Tulsi: Trump: Stop hiding Saudi role in 911 and protecting Al Qaeda
paulsurovell said:
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.
You also asked (so many requests):
When did the Times report on the overall toll vs the civilian toll so readers could do the math? Citation?
The article allowed me to grasp the 500,000/200,000 approximations with as much confidence and as little imagination as your 1/3-1/3-1/3.
paulsurovell 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?)
“Raised concerns” is not a fair description what the report did. It noted inadequacies and gave reasons for them. A more accurate summary of its conclusions would be: Given the war, it is what it is.
The report mentions the likelihood of “communication” between the White Helmets and representatives of armed groups. Whether you equate that to cooperation and all its implications is up to you. In any case, when you asked your question, you prefaced it with an assertion that the White Helmets work “hand-in-glove with the Al Qaeda rebels.” That’s a striking way to put it for someone who later says he can’t affirm they are “aligned with terrorists.”
ETA: Cross-posted with the above.
nohero said:
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.Should the United States complain to Turkey that it's "protecting Al Qaeda" by proposing an alternative like this?
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.
No, this is a good thing. It does not protect Al-Qaeda, it requires them to withdraw from the buffer zone, which can be seen as the first step toward disarming peacefully. The US should support this.
DaveSchmidt said:
paulsurovell said:You also asked (so many requests):
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.
When did the Times report on the overall toll vs the civilian toll so readers could do the math? Citation?The article allowed me to grasp the 500,000/200,000 approximations with as much confidence and as little imagination as your 1/3-1/3-1/3.
paulsurovell 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.“Raised concerns” is not a fair description what the report did. It noted inadequacies and but gave reasons for them. A more accurate summary of its conclusions would be: Given the war, it is what it is.
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?)
The report mentions the likelihood of “communication” between the White Helmets and representatives of armed groups. Whether you equate that to cooperation and all its implications is up to you. In any case, when you asked your question, you prefaced it with an assertion that the White Helmets work “hand-in-glove with the Al Qaeda rebels.” That’s a striking way to put it for someone who later says he can’t affirm they are “aligned with terrorists.”
ETA: Cross-posted with the above.
Dave Schmidt, one who has advanced reading and analytical skills, was able, in response to a challenge, to come up with proximate numbers and a logical inference, because the article "allowed" him to do that.
I don't think that's an example of how journalism fulfills its responsibility to inform its readers of significant facts.
paulsurovell said:
Civilians under Al-Qaeda control are for the most part terrorized into cooperating. White Helmets come to Al-Qaeda areas voluntarily and their cooperation is voluntary. Those are facts.
Voluntarily going in to rescue people from bombed-out buildings gets them branded as possibly terrorists. Nice.
I think we're going to have a serious moral disagreement about that.
paulsurovell said:
On the other hand, you could be like Trump and get your information from videos created by Al-Qaeda operatives (with the possible assistance of the White Helmets)
I've indicated here and in the past where I get my information. If you want to join the smear of the rescuers, because Assad's side does it, that's a choice you've made.
paulsurovell said:
nohero said:No, this is a good thing. It does not protect Al-Qaeda, it requires them to withdraw from the buffer zone, which can be seen as the first step toward disarming peacefully. The US should support this.
Should the United States complain to Turkey that it's "protecting Al Qaeda" by proposing an alternative like this?
Then you've changed your position, because in titling this thread you, and earlier in this thread you and Ms. Nan, were vehement that Assad should just "bomb the sh*t" out of them because of 9/11.
nohero said:
paulsurovell said:Voluntarily going in to rescue people from bombed-out buildings gets them branded as possibly terrorists. Nice.
Civilians under Al-Qaeda control are for the most part terrorized into cooperating. White Helmets come to Al-Qaeda areas voluntarily and their cooperation is voluntary. Those are facts.
I think we're going to have a serious moral disagreement about that.
Do they also provide medical services to Al Qaeda fighters?
paulsurovell said:
Dave Schmidt, one who has advanced reading and analytical skills, was able, in response to a challenge, to come up with proximate numbers and a logical inference, because the article "allowed" him to do that.
