Stop the Avaaz petition for a "no fly zone" in Syria
We all know what Avaaz is and its obscene history of supporting armed invasions in the name of “humanitarianism” is well-documented. In 2011 it supported the no-fly zone in Libya that allowed the US to destroy the country and murder its president. In 2013 it supported a NATO invasion of Syria that would have ended the same way. Now its cynical warmongering has become tinged with genuine insanity as it demands a no-fly zone in Syria that would inevitably lead to direct conflict between US and Russian forces.
Almost incredibly there are still well-meaning progressives, liberals and anti-war campaigners who don’t know what Avaaz is and who put their names to these petitions under the confused impression that a no-fly zone is some sort of easy method of ending conflict, and not a de facto declaration of war that will be enforced with shells and bomb and many more deaths.
The FAQ page of their poll contains dangerously out-of-touch lies, reassuring people that:
The no-fly zone could be the fastest route to de-escalation.
…which is simply delusional. And:
A no-fly zone is the international community’s last, best chance to prevent aircraft from bombing civilian centers and save lives in Aleppo.
Which makes no reference to that fact they USED THIS EXACT LIE in Libya, and it was proven to be false.
There is a counter-petition, set up to spread the truth about the situation in Syria and alert people to the dangers of the proposed NFZ. Please sign it and share it. The more people who learn the about the very real risk of nuclear war, the less likely it is to happen.
Sign the petition here.
SUPPORT OFFGUARDIAN
If you enjoy OffG's content, please help us make our monthly fund-raising goal and keep the site alive.
For other ways to donate, including direct-transfer bank details click HERE.
Reblogged this on The Most Revolutionary Act and commented:
*
*
Avaaz also supported disastrous “no-fly” carpet bombing in Libya. Sign counter petition here.
The Graund is pure propaganda when it comes to Syria or Russia or even homegrown Jeremy Corbyn, so I won’t have it in my “news feed”. I get my facts from reliable sources often supported here on Off Guardian(beats wading through a translation).and a few other notable blog sites. Why waste money on these corrupt MSM “productions” when toilet paper is so much cheaper?
Reblogged this on EU: Ramshackle Empire.
After signing the petition I was horrified to find it’s actually an Avaaz petition! I managed to Avaaz off my back once, years ago, and now they’re going to be on it again.
This petition just gives Avaaz more publicity and allows then to adopt the mantle of being fair. But it won’t be fair. There’s no way they’re going to give it as much publicity as the petition to impose a no-fly zone, and neither will the corporate media. Work it out.
As it’s been started much later than the no-fly zone petition, it’s almost impossible for it to be able to attract nearly as many signatures.
Well done, guys, you’ve played right into their hands. The most likely result of this is that the result will be that Avaaz will be able to show that far few people voted for a no-fly zone than against it. Worst of all, I will have been one of them.
As an occasional contributor, I respect all you do at Off-Guardian, but someone didn’t think long enough about this. Please try to put it right by telling people not to sign, and revealing it’s just another cynical ploy before even more damage is done.
Like the sound of your voice, Simon?
I have signed the counter-petition and told them they do not understand nor appreciate what they are doing.
blockquote This is by no means the first time the Guardian has censored me but trying to educate the idiotic leftwing muppets on their site is something I do not have time for, and a fight I cannot wage if I have both hands tied behind my back with censorship. blockquote
Sorry, I know people who are disgruntled with the Guardian read this and may be left wing.
My problem with “Liberals” is that they are anything but. I am a true Liberal, I believe in two rules:
1) Golden Rule – treat other people like you want to be treated.
2) My Rule – everyone should be allowed to do pretty much whatever they like as long as it doesn’t hurt other people/animals/society.
That means, no enforced vaccinations, no nanny state, no war on drugs, no war on the Middle East. Most of these loony left “liberals” are the most foaming at the mouth, rabid enforcers of the MSM and the sick oligarchical agenda one could imagine. If everyone lived by the two rules above, the prison population would be tiny, tax revenues would be through the roof and the only wars would be defensive ones – if the aggressors lived by the rules their would be no more wars at all. But no, let’s bait Russia to the point where everyone is now talking about all out nuclear Armageddon, which I am sure Hillary Clinton and her mindless cheerleaders would enjoy very much.
At least there would be a nuclear winter so no more global warming right?
Good post. One problem with the ‘liberal’ question in politics is how needlessly complicated the term ‘liberal’ actually is, and how it can mean opposite things depending on context. Traditionally, ‘liberal’ means as found in the dictionary something like ‘open to new ideas, tolerant of diversity’, contrasting with conservative meaning resisting change, wanting to follow traditional ways, averse to innovation and change. In modern politics, liberal means supporting a social safety net for people, social programs, whereas conservative wants small minimal government, (except where necessary for example military spending). FDR for example was a liberal. But then it gets more confusing: neo-liberal as in economics means market fundamentalism and is actually against government spending on social programs (welfare, public housing, subsidized education, socialized medicine, etc). For neo-liberals there should be deregulation of financial markets, no Keynesian quantitative easing (government injecting money into depressed economy for example). This is like Milton Friedman, Hayek and the Austrian school of economics. Where neo-liberal is the opposite of liberal, neo-conservative is also very different from conservative: where traditional conservatives want as little government as possible, neo-conservatives want to massively increase government spending but only on military and ‘homeland security’ policing. Neo-conservatives are authoritarian and inherently anti-democratic, and are fascist. Traditional conservatives try to avoid getting involved in wars, invasions, or occupations abroad; but neo-conservatives actively seek out foreign conflicts and see global conquest as their main thing (GW Bush/Cheney for example). Back in the days of Reagan and Bush 1, liberals were despised (“the L word” is what HW Bush used pejoratively for liberals like Dukakis, Carter, etc); but these days the neo-cons like Kagan, Cheney, Irving Kristol, Victoria Nuland have joined forces with the liberal interventionists like Samantha Power, Clintons, Tony Blair, Joe Biden. Since both neo-cons and liberal interventionists share the same aim of global domination (taking out Putin, regime change in Syria, Iran, etc). I think a lot of people get confused these days by what liberal and conservative mean, especially when adding ‘neo’ in front of it changes their meaning.
Sorry, didn’t mean to post twice. Noob error. Please delete duplicate comment.
Great work you are doing here by the way.
Done and done. And, no I had no idea what Avaaz was, I subscribe to 38Degrees and Change.org and also sign UK parliamentary petitions. This is a new one on me.
BTW, I have had ridiculous problems with the Guardian BTL. They had a page dedicated to what happens next in Syria. I was horrified that the message was so ridiculously out of touch with reality. I posted a link to General Wesley Clark speaking in 2003/2004 (not sure when exactly but one of those two) saying that Libya, Syria and Iran were next.
I pointed out that without context of Washington’s imperialism the article was null and void because it missed the entire point of what was happening.
Needless to say, my post was deleted, as were all my subsequent posts. Finally, I got the Big Bad Red “Your Posts Are Being Moderated” text until I had posted on enough trivial topics and got enough “likes” to make me a moronic idiot again.
Some of my posts on the Guardian have hundreds of upvotes. I am a witty and informed commentator. I only go there because I like their sport section but when I see something that is 100000% propaganda I cannot help but speak my mind.
This is by no means the first time the Guardian has censored me but trying to educate the idiotic leftwing muppets on their site is something I do not have time for, and a fight I cannot wage if I have both hands tied behind my back with censorship.
If I was rude, ignorant, stupid and didn’t back up everything I say with mostly primary sources, from the horses mouth, non a priori, then fair enough.
But as someone who has traveled and lived all over the world, including the Middle East, I don’t THINK I know what I am talking about, I KNOW.
I have friends from Syria, Iraq, Palestine. I have first sons named after me by Syrians. This breaks my heart. I am outraged. How can the public be so STUPID to fall for Iraq 2, Libya 2, Afghanistan 2? How the hell can anyone believe the Guardian, BBC and other MSM outlets after all their lies?
Maybe we deserve WW3, if people are this stupid and this willing to give genuine evil a pass, maybe we deserve the Sodom and Gomorrah we deserve.
I agree with 99.9999% with what you are saying, Simon. The only thing I would quibble with is the idea that Guardian readers (the unthinking ones) really are genuinely ‘left-wing’. Being the pampered beneficiary of imperialism past and present, sufficient to allow you to indulge in the rhetoric of identity politics, does not constitute true progressiveness – certainly not these days, when the true progressives are those who, recognising that their own privilege and high consumption levels have been paid for by the blood and tears of others, really are prepared for radical change to rectify this, including the possibility of sacrificing their own ‘luxuries’ – rather than simply shedding a few crocodile tears, signing a petition and booking their next foreign holiday.
Done and done. And, no I had no idea what Avaaz was, I subscribe to 38Degrees and Change.org and also sign UK parliamentary petitions. This is a new one on me.
BTW, I have had ridiculous problems with the Guardian BTL. They had a page dedicated to what happens next in Syria. I was horrified that the message was so ridiculously out of touch with reality. I posted a link to General Wesley Clark speaking in 2003/2004 (not sure when exactly but one of those two) saying that Libya, Syria and Iran were next.
I pointed out that without context of Washington’s imperialism the article was null and void because it missed the entire point of what was happening.
Needless to say, my post was deleted, as were all my subsequent posts. Finally, I got the Big Bad Red “Your Posts Are Being Moderated” text until I had posted on enough trivial topics and got enough “likes” to make me a moronic idiot again.
Some of my posts on the Guardian have hundreds of upvotes. I am a witty and informed commentator. I only go there because I like their sport section but when I see something that is 100000% propaganda I cannot help but speak my mind.
This is by no means the first time the Guardian has censored me but trying to educate the idiotic leftwing muppets on their site is something I do not have time for, and a fight I cannot wage if I have both hands tied behind my back with censorship.
If I was rude, ignorant, stupid and didn’t back up everything I say with mostly primary sources, from the horses mouth, non a priori, then fair enough.
But as someone who has traveled and lived all over the world, including the Middle East, I don’t THINK I know what I am talking about, I KNOW.
I have friends from Syria, Iraq, Palestine. I have first sons named after me by Syrians. This breaks my heart. I am outraged. How can the public be so STUPID to fall for Iraq 2, Libya 2, Afghanistan 2? How the hell can anyone believe the Guardian, BBC and other MSM outlets after all their lies?
Maybe we deserve WW3, if the majority of people in the West are this stupid and this willing to give genuine evil a pass, maybe we deserve the Sodom and Gomorrah we deserve.
Don’t waste one more second of your time on The Guardian. That once great paper is now in the same league as “NewsCorpse”. Sad to say it.