by Stephen Lendman
On March 11, Assad repeated what he's said numerous times. He's "ready to support any honest effort to solve the situation."
He told former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan (Ban Ki-moon's envoy appointed with Washington's approval) that doing so depends on accurately assessing conditions on the ground. It also requires admitting Syria's dealing with Western-backed insurgents.
As a result, he’s obligated to protect Syrians from heavily armed gangs. Violence won't stop until chaos, instability, and terrorism they cause ends.
Annan came to Syria on a mission. A reliable imperial tool, his one-way settlement terms involved Assad accepting Western demands.
by Stephen Lendman
Like all US major media scoundrels, longstanding New York Times policy features one-sided pro-Israeli reports, commentaries, and opinions.
Its coverage of Israel's latest Gaza aggression is one of many examples. More on that below.
On June 1, 2010, in response to Israeli commandos massacring Freedom Flotilla humanitarian aid activists the previous day, a Times editorial headlined, "Israel and the Blockade," saying:
"The supporters of the Gaza-bound aid flotilla had more than humanitarian intentions (in mind). The Gaza Freedom March made its motives clear in a statement before Monday's deadly confrontation: A violent response from Israel will breathe new life into the Palestine solidarity movement, drawing attention to the blockade."
In other words, the editorial outrageously suggested activists wanted violence, provoked it, and welcomed it when it came. In fact, they wished only to deliver vital humanitarian aid peacefully. Knowing Israel's likely response, they risked their lives heroically doing it. The Times portrayed them as agitators.
Your donation helps provide a place for people to speak out.
Not tax deductible. email@example.com
|<< <||Current||> >>|