For the White Helmets, the review finds the monitoring system to be below adequate, although developments do indicate that the system is progressively improving. The research team observed that the Netherlands and other donors perceive their programmes as providing neutral, humanitarian support in response to crises that warrant higher risks than those taken in ‘normal’ contexts of development cooperation. While the M&E [monitoring and evaluation] capacity of the White Helmets has improved, crucial limitations in their monitoring system remain. One important shortcoming is the absence of independent verification of programme results and risks. Information on implementation relies on self-reporting by the beneficiaries in the field; external parties are contracted to support M&E but do not independently verify risks or results; also, there is no independent programme evaluation. In addition, there is an overall lack of organisational transparency. The implementer (Mayday) and the beneficiary (White Helmets) are highly intertwined, thereby potentially undermining full disclosure of risk reporting. As a result of diverging donor-specific reporting, donors have very little oversight in overall programme results or in who finances what.

Beyond that, the halt in their Dutch funding is part of a broader determination that the rebellion is doomed:

The Netherlands Stops Supporting Syrian Rebels, Ahead of Idlib Offensive (warning: it’s MSM)



More details regarding nan’s MoonOfAlabama blog link on the Dutch report:

For the White Helmets, which had received €12.5 million from the Dutch government, it lists the following issues:

Mayday wants to spend a maximum of 0.9% of its budget on supervision of the work of the White Helmets. 'That is why there is a lack of independent supervision of the activities and results of the project.'

The reason, according to the report: “While Mayday could do more to step up M&E capacity at the White Helmets, it explicitly aims to minimise the project’s running costs in order to maximize White Helmets’ funding in Syria; as a result, only 0.9% of all donor contributions is now spent on M&E.”

The money for the White Helmets is transferred to the Syrian border in cash or enters the country via the hawala system. It is 'problematic' that Mayday does not know how much money is paid via which route. That is why there is a danger that money has fallen into the hands of armed groups. The cash flow can also indirectly be used for illegal trade. Systematic control of the money flow is missing.

What the report says: “The large majority of humanitarian aid provided to Syria, including by the UN, is transferred through this system. At the moment, this is the only method available to organisations such as AJACS or White Helmets for transferring cash inside opposition held areas. Nonetheless, there are several risks associated with its use. There exists a risk of diversion of funds by armed groups, since it does not provide insight into who receives payments and taxes along the way or how the money is used. In addition, by using the wider system, organisations may indirectly facilitate harmful or illicit trade.”

The White Helmets are active in areas where armed groups are in power that are considered 'unacceptable' for the Netherlands. Contact between the White Helmets and local administrators who work together with extremist organizations is inevitable.

How the report describes it: “White Helmets are also active in areas controlled by (non-acceptable) armed groups. Sometimes, therefore, communication between the White Helmets and, for example, representatives of local councils is needed.” (Note the difference between “is inevitable” and “is needed.”)

The seemingly intentional lack of transparency practically guarantees that much of the more than $150 million the White Helmets received from various governments will have flown into the private pockets of the people who organize the scam.

An “intentional lack of transparency” is nowhere stated or implied by the report; the report acknowledges that crises are “not ‘normal’ contexts for development cooperation” and “warrant higher risks” for aid. 

The “guarantee” is the blog writer’s conclusion, not the report’s.


I don't expect the first country to stop funding the White Helmets to brazenly admit, "Oh, whoops, looks like we have been funding terrorists who fooled us into thinking they were humanitarians and you caught us. Hate when that happens."  I'm sure a committee hashed out the wording carefully. But the fact that they stopped the money is significant. Will have to see what happens next and how it affects other countries who still fund them.


nan said:
I don't expect the first country to stop funding the White Helmets to brazenly admit, "Oh, whoops, looks like we have been funding terrorists who fooled us into thinking they were humanitarians and you caught us. Hate when that happens."  I'm sure a committee hashed out the wording carefully. But the fact that they stopped the money is significant. Will have to see what happens next and how it affects other countries who still fund them.

