“Bashar Assad rapes children”: BBC propaganda

Propaganda against the Syrian regime is not confined to the Saudi and Qatari Arab media. Western media have largely suspended their journalistic missions and have become willing transmitters of the claims, lies, rumors, fabrications, hoaxes, exaggerations, and stories of the Ikhwan-dominated Syrian opposition. The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (and there are two organizations by that name) is the most oft cited source in Western media and no one knows how they collect their numbers. One of the directors of the observatory, Rami Abdulrahman, is the most quoted name about Syria although it has been revealed that a man by that name does not exist.

This is similar to media coverage prior to the 2003 Iraq war. Western media are now working at the service of Western governments plots for the region. The claims about the situation in Syria are often contradicted within a day or two. For weeks, we heard that the people of Baba Amr were trapped in their homes. Yesterday, it was revealed that they (or most) had been smuggled into safety far earlier (the claim and the counter claim were both bizarrely made by the Free Syrian Army).

Western media admit that there were hundreds of fighters in Baba Amr (belonging to the Free Syrian Army). Yet, the victims are always listed as civilians. The media never offers a breakdown of the dead to differentiate between civilians and combatants among the victims of Syrian regime gunfire.

I followed BBC coverage this week while driving. I was (not) surprised that the trend of propaganda against Syrian regime that fills Saudi and Qatari airwaves is prevalent also in the BBC. It is known that BBC has become far more susceptible to government pressure than previous years. The BBC correspondent who covers Syria, Jim Muir, according to the network itself, “monitors the situation from Beirut.” What does monitor the situation from Beirut mean? And can I monitor Syria from California?

But the BBC – like all other Western and Arab (read Saudi and Qatari) media rely on whatever accounts the media outlet of the Syrian opposition (all under the control of the propaganda apparatus of the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood) provide. Thus, a mere statement by a “witness” is sufficient. And those low standards of journalism are only permitted against the Syrian regime and against the Iranian regime.

Today, the BBC covered the parliamentary election in Iran and then added that a writer on an Internet site said that the turnout rate will be fabricated. Just like that. We did not know who the person being cited was or what website was referenced. Such shoddy methods would never ever be allowed in the coverage of Israel and its war crimes. That coverage is subjected to such scrutiny in order to make sure that Zionsits don’t have basis to protest against the coverage.

The BBC coverage of Baba Amr over the last days amounted to giving airtime to whoever the Syrian Ikhwan picked to tell the story. There was one former resident who moved to Beirut and who was put on all day Monday. He basically was given the precious airtime to say anything that he wanted. He did not report massacres that he witnessed: but he spoke about massacres that he sees in the future. He “reported” that Syrian troops will rape women and children once they enter Baba Amr. The witness (or former witness) was given airtime virtually every hour and he merely spoke emotionally and propagandistically without giving any facts. He was almost given airtime to seek more arms for the rebels. And at one point: he said that Bashar Assad rapes children. He said that in English, so there was no room for mistranslations. The BBC let the remark stand and it most likely was repeated in different news segments during the day.

But the emotional and sentimental nature of the coverage raises many journalistic questions, particularly because it is politically motivated. How can it not be politically motivated when BBC coverage of Israeli assaults, massacres, and war crimes contain not a hint of emotion. At a time of war, or a time of preparation for war, many Western media now volunteer their services to aid in the war effort, or in the psychological operations. Those operations are now being undertaken in earnest.

Comments

Who are we to decide what should happen in Syria when the majority of Syrian people want Assad?
I would NEVER support a bunch of hooligans supported by Israel and America. That makes it enough for me to understand what is actually going on.

O Muslims be aware of the Dajjal system , It uses lies on the mainstream media and also on so called Muslim forums ( ummah.com )

Syria is the most diverse tolerant nation on planet earth ! FACT !

OOOF, OOOF, they should call the Syrian Regime,( Mahed Alhwaart). You know its one thing to express one's opinion and another, to be an advocate, of the Paqlable( ALSAKIT HIN ALQ SHITANON AKRESS) TONE IT DOWN MY DEAR FELLOW, to be more beleivable. but then I think you are incapable of doing so because you already made up your mind, regardless of other people's opinions.( THE SYRIAN REGIME OWES YOU A GREAT DEBT OF GRATITUDE.

ALEX

Sir,

With regard to your question: "Can I monitor Syria from California?"

You seem to have no problem monitoring ALL regional events, commenting on them, and the people who actually are on the ground covering them from California.

Do you turn off the electricity for three (or more) hours every day and pretend you are in Beirut?

Last time I checked, As'ad is NOT a "reporter". He is a BLOGGER. He is NOT "covering" Syria from abroad, unlike so-called mainstream (imperialist) media.

So, next time invent something better :)

As'ad is just an intellectual that likes to point things out.

