- Subscribe to PCF Networked Blog Daily Updates
- Subscribe to our Twitter / Google / Yahoo Daily Updates
Indeed, the
Baseless Broadcasting Corporation did not see "MIGs" bombing Aleppo, though it appears they weren't
even anti-tank SU-25's but rather training aircraft. Aero L-39 Albatros are also
not even "Russian-made" as the BBC claimed. The article below has
been amended to reflect this information.
When
big lies must be told, BBC is there. From Iraq to Afghanistan to Libya and now
Syria, BBC has paved the way for Western disinformation meant to manage public
perception around a war the public would otherwise never support or tolerate.
The
BBC, caught on record producing entire "documentaries" on behalf of
corporate-financier interests, has already been caught in immense lies
regarding the NATO-fuelled destabilization of Syria. This includes the
disingenuous use of photos from Iraq, to depict a so-called
"massacre" in the village of Houla, Syria.
Now,
as NATO's Al Qaeda mercenaries operating under the banner of the so-called
"Free Syrian Army" flow over the Turkish-Syrian border in an attempt
to overrun the city of Aleppo, BBC is there, attempting to manipulate the
public's perception as the conflict unfolds.
BBC's
Ian Pannell admits he rode with a convoy of militant fighters into Aleppo at
night. He claims many are desperate for the FSA to succeed, "clamouring
for freedom denied by their president," but concedes many others fear an
"Islamic takeover" and sectarian "division and bloodshed."
The latter of course, is self-evident, while the former is the repeated,
unfounded mantra of the Western media used to cover up the latter.
Pannell
poses amongst staged settings, claiming a single burning tire equates to a
barricade set up by the militants (see more on the use of burning tires as
propaganda here and here). He concedes that militants are taking to the
rooftops with sniper rifles in the districts they claim they control - begging
one to wonder where else terrorist snipers have been, and how many
"sniper" deaths have been mistakenly blamed on the government.
Covering
Up FSA War Crimes
Pannell
then attempts to cover up serious war crimes committed by the FSA militants he
is traveling with, claiming that men the FSA arbitrarily rounded up while
"seeking revenge" were "suspected Shabiha," harking back to
Libya's NATO-backed terrorist death squads rounding up and killing Libya's
black communities in orgies of sectarian genocide - which outlets like the BBC
defended as simply rebels targeting "suspected African mercenaries."
Pannell papers over what he just reported with the unqualified claim that there
is "little justice" on either side. What became of the FSA's victims
is not revealed.
Image:
From BBC's Ian Pannell - young men "suspected" of being
"Shabiha" are rounded up as the FSA "seeks revenge." BBC
fails categorically to explain how NATO-backed terrorists can
"liberate" a city that is admittedly pro-government - but it appears
it will be done through terrorism, brutality, mass murder, and intimidation.
BBC
reporter Ian Pannell's failure to report on the war crimes he admitted
witnessing, smacks of endorsement and complicity - an attempt to preserve the
romanticism the West has desperately tried to associate with their FSA death
squads. Pannell's report also confirms earlier descriptions of widespread
atrocities committed by the so-called "Free Syrian Army."
In
Libya, when the government of Muammar Qaddafi collapsed, and as Libyan
terrorists overran the last of the nation's security forces, entire cities of
Libya's blacks were overrun, their populations were either mass-murdered,
imprisoned, or forced to flee to refugee camps. These are people who had lived
in Libya for generations. A similar fate awaits Syrians should NATO prevail.
BBC
Confirms Syrian Army Use of Heavy Weapons ARE Proportional to FSA Threats
Pannell's
propaganda in Aleppo continues, where he admits FSA militants possess tanks
they allegedly "captured" from the Syrian military, but then, showing
video of what is either an anti-tank SU-25 aircraft or an Aero L-39 Albatros
training jet, rolling in with machine guns, claims it marks a "dramatic
escalation" and a sign of "desperation."
Image:
From BBC's Ian Pannell -FSA tanks are positioned in or around Aleppo, according
to BBC. The myth that NATO-backed militants are "lightly armed" is unravelling
as they attempt to take on large cities flush with cameras and media from both
sides. Eager propagandists attempting to portray victories have more than once
shown "captured tanks" in the hands of militants. Heavy militant
weapons beget heavy government weapons.
In
reality, the Syrian army is using force directly proportional to the threats
NATO-backed militants have presented. Tanks and heavy weapons mounted on
trucks, also featured in the BBC report, are legitimate targets for government
heavy weapons. The precision an SU-25 lends the battlefield, versus heavy
artillery bombardments when neutralizing FSA heavy weapons, is the only
conceivable way to minimize civilian casualties.
And
as the Western media is so fond of reminding its viewers, Aleppo is decidedly pro-government
and pro-President Bashar al-Assad. Therefore, to indiscriminately use
disproportionate force serves no purpose for the Syrian government - who has
gone through extraordinary lengths and placed its soldiers at great risk to
minimize damage to the city and its inhabitants - a city and population that
serves both an important role economically and culturally for all Syrian
people.
Remember
Fallujah, Iraq
A
government is put in a difficult position when armed gangs enter a city
"seeking revenge," as BBC's Ian Pannell puts it, when these gangs
have trucks mounted with heavy weapons as well as tanks in their possession.
For the West, to berate the Syrian government and portray its security
operations as unmitigated "brutality" is disingenuous at best,
especially considering the militants are there solely because of years of
financial, military, and political support from the US, Israel, and the Gulf
State despots.
Image:
Western hypocrisy - Fallujah, Iraq in 2004 was bombarded by artillery and
airstrikes for weeks leading up to the final invasion. When over 10,000 troops
entered the city, they were accompanied by tanks, and supported by heavy
artillery and airstrikes. When the West is subjugating others, heavy weapons
seems acceptable - but not when another nation attempts to defend itself from
admittedly Western-backed terrorists.
The
West might want to also revisit the lessons it learned from flattening the
Iraqi city of Fallujhah, twice. The US bombarded the city for weeks prior to
its final invasion in 2004, where over 10,000 troops entered with heavy
artillery and air support. Apparently it is acceptable for the West to
subjugate others using such tactics, but nations are prohibited from using
similar tactics to defend themselves. The Syrian uprising was a foreign-plot
stretching back as far as 2007, foreign militants admittedly flowing over the
border from across the Arab World, admittedly armed and funded by the US,
Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar.
The
Battle of Fullujah is considered a notch in the belt of Western military
prowess, while the West condemns Syria's attempts to defend one of its most
important cities from foreign subversion and destruction. While NATO believes
it can still win the geopolitical battle it is waging against the Syrian
people, it has already long lost the battle for moral superiority.
(activist post)
No comments:
Post a Comment