 So you put a "news site" report on this message board which distorted the what the Netherlands actually did, for the purpose of supporting the "White Helmets are terrorists" story.  I notice that the report you posted repeats some of the other slanders, and cites the same cast of characters you've relied on before to support the attack on the White Helmets.  

This is getting "tiresome", and by tiresome I mean disgusting.  Innocent first responders have to be vilified in order to build up Assad, who you don't seem to think is a murderous dictator.  There are a lot of refugees who would beg to differ.

[Edited to add]  Here's an example of how tiresome it is.  Ms. Nan went on a rant about the White Helmets on the "Hillary Colluded" thread (don't ask how that happens, that thread is the kitchen sink of conspiracy theories that help Trump).  Last December, I responded to that with a number of posts.  This one is a quote from a reputable publication which sums up the situation:

While the White Helmets might seem like the poster children for feel-bad humanitarianism, they've in fact become the target of a internet smear campaign, one designed to bolster the regime of Syrian president Bashar al-Assad and undermine its opponents, including the United States. Various White Helmet "truthers"—who range from Assad and his supporters to Russian embassies, and even to Alex Jones—accuse the group of staging rescue photos, belonging to al Qaeda, and being pawns of liberal bogeyman George Soros. The story of how that conspiracy grew is a perfect distillation of how disinformation can spread unchecked, supplanting fact with frenzy where no support exists.

Inside the Conspiracy Theory That Turned Syria's First Responders Into Terrorists


nan said:

Ok, fair enough, but I'm not sure I agree.  First of all, I'm not sure Assad is a "murderous dictator" whatever that is.  That's an ill defined term. 

 You really don't know what a dictator is? 


drummerboy said:



nan said: Hate to break it to you, but what they peddle on the mainstream media is a theory, rarely backed up by evidence.
 Yes.
The mainstream media's reports are rarely backed up with evidence.
Yup.
Uh huh.

okayfine.

 On the matter of Assad, can you show me where the mainstream media has explained to its audience that the war fatalities in Syria are about 1/3 civilian, 1/3 rebel forces and 1/3 Syrian army? ( and not all civilians were killed by Assad)

http://www.syriahr.com/en/?p=62760

And how often does the media inform its audience that the Syrian rebels are controlled by Al-Qaeda?

The media demonizes on Syria, it doesn't report the facts.


DaveSchmidt said:


nan said:
And in other Syrian news, the Netherlands is ending support for the White Helmets, who they found were not as George Clooney portrayed them.
The Dutch analysis found difficulties and flaws in tracking the funding, not in the White Helmets’ activities. From the report
For the White Helmets, the review finds the monitoring system to be below adequate, although developments do indicate that the system is progressively improving. The research team observed that the Netherlands and other donors perceive their programmes as providing neutral, humanitarian support in response to crises that warrant higher risks than those taken in ‘normal’ contexts of development cooperation. While the M&E [monitoring and evaluation] capacity of the White Helmets has improved, crucial limitations in their monitoring system remain. One important shortcoming is the absence of independent verification of programme results and risks. Information on implementation relies on self-reporting by the beneficiaries in the field; external parties are contracted to support M&E but do not independently verify risks or results; also, there is no independent programme evaluation. In addition, there is an overall lack of organisational transparency. The implementer (Mayday) and the beneficiary (White Helmets) are highly intertwined, thereby potentially undermining full disclosure of risk reporting. As a result of diverging donor-specific reporting, donors have very little oversight in overall programme results or in who finances what.

Beyond that, the halt in their Dutch funding is part of a broader determination that the rebellion is doomed:
The Netherlands Stops Supporting Syrian Rebels, Ahead of Idlib Offensive (warning: it’s MSM)


 Also difficulties in tracking the programs carried out (what the White Helmets do) and the results.


paulsurovell said:

On the matter of Assad, can you show me where the mainstream media has explained to its audience that the war fatalities in Syria are about 1/3 civilian, 1/3 rebel forces and 1/3 Syrian army? ( and not all civilians were killed by Assad)

One explanation, from five months ago:

How Syria’s Death Toll Is Lost in the Fog of War (NYT)

Two brief excerpts:

And civilians make up the largest portion of the death toll.

...