But really, we are all adults here let us call a spade a spade, only lunatics doubt the brutality of the Asad regime, ask any sober Lebanese or Syrian - even those who support and work with the regime...it;s a fact, much like the way earth is round and rotates around the sun. Sure, you might come back and say the earth is pear shape, and some might still argue the earth is fixed, or flat. . . but at the end the only people debating this fact are the lunatics or simply the people that just like to debate syntax... As'ad wants proof that the Syrian regime is killing their people in cold blood. On what planet have we all been living for the past 30 years. maybe the chinese and russian population need proof, but not one arab needs proof. its a fact.

the media has its faults, but to imply that repression, oppression, killing can be wholly doubted is reckless and immoral. is there a magic number of children that need to be killed, before the skeptic start asking for regime change.

let me guess, let us tally the total number of children killed by zionists, and use it as a benchmark for tolerated kills by Arab regimes. so if syria, iraq, saudi, etc...kill less than that number than it;s not so bad, it could be worse, regime remains.

or should the killing be judged by a national scale of atrocities, say compare it to the Rawanda Massacres, Iraq Massacres, or Afghanstan massacres then make a comparative % of total life lost and thereof deduce that the killing in syria are insignificant compare to Rawanda, or the such...regime remains

or should we have dictator scale, and only compare killing and repression among dictator countries as it better represent the killing of its own population? Syria is better than zimbabwi, regime remains.

or should we just deflect to NATO and point to their brutality and massacres and say look at them, they are doing all the killing and its sanctioned, why when we do it everyone gets mad.it;s not fair they get away with it and we don't, it must be a conspiracy! boohoo Regime remains.

Or should we continue to believe the politics of the Syrian regime which is motivated to ensure its elite remain in power, okay now it is pro hizb. and Now hardcore against America and Israel (ignore their participation in the 1st Iraq war, their extradition program, their killing of Palestinians in Lebanon, their constant call for peace with Israel, and the constant subjugation of their own people) as such regime must remain.

the skeptics these days will not believe anything unless it's in HD and Blue Ray quality and being filmed Live showing Asad himself doing the killling, only then it;s true. And even then, maybe they deserved it.

but really, who the hell is Bashar to inherit a country and all the people in it, as if they are rocks and trees on his land? it must be nice to have an army to ensure he can remain the sole inherit, oh wait a minute this army is not used for this purpose, it is used to fight Israel, oh wait a minute it’s used to fight ummm….terrorists. that is it. That’s the long movie we are selling today. Hop in.

I can certainly understand hatred to the zionist entity, it is a shared sentiment across the spectrum, including myself, but you can not lose your morality, dignity, self-respect, ability to speak your mind, or protest and still think you can win the war against the immorality of the Zionist. you can not turn into a zionist derivative, to fight a zionist, because when that happens you become the inside enemy, and you’d label those who dare to say NO to the corrupt regime as traitors.

The simple fact is, when you lose your apathy, be prepared to marry the absurd.

ps: i find it amazing that not one point made by "clearandsound" was refuted by the trolls.

"Haythal Al-Malih and a whole contingent resigned from the leadership of the Syrian National Council. I mention that because it will unlikely be reported in the Western press."

One lousy comment about this man. He does not fit in the stereotype opposition figures Abu Khalil and the Assad Regime try to sell to the syrians and the world. He is an arab human rights advocate who was 7 years in Prison. Or in other words a normal dude. Every Syrian must see the series with him on the youtube channel: alhiwarchannel

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5zGPC7lhsU&feature=plcp&context=C4551ee1...

very good points. I wish I could articulate myself as good as you or the man behind clearandsound do. His Hero is Nasser. There is a youtube clip about Nasser talking before an audience about the sectarian nature of the regime right after the coup of Hafez al Assad. I check his Blog every day and never found a reference to it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhiZiwJuaFA&feature=related. He never and I must repeat it never refer to the regime as a sectarian regime while on the other hand he is eager to collect every sectarian chant of the opposition. Of course I know that the regime and his Backers send him Information regularly that fits in the Scenario that the Assad Regime portrays for the syrian population and world. It`s in the Handbook of Propaganda.

The opposition is more than amateurish. Just look at the Cicero of syria for example or how some exile syrians try to to organize events in third class Hotels and fourth class city halls in Germany or in University Lecture Halls with no audience to speak of .I was today in Düsseldorf in Germany where there were a few students working for this leftist anti-semite lyndon larouche and they asked me if I would know that the US is giving weapons to an Al Qaida uprising in syria. Seriously. Go to the guardian newspaper and check the comments or even to Al Jazeera Comments. The syrian population have no friends at all.

leftist anti-semite............you can only be an isreal-firster, the only people on earth who benefit from such an auspiciously timed implosion of all of it's enemies

I find it amazing that Angry has NOT read the article, or he would NOT said such strange things about it. But still he is posting long comments (and also assuming that someone's other (?) rant was NOT refuted - it was)

A blogpost in response to this article. Worth reading (Arabic content)

http://bit.ly/xpqrOJ

Come again, Comrade?

SOVIET propagandists during the cold war were trained in a tactic that their western interlocutors nicknamed “whataboutism”. Any criticism of the Soviet Union (Afghanistan, martial law in Poland, imprisonment of dissidents, censorship) was met with a “What about...” (apartheid South Africa, jailed trade-unionists, the Contras in Nicaragua, and so forth).

