Guardian Watch, latest

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… 🙂


  1. 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.

  2. BigB says

    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?

  3. Matt says

    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.

  4. Matt says

    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!

    • 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.

  5. John Watwood says

    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.

  6. The Baron says

    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.

    • 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 says

        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.

  7. 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.

        • Manda says

          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.

    • @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”.

      • 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.”

    • @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.

  8. Rhisiart Gwilym says

    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):

    • George Cornell says

      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.

    • Jen says

      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 says

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

        • Jen says

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

  9. Catte says

    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.

    • 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… !

      • 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.

    • Quizzical says

      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.

      • 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.

    • George Cornell says

      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.

      • 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 says

          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.

    • Jen says

      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.

  10. Kaiama says

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

  11. John A says

    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.

    • MichaelK says

      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.

      • @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.

    • Paul Barbara says

      What on earth could possibly give you that ‘conspiracy theory’ paranoid attitude? Information like this:
      ‘Journalist Udo Ulfkotte: German Media PsyOps [ENGLISH’: ?
      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!

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

  12. 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 says

      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.

  13. MichaelK says

    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.

    • 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.

      • MichaelK says

        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?

      • 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.

      • Harry Stotle says

        I have not come across Vanessa Beeley before but here is a link to some of her work.
        And here

        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?

      • 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.

      • yurad says

        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.

        • George Cornell says

          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.

        • Quizzical says

          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.

  14. MichaelK says

    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 says

      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.

  15. 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.

  16. Paul Carline says

    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.

  17. Disgustingly Tillerson speaking without impunity [exemption from punishment or freedom from the injurious consequences of US actions in Syria]. What nonsense No impunity for the use of chemical weapons – who dreamt up this stupefying slogan? Not those who dreamt up the White Wash Helmets by any chance?

    Just idiotic the mindless garbage regurgitated by the Guardian – no questions asked about the deplorable violation of sovereignty in Syria by the UK and USA’s tax payers money.

    Let us also not forget Ukraine too and compare and contrast the two just exemplify the total hypocrisy.

    Poroshenko the US backed unconstitutional elected president of Ukraine, who is actually waging war and killing his own people.

    Assad the constitutionally elected president of Syria, vilified by those who support the Nazification of Ukraine.

  18. MLS says

    I think all of us who can still comment on the Guardian should do everything we can to get links to this initiative on the Graun in any of the very few sections that still open for comment.

    In my experience the best way of getting a link to this site past the mods is to make it a text link that doesn’t mention the name of the site – something like “go here to see more” or similar. They WILL usually take down any visible link to OffGuardian as soon as they see it.

    And I really hope OffG does this again in future!

  19. mog says

    I wonder what goes through the head of someone like Seumas Milne….?
    To watch the increasingly blatant warmongering propaganda spew out his former paper.

    Milne, Pilger, N Ahmed, Cook, Nick Davies, and others who have written there should speak out together against this despicable organisation.

    [edited by Admin to correct typo]

  20. Guardian has never recovered from the shafting it received in the basement of the Guardian building by MI5 following the Julian Assange Wikileaks Hard Drives incidents.

    • MLS says

      It was already going downhill though. The way they caved so quickly over Snowden was pathetic, and the sight of the staff actually smashing their own hard drives while GCHQ looked on was embarrassing. I think the Snowden pic is very kind to Rusbridger and his staff.

  21. I stopped reading the Guardian when realising it follows government line on foreign policy which is pure propaganda provided by the USA. It is also pro Tory and anti socialism as witnessed during the Labour Party elections 18 months ago and the General election last summer..

  22. Arnaud says

    Oh the Guardion is just the best journalism, between Solon and Monbiot that’s top notch jour’ Right there, totally biased, warmongering, trying to defend the white helmets, don’t know of any NGO founded by ex military, funded by many states, mostly UK and US, to the tune of way over 100 million, and making articles to discredit those who question the official line, wonder why they didn’t include John Pilger in those attacked? Maybe because his career makes him impossible to attack by those phony journalists from the Guardian.
    Oh well maybe it does work on a few sheep…

  23. You do realise that the false propaganda reporting of mainstream ‘journalists’ is contributing to the ever closeness of WW3. Time to take sides humanity or your paymasters?

