We will probably never know the truth about what happened at Houla – at least, not before the regime-changers in Western capitals and their Saudi allies kick the propaganda ball over the goal post.
Remember that the aim of war propaganda is to create a general impression, not to establish the truth (or falsehood) of any particular disputed fact. The idea is to hurl as many accusations against the target as rapidly as possible, without regard for their source, so as to generate the kind of murkiness where the truth can be created, rather than merely reported. It's all about establishing a narrative, and any bothersome facts cropping up and getting in the way are hurriedly kicked aside.
Justin Raimondo comes at it from a Libertarian approach.
It is claimed the Syrian army bombarded Houla, and yet the photos shows people with their throats cut, and shot in the head at very close range: this seeming contradiction required a revision of the "activist"-supplied narrative, which was duly changed to depict government-controlled "militias" coming into the village after the bombardment. Yet even this hasty revisionist version didn't cover all the bases: for example, one of the victims was a candidate in Syria's recent elections who had refused to stand down at the demand of opposition "activists." He, too, was brutally murdered, and the question is – by whom?
I've seen this picked up by pro-Assad propagandists as that the people killed were pro-Assad. However, Justin mentioned just one person. The people who did the killing, is it expected by Justin or anyone that they would take the time to perfectly discriminate? I reserve judgment.
Justin Raimondo has some valid points/questions, but the idea that the US is driving the Saudis is highly unlikely. The US is not monolithic even at its "top." Wealth, power, and control are the aims, but those concepts are a mixed bag when one looks at the megalomaniacal elitists.
At the other end of the "spectrum," there are the Trotskyists.
In "Conflict over Syria threatens Lebanon's stability," Jean Shaoul lays out some of the complexities of the greater region. Keep in mind while reading it that even though Assad backed away from Baathism, there's still a core there that is anti-capitalist, just as Qaddaffi (as nutty and often utterly self-centered as he was) was.
What's democracy to do with it all? Well, if the crony capitalists own the mass media, which they do, then nothing other than wishful thinking.
Today's column brings to mind Wesley Clark's 2007 revelation, proffered in a speech to the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco, that he was privy to a classified US government plan to overthrow seven governments – Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Sudan, Somalia, and Iran. Gen. Clark told his audience this was prefigured by a 1991 conversation he had with Paul Wolfowitz, in which the then-Undersecretary of Defense gave the project a timeline of five years. While they may be a bit behind schedule, it looks like the War Party is today on the brink of success.
The Soviet Union had been on the radar screen (fell in 1991). Re-rising Russia is on that screen now the more Putin "strengthens" it. The real target though is China -- has been all along, ever since Mao. The Chinese government will become fully "Westernized" or be attacked long before China can really rival the US. The Pentagon and CIA, etc., will continue telling the American people that China is stronger than it is and on a trajectory to overtake the US in every way. The US goal will be regime change in China to leadership that will be as close to the US as the closest NATO member. The issue though is nuclear war. If the US can't change China short of that, the world will become unfit long before Global Warming can finish melting Greenland.
It is such a shame that the top elitists aren't smart but rather extremely stupid.
Anyway, neither laissez-faire capitalism nor dictatorial socialism will cut it. Wake up or be damned.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)