Tulsi: Trump: Stop hiding Saudi role in 911 and protecting Al Qaeda
paulsurovell said:
When did the Times report on the overall toll vs the civilian toll so readers could do the math? Citation?
Did you forget the April story I linked to earlier today already? It contains a few overall and civilian tolls. If you prefer additional citations, I gave you a rod. Go fish.
sbenois said:
Thank God you are now an expert on Syria as well as Russia.
Watch that video on Hollywood propaganda. It's quite damming.
paulsurovell said: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.
That's correct. Nan and her earlier link, however, suggested that one of the donors, the Netherlands, had done a 180 on its perception. The report does not support that suggestion.
paulsurovell said:
nohero said:I have no idea what quote I "removed" and you "put back" so I can't respond to this.
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.
Suit yourself. Anybody else can see it, they don't have to rely on you to accurately describe anything.
DaveSchmidt said:
paulsurovell said:That's correct. Nan and her earlier link, however, suggested that one of the donors, the Netherlands, had done a 180 on its perception. The report does not support that suggestion.
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.
Actually, it does suggest it, but they don't come out directly. They stopped the money. They don't know where the money is going. They also don't come out and say the White Helmets are good guys. Not looking good for the WH's.
DaveSchmidt said:
paulsurovell said:Did you forget the April story I linked to earlier today already? It contains a few overall and civilian tolls. If you prefer additional citations, I gave you a rod. Go fish.
When did the Times report on the overall toll vs the civilian toll so readers could do the math? Citation?
Some prefer to just cast into the water; catching fish isn't the point for them.
I do find it strange to watch voices that have called attention to civilian deaths in the current conflict in Yemen, and in the American invasion of Iraq, downplaying the deaths of civilians in Syria.
nan said:
Actually, it does suggest it, but they don't come out directly. They stopped the money. They don't know where the money is going. They also don't come out and say the White Helmets are good guys. Not looking good for the WH's.
MoonOfAlabama 1
Dutch Foreign Ministry 0
DaveSchmidt said:
paulsurovell said:Did you forget the April story I linked to earlier today already? It contains a few overall and civilian tolls. If you prefer additional citations, I gave you a rod. Go fish.
When did the Times report on the overall toll vs the civilian toll so readers could do the math? Citation?
The article does not report any overall and civilian death tolls from the same source. Any "math" done from the numbers therein would be incoherent.
The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, acknowledged in the article as the "most prominent" local group compiling data, is mentioned (buried) in paragraph 21 with no mention of its detailed estimates. That omission was most likely an editorial decision that reporting the SOHR estimates on fatalities of the Syrian government would conflict with the Times's Syrian narrative as well as the narrative of the article.
sbenois said:
nan said:Yes you are.
sbenois said:Watch the video. I'm not the delusional one.
nan said:Thanks no. I have no desire to be pulled into your nonsensical world.
sbenois said:Watch that video on Hollywood propaganda. It's quite damming.
Thank God you are now an expert on Syria as well as Russia.
Sbenois in free-fall.
Yeah I'm the one in free-fall.
Not.
Now please carry on with your convoluted nonsense.
Hi Ho Silver!
paulsurovell said:
The article does not report any overall and civilian death tolls from the same source. Any "math" done from the numbers therein would be incoherent.
The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, acknowledged in the article as the "most prominent" local group compiling data, is mentioned (buried) in paragraph 21 with no mention of its detailed estimates. That omission was most likely an editorial decision that reporting the SOHR estimates on fatalities of the Syrian government would conflict with the Times's Syrian narrative as well as the narrative of the article.
I think you may have missed the gist of the article, in both paragraphs of your comment. That’s OK. If you want to parse impossibly precise digits — rather than deciding that a toll of about 500,000 deaths, including about 200,000 civilians, is enough to understand it’s a hell of a lot of carnage — knock yerself out.
DaveSchmidt said:
paulsurovell said:I think you may have missed the gist of the article, in both paragraphs of your comment.
The article does not report any overall and civilian death tolls from the same source. Any "math" done from the numbers therein would be incoherent.
The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, acknowledged in the article as the "most prominent" local group compiling data, is mentioned (buried) in paragraph 21 with no mention of its detailed estimates. That omission was most likely an editorial decision that reporting the SOHR estimates on fatalities of the Syrian government would conflict with the Times's Syrian narrative as well as the narrative of the article.