It is not a bad tactic. Every criticism needs to be put in a historical and geographical context. A country that has solved most of its horrible problems deserves praise, not to be lambasted for those that remain. Similarly, behaviour that may be imperfect by international standards can be quite good for a particular neighbourhood.

But it can be overdone—and in the case of Soviet propagandists, it was, and gave rise to subversive jokes For example: A caller to a radio program asks, “What is the average wage of an American manual worker?” A long pause ensues. Then the answer comes: “U nich negrov linchuyut” (“Over there they lynch Negroes”)—a phrase that, by the time of the Soviet collapse, had become a synecdoche for Soviet propaganda as a whole.

I can't believe the amount of comments that assume that AbuKhalil is a supporter of or apologist for Assad. This is about media bias - if fact not even that but about the media actually taking sides. This NOT their job.
Personally I never expect much from the BBC - it has always been an unreliable source of news beginning with its role as mouthpiece of the British empire, from patrician to post-war paternal voice of the middle-classes. Now it is over-run with sloppy, de-polticisied graduates who'll report whatever is handed them.
I only use it for weather reports which are biased to the South East of England where I live.

But if this is the point - media bias - it is very awkward coming from someone who writes for al-Akhbar - a newspaper that is AT LEAST as biased as BBC. I mean come on, do you read the Arabic site? It is bordering Tishreen newspaper in its bias.
I really think is it not merely Abu Khalil talking about media. He has been following a trend in writing in which he expresses discontent with the Syrian revolution - and instead of him taking part in it and contributing to intellectual criticism in order to make it better, he engages in arguments to de-legitimize it.

I would like A to cite ONE example of alAkhabr lies (BBC lies are very well known). ALL media are partial, only such as BBC like to pretend they are "objective", while they are but tools of imperialist/Zionist politics.

alAkhabr is OPENLY leftist - good for them, BBC is covertly (not so to me, of course, but for some dupes sure) imperialist. I prefer AA to BBC, at least they usually do not affront my intelligence

There are many lies in Al Akhbar. As'ad Abu Khalil, the anti-Sunni sectarian, don't give me that line that he criticises Shi'ites. He is much more anti-Sunni and he is trying to downplay the sectarianism of Hezbollah lately, ignoring its brazen hypocrisy attacking the Syrian opposition for the exact same thing that its Afghan and Iraq allies did, riding American tanks into power. The "Wahabis", whom As'ad loves to lie about, have hundreds of their shuyookh, who have condemned the treachery of the Saudi government for decades with Saudi dungeons filled with thousands of them. Of course, As'ad doesn't want to talk about this, because it doesn't fit his ridiculous narrative or prejudices. Show me one Hezbollah official or shaykh who has condemned the collaboration of their allies with the Americans in Afghanistan and Iraq, instead you have them hosting "thuwar Nato" like Chalabi, Ja'fari and Hakim, and don't give me the line that they are a "resistance party". The Palestinians were "resistance", but Amal waged a war on them in the 80's. Isma'il Haniyeh is "mumani'", yet he has been accused of being a traitor by many of Hezbollah's online supporters, ignoring their alliance with "thuwar Nato".
il

No, there is a LIE by Abu Umar about As'ad Abu Khalil being sectarian. He is NOT. He mocks and curse with the same eagerness Christian, Shia, Sunni, Judaic and all other bigots, and he defends ANY religion being a victim of bigotry - Christians and Sunni Muslims in occupied Palestine, Shia and Sunni Muslims in USA and Europe, he is strongly opposes ANY kind of anti-Semitism and so on. He blasts Hezbollah for their sectarian sins, and he pulls no punches about Amal. Of course, he is an atheist, so it is not a problem to him, unlike to sectarian bigot Abu Umar, who is quite happy with NATO/Zionist/GCC lackeys providing they belong to "his" sect.

Of course, Abu Umar did NOT show ANY lie by Al Akhbar.

Iraqi teenagers stoned to death for "emo" haircuts. TELL ME. If this happened in S.A. Would he write about it or ignore it like he did so far. Also he loves to show saudi beheadings with pictures. Where are the pictures in his Blog about iranians hanging terrorist or arab separatist. Where?.

kh "forgot" that this crime in Iraq is a result of his beloved NATO "liberation", the same kh wish to Syria.

By the way, just a day or two before As'ad ranted in his blog against Iran capital punishment and called for the overthrowing of Iran regime because of it. The difference is that USA(NATO) are very fond of Saudi royal "reforms" aka beheadings, unlike of Iran.

So, kh tells a lie, as usual

kh "forgot" that this crime in Iraq is a result of his beloved NATO "liberation", the same kh wish to Syria.

The liberation of NATO and Iran. With the aproval of your beloved russia that was fighting it`s own war against Terror in Chechnya.

