US Wars

The U.S. military is causing devastation to the environment. Joseph Nevins writes in 2010 that "The U.S. military is the world’s single biggest consumer of fossil fuels, and the single entity most responsible for destabilizing the Earth’s climate." The article states ". . . the Pentagon devours about 330,000 barrels of oil per day (a barrel has 42 gallons), more than the vast majority of the world’s countries." The amount of oil used by your military machine is beyond belief, and each military vehicle also releases pollutants through the exhaust. Tanks, trucks, Humvees and other vehicles are not known for their fuel economy. Other fuel guzzlers are submarines, helicopters and fighter jets. Each military flight, whether involved in the transport of soldiers or in a combat mission, contributes more carbon into the atmosphere. Candobetter.net editor: Unfortunately the Australian government supports this US war machine. Earth Day is Wednesday April 22, 2015. These letters will be sent for that occasion but they seek to involve the public earlier in this campaign against war.

National Campaign for Nonviolent Resistance

Ed. Title, "Dangerous bias in terror wars" added by candobetter.net editor to help readers identify content. This article contains a complaint about ABC reporting bias which editors at candobetter.net believe has immediate grave consequences with respect to war crimes. Candobetter.net is publishing it in an attempt to increase the prospects for it to receive adequate and remedial attention from the ABC, which we believe could save many lives and contribute to descale events that threaten to escalate into a third world war. The complaint concerns a Radio National AM program presented by Chris Uhlmann with reporter Matt Brown, entitled, "Mixed Response from Syrian rebels to American-led war on IS."

Program: ABC, Radio National, AM
Date: 18/9/2014
Title: Mixed Response from Syrian rebels to American-led war on IS
Presenter: Chris Uhlmann Reporter: Matt Brown
***********************************************************************************************
24 September 2014
Dear Audience and Consumer Affairs,
The above-mentioned AM program breaches the ABC Code of Practice in regards to Accuracy, Impartiality and Diversity of Perspectives.

INTRODUCTION

The United States with support from Arab countries, including Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Qatar, has begun airstrikes on Syria, ostensibly to target IS forces. To enter the airspace of Syria without the authorization of the Syrian government is an illegal act. Also, last week the American Congress voted to train and arm ‘moderate Syrian rebels’. These rebels are fighting both the Islamic State and the Syrian government, and there is reason to believe they see the Syrian government as their principal target. Under international law, it is illegal for countries to fund and supply weapons to insurgents intent on overthrowing the government of a sovereign state.

The Australian government will have enormous pressure on it from the U.S. Administration to support their military actions in Syria. It is, therefore, imperative that Australians are as well-informed as they can possibly be about the war in Syria and the so-called moderate rebels that America and its allies are arming. Decisions which will determine the history of the 21st century are being made.

What is more, the conflict in Syria impacts on communities in Australia and on people’s sense of security and well-being. We can all be disorientated by the mixed messages and the hatred stirred up in biased, imprudent reports and commentaries on the war. It should be the responsibility of the ABC, our national broadcaster, to inform us fully and impartially on Syria and the region. However, its Middle East correspondent, Matt Brown, is not doing this.

ACCURACY and IMPARTIALITY

In his report on AM (18 September 2014) Matt Brown presented a biased portrayal of ‘moderate’ rebels in Syria. He described the rebels as ‘moderate’, as if their being moderate was a fact, not an opinion.

Furthermore, emotive expressions that could elicit sympathy for the rebels were used. These included, concern, hope, congratulated, thankful, and a welcome gesture.

There was no suggestion that these rebels might be opportunists, who happily wear the label ‘moderate’ today as it entitles them to receive military hardware from the U.S. and its allies, but who have aligned with terrorist groups, including ISIL, at times in the conflict when it suited them. Also, in coming days, months and years, there are already signs they will choose Al-Qaeda affiliated groups over the U.S. and their allies.

Unlike Brown, BBC’s Jeremy Bowen expresses serious reservations about ‘moderate’ rebels.

I have met many FSA fighters and they do have moderate views, certainly in comparison with jihadist groups. But the fighters are often religious and see no problem with building up alliances with the jihadists against a common enemy. Fighters also move from one group to another.

Also, it’s been reported that the family of Steven Sotloff, one of the American journalists beheaded by ISIL, accused ‘moderate rebels’ of selling Steven to the extremists.

Does a ‘moderate’ rebel kill differently to an ‘extremist’ rebel?

Ahmad Al-Rahal, a ‘moderate rebel’ introduced in the AM report, declared in an interview in March 2014,

There is no sectarianism in this revolution. Syria only has two sects: that of the regime and that of the revolution.

It is difficult to see how such a crude uncompromising approach to a ‘revolution’ differs from the Khmer Rouge’s, whose ideology was just as black and white and led to the killing fields in Cambodia. It is therefore shocking that Brown reports on Al-Rahal totally uncritically.