  24. Guy morton says

    In my opinion, having been a Guardian reader for many years. The paper has lost its way when it comes to speaking the truth. Specifically, it’s reporting on the Syrian crisis. It appears the reporting on this issue is very biased following & supporting the UK governments rhetoric. I have carried out my own research over the last 2 years and there is so much information that makes it obvious the real facts are not being given & you ( the guardian) are complicite in publishing lies. On this basis, I have taken the desision to drop your publications from my reading list, preferring to read international news that is not blighted by governments & carryout proper research by sending reporters to the sites where real journalism is than performed collecting real facts.

  25. I guess, the Guardian has a lot of interests but rarely the interest to investigate or cross-check with different news sources to avoid spreading propaganda. At least your journalists could do us all a favour: learn about US history and all of their (secret, hidden or open) regime change operations. The pattern of these operations repeat themselves. It can at least make you suspicious and delay posting all the misinformation until you have evidence.

    I avoid reading commercial media outlets because their only goal is to make profit. It is legal but doesn’t reflect truth or reality (which would include different viewpoints f.e.). Commercial media will never criticise for example a company, which invests in their advertising. Commercial media need a lot of readers/viewers only to attract advertisers. Even if the internet would not exist, the money they make from selling their newspapers is ridiculous compared to the millions they earn from advertising.

  26. Man says

    The journalists are either brainwashed, ignorant or knowingly lying for personal gain. All three of which are definitely unlawful and I suspect even illegal. The common man listens, reads and laughs wondering when these worms will turn..will it be out of honour, integrity and love for another as themselves or from fear being found at their own feet…we are not angry just sad you would encourage harm and wait for you over here

  27. fadedglories says

    The Syrian waters are so muddied that I no longer have a clue who is doing what to who. I care but what can I say?

    • I think you should ask yourself where these Guardian reporters get their narrative. How many of their “journalists” are on the ground in Syria? How many corporate media simply “copy-paste” narratives from each other or from one central source that is fed by the NATO-aligned activists, NGOs who work exclusively in the terrorist held areas of Syria? The Syrian waters have become much clearer since the liberation of Aleppo – you need only to listen to the voices of the 80% of Syrians inside Syria who support the defence of their homeland by their elected government and national Army, an Army that is the Syrian people – and their chosen allies. The remaining 20% who are under terrorist occupation will speak out against the US/UK financed terrorism once they are liberated from their oppression and brutality. Even if they are against the Syrian Government which is their right, they are all against the hell that has been foisted upon them by our governments, supported by the corporate media in the West. When East Ghouta is cleansed of the terrorist occupation, when the green buses come to evacuate the armed extremists to Idlib – you will hear how the civilians were put in cages and used as human shields. You will hear how the terrorists starved civilians for propaganda while stockpiling food/medical supplies and depriving civilians or selling at extortionate prices. You will hear of abuses, torture, imprisonment, rape, theft, executions, crucifixions of civilians, even children. You will hear that many of their leaders were foreign mercenaries who received cash and arms from outside and from a variety of hostile governments (against Syria). You will hear that the terrorists attacked the homes of the civilians in the areas they occupy and then told corporate media in the West that the SAA did it. You will hear of many atrocities that The Guardian reporting systematically whitewashes with their UK FCO-biased narratives. I hope that helps?

    • @faded. Read, it will bring the colour back to your cheeks; a motley lot from all over the world, united in their passion for truth and justice, often expressed in colourful language. And ALmasdar News, equally truthful but much more decorous. And Vineyard of the Saker, a more intellectualr, White Russian Christian site that maintains regular updates on the West’s war against Syria — the South Front of the West’s war against Holy Russia. And dont forget Asia Times Online for Pepe Escobar’s lowdown on China’s New Silk Road and the West’s energy wars across Global PipeLinistan. That ought to be enough to bring you up to speed on Syria’s so-called “civil war”.

