Another talking point recently integrated into the discourse is found in the last paragraphs:
"The last partial ceasefire, in mid-September, failed a few days after entering into force when a humanitarian convoy was lethally attacked."
Although Russia has denied the charges, it's being treated by the MSM as the obvious culprit. As we already mentioned, the attack on Deir-Ezzor happened two days earlier and the US immediately took responsibility for the "mistake". [15]
While honest journalism would denounce the audacity of a government whose officials advocate for human rights and point fingers at Russia for alleged war crimes while at the same time supporting terrorism as a manner of proxy army against Syria, MSM instead acts as a sort of PR asset for power. It's not surprising to find out very recent cases when high-ranking diplomats and politicians are caught lying to the public, even about supposed war crimes, to be then whitewashed by media giants as the New York Times or the BBC. [16] This is the kind of journalism available for most people in the world.
Samantha Power also leaves out the bombing on Yemen by its Middle East 'partner in crime' Saudi Arabia, with more than a billion in arms sold to them in 2015 by the US, as well as intelligence and aerial refueling for its jets, which to some accounts (The Yemen Data Project) hit as many civilian targets as military. The UN puts the death toll of the 18-month war at more than 10,000.
Between 2009 and 2015 the US and the Saudis have signed deals for (potentially) 100 billion dollars. [17]
While opinion pieces in MSM tend to offer a deeper, and sometimes even more truthful look into international conflicts, the facts covered only make it into the official narrative if they contribute to the ideas listed below; otherwise they are buried under whatever narrative is repeated non-stop as the truth.
A closer look into MSM coverage on Syria expose some of the specific messages that compose the "civil war/peaceful protestor" narrative (as mentioned in the first subtitle of the analyzed article) aligned with US interests. Many of them are easy to find in this wholesale dumbed-down piece of journalism by the BBC / El Comercio, and have been exposed by independent journalism on a daily basis for the last years:
The uprising was purely civilian; terrorists groups entered the ongoing conflict later, taking advantage of the situation.
The regime started the conflict by using violence against peaceful protestors, who then started "arming themselves" to fight back.
The US got involved in Syria in response to alleged chemical attacks by Assad's forces (2013).
The US and allies fund, arm and train rebel "moderates" only.
Religious sectarianism drives both pro-Assad and anti-Assad forces in what seems to be a Sunni vs Shia/opposition vs government "civil war", and not a fight to get rid of and international coalition of terrorist factions decimating a secular society.
With complete disregard for international law and its institutions, the "criminal regime" must be toppled by an international coalition in its "Responsibility to Protect" civilians.
Rebels and terrorists are visibly separated and sometimes fighting against each other.
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
