Top Leaderboard, Site wide
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
February 25, 2017 Disclaimer: Please read.

Statements and opinions expressed in articles are those of the authors, not Truthdig. Truthdig takes no responsibility for such statements or opinions.

Hell No
The Other 43 Percent

Truthdig Bazaar
Tiger Bone & Rhino Horn

Tiger Bone & Rhino Horn

Richard Ellis

more items

A/V Booth
Email this item Print this item

Syrians ‘Radicalized by Terror’

Posted on Feb 21, 2012
Still from PBS

Syrian forces are shelling Homs while across the country, reports ITN’s Jonathan Rugman, “state brutality has failed to crush” the popular uprising.

AP reports on heavy shelling:

PBS / ITN on Syria’s radicalized civilians:

Watch Food and Water Scarce in Embattled Syrian City of Homs on PBS. See more from PBS NewsHour.


Square, Site wide

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

Join the conversation

Load Comments
blogdog's avatar

By blogdog, February 24, 2012 at 12:43 am Link to this comment

Being asked what I think - to be clear, not a belief, rather an opinion
Syria is crumbling before our eyes, and a thoroughly modern nation is likely to
be set back many decades.

this is absolutely correct and moreover, it’s
exactly what the global finance oligarchs want and it is exactly that for which they
are paying to have executed. And, that (again, IMHO) is the analytical conclusion
Mr. Rosen misses.

Report this

By heterochromatic, February 23, 2012 at 9:18 pm Link to this comment

dog, what do you think of this thing written by one of my kid’s friends?

Report this
blogdog's avatar

By blogdog, February 23, 2012 at 1:57 pm Link to this comment

not in the least - never share beliefs - again, who cares and what difference do
they make? - citations of facts and analyses and personally authored analyses
from time to time - of course, make of any of it what you will - I’ll never ask
anyone what they do or do not ‘believe’ about any posting or article herein - if you
don’t agree with that statement, cite something that confirms otherwise - and if
you really do want to be ‘done with me’ - that’s fine too

Report this
IMax's avatar

By IMax, February 23, 2012 at 12:50 pm Link to this comment

blogdog, - “belief based polemics are phony”


Sort of negates any point in all you write here, doesn’t it?

Report this
blogdog's avatar

By blogdog, February 23, 2012 at 12:19 pm Link to this comment

thought you were “...done with me…” - never mind - question all ‘accounts’ and all video footage
should be analyzed for signs of forgery, plus hospital records and doctor
accounts - digital forgery is pretty easy these days; hard to say what’s real… but
to be sure I will not be asking anyone what they do or do not ‘believe’ - as
previously noted: belief based polemics are phony

citations of media fraud e.g.

[Syria] (Unknown date) Terror Activists prepare a fake scene for Al Jazeera

Fake Syria Suicide Bomb Scene - Security Plant Bags of Blood to be Splattered -
Midan 6-Jan-12

Arabic speakers - wide selection:

BBC claimed this was an honest mistake - again, will not ask if anyone
‘believes’ them -
BUSTED!!! Media Caught Showing FAKE FOOTAGE of Green Sq., Lybia - That is
the Indian Flag!.mp4

Report this
IMax's avatar

By IMax, February 23, 2012 at 11:26 am Link to this comment


You make an interesting point.  In every account I’ve read Scott Olsen was struck by a police projectile in Oakland, “demonstrators said.”

Report this
blogdog's avatar

By blogdog, February 22, 2012 at 9:09 pm Link to this comment

wrong - MSM lack of confirmed sources is overwhelming - never balanced by
anything contrary - clearly agitprop - by comparison:

Syria’s ‘Arab Spring’: failed or hijacked?
4 FEBRUARY 2012 - 95 Comments


I have just returned from Syria. Like so many who care about what happens
there, I went because I wanted to see, listen, ask questions, overhear
conversations, watch dedicated 24-hour television propaganda channels (both
for and against the government), read graffiti, and experience what sort of
realities Syrians are now creating for themselves. There are daily flights out of
the UAE. My flight was full.


Syria’s National Coordination Committee for Democratic Change readily
joined other political and human rights activists in cooperating with the AL
Observer Mission, but they reject any contact with the expatriate Syrian
National Council or the Syrian Free Army of alleged defectors from the Syrian
security forces that is fed with arms via Lebanon and given refuge in Turkey.