While the numbers vary, all of the groups agree on two things: that the Syrian government is responsible for the majority of the civilian deaths, and that calculating the toll is challenging.


paulsurovell said:

Also difficulties in tracking the programs carried out (what the White Helmets do) and the results.

Do the Dutch report and government say the tracking is inadequate? Yes. Do they acknowledge that there are understandable reasons for that? Yes. Do they question what the White Helmets do? Not that I could see. Did you see something to the contrary — the Dutch government saying something along the lines of what nan and her blogger claim?

(Be advised that if you did, I reserve the international right to respond that, no, it’s all shade being thrown by a committee.)


dave23 said:

nan said:

Ok, fair enough, but I'm not sure I agree.  First of all, I'm not sure Assad is a "murderous dictator" whatever that is.  That's an ill defined term. 
 You really don't know what a dictator is? 

2one who says or reads something for a person to transcribe or for a machine to record one that dictates.

My eye doctor used to do that, too, after an examination. (Without fatal consquences in my case, but I can’t speak for all his patients.)


DaveSchmidt said:


paulsurovell said:

Also difficulties in tracking the programs carried out (what the White Helmets do) and the results.
Do the Dutch report and government say the tracking is inadequate? Yes. Do they acknowledge that there are understandable reasons for that? Yes. Do they question what the White Helmets do? Not that I could see. Did you see something to the contrary — the Dutch government saying something along the lines of what nan and her blogger claim?
(Be advised that if you did, I reserve the international right to respond that, no, it’s all shade being thrown by a committee.)

 My point was that your statement:

The Dutch analysis found difficulties and flaws in tracking the funding, not in the White Helmets’ activities.
was inaccurate.


DaveSchmidt said:


paulsurovell said:

On the matter of Assad, can you show me where the mainstream media has explained to its audience that the war fatalities in Syria are about 1/3 civilian, 1/3 rebel forces and 1/3 Syrian army? ( and not all civilians were killed by Assad)
One explanation, from five months ago:
How Syria’s Death Toll Is Lost in the Fog of War (NYT)
Two brief excerpts:
And civilians make up the largest portion of the death toll.

...
While the numbers vary, all of the groups agree on two things: that the Syrian government is responsible for the majority of the civilian deaths, and that calculating the toll is challenging.

 According to the Syrian Observatory on Human Rights (below), civilian deaths are actually less than Syrian government forces. The NYT piece, which glosses over the SOHR data, is a good example of how the media conceals the fact that the overwhelming number of killed are rebel forces and government forces.


paulsurovell said:


DaveSchmidt 
 My point was that your statement:


The Dutch analysis found difficulties and flaws in tracking the funding, not in the White Helmets’ activities.
was inaccurate.

Allow me to clarify the context, then, that I thought was evident from the part of the excerpt I highlighted: Not the activities — “providing neutral, humanitarian support” — that nan and the blogger disparaged.


paulsurovell said:

According to the Syrian Observatory on Human Rights (below), civilian deaths are actually less than Syrian government forces. The NYT piece, which glosses over the SOHR data, is a good example of how the media conceals the fact that the overwhelming number of killed are rebel forces and government forces.

First, that graphic is a year and a half old, and 13 months older than the Times article; “are actually” is a misnomer. Second, go ahead and lump pro-government forces together, but note that the SOHR doesn’t. Third, the article doesn’t give weight to any specific figures, because the hazards of doing so is its point. (If anything, it respectfully describes the SOHR as “the most prominent of these groups,” whose tally “many organizations rely on ... as the best current assessment.”)


nohero said:


nan said:
I don't expect the first country to stop funding the White Helmets to brazenly admit, "Oh, whoops, looks like we have been funding terrorists who fooled us into thinking they were humanitarians and you caught us. Hate when that happens."  I'm sure a committee hashed out the wording carefully. But the fact that they stopped the money is significant. Will have to see what happens next and how it affects other countries who still fund them.
 So you put a "news site" report on this message board which distorted the what the Netherlands actually did, for the purpose of supporting the "White Helmets are terrorists" story.  I notice that the report you posted repeats some of the other slanders, and cites the same cast of characters you've relied on before to support the attack on the White Helmets.
 