As'ad is a sectarian and that is not a lie and his loyalties still lie with Hezbollah, even though he criticises them. There are many Jewish secularists and atheists who are among the most fanatical Zionists and believe that they have a divine right to Palestine. Even though As'ad criticises Hezbollah, it is nothing compared to his anti-Sunni sectarianism and he has been trying to lessen the sectarianism of Hezbollah in the last few months, ignoring their brazen hypocrisy of attacking the Syrian opposition for the exact same thing which their allies did in Afghanistan and Iraq. Also, he has lied hundreds of times on his blog and articles like denying that there are many Syrian Sufis fighting against the Asadi regime, which exposes his ignorance. Yes, I am sectarian, but I call out the "Sunni" traitors, unlike the hypocrites from Hezbollah, and we don't need lessons from you in confronting the treachery of the Sunni regimes as thousands of Sunnis have fought and confronted these regimes. It is As'ad buddies, Hezbollah who are totally silent on the treachery of their allies.

1) is Hamas a Shia group? As'ad supports them as well, as far as they fight Zionists,
2) Was George Habash a Shia? He is a hero of As'ad
3) Sectarian Abu Umar is ready to call the worst foes of Arabs and Muslims and the best friends of Zionists - ie NATO - to "liberate" Syria. It is NOT a hypocrisy , it is just a plain stupidity - a sectarian one.
4) Sectarian Abu Umar is one more time has NO proof for his words about As'ad "lies" (not mentioning Al-Akhbar ones). So, has Sectarian Abu Umar better proof than his words about As'ad "ignorance"? (so, lies OR ignorance?)
5) I am NOT going to teach Sectarian Abu Umar anything, because his sectarianism makes him unable to learn lessons of sectarianism being a weapon of choice for colonialists and Zionists.

It's great title for an Assad AbouKhalil's piece on Syria because when it comes to this revolution, he's excelling in 'rape denial.' I wish that he practiced what he preached. He wants activists and media to be less propagandist when all he does is advocate the Hisballah disappointing and appalling "There is nothing happening in Syria" view. Shame. And how his voice is irrelevant he is becoming to the changing Arab World.

A GROSS distortion of As'ad position. He criticized exactly the same words about " nothing happening".I see that pro-NATO/GCC/Zionist propaganda is really stupid if it could not find something better to post here :)

As'ad is forgetting his disinformation campaign against the Syrian uprising filled with numerous lies like referring to the FSA as the "Free Salafite Army" ignoring the numerous non-Salafi Sunni Syrian shuyookh supporting the uprising, many of them Sufis like Usamah ar-Rifa'i, Muhammad al-Yacoubi, etc. He also tries to lessen the sectarianism of the Asadi regime and Hezbollah forgetting the brazen hypocrisy of Hezbollah which is attacking the Syrian opposition and rebels for the exact same thing which their allies in Afghanistan and Iraq did, riding on American tanks into power, Iran allowing American warplanes into their airspace, Iraqi allies inciting the Zionist Neocons using Saddam's support for "Palestinian terrorism" and the fake WMDS, taking billions in American dollars and weapons, and Hezbollah is totally silent on this, nay it hosts the likes of Chalabi, Ammar al-Hakim and Ja'fari and then Hezbollah has the audacity to talk about foreign intervention and "thuwar Nato". Hezbollah is a Shi'a sectarian party par excellence, and the Shi'ite agenda comes before Palestine or mumana'a.

"riding on American tanks" and "Thuwar Nato", yes yes... dude, can you really change those lines. It is getting dull and ineffective. I am only trying to help you..(you seem like a nice man).

No, I won't change the bitter reality which you refuse to acknowledge because of your extreme sectarian prejudice. You cannot sweep the open and continuing treachery of your allies who rode to power on American tanks and the brazen hypocrisy of Hezbollah on this point and its deafening silence. Why is Hezbollah totally silent on the treachery of its Afghan and Iraqi allies?

No sound argument can possibly be made to substantiate the mere assumptions and false allegations you make here. Saddam collaborated with the Americans all the way from the time he assumed power to his war against the Iranian Revolution, that war which was designed by the Americans and their Khaliji instruments to demolish the Iranian Revolution which, just for your deficient information, immediately ordered the Israeli ambassador in Iran to go home and gave the Israeli embassy to the PLO. Whereas your Saddam liquidated the Palestinians who did not unconditionally submit to his dictates . So let us not make of Saddam a hero. Of course this must not be interpreted as an implicit support of those Chalabis and Hakims who conspired to liberate Iraq from Saddam by inviting the Americans to draw a constitution designed to fragment Iraq. These deserve the strongest condemnation. In other words Saddam was a fool and they were even more foolish and Chalabi was even a working for the Neo-Cons. And this is precisely the central argument of As'ad abou Khalil: the Ikwan in Syria want to bring NATO, as did Libya, to liberate Syria from the Assad regime. But the regime of the Ikhwan would be much more dictatorial. And it would justify its dictatorship by attributing it to the WILL of God. It will use the mosques to inculcate the Wahhabi ideology of Islam and liquidate and suffocate those who differ in their understanding of Islam. It will transform the vibrant Syrian society into a castrated Wahhabi society essentially similar to the Saudi society which is condemned to live in the Middle Ages. Given these choices, I will choose the more enlightened Assad regime which, despite its faults and deficiencies, remains the most democratic and the Arab World, especially now that it introduced radical reforms and invited the NATO oriented opposition to sit and talk. This opposition has proved to be unable to to talk because it does not have the permission fro the New Qatari emperor and the obsolete Saudi reactionary to talk. This opposition hs no will of its own. And this is why the opposition of Manna' has refused to subscribe to its NATO agenda.

