The extent of the web of deceit related to the U.S. campaign to justify regime change in Syria back in 2012 - the height of which was the infamous false-flag poison gas attack in which hundreds of actual civilians were killed or maimed - keeps expanding:

[url=https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/04/16/nbcs-conduct-richard-engel-kidnapping-serious-brian-williams-scandal/]NBC’s Conduct in Engel Kidnapping Story is More Troubling than the Brian Williams Scandal[/url] | Glenn Greenwald, [i]The Intercept[/i]
[quote]Nobody can blame [NBC star international reporter Richard] Engel — a courageous reporter, fluent in Arabic — for falling for what appears to be a well-coordinated ruse. Particularly under those harrowing circumstances, when he and his fellow captives believed with good reason that their lives were in immediate danger, it’s completely understandable that he believed he had been captured by pro-Assad forces. There is no real evidence that Engel did anything wrong in recounting his ordeal.

But the same is most certainly not true of NBC News executives. In writing his new account, Engel does not mention the most important and most incriminating aspect of [i]The New York Times[/i] reporting: that NBC officials [i]knew[/i] at the time that there was reason to be highly skeptical of the identity of the captors, but nonetheless allowed Engel and numerous other NBC and MSNBC reporters to tell this story with virtually no questioning.

In [url=http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/16/business/media/nbc-news-alters-account-of-correspondents-kidnapping-in-syria.html?referrer=&_r=0]a very well-reported article this morning[/url], The NYT states that “Mr. Engel’s team was almost certainly taken by a Sunni criminal element affiliated with the Free Syrian Army, the loose alliance of rebels opposed to Mr. Assad.” That rebel group is “known as the North Idlib Falcons Brigade” and is “led by two men, Azzo Qassab and Shukri Ajouj.” Amazingly, NBC executives knew that this was at least very possible even during Engel’s kidnapping, and yet:
[i]
NBC executives were informed of Mr. Ajouj and Mr. Qassab’s possible involvement during and after Mr. Engels’s captivity, according to current and former NBC employees and others who helped search for Mr. Engel, including political activists and security professionals. Still, the network moved quickly to put Mr. Engel on the air with an account blaming Shiite captors and did not present the other possible version of events.
[/i]
In other words, NBC executives at least had ample reason to suspect that it was anti-Assad rebels who staged the kidnapping, not pro-Assad forces. Yet they allowed Engel and numerous other NBC and MSNBC personalities repeatedly and unequivocally to blame the Assad regime and glorify the anti-Assad rebels, and worse, to link the hideous kidnapping to Iran and Hezbollah, all with no indication that there were other quite likely alternatives. NBC refused to respond to The NYT‘s questions about that.[/quote]

Meant to post yesterday but got too wrapped up in some thread-stuff-debugg(er)ing:

[url=www.nytimes.com/2015/04/20/world/europe/italy-migrants-capsized-boat-off-libya.html]Hundreds of Migrants Are Feared Dead as Ship Capsizes Off Libyan Coast[/url] | NYT

Comment fron an NC reader:
[quote][b]barrisj[/b]
[url=http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2015/04/links-42015.html#comment-2433753]April 20, 2015 at 11:36 am[/url]

With a complete absence of irony, Jim Yardley, writing in this morning’s NYT about the latest “boat people” sinking in the Mediterranean, reports that the bulk of those drowned were refugees from Libya, and that “European leaders” were calling for “global action to stabilise Libya”. Wait, weren’t these the same “European leaders”‘ who called for regime change four years ago, and relished the sight of Gaddafi being executed by “pro-democracy” militias? And these same “European leaders” are now wringing their collective hands at the mass anarchy that is now contemporary Libya, and whingeing on about “the humanitarian crisis” that has engulfed that failed country. Reap as ye shall sow, fools.[/quote]

Body Counts, Drones, and “Collateral Damage”
 