This is getting "tiresome", and by tiresome I mean disgusting.  Innocent first responders have to be vilified in order to build up Assad, who you don't seem to think is a murderous dictator.  There are a lot of refugees who would beg to differ.

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:

According to the Syrian Observatory on Human Rights (below), civilian deaths are actually less than Syrian government forces. The NYT piece, which glosses over the SOHR data, is a good example of how the media conceals the fact that the overwhelming number of killed are rebel forces and government forces.
First, that graphic is a year and a half old, and 13 months older than the Times article; “are actually” is a misnomer. Second, go ahead and lump pro-government forces together, but note that the SOHR doesn’t. Third, the article doesn’t give weight to any specific figures, because the hazards of doing so is its point. (If anything, it respectfully describes the SOHR as “the most prominent of these groups,” whose tally .

Did the Times report the SOHR data 13 months prior to its article?

Has the Times ever reported on number of killed by the fighters on both sides?

For argument's sake, even if 13 months later there had been only civilians killed and no fighters killed on either side, the percentage of civilians would at most be about half of the total.


paulsurovell said:

Did the Times report the SOHR data 13 months prior to its article?

Has the Times ever reported on number of killed by the fighters on both sides?

For argument's sake, even if 13 months later there had been only civilians killed and no fighters killed on either side, the percentage of civilians would at most be about half of the total.

1. Not that I can find. At the time, according to a quick search, The Times was reporting on daily death tolls from the U.S. bombing of a mosque in Al Jinah and from the battle for Raqqa, not on the running tally for the war.

2. The “number of killed by the fighters on both sides”? Since I don’t imagine that civilians are going around doing a lot of killing, I assume pretty much the entire number was killed by the fighters on both sides. If you meant whether The Times has ever reported on the number of fighters on both sides who have been killed, I don’t know. Do you think, given a civilian toll and an overall toll, readers need that math done for them?

3. “Largest portion” requires only a plurality, not a majority, and is dependent on how the groups are defined. If you lump all pro-government forces together, that’s a large group. If you separate Syrian Army forces from allied militias (as the SOHR, for one, did), each’s toll was smaller than the civilian toll. 

ETA: If your complaint is that the civilian toll is being (over)played up to harmful effect, you’re welcome to it.


Here’s a link, Paul, that I hope assists you the next time you wonder whether The Times has or hasn’t covered something:

https://www.nytimes.com/search/


DaveSchmidt said:


paulsurovell said:

DaveSchmidt 
 My point was that your statement:


The Dutch analysis found difficulties and flaws in tracking the funding, not in the White Helmets’ activities.
was inaccurate.
Allow me to clarify the context, then, that I thought was evident from the part of the excerpt I highlighted: Not the activities — “providing neutral, humanitarian support” — that nan and the blogger disparaged.

 Your meaning was clear.  Mr. Surovell objected to you describing the view of the White Helmets as anything other than terrorists.


paulsurovell said:


nohero said:

nan said:
I don't expect the first country to stop funding the White Helmets to brazenly admit, "Oh, whoops, looks like we have been funding terrorists who fooled us into thinking they were humanitarians and you caught us. Hate when that happens."  I'm sure a committee hashed out the wording carefully. But the fact that they stopped the money is significant. Will have to see what happens next and how it affects other countries who still fund them.
 So you put a "news site" report on this message board which distorted the what the Netherlands actually did, for the purpose of supporting the "White Helmets are terrorists" story.  I notice that the report you posted repeats some of the other slanders, and cites the same cast of characters you've relied on before to support the attack on the White Helmets.
 
This is getting "tiresome", and by tiresome I mean disgusting.  Innocent first responders have to be vilified in order to build up Assad, who you don't seem to think is a murderous dictator.  There are a lot of refugees who would beg to differ. 

