New York Times on “Aleppo’s Destroyers”: All the fake news that’s fit to print

But if it could, the New York Times building would "collapse" at free-fall acceleration
But if it could, the New York Times building would "collapse" at free-fall acceleration
But if it could, the New York Times building would “collapse” at free-fall acceleration

By Kevin Barrett, Veterans Today Editor

The New York Times has been leading the charge against “fake news.” Yet its own reporting and editorial positions are often as one-sided, distorted, or downright mendacious as the worst of the pseudo-alternative websites. The Times’ coverage of wars, especially those of strategic import for the US and/or Israel (not necessarily in that order) is  a particularly fertile field of fake news flummery.

Most of America’s armed conflicts and interventions have been driven by New York Times war propaganda, and the current conflagration in Syria is no exception. An especially egregious, over-the-top example of “damn the facts, full speed ahead” warmongering, every bit as bad as the Judith Miller version of Iraqi WMD, is last Wednesday’s op-ed by the Editorial Board, “Aleppo’s Destroyers: Assad, Putin, Iran.”

The headline, like the diatribe beneath it, conceals the identities of the worst of the “destroyers” of Aleppo and Syria: Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the UAE, the US and Israel. These governments  have created, armed, financed, advised, and otherwise enabled the various militias, mercenaries, and terrorist groups that overran Aleppo and dismembered Syria.

Assad is the elected President of Syria, and Russia and Iran have intervened at the request of Syria’s legitimate government. Naming these three the “destroyers” of Aleppo, while ignoring the aggressors responsible for the proxy war on Syria, is practicing “fake news” at its worst.

The NY Times Editorial Board writes:

“Mr. Putin’s bloody actions — the bombing of civilian neighborhoods, the destruction of hospitals, the refusal to allow noncombatants to receive food, fuel and medical supplies — are all in violation of international law.”

International law?! What about the non-aggression principle and the doctrine of national sovereignty, the twin foundations of international law as it pertains to war and peace? Are not all nations sovereign entities whose borders are inviolable? Are not the Americans, Israelis, Saudis, Qataris, Emiratis and Turks committing aggression by attempting to overthrow the government of a sovereign nation? And is not such aggression “the supreme war crime” according to international law as enshrined in the Nuremberg precedent?

We know who is committing the supreme war crime, aggression. And we know who is fighting in defense of national sovereignty.

What about the lesser war crimes, all of which are the fruits of the supreme crime, aggression?

All the news that's fit to wipe
All the news that’s fit to wipe

It is difficult to separate the facts from the propaganda regarding allegations of  particular war crimes in Syria, thanks in large part to the lies of the anti-Assad propaganda industry supported by the West and its regional proxies. We do know that the worst atrocity alleged to have been committed by Assad – the August 2013 chemical weapons massacre at al-Ghouta – has been exposed as a false flag whose real authors were Saudi and Turkish intelligence agents, aided and abetted by Americans and Israelis. (Veterans Today exposed how the sarin was manufactured in Georgia at a US-run factory and smuggled through Turkey into Syria, while Seymour Hersh had to find a non-US publisher to explain how the monumental false flag fail at al-Ghouta forced Obama to abort plans for a US aerial assault on Damascus.)

Wikipedia tells us that between 281 and 1,729 people died in the al-Ghouta sarin attack. Why is the New York Times not demanding war crimes trials for the American, Turkish, and Saudi perpetrators of this monstrous massacre, which was designed to be blamed on Assad in order to trigger a US bombing campaign? Why has al-Ghouta, the worst atrocity of the war, been consigned to the memory hole?

The New York Times falsely reported that Assad bombed his own people at al-Ghouta. No more outrageous, criminal example of “fake news” could possibly be imagined — except, perhaps, for the Times coverage of 9/11 … coverage whose monumental lies, concealments and coverups have directly led to the deaths of many millions of people worldwide, including those who have perished in the “civil war” in Syria as well as the violence in the other “seven countries in five years” whose destruction was the main purpose of the 9/11 false flag operation.

The New York Times is not just a purveyor of fake news, it is a purveyor of propaganda for the supreme war crime, aggression, and several lesser crimes including genocide. If we are going to start shutting down “fake news” outlets, perhaps we should begin with the Times and the other mainstream media war criminals.




All content herein is owned by author exclusively.  Expressed opinions are NOT necessarily the views of VT, authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors, partners, technicians or Veterans Today Network (VT).  Some content may be satirical in nature. 
All images within are full responsibility of author and NOT VT.
About VT - Read Full Policy Notice - Comment Policy


  1. I looked at the death toll of journalists in the ME Wars 2003 to 2010 to see how many American journalists have died and just using the Iraq war for an example shows out of the 140 to 150 journalists killed – only 2 were American journalists. Take the numbers from the Viet Nam war and we see a Huge Huge difference. So one would be safer just to take the word of the daily press conference from the USG or some guy in a UK flat instead of doing the real job yourself. Besides the media getting paid for staying out of the way and to just write what the USG gives you – is much better than having to pay for a slew of dead journalists – whose stories would never get published – Anyways.

  2. Like the former retailing giant Sears, which set the standard for quality and customer service, the New York Times once set the standard for true honest journalism. Both had the hegemony of their fields and dominated for many years. But as the saying goes, “the bigger they are the harder they fall”. The fall of Sears however, was not due to unethical or improper conduct to its customers or suppliers, but complicated marketplace considerations. The fall of the New York Times however is due to both failure to acknowledge the sea change from the advent of the internet accompanied by blatant lying and cheating of their customers and abuse of all the rules of journalism, none of which would have been tolerated by earlier editors. Any writers engaged in such gross lying about events would have been fired on the spot. How many floors did the Times give up the other day? Let us pray they will do us all a favor and give up the whole building sooner if not later. A very well written article by Kevin.

  3. New York Times has-been already weighed in the balance, we have the truth to weigh against the lies with the facts on the ground and the reality of the people who lived it not read about it…..judgement is handed here from an astute global audience and the in the depiction of the New York Times befits that judgement of “all it’s fit to wipe”and will go down in history as such because “the bombing of civilian neighborhoods, the destruction of hospitals, the refusal to allow noncombatants to receive food, fuel and medical supplies — all in violation of international law.”, is exactly what the New York Times collaborated with to cover, and frame the blame on one of the best Statesman the world has ever seen in Vladimir Putin

  4. International law is just a convenient phrase for Earth 24-time-zones-dominated anglicized media and institutions that hold part of their names like world agency for something or world association of something. Actually international law doesn’t exist outside anglo-saxon law. There are some trails of “internationality of law” within the Swiss law and EU is probably a best known guinea pig for attempting to make anglo-saxon law “international”. International law is very limited to a few lawyer and lawmaker contact groups residing standby to or at the UN. UN cannot set the standards for international law as they are attempting to do so for the past 70 years. Whether it was outside border drawing or just misinfo numerous countries and nations got surprised and caught on the wrong foot upon creation of the UN. The UN needs to resolve these issues and reset starting from its founding members and senior elites. Until it doesn’t do that, there will be nothing actual, palpable or realistic regarding international law. UN-deployed NATO and International law are like starving Lion against a newborn Zebra. Or just looking at USSR and their attempts to make the Soviet world international failed miserably. Today NATO is in numbers by far the biggest obstacle to international law. International law to this day remains a posh phrase to be discussed at west european or east american ball rooms.

Comments are closed.