I don't think that's an example of how journalism fulfills its responsibility to inform its readers of significant facts.
Pshaw. Flattery will get you ... where did you say?
So thus far, the answer to my question is "Nowhere.”
Believe it or not, I got all of that out of the article even before your challenge.
nohero said:
paulsurovell said:Then you've changed your position, because in titling this thread you, and earlier in this thread you and Ms. Nan, were vehement that Assad should just "bomb the sh*t" out of them because of 9/11.
nohero said:No, this is a good thing. It does not protect Al-Qaeda, it requires them to withdraw from the buffer zone, which can be seen as the first step toward disarming peacefully. The US should support this.
Should the United States complain to Turkey that it's "protecting Al Qaeda" by proposing an alternative like this?
Or you are changing your position by supporting a first step -- if carried out -- to remove Al-Qaeda and restore Assad's control over Idlib.
What is new here is Turkey's agreement to work with Russia to achieve those goals. We don't know the US position yet.
https://sg.news.yahoo.com/putin-erdogan-hold-talks-syrias-rebel-held-idlib-090009467.html
Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu on Friday said Turkey was ready to cooperate with anyone in the fight against terror groups in Syria.
But he criticised the Damascus regime for using the presence of jihadists to legitimise a possible operation in Idlib.
paulsurovell said:
nohero said:Do they also provide medical services to Al Qaeda fighters?
paulsurovell said:Voluntarily going in to rescue people from bombed-out buildings gets them branded as possibly terrorists. Nice.
Civilians under Al-Qaeda control are for the most part terrorized into cooperating. White Helmets come to Al-Qaeda areas voluntarily and their cooperation is voluntary. Those are facts.
I think we're going to have a serious moral disagreement about that.
Do you have an answer to your question, and if so what is the point of the question? It looks like you're continuing to smear them, and trying for "plausible deniability" with the "I'm only asking questions" dodge.
Remember when SANE/Freeze supporters were accused of "cooperating" with the Soviets? Congratulations, you're doing the same thing with the White Helmets.
paulsurovell said:
nohero said:Or you are changing your position by supporting a first step -- if carried out -- to remove Al-Qaeda and restore Assad's control over Idlib.
Then you've changed your position, because in titling this thread you, and earlier in this thread you and Ms. Nan, were vehement that Assad should just "bomb the sh*t" out of them because of 9/11.
My position hasn't changed. I don't think we should cheer (in the name of "avenge 9/11!") the idea of Assad bombing and gassing the people in Idlib. Which means I disagree with you, Ms. Nan, and Rep. Gabbard.
nohero said:
paulsurovell said:My position hasn't changed. I don't think we should cheer (in the name of "avenge 9/11!") the idea of Assad bombing and gassing the people in Idlib. Which means I disagree with you, Ms. Nan, and Rep. Gabbard.
nohero said:Or you are changing your position by supporting a first step -- if carried out -- to remove Al-Qaeda and restore Assad's control over Idlib.
Then you've changed your position, because in titling this thread you, and earlier in this thread you and Ms. Nan, were vehement that Assad should just "bomb the sh*t" out of them because of 9/11.
The proposal has been welcomed by Syria and Iran. That's more good news.
White Helmet response:
A spokesperson for the organisation said that they “would not be able to respond directly to all of the links that [the France 24 Observers] sent, because a large number of them have no basis in reality.”
They are the result of an intense disinformation campaign in which, every day, new allegations are published. The objective is to discredit our documentation of Russian war crimes in Syria, which we do carry out while saving the lives of our countrymen. Their aim is also to enable the Assad regime and its allies to call our volunteers terrorists and to target them in violation of all international conventions.”
We recognise that there have been rare isolated incidents during our five years of activity, concerning a tiny fraction of our 4,300 volunteers, during which our Code of Conduct and our values have been breached. We’ve always taken rapid measures to manage these incidents, including the expulsion of certain volunteers and full cooperation with credible judicial institutions in Syria.