      • ps I forgot the best source, and the most enduring — SANA the English language digest of news from Syria. Their calm and decorous tone reminds me of the old Daily Telegraph, Daily Herald or Manchester Guardian broadsheets: the stiff upper lip of “we can take it” wartime Britain, combined with the public spirited sanity of postwar Britain in the High Socialist era of Clem Attlee and Harold MacMillan. Also have a similar Royal Couple, she young and beautiful he tall both very gracious, but even more middle class than Elizabeth and Philip. Instead of being chauffeured in a Rolls, he drives a KIA saloon like an ordinary bloke; but Asme is more upper middle, she drives a Range Rover to collect the kids from school.

  28. I have just returned from Syria. The narrative on the Ghouta alleged “chemical attacks” is coming from the Al Qaeda affiliated, UK FCO/US multi-million-financed White Helmets and has not basis in fact.

    Meanwhile the terrorist groups supported by the White Helmets and the UK/US coalition of terror, have launched a series of murderous mortar attacks on the civilian areas of Damascus, Old City (Christian areas). I was leaving Damascus on Monday this week, when they targeted hundreds of school children pouring out of the schools for the school buses parked in the streets of the Old City and just outside its walls. 9 people were killed including one 3 year old child, Elias Khoury. Christine Hourani is a beautiful Syrian teenager, her leg has been amputated below the knee as a result of this indiscriminate and deliberate attack on children by the same “moderate” extremists who are feeding the corporate media with the Fake News that the Guardian relies upon to maintain its anti Syria and New Cold War narrative.

    The Guardian is one of the chief fire-stokers for the UK FCO and acts as its main attack dog when the UK FCO is under threat of exposure for its funding of terrorism in Syria with taxpayer funds – hence the ridiculous Solon article trying to discredit myself and Eva Bartlett, among others – while never addressing the facts and hard evidence against the UK FCO and the various entities it is financing, such as the White Helmets, the Local Councils in Syria & the Free Syrian Police (to name only a few). The latest CW attack story is to distract from the crimes against humanity being comitted by the terrorist factions in the eastern suburbs of Damascus and to further foment the escalation of military conflict between Russian and the US on Syrian soil. The role of the Guardian is a criminal one – and it must not be underestimated, they will take us to war, if allowed to continue.

    What the Guardian and others dont mention is. 1. the terrorist attacks on civilians and the massacre of children & civilians on a daily basis. 2. Russia delivered a humanitarian aid convoy to eastern Ghouta on 19th January, why are these aid deliveries not mentioned and who benefits from them (see East Aleppo and Madaya to know exactly who does receive and stockpile these supplies). 3. How are the terrorist receiving weapon supplies to facilitate the murder of Syrian civilians in the residential areas of the city? The Guardian is at the vanguard of the UK FCO dirty intelligence operation in Syria, you only have to create a timescale of their reports on the alleged Khan Sheikhoun attacks to see who led that narrative for the British public based upon spurious claims and unverified testimony from known terrorist operators. Of course the Guardian does not allow comment, it knows perfectly well that it has been rumbled.

    • Apologies – the Russian convoy went into Eastern Ghouta ( I didnt make clear). Also, “Alleged” Khan Sheikhoun attacks.

      • We’ve incorporated your amendments and clarifications into the text – so we can delete this additional comment if you like

          • Hello Vanessa. I admire your courage and honesty in 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’a 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.

    • MLS says

      Can I suggest Vanessa Beeley’s comment is re-posted above the line in a separate short article as a direct response to the Graun piece? It says some very important things that need to be emphasised again and again because they can easily get lost in the storm of lies

  29. It’s a classic propaganda piece. The takeaway message throughout the article is “Russia did it”. Tillerson even says no matter who did it or what actually happened, Russia bears responsibility. Count how many towns variations of that message appear in the article. It’s prime purpose is to keep the RussiaDidIt project alive and hammer Russia’s “guilt” into the public mind.