Massive reform of the political process is non-controversial in Syrians’
conversation, but I could not find any Syrian with anything positive to say about
these two entities touted by the Western world as the best instruments for
political reform in Syria.

“Why would any country invite expatriates to form government?” Syrians kept
asking me with exasperation. “Why would any civilian population put their faith
in defected fighters with no discernible political platform?”

I spoke to Sunnis, Shias, and Christians, to Kurds, Arabs, Circassians, Assyrians
and Armenians. While many pointedly complimented the apparent good
character of the president (referred to at such times as ‘Dr Bashar Al Assad’) all
readily expressed in detail their disgust at poor governance for too long. In the
street, in shared taxi vans, in cafes, markets, and private homes the Syrians are
not afraid to talk politics any more. Indeed they seemed particularly anxious to
do so. But their mood is pessimistic. “Whatever revolution there was is now
destroyed by armed criminals and their masters,” sighed a Sunni man wearily.

“What are your so-called Christian leaders in Australia thinking?” shrieked a
Christian woman in a candlelit Aleppo home. “Don’t they realise our
freedoms in Syria are the envy of other Arab countries – and impossible in
Qatar?! If Bashar (Al Assad) goes, we will be lambs to the slaughter.”


Report this

By heterochromatic, February 22, 2012 at 8:50 pm Link to this comment

Bowles is blowing gas, dog….........

and it takes not a genius to understand why the BBC is quoting “activists” rather
than no one at all.

as argumentative as you can get, i trust you enough to know that you really
understand the idiocy of Bowles’ attempt to discredit the entirety of the reports by
showing that the source is not disinterested.

Report this
blogdog's avatar

By blogdog, February 22, 2012 at 8:25 pm Link to this comment

and more are scheduled to die… keep reading from the same source article:


The same rubbish came down the propaganda pipeline when the Empire
decided it was time to get rid of Gaddafi. But what do those on the left who
bought into this R2P nonsense have to say today I wonder? The latest casualty
figures I’ve read for ‘protecting the human rights’ of the Libyan people is that
at least 30,000 people have been killed, 50,000 more wounded, and some
4,000 are still missing, all the result of NATO’s R2P bombs. And these are
figures released by the ruling NTC (there are also an estimated 8000 alleged
Gaddafi supporters in jail with verified accounts of widespread torture and
summary executions taking place under the NATO-imposed ‘democracy’). Is
this the kind of price those on the left are willing to see others pay? Obviously
they are, they are not on the receiving end.

“Syria’s army moves to reassert control in rebellious suburbs of Damascus in
the worst fighting around the capital in the 10-month uprising, activists say.”
— ‘Crackdown on rebels in Damascus’, BBC News 29/01/2012 at 09:16

If nothing else the media non-coverage of the Syrian disaster-in-the-making
reveals the true extent of mainstream media power in shaping the nature of
events and thus our response to them. Moreover, it reveals just how simple it is
to pull off the stunt, especially when the editors at the BBC can rely on the
exactly same mantra echoing around the world; ‘activists say…’ and blurry
images apparently confirm it.

“The Syrian army launches renewed assaults on the restive cities of Homs and
Hama, activists say, as the UN prepares to discuss the conflict.” — ‘Assault on
restive Syrian cities’, BBC News 27/01/2012 at 14:41

Repeated endlessly, what ‘activists say’ is the hook on which to hang imperial
propaganda. There is not a single BBC story over the past few months that
presents a view from the other side such as the one Fiona Hill reported from
Syria recently and these people had names. Virtually all of the BBC’s interviews
with said activists have had their faces covered, itself setting the scene for how
the viewer receives the content.


Report this

By heterochromatic, February 22, 2012 at 8:20 pm Link to this comment

great point, dog…’s not even all the activists saying it either !  as a lot of them
are dead.

Report this
blogdog's avatar

By blogdog, February 22, 2012 at 8:13 pm Link to this comment

Syria and the media: “Activists say…”
by William Bowles
Global Research, February 18, 2012 - 2012-02-17

Every time I read a BBC news piece about events in Syria it invariably
includes the following phrase (emphasized):

“Troops are shelling intensively parts of the Syrian city of Homs, activists say, a
day after the UN General Assembly called for an end to violence.” — ‘Syrian city
shelled after UN vote’, BBC News, 17 February 2012

And invariably what the ‘activists’ say is about the Assad regime killing its
citizens. So where is the BBC’s much-vaunted ‘objectivity’? Who are these
‘activists’? By what means does the BBC verify these accounts? And since when
has unverifiable news stories been the main source of the BBC’s news on Syria?