And this is where you lose me, right there when you said "I prefer Assad regime". The fact is, you collection of sectarians and "leftists" (not all just, the oppurtunist ones) just cannot stomach the fact that the resistance is shouting Allahu Akbar when they defend the Syrians from baathist massacres. My answer to that is "Grow Up". Your dogma is making you toy with the lives of average Syrian people just for the sake of fitting all religious movements under one umbrella. Do I support the Syrian ikhwan? No. But is the Syrian ikhwan fighting on the streets of Homs, or elsewhere? No. The FSA is. And even the foreign fighters that have entered Syria are not advocating western interference (and this is confirmed by Al-Akhbar too). So who are you trying to fool with this boogeyman of western intervention? It's not really about NATO or the GCC for you, it's just about your partisan rejection about any religious element from the Sunnis. Fortunately, though, Syrian people and Syrian resistance won't take their cue from people like you. And since you like Bashar so much, I can't wait to see the look on your face once the Syrian people get their hands on him.

About Iran: How Many Persians Died for Palestine?

Nothing could be sillier than reminding us that the “Revolution” of Iran had kicked out the Israeli diplomatic staff from Tehran and replaced them with the PLO ambassador (Mr. Hani Al-Hassan.)

Arab men died for Palestine in four different wars. Heikal came up with roughly the following figures of dead Arab soldiers (in thousands): Egypt: 49; Iraq: 23; Syria 14; Jordan 12; Lebanon 2; PLO and Palestinians: 213. (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Algeria, Sudan: 10). The question is how many Iranians (revolutionary or not) died for Palestine since its occupation in 1948? Get all the archives in the world and tell me! … How many Palestinian refugees did pro-Iran and pro-Assad militias killed in Lebanon in the period of (1985-1987) in the so-called War of The Camps? This I can tell you!

If then President of Iran Hachimi Rafsanjani himself confessed to Chris Burry of ABS News in 1989 interview of receiving shipments of weapons from the US and from Israel to fight the Iraqi Army, then how dare you glorify your Iranian “Revolution” to the Arab masses?

In simple narrative, madam or sir the “Anonymous” here: the Iran-Contra scandal was exposed by the deputy of Imam Khomeini himself (Grand Ayatollah Ali Montazeri) who dispatched his son Mohammad to break the news to the world through the Lebanese periodical “Al-Shiraa” on November 4, 1986. We all remember that editor Hassan Sabra was attempted on his life for his famous disclosure. All close aides to Ayatollah Montazeri were persecuted and he himself spent the rest of his days under house arrest until he died in 2009!

Basically the puritanical pro-Palestine “revolutionary” Iran wanted to acquire Tow and Hawk missile systems, ammunitions, and other spare parts from the “the Grand Satan” and the “the Little Satan!” All the US officials who were involved in the dealings were prosecuted for violating the US Law prohibiting sending aides to the anti-Sandinista rebels (know as contras) in Nicaragua-they were not prosecuted, however, for selling weapons to Iran, because President Reagan then had lifted an earlier embargo imposed by President Carter during the Hostages crisis during the period of (1980-1981.)

Neither I nor any reasonable Arab can defend the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein’s records on human rights and none dreams of living in society that resembles what was his, in particular the example of the butchering regime of your Bashar Al-Assad whom you boast of as “enlightened,” “most democratic,” and who “introduced radical reforms!” Travesty at best, indeed!

