Do you get a balanced view of the Syrian conflict?

By Dark Politricks

Compare and contrast the coverage given by the Western media to the conflicts in Syria and Afghanistan.

This morning on the BBC News channel they are reporting again that the Syrian Army - loyal to President Assad has been bombarding the homes of rebel fighters including those of the free Syrian Army and other insurgents in Tremseh.

Whilst their internet coverage is a little more even handed it still leans towards the US position of a massacre and the US government is parroting Syrian rebel reports that around 220 people were massacred labeling Syria's leaders murderers even though other western media is even reporting the attack as a "lopsided" attack by the army against the home of insurgents and what would we would call terrorists if they lived in Gaza, Iran or Afghanistan.

A statement by the U.N. mission who have returned to Tremseh today said:

"The attack on Tremseh appeared targeted at specific groups and houses, mainly of army defectors and activists," the spokesman for the U.N. observer mission to Syria said in an emailed statement.

"A wide range of weapons were used, including artillery, mortars and small arms."

Opposition activists say government forces killed about 220 people in the village. U.N. observers said they had found a burned school and fire-damaged houses.

The state media in the UK (and I haven't seen US coverage but I guess it's the same) are reporting this attack in Tremseh as if the word of opposition fighters was God and as if the Assad regime was bombing the homes of innocent people and killing them for fun.

Lest no-one think I support President Assad I don't.

I don't support any dictator unlike the USA/UK/French axis of war that seem to pick and chose their fights not on "human rights" as they like to sell it to the dumbed down public but whether or not the dictator is "their man" or "helpful" to their foreign policy objectives.

If the Axis of war had a fair and balanced foreign policy they would be attacking Israel, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia for their human rights abuses and attacks on protesters in the same manner as they have attacked Libya, forced an army coup in Egypt and are carefully planning for war with Iran by funding, aiding and training the rebels that are fighting the Assad regime. All roads lead to Iran as awakened people say at the moment.

The hypocrisy of our mainstream news coverage is that if Assad were "our man" like Saddam Hussein was in the 80's before we turned on him and bin Laden was in the Soviet war in Afghanistan then there wouldn't be so much news coverage of these attacks in Syria.

However unlike Afghanistan in which another insurgency is going on - one in which we are fighting not supporting. Where segments of the population in Afghanistan e.g the Taliban have decided to fight against the US/UK occupation, the corrupt puppet leader they installed to rule over them e.g the major of Kabul Hamid Karzai.

This is the US installed leader who has helped increase the amount of opium produced from almost zero in 2000 when the Taliban last ruled the country to the massive amounts produced now.

The Taliban admittedly ruled the country brutally in Western eyes, but in the eyes of a lot of Afghans they brought law and order after a time of unruliness. They actually punished corruption and other criminal acts (admittedly brutally in our standards) that are carrying on unabated under the US/Karzai rule.

Plus they almost wiped out the lucrative drug production calling it Un-Islamic as you can see by the chart above where the amount of opium dropped when they were in power. For reasons why drug production seems to increase whenever there is war and instability please read the four part series on my site titled "CIA Involvement in Drug Smuggling Parts 1 to 4".

The main contradiction between our coverage of the Syrian civil war and other news channels that don't have a western bias like Russia Today or Press TV is that when the US attack the homes of insurgents with drones and missile attacks in Afghanistan and innocent children, women and non combatants are killed they are considered legitimate and just casualties of war - or "collateral damage" as we like to call it. Often this massacre of innocents  is somehow covered up or ignored by our media.

However in Syria where Assad is fighting an influx of Western and Saudi backed terrorists, insurgents, the Free Syrian Army and of course al-Qaeda (why are again fighting on the same side as our mortal enemy again?) these collateral damages are called massacres and the western TV media laps up the stories of unverifiable bloggers and citizens as if they were truth itself.

So lets compare the two wars we are involved in the link being al-Qaeda e.g in Afghanistan we are supposedly fighting them whilst in Syria we are fighting alongside them - or arming, training and supporting them as we did in Libya.