The Syrian army resumes its bombardment of the restive city of Homs, killing at
least 13 people early on Thursday, activists say. — ‘Deadly shelling hits Syrian
city’, BBC News 09/02/2012 at 08:29

Is it any wonder confusion reigns amongst progressives, who on the one hand
condemn alleged deadly attacks by the Syrian state on its citizens but seem
rather mute on the subject of the ‘armed insurrection’. This question is pivotal
to the situation: Are the ‘armed insurrections’ a legitimate response to state
violence or are they an attempt to overthrow the state that in turn initiated the
Syrian state to respond with deadly violence?

“An explosion damages a major oil pipeline in the central Syrian city of Homs,
witnesses and activists say, with the government blaming “armed terrorists”. —
‘Blast hits key Syria oil pipeline’, BBC News 15/2/12

Moreover, are such armed attacks supported, funded and armed by outside
forces? Because if they are, they constitute the illegal interference into the
internal affairs of a sovereign state. Interference that inevitably provokes a
response from the state (which is no doubt one of the objectives). A response
that with the help of the BBC and its ‘activist’ assistance can then present the
Syrian state as “having a licence to kill”.

“Syria’s government has been handed a “licence to kill” by Russia and China,
opposition activists say, after the countries blocked a draft UN resolution.” —
‘Syrian veto a ‘licence to kill”, BBC News 05/02/2012 at 11:07

Anyone who believes that the Empire is at all concerned about the ‘human
rights’ of Syrian citizens and it’s this that motivates its desire to ‘protect’, must
have slept through the Empire’s decades-long killing spree. It’s unfortunate
that those of us who are defending the Syrian state’s right to its independence
are, by virtue of ‘guilt by association’, accused of defending the Assad regime.
What kind of argument is this? What are we talking about here?


Report this

By heterochromatic, February 22, 2012 at 4:24 pm Link to this comment

there was no “armed” insurgency until after the Syrian govt killed a couple

unless you wanna go around believing that they were all Zionist and Crusader
blow-up dolls squirting ketchup.

Report this
blogdog's avatar

By blogdog, February 22, 2012 at 4:13 pm Link to this comment

and clearly some mess around in forums like this with the intention of ‘getting to
everybody’ - sucking them into meaningless sparing over pure nonsense

as for Democracy Now - follow the money - foundation funding has charged them
to perform deflective source disinformation, intended to mute so-called left-lib-
prog. anti-war sentiments

it’s an armed insurgency from day one (just like LIbya) being painted as a peaceful
uprising, gown more militant by Assad’s ‘crackdown’ - agitprop

Report this

By heterochromatic, February 22, 2012 at 3:52 pm Link to this comment

of cause some people are so fucked-up and blind that they can’t be “gotten to’”

stay impervious, vec

Report this
vector56's avatar

By vector56, February 22, 2012 at 2:53 pm Link to this comment

One thing that breaks my heart is the way Democracy Now is reporting what is going on in Syria. Like in Libya Democracy Now seems to have picked a side (in the case of Libya the rebels) and decided to only tell the story from one point of view. This worries me; if they can get to Amy Goodman they can get to anyone.

When Hilliary Clinton called Al Jazeera “the only real news on TV”, I figured Democracy Now was the lone hold-out against the pull of the “main stream”, but lately it would seem that even my “precious” Amy has been turn into a “pod person”!

Report this

By gerard, February 22, 2012 at 2:36 pm Link to this comment

For something more like information, see today’s “Democracy Now” where we can get at least a whiff of the complications and entanglements involved. (2/22/12)

Report this

By heterochromatic, February 22, 2012 at 1:56 pm Link to this comment

two fewer radical, outside agitators….........

Report this

By SarcastiCanuck, February 22, 2012 at 12:26 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I’d like to put $20.00 on Sunni to win,Shite to show and Alawite to place.

Report this

By heterochromatic, February 22, 2012 at 12:00 pm Link to this comment

the important thing is to worry about the wording of
the article and ignore that the Assad government is
blowing up big bunches of ordinary Syrian citizens.

that kinda shit doesn’t fit our prejudices so let’s
focus on scarifyng connotations and belabor the

Bashir, that dreamboat, is a doctor, dedicated to
helping people and house calls from his tanks are
part of the service.

