BBC propaganda at its clumsiest.
The Globalization of Propaganda And The Rise of The Alternative Media: Anti-Syrian Propaganda And The Western Media's Declining Credibility
The destabilization of Syria by terrorists funded and armed by the U.S. and its allies is happening alongside Washington's major propaganda offensive against the Syrian regime, which has been signed off on by the United Nations. Washington's propaganda strategy includes playing on the emotions of the Western public and demonizing the Syrian regime with fake news stories and false accusations.
This twofold assault on Syria's sovereignty and reputation represents the essence of Washington's present military capabilities: sponsoring terrorism, and establishing an international narrative with the aid of its vast media resources and diplomatic pressure.
It is hard to resist and diffuse propaganda that is targeted against large groups of people. In this case, anti-Syrian propaganda by the U.S., Israel, Turkey, and the Gulf states is being targeted against the entire global public.
The Houla deception was the biggest example yet of how far the propagandistic Western media will go to spin the situation in Syria and abuse their power.
The propagandists in the media also falsely claim that they have on-the-ground sources in Syria who are reporting the truth about what is going on. In the last year or so, we have often heard of gruesome stories about Assad's government by Syrian activists, but most of these "activists" live abroad and are connected to the British and American governments. They're not telling the truth about the situation in Syria.
A Syrian "activist" named Rami Abdelrahman, who lives in England and continuously pumps out baseless anti-Assad propaganda, is used as a go-to source by the Western press in its coverage of Syria. But his credibility is about as good as Ahmed Chalabi, the Iraqi activist who pushed America into a war against Iraq in 2003.
Tony Cartalucci, who is destroying the fiction-based anti-Syrian narrative with facts and evidence, writes:
"And when the Western press cites such a dubious, compromised character, it means that the actual evidence inevitably trickling out of Syria contradicts entirely the West's desired narrative, so profoundly in fact, that they must contrive the summation of their "evidence" from whole cloth with "tailors" like Abdelrahman."In 2003, the official Western media was more formidable and its narratives were bulletproof. But the rise of the global alternative media has redistributed media power down to citizens, who are neutral and objective observers and can use their voices to counter war propaganda.
In this new media environment, the West's battle for the hearts and minds of the world about the situation in Syria is a lost cause. As independent journalist Anhar Kochneva tells Natalia Mihailova of gbtimes:
"Thanks to the global media, we all live in the alternative media reality. The whole world is watching a movie about something which does not in fact exist; it’s fiction in the guise of real events. This is a manipulation of public opinion."It remains to be seen what will be the long-term political consequences for the United States and Israel for their repeated use of falsehoods to foment chaos and destruction in the Middle East. Their falsely advertised global war on terror is no longer seen as a credible international security and political project. As the biggest destabilizers of global security and international peace, America and Israel have boxed themselves in a losing situation. They are not acting rationally, legally, or morally.
Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett, two former high-level officials in the National Security Council, consistently argue that American policy makers are damaging America's core interests in the Middle East by continuing a misguided policy of aggression and destabilization. In their latest article called, "Pushing China to Act Against its Interests in Iran…And For What?" they say that, "the United States needs to re-orient its policy towards the Islamic Republic of Iran in the same way that it reoriented its policy toward the People’s Republic China in the early 1970s."
An American-Iranian rapprochement would significantly improve America's image in the Middle East and the world. In June 2009, CNN reported that, "most Iranians said they support an American-Iranian rapprochement for bringing a new era of peace to the Middle East."
In my article, "45 Reasons Why America Should Cut Off Ties With Israel, AIPAC And The Neocons," I wrote that, "American and Iranian interests in the Middle East align almost perfectly if you take an expansionist and aggressive Israel out of the picture." A new American-Iranian alliance would mark the beginning of a positive and transformative era for the Middle East and the world.
But as things stand currently, America and Israel are inseparable. Their illegal war against Syria is a precursor to a preemptive and illegal attack on Iran. We're more likely to see an irrational and destructive third world war than a rational and constructive American-Iranian partnership.