What Paul does in regards to the White Helmets is to highlight and emphasize the isolated incidents. This is a common "active measure" tactic. But carry on disparaging the White Helmets.
Dearest Nohero,
Can I ask you to please stop smacking Paul upside his face for just a couple of hours so I can run out to Costco and get another large box of Orville's finest popcorn? I already used up the box I bought last night and I need to make sure that your endless strafing of his cheeks is accompanied by just the right crunch sound.
Thanks in advance.
nohero said:
paulsurovell said:Do you have an answer to your question, and if so what is the point of the question? It looks like you're continuing to smear them, and trying for "plausible deniability" with the "I'm only asking questions" dodge.
nohero said:Do they also provide medical services to Al Qaeda fighters?
paulsurovell said:Voluntarily going in to rescue people from bombed-out buildings gets them branded as possibly terrorists. Nice.
Civilians under Al-Qaeda control are for the most part terrorized into cooperating. White Helmets come to Al-Qaeda areas voluntarily and their cooperation is voluntary. Those are facts.
I think we're going to have a serious moral disagreement about that.
Remember when SANE/Freeze supporters were accused of "cooperating" with the Soviets? Congratulations, you're doing the same thing with the White Helmets.
You're the expert on the White Helmets, do they provide medical services to Al-Qaeda fighters?
Well the White Helmets are definitely cooperating with Al-Qaeda since they work in areas under AQ control.
Are you referring to a specific circumstance when SANE/Freeze supporters were accused of "cooperating" with the Soviets, or just referencing the general warmongering attacks on calls for a mutual US-Soviet freeze on nuclear weapons?
jamie said:
White Helmet response:
A spokesperson for the organisation said that they “would not be able to respond directly to all of the links that [the France 24 Observers] sent, because a large number of them have no basis in reality.”They are the result of an intense disinformation campaign in which, every day, new allegations are published. The objective is to discredit our documentation of Russian war crimes in Syria, which we do carry out while saving the lives of our countrymen. Their aim is also to enable the Assad regime and its allies to call our volunteers terrorists and to target them in violation of all international conventions.”We recognise that there have been rare isolated incidents during our five years of activity, concerning a tiny fraction of our 4,300 volunteers, during which our Code of Conduct and our values have been breached. We’ve always taken rapid measures to manage these incidents, including the expulsion of certain volunteers and full cooperation with credible judicial institutions in Syria.What Paul does in regards to the White Helmets is to highlight and emphasize the isolated incidents. This is a common "active measure" tactic. But carry on disparaging the White Helmets.
I'm not aware of any specific incident that I've cited. I've actually emphasized the big picture issue that the White Helmets work in areas under Al-Qaeda control (how often do your sources mention that?) so they need to coordinate with AQ to carry out their work.
paulsurovell said:
nohero said:You're the expert on the White Helmets, do they provide medical services to Al-Qaeda fighters?
paulsurovell said:Do you have an answer to your question, and if so what is the point of the question? It looks like you're continuing to smear them, and trying for "plausible deniability" with the "I'm only asking questions" dodge.
Do they also provide medical services to Al Qaeda fighters?
Remember when SANE/Freeze supporters were accused of "cooperating" with the Soviets? Congratulations, you're doing the same thing with the White Helmets.
Well the White Helmets are definitely cooperating with Al-Qaeda since they work in areas under AQ control.
Well the White Helmets are definitely cooperating with Al-Qaeda since they work in areas under AQ control.
Are you referring to a specific circumstance when SANE/Freeze supporters were accused of "cooperating" with the Soviets, or just referencing the general warmongering attacks on calls for a mutual US-Soviet freeze on nuclear weapons?
I never said I was an expert on the White Helmets, certainly not as "expert" as you are at smearing them. So tell us all what the point of your question is - what do you claim depending on whether it's "yes" or "no"?
I'm referring to whatever you feel comfortable using to try to distinguish your smearing of the white helmets from the smearing of SANE/Freeze supporters.
paulsurovell said:
Well the White Helmets are definitely cooperating with Al-Qaeda since they work in areas under AQ control.