Given the lethal qualities of the ‘revolution’ in Syria and its attraction to young Muslim Australians, the ABC has a heavy responsibility to both the general public in Syria and in Australia to ensure ‘rebels’ in Syria, no matter what their name-tag today, are neither glamorized nor sanitized by ABC journalists.

The other ‘moderate’ rebel commander Brown introduces to the AM audience is Jamal Al Maa’arufe (also spelt ‘Ma’ruf’ and ‘Maruf). Currently, Maa’arufe is said to head a coalition of insurgent groups called the Syrian Revolutionaries’ Front. Dr As'ad AbuKhalil, a professor of political science at California State University has written the following about Jamal Maa’arufe on his blog, Angry Arab:
A Syrian leader of rebel thugs, Jamal Ma`ruf, having been groomed by Saudi intelligence, announces in the media that he is now ready and willing to fight ISIS. Let me translate: he has just received a large supply of weapons and cash from American and Saudi intelligence. Let the thuggery begin.

DIVERSITY of PERSPECTIVES

Although rebels control quite a large area in Syria, the majority of Syrians still choose to live in government controlled cities and towns. These people include up to two million Syrian Christians as well as Muslims of all sects who do not support a militarized opposition or an Islamised political system, similar to Saudi Arabia’s or Iran’s. Yet, their voices are not heard in this AM report. It is as if they do not exist, yet they are people Australians would feel great empathy for if only we knew their stories and views.

Ironically perhaps, James Foley, the American journalist whose beheading became part of the pretext for U.S. military strikes on Syria, did diligently seek the views of civilians in Aleppo who were critical of the Free Syrian Army, supposedly moderate rebels. This may have cost him his life. In an October 2012 article titled Syria: Rebels losing support among civilians in Aleppo, Foley wrote,

The rebels in Aleppo are predominantly from the countryside, further alienating them from the urban crowd that once lived here peacefully, in relative economic comfort and with little interference from the authoritarian government of President Bashar al-Assad.
“The terrorism here in Syria is spreading, and the government has to do something about it,” said Mohamed Kabal, a 21-year-old university student.

Foley also presented the perspective of a disillusioned rebel.

He said he's seen civilians executed after rebels recklessly accuse them of being mercenaries for the regime.
“I saw one beaten to death,” he said. “The FSA didn’t check their facts, and now he’s dead. I know the man. He was 46. He has five children.”

Unlike some media outlets, such as the BBC, Channel 4, and the Telegraph, the ABC has not sent a reporter into government controlled cities to seek a diversity of perspectives in regards to the war. The ABC has maintained it hasn’t been able to get a visa for a reporter. But this is no excuse for the lack of balance in Matt Brown’s report. In June, tens of thousands of Syrians in Lebanon voted in the Syrian presidential election. Brown could travel to Beirut to seek out their views.

TRUTHS vs INACCURATE & BIASED REPORTING

In 2011, on an ABC community webpage, there was an account of the violence and terror then being committed by armed gangs across Syria. However, despite challenges, the mainstream narrative on the crisis in Syria has been consistent: a minority sect is oppressing the Sunni majority and a brutal dictator is killing his own people. Matt Brown promotes it in this AM report, as do print journalists, NGOs, human rights organizations, even UN bodies. When prominent Malaysian peace activist, Dr Chandra Muzaffar, writes on what might attract young Muslim men the rebel cause in Syria, we in Australia should pay heed. He is a ‘moderate’ Muslim exploring truths.
Unfortunately, through repetition, the narrative has become an embedded ‘truth’. Hence, although a well-regarded M.I.T. professor, a doctor in pharmacology, a US intelligence expert, a veteran investigative journalist; have all challenged the claim that Assad used chemical weapons against his people in August 2013, ABC presenter Waleed Aly can still insist Assad did, without thinking it necessary to substantiate the accusation.

So Matt Brown’s recent AM report continued the tradition of this narrative. It began with a discussion of the Sunni IS forces and ended with damnation of the ‘torture chambers’ of Bashar Al-Assad, who, as Brown says, is the ‘main target’ of ‘moderate’ rebels. (NB: Alternative sources question the ‘Caesar’ claims of ‘torture chambers’, but a mainstream journalist is highly unlikely to be instructed to probe deeply once a convenient ‘truth’ is embedded.)

On AM, rebel claims were presented without challenge by Brown; thus, they easily become ‘truths’. So Jamal Al Maa’arufe speaks about the fight against the “unjust Bashar’s illegitimate state”. Belief that the Syrian state is illegitimate may be what prompts rebels to brutally murder state employees, including bakers, post office workers, doctors and teachers. But how can a state that has been represented in the U.N. since its inception be ‘illegitimate’?