"While the White Helmets might seem like the poster children for feel-bad humanitarianism, they've in fact become the target of a internet smear campaign, one designed to bolster the regime of Syrian president Bashar al-Assad and undermine its opponents, including the United States. Various White Helmet "truthers"—who range from Assad and his supporters to Russian embassies, and even to Alex Jones—accuse the group of staging rescue photos, belonging to al Qaeda, and being pawns of liberal bogeyman George Soros. The story of how that conspiracy grew is a perfect distillation of how disinformation can spread unchecked, supplanting fact with frenzy where no support exists."
Inside the Conspiracy Theory That Turned Syria's First Responders Into Terrorists
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.

 The White Helmets work in areas that Assad and his allies are bombing.  Your whole accusation is scummy.

In light of your "rhetorical question" as highlighted, please don't EVER accuse someone else of "McCarthyism".

[Edited to add] I put back the quote that Mr. Surovell removed from my post when he partially quoted it and then responded with his they-pal-around-with-terrorists "bull caca" rationalization for joining in with the smearing of the White Helmets.


Excuse me, @jamie - Is "Go f*ck yourself" considered a personal attack?  Asking for a friend.


nohero said:


paulsurovell said:



nohero said:

nan said:
I don't expect the first country to stop funding the White Helmets to brazenly admit, "Oh, whoops, looks like we have been funding terrorists who fooled us into thinking they were humanitarians and you caught us. Hate when that happens."  I'm sure a committee hashed out the wording carefully. But the fact that they stopped the money is significant. Will have to see what happens next and how it affects other countries who still fund them.
 So you put a "news site" report on this message board which distorted the what the Netherlands actually did, for the purpose of supporting the "White Helmets are terrorists" story.  I notice that the report you posted repeats some of the other slanders, and cites the same cast of characters you've relied on before to support the attack on the White Helmets.
 
This is getting "tiresome", and by tiresome I mean disgusting.  Innocent first responders have to be vilified in order to build up Assad, who you don't seem to think is a murderous dictator.  There are a lot of refugees who would beg to differ. 

"While the White Helmets might seem like the poster children for feel-bad humanitarianism, they've in fact become the target of a internet smear campaign, one designed to bolster the regime of Syrian president Bashar al-Assad and undermine its opponents, including the United States. Various White Helmet "truthers"—who range from Assad and his supporters to Russian embassies, and even to Alex Jones—accuse the group of staging rescue photos, belonging to al Qaeda, and being pawns of liberal bogeyman George Soros. The story of how that conspiracy grew is a perfect distillation of how disinformation can spread unchecked, supplanting fact with frenzy where no support exists."
Inside the Conspiracy Theory That Turned Syria's First Responders Into Terrorists
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.
 The White Helmets work in areas that Assad and his allies are bombing.  Your whole accusation is scummy.
In light of your "rhetorical question" as highlighted, please don't EVER accuse someone else of "McCarthyism".
[Edited to add] I put back the quote that Mr. Surovell removed from my post when he partially quoted it and then responded with his they-pal-around-with-terrorists "bull caca" rationalization for joining in with the smearing of the White Helmets.

 There is photographic/video evidence that the White Helmets are in fact terrorists. Here is Vanessa Beeley, who was smeared by the Guardian last year (discussed on MOL) and reports from on the ground in Syria.  She talks about the Guardian article and others, evidence for the White Helmets being a terrorist group, and false accusations that she is in with the Russians and what's going on in Ildib, although this [NON-RUSSIAN!!!!] is from last February. 



DaveSchmidt said:



paulsurovell said:

Did the Times report the SOHR data 13 months prior to its article?

Has the Times ever reported on number of killed by the fighters on both sides?

For argument's sake, even if 13 months later there had been only civilians killed and no fighters killed on either side, the percentage of civilians would at most be about half of the total.
1. Not that I can find. At the time, according to a quick search, The Times was reporting on daily death tolls from the U.S. bombing of a mosque in Al Jinah and from the battle for Raqqa, not on the running tally for the war.death tolls can be

So the Times was too busy to report the SOHR data?

DaveSchmidt said:


2. The “number of killed by the fighters on both sides”? Since I don’t imagine that civilians are going around doing a lot of killing, I assume pretty much the entire number was killed by the fighters on both sides. If you meant whether The Times has ever reported on the number of fighters on both sides who have been killed, I don’t know. Do you think, given a civilian toll and an overall toll, readers need that math done for them?