[URL="http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175990/tomgram%3A_engelhardt%2C_counting_bodies%2C_then_and_now/"][SIZE=3]Who Counts?[/SIZE][/URL]
Body Counts, Drones, and “Collateral Damage” (aka “Bug Splat”)
By Tom Engelhardt
[QUOTE]In the twenty-first-century world of drone warfare, one question with two aspects reigns supreme: Who counts?
In Washington, the answers are the same: We don’t [I]count[/I] and [I]they[/I] don’t count.
The Obama administration has adamantly refused to count. Not a body. In fact, for a long time, American officials associated with Washington’s drone assassination campaigns and “[URL="http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/apr/25/us-drone-program-secrecy-scrutiny-signature-strikes"]signature strikes[/URL]” in the backlands of Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Yemen claimed that there were [URL="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/12/world/asia/12drones.html"]no bodies to count[/URL], that the CIA’s drones were so carefully handled and so “precise” that they [URL="http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2013/04/11/secret-us-documents-show-brennans-no-civilian-drone-deaths-claim-was-false/"]never produced[/URL] an unmeant corpse -- not a [URL="http://droneswatch.org/2013/01/20/list-of-children-killed-by-drone-strikes-in-pakistan-and-yemen/"]child[/URL], not a parent, not a [URL="http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/175787/tomgram%3A_engelhardt,_washington%27s_wedding_album_from_hell/"]wedding party[/URL]. Nada.
[/QUOTE]------------------------------------------

[QUOTE]That era ended on April 23rd when President Obama entered the White House briefing room and [URL="https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/04/23/statement-president-deaths-warren-weinstein-and-giovanni-lo-porto"]apologized[/URL] for the deaths of American aid worker Warren Weinstein and Italian aid worker Giovanni Lo Porto, two Western hostages of al-Qaeda. They had, the president confessed, been obliterated in a strike against a terrorist compound in Pakistan, though in his comments he managed [URL="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/apr/29/cias-torture-experts-now-use-their-skills-in-secret-drones-program"]not to mention[/URL] the word “drone,” describing what happened vaguely as a “U.S. counterterrorism operation.” In other words, it turned out that the administration was capable of counting -- at least to two.

And that brings us to the other meaning of “Who counts?” If you are an innocent American or Western civilian and a drone takes you out, you count. If you are an innocent Pakistani, Afghan, or Yemeni, you don’t. [/QUOTE]

o [url=https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/secret-pentagon-report-reveals-west-saw-isis-as-strategic-asset-b99ad7a29092]Pentagon Report Predicted West's Support For Islamist Rebels Would Create ISIS[/url] | INSURGE Intelligence

o Fascinating strategic/political/sectarian analysis of recent events (as opposed to "recent western propaganda memes") in norther Iraq, by Pando's Gary Brecher:

[url=pando.com/2015/06/17/the-war-nerd-a-glorious-victory-for-once/]The War Nerd: A Glorious Victory, For Once![/url] | PandoDaily

So, given that the US and its Gulf "Allies" seem to have expended much effort and money to create ISIS (while disavowing the same "radical" propensities that make it an effect tool against Syria's Assad and ready-made pretext for military involvement in Iraq and Syria), does this defeat of ISIS in the Kobane region by an unexpected alliance between the Kurds and nascent Assyrian-Christian militias mean the U.S. will soon be bombing and droning the Kurds and Assyrians in order to protect its interests?

[QUOTE=ewmayer;404364]

So, given that the US and its Gulf "Allies" seem to have expended much effort and money to create ISIS (while disavowing the same "radical" propensities that make it an effect tool against Syria's Assad and ready-made pretext for military involvement in Iraq and Syria), does this defeat of ISIS in the Kobane region by an unexpected alliance between the Kurds and nascent Assyrian-Christian militias mean the U.S. will soon be bombing and droning the Kurds and Assyrians in order to protect its interests?[/QUOTE]

When the war started in Syria, it was not a civil war, it was the spill over of Iranian warfare against Saudi-Arabia. The Iranian meddling in Bahrain was the reason the Saudis said 'enough is enough'. They decided to reciprocate in Syria where a large Sunni majority was suppressed by an Iranian proxy. (And not only there). The Obama administration, never missing an opportunity to stack colossal failure in the Middle East upon colossal failure, decided to sit on the fence and not deal with the Iranian threat, hoping to win some standing in Tehran.
After all pro western and moderate forces were defeated or sidelined did the US understand it had to defend its interests there, and that others there were out to harm US allies. The US now supplies weapons, intelligence and logistics to several factions, basically all that are willing to cooperate to at least some extent and as far as they are willing to fight those who work against us.

We do not have real good partners left any more, because we abandoned them earlier on, and are now forced to work with less pretty partners. That in itself is the best possible approach now. The Kurds and Assyrians are amongst our better allies, there are countless groups vying for some control and we now support a number of them. We will work with ISIS to throw Assad out, but we will work with the Kurds and the Assyrians to throw ISIS out. It is all a matter of doing the right thing in the right time to the right extent.