Working hand-in-glove together, you mean.
Are you referring to a specific circumstance when SANE/Freeze supporters were accused of "cooperating" with the Soviets, or just referencing the general warmongering attacks on calls for a mutual US-Soviet freeze on nuclear weapons?
From the online introduction to the SANE records collection at Swarthmore University:
In the 1960s, dissension within SANE was caused by concern over Communist influence. The Senate Internal Security Subcommittee held hearings in 1960 on "Communist Infiltration in the Nuclear Test Ban Movement," and SANE was attacked by Senator Thomas E. Dodd for permitting Communist infiltration.
nohero said:
I never said I was an expert on the White Helmets, certainly not as "expert" as you are at smearing them. So tell us all what the point of your question is - what do you claim depending on whether it's "yes" or "no"?
I'm referring to whatever you feel comfortable using to try to distinguish your smearing of the white helmets from the smearing of SANE/Freeze supporters.
You mentioned a bunch of articles and links that you posted on the WHs so I thought you had developed some expertise on them. Since my question is pretty basic, I guess you don't know much.
Well, I do recall being smeared "pro-Soviet" by anti-Russian warmongers because SANE/Freeze supported a US-Soviet freeze on nuclear arsenals, to be followed by negotiations toward nuclear abolition. This was alternative to Reagan's Star Wars proposal.
In the case of the WHs, I've pointed out that they work in coordination with Al-Qaeda in areas controlled by Al-Qaeda where the population is terrorized by Al-Qaeda.
Not sure I see anything in common here.
I suggest we all read this article: http://newpol.org/content/inside-look-how-prorussia-trolls-got-splc-censor-commie
Ross, himself a seasoned anti-war activist, hadn’t called anyone names, but rather detailed how some who purport to be his comrades had begun echoing, and sharing platforms with, far-right extremists. A secessionist conference in Moscow, for example, saw activists such as Joe Lombardo, of the United National Antiwar Coalition, declaring opposition to the “destructive manifestations of the ‘new world order’” in a statement cosigned by Andrey Kovalenko, leader of the Eurasian Youth Union, a wing of Aleksandr Dugin’s “National Bolshevik” movement — basically Russian nationalism fused with German fascism — and Yana Lantratova, head of Putin’s Council for Civil Society and Human Rights. A UNAC write-up of the conference highlighted the presence of “a leading anti-Zionist writer,” Israel Shamir, a Holocaust denier and associate of WikiLeaks.
Ross told me it was the convergence of left and right rhetoric on the war in Syria, especially, that led him to begin investigating the origin and spread of pro-Russia talking points on opposite poles of the political spectrum. “Something in my stomach churned,” he said. The conspiracy theories about first responders and child refugees — the former “terrorists,” and the latter “PsyOps” — were “getting so far fetched, and then I realized that’s part of the issue.” Debunked as fast as a new theory is spawned, these insta-conspiracy theories mirror Moscow’s strategy of muddying the waters rather than trying to come up with a logical and internally consistent counter-narrative.
“The networks that are denying it are just making it confusing,” Ross observed. “But there’s nothing really that confusing here.”
DaveSchmidt said:
paulsurovell said:Working hand-in-glove together, you mean.
Well the White Helmets are definitely cooperating with Al-Qaeda since they work in areas under AQ control.
Are you referring to a specific circumstance when SANE/Freeze supporters were accused of "cooperating" with the Soviets, or just referencing the general warmongering attacks on calls for a mutual US-Soviet freeze on nuclear weapons?From the online introduction to the SANE records collection at Swarthmore University:
In the 1960s, dissension within SANE was caused by concern over Communist influence. The Senate Internal Security Subcommittee held hearings in 1960 on "Communist Infiltration in the Nuclear Test Ban Movement," and SANE was attacked by Senator Thomas E. Dodd for permitting Communist infiltration.
Not sure what your point is. The Senate hearings were more than 20 years before SANE/Freeze existed.
