The New York Times' Propaganda on Kiev's Crimea Blockade - Dismantled
Western media has published yet another doom and gloom article on Crimea, repeating a worn theme that surely, by now, the people of Crimea must be reconsidering their vote 21 months ago to secede from Ukraine and rejoin the Russian Federation.
It was published in the New York Times on Dec 1 and is titled, ‘Months after Russian annexation, hopes start to dim in Crimea‘. This article, though, has to skate around an new, added twist to the Crimea story: the electricity and commercial road transport blockade that has been mounted by small numbers of the extreme-right in Ukraine but endorsed by the governing regime in Kyiv while Western governments turn a blind eye.
Western Media often rebrand the footage of Russian airstrikes in Syria as the US-led coalition's actions - due to the lack of cooperation, according to the Russian Defense Ministry.
He said that the lack of official footage from Western countries involved in airstrikes at IS positions resulted in a recent attempt by Euronews TV channel to present Russian videos as footage of US air campaign.
German MSM Blacks Out Evidence of Turkey's Ties to ISIS Oil
On December 2nd, the Russian Ministry of Defense gave a comprehensive briefing and provided proof related to the allegations that Turkey has been involved in the oil smuggling operation of the “Islamic State.” There's both photographic and video evidence of this, plus maps. In the main German newscasts of ARD and ZDF, there was no mention of this press conference. It was also not mentioned in the national newspapers. Reader comments making reference to the press conference in Moscow were deleted.
The press conference of the Russian Ministry of Defense regarding the oil smuggling trade involvement of the Erdogan government was the same day on which the German Federal Parliament discussed whether the German army should initiate a military operation with Turkey and in Turkish territory.
Anticipating this connection, the scissors of self-censorship of obedient editors and program managers suddenly became active. It would be difficult to calculate the risk of public opinion if you had to explain to readers and viewers that the military operation of the Federal Republic was to be carried out with a “partner” who was previously found guilty of collaboration with the “Islamic State” and that this was supported by photographic and video evidence. Oh, then maybe it would be better to play it safe and simply ignore the unpleasant parts.
BUSTED: Russian Channel 1 Exposes Fake German Report on Donbass
Just when you thought the Russophobic propaganda put out by Western mainstream media couldn't possibly get any worse or more hysterically absurd, German state-run US-sponsored TV channel ZDF has exceeded all bounds.
Not satisfied with the truth of what's really happening in Ukraine's war-torn Donbass region, they decided to hire actors to show exactly what they wanted their audience to believe about Russia's supposed involvement.
Thankfully, most Germans are not buying it. See Rossiya 1's exposé of this disgraceful farce for yourself:
How the Public Get Suckered
The US aristocracy’s control over all the mainstream ‘news’ is ironclad – and this includes the political magazines, such as National Review, and The Nation; as well as ‘intellectual’ magazines, such as Harpers and The Atlantic. American ‘news’ media stifle democracy in America; they’re not part of democracy, in America. They’re like poison that’s presented as being ‘medicine’ instead. Suckers don’t just swallow it; they come back for more.
Consider the implication of the phrase “groups claiming to occupy a middle ground between Mr. Assad and the Islamic State.” While this is classic corporate media faux-objectivity, the reality is that this is cleverly constructed misinformation designed to validate and legitimize an absolutely discredited notion, namely that there is a significant difference between the ideology of Alloush’s organization and that of the Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL). Indeed, the NYT here is unsurprisingly bolstering official Washington’s line that the US must support “moderate opposition” which, in the subtext of that phrase, is everyone who is not ISIS/ISIL. But real experts on Syria recognize that this is merely political window-dressing, that in fact the difference between Jaish al-Islam, Ahrar al-Sham, Jabhat al-Nusra (Al-Qaeda’s official Syrian affiliate), and the Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL) is just words; these organizations compete for influence and control, but do not truly differ ideologically.
Joshua Landis, Director of the Center for Middle East Studies at the University of Oklahoma and widely regarded as one of the world’s foremost experts on Syria, suffers no such delusions about Alloush. In December 2013, Landis wrote:Zahran Alloush’s rhetoric and propaganda videos provide much insight into his world view, attitude toward Syria’s religious minorities, and vision for Syria’s future. The difference between his ideology and that of al-Qaida groups is not profound. Rather, it is one of shades of grey. [The video linked in the article] is an anti-Shiite tirade and “bring-back-the-Umayyad-Empire” propaganda piece. It shows how sectarian Alloush is. He refers to Shiites, and reduces the Nusayris into this grouping, as “Majous”, or crypto-Iranians… Here it is an Islamic term of abuse meant to suggest that Alawites and Iranians not only have the wrong religion but also the wrong ethnicity—they are not Arabs, but crypto-Iranians…[This] demonstrates how demonized the Alawites are in the propaganda of the new Islamic Front. Zahran calls for cleansing Damascus of all Shiites and Nusayris… On hearing this sort of talk from the leaders of the revolution, Alawites and other non-Sunni sects worry that their struggle is a fight for their very existence [emphasis added].