Of course the outcome will be some group of thugs getting into a position of power and turning against us. But since that is the best possible outcome at this stage we should not be afraid to work towards such an outcome. It is my appreciation that the US military staff is dedicating a fair amount of resources to defend western values in a reasonable way in this theatre. It only could have been incredible much better if the Obama administration would have allowed this to happen so many years earlier on. The ayatollahs will never trust a country with free elections, and rightly so from their perspective.

[QUOTE=tha;404676]The Obama administration, never missing an opportunity to stack colossal failure in the Middle East upon colossal failure, decided to sit on the fence and not deal with the Iranian threat[/QUOTE]

Please describe your conception of what "dealing with the Iranian threat" entails, who would be doing the brunt of the "dealing" and suffering the consequences (both immediate and longer-term "blowback" variety) and why e.g. the ongoing Saudi program to spread its radicalist program of Wahhabist Islam globally pales as a threat in comparison. Because the above sounds like your standard regurgitation of the Israeli party line to me. The Israelis of course have huge incentive to foment chaos in the Muslim countries of the ME - keep 'em fighting each other, classic diversionary tactic.

For example, in case you hadn't heard, it wasn't the Iranians behind the 9/11 atrocities. The 28-page chapter pulled from the 9/11 commission report as "too incendiary for public consumption" (paraphrasing several US congressmen who have seen the chapter in question but are sworn to secrecy about its details) wasn't about Iranian support for those acts of terrorism, but rather Saudi.

[QUOTE=ewmayer;404678]Please describe your conception of what "dealing with the Iranian threat" entails, who would be doing the brunt of the "dealing" and suffering the consequences (both immediate and longer-term "blowback" variety) and why e.g. the ongoing Saudi program to spread its radicalist program of Wahhabist Islam globally pales as a threat in comparison. Because the above sounds like your standard regurgitation of the Israeli party line to me. The Israelis of course have huge incentive to foment chaos in the Muslim countries of the ME - keep 'em fighting each other, classic diversionary tactic.

For example, in case you hadn't heard, it wasn't the Iranians behind the 9/11 atrocities. The 28-page chapter pulled from the 9/11 commission report as "too incendiary for public consumption" (paraphrasing several US congressmen who have seen the chapter in question but are sworn to secrecy about its details) wasn't about Iranian support for those acts of terrorism, but rather Saudi.[/QUOTE]

As far as Syria is concerned, dealing with the Iranian threat is being done now, at least to some extend. This just could have been started much earlier on, when many more allies were around.
If you want to read a book about the dangers of Saudi-Arabia you may want to buy 'an end to evil'. Yes, we have to deal with Saudi-Arabia as well, but only after we have eliminated the ayatollahs desire to overthrow the kingdom.

For Israel the status quo in Syria, when Assad was still undisputed in power, was acceptable. The current situation and uncertainties are obviously not in it interests. Israel has proven to be a very constructieve power when dealing with other Middle East states, which became visible to the public when dealing with Egypt, Jordan and other countries.

Your rant on 9/11 makes me feel you want to attribute statements or thoughts to me that I never made.

[url]http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/08/14/aipac-headed-for-defeat-but-thats-not-why-its-bad-for-the-jews/[/url]

[QUOTE=ewmayer;408194][url]http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/08/14/aipac-headed-for-defeat-but-thats-not-why-its-bad-for-the-jews/[/url][/QUOTE]

This is absolutely a great article. The statements are so absurd and the writer does not try to hide his beyond believe prejudices. It could serve very well for teaching high school children about errors in reasoning because they are so obvious and indisputable.
For psychology students it could serve as an example text indicating the mental state of the writer. I can already see the questions if it would be used as an examination text.

[QUOTE=tha;408507]This is absolutely a great article. The statements are so absurd[/QUOTE]
Examples?
[quote] and the writer does not try to hide his beyond believe prejudices. It could serve very well for teaching high school children about errors in reasoning because they are so obvious and indisputable.[/quote]
Examples?
[quote]For psychology students it could serve as an example text indicating the mental state of the writer. I can already see the questions if it would be used as an examination text.[/QUOTE]
More vague ad hominem argumentation - you were speaking of errors in reasoning, and instead of substantiating that claim (or even making the slightest effort to do so), provided us an example of a classical logical fallacy.

Come back when you actually have an argument based on facts.

[url=www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/08/aumf-isis/402017/]The Constitution and the War on ISIS[/url] - The Atlantic

I'd be interested in other readers' takes on this.