…by Jonas E. Alexis
I like to listen to people whose views are completely different than mine. I like to pay close attention to their arguments. I always look for logical consistency, explanatory power, explanatory scope, and inference to the best explanation. I also listen very carefully to people who do not share my position because I believe “iron sharpens iron.” I have ignored some people over the years because they were not willing to apply reason in their weltanschauung. But I have always enjoyed thoughtful or constructive criticism.
Brandon Martinez, a very fine gentleman who has been in the fight against Zionism in the alternative media, has risibly posited the claim that “Paul Craig Roberts, Jonas Alexis, and the rest of these Putin worshipping yellow journalists need to be shamed for the propagandists they are. Zionist KGB Putin is part of the oligarchy.”
Let’s just forget about this “Putin worshipping yellow journalists” red herring and focus on Martinez’s main argument, which he articulated in an article entitled, “Alt-Media Continues Yellow Journalism for Russia As Civilians Die in Syria.” Martinez cites the Guardian saying that
“The Western coalition and Russia have killed at minimum a combined 3,000 civilians in Syria and Iraq, according to multiple media reports. On-the-ground observer groups have tallied up 2,000 civilian victims of Russian airstrikes since the Kremlin’s intervention late last year.
“Many of the victims are women and children who are trapped in areas occupied by insurgents where Russian forces are said to ‘have intentionally bombed civilian areas’ in a blitzkrieg campaign “to spread fear and clear areas where government ground troops were planning to advance.”
But Martinez will not tell us that the same Guardian cited the US saying that “More than 90%’ of Russian airstrikes in Syria have not targeted Isis.” Of course, the Guardian can be a source of information, but when they start citing the Zionist State of America with respect to situation in Syria, then a serious observer has to put his thinking cap on precisely because, as we shall see, the US has relentlessly propagated deliberate fabrication in the region.
Remember when the universally declared that Assad used chemical weapons on his own people? Remember how things got ugly when independent sources reported that it was the rebels, not Assad, who actually used chemical weapons? Remember how Russian officials changed the political dynamic when they first presented serious evidence which clearly indicated that Assad did not use chemical weapons?
Back in 2013, Israeli officials declared ad nauseam that Assad had used chemical weapons, and the US, through the Zionist Media, mobilized to perpetuate the lie that Assad indeed had crossed the so-called “red line” as proposed by Obama. As a result of all the covert machination, the US was more than willing for a Syria invasion. It was a complete hoax.
The Neocons were also beating the war drum, writing one article after another and saying crazy things like the US needed to invade Syria or that the US needed to stop Russia. Robert Kagan declared last year:
“In recent years, the mere mention of U.S. ground troops has been enough to stop any conversation. Americans, or at least the intelligentsia and political class, remain traumatized by Iraq, and all calculations about what to do in Syria have been driven by that trauma.”
Kagan, of course, had a solution to the problem in Syria:
“America will have to take the lead, provide the troops, supply the bulk of the air power and pull together those willing and able to join the effort.
“What would such an effort look like? First, it would require establishing a safe zone in Syria, providing the millions of would-be refugees still in the country a place to stay and the hundreds of thousands who have fled to Europe a place to which to return.
“To establish such a zone, American military officials estimate, would require not only U.S. air power but ground forces numbering up to 30,000. Once the safe zone was established, many of those troops could be replaced by forces from Europe, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and other Arab states, but the initial force would have to be largely American…
“At the same time, an internationally negotiated and blessed process of transition in Syria should take place, ushering the bloodstained Mr. Assad from power and establishing a new provisional government to hold nationwide elections. The heretofore immovable Mr. Assad would face an entirely new set of military facts on the ground, with the Syrian opposition now backed by U.S. forces and air power, the Syrian air force grounded and Russian bombing halted.
“Throughout the transition period, and probably beyond even the first rounds of elections, an international peacekeeping force—made up of French, Turkish, American and other NATO forces as well as Arab troops—would have to remain in Syria until a reasonable level of stability, security and inter-sectarian trust was achieved.”
Neocons like Kagan were just reading an essentially diabolical script from the Israeli regime. The script basically said that even though groups like ISIS were bad, the Israeli regime preferred them over the Assad government.
Russia changed that political dimension by defending the Assad government. It stopped the Zionist regime from turning Syria into chaos—like the one we have observed in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya.
Another important point is that Martinez ought to come to the fact that the Guardian itself reported that Assad won the election by almost 90% of the vote. A sizable section of the Christian population also supported Russia’s intervention in the region as well.
So, we have a problem here: if Russian forces were killing civilians by the thousands, and the civilians were still supporting both the Assad government and Russia, isn’t Martinez implicitly declaring that the average Syrian is stupid for supporting Putin and Assad? Or could it be that the Syrians know something that Martinez could not get from the mainstream media?