“More time listening and trying to understand what others are saying”: I’ll give it a shot myself. Since you mentioned “the narrative” at the end, you probably got the gist. You disagree with it and see ulterior motives. That’s still OK.
It perplexes me, though, why you and nan are dismissive of reasons for substandard financial tracking and for fallible death tolls in Syria. You both advocate for peace presumably because you’re well aware of the horrors of war. When do those horrors step aside for aid monitors and body counters?
DaveSchmidt said:
paulsurovell said:I think you may have missed the gist of the article, in both paragraphs of your comment. That’s OK. If you want to parse impossibly precise digits — rather than deciding that a toll of about 500,000 deaths, including about 200,000 civilians, is enough to understand it’s a hell of a lot of carnage — knock yerself out.
The article does not report any overall and civilian death tolls from the same source. Any "math" done from the numbers therein would be incoherent.
The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, acknowledged in the article as the "most prominent" local group compiling data, is mentioned (buried) in paragraph 21 with no mention of its detailed estimates. That omission was most likely an editorial decision that reporting the SOHR estimates on fatalities of the Syrian government would conflict with the Times's Syrian narrative as well as the narrative of the article.
I asked
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)
The article you cited doesn't do that. As you demonstrated, you can get part of the picture by taking numbers from disparate sources mentioned and then using your imagination to come up with an explanation about what the difference means. So thus far, the answer to my question is "Nowhere," not even with digits that aren't precise.
DaveSchmidt said:
DaveSchmidt said:“More time listening and trying to understand what others are saying”: I’ll give it a shot myself. Since you mentioned “the narrative” at the end, you probably got the gist. You disagree with it and see ulterior motives. That’s still OK.
paulsurovell said:I think you may have missed the gist of the article, in both paragraphs of your comment.
The article does not report any overall and civilian death tolls from the same source. Any "math" done from the numbers therein would be incoherent.
The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, acknowledged in the article as the "most prominent" local group compiling data, is mentioned (buried) in paragraph 21 with no mention of its detailed estimates. That omission was most likely an editorial decision that reporting the SOHR estimates on fatalities of the Syrian government would conflict with the Times's Syrian narrative as well as the narrative of the article.
It perplexes me, though, why you and nan are dismissive of reasons for substandard financial tracking and for fallible death tolls in Syria. You both advocate for peace presumably because you’re well aware of the horrors of war. When do those horrors step aside for aid monitors and body counters?
To be clear, my comment was only in response to the statement you posted. I think it raised concerns about inadequate monitoring of the White Helmets' work ("programmes"). I haven't looked further into the Dutch change of policy.
Nor have I researched the White Helmets enough to support or reject allegations that they are aligned with terrorists. What pointed out is that they work in Al-Qaeda-controlled areas which requires mutual cooperation and raises questions (are we allowed to ask?)
On the larger question of Assad and the Syrian civil war I think the solution is, as Jeffrey Sachs said recently, to get out:
Wow, not usually a fan of Jeffrey Sachs, but that video is insightful and clear. We need to get the hell out of Syria now. We should never have been there in the first place and the CIA started the whole thing trying to overthrow Assad. We caused the deaths of so many with an illegal war started years ago by Obama and now continued by Trump. This is not Nan saying this with an RT video. This is Mr. Harvard, mainsteam friendly Jeffrey Sachs. Perhaps some of ypu will maybe listen???? I'm not holding my breath.
jamie said:
Some interesting info here:
https://nothingiseverlost.wordpress.com/2018/03/17/against-the-grayzone-the-article-max-blumenthal-doesnt-want-you-to-read/
People who stand against war and neocons will always be smeared. You should watch the video all the way through and comment on that, not avoid watching and instead Google for any kind of crap that discredits the source.
nan said:
Wow, not usually a fan of Jeffrey Sachs, but that video is insightful and clear. We need to get the hell out of Syria now. We should never have been there in the first place and the CIA started the whole thing trying to overthrow Assad. We caused the deaths of so many with an illegal war started years ago by Obama and now continued by Trump. This is not Nan saying this with an RT video. This is Mr. Harvard, mainsteam friendly Jeffrey Sachs. Perhaps some of ypu will maybe listen???? I'm not holding my breath.
