124

post your comments here on latest Graun article to banish readers’ opinions

One of our regular readers just suggested we try the experiment of opening comments on here for a Guardian story that is shut down BTL. So – here it is…we’re not not sure if there’ll be any interest – let’s see

The article open for discussion here is this one from Jan 23 2018

if you have anything you want to say about it – comment is free… 🙂


Filed under: latest, On Guardian
avatar
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Dave Roberts
Reader

Total lies as usual from Tillerson – not only has he no evidence apart from testimony from terrorist groups (not at all credible) but the US also vetoed at the UN Russia’s proposal to investigate using proper scientific methods. It is clear that it is the US who has something to hide as Hillary’s leaked e-mails showing that the US supplied Sarin to the terrorists proves.

George Cornell
Reader
George Cornell

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2018/jan/30/hollywood-reverence-child-rapist-roman-polanski-convicted-40-years-on-run
This article would engender vigorous discussion here, even though open for comments in the Fraudian. They have things to answer for.

BigB
Reader
BigB

A bit OT: but …Salvation is nigh! On Wednesday, George Monbiot will reveal the way to the Promised Land. I am predicting that it will be a matryoshka doll of the ideals of the commons-commoning; nestled inside communitarianism; nestled inside state-syndicalism; nestled inside social democracy (state capitalism); nestled inside imperialism (loyalty to his beloved NATO); powered by nuclear (ethical fair trade in the commons of uranium ore?). Whatever he comes up with (he already has the book) …I suspect that it will be a barely warmed through vegan stew of rehashed post-Marxism …served cold to the bourgeoisie …to limit the horizons and manage the expectations of the burgeoning Momentum ‘movement’. Now, if you worked as a collaborator with the Guardian …you wouldn’t want a genuine left uprising of consciousness and opinion to go full Marxist-communist, would you?

Matt
Reader
Matt

I can now confirm that my comments are being deleted by off-G. Firstly, all my comments are automatically put on premoderation. When I asked Admin why this is, they said they “had no idea why”. I then posted a comment through a proxy, as a test, and it immediately appeared. A few hours later, now, when I check, this comment is gone and has been manually deleted. I was not even informed of my comments being deleted, meaning the moderators are discreetly deleting my comments like cowards. It also means that the Admin lied to me when I asked, a few weeks ago, why my comments in the Ulfkotte thread never showed up – NONE of them over a course of two days. Admin once again said they didn’t know and recommended that I save my comments.
Now, however, I know this is a lie. I posted two comments in this very thread that were not caught in Off-Guardian’s censorship, because I posted them through a proxy. They are now both gone.
The great irony of all this has not been lost on me. This website portrays itself as some tolerant website that allows “free comments” unlike the Graun. Yet, even the Graun didn’t stoop so low as to shadowban its users and proceed to lie to them about this!
When this comment is posted, I was screenshot it as proof. Let’s see you delete my comments now, hypocrites.

Matt
Reader
Matt

So I was lied to here:
https://off-guardian.org/2018/01/08/english-translation-of-udo-ulfkottes-bought-journalists-suppressed/#comment-99592
And now off-G is selectively deleting some of my comments, only allowing some to show up, while deleting the more critical ones.

Darryl Secret
Reader
Darryl Secret

This happened to me on the CBC, where I did post a comment without links. However, it also happened, again, when I re-posted the same comments WITH links!
As well my account was suspended!
But based on admins comment just post your evidence, otherwise you end up sounding like U$A alphabet spokesperson.

Matt
Reader
Matt

Yep, I’m shadowbanned from my I.P.
This is a disgrace. You triumphantly go on about how the Graun censors commentators, then you proceed to do the same here, all while promoting threads where people can post comments on the Graun’s articles.
I already asked a few weeks ago why my posts from home were pre-moderated and the Admin said they didn’t have any idea why. I also asked why a large number of my posts had not showed up, when I last debated in the Ulfkotte thread, and the Admin said they couldn’t find my posts.
Yet, today, one of my posts posted without a proxy did show up, proving that my comments are being selectively approved and the others ignored. Without even telling me.
If you’re going to censor me, at least have the guts to be transparent about it!