This video and the language of Alloush demonstrates [sic] how difficult it is to draw a clear line between the ideology of the Islamic Front and that of the al-Qaida groups [emphasis added]. They both embrace foreign jihadists and encourage them to come Syria to join the fight. They both call for the resurrection of an Islamic Empire and they both look back to the Golden Age of Islam for the principles upon which the new state will be founded. Their political philosophy and blue print for the future is largely based on a similar reading of Islamic history and the Qur’an.
Some analysts try to draw a clear line between al-Qaida and the Islamic Front, insisting that the former support changing Syria’s borders and seek to establish a Caliphate while the latter are Syrian Nationalists. Unfortunately, this distinction is not evident in their rhetoric. Both idealize Islamic Empire, both reject democracy and embrace what they call shari’a, both welcome jihadists from the “Islamic Umma,” both fly the black flag of Islam rather than the Syrian flag as their predominant emblem. The Islamic Front is dominated by Syrians who do have clear parochial interests, whereas ISIS is run by an Iraqi. Foreigners play a dominate role in its command, but this is not so with the Islamic Front. All the same, their ideologies overlap in significant ways.
Landis, well known as a fierce critic of Bashar al-Assad and the Syrian Government, here removes the mask from Alloush and quickly debunks and thoroughly discredits any attempts to manufacture moderation in the figure of Alloush. Far from being one of the mythical “moderates” that Obama & Co. are always prattling on about, Alloush is unmistakably a jihadist of the first order, one whose ideology, as Landis correctly noted, is not at all different from that of Al Qaeda and ISIS/ISIL. Indeed, this is only further confirmed in this video where, as Landis points out, Alloush “goes to some lengths to explain that his relationship with Nusra [al-Qaeda’s affiliate in Syria] is one of brotherhood with only superficial ideological differences that can be settled with shari’a and discussions. This supports my argument that the ideological differences between the Front and al-Qaida are not deep.”
WASHINGTON — Even as the Obama administration scrambles to confront the Islamic State and a resurgent Taliban, an old enemy seems to be reappearing in Afghanistan: Qaeda training camps are sprouting up there, forcing the Pentagon and American intelligence agencies to assess whether they could again become a breeding ground for attacks on the United States.
...
Mujib Mashal contributed reporting from Kabul, Afghanistan.
In 2015, the iron fist of power clamped down on humanity, from warfare to terrorism (I repeat myself) to surveillance, police brutality, and corporate hegemony. The environment was repeatedly decimated, the health of citizens was constantly put at risk, and the justice system and media alike were perverted to serve the interests of the powers that be.
However, while 2015 was discouraging for more reasons than most of us can count, many of the year’s most underreported stories evidence not only a widespread pattern that explicitly reveals the nature of power, but pushback from human beings worldwide on a path toward a better world...
If it accomplishes nothing else, Donald Trump's candidacy has shown that the establishment despises the American voter: If you don't vote for the "right" candidate, you are an "idiot" who probably shouldn't even be voting.
MSNBC's legendary establishment boot-licker Chris Matthews perfectly embodies this level of contempt for American voters.
pstarr wrote:dissident wrote:If it accomplishes nothing else, Donald Trump's candidacy has shown that the establishment despises the American voter: If you don't vote for the "right" candidate, you are an "idiot" who probably shouldn't even be voting.
MSNBC's legendary establishment boot-licker Chris Matthews perfectly embodies this level of contempt for American voters.
Are you suggesting that Matthew's contempt for the Republican Party Establishment is unwarranted? I have to agree that it laughable it was unable to replace it's previous anointed choice. The Repubs have absolutely no control of the electorate anymore . They have jumped the fence and are completely free-range now. You can say the same on the Dem side now.
Matthew is by no means an estabishment media figure, not in the sense that Cronkite or O'Reilly (!) were. He and Rachel are scribes, witnesses to the collapse. It's very entertaining to see them giggle at the same things I do.
The MEDIA (in caps, the topic of this thread) is dead. Just as the Parties are dead.
Return to North America Discussion
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests