The Guardian has responded to Bashar Assad’s BBC interview. 700 words which can easily be summarized in these two short sentences:
“He is getting away with it. He is, as ever, part of the problem, not the solution.”
What keeps striking me is how everything in this world can be reduced to a personified problem. Stalin must be posthumously laughing his moustache off witnessing Guardianistas’ evolution towards an unabridged acceptance of his one-two universal solution – “no man, no problem”. The intricacies of the Middle East and the reality of substantial popular support behind Mr. Assad don’t count. This selective blindness is duly recorded by the editorial – ‘watching Mr. Assad…sounded like an exercise in denial’. I don’t dare fathom what is the sound of a Guardian editor watching Mr. Assad, but it seems the smell will keep on spreading.
Here are some forum comments that really impressed me:
Do wake up Guardian. It’s the Middle East. It’s how things are.
Anyway, how’s that Arab spring thingy of yours going? As far as I can tell it’s greatest success has been the vastly increased number of displaced persons.
So Tariq Ali is right, there’s been a coup at the right-wing Graun and the swivel-eyed right-wingers have been ousted by swivel-eyed far right loons.
(a nice example of how some posters are more equal than others)
The bull shit this man was spouting during the interview was appalling and he was barely challenged. This is the biggest humanitarian crisis since the second world war. The Syrians lucky enough to have fled are being treated like dogs by an international community happy to let the bordering countries support the overflow. This sociopath sits there and smiles about well documented barrel bombs, the slaughter of civilians, torture and every rights violation imaginable and says Syria is not a failed state. He’s barely challenged on that!
Mobysick >> ID9735781
Since the Big Two? Don’t be an American, it’s embarrassing.
ID9735781 >> Mobysick
What I like about the Guardian is that they really save your time. You can look through the title and subtitle and immediately see what the article is, objective analysis or blatant propaganda.
I listened to the Assad interview. I was struck by the clumsy attempts by Bowen to ‘catch him out’ .I think we should pass comment on the ineptitude, and crassness and absence of subtlety displayed by Bowen. Although not quite ‘confrontational’ Bowen was snide-and just seemed to make the terrible error of seeming both critical and obsequious. The effect was to just close Assad up and all that emerged was pretty much what one would have expected.
Bowen did of course press on the matter of the barrel bomb and Assad’s reply was sullen and a foolish denial, but for the life of me I am unable to make much distinction between the swift incineration of a modern, drone delivered, missile by a hi-tech, well-equipped western army and the crude and cheap barrel bomb. It must be the style of the thing. These bogus and vacuous ‘distinctions’ reveal rather a lot about the quality of the interviewer as well as the interviewee. The questioning afterwards by the studio person-(was it Justin motormouth?-they are all becoming so samey these days on Today) was just as lame,prejudiced and lacking incisiveness.
Certainly, getting the interview at all was some kind of scoop, but the the execution of the interview was lame and uninformative and existed only to confirm pre-determined positions.
The true facts of this disastrous war are shrouded in much mystery, with equally propagandist accounts given from numerous interested parties and indeed some truly disreputable ‘journalism’ by . I have no confidence whatsoever in the account given above, nr in those given elsewhere.
The acceleration of the process from a little local disturbance to a full- on multi-faceted civil war, combined with a local strategic and global proxy wars smacks of connivance hidden motives from all quarters.
Analysis of this lamentable situation was not Bowen’s purpose and I despair at the nature of the journalism revealed by both the Guardian here, and the BBC.
What hypocrisy. The US and the UK used depleted uranium in Iraq which is still there poisoning children playing in the ruins of their country, and the Israelis have used white phosphorus in Palestine. However as the West calls the shots these crimes are not subject to the same phoney moral condemnation.
“When the turmoil began in Syria,…” Yes where was that again? In Daraa just a kilometre from the Jordanian border. No resistance movements begin on a country’s border but foreign funded guns for hire ones do. Who funded this one again? Oh yes Saudi Arabia and Qatar with the approval of the U.S. Why? Because Syria is an ally of Iran, sworn enemy of all that is good and holy and a threat to peace loving nations everywhere. That is the reason the poor country of Syria has been torn to pieces, it is part of a grotesque geo political game and only way the West can hide its monstrous crimes is to play the evil dictator card. It’s worked so many times before why stop now? All you need is an echo chamber media to pump out the Orwellian lies and any sympathy that the evil dictator might be getting because his country is having to deal with the Frankenstein of ISIS can be reversed before the whole game starts to completely fall apart.