Report this
blogdog's avatar

By blogdog, February 22, 2012 at 9:51 am Link to this comment

RE: To scare the viewers?  Do the viewers need to be scared?  What good
could that possibly do?

no need to labor it…

agitprop |?ajit?präp|
political (originally communist) propaganda, esp. in art or literature : [as adj. ]
agitprop painters.
ORIGIN 1930s: Russian, blend of agitatsiya ‘agitation’ and propaganda


Idiom Definitions for ‘Wag the dog’
To ‘wag the dog’ means to purposely divert attention from what would
otherwise be of greater importance, to something else of lesser significance. By
doing so, the lesser-significant event is catapulted into the limelight, drowning
proper attention to what was originally the more important issue.

The expression comes from the saying that ‘a dog is smarter than its tail’, but if
the tail were smarter, then the tail would ‘wag the dog’. The expression ‘wag
the dog’ was elaborately used as theme of the movie. ‘Wag the Dog’, a 1997
film starring Robert de Niro and Dustin Hoffman, produced and directed by
Barry Levinson.

Report this

By gerard, February 22, 2012 at 9:35 am Link to this comment

Again a questionable headline:  “radicalized”.
Grant me that “radical” used in the U.S. in reference to politics, is a “scare word” often found in propaganda where the purpose is to prejudice readers/listeners.  Therefore it should be used carefully by journalists who care about any semblance of fairness. 
  Here, it is totally “naked” (no qualifications or explanations) so the average raader in the USA treats it conventionally as meant to “scare.”
On top of that comes the word “terror” another scare word currently popular. (Again no explanations.)
  So beyond the scarifyng connotations, what, exactly, does the headline MEAN?  The violence shown in the videos is, again, scarey—as is all violence. So the point of this article is ......? To scare the viewers?  Do the viewers need to be scared?  What good could that possibly do?  What is being left out of the picture entirely?  Why? What kind of comments does such an article evoke?  Constructive? Destructive? None?

Report this

By Amon Drool, February 22, 2012 at 5:18 am Link to this comment

@ Truthdig:

in 1980, when iraq made an aggressive move against
what they considered a weakened iran, the assad
regime broke with their fellow baathists in iraq and
let it be known that they supported iran in that
conflict.  the US officially said they didn’t have a
dog in the fight, but everyone knew ‘we’ were giving
support to iraq. 

in 1991, i was part of the US protests which objected
to the imminent first gulf war.  i’ve had second
thoughts since then and now am of the opinion that
the UN coalition was right in ejecting iraq from
kuwait…even though i think the kuwaiti rulers at
the time were just a bunch of rich boy weenies.  the
assads sided with US/UN coalition and i’m pretty sure
let their territory be used in way that aided the
coalition forces.

after these 2 incidents, there came to be no love
lost between syria and iraq.  but when the neocons
pushed the fool bush into war with iraq in 2003, the
assads saw this as the western imperialism that it
was and provided no support for the US aggression.

in all of these three situations, i’m sure many
people who read Truthdig would agree that the assad
regime made the right choices.

now, in 2011/2012, the TD readership is being
inundated with articles and videos that paint the
assad regime in a purely evil light.  no articles are
put up which emphasize the need to do all we can to
avoid a much more bloody escalation.  i do have
sympathy for those in syria who have pretty much had
it with the assads for their lack of democratic
reform.  but when syrian dissidents align themselves
with the muslim brotherhood and al qaeda, they’re
playing with fire.

so i’m wondering, will the TD staffer, who put up
these videos, be gladly putting up videos of the evil
assad being anally penetrated and disemboweled by a
freedom fighter from libyia?  i know i’m being unfair
here, but i just see TD’s slant on syria too black
and white simplistic and does nothing to avoid the
escalating carnage that is probably coming.