Admin
Reader

1) As you have been told many times already your IP is flagged by our software because you have a history of posting under different IDs, using proxies to change your IP repeatedly inside very short time frames, spamming repeat links, arguing with yourself and general trolling. Because we believe in free speech we don’t ban you – as you do also post serious comment. But most sites, including those you routinely endorse, would have canned you a long time ago.
2) Neither I nor the editors can be here 24/7 to make sure your posts are delivered on time. Sometimes you will need to wait. If you wanted to post freely – as 99.999% of our readers do – you shouldn’t have abused our trust in the first place.
3) None of your serious comments have ever been deleted – as you well know. I even took the time to search through our (large) spam folder to find a comment that our software had sent there – and published it for you. That is courtesy. Probably more than you are due. Certainly more than you are showing now.
Good day.

John Watwood
Reader
John Watwood

It is awfully convenient for Russia to get into the Syrian invasion for the West to have a scapegoat for their war crimes and genocide. For oil and gas pipelines no less. What would the MSM Western have done if Russia did not intervene when asked to by the Syrians? Lie as they have done with some of the attacks, or just not report certain events because a controlled narrative couldn’t have construed any semblance of rationality and logic? I’m sure there are plenty of Western corporations, including banks, that are absolutely incensed that they cannot get the IMF and WB loan money given to the new Syrian puppet to rebuild what the Western military corporations destroyed. The MSM parroteers are pathetic but a perfect representation of what western governments(kakistocracies) really are. All States(kakistocracies) in my opinion.

mohandeer
Reader

Reblogged this on Worldtruth.

The Baron
Reader
The Baron

Today’s interview with Vanessa Feltz has disappeared from the internet. As usual comment was halted long before UK readers had even woken up. The story was mainly about pay at the BBC and her take on being Jewish and getting well paid. The BBC had a story yesterday in which four highly paid presenters agreed to a pay cut. However a fifth, Jon Sopel, the highly paid North America editor was still haggling. Dare I say he is Jewish? If he were as good as Vanessa I wouldn’t mention it, but he’s not. It would be interesting to know the salaries of Jonathan Freedland and Nick Cohen.

Admin
Reader

Please don’t continue on this tack. We don’t want petty racist witch hunts, that is not why we run this site and not what we want to encourage people to spend their time on.
And the problem with the BBC is not – principally – how much it pays its staff

George Cornell
Reader
George Cornell

I agree. It does bring up the issue of the propriety of public funded institutions evading transparency, as if they had something to hide.
Just as troublesome to me is the cheek of the Guardian to ask for donations when it is impossible to get a detailed annual report and accounting of their financial status. They seem to think we should just trust them.
Well, we did once and what their disappointing behaviour has engendered is a loss of the trust built up, not by the present crew, but by the Guardian that once was. It is surely apparent to them what the cost of losing trust entails. The full embrace of opinionism vs journalism can’t be good for any news source, smacking as it does of contempt for its own readership.
I like the way Admin handled the above post.

rightfromjumpstreet
Reader

First World War 16 millions died
21million wounded
At the height of the carnage Prime Minister of Great Britain David Lloyd George had a private chat with C. P. Scott, the editor of the Guardian:
“If the people really knew the truth the war would be stoppped tomorrow, but of course they don’t know and can’t know.”
‘The Battle of the Somme’
Young troops would yell ‘Hello Mom’ as they marched to the front, and they were heard crying for their mothers as they died on the battlefield.’ This was almost never reported.
I came across the above in December 2010 when the campaign to demonize Myanmar Gaddafi was on in full swing, the the imperialist intervention in Syria had begun.
As long ago as World War I the Guardian was doing its bit for the Empire to keep the truth from people, and thus, mislead them on the most important issues of war and peace. And, that’s despite having many good journalists.

vexarb
Reader

@rightfrom: “At the height of the carnage Prime Minister of Great Britain David Lloyd George had a private chat with C. P. Scott, the editor of the Guardian:
“If the people really knew the truth the war…” I wonder if 1914 Liberal PM DLG told Scott the truth about WW1: that it was a Liberal Intervention in order to Liberate the oilfields in Mesopotamia for Anglo-Zio-Capitalists; just like the 1899 Liberal govt’s Right to Protect the gold and diamonds in the Afrikaner Free Republics. Anyway, whether Scott knew the truth or not, I know he did not cheer the Liberal’s 1899 resource war against the Afrikaner Republics — as the modern Guardian undoubtedly would have done. I do not know Scott’s position on the cause of WW1, but it would be indeed remarkable if he attributed it to anything other than “German Militarism” or “Conflicting Nationalist Ideals”.

vexarb
Reader

Having googled CP Scott WW1 I found: 1904 he favoured the Anglo-French Alliance against Germany as “beneficial to the democratic element”; 1908 he became a Liberal MP, presumably accepting the Party Whip; 1914 wrote against Britain joining WW1 but “having entered, must assure our national survival” (shades of 2003 and Liberal opposition to the Great Gang Rape of Iraq melting into Liberal acquiescence — but with a certain Gravitas; also introduced Zionist Leader Chaim Weizmann to Lloyd George, stressing “the importance of Palestine”. So the tears of Scott and George over the horrific ensuing slaughter are crocodile tears; by no means remarkable among his peers in the Anglo MSM of his day — and of ours.
Clip: “In 1904 Britain and France came to an understanding which formed part of the reason why the British army went to Europe ten years later. The entente required Germany to see it as a hostile alliance for it to become one. It was a resolution of outstanding colonial disputes between two imperial powers, a continuation of old diplomacy between two great powers, more than it was a harbinger of the war which ushered in the modern world. But the Manchester Guardian, whose editor CP Scott would oppose Britain’s entry to the war in July 1914, welcomed “the new friendship” for ‘”the chance it affords of a genuine alliance between the democracies in both countries for the furtherance of a common democratic cause”.
Clip (shades of 2003!): The Fall of Baghdad by Edmund Candler, Manchester Guardian, 16 March 1917. Our vanguard entered Baghdad soon after nine o’clock this morning. Crowds of Baghdadis came out to meet us: Persians, Krabe, Jew, Armenians, Chaldeans and Christians of diverse sects and races. They lined the streets, balconies and roofs, hurrahing and clapping their hands. Groups of schoolchildren danced in front of us, shouting and cheering, and the women of the city turned out in their holiday dresses.”

Manda
Reader
Manda

This is where I heard those quotes. John Pilger’s film. ‘The war you don’t see’
http://johnpilger.com/videos/the-war-you-dont-see

rightfromjumpstreet
Reader

Thanks a million Manda! I couldn’t find where
I got it from and figured I’d have to wait till later today.

Manda
Reader
Manda

Those quotes are burnt on my brain since I first watched that film, I wasn’t aware that was also where you heard them but glad to be of help. Also an opportunity to post the link for any readers that may not have watched it.

bevin
Reader
vexarb
Reader

@bevin. Wow! What Vanessa Beeley reveals about this 2nd Oscar nomination proves the CIA were not joking when their spokesman said: We shall know we have done our job when everything the public believes is false.

Betrayed Planet
Reader
Betrayed Planet

The Guardian, RIP.

Orthus
Reader
Orthus
Manda
Reader
Manda

I’m not sure if RIP is appropriate… good bye and good riddance is my feeling.

Rhisiart Gwilym
Reader
Rhisiart Gwilym

A fanciful conjecture: Sometime before it finally folds in – oh I dunno, 2020, 2021 – it will come out that the Fraudian’s management outfit – no longer the old Scott Trust, whatever obfuscations the Graunhacks put out on that head – was taken over a few years previously by what will prove ultimately to be USAmerican onepercenter money.
Hence the – brief – rise of (following Paul Craig Roberts’ graphic-but-accurate terminology) the presstitute KViner to the editorship; and the Fraud’s final blaze of lies, distortion, abject censorship and deceit; followed by its ultimate crashburnvanish brought about by the terminal haemorrhage of its last tranche of old faithful readers. No wonder Kath and crew are begging for money so desperately just now…
In case you think I’m being just too fanciful here, have a read of this information-and-links-dense Jonathan Cook piece from March, 2015 (JC, be advised, was a Graun in-house journalist who got out eventually and went freelance because he’s too much of an honest, genuine journalist – the real thing – to be able to stomach working for the Graun any longer):
https://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/2015-03-03/hsbc-and-the-sham-of-guardians-scott-trust/

Jen
Reader
Jen

I like The Fraudian, do you mind if I refer to The Guardian as The Fraudian from now on in future Off-Guardian comments I might make?
I promise I will spell the word properly … except where I might detect a Freudian slip on Jonathan Freedland’s part and then I might go to town on the punning.
🙂

George Cornell
Reader
George Cornell

Be my guest although I may not have been the first to use it.

Jen
Reader
Jen

Well my reply was originally directed to Rhisiart Gwilym but thanks all the same.

George Cornell
Reader
George Cornell

How very helpful . I have mused on one of the other threads as to why none of the real, now former , journalists at the Fraudian have not blown the whistle about the subversion of the Guardian. And now I see they have, factually, and conceptually. Thanks Rhis..
Aren’t there any Scotts left? I thought one was on the board, but if so, his ancestors are retching in their graves.

Catte
Reader
Catte

if anyone’s wondering we decided to remove a certain troll’s posts entirely, because they were empty of content and crudely abusive to two very brave women posting here. Sorry to those who replied to him – but I think it’s justified in this case.

Jen
Reader
Jen

In this case, I think Catte was right to remove the troll’s posts as they contributed nothing to the conversation yet had the potential to derail the comments thread had they stayed. The troll is not alone in his/her opinions about the situation in Syria and those might have attracted support (meaning more abuse) had they stayed.
I would suggest banning the troll as well if s/he continues to try to abuse the two women journalists and any other visitors whose comments s/he does not like.
These days trolls have an agenda in who they target and how they troll, and we do not always have the luxury of time, resources or indulgence on our side to try to understand what their game (and who is directing them) is so sometimes outright banning is the most effective solution.

George Cornell
Reader
George Cornell

I empathize. But consider that such posts have been helpful in bringing out points you and others make, sometimes in proportion to the odiousness of the post.. And ask who the removal is for. It should be done rarely, in my opinion.

Admin
Reader

We have a completely open comment policy – no pre-moderation except for multiple hyperlinks, which is an automated anti-spam response. 99.99% of the 30,000+ comments we have received remain on our site. Which we see as a tribute to the co-operative and mutually respectful attitude of our readership.

George Cornell
Reader
George Cornell

That’s a great record and you should be proud. I am one of many who feel hugely more threatened by those who want to ban or censor than by any CiF post, no matter how profane or incorrect.

Quizzical
Reader
Quizzical

Hi Catte
I understand your take on this but my personal view is that it would have been better to let that person’s posts stand as well as the responses. Intelligent people can work out who to believe. My post and others pointed out the ridiculous nature of those posts. If that person had tried to dominate the agenda and indeed change it then, of course, the posts should have been deleted. But
this time it gave others an opportunity to reinforce the message that corporate media are (of necessity in my view) corrupt, and with valid arguments.

Admin
Reader

However long some of his posts were they did not contain any facts or opinions beyond abuse of the two women they were aimed at. Given their contribution to the debate over Syria and their conspicuous bravery over the past few years this tipped the balanced for us.

David Macilwain
Reader

Thanks Catte, but sorry to see that you also removed my post, which was actually responding to your reaction to that obnoxious comment, as well as some suggestion on the dangers of comment is free board.. We’ve seen too many such comment forums spoilt or destroyed by “trolls” but also by commenters who challenge statements and never read the responses. It can be very hard to deal with them, unlike the one you removed.
I might note that I am also in the group of writers who would be described by Solon as “Kremlin bots”, but apparently haven’t stuck my head out far enough yet to be noticed… !

Admin
Reader

Catte did apologise for this. Unfortunately our comment software isn’t sophisticated enough to remove a comment and leave replies. If we ever have the funds we want to improve this situation as the number of comments we tend to get is beyond the basic WP software to deal with efficiently or well.

bevin
Reader
bevin

You are absolutely right.

Kaiama
Reader
Kaiama

the guardian justprintspropaganda these days.
comment is only free if they open comments in the first place.
so much is off limits.

John A
Reader
John A

Recently in the Norwegian media, Assange was accused of cooperating closely with Russia. The journalist in question was asked what evidence she had for that. She admitted she did not have any of her own evidence, but that the Guardian had written this and therefore could be relied on!
The Scandinavian media are a mirror image of the bbc and Guardian etc., in their coverage of Syria, Ukraine, Russia, NATO etc. I almost suspect the editorial desk of every western MSM has a style guide written by the CIA.

vexarb
Reader

@JohnA. Like the era, still within living memory, when Johnny Foreigner would add, “BBC”, to vouch for the truth of his news.

Paul Barbara
Reader
Paul Barbara

What on earth could possibly give you that ‘conspiracy theory’ paranoid attitude? Information like this:
‘Journalist Udo Ulfkotte: German Media PsyOps [ENGLISH’: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5eJXXhwG5I ?
His book came out in German, then a US firm got the rights to publish in English, then ‘Privished’ it.
But fear not, it WILL soon be published in English!

MichaelK
Reader
MichaelK

I don’t think enough people appreciate just how influential the great ‘liberal’ news platforms like the Guardian and the NYT and Washington Post are, out there in the rest of the western empire… the rest take their lead from them, the ‘framing’ of events and stories. Foreign journalists, especially those specialising in the coverage of the Anglo-Saxon world, follow the BBC/Guardia’,n closely, because… well, they would never lie, would they… unthinkable. This means that if the state were to succeed in ‘capturing’ the Guardian this alone would have enormous implications for how liberals and the soft left see the world and what’s going on.
It’s also important to remember and understand that the British really invented modern propaganda during WW1 with the aim of bringing world opinion over to the British side and especially influencing the public in the United States, as a vital war aim was to drag the US into the war when it became obvious that the UK would never defeat Germany without direct American military support. That basic truth isn’t being talked about very much, is it, even though we’re supposed to be thinking about WW1, where most of the coverage looks like ‘fake news’ to me… but that’s probably another story.
The British were so good at selling their version of the ‘truths’ of WW1 that the Nazis attempted to copy them and set up their own Ministry of Propaganda, only they weren’t a successful as the British who had so many advantages compared to the Germans, chiefly the Germans were forced to twist the truth totally out of recognition as they were, after all, living under an openly fascist dictatorship.

vexarb
Reader

@MichaelK: “It’s also important to remember and understand that the British really invented modern propaganda during WW1”
I can vouch for that as a personal reaction. Recovering from fever in WW2, I idled away the time by perusing some bound newspaper articles from WW1; you know, the sort of thing you find in doctors waiting rooms and hospital libraries. I was appalled at the viciousness of the anti-German propaganda, especially against the Kaiser; the WW1 atmosphere seemed far more savage than what I was reading from WW2 British papers against the Nazis; the latter often had a touch of gentle humour, such as Low’s cartoons in the Daily Express about Hit&Muss on their Axis.

Geoff Bridges
Reader

I was a loyal Guardian reader for 35 years and have witnessed it’s decline to the extent I now refuse to buy it. The paper is now owned by the Guardian Media Group which is run by a high-powered Board comprising elite, well-connected people from the “corporate establishment”. I stopped buying the Guardian some years ago because I was sick and tired of being lied to by blatant propaganda or omission of the truth which didn’t fit into their worldview narrative. This coincided with the rise of the alternative media which was able to search for the truth without having a hidden agenda.
It is up to existing Guardian readers to decide if they only want to believe what they read in the main stream media or if they want to find a more balanced view of the world by doing some research of their own by consulting a wide range of “trusted” media.
My comments in The Guardian were moderated a long time ago and I have become so disgusted with the paper that I no longer even grab a free one when shopping in Waitrose.
Thankfully there are many of us who still comment on their facebook page to counter their lies and propaganda particularly on Syria.

