Another case of reckless journalism aimed at selling war.
by Tony Cartalucci
March 28, 2012 - The Guardian in their piece titled, "Houla massacre survivor tells how his family were slaughtered," admits that the heart-wrenching emotionally manipulative narrative it published comes straight from a nameless boy allegedly produced by "a town elder who is a member of the Syrian Revolutionary Council and is now caring for him." This fact, however, is buried paragraphs below, hopefully read long after the Guardian's intended message takes hold in the minds of readers.
The account raises serious suspicion as it contradicts the West's own original narrative of the Syrian military "shelling" the victims to death in their homes, and instead appears to be a deceitful, quickly prepared response crafted in the wake of verified evidence presented by Russia before the UN Security Council this week.
The Guardian itself previously published an article titled, "Syria shelling 'kills at least 90'" as well as a statement by UK Foreign Office Minister Alistair Burt claiming the deaths were the result of artillery. Upon that narrative falling apart, the West is apparently retrenching itself in the face of Russian skepticism and reports coming from the people in Houla itself claiming militants, not soldiers, stabbed and shot the victims at close range, not shelled them with artillery.
The Guardian proclaims proudly in their newly crafted narrative that "the young survivor's chilling account emerged as Russia continued to blame both Syrian troops and opposition militias for the weekend rampage in the town that left at least 116 people dead and prompted fresh outrage against the regime's crackdown." The Guardian's revised account specifically claims the nameless boy supplied by the opposition, saw Syrian troops dismount from their tanks, and kill his entire family in front of him. Paradoxically, the Guardian then claims they weren't troops, but rather "al-Shabiha" irregular forces who dismounted from armored vehicles with "guns and knives."
Throughout the entire length of the Guardian's article, not a single shred of verified evidence was presented. Answering a question as to how the "boy" knew the gunmen were pro-regime militia men, he responded, "why are you asking me who they were? I know who they were. We all know it. They were the regime army and people who fight with them. That is true." Hardly conclusive evidence, hardly fit for print by any reputable journalist, but, however, a textbook example of manipulative war propaganda.
Hopefully the serial lies told by the Guardian, the BBC who recently included pictures of mass graves in Iraq in their Houla, Syria coverage, and Western leaders who have lied their populations into over 10 years of constant warfare, have finally reached a point where they will no longer be able to advance their agenda with even a fig leaf of credibility. Hopefully, if the West intends to carry forth with its wars of global aggression, they will do so as overt war criminals and invite the measures and penalties demanded when dealing with such war criminals.
by Tony Cartalucci
March 28, 2012 - The Guardian in their piece titled, "Houla massacre survivor tells how his family were slaughtered," admits that the heart-wrenching emotionally manipulative narrative it published comes straight from a nameless boy allegedly produced by "a town elder who is a member of the Syrian Revolutionary Council and is now caring for him." This fact, however, is buried paragraphs below, hopefully read long after the Guardian's intended message takes hold in the minds of readers.
The account raises serious suspicion as it contradicts the West's own original narrative of the Syrian military "shelling" the victims to death in their homes, and instead appears to be a deceitful, quickly prepared response crafted in the wake of verified evidence presented by Russia before the UN Security Council this week.
The Guardian itself previously published an article titled, "Syria shelling 'kills at least 90'" as well as a statement by UK Foreign Office Minister Alistair Burt claiming the deaths were the result of artillery. Upon that narrative falling apart, the West is apparently retrenching itself in the face of Russian skepticism and reports coming from the people in Houla itself claiming militants, not soldiers, stabbed and shot the victims at close range, not shelled them with artillery.
The Guardian proclaims proudly in their newly crafted narrative that "the young survivor's chilling account emerged as Russia continued to blame both Syrian troops and opposition militias for the weekend rampage in the town that left at least 116 people dead and prompted fresh outrage against the regime's crackdown." The Guardian's revised account specifically claims the nameless boy supplied by the opposition, saw Syrian troops dismount from their tanks, and kill his entire family in front of him. Paradoxically, the Guardian then claims they weren't troops, but rather "al-Shabiha" irregular forces who dismounted from armored vehicles with "guns and knives."
Throughout the entire length of the Guardian's article, not a single shred of verified evidence was presented. Answering a question as to how the "boy" knew the gunmen were pro-regime militia men, he responded, "why are you asking me who they were? I know who they were. We all know it. They were the regime army and people who fight with them. That is true." Hardly conclusive evidence, hardly fit for print by any reputable journalist, but, however, a textbook example of manipulative war propaganda.
Hopefully the serial lies told by the Guardian, the BBC who recently included pictures of mass graves in Iraq in their Houla, Syria coverage, and Western leaders who have lied their populations into over 10 years of constant warfare, have finally reached a point where they will no longer be able to advance their agenda with even a fig leaf of credibility. Hopefully, if the West intends to carry forth with its wars of global aggression, they will do so as overt war criminals and invite the measures and penalties demanded when dealing with such war criminals.