  30. rtj1211 says

    Time for the petro yuan.

    Teach the Americans that there are consequences to eternal warmongering…..

    • Willow Bell says

      It’s Britain who always signs the treaties and formulates the plans. As far as I’m concerned America is the bootboy and Britain the brains. After all Britain has a very long history and has interfered in every country in the world, often before America was born.
      Anyway in 2014 my former MP was quite explicit as to why the coalition were opposed to president al-Assad, as he wrote me it was because he supports Iran and Russia, so what did I expect.
      More importantly the Home Office did not deny that Muezzim Begg, former Quantanamo Bay prisoner and Salafist, had taken lots of money to Syria, they just said it was complicated. I suspect there was a steady stream of Syrian Muslim Brotherhood supporters in and out of Britain from the late 1980s onward, appealing for support to overthrow the regime.
      As for the Graunard, I’ve never liked it and I am old, it it so hypocritical it has always made me cringe, I don’t know why people have so much faith in it, I’ve even had intense arguments with its journos on protests, when they have refused to get out of my way.
      It is surpassed only by the BBC, which has to be taken notice of because it is so influential world wide.

  31. Emily Durron says

    Even if there had been some kind of chemical attack (dubious at best), the 1.0.1 of good journalism is to ask “So who benefits from such a thing?”
    Would it be Assad, who has almost won the war and is now focused on the peace process, or the terrorists, who have lost the war and desperately need one last roll of the dice to try to get US intervention?

    Well, let’s see…

  32. Johnny Hacket says

    Not expecting anything from the Graun really but this SIS memo is a new low . The mystery for me is why do they bother even . Who are their target readership ?

    • Neil Youngson says

      They now rely heavily on US corporate advertising, so they must be seen to be promoting the US agenda.

      • George Cornell says

        So the influence of the Fraudian, acquired by decades of honest decent and independent reporting is seen as a commodity to be sold to the most convenient bidder?


    • As Neil replied before, readers are only important to attract advertisers, as long as people but or use their outlets they don’t need to care about readership.

  33. Quizzical says

    This chemical attack has been “in preparation” for a while – several comments on blogs with sources more credible than either the White Helmets or SOHR. In particular, on Moon of Alabama – here’s a quote:

    “Asaad Hanna @AsaadHannaa 4:26pm · 22 Jan 2018
    Assad army dropped chlorine bombed barrels on Abo Aldhoor military base #Idlib countryside in a big attempt to take control of it.

    The above is from an anti-Syrian “Media Adviser, researcher and freelance journalist” previously published or quoted by Al Jazeerah, The Guardian, Business Insider and several other outlets. His twitter account has a “Verified” mark.

    “There is only a tiny problem with the tweet about the Abu Duhur air base. Since Saturday the base is in government hands. Yesterday the Syrian Ministry of Defense officially announced the full capture of the air base.”

    It’s wonderful to see Eva Bartlett posting here.

  34. What a pack of lies. Fake news at its source…

  35. Katherine Whiner says

    This is totally NOT COOL. This is cultural appropriation and also rape and hate speech. And rape. I demand to not have to see anything I don’t like. We have new fonts and we are STRONG.

    • Brutally Remastered says

      Dear Ms Whiner

      I have been forced to contact the administrators of this site in order to lodge a formal complaint regarding your aggressive use of capital letters in your post of 24/01/18.

      The usage of capital letters in any public forum without appropriate and timely warning is to be seen as an power dynamic which specifically threatens my right to read, peruse and enjoy (if at all possible) comments from people of all sexes, shapes and orientation at my leisure.

      Please be advised that I have also contacted my MP about this, most disheartening, event.