Douri of Southern Lebanon,

BentJbail

Only minds like yours would find it silly to be reminded by the fact that it was thanks to the Iranian Revolution that the the privileged relation that the Shah had with the Zionist entity was terminated. It is not silly to remind you not to be silly and remember that , while your Arab friends Sadat and King Husain, with the blessing of your friends the House of Saud were engaged in establishing strategic relations with the zionists, Iran was proclaiming its non-recognition of Israel. Where were the Arabs when Gaza was demolished in the war on Gaza? What did Mubarak, and the Arab princes and kings do to help the Palestinians? And where were they when Sharon attacked and slaughtered, with your friends the Falanges of Bashir and Ja’ja’, the Palestinians in Lebanon in 1982? And where were they again in 2006? In fact they were imploring Israel to continue the war until Nasrallah is defeated. At least Iran and Syria supported the Resistance and Hamas not only morally but also materially and financially. You must be so hopelessly silly to ignore all these facts, facts that even the Israelis and the entire world recognize. So do not live in denial. In other words do not be silly. If you want to argue with me, you have to do two things first: (a) know the facts and (b) know how to argue and be focused and coherent in your argument. Using silly language to defend your indefensible and silly position will most certainly make you abysmally silly.
Do not tell me what Iran did to acquire arms to defend itself against the aggression of Saddam to destroy the young Revolution. Saddam acted on behalf of your Arabs who were simply implementing the orders of their masters, those masters who wanted to restore the Shah as they did when Mossadeg kicked the English out of Iran, established democracy and nationalized the petroleum industry that was monopolized and appropriated by the British. The Khaliji Arabs, your Arabs, have nothing against the Revolution as long as this revolution does not inspire their masses to rise to emulate the Iranian masses who had the courage to liberate themselves from the tyrant ( the Shah) and their oil and wealth from the imperialists.
Focus man. Focus. You lack focus. Do your homework before you open your mouth and use silly words instead of using sound arguments. My thesis is clear: any NATO inspired revolution is not a revolution. Your Arabs want the NATO to help the revolution in Syria as they did in Libya. Well, now the Libyans in Benghazi, the Libyans of Bernard Levy, want to divide Libya. I do not want to see this happen in Syria. You and your Qatatari and Saudi friends want Syria to be under the Ikhwanji Salafi, Zionist domination. This is the difference between your thesis and mine.

So what if Khomeini ended the Zionist presence in Iraq, his government also bought weapons from the Zionists in the millions during the Iran-Iraq war and the Palestinians in Lebanon also fought the Zionists bravely, yet a war was launched against them by Hezbollah's alles, Amal. Sadat, the Saudis, King Hussein aren't our friends and they were fought and condemned by many Sunnis, while Hezbollah supports Chalabi, Ammar al-Hakim,and Ja'fari. Syria, Iran and Hezbollah supported the Palestinians for their own interests, and they also had no problem turning against the Palestinians when it suited their own purpose. Why shouldn't we tell you about Iran's hypocrisy, and Iran had no problem supporting Nato in Afghanistan and Iraq, so don't hide behind the treacheries of the Arab leaders.

What Did Your King Do?

Acknowledging your inability to refute any point I raised in my previous input, and steering away from your trashy verbose and filtering out your gossips-like accounts of events, I came across a few points that are leftovers of the Iranian propaganda machine across time, which I will tackle one at time:

1- “And where were they[the Arabs] when Sharon attacked and slaughtered, with your friends the Falanges of Bashir and Ja’ja’[Geagea], the Palestinians in Lebanon in 1982[?]”:

The phalanges and their pro-Israel allies in Lebanon had been grateful to the forces of the late “king” Hafez Assad(Basher’s father,) for he had saved them from certain defeat at the hands of the pro-Arab forces of (The Lebanese Patriotic Movement and the PLO) in the hills of Mount Lebanon in 1976. It was the forces of Assad that collaborated with Phalanges in besieging Tell-AZATER and the poor enclave AL_NABAA in East Beirut-enticing a massacre (in late August 1976) of at least 4 thousand Palestinians!

Moreover, the forces of Assad (numbered then (1982) at 35 thousand soldiers) deployed in Beirut and along the coastal areas until Zaharani river abandoned (in the afternoon of June 7, 1982) all positions and withdrew eastward without fighting for the exception of single encounter with the invading Israeli army near the town of Bhamdoun –certainly to fool the little minded people.

“Where were the Arabs when Gaza was demolished in the war on Gaaz[?]”:

Simply the Arabs [rulers] failed the test and did not fight for Hamas nor did they fight for Yasir Arafat in 2002’s INTIFADA. They did not lie to their public, though...

Gooooooooood! Where were the Revolutionary Guards, the Basandras, and the Bassij? How many missiles did they lobby into Israel?

Where was hezbollah during the 2009 onslaught on Gaza? What did it do to stop the massacre at Genin Refugee camp in 2002? How many katyushas did the launch?

What did your king Bashar do in 2002? In 2009? Or in 2006? Did he attack all occupation fortifications in the Golan hills which his father lost to the enemy?
Did he scramble his jets to defend the Lebanese towns? Did he attack the enemy tanks in southern Lebanon? What did he do with the “mutual defense” treaty that he has had with Lebanon?

What did your king Bashar do when the Israeli attacked Deir- Alzor site during September 06, 2007 attack? Did he dare tell his people about it? Did he?

“Do not tell me what Iran did to acquire arms to defend itself against the aggression of Saddam to destroy the young Revolution”:

If you find it halal for Iran to acquire weaponry from Israel and the US to “defend” itself, then how come you have issues with anyone else doing something less devilish?

And then what about those who came from Teheran and entered Iraq on American tanks? Just tell me one of those 15 members of Mr. Bremmer Iraqi Ruling Council who was not received and blessed in person(including Ahmad Chalabi) by your Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in Tehran? Just one, please?

Your aim “buddy” is to continue enslaving the majority of the Arabs in Syria, Iraq, and the pro-Arab segments in Lebanon, all Palestinians, whereby facilitating the emergence of the New Persian Empire from Khourasan to Lebanon-God forbids. Your enemies, indeed, are the Arabs!