• We have two countries Syria and Afghanistan both fighting an insurgency against the ruling power.
• Both insurgencies contain members of the general population as well as foreign terrorists and members of al-Qaeda.
• One insurgency the West supports, the other it is fighting.
• One government fighting the insurgency is considered a corrupt puppet with links to drug dealing brothers and other corrupt behaviour, the other is a dictator who is on the path to reform (admittedly slowly - who was praised in Western media not too long ago)
• When innocent people are killed in one country they are called collateral damage or not reported on at all in the other it is called a massacre and the mainstream media goes crazy over it.
• When terrorists and insurgents are killed by drones or night raids by special forces in one country their deaths are acclaimed as a success for the anti-government forces, whereas the deaths of insurgents in the other are reported as assassinations and targeted killings in the UN.

I am sure you can work out which is which.

Therefore the question is how far does our hypocrisy go and will you get your news from the tools of Western imperialism or try and get a balanced view on the subject first.

How will voting for Mitt Romney help America?

If you hate Obama- I agree with you.

By Dark Politricks

He is a warmonger, a liar, a tool of the globalists and the banksters he continued to bailout after following in Bush's footsteps.

He has brought in laws that destroy Americans liberty like the NDAA, expanded the war on terror as well as numerous other things true Democrats, Conservatives, Liberals or just decent people with morals shouldn't be happy with.

However if you are a Republican voter, a GOP supporting Mitt Romney lover then I have to ask - what do you think is going to change if he gets elected?

Are jobs suddenly going to come rushing back to the US shores?

He worked for a company that spent it's time off-shoring American jobs to foreign countries so why would he change his spots now.

Are the wars going to stop in Afghanistan, Pakistan (a supposed ally), Yemen, Somalia and all the other places we probably don't even know about?

No of course not - the GOP are strong on defence and that means lots of money wasted firing million dollar missiles into mud huts and killing thousands of innocent civilians in the hope of getting one jihadist from a drone. All the while creating future enemies for the military industrial complex to continue sucking money out of US taxpayers pockets in years to come.

Are the banksters who ruined the economy under Bush and previous administrations going to be punished and end up in jail?

No of course not - they haven't done under Obama and Romney is probably more in the pocket of Wall St than his rival. I don't hold up hope of seeing the heads of Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan in a court anytime soon.

Are the lost liberties destroyed under the PATRIOT ACT, the NDAA, the Executive Orders, the Signing Letters, the death squads and all the other laws rushed through after 9.11 and then carried on by Obama going to be repealed by Romney?

I don't think so.

If he was a true lover of the constitution he would rip up those laws, return the USA to a non emergency powers state and return habeas corpus.

He would close Gitmo and try any terrorists they currently have that actually have evidence pointing their way. He would stop targeted killings by drones and try and restore some moral standing in the world for the country that was once a beacon of liberty and freedom.

There is a reason everyone laughs when US UN officials accuse the Syrian government of targeted killings. None of this will happen under Romney in fact even more tax payers money will be wasted creating the terrorists of the future.

So the wars won't stop, liberty will continue to be destroyed getting the USA ready for it's next stage as a Chinese labour shop with no worker rights, health care and lengthy prison sentences on the say so of any official with a grudge against you.

So then I ask again what will change if Mitt Romney is actually elected?

Please tell me what you think in this quiz on Romney's chances of becoming President of America.

Would we have had the financial crisis if women ran banks?

By Dark Politricks

I have just watched last nights episode of Tom Hartmans "The Big Picture" on Russia Today (watch live online here)

Tom is obviously a Democrat and a liberal but in his last segment something he said I found quite interesting.

Basically the leading founding father Thomas Jefferson  knew the dangers of corporations and unlimited greed and said so in a great speech - abbreviated here:

"I hope we shall crush… in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country."

Thomas Jefferson obviously was aware of the dangers of unlimited corporation power, money and influence and it would be good if some of the Tea Party members who are so fond of the founding fathers actually read more of what they actually said about standing armies, corporations, a Federal bank and undue political influence by lobbyists.

Tom Hartman then followed that up with other Presidential quotes throughout the ages all of which said that there was little need for people to earn so much money that it coultn't be spent in their lifetime.

Not only does it prevent a true meritocracy from occurring - as huge amounts of wealth are passed down the family line like an aristocracy - the thing the founding fathers fought against in the American Revolution. But it leaves people with so much money that could be used for the good of the nation as a whole except many of these super rich people would rather pay no tax at all than do some good for their country. It also showed that high tax rates have no correspondence with job creation, productivity or industrial or technical innovation.