Report this
blogdog's avatar

By blogdog, February 21, 2012 at 10:00 pm Link to this comment

clearly conceptual constructs long divorced from their geo-etymological origin are
beyond comprehension for some - leave it at this:

the US is the most philistine (note the lower case spelling) nation of all time - it is
simply the very most bleeding sod-ass capitalist paradise of all time - where
there does not even exist as a considered notion the common sense to ban
monetary donations and paid advertising in public elections, nor to shut down
business as usual on election day, close the pubs and thereby encourage a sober
and rested electorate to take the entire day to carefully reason and cast their ballot

in the song lyric, feel free to substitute the words: vulgar, crass, ingnorant,
illeducated, etc. for the word ‘philistine’ and it tells the same story

Report this

By heterochromatic, February 21, 2012 at 6:37 pm Link to this comment

them philistines are the Palestinians dog. unless you
think that the modern-day Palestinians aren’t the
descendants of people who’ve long lived in the area.

Report this
blogdog's avatar

By blogdog, February 21, 2012 at 6:16 pm Link to this comment

the reference is not to people of Palestine but to this

philistinism |?fil?st??niz?m; f??list?-| noun
ORIGIN from French Philistin, via late Latin from Greek Philistinos, from Hebrew
p?lišt?. Sense 2 arose as a result of a confrontation between the townspeople
and the students in Jena, Germany, in the late 17th cent.; a sermon on the
conflict quoted: “the Philistines are upon you” (Judges 16), which led to an
association between the townspeople and those hostile to culture.

philistine (adjective)

example: my only mistake was thinking I could share something culturally
uplifting with you philistines uncultured, lowbrow, anti-intellectual,
uncultivated, uncivilized, uneducated, unenlightened, commercial, materialist,
bourgeois; ignorant, crass, boorish, barbarian.

i.e. children of the corporate state

Report this

By heterochromatic, February 21, 2012 at 5:13 pm Link to this comment

your link, so I’m asking you why you chose to single
out the Palestinians. they’ve been fucked over enough
by everyone in the Middle East.

why you joining in?

Report this
blogdog's avatar

By blogdog, February 21, 2012 at 4:27 pm Link to this comment

you’ll have to take that up with Joe Blow and FIGHTING WORDS MUSIC

Report this

By heterochromatic, February 21, 2012 at 4:05 pm Link to this comment

dog—-why you making fun of Palestinians???? sure they been bought and sold as
much as anyone else, but why single them out?

Report this

By heterochromatic, February 21, 2012 at 4:05 pm Link to this comment

dog—-why you making fun of Palestinians???? sure they been bought and sold as
much as anyone else, but why single them out?

Report this
blogdog's avatar

By blogdog, February 21, 2012 at 3:59 pm Link to this comment

PBS isn’t state owned? AP isn’t corporate owned? - who’s pullin’ your chain, tic? ...
all our children, products of the corporate state… “that’s fifty million units up,
now buddy; hurry up and don’t be late!”

Report this

By heterochromatic, February 21, 2012 at 3:17 pm Link to this comment

Russian state-owned news is more reliable than AP or PBS?

Report this
blogdog's avatar

By blogdog, February 21, 2012 at 3:11 pm Link to this comment

no, just your typical straw man quip, tic and more NATO/AP agitprop… RT is more reliabl… e.g.

Made in Jordan: Thousands of gunmen preparing to enter Syria?
Published: 21 February, 2012, 19:08

Over 10,000 Libyans are reportedly being trained in a closed-off zone in
Jordan, before being snuck into Syria to fight for the opposition. These men are
allegedly paid around US$1,000 a month, funded by Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

Jordan-based AlBawaba news website says most of the gunmen who are being
trained are actually part of the Libyan armed opposition, who have not had the
chance to lay down arms following the toppling of Muammar Gaddafi’s regime.

The allegations of funding from Riyadh and Doha were not attributed to anyone,
but AlBawaba did draw attention to the fact that both Saudi Arabia and Qatar
actively support the Syrian opposition.

At the same time, several Iranian news sources report that some 50 Turkish
officers arrested in Syria last week have confirmed that they were trained by the
Israeli Special Forces to carry out insurgent acts against the Syrian government
and President Bashar al-Assad.

The arrested officers also, according to Iran’s Fars news agency, admitted to
initiating contact with Qatar and Saudi Arabia, inadvertently lending support to
the countries’ involvement in the ongoing conflict in Syria.


Report this

By heterochromatic, February 21, 2012 at 2:55 pm Link to this comment

must all be lies. Syrian govt is wonderful.

Report this
Right Top, Site wide - Care2
Right 3, Site wide - Exposure Dynamics
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
Right Internal Skyscraper, Site wide

Like Truthdig on Facebook