Douri,
BentJbail, Southern Lebanon

check this clip. This clip exposes iranian Hypocrisy towards shia Arabs and sunnis living in Iran. All Arabs must recognize Arabistan as a country.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bx2yJ6awXD0&feature=related

And watch this what As´sad Abu Khalil will never show in his Blog. He loves to show saudis beheading people. What about that As`sad Abu Khali. you will never write on this in your Blog. Here Iran hangs Arabs in the Public:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCRJ20PGH5k&feature=related

As'ad supports the Russian invasion of Afghanistan.

Abu Umar repeats NATO/GCC propaganda about "Russian invasion of Afghanistan". It was NATO/Saudi plot to bring terrorists from all over the world into Afghanistan to fight against progressive regime and threat the USSR borders in order to "trap" USSR here. Brzezinski admitted as much long before.

And As'ad prefers politics of this Afghan government regarding women's rights to politics of Saudi royals - what a sin :)

You glorify the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan (Yes it was an invasion, even As'ad admits that)? You glorify their warcrimes and landmines on Afghan land? Are you even aware the Communist regime in Afghanistan didn't even like the Soviets? Are you even aware that Moscow had a tough time dealing with them because they had their own different direction and refused to be mere clients?

That bloody invasion was an occupation by all means. And I'm glad Afghani resistance bodybagged those soldiers and sent them running. Now they're doing the same thing to the US. Am I advocating Taliban or the Northern Alliance? No. But I'm absolutely against any foreign imperialism, whether it's Russian, American, British, or w/e. You dogmatic leninists are just as bad as any other colonialist.

I do NOT "glorify" anything.
1) If it was"invasion" how As'ad could support it? The calling names is not good for caller's brains, it seems
2) USA DID glorified their fundamentalist pawns, saying them were alike "founding fathers" and other rubbish
3) If Afghan Communist regime did not like USSR, why they asked USSR for help? They did and USSR helped even though it was not much in USSR interest.
4) So-called "resisters" were on USA payroll - and thus a lackeys of USA. They also murdered a lot of civilians who were not as nutty fundamentalist as they were. Without USA arms and Saudi money they were not able to do anything. USA used them and then left them dry. After Communists were overthrown, Afghanistan were turned into a free-fire zone and it is still.
5) ANY one who is glad about such results for Afghanistan is a person without brains, heart or both.

1) Show me where As'ad has supported this invasion.
2) Ya, and so what? We know the hypocrisy of the US, it's nothing new. The soviets were just as bad
3) It was absolutely in USSR interest having a satellite in any country they could get their hands on. Why do you think they tried to manipulate pan-Arabists so much? Or the regimes in East Africa? Afghanistan's communist regime needed their aid to sustain survival, but even they got tired of soviet dictates in the 80s. This is fact.
4) So basically any resistance to the autocratic, bigoted communist occupation is US payroll? Exactly when did this payroll come in? You think that the US just magically established resistance to the Soviet occupation? No. This was a populist movement, and the US/Pakistani support only hastened its success. It wasn't a cause of it. That being said, the Afghanis have the full right to overthrow every and any occupation, and rule their own country without the threat of foreign interest. Just the fact that you glorify soviet occupation itself reveals the double standard and deceit you have.
5) I'm absolutely 100% glad the Afghans threw out the the Soviets. And I dare you to find any Afghan who disagrees. What came afterwards is irrelevant. The country is messed up and will need a long time to recover (thanks to the Russian, American, Pakistani, and Saudi damage in the country). But the first step is overthrowing occupation, and orientalists like you ;-)

1) It was NOT me to claim it
2) it was USA which in order to trap USSR in Afghanistan started to bring NON-Afghans to terrorize AFGHANS. Bin Laden was NOT an Afghani. USA USED such terrorists and their Afghan helpers to ruin USSR, which would NOT bring army into Afghanistan otherwise.
3) So, USA started the nightmare and gave their not-so-Afghan terrorists and their local helpers Stingers which decided the result of the war, among other things. Without USA/Saudi/Pakistani support there would not only be NO "victory" by terrorists, there would be NO war at all
4) So, the anon is being NOT too smart glorifying Afghans being used and then discarded by USA ONLY because USA wanted to fight USSR by others' blood. In short, Afghans were (and still are) victims of USA plot, and anon is glad of it?

1) Yes it was. But you're attributing your own dogmatic ideology to As'ad AbuKhalil. I'll ask you again, PROVE IT.
2) Oh, so every single member of the Mujahideen in the 80s was NON-Afghan? You really think that they were all foreign fighters? This isn't about Bin Laden, I'm talking about the homegrown anti-occupation resistance (which constituted the vast majority of fighters). Don't switch the subject.
3) The resistance existed long before American weapons & money came in, that's the fact that debunks your entire Occupation-glorifying theory. The Pakistani/US/Saudi interference only hastened the Afghan victory, but it would've came eventually anyway. Look at how NATO is getting wrecked now. If they couldn't control Afghanistan, neither could the Russians. And just like them, the oppressive soviets had little control of the country outside the cities.
4) Ah so it's the "Afghans" being used now? I thought you were talking about foreign fighters? It seems you can't keep your propaganda straight can you? The Afghan caused was used back then but that doesn't delegitimize the cause itself. You with your racist orientalism cannot seem to admit the fact that the Afghans started the resistance. It was NOT a foreign invention.