As you can see Tom's main point was that the top rate of tax has dropped from a whopping 94% in the mid 1940's, to 70% during the 1970's and then its current position of 35% and this has no correspondence with the high times of American society.

It does however correspond with huge wealth inequality between the rich and poor. With the richest few percent getting richer and the middle classes basically staying the same. Tickle down economics doesn't seem to work too well it seems.

During the 1950s and early 1960s, the top bracket income tax rate was over 90% and the economy, middle-class, and stock market boomed.

The 1950's were a golden time in American society where there were plenty of jobs, houses, affordable education and guess what - the richest few percent (those job creators) didn't up sticks and leave America to another country with lower tax rates. They stayed and paid their taxes.

He also talked about a study that showed that once a person is earning enough money to cover all their basic needs e.g housing, food, travel, clothing etc then earning more money does NOT make them happier.

This reminds me of learning about Maslows hierarchy of needs at college.

Once you have all your basics covered, maybe married or in a relationship and doing a job you like or maybe other activities that fulfill your life then your pyramid of needs are satisfied.

The question then becomes what happens to all those people who have so much money that there is nothing left on earth to do with it.

I am talking about people who earn billions of dollars, fly around in private jets, own multiple huge boats and have garages full of the latest Ferrari's and Porches.

They may play golf all day or do other hobbies but I reckon there is another need that is missing from the pyramid that only comes when all the others are fulfilled and the person has  enough money to achieve or attempt to achieve it plus a certain character trait that is the opposite of altruism - a hunger for power.

Some people are born alpha dogs, others aren't.

Some people in the old days where physical power was all that mattered would have been battered to the floor and trod over like a carpet (people like Bill Gates or the Koch Brothers for instance).

Today things are different and money (lots of it) equals power or the ability to achieve it through various means. This might mean running a huge global corporation or the attempted ownership of countries and even blocks of them (i.e. the EU).

This is what many people believe the Citizens United Ruling has allowed to occur with the super rich trying to "buy" the Presidency through their use of Super Pacs, and huge financial donations.

Whereas Obama is having to rely on lots of small donations and seems to have lost out on those big money givers he had last time around Mitt Romney only needs to attend a couple of functions with the Koch Brothers and he walks away with a few hundred million dollar bills in his pocket.

These ultra rich are not "wealth generators" or "altruistic job creators" for if they were they would say to themselves:

"Well I have more money than I can ever spend in my lifetime. Or leave to my children who will just end up spolit entitled brats who probably won't do a day's work in their lives. With all this money I will do something good for my country and leave a lasting legacy like the Victorian Philantrophists and I don't mind taking a hit on my immense fortune by opening factories and other businesses in the USA and pay the taxes and benefits that come with creating jobs in my country."

"Yes it might cost more than off-shoring all my labour and manufacturing to China or India but as I have more money than I could possibly spend it makes no difference to me if I have to pay slightly more in wages or health benefits if it means that it brings jobs back to desolate American towns like Detroit or New Orleans."

No instead of thinking like this they chose to play king maker and attempt to buy the Presidency with Super Pacs and huge donations to their desired candidate (or the one they are stuck with e.g Mitt Romney)

People with huge amounts of wealth could do immense amounts of good to the people of the earth and I am sure lots of them exist but when the ultimate pyramid slice at the top of Maslows Hierarchy becomes "ultimate power" you end up with Koch Brothers buying Presidencies, Bilderberg, Bohemian Grove and huge experimental projects that are doomed to failure like the Euro.

You also end up with Banksters who have so much money that the only joy they get out of life is making billion dollar gambles with pension funds on the stock market, derivative overloads and the fixing of Libor interest rates. All of which have unintended consequences that affect whole countries and even the world as we are currently experiencing.

You are either this kind of person or you may have an altruistic personality, probably non alpha males, who chose to spend their money on charitable organisations. Building schools and hospitals in under privileged areas and all the sort of things that leave a lasting legacy once they are gone from this earth apart from a mention in a Wikipedia article as one of the banksters who was complicit in the great financial meltdown of 2008.

