From Friends of Syria:
The primary “witness” that the mainstream media is using as a source in Syria has been caught staging fake news segments. Recent video evidence proves that “Syria Danny”, the supposed activist who has been begging for military intervention on CNN, is really just a paid actor and a liar.
[…]
By pointing out that the mainstream media is orchestrating their entire coverage of this incident, we are not denying that there is a tremendous amount of death and violence in Syria right now. However, we are showing that the mainstream media version of events is scripted and staged propaganda.
[…]
“Syria Danny” has also appeared on many other news programs, and every single time his story on specific events has changed.
This is not the first time that mainstream media has been exposed as propaganda, it happens all the time, especially during times of war.
Some of the most hyped up news images of our time surrounding war were not actually real but were simply public relations stunts, designed as psychological warfare operations.
Look, I’m no friend of Syria, and I don’t much care what happens there, save that if I had to root for one side it would be the government, in this instance, because the “rebels” are tied to al Qaeda, it was they who mishandled chemical weapons already, and it is they whom we should fear will get control of all those WMDs that didn’t exist in Iraq (though they’d been used there. Strange, I know!) but seem to have found a home in Syria somehow.
I feel badly that Assad is a homicidal nutjob. But then, so are many of the “rebels” — and they are intent on pan-Arab control of the world, which is something I’m not too big on, being a fan of both ham and women.
What is interesting here though is that the US, under this very Christian President, is using its media arm to run propaganda that helps the rebels, much as it moved for the ouster of Khaddafi and Mubarak.
Perhaps this is progressivism agitating for change and the fall of tyrants — yet another unthinking foreign policy move by rank amateurs we granted to power to reshape the world and perhaps permanently change the trajectory of world history.
Or perhaps it’s no accident — and the latter anti-western movement is actually a goal and not just a happy coincidence of their incompetence.
After all, the world hasn’t really had many Dark Ages of late. And that’s just, you know, racist.
SomeGuyNamedAngelo: How to Lose A War Before Even Starting It
Tell your Congressman and Senators: Just vote no.
I know that it is supposed to be a paid attack on Bush The Elder, but I am beginning to see some similarities to the movie version of “Wag The Dog”…
I denounce myself as a racist, of course.
http://i.imgur.com/4MZ9bqf.jpg
IS CNN staging it or are they being suckered (due to a lack of due diligence) by some activist group who hired the actor? And that’s a serious question. I am asking sincerely since both seem plausible.
On who used what it comes down to who do you believe if anyone. On our side there is an entire administration which has lied over and over to advance whatever is the agenda du jour. Then there is the press which has also been caught out over and over in their mendacity which always works to the lefty position that day.
So are we to trust the British press and/or intel, the French? Or are they simply also following an agenda and making it up as they go along?
And even if you believe them all, or not, why have the goalposts been moved to where “who used what, where” makes the case to go to war and not an argument over exactly what is in the national security interest of the nation and not what is in the personal interest of this administration/president and the Democratic Party’s electoral interests?
Kerry’s cosy dinner with Syria’s ‘Hitler’: Secretary of State and the man he likened to German dictator are pictured dining with their wives at Damascus restaurant before civil war broke out
baracky certified “genius”
Another Putin Snub: While In Russia, Obama Will Meet With LGBT Activists Instead of Meeting With Putin
heh, that’ll work if he’s looking for laughs anyhow. He’s quite the comedian, our Magnificent Emperor.
taiwan edition
Should the US attack Syria? Obama passes buck to Congress
Americans sometimes assume that everyone else sees innocent life as precious. There are elements of Islam that have no problem eliminating men, women and children that are from a different sect in the furtherance of their cause.
It would no shock me to find that rebel elements have cynically used chemical weapons against people that the rebels think are infidels, while staging the attack as being perpetrated by the Syrian military.
How would the rebels get their hands on chemical weapons? They could have seized syrian military installations containing caches of Iraqi WMD’s that got moved to Syria by Saddam. Or they could have seized Syrian made weapons. Lots of military bases have been looted.
Rep. Gohmert (TX) said the other day that he thought that it made no sense for the Syrian army to have set off chemical weapons, because they received zero benefit from their use in this instance.
The rebels would have gotten sympathetic press and some air support.
Obama passes buck to Congress
*** execute:
1. to carry out; accomplish: to execute a plan or order.
2. to perform or do: to execute a maneuver; to execute a gymnastic feat.
3. to inflict capital punishment on; put to death according to law.
4. to murder; assassinate.
5. to produce in accordance with a plan or design: a painting executed by an unknown artist. ***
Plan? What plan? Whose plan?
Order? What order? Order from who?
Of course he passes the buck, since he never had the substance of the buck to begin with: he had only blathering talk readily misunderstood abroad.
yea but did you like the part where baracky is playing syrian monte with assad?