Brown says a government airstrike ‘reportedly’ killed Jamal Al Maa’arufe’s wife and daughter. Brown acknowledges it is a claim. However, apart from this AM report, a tweet and a Facebook entry, It is very hard to find support on the internet for it. An article in SYRIA: direct, reports on the airstrike, but it claims Maa’arufe’s deputy was killed; there is no mention of family members. Already Brown presents a sympathetic portrait of rebel leader Al Maa’arufe. Suggesting that he has lost his wife and daughter in a government airstrike further reinforces that portrayal. That may be the purpose of it. as to repeat what seems to be merely a little chatter on the internet seems irresponsible journalism, especially when the stakes are so high when there is misinformation presented on Syria, high for the people of Syria and the region, and high for Australians, as we are now learning.

CONCLUSION

Unchallenged rebel slogans, misinformation and distortions can only further entice young Muslim Australians to Syria to fight the ‘Alawi dictatorship of Bashar Al Assad’, as James Carleton described it on RN Breakfast (22/9/14) in clear contradiction of the true demographics, which are that the Syrian government, army, and business elite are dominated by Sunni Muslims. Young Australian Muslims who aspire to becoming martyrs in Syria or Australia can inadvertently become the victims of lies.

Syria is a conflict we all contribute to if we do not demand the highest standards of reporting. Not only do we risk being victims of our own naivety and gullibility, but by ignoring the voices and suffering of millions of Syrians - people like us - we compromise our basic beliefs and values, and we risk being complicit in heinous crimes.

Regards,

Ms Susan Dirgham

National Coordinator of "Australians for Mussalaha (Reconciliation) in Syria"

Image: Syrian TV interviewer with Dr Kinda Shammat, Minister in Syrian government (Screen shot taken from Syrian TV)

Image: Screen shot of image of a tweet showing ‘moderate’ rebel Jamal Ma’ruf, presented in Matt Brown’s report.

August 21st 2013 may go down as the day of 'the Schism' - between the narrative of 'Western' culture as it promotes itself, and the reality for those across the Gulf. Ironically this is both a physical gulf, known both as 'The Persian gulf' by the countries aligned with 'Persia', and as 'The Arabian gulf' by the Arab gulf nations bordering it on the south, and a psychological and cultural gulf.

What happened on August 21st in Damascus was of course NOT a Sarin attack in East Ghouta which killed hundreds or thousands of civilians and children; we have little evidence that any of these assertions are true - that Sarin was used in E. Ghouta, that people died from it there or elsewhere. We have evidence only that some people tested in the area a few days later had been exposed to some form of Sarin. Because these 'victims' were provided by one of the parties in the armed conflict we cannot say where or how they were exposed.

At the same time we have some significant evidence that a different and far more serious crime was committed around this time, by some element of the opposition armed groups. In the many videos released after the alleged attack purporting to show its consequences, and on which the whole series of events of the last month has been based, it appears that some children pictured had been abducted from villages near Lattakia following brutal massacres by Al Nusra groups a few weeks earlier. (1)

Because the armed opposition groups had been struggling to hold ground against the Syrian army recently, and particularly following the stategic recapture of Al Qusair on the Lebanese border, it was clearly in the interests of these groups to stage the 'Chemical Weapons attack' to bring in the foreign assistance they needed. It was also in the interests of certain Western powers seeking to extend their influence in Syria to conspire with these rebel groups to provide a pretext for an 'intervention'.

Since very early in the Syrian conflict, and in fact since the start, 'false flag' massacres and attacks have been staged and used to raise Western voices against the Syrian government. So successful was this campaign, which essentially has brainwashed the mainstream Western audience into a completely false narrative, that Opposition forces were able to stage a 'Sarin Attack' in circumstances which made it almost impossible to believe that the Syrian government would be responsible. Even solid supporters of the Western imperial campaign were forced to concede this point, but finally succumbed to the continuing and unyielding accusations of US and NATO leaders. Vladimir Putin famously called the suggestion that President Assad would use Sarin under these circumstances "Utter Nonsense", but we are told that most of what Putin says cannot be trusted.

Now as time goes on, and we have a 'historic agreement' at the Security Council to secure Syria's chemical weapons, the Gulf has become too wide to cross; we have been brought to the brink of a regional war, and saved from it by Russia, all based on a fabricated narrative about Syria using chemical weapons. Those who believe this lie can see no problem in the events of the last month, while those who know it is a lie can see that all the Western leaders are liars and criminals pusuing Western self interest.

There is no intermediate position possible in this 'schism' of two worlds; for those on the side of 'the Resistance' we can trust nothing and noone from the West and its allies - anything is possible. Whereas for them it is simply a question of who knows it is a lie, and who just believes it.

This is just a start....

NOTES

(1) http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-ghouta-chemical-attacks-us-backed-false-flag-killing-children-to-justify-a-humanitarian-military-intervention/5351363

This article was originally published on 2013-09-29 23:25:48 +1000 but placed on the front page on 31/10/2013 at 12:15 am by Candobetter editors.