Obviously Martinez finds himself in a circle: he is against the Neoconservative Mafia, but at the same time he is using the essentially Neoconservative ideology to dust off Putin. He can’t have it both ways.
Anne Patterson, assistant secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, declared last October: “Since the beginning of Russian strikes in Syria, at least 120,000 Syrians have been displaced as a result of regime offensives aided by Russian airstrikes in the cities of Hama, Aleppo, and Idlib.” The problem was that Russia was annihilating the Syrian rebels/terrorists, and Patterson reluctantly or indirectly made this interesting point:
“Moscow has cynically tried to claim that its strikes are focused on terrorist, but so far 85 to 90 percent of Syrian strikes have hit the moderate Syrian opposition and they have killed civilians in the process.” As Robert Fisk pointed out last year, there is no such thing as moderate opposition. We all know by now that the so-called moderate forces are sleeping with terrorist cells.
Flaming Jewish Neocon Victoria Nuland declared last November:
“While Moscow asserts that its military action is directed at ISIL, the vast majority of Russian strikes target areas where the Assad regime has lost territory to forces led by the moderate opposition, in towns like Hama, Homs, Aleppo and Idlib. Now Russia is fielding its own artillery and other ground assets around Hama and Homs, greatly increasing their soldiers’ vulnerability to counterattack.
“And Moscow has failed to exact any humanitarian concessions from Assad as the price for Russian support. The regime continues to barrel bomb its own citizens with impunity, perhaps even emboldened by Moscow’s help.”
Why were Patterson and Nuland propagating this ideology? Patterson had the answer:
“One thing is clear, Assad cannot unite and govern Syria and we cannot continue to hold the lives of the Syrian people hostage to the desire of one man to retain power. We, the Syrian people, and our regional allies need a political transition that ends ISIL’s reign of terror and allows displaced Syrians to return home.”
If that is not the zenith of stupidity, then nothing is. As we have demonstrated, the Syrian people have already chosen Assad by almost 90 percent! If that is not democracy, then what is it? What more did this lady need? And is it really rational to use either Patterson’s or Nuland’s “statistics” to denounce Russia? Are we to believe that Nuland is an unbiased person? Didn’t she explicitly admit that the US spent at least five billion dollars to produce insurrection in Ukraine? Didn’t she say “fu$k the EU” when they were too slow to follow the Neoconservative agenda in the region? Martinez obviously has a lot of explaining to do here.
“‘Alternative’ media outlets, pundits and followers are keen to recognize the Western coalition’s civilian victims, but not those slain by Russia. On the reports of Western excesses there is no fuss over the details of the reporting nor are any suspicions raised about the objectivity of the ‘sources’ giving the information. It is simply accepted. Yet pro-Kremlin hacks and gatekeepers dismiss any and all reportage of Russian wrongdoing in the Syrian war as ‘propaganda’ from the West.”
Martinez does not seem to be willing to argue that Russia’s main target in Syria is not the civilian population, which they have been defending along with the small Christian population, but any entity that seeks to attack the Assad government. Of course, in wars, it is inevitable that some civilians will die. And it would be irrational to say that the Russian forces hadn’t hit a single civilian.
But can Martinez really argue that Russia has been deliberately killing civilians in the region? And can he really defend the Zionist thesis that at least 2,000 civilians were slaughtered due to Russian strikes? Didn’t Russia ask for evidence for this claim as well? Did the Zionist Media produce the evidence? Reporting is one thing, but producing serious evidence and independent sources is quite another. Even the New York Times itself agrees that Russia’s main target is largely “C.I.A.-backed rebel forces.”
Martinez knows that the Zionist Mafia and their lackeys have been playing this game from time immemorial. They perpetuated the claim that Hussein was killing his own people. They declared that Gaddafi was a dictator and was instantly marked for extermination. They did the same thing in Iran in 1953. In fact, Zionist regime has been in this business for over fifty years. Martinez is indeed a rational man, and he therefore has to come to terms with these issues in a deeper way.
Martinez brings another point which demands serious reflection. He writes,
“If these biased hacks were intellectually honest and consistent, then they’d have to write off all past Western media reportage that, for example, drew attention to Western financing and arming of extremist Syrian Islamist rebels, all coverage of Western coalition misconduct, all reporting of US-UK war crimes in the Iraq war, and all depictions of Israeli war crimes in the last Gaza invasion.
“The highly selective cherry picking of what can and cannot be trusted or believed is emblematic of the partisan information war that these compromised or ideologically driven alt-media outlets and pundits are waging.”
Martinez obviously cannot seem to see that we are no longer living in the first century, where cameras and all kinds of technological devices were unavailable. In other words, we have enough technological tools to provide multiple and independent sources, therefore it now hard for the Zionist Mafia to hide all their misdeeds.