Paul Barbara
Reader
Paul Barbara

Agree entirely – I could have written virtually the same. Just like Al Jazeera has been ‘taken over’.
The Mirror could do with a boot up the backside too, sometimes.

MichaelK
Reader
MichaelK

The other day… probably yesterday, on the Today Programme… one of their concerned ladies, one with an attractive and smooth radio voice introduced a piece which they said was from Syria. This made me prick up my ears. Not only was it from inside Syria, but from Damascus, from the suburb of Ghouta, which they said had been under seige for years by ‘Assad’s forces’ but the rebels were still holding out. That alone tells one something about the ‘framework’ they are using.
I wondered how the BBC’s journalist had got inside the Ghouta enclave to do the reporting as this is rather unusual for them and, after all, there’s still fighting going on. I needn’t have worried, because it soon became apparent that the young woman doing the reporting, close to the sound of explosions and gunfire, wasn’t in any danger and appeared to have a close relationship to the brave men, the rescuers who were pulling children out of the rubble. She was clearly no friend of ‘Assad’s forces’ and she was incredibly concerned about the children caught up in the fighting.
I thought this piece reeked of propaganda and raised more quesytions about the role of the BBC in broadcasting it. Who exactly was the young woman and how did she get into Ghouta? How did the Today Programme verify the veracity of her reporting? Why didn’t they label her… a campaigning journalist? How could she opperate in an area controlled by Islamist militants fighting the Syrian government? How a likely is it that the ‘militants’ would allow an ‘independent’ journalist to report from their last enclave and why?
But none of these questions were addressed by the lady with the smooth and concerned voice back in the comfort and safety the Today Programme, who seemed to sigh at the horrors she just heard about. The questions, the curiousities, seemingly don’t even exist and cannot be allowed to exist once ‘we’ve’ taken sides.

vanessa beeley
Reader

Very good questions – particularly as I have just spent 5 weeks in Syria trying to enter the Eastern Ghouta enclave without success – because it is a “hot” military zone with no access for the safety of the foreign journalists. I even tried various other avenues which included entering a Syrian government-established refugee camp near Douma and East Ghouta that had been set up to receive and treat civilians who had been injured or not given treatment by the terrorist factions occupying Ghouta, Douma & Jobar to the East of the City of Damascus. Ghouta, to my knowledge and according to my personal experience as a journalist in Syria, is out of bounds for the time being because of high risk of sniping or shelling from the terrorist factions controlling those areas. Having entered what was once, the REAL Syria Civil Defence HQ in Jobar and having peered through the sandbags at the windows into Jobar and having seen the ghostly snipers moving in the lunar landscape of houses and destroyed buildings, I would respect the decision by the Syrian Govt & military to protect journalists from being in the vicinity of such extremists. However, despite not being able to enter the actual zone, I did gather enough testimony from refugees in Damascus, NGOs, Russian humanitarian operators etc to know that the “starvation” is a non-issue based on the number of convoys that have entered E Ghouta. The issue is the Western backed terrorists who, as in East Aleppo and Madaya, are taking delivery of the supplies and stockpiling them, eking them out to civilians who pay the highest price or depriving civilians deliberately in order to maintain the “starvation” propaganda that facilitates the faux-humanitarian intervention by the NATO-aligned NGOs and organisations. I would bet my life that the BBC reporter received her narrative from the UK FCO- bankrolled White Helmets who have produced all propaganda from the terrorist besieged areas/frontlines – such as East Aleppo, Daraa and Idlib.

yurad
Reader
yurad

Sure. Journalism is when an established publication pays for the work generated by a writer or producer. Otherwise it is freelance, not journalism. Any halfwit and go to a war-zone with s camera and a pen and say they’re with the press, but that doesn’t make them members of the the press or journalists. I don’t know how this is a hard concept to grasp.