Of course, if you didn't come across like a treasonous lunatic embittered by what you wrongly think was a conspiracy to defeat Bernie Sanders, you might be able to put forth cogent arguments as to why the most practical and, in fact, most humane thing for us to do at this point is expedite a complete regime win in Syria and move on with life. And you would be helped by the fact that a very large percentage of rational Americans would agree.
tjohn said:
nan said:Of course, if you didn't come across like a treasonous lunatic embittered by what you wrongly think was a conspiracy to defeat Bernie Sanders, you might be able to put forth cogent arguments as to why the most practical and, in fact, most humane thing for us to do at this point is expedite a complete regime win in Syria and move on with life. And you would be helped by the fact that a very large percentage of rational Americans would agree.
Wow, not usually a fan of Jeffrey Sachs, but that video is insightful and clear. We need to get the hell out of Syria now. We should never have been there in the first place and the CIA started the whole thing trying to overthrow Assad. We caused the deaths of so many with an illegal war started years ago by Obama and now continued by Trump. This is not Nan saying this with an RT video. This is Mr. Harvard, mainsteam friendly Jeffrey Sachs. Perhaps some of ypu will maybe listen???? I'm not holding my breath.
If you have to throw in an untrue, unrelated and meanspirited personal attack to admit you agree with me, so be it. I'll take it.
nan said:
People who stand against war and neocons will always be smeared. You should watch the video all the way through and comment on that, not avoid watching and instead Google for any kind of crap that discredits the source.
Well, you did say this:
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
So clearly not against wars and military action in general -- just American wars? Or is it even more specific -- just "neocon" wars?
(in case the reason for the quote is unclear -- the fact that you call attacking Idlib the Syrian government's "right" is what I'm highlighting here. You appear to be supporting a proposed attack on a large population center that, in addition to killing forces opposed to the government, will also inevitably kill many non-combatants).
paulsurovell said:
Nor have I researched the White Helmets enough to support or reject allegations that they are aligned with terrorists. What pointed out is that they work in Al-Qaeda-controlled areas which requires mutual cooperation and raises questions (are we allowed to ask?)
You have twice hit "quote" on one of my posts with an excerpt from, and a link to, an article that discusses the "allegations", which turn out to be easily-refuted and deceptive pro-Assad and pro-Putin propaganda. You "cut" those portions of my posts from those quotes and then responded to me.
The "I'm only asking questions" claim of innocence looks woefully insincere, here. Your they-pal-around-with-terrorists argument is pure McCarthyism. By your logic every civilian in the area is potentially "cooperating" with terrorists by just being there and trying to save family members and possessions from wreckage. I guess it makes it easier for you to ignore Assad's bombing and gassing of his own people.
sorry Nan. I agree with precisely none of the insane, lunatic fringe, treasonous arguments you and Paul are constantly pushing. Now, if you want to have a realpolitik discussion about how we should conduct policy in the world, I’ll pay attention.
PVW said:
I do find it strange to watch voices that have called attention to civilian deaths in the current conflict in Yemen, and in the American invasion of Iraq, downplaying the deaths of civilians in Syria.
Russia's bombs hurt less than America's.
Let's hope Rep. Gabbard, Mr. Surovell and Ms. Nan aren't disappointed that there may not be indiscriminate bombing of some Arab folks, in light of the recent turn of events:
Russia’s defense minister said on Monday that Syria would refrain from launching an offensive on Idlib Province, the last major rebel stronghold, after the presidents of Russia and Turkey agreed to establish a “demilitarized zone” there to avert a potentially catastrophic military confrontation.
The announcement by the two presidents, who support opposite sides in Syria’s civil war, appeared at least to delay what had been forecast to be a bloody assault on Idlib by the forces and allies of President Bashar al-Assad of Syria, which include Russia and Iran.
Fears of a looming attack on Idlib have been building in recent weeks as a triumphal Mr. Assad, once written off by Western powers and other enemies, has reclaimed most of the country and geared up for a final military push to rout his armed antagonists.
Syria has been in the grip of a brutal conflict since 2011, when a peaceful uprising against Mr. Assad’s autocratic rule morphed into a horrific civil war that, marked by chemical attacks and allegations of war crimes, has killed hundreds of thousands and displaced half the population.
Should the United States complain to Turkey that it's "protecting Al Qaeda" by proposing an alternative like this?
Here's an examination of how Hollywood contributes to propaganda about Syria. Especially relevant if you have seen the move, "Cries from Syria"