Perhaps you're suggesting a parallel (hypothetical) dissension within the White Helmets over the organization's cooperation with Al-Qaeda?
ridski said:
I suggest we all read this article: http://newpol.org/content/inside-look-how-prorussia-trolls-got-splc-censor-commie
Ross, himself a seasoned anti-war activist, hadn’t called anyone names, but rather detailed how some who purport to be his comrades had begun echoing, and sharing platforms with, far-right extremists. A secessionist conference in Moscow, for example, saw activists such as Joe Lombardo, of the United National Antiwar Coalition, declaring opposition to the “destructive manifestations of the ‘new world order’” in a statement cosigned by Andrey Kovalenko, leader of the Eurasian Youth Union, a wing of Aleksandr Dugin’s “National Bolshevik” movement — basically Russian nationalism fused with German fascism — and Yana Lantratova, head of Putin’s Council for Civil Society and Human Rights. A UNAC write-up of the conference highlighted the presence of “a leading anti-Zionist writer,” Israel Shamir, a Holocaust denier and associate of WikiLeaks.
Ross told me it was the convergence of left and right rhetoric on the war in Syria, especially, that led him to begin investigating the origin and spread of pro-Russia talking points on opposite poles of the political spectrum. “Something in my stomach churned,” he said. The conspiracy theories about first responders and child refugees — the former “terrorists,” and the latter “PsyOps” — were “getting so far fetched, and then I realized that’s part of the issue.” Debunked as fast as a new theory is spawned, these insta-conspiracy theories mirror Moscow’s strategy of muddying the waters rather than trying to come up with a logical and internally consistent counter-narrative.
“The networks that are denying it are just making it confusing,” Ross observed. “But there’s nothing really that confusing here.”
Where does Jeffrey Sachs fit in this scenario?
Did you see that, PVW? I get a nibble, and paulsurovell scares it away.
(Point of fact: SANE was founded in 1957. It united with Freeze 30 years later.)
paulsurovell said:
nohero said:You mentioned a bunch of articles and links that you posted on the WHs so I thought you had developed some expertise on them. Since my question is pretty basic, I guess you don't know much.
I never said I was an expert on the White Helmets, certainly not as "expert" as you are at smearing them. So tell us all what the point of your question is - what do you claim depending on whether it's "yes" or "no"?
I'm referring to whatever you feel comfortable using to try to distinguish your smearing of the white helmets from the smearing of SANE/Freeze supporters.
"I guess you don't know much" is a pretty stupid comment and a lame insult. I know that neither you nor I are "experts" on this topic. We only know what we read in sources, and I prefer mine to your pro-Assad propaganda.
ridski said:
I suggest we all read this article: http://newpol.org/content/inside-look-how-prorussia-trolls-got-splc-censor-commie
Thanks, that is useful. If I may, I'll post a few more excerpts -
That these rescue workers have been the target of a concerted propaganda campaign is not news; that discrediting them serves the interests of those bombing them is not either; and that those who volunteer for the White Helmets, and survive, risk arrest and torture, like Abdulhadi Kamel — Amnesty International notes he was forced to record a “confession” that aired on Russian media claiming he was an actor paid by Turkey, Europe and Saudi Arabia — is not in dispute. Words have consequences, and they are weaponized in areas of conflict, but some who purport to do journalism, not propaganda, are blithely unconcerned about the impact of the false things they have claimed, never bothering to correct them.
Contra notions of a false flag, for example, the United Nations soon confirmed that the aid convoy to Aleppo was, as that volunteer said in English, hit by barrel bombs dropped from a Syrian regime helicopter. The attack, according to the UN, was “meticulously planned” and “ruthlessly carried out.” There was no equivocation, but Blumenthal neither updated his piece nor acknowledged the finding elsewhere. Why bother? By that point, weeks later, no one remembers any details — it’s the broader narrative that sticks.
Blumenthal is prolific when it comes to inverting victims and perpetrators of war crimes. In January 2017, for example, he was quick to blame the contamination of Damascus’ water supply on anti-regime militants in the Wadi Barada valley — and to attack the mainstream media for not saying that. “The Guardian,” he complained, “can’t bring itself to name Al Qaeda in Syria, waits til the last line to mention it poisoned Damascus water supply with diesel.”