Quizzical
Reader
Quizzical

So a stenographer who writes down what the government or SOHR or HRW wants them to say and duly publishes in the corporate media without seeking other sources is, by your definition, a journalist, but someone who witnesses with their own eyes and writes a report on the internet is not? Have I got this right? Judith Miller with her reports of WMD in Iraq was a journalist because she worked for the NYT –
is that right? The many reporters who repeated government propaganda about Ghaddafi killing civilians for the various paid media outlets were journalists even though they were later proved wrong (see British Government Report) were journalists – right? And is it better to have a halfwit hired by corporate media writing down uncritically what they are told than to have clearly intelligent people like Vanessa and Eva reporting from the war zone? Do you think that corporate media are capable of or indeed want to hire intelligent reporters? Have you read the eye-witness reports from Syria by Eva Bartlett or Vanessa Beeley? True journalism. Your name seems particularly eponymous.

George Cornell
Reader
George Cornell

Imad,
What makes it for you? Being sent? Being paid? Being asked to write a piece with a predetermined slant, which is templated to agree with editorial imperatives? Being edited to conform with same?
Surely what matters to many of us is objectivity, balance, truth, timeliness and many others, none of which are dependent on the prerequisites, which for you, define journalism. You are underestimating how much trust in the MSM was lost but it is sitting there for all to see in the results of the last US election. Otherwise you would not be asking for a rubric of journalism which sadly no longer applies, especially to the Guardian.

Palinurus
Reader

I appreciate your reporting on the situation in Syria. Posting articles and links is worthwhile and informative for the people who follow you, but I wonder how much the Guardian owners, editors and writers are actually concerned by this. Perhaps I am being naive, but would it not be possible to hold the Guardian’s ‘journalism’ up to scrutiny to the Press Complaints Commission? Your documentation of facts refuting the Guardian’s claims would surely be highly credible. I have a special interest in supporting the Syrian people against the criminal insurgency waged against them, as, in particular, my wife is Syrian and fron Kass’aa in Damascus, and although I am British, I have relatives by marriage still living in Damascus and in Hab Nimera in the northwest of the country. I appreciate everything that you do to get the truth out about Syria. Thank you very much.

Harry Stotle
Reader
Harry Stotle

I have not come across Vanessa Beeley before but here is a link to some of her work.
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Vanessa_Beeley
And here
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Document:Journey_To_Aleppo_Part_I:_Exposing_The_Truth_Buried_Under_NATO_Propaganda
The content of her reporting certainly corroborates concerns expressed by the alternative media about some of the narratives being pushed in Syria.
Why would you discount her observations when most western MSM reports are from journalists who have never set foot in the place yet still hold very entrenched views about what’s been happening in Syria?

David C. Lee (@worldblee)
Reader

Vanessa, thank you so much for your brave and honest reporting. It’s much appreciated by those who are trying to see what’s really going on in Syria behind the fog of war and the obfuscation of the mainstream media.

MichaelK
Reader
MichaelK

Dear Vanessa, I think you’ve done excellent work on Syria and I for one really appreciate it. One would think, for a variety of reasons, that you’d ‘tick all the boxes’ in relation to the liberal western media… especially the Guardian, but no, there’s something ‘wrong’ with your reporting. Clearly it’s because you haven’t been ‘vetted’ by the West’s security services and been approved by the Foreign Office as a ‘credible witness’ to events in Syria.
What’s telling and appalling, is that the Guardian and others, don’t have the guts to confront yo,u or Bartlett openly in an interview situation and let their readers decide for themselves whether you are just a looney, a liar, or a Russian stooge; which is what they hint at all the time. What exactly are they afraid of? Obviously they are worried that your testimony would
contradict and undermine the entire western narrative about events in Syria, causing people to wonder, doubt and even question the established and incredibly over-simplified narrative.
So, they pretend, as much as possible, that you don’t even exist and their is no alternative or critical counter-narrative about events in Syria at all.
About the BBC. How do we even know that the report from inside the Ghouta enclave was real? Was she even really there at all? As the BBC don’t have their own people their, inside, or even outside, on the Syrian side, how do they know?

MichaelK
Reader
MichaelK

I’m not sure which is worse; that the journalists working for the Guardian actually believe the uncritical stuff they write about UK foreign policy, like the UK’s involvement in the conflict in Syria, or that they don’t, and are just writing what’s expected of them? I believe it’s possible to debate with a cynic. It’s the idealists and the virtuous zealots that frighten me more, the true believers, people willing to support horrendous acts and massive destruction and loss of innocent lives… provided the cause is ‘Good and Just.’
Honestly, how likely is it that the UK press is going to report on events in Syria, honestly, when the UK and the US, supported by the rest of NATO and the West, have labelled Assad the new Hitler and accused him of genocide and all manner of war crimes? Once the politicians have created the correct framework and narrative about some overseas conflict we’re involved in, like wanting to topple the government of Syria, that’s about it. It’s over. Any real and meaningful debate within our media. The journalists fall into line behind the government and write what they know is expected of them.
They used to say that once our troops started fighting overseas then the debate about the rights and wrongs, stopped. Only now it’s broader. Now we support obvious terrorists in wars we’re not officially involved in, in countries we know next to nothing about, as long as the terrorists are killing the ‘right’ people; like tens of thousands of Syrian soldiers.
The Guardian’s stance on Syria… is, actually a moral disgrace and this is coupled by their extraordinary hypocrisy and self-serving, sanctimonious tone… like they are the fountaine of virtue and the proud guardian ‘s of all the best liberal, western values.

George Cornell
Reader
George Cornell

One of the mysteries of the Snowden affair was why none (almost none) of the 40,000 employees of the disgusting 4th Amendment-trampling NSA blew the whistle on what they likely would have known was massive illegal spying. It seems logical to assume they used their own technology to screen applicants and I have it third hand that they screened each applicant or nomination, for any left wing activity, any boat-rocking history, any standing up to authority, emerging with a Stepford culture of fartcatching milquetoasts, who meekly and submissively did what they were told and nothing else.
I now ask the same question of the disgraceful Guardian, which is nearly unrecognizably distant from the aims of the family trust establishing it in the wake of Peterloo. Why have none of their columnist railed publicly against the perverse mutilation of a grand old establishment gad fly and formerly a beacon of integrity?
To read the Fraudian now, you have to discount nearly everything they say and decipher the tiresome code for what they really think. Unless you can be sustained by mindless gender-counting and lifestyle advice preceded by the things you ‘must’ do , delivered by yapping non-experts, bulwarked by doctrinaire moderatrices.
This was a paper to which a whistleblower, not long ago might choose to go. They would be mad to go there now after the Fraudian threw Snowden under the bus in their uninhibited headlong fanatical drum eating for the dreaded Hillary. The pant-suited one wants him home “to face the music”. Nice. There were many lessons from Hillary’s defeat and they have learned none of them.
We live in an era where lying to Congress can be done with impunity cf. Alexander, Clapper, Brennan et al. There was no consequence for them There could be a consequence for the Fraudian.

ing08
Reader

much thanks for being able to comment here. Got banned from the Guardian for daring to link to Craig Murray’s blog over the issue of hammer hardening of hard drives. Without people like vanessa and Eva who take risks to provide us with the reality on the ground in Syria, exposing the rotten core of a newspaper which once shone amongst others, we would be unable to read between the lines of daily fake news provisions. My sincere thanks for both of you, please be careful.

Paul Carline
Reader
Paul Carline

Given the track record of State Department and (so-called) ‘Defence’ spokespersons over many years, but especially since Colin Powell’s disgraceful performance at the UN (for which he did at least apologise later – too late, of course, because the lie had led to the massacre of millions and the devastation of a whole country), no-one in their right mind would accept at face value anything any of these people said. Can people like Samantha Power and Nicky Haley be taken seriously? They must surely be chosen for their ability to lie through their teeth under any circumstances (we could add quite a few names of past and present prime ministers and presidents).
That these people lie as a matter of routine to serve the criminal and illegal interests of their paymasters is simply the norm.
What is much newer is the cowardice and complicity of most of those who speak or write for the mainstream media. Udo Ulfkotte showed what real journalism is – founded on a commitment to ferreting out the truth and “speaking that truth to power” regardless, as one of the most important functions of the media. It’s clear that many in those positions are there precisely to suppress the truth and to work for the vested interests. There must surely be some who know that what they are doing is wrong, but dare not speak out. Fear – of losing ones job, or even ones life – is a powerful motivator.