When did the Times report on the overall toll vs the civilian toll so readers could do the math? Citation?

DaveSchmidt said:

3. “Largest portion” requires only a plurality, not a majority, and is dependent on how the groups are defined. If you lump all pro-government forces together, that’s a large group. If you separate Syrian Army forces from allied militias (as the SOHR, for one, did), each’s toll was smaller than the civilian toll. 
ETA: If your complaint is that the civilian toll is being (over)played up to harmful effect, you’re welcome to it.

Statistics can facilitate understanding when presented from different perspectives, as in this case when one looks at individual fighting forces or combined forces for either side. And when one looks at the combined forces, it turns out that combatants suffered the largest number of fatalities in Syria (with Assad's forces having the most fatalities). That fact provides an important insight into what is going on in Syria, even thought it hasn't been deemed "Fit to Print" by the Times, or (correct me if I'm wrong) any other corporate media organization.

DaveSchmidt:

said:ETA: If your complaint is that the civilian toll is being (over)played up to harmful effect, you’re welcome to it.

No, that's not my complaint. I'm making the point that the civilian toll is being presented as the only death toll, when in fact 2/3 of the dead are military fatalities.

Normally, war coverage includes data on military casualties, as was done with Vietnam and Iraq. Syria is different. The corporate media can't report military casualties in Syria because the numbers would undercut their regime-change narrative that Syria is simply the slaughter of civilians by the dictator Assad.  It's not that simple.


DaveSchmidt said:


paulsurovell said:

DaveSchmidt 
 My point was that your statement:


The Dutch analysis found difficulties and flaws in tracking the funding, not in the White Helmets’ activities.
was inaccurate.
Allow me to clarify the context, then, that I thought was evident from the part of the excerpt I highlighted: Not the activities — “providing neutral, humanitarian support” — that nan and the blogger disparaged.

 I think a reasonable interpretation is that "providing neutral, humanitarian support" is what is "perceived" by the donors, but they are not actually able to verify whether that is the case.


nohero said:


paulsurovell said:



nohero said:

nan said:
I don't expect the first country to stop funding the White Helmets to brazenly admit, "Oh, whoops, looks like we have been funding terrorists who fooled us into thinking they were humanitarians and you caught us. Hate when that happens."  I'm sure a committee hashed out the wording carefully. But the fact that they stopped the money is significant. Will have to see what happens next and how it affects other countries who still fund them.
 So you put a "news site" report on this message board which distorted the what the Netherlands actually did, for the purpose of supporting the "White Helmets are terrorists" story.  I notice that the report you posted repeats some of the other slanders, and cites the same cast of characters you've relied on before to support the attack on the White Helmets.
 
This is getting "tiresome", and by tiresome I mean disgusting.  Innocent first responders have to be vilified in order to build up Assad, who you don't seem to think is a murderous dictator.  There are a lot of refugees who would beg to differ. 

"While the White Helmets might seem like the poster children for feel-bad humanitarianism, they've in fact become the target of a internet smear campaign, one designed to bolster the regime of Syrian president Bashar al-Assad and undermine its opponents, including the United States. Various White Helmet "truthers"—who range from Assad and his supporters to Russian embassies, and even to Alex Jones—accuse the group of staging rescue photos, belonging to al Qaeda, and being pawns of liberal bogeyman George Soros. The story of how that conspiracy grew is a perfect distillation of how disinformation can spread unchecked, supplanting fact with frenzy where no support exists."
Inside the Conspiracy Theory That Turned Syria's First Responders Into Terrorists
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.
 The White Helmets work in areas that Assad and his allies are bombing.

 and those areas are controlled by Al Qaeda. The White Helmets must coordinate with Al Qaeda to work there.

nohero said:


In light of your "rhetorical question" as highlighted, please don't EVER accuse someone else of "McCarthyism".
[Edited to add] I put back the quote that Mr. Surovell removed from my post when he partially quoted it and then responded with his they-pal-around-with-terrorists "bull caca" rationalization for joining in with the smearing of the White Helmets.

 I have no idea what quote I "removed" and you "put back" so I can't respond to this.


In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.