Very interesting must read article in Fortruss today :
“Novorossiya volunteers are forming Syria units”.
I posted on here a while ago that we might soon be seeing Motorola and co. in Syria and it looks like that may now be happening.
The evil morons in Washington have crossed Russias red lines in both Ukraine and Syria and now the gloves are well and truly off.
The full article can be read below :
How awful, they should stay home and protect their country not go off and be blown up by some IED in the arab world.. And shame on LDPR governments for not taking care of their fighters and their families. These people risk their lives and now they are forced to fight in another country to get money? Unacceptable.
Regarding givi, Motorola, etc.
I believe that it’s up to them to make decisions regarding their own lives. They’re obviously in a better position to know what’s going on in the Donbass then us. Besides, maybe this is Russia’s way of getting their battle-hardened operatives to help out where they’re needed the most.
I thought this was an Excellent crosstalk show, one of the better ones, I hope Peter gets even more edgier: criminal liars (i.e., Western establishment ideologues and their shills in the media) do not respect civility, instead they take advantage of it. Media professionals like Peter understand this.
Regarding raghida dergham, she’s a complete Empire shill and Sunni/Pro-Saudi partisan. I seen her many times on CNN and BBC and she’s treated with kid-gloves and unmerited deference (because she’s an part of their establishment), Peter Lavelle being a media professional (as well as Pepe Escobar) fully understands what Raghida really is: a pressitute in service to her pay-masters the Saudis and the Anglo establishment.
I love it when Peter invites these privileged MSM propagandists onto his show and then proceeds to obliterate their cover and expose them. There was no misogyny involved as Ort states. Raghida is the one who first interrupted (pepe Escobar) and first started a spin monologue regarding the “Assad must go” mantra which is a false argument from the start, that’s why Peter put an end to her nonsense. Why should Assad go? Says who? Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey? What business is it of theirs? It’s not even an argument, it’s a propaganda slogan coined in London and Paris.
I realize that you’ve mentioned that with truth on Peter’s side, he should be cold and logical; with due respect that does not work on American or British audiences nor on people that are not upto speed on these issues – these are the people Lavelle trying to reach and wake up.
People here need to realize that that show is not made for the converted, it’s trying to reach those unfamiliar with the issues (therefore the repetition of the background to this conflict).
I totally agree with you there.Its amazing to me that a women like Raghida would be supporting the Saudi position.If she was in Saudi Arabia she would never even be allowed to speak on political issues.And would be covered head to foot if she went outside her house.She must be planning on moving to the US or Western Europe soon.Since, if ISIS or other Saudi backed jihadis win.They would next take over Lebanon,and she would end with a bullet in her head,or with no head at all.Unless they sold her in a slave market to some of their fighters.They don’t play around with “uppity women” in the “Caliphate”.
Thank you Espelho; couldn’t have put it better myself. Good show. Showed up an MSM hack. well done Peter – keep it up!
In regard to volunteers going to Syria – that is their choice; it is their lives. They see the bigger picture of just how dangerous these terrorists are – who are we to question whilst sitting comfortably in front of our computers in a peaceful land?
I didn’t know Raghida before I’ve seen this crosstalk episode, unlike Pepe Escobar or Lavelle himself, but from what I’ve just seen it appeared to me that she was talking absolutely nonsensical rubbish. She didn’t even managed to concisely uphold her main line of argument, or may I say mantra (Assad must go), as it is (to be honest) truly indefensible. But, to be just here, Peter Lavelle have acted overly aggressive against her at times which can be rightly considered unprofessional or unethical (the emotional fervour can be acceptable in a private discussion but it shouldn’t be modus operandi of any professional anchor or moderator). It has been, in my opinion, a bit harmful to the subject matter being discussed, that Peter wasn’t able to refrain from such an overly partial approach, even though he got his message absolutely right. It could have discouraged those viewers seeking an impartial and unbiased honest discussion, so for next time, I would have advised him to keep his emotions more at bay.
Liz, with all due respect, there is nothing aweful about them going off to fight in Syria and they are in effect protecting their country by doing so as the enemy is ultimately the same enemy they have been fighting. Everything is connected and I wish people would open their eyes and get their brains into gear to realise that.