To vote “no” is as good as to impeach. Obama will be so weakened that the Syrians, Iranians and the Russians are sure to try something else. And then Obama will be back in Congress to stop that Something Else.
Would you trust him with what happens after the Russians are embolded when you wouldn’t trust him now? The whole vote on Syria is really a vote of confidence in Obama. It is here where the British parliamentary system is clearer than the American.
The real issue is whether Obama retains confidence as commander in chief.
So I predict that whatever the vote in Congress over Syria, it will almost immediately segue to finding some way to get Obama to give up the Oval Office. What it will probably come down to is the Democrats sending a delegation to ask him to retire in exchange for a blanket pardon by his successor, probably Joe Biden, for not only himself, but all his key associates. And apart from immunity, any golden handshake he so desires.
The Syrian vote is the beginning. It is not the logical end.
link
– The Legacy media seems to be hell bent on winning the all-time subjective whoring award.
– Bunblefucks war mongering may be in danger:
((( DRUDGE POLL )))
9/2/13 19:30 PM ET
– Should the US attack Syria?
Thank you for voting!
YES 8.11% (6,199 votes)
NO 91.89% (70,247 votes)
Total Votes: 76,446
– Its early but I have a feeling its not going to change very much.
baracky et al super “genius”
The Prescience of the Duranty Prize
oh noes
Front Page of Egyptian Liberal Newspaper Claims Obama Is A Muslim Brotherhood Member, Says MB Leader Threatened To Release “Papers” Proving His Membership…
– Even if its absolutely true the Left, with the media to run cover at every opportunity, will just deflect all evidence with pejoritives like “birther” and a barrage of media propaganda and outright lies to cover Bumblefucks warring ass.
– Now that Jug ears is fully out of the closet on war mongering the Left has lost all credibility. The panic over at HuffNpoop is comical to watch.
baracky party animal: new, mb, communist, socialist, new black panther, soros, demonrat.
DiploMad sees (more or less) what’s what: “Congress: Vote NO On Syria Attack”
*** As stated at the outset, every action has a negative consequence. Having the President humiliated by Congress is not a good thing on the international scene, no matter how much he deserves it. This President, however, has said that he has the authority to act and that the situation in Syria is worthy of exercising that authority. If he really believes that, and is willing to “man up” and accept the consequences of his policy, then he should go ahead and strike Syria. He should deal with the consequences of whacking a hornet’s nest with a very small bat. Let Obama prove his mettle as a leader. ***
I differ with DiploMad on this, however. This isn’t a question of “humiliating” the President, but a question of whether the People of the United States are willing to turn over their sovereignty to him. He acts as if he is sovereign.
He is not. However, should Congress cede him our sovereignty, taking the United States to war simply on his say-so, then indeed, Obazma will be the boss-of-us, plain and simple.
This is in no way the manner in which the nation was conceived. We are the boss-of-him, and a proper rebuke to that effect now will be to the good, and not to the bad. Besides, ObaZma’s Excellent Syrian War Adventure is transcendently stupid, and will be productive of no good for the United States at all. None whatsoever. So, why not avoid the error?
Vote no.
follow up to 5:43
oh my baracky can pick them
Russian gay activist Alexeyev has huge new anti-Semitic meltdown on Facebook, Twitter
well he was against before he was for
When Alinskyites Collide: Anti-War Protesters Descend on John Kerry’s Townhouse
or vice versa who knows with clowns?
when it rains it pours
ICE Union head calls for congressional investigations into administration’s ICE policies
It would be a splendid outcome if the Russians were to helpfully put ObaZma in face to face communication with Eric Snowden . . . and thereupon the tremendous patriot Eric Snowden to persuade ObaZma to join him in staying in that great nation among the nations, Russia. There is no better place for the like of these.
i think the wave of eastern europe 1989 is now hitting the shores of dc.
They do not assume a messianic role; they are not
social ‘avant-garde’ or ‘elite’ that alone knows best, and whose task
it is to ‘raise the consciousness’ of the ‘unconscious’ masses (that
arrogant self-projection is, once again, intrinsic to an essentially
different way of thinking, the kind that feels it has a patent on some
‘ideal project’ and therefore that it has the right to impose it on
society). Nor do they want to lead anyone. They leave it up to
each individual to decide what he or she will or will not take from
their experience and work.
havel thepowerofthepowerless
My preference would be for the House to table the measure.
As in, it’s not worthy of an up or down vote at this point.
“My preference would be for the House to” ax baracky wtf is his mid east policy? are you mb or not? what with the xtians in egypt? ben gazi what be dat?
it is ok he his a harvard dude. spit.
My guess is that Putin and Russian intel decide to embarrass Obama on the eve of the G-20 with their own report that says Assad had nothing to do with a gas attack.