A UN report on the incident did not mince words, and Blumenthal was proven wrong again. “Syria’s air force deliberately bombed water sources in December [2016], a war crime that cut off water 5.5 million people in and around the capital Damascus,” the UN found, as Reuters reported.
Blumenthal never got around to correcting the record.
…
Blumenthal also attacks children in Syria with the zeal of an Infowars reporter going after survivors of a school shooting.
Had to highlight that last one. Great "experts" the White Helmets smear people have, there.
paulsurovell said:
Perhaps you're suggesting a parallel (hypothetical) dissension within the White Helmets over the organization's cooperation with Al-Qaeda?
Give it up. Your continued efforts to tie the White Helmets to AQ ("cooperation", etc.) aren't going anywhere.
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?)
On the larger question of Assad and the Syrian civil war I think the solution is, as Jeffrey Sachs said recently, to get out:
So Jeffrey Sachs has nothing to say about the White Helmets. So why bring him up when the topic is the White Helmets (see my post above this where I address that)? We know why, it's the same transparent strategy to confuse the issue.
paulsurovell said:
ridski said:Where does Jeffrey Sachs fit in this scenario?
I suggest we all read this article: http://newpol.org/content/inside-look-how-prorussia-trolls-got-splc-censor-commie
Ross told me it was the convergence of left and right rhetoric on the war in Syria, especially, that led him to begin investigating the origin and spread of pro-Russia talking points on opposite poles of the political spectrum. “Something in my stomach churned,” he said. The conspiracy theories about first responders and child refugees — the former “terrorists,” and the latter “PsyOps” — were “getting so far fetched, and then I realized that’s part of the issue.” Debunked as fast as a new theory is spawned, these insta-conspiracy theories mirror Moscow’s strategy of muddying the waters rather than trying to come up with a logical and internally consistent counter-narrative.
“The networks that are denying it are just making it confusing,” Ross observed. “But there’s nothing really that confusing here.”
He doesn't. He hasn't smeared the White Helmets as "terrorists" and he hasn't called news about child refugees "PsyOps", at least not so far as you've indicated. See my prior post.
Well (@nohero) your segment also mentions "pro-Russia talking points" so I'm glad to see that you don't consider Sach's comment (below) to be "pro-Russia" (they're not). You're making progress.
"This [Syrian civil war] happened because of [the United States]. These 600,000 [dead] are not just incidental. [The United States] started a war to overthrow a regime. It was covert. It was Operation: Timber Sycamore, people can look it up, the CIA operation. Together with Saudi Arabia, still shrouded in secrecy... A major war effort shrouded in secrecy, never debated by Congress, never explained to the American people. Signed by President Obama. Never explained.
Civilians under Al-Qaeda control are for the most part terrorized into cooperating. White Helmets come to Al-Qaeda areas voluntarily and their cooperation is voluntary. Those are facts.
One can parrot the official line on Syria -- that Assad is bombing and gassing his own people -- or one can go outside the establishment media bubble and understand that Syria is engaged in a civil war in which most of the casualties are military of which the largest number are Assad's forces. The Syrian civil war began as an indigenous rebellion, but it soon morphed into a proxy war supported by the US, Saudi Arabia and others and the rebellion ultimately was dominated by Al-Qaeda.
As Tulsi Gabbard and Jeffrey Sachs have said, the reason civilians are being killed is because the US, Saudi Arabia and others, are seeking regime-change and perpetuating the war.
If you care about Syrian civilians you should demand that Trump withdraw America forces and American support for the Al-Qaeda-dominated rebellion.
On the allegation that Assad gasses his own people, there are many experts who have challenged that, including the most recent OPCW investigation which found no evidence of nerve agents and was inconclusive about whether the traces of chlorine were from military or normal civilian sources.
On the other hand, you could be like Trump and get your information from videos created by Al-Qaeda operatives (with the possible assistance of the White Helmets)