I’m not familiar with Raghida Dergham, and wasn’t particularly sympathetic to what she had to say.
This said, I regret to say that Peter Lavelle is increasingly prone to lose control (i.e. lose his temper) and abandon even the pretense of “moderating” the group discussion. Lately, the shows have fallen into a rut in which Lavelle clearly gets annoyed, then angry, at a dissenting participant and– there’s no other way to say it– gets increasingly UGLY as the program proceeds.
I certainly can’t say that Dergham had it coming, because after her first few remonstrances Lavelle literally didn’t give her a chance to finish her thoughts. Instead, he cut her off and threw the discussion back to the others, especially Escobar. All things being equal, it’s OK if Lavelle is simpatico, even chummy, with certain regular guests– but not when it degenerates to rank favoritism, which amounts to an abuse of power.
FWIW, I appreciate that, while moderators/anchors do function as timekeepers, the better ones do it discreetly and artfully. Unfortunately, even well-regarded interviewers like Peter and Amy Goodman of “Democracy Now” are ham-fisted about it, as if interrupting a speaker by barking “Fifteen seconds!” is not only necessary but helpful.
It seems obvious to me that sharply barking out time constraints can fluster and disrupt speakers rather than “concentrate their minds” so they can use their remaining time wisely.
Today, when Lavelle snarled “Twenty seconds!” after soliciting Dergham’s final comment, it was unquestionably to discourage her. He was livid. Thus, whatever the merits of her position, she was quite right to decline to fall into this trap.
Again: ugly– malicious, with a whiff of misogynism. Lavelle needs to get a grip.
I agree with you, Lavelle is one those guys that propagandists against Russia can use to to genuinely discredit RT and many other platforms of pro-Russian information.
He becomes aggressive to any dissenter to a cartoonish degree.
I honestly believe that Crosstalk needs a far more cold-blooded and subtle host.
Yes, agreed, RT has the massive advantaged of having the truth on their side most of the time, as oppose to USA that most of the time needs to lie. This advantaged is best exploited by RT by having a cold and rational person as host. That uses logic instead of emotions.
To be frank, in this and many other crosstalk episodes Lavelle reminds me more of western media and how they threat political opponents. Unfair, rude, interruptive, obviously biased.
There was a recent appearance of Ken Roth on RT hosted by Anissa Naoui. She was clever enough not to interrupt him almost at all, and just let him for the majority of the time to just run with his nonsense. The effect was infinitely better to what Peter is doing. That idiot Ken Roth (of HRW and “barrel-bomb” fame) was just making a total fool of himself, and all that Anissa had to do was to ask him a few clever (but not provocative) questions and he just revealed his extreme bias.
But even in her case, I would make one complaint. She had a sarcastic look on her face for most of the duration of the interview. While many may find that appropriate (and yes, Ken Roth was being abysmally stupid and biased) I prefer people who are deeply subtle and know how to completely demolish their opponents without showing their emotions.
Like you said earlier, truth is (almost) exclusively on our side and we don’t need to adopt the ludicrous propaganda mechanisms of the Western MSM.
I totally agree, it is to RT advantaged to come off as fair and objective as possible. Cold poker face, and a neutral tone, and then short logical question to totally crush their narrative. When the truth is on your side, the more objective and neutral you seem, the bigger you win.
Of course nobody is objective, but it is important to pretend as best you can, and I feel that Lavelle many times does not even seem to be trying. And while some pro-Russian viewers might feel “Yea, yeah, crush him, you are the man Lavelle!” most people that are neutral to the matter will just see a host that is being a bully, and reject him and worse, his political stance/message based on that.
I agree completely. If I understood correctly the woman would like to point ill doing / done stuff of Aasad and his military, etc.
These terms and facts could be easily wiped out by using information and logic. However Escobar is doing it from first.
I’m sorry to say, its too costly to pay 25 mins in this conversation.
I don’t watch crosstalk anymore. I used to like it however.. But now Lavelle reminds me of Alex Jones, always interrupting and sometimes shouting. The format is not very interesting either, it always seem to be the very “biast Lavelle” and two people that agree with him, and then a third lone person that they all hammer on..
I live in Sweden, perhaps the most liberal country on the planet, and his shows reminds me of Swedish shows where they invite one conservative or nationalist and then all other participants and the pre-selected audience hammer him and interrupt him during the entire program.
Altought to be fair Lavelle is better then most such Swedish shows, because at most such Swedish shows, they don’t even invite a conservative or nationalist to defend herself, they just sit and talk smack with eachother totally unchallanged.
Are you Swedish? Then even though Sweden is prosperous and so on, I feel sorry for you. The PC dictatorship in that country is reaching insanity levels.
Yes, indeed, you would not believe, but as in most western countries now, there is a very strong counter-movement growing, SD the anti-PC “opposition” party recently scored 26% in opinion polls. So hopefully the days of PC elite are numbered.
Well now I understand your perspective, you’re from Sweden and this show style does not jive with the social culture or style you’ve grown accustomed to. However it does jive with the TV culture of the Anglo-Saxon world which has become edgier and more aggressive. I’m afraid a genteel and civil discussion would fail utterly to influence the audiences of countries of real significance in the Anglo part of the Western alliance: the US & Britain, Canada and least, Australia. Sweden just doesn’t matter to the leadership of the West, however, the opinion of the electorate in the US, Britain and Canada do matter and that’s why RT English is culturally configured to those audiences.
I for one cannot stand RT’s “redacted tonight”, lee camp’s humor is lame to me, but the show does have a following among young and liberal single kids, it is reaching a segment different than my demographic group, so good for them and too bad for me.
I fully agree. This formate works well and unfortunately a “civilized” calm discussion would not keep viewers watching until the end. But this kind of sensationalism is necessary to make viewers listen . Reminds me of a program on Al Jazeera Arabic called “The opposite view” where from the start of the Syrian war they had discussions culminating in the guests throwing chairs, walking off and insane shouting including the moderator whose job was to provoke, insult and pose suggestive questions. It works to the extend to get more viewers and make them watch again next time.
Reallly?
You actually instructed Liz in what to say in her posts on this blog and “gave your permission” for her to watch what she wants in Sweden but not comment on what she sees here?
Huh.
To you, Sejmon, I say: if this is your debut here, it is not an auspicious one.
He was trying trying to cut his old habit of interrupting speakers but there was one one interview in which he was genuinely pissed about what were outright lies from coming from one of his guests. And some people commended him for that. I think after that he has grown even more hostile to any views that aren’t in line with his own. I dont think there is any interview where he hasn’t cutoff Mark Sleboda and he is supposed to be on our side. Well, to be fair Mark isn’t as good a speaker as other guests and he sometimes repeats already known stuff but if you invite him again and again you should let him speak or simply don’t invite him anymore.
“I don’t think there is any interview where he hasn’t cutoff Mark Sleboda and he is supposed to be on our side. Well, to be fair Mark isn’t as good a speaker as other guests and he sometimes repeats already known stuff [..]”
You might be onto something there… I adore Mark, but he’s not very good at making a point quickly, same goes for Pepe, he’s insanely brilliant [and genuinely witty to boot], but he takes way too long to get to the meat of the main point he’s trying to make. And don’t even get me started on Paul Craig Roberts [who I also loooove] or Norman Finkelstein in particular. In a live-broadcast situation, he kind of thinks he’s talking to a captive student university lecture with nowhere to go for the next two and a half hours (sorry Norman)
And I do love Finkelstein, it’s just that his style of communication doesn’t really mesh with the CrossTalk format – that’s not to say I don’t wanna see him again on CrossTalk, on the contrary!
Love it or hate it: CrossTalk is meant to be a short show with guests presenting their point of view as quickly and succinctly as humanly possible.
Granted; not many people can do that effectively – my personal favorite in this department is Eric Draitser, he can give it to you in 3 minutes or less. But it’s understandable not everyone’s brains work as fast as Eric’s. That’s when you have to make a judgment-call and instead of having three guest, you might want to have two. Peter did this in the not so distant past, more than once.
The other alternative, as I already said previously; if you have some big guest on the show [one who takes his time to make a point], you might want to make it a one-hour special edition of that show.
I love Eric Draitser—he is very articulate and forceful and puts things together very clearly. He has honed his message. BUT, I have to say, when I have seen him on Crosstalk, Lavelle does not break in. I have been surprised at how long Lavelle lets Draitser speak. Draitser also speaks very fast—as I said, his message is honed and I am sure he practices before he goes on the show. Perhaps other guests should do the same. So they don ‘t have to do so much thinking on their feet, but make sure they get their view out there in one piece.