I think Obama wants Congress to say no. It pulls his fat out of the fire and he can blame Republicans in Congress for virtually anything that happens in the ME ever after. I think that’s why his request is almost outrageously open ended and yet has no real goals or strategy behind it much less a compelling US interest.
Also John Kerry is a political leatherman. He’s like a thousand tools in one. Every moment is zero with that twerp. History? What history? He doesn’t have a history. He’s a new Kerry every time you see him and somehow that means if you see him contradicting himself being a hypocrite or just repeating his stupid easy answers about “We must do X because nuance and complexity QED” then it’s your fault for remembering the last time you saw him.
If Congress tells BHO no, he loses hugely on Stage Foreign Policy, effectively gutting what little clout he still possesses. Our job is to spread that crap layer to Dems in general and to Hillary in particular. Note she’s kept her pie hole shut, the best option she has.
A good reporter, if one still existed, would waylay her and force a comment. She’s no worries, about that ever happening.
From instapundit:
http://cdn.pjmedia.com/instapundit/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/OBAMAYOURERACIST2.jpg
Buzzfeed memes seem unusually shrill against Obama’s Syria policy.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/bennyjohnson/the-best-of-the-internets-reaction-to-obamas-plans-to-bomb-s
The forthright argument currently being made in favor of giving the moron wrongdoer Obama the authorization and imprimatur of the sovereign American people to take the nation to war in Syria seems to be this: that if the Congress simply says no to yield the authority of the American people to Obama, then the United States will suffer as a result.
True. It will.
But then, that’s what does happen to wrongdoers after they have done injustice. And that’s properly so, if justice is to mean anything at all. Take a lesson from Aristotle, by way of Roger Kimball. Once that unjust act has been committed, it can’t be taken back. Suffering for it comes on of necessity. To pretend that suffering in consequence can be avoided somehow is to pretend by means of further wrongdoing. Things will be worse then. Further suffering is entailed. Better to own up and take the medicine, as well as quit doing wrong to start.
Vote no.
Nancy-Pants announced she is cool with bombing Syria to save it. She also recounts a conversation she had with her five year old grandson about “the necessary war.” Get that people? We are like a five year old and need old Nanny to explain to us.
I’m inclined to agree, which is why I would table it, pending further Congressional inquiry.
But I don’t cry tears of orange.
It’s like that scene from The Godfather where Michael* asks Vito, “won’t they take that as a sign of weakness?” and the Don matter-of-factly replies “it is a sign of weakness.” Obama’s a bigger cowboy than Chimpy McHitler ever was.
*I would swear that scene was between Don Corleone and Tom Hagen after the Don made peace with the Tataglias, but the internet says it’s in the Don’s garden, and only in the Family Saga edit. And we all know the internet wouldn’t lie.
I believe the interwebs are lying there, Ernst. I recall that conversation as being between the Don and Hagen, as well.
It seems as though many people think along those lines Ernst (table the motion). I’ve seen people suggest that a vote of “present” would suffice. Further inquiry though? Is there any doubt at this point that Obama hasn’t a clue how to conduct a peaceful foreign policy, let alone a warlike foreign policy?
Seems to me we’re already possessed of all the information we need to come down squarely at “NO”. And that, being sovereigns, we are bound to decide, rather than put off what is necessary. Otherwise, don’t we run the unacceptable risk that the Republicans will simply go along (thoughtlessly) to get along?
Vote no.
I think further inquiry might very well be warranted when people are seriously, and somewhat credibly, arguing that the rebels gassed themselves* in order to force U. S. intervention.
*If Syrian civilians can indeed be associated with the Al Qaeda lead rebels.
Also I see the argument “Obama made this fubar situtation. Then let him own it.”
The problem with that is, Obama doesn’t “own” anything, either literally taken or figuratively taken. We own it. We own Obama. Mistake? Hell yes he’s our mistake. Time to pay up though. And we can’t and shouldn’t escape the consequences of our error. So may we learn again what was once known. We erred, we pay.
Anybody else repelled by the orgy of mental skritching and twerking over the symbolic meaning of a symbolic vote over whether or not to take symbolic action in response to a very real act of mass murder carried out against a civilian population?
So Obama’s proposed symbolic action is not going to be an act of war in fact? That’s some seriously clever gyration right there, if it’s to be pulled off.
Anybody else repelled by the orgy of mental skritching and twerking over the symbolic meaning of a symbolic vote over whether or not to take symbolic action in response to a very real act of mass murder carried out against a civilian population?
Why should I be? I’ve been inured to such behavior by a lifetime of UN resolutions.
Just overheard on radio news: John Kerry: “The President and I are not asking America to go to war.”
Oh, well then, everything’s fine. Attacking another nation isn’t an act of war.
And drinking a quart of bourbon isn’t imbibing alcohol.