This leads me to another interesting point in which an ex female banker appeared on the "This Week" programme last Thursday in which she said that due to the "alpha male" culture of bankers in the City of London there was more risk taking and therefore potential for disaster.

If women ran banks and trading floors she reckoned the financial crisis probably would never have happened in the first place.

An interesting thought...

Why Julian Assange should be granted asylum by Ecuador

By Dark Politricks

This episode of "The World Tomorrow" is the final show in the Russia Today series of interviews Julian Assange has been carrying out over the last couple of months.

He has interviewed everyone from Presidents, revolutionary leaders from the Arab Spring and Occupy Movement to intellectuals and "terrorist" leaders and if you have missed any of the shows you can watch them on my main site darkpolitricks.com/tag/the-world-tomorrow/

Lets all cross our fingers and hope Ecuador gives Julian Assange political asylum.

Rafael Correa, the President of that Ecuador was one of Julian's interviewees and the two seemed to get on really well so he may have more than an average chance of gaining asylum.

Add to this relationship the leftist group of Southern American nations, of which Ecuador is one, dislike of American Imperialism as they see it and they may just give him asylum to stick two fingers up to the empire.

However even if he and President Rafael Correa aren't the best of buddies there are many reasons why any country should give Julian Assange asylum including:

• The USA uses Torture - a breach of international law
• US prisons are hell holes full of male rape, drugs, violence and murder. Julian would not last very long in a US high security prison.
• The USA executes people for certain crimes. We don't do that in Europe. We have a modicum of human rights even though they are being constantly downgraded as I speak.
• The USA has thrown away the rule book and has decided it and it alone can be the arbitrary decider of which country is "moral" whilst attacking those it dislikes. There is no other reason why it sucks the cock of Saudi Arabia one of the most repressive and backward regimes in the world, selling it weaponry and buying it's oil whilst it boycotts Iranian oil, attacks Syria for defending it's own country from al-Qaeda terrorists and attacks China for human rights violations whilst carrying out many of the same violations itself.
• The US military have basically tortured a US soldier Bradley Manning to get information on Julian Assange so that he can be tried under their espionage act. Something that doesn't apply to him seeing that he is not an American citizen or was in the US when the documents were obtained.
• Julian Assange is a whistle blower that has broken many stories that the US should be protecting him for doing so. Under their own legal system whistle blowers are supposed to be accorded protection but this attack on Julian Assange, WikiLeaks and other whistle blowers shows this to be nothing more than fiction. WikiLeaks has shown the US military at it's worst - massacring Iraqi civilians, releasing documents that shows the USA has no regard for international treaties by it's desire to bug UN delegates as well as many other documents that show the USA's duplicity and illegality in world affairs.
• The USA is using all the political pressure it can to ensure Julian Assange ends up in an orange jumpsuit. I hope he doesn't.
• It is a shocking indictment on the West - supposed upholder of human rights and liberty that the only places that Julian Assange can get asylum are South American leftist countries like Ecuador or Venezuela or even maybe Cuba. 

Why is it that no European country that supposedly stands for liberty, free speech and the rule of law has offered Julian asylum? 

It would be interesting to see what would happen if Russia or China offered it to him as well as the Americans response to it. I only hope that they grow a pair and do so along with many other western countries.

As for the "The World Tomorrow" show on Russia Today this is the last show in the series.

In show ten Julian Assange speaks to the leader of the Malaysian opposition - Anwar Ibrahim. As a rising internal rival to the former Prime Minister Mahathir, Anwar was imprisoned for 5 years after being smeared with sex allegations including sodomy.

As a result of a popular campaign in 2004, his conviction was overturned and he was released from prison.

In 2008, he was again targeted for sex crimes allegations, he won the case earlier this year.

With elections looming with Anwar tipped to win, he has now been charged with unauthorised assembly. If found convicted, he will be prevented from running. Julian Assange talks to him about how he has survived and what he sees as the future of Asia and the West.

 

If you've missed the previous episodes, you can always watch them on my main site www.darkpolitricks.com under the tag "The World Tomorrow" or you can visit Julian's own site for the TV show at http://assange.RT.com.

Whether you love him, hate him, think he's a useful idiot or an Israeli tool you should respect Julian's right to free speech and the fact he has blown the whistle on a number of major American atrocities and international crimes. For that he should not be punished but applauded.