Re the idea of the format and tone being what Anglo-Saxon audiences are used to: Sadly this is probably the case. And one reason a lot of them are totally turned off by this talk show style. It usually isn’t the best way to generate a discussion of complex issues, plus is so full of hostility and rudeness and rhetoric of various kinds, especially in the way questions are posed. So, it is a shame to see Lavelle resorting to the same. A little bit of the same is OK when directed against MSM shills of various sorts.
Glad to see these comments of yours. I had been having very similar thoughts lately, but tended to push them aside because of my very high appreciation of Mr. Lavelle and his program.
So now I know that I am not the only one. Hopefully someone can get these sorts of observations to Lavelle and convince him to do something about the matter.
Taking a long time to say it and never finishing it, Raghida Dergham didn’t really have anything to say aside from disagreeing with the other three and dismissing their statements as ‘wishful thinking’.
On Crosstalk you had better make your arguments short otherwise you will get cut down -and sooner rather than later if Lavelle doesn’t like what you have to say. That’s all known beforehand and it is Lavelle’s show, so participants are forewarned.
There’s usually only ‘one against’ as it were, and sometimes none so it is unbalanced. But the squabbling with two (or more) against would be un-viewable and might even end up like those physical ‘discussions’ in the Kiev Parliament.
Lavelle’s premise of what’s more important: ‘fighting terrorists or regime change’ is in itself false and Pepe Escobar in fine form summed things up at the beginning saying it was the same US script over and over again.
If a country of strategic or mineral importance does not bow down and accept US vassal status then the US will create and fund terrorists to precipitate regime change and make it so or failing that turn it into permanent chaos.
re: Syria Phoenix Crosstalk. A truce will require a coalition of the willing and that is not happening. Forget Minsk like agreements for the midEast because they will be used to bolster positions for a new battle as everyone buries their weapons and plays a waiting game. And these folks can wait for a long, long time. What is required is a clear victory involving land and the ability to hold territory because anything less will be a defacto agreement to fracture the Syrian nation forever.
As for Syrian opposition: If that woman who just babbled in run on sentences with no coherent idea or program of principles and action is an example of “Syrian opposition”, well, maybe that is the reason why the best have left to become busboys/waitresses in Germany.
I am also somewhat let down by Pepe and the other guy, who did not stress the point that the Syrian “regime” was systematically being destabilized and sabotaged by foreign powers and secret services from before any of the fighting took place. The pawns and infrastructure for the war against Assad (and by extension, Syria) were being put in place for many years, reaching an apogee with the transfer of weapons from Croatia and Libya and then from all over the Middle East.
Also, RT guests should be stating more openly that ISIS is the creation of the anti-Assad coalition of NATO+GCC. Even Putin is now strongly hinting at that, why not the guests of RT?
Peter you have a great program with the most amazing guest that are subject matter experts in most cases, while you, are an intelligent man with a very well informed opinion but, can you please allow your guests to speak. We know how you feel personally, i don’t need to hear any more from you to learn how you feel cause i have watched you and will continue to watch your great show but, i already know your opinion.
But we must realize that capturing territory may not be the SAAs primary goal at this time. I think the primary goal is to probe the rats defenses and put a ratpower and logistical strain on their resources.
Kartapolov sounds very positive with the campaign so far and claims that in the last couple of days hundreds of Daish rat-fighters have been killed by the SAA and air strikes.
I am of the opinion that General Kartapolov would not be making false claims.
Also, the main attack has not yet started for sure. Russia’s air component will grow significantly larger than the current one, and a lot more heavy weaponry will be provided by Russia.to the SAA.
Having said that, I will readily acknowledge that the rats seem to be extremely brave fighters (at least from what I realize) and that there is a long way ahead, fraught with potential surprises and extreme danger.
The Empire has so much riding on this one, and they will not lie down and die that easy, especially since they are not risking their own skins.
Indeed, also the villages might be taken back by SAA tomorrow, the offensive so far has only been going on for two weeks at most, and from what I heard it is expected to go on for 4 months. If SAA continues to capture 20 towns and lose 3 every 2 weeks that would sound pretty successfull, also one could hope that the “rebels” would eventually collapse under SAA pressure and Russian airstrikes and start losing ground faster.
Yes, wahhabits are probably the best fighters on earth right now, not that they get the best training or best technology, but because they are fanatics, they will capture a town, digg in, borrow tunnels everywhere, and then live on rice-cakes for years fighting fanatically under the worst conditions, running around in their rat tunnels, and the only way to remove them is to go into the tunnels after them, and if their ammo runs out, they’ll strap explosives on their bodies and jump out from roof tops at secular soldiers and detonate themselves.(Not kidding, actually happens),so they are definitely no pushovers.
Which might be a reason to not even attempt to take them prisoner,shoot on the spot.I’ve seen many videos where the SAA tries to take jihadis prisoner.And for the Syrian ones that might be a workable solution.But for the foreign terrorists I wouldn’t even bother about that.Let them either flee or die.That would be the only choice I’d accord them.
We also need to remember that the rats are often drugged up on a form of methamphetamine, especially a drug called Captagon.
“In 2014 it was widely reported that Syria was manufacturing and trafficking large amounts of amphetamines, primarily a drug called, generating hundreds of millions of dollars in profits. Captagon, a brand name for Fenethylline, is a synthetic stimulant that is a popular recreational drug in the Middle East.”
“Islamic ideology rationalizes the violence and the drugs transform them into Mujahideen maniacs with enhanced stamina, superhuman strength, no empathy, no fear and who literally feel no pain.”
Could very well be.Remember all the reports from Ukraine about the Ukrainian troops being on drugs to get them to fight.It may be that is part of the US plan for their proxy armies.Get them high and they’ll fight harder.
You are all missing something. The Russian military’s involvement in Syria was pre-planned and approved. Before Russia got involved, the following had to and did occur.
1. Germany withdrew its missiles from Turkey 2 months(?)
2. The Syrian refuge problem, which have been ongoing, suddenly became a big deal in the press.
3. Us removed sanctions on Iran. They could not have participated like they are now in Syria under sanctions.
3. There are no US aircraft carriers any where near the Middle East, at all. The US military is out of it.
Guess 1: All of this Syrian stuff is run out of the CIA on separate budgets which seem to be attached to the ongoing NEO Con programs headed by McCain. They may be running out of time and money. How would you like to be the ones trying to sell Congress on supporting Al Qaeda? I think he is a terrorist.
Guess 2: With Germany’s involvement in doing the deal with Gazprom to bypass Ukraine for their gas, and their pulling their missiles from Turkey, the whole change thing seems to be run out of Europe, and with Kerry’s comments that the dollar couldn’t be a reserve currency without Iran, the IMF is a good candidate for changing things around.
Guess 3: The IMF and Europeans were very disappointed with what happened in the Ukraine, and they lost billions and billions in the transaction, and crippled the never recovering European economy, which we hear little about now, but will again soon. When the US decided not to accept the bill for the Ukraine and gave it to the Europeans, they asked if the US if they were going to leave the Middle East a mess also, and why was the US supporting terrorists, and why did they terrorize their own people on 911 – was it to get a new Pearl Harbor. It seems Europeans are more sensitive to the 911 issue than Americans because they know more. So the IMF told Obama and Kerry they needed to allow Iran and Russia clean up the Middle East, and they should end sanctions on Iran, and the US would stop making problems there, which really suited Kerry and Obama fine as we do seem bogged down with terrorists in the Mid East, and that just isn’t a good thing. Perhaps they enjoy seeing McCain and Petraeus twist in the wind.
Guess 4: Although the US military doesn’t like what is going on, their only option is to make the cost of success high for Russia. I would be surprised if they interfered.
Now, if you guys would get with the program and show the pictures of McCain with the ISIS terrorists, which is fairly commonplace on the net, maybe we could get rid of Armageddon in our near future, and maybe even war in the future. The budget is the thing, and all Congress is guilty, which I am going to remind both my Liberal leading and Republican Senator of their support of terrorism.
And if I can figure all this out and you can’t, are you really insiders?
Even though you raise several very valid points there, you make it sound as if there has been some kind of grand coordination between Russia and the US/EU