Just like white western europeans, you also glorify occupation (as long as it's russian) because you have an extremely condescending urge to "civilize" other people, as if Afghanistan cannot survive without Soviet style state-capitalism. How is that any different from liberals trying to spread their "democracy" and "freedom" to the world? They're all wolves, the Russians, Americans etc. And the soviets were doing the same thing to the Americans in Vietnam. They didn't care about the Arabs and their struggle against zionism either. They viewed the Arabs (and everybody else) as just pawns on their global chessboard. People like you particularly disgust me because at least people like me know the evils of the west and their allies. But people like you want to deceive us and pretend to care about the struggles of non-white people like Arabs and Afghans, etc, but you utilize the same racist and colonial mentality of western liberals, except you do it under the guise of your state-capitalism (I won't call it leftism because it's not)

Even AbuKhalil recognizes this, why do you think he's an Anarchist now?

Assad tortured for the US in the war on terror.

Yes. And it means anon is all for asking torture masters (USA) for help in "liberating" Syria? Nice idea, really!

Who said anything about Syria? Lmao, so anybody who's against Russian racist oppression is for the west? You sound just like zionists with that type of rhetoric: "If they're not with us, they're with Iran" hahaha

Let me make myself clear:
1) I'm absolutely 100% against Assad, and his baathist regime. If you're a true a leftist, you will be too.
2) I'm absolutely 100% against any NATO or US interference in Syria, or any other Arab country.
3) I support any resistance against Assad (and any other dictator) as long as its a genuine resistance.

You just love to attribute misinformation about people don't you? Just like how you do with As'ad AbuKhalil?

Your eloquence has dazzled me.! The coherence of your augments has amazed me!. Your logic has baffled me!Your genius of to decontextualize what I am saying overwhelms me! I hereby declare you he winner in this absurd debate in you which you posit that the FSA has nothing to do with with Qatar and Saudia and Turkey and Sarkozy and the NATO whom they are constantly begging to inervene and liberate them from Assad and subjugate them to Hamad and Netanyahu. Thanks for having enlightenedd me. Now I see the light. And thanks to Ass'ad Abu Khalil whose article had brought me in contact with your brilliant mind.

what about this: Iraqi teenagers stoned to death for "emo" haircuts from this Newspaper. Why As`sad Abu Khalil don`t write on it in his blog. Imagine this happened in S.A. Than of course he would write a whole Article about it. Do you understand that.

I´m born and raised in germany. And I speak a bad english. I must work on it. But my argumentation is simple to understand if you want to. Unless of course you don`t want to understand because you want to believe that for example there only armed Gangs and Wahabis operating in Syria. Or in the "holy" Intentions of Iran in regard to arabs in general.

Everything which you said can also be said of Hezbollah's Afghan and Iraqi allies who rode on American tanks into power. Show me one Hezbollah official who condemned this treachery? Alas, this will never happen as Hezbollah legitimises the treachery of its allies when it serves their sectarian interests. There are thousands of Sunnis who confronted the treachery of the "Sunni" regimes, is there a single cowardly official from Hezbollah who condemned the "thuwar Nato" whom they hosted and honored in Beirut. Kama tudeen tudaan.

Abu Omar’s Words Spoke Plenty

Most Arab intellectuals had failed to pinpoint with accuracy the essence of Hezbollah’s stand during the US occupation of Iraq. None had pinned Hezbollah to take side in Iraq while the brave Arabs (Sunni and Shi’a) revolted in various cities, especially between (2003-2007.) Hassan Nassrallah, (in a speech around August 12, 2005,) was urging Iraqis to “go along” with the “political process” engineered by Paul Bremmer (The occupation chief administrator of Iraq) to save their country!

Nassrallah could not alienate his patrons in Iran and take a stand against Badr militias (all Arabic -speaking shia elements of Persian ancestry run by Grand Ayatollah Muhammad Baker AL-HAKIM) which was allied with the occupation in the same exact manner Haddad and Lahd militias were allied to the Israeli occupation in Southern Lebanon. Such hypocrisy was not exposed to the average Arab man who has had plenty of defeats in modern Arab history.

Douri
BentJbail, Southern Lebanon.

This is to reiterate what I said in a previous comment. The essence of what I said and what I repeat now is this: all those who do not appreciate the intellectual and moral integrity of As'ad About Khalil are incapable of objective analysis. Either that of they are being recruited by to to deliberately distort facts and realities. Or they may be blinded by their blind, rigid, and fossilized religious ( Ikhwanji and Salafi) ideologies.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd><img><h1><h2><h3><h4><h5><h6><blockquote><span><aside>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

^ Back to Top