Keep also in mind that the Zionist Media cannot hide everything at all. In order to survive and thrive, they have to produce bits of truths in a torrent of falsity. They cannot hide facts like the West has been indirectly arming terrorist cells such as ISIS precisely because multiple and independent sources have pointed toward that direction.
But have the Zionist media and their lackeys been really fair with Russia? Hasn’t Putin repeatedly declared to US officials that Russia indeed wants to fight terrorist organizations with the US? Didn’t the United States refuse the offer? Hasn’t Putin repeatedly declared where the issues really lie? Hasn’t he pointed out why he has decided to protect the Assad government? Has Martinez paid close attention to his speeches?
We are not “Putin worshipping yellow journalists.” If there is serious evidence showing that Russia has been involved in literally and deliberately bombing the Syrian population, we will be more than happy to report it and condemn Russia for this egregious act. I will have to conclude by saying that that Putin has offered something that is far more rational and satisfying than any alternative so far.
I still agree with Kevin Barrett when he said that Putin is “putting the fear of God in the New World Order.” I also agree with Alexander Solzhenitsyn when he perceived that Putin changed the political dynamic in Russia and much of the world. Speaking of Russia, Solzhenitsyn declared:
“Putin inherited a ransacked and bewildered country, with a poor and demoralized people. And he started to do what was possible—a slow and gradual restoration. These efforts were not noticed, nor appreciated, immediately. In any case, one is hard pressed to find examples in history when steps by one country to restore its strength were met favorably by other governments.”
Would Martinez agree or disagree with Solzhenitsyn here? Would he say that Solzhenitsyn is a “Putin worshipping yellow journalist”?
 He has written two fine books on this subject so far: Grand Deceptions: Zionist Intrigue in the 20th and 21st Centuries and The ISIS Conspiracy: How Israel and the West Manipulate Our Minds Through Fear.
 “’More than 90%’ of Russian airstrikes in Syria have not targeted Isis, US says,” Guardian, October 7, 2015.
 David E. Sanger and Jodi Judoren, “Israel Says It Has Proof That Syria Has Used Chemical Weapons,” NY Times, April 13, 2013.
 See for example Seymour M. Hersh, “Whose sarin?,” London Review of Books, December 19, 2013; “The Red Line and the Rat Line,” London Review of Books, April 17, 2014.
 See for example Gary Legum, “A neocon never learns: Beware the cry of the Syria war hawks,” Salon, October 1, 2015; William Pfaff, “Putin and the neoconservatives,” Japan Times, April 3, 2015; for recent developments, see Paul R. Pillar, “The Itch to Escalate the Syrian Civil War,” National Interest, August 5, 2016.
 Herb Keinon, “’Israel wanted Assad gone since start of Syria civil war,’” Jerusalem Post, September 17, 2013; Jack Moore, “Israeli Defense Minister: I Prefer ISIS to Iran on Our Borders,” Newsweek, January 20, 2016.
 “Bashar al-Assad wins re-election in Syria as uprising against him rages on,” Guardian, June 4, 2014; see also “Bashar Assad wins Syria presidential election with 88.7% of vote,” Russia Today, June 4, 2014; Nabih Bulos, “Syria’s Assad wins third term as president in landslide victory,” LA Times, June , 2014.
 “’Russian operation in Syria is our salvation’ – top Syrian Catholic bishop to RT,” Russia Today, February 18, 2016.
 Robert Fisk, “David Cameron, there aren’t 70,000 moderate fighters in Syria – and whoever heard of a moderate with a Kalashnikov, anyway?,” Independent, November 30, 2015.
 Michael Hughes, “U.S. Support for Al Qaeda-Linked Rebels Undermines Syrian Ceasefire,” Huffington Post, May 21, 2016; “Ex-CIA Officer: US Knows Syrian Rebels Cover For al-Nusra Front,” Sputnik News, May 6, 2016; “U.S.-trained Syrian rebels gave equipment to Nusra: U.S. military,” Reuters.com, September 26, 2016.
 See for example “Obama: Assad Protected Christians In Syria,” MintPress News, September 12, 2014; Alessandra Nucci, “ISIS, Assad, and What the West is Missing About Syria,” Catholic World Reporter, December 15, 2014.
 Mark Mazetti, Anne Barnard, and Erich Schmitt, “Military Success in Syria Gives Putin Upper Hand in U.S. Proxy War,” NY Times, August 6, 2016.
 Ervand Abrahamian, The Coup: 1953, the CIA, and the Roots of Modern U.S.-Iranian Relations (New York: The New Press, 2015); Mike de Seve, Operation Ajax: The Story of the CIA Coup that Remade the Middle East (New York: Verso, 2015); Stephen Kinzer, All the Shah’s Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2008).
 Stephen Kinzer, Overthrow: America’s Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq (New York: Times Books, 2006).
 “SPIEGEL Interview with Alexander Solzhenitsyn: ‘I Am Not Afraid of Death,’” Spiegel International, July 23, 2007.