      • Katherine Whiner says

        This comment is a virtual equivalent of manspreading and a form of rape. I am going to commission a 2,000 word article about this abuse by a girl ‘journalist’ who can barely spell her own name, because why the fuck should she need to make sense when she has a vagina

  36. MLS says

    “Tillerson’s comments came a day after reports of a fresh chemical weapons attack in the rebel enclave of East Ghouta, which injured more than 20 people, most of them children.”

    Dear Guardian – some questions:

    1. What reports?

    2. from whom?

    3. is there any evidence these attacks actually happened?

    4. will you try to verify any of the above?

    5. will you ask Rex Tillerson’s office what the legal basis is for the presence of US troops in Syria?

    6. If one of your journalists asked these questions would you support him/her?

    7. would anyone who asked these questions be silenced and censored?

  37. Marcus says

    “Whoever conducted the attacks, Russia ultimately bears responsibility for the victims in East Ghouta and countless other Syrians targeted with chemical weapons, since Russia became involved in Syria,” Tillerson told reporters.

    Tillerson told reporters, and reporters just wrote it down! I was following the Twitter exchange just now between OffG and the BBC reporter – Dan something – about the recent new round of Russia fear porn , and it’s just the same ; “I just write what the general said” says this alleged journalist.

    Glad OffG reminded him what journalism actually is. You are supposed to check your facts!

    “There is simply no denying that Russia, by shielding its Syrian ally, has breached its commitments to the US as a framework guarantor. At a bare minimum, Russia must stop vetoing, or at the very least abstain, from future security council votes on this issue,” he added.

    But what if the “rebels” did the attack? or – even more likely – what if the “attack” never happened like the one featured in “Saving Syria’s Children”?

    A good reporter could have had this fellow on the ropes, having to explain the nonsense he’s talking – but no, they just obediently type it all up and publish it.

    • Carrie says

      Spot on – I’d give this a hundred likes if i could

    • Always welcome Eva – that article deserves all the exposure it can get

    • Carrie says

      Thank you Eva Bartlett! I hadn’t seen this before – The Guardian should have let you and Vanessa Beeley publish a reply to that Solon moron. Its not just propagandist it’s lost all understanding of responsible journalistic practice

    • Captain Kemlo says

      Hi Eva

      When I first read the Solon article in the Guardian my hackles rose alarmingly. At the time of publication, there was already widespread information as to the true nature of the White Helmets, including about origin and funding.

      As well as subsequently reading many articles in independent media about the Solon piece, I have belatedly read your linked article above. The emails you received from Solon inviting comment were, as you rightly imply, damning ‘evidence’ as to the nature of her proposed story. It simply beggars belief.

      It has got to the point where I cannot read/listen/view to ANY news stories in the mainstream media without doubting their accuracy. And that, I began to think, was a tragedy. But no, it’s actually liberating: be a sceptic. Ask why. Ask who benefits from the story. And what their sources are – If unnamed, simply disregard. And remember that the MSM is beholden to very powerful media groups with their own agendas along with deep and opaque ties to various governments/agencies.

      In the USSR, before the collapse of communism, party members used to lament that Russians didn’t believe any of their media output but were also amazed and full of awe that people in the West tended to believe their own media. Not any more. We’ve finally come full circle…

    • For the second year in a row a White Helmets propaganda film has been nominated for an Academy Award.

    • Jen says

      I’d just say “Don’t feed the troll”.

      • We have an open comment policy and we believe in giving everyone a fair shot. If he has anything honest to say he’s welcome to say it – not looking good so far though I have to say.

    • Many thanks OffG ( and love your new logo..) It’s good to see that someone who thinks the Guardian ‘death-fairy’ story about Eva and Vanessa is true can make a comment here, but such freedom has its risks – particularly by allowing this terrific forum to be sabotaged by what we might call “White-Hall Bots” (or perhaps just “WH” which covers several options!)
      However I do find such attacks on dear Eva and Vanessa almost gut-turning, particularly in the conceit and mindless support they show for some of the true criminals in the war on Syria.
      But such revulsion and anger is also a great motivator, as was the outrageous rant by Tillerson and the other 12 nations involved in this latest delinquent attempt to ‘get’ Assad – and Putin, that the French set in train.
      I’d also say that such discussions are really supportive for us, but shouldn’t distract from the reality of what we face – millions of people who read the Guardian and listen to the BBC who simply would not believe the truth even if those media were to tell them, now.

    • bevin says

      “My areas of expertise are elsewhere in the Middle East”
      Israel, of course.

  38. A Petherbridge says

    Thanks – comments are a great initiative on some of these Guardian propaganda stories. Amazing the way US officials can in one breath condemn a nation (Syria Govt in this case) and at the same time announce they are establishing an illegal and permanent garrison in the country (Syria in this case). These US officials must have skin made of rawhide – or snake leather. Surprised our Foreign Minister Bishop hasn’t been applauding this new development.

    • George Cornell says

      No need to tan or cure their skin. The reptilian scales are there naturally.

  39. Another nail in the coffin of the legacy news media. The more the years go bye the more the alternative media becomes mainstream. Once the reset happens good bye to the lame street media and hello to good old fashion news where journos question more.
    The Guardian like all legacy news sights are on life support.
    Russia ate my homework to western economic recovery to Takfiri rebranding as freedom fighters have all be revealed as simple good old fashion propaganda how Orwellian and fascistic the times we r livin

  40. Fair dinkum says

    Without trying to sound self important, l think that folks who seek alternative news sources are generally more erudite, curious and passionate about the Truth.
    Drainstream media, like the Guardian, have an obvious agenda and never bite the hands that feed them.

  41. I don’t often comment on OffG articles but I do feel that there is generally a degree of respect for people’s viewpoints. I’m afraid that in the Grauniad and currently also the Independent much commentary has deteriorated into little more than trolling. Frankly, why would anyone wish to comment where the standard of commentary is so ill tempered? Is the Grauniad’s response about a deliberate diminishing of free speech or merely an acknowledgement that the standard of debate in this country has deteriorated to such an extent?

    • It is censorship. When the Guardian promoted the White Helmet bid for the Nobel Peace Prize in 2016, it shamelessly lobbied for their success. The hundreds, if not thousands of comments reflected public outrage at their blatant PR for an organisation that has clear affiliations to Al Qaeda in Syria and which is financed by the UK FCO with taxpayer funds. To dismiss this outrage as “trolling” merely echoes the lexicon employed by the Guardian to dismiss those who are exposing the UK regime’s nefarious role in Syria and its project to destabilize a sovereign nation and to bring about regime change yet again, in favour of a puppet regime more in tune with UK imperialist designs in the region. When Solon wrote her appalling lynch-mob-hack piece attacking myself, Eva Bartlett, Tim Anderson etc she used the same terminology – and the Guardian exercised the same censorship – even, illegally, denying myself and others named in the article, the right to reply. Rather than attack the “standard of debate”, I would be asking, why has the rage against the criminal misdirecting, omission & misrepresenting of facts in Syria, reached such a fever pitch? You may consider those “trolling” remarks to be beneath you but I say, that is an insult to the public that the Guardian is asking to fund their efforts….that makes the Guardian answerable to its audience, however they may express their disgust.

  42. archie1954 says

    Personally, I read only articles where I am allowed to comment and I can read the comments of other readers. I learn just as much from reading comments as I do from the article itself.

    • @archie. Same here; that’s why I read the Indie: same regulation issue propaganda Above the Line, but a much more normal distribution BTL. By normal I mean, the majority of Indie readers often rebel vociferously against the poisonous mental pabulum that the Indie’s billionaire proprietors try to foist on them. Pity, that Off-Guardian is not a newspaper; even greater pity, neither are the Times, Telegraph nor Guardian.

  43. Peter Schmidt says

    i have not and won’t even read the Guardian article. It’s a joke. BTW they have very very few articles to comment on. Mainly bashing Trump or decrying Brexit. The Guardian is fading into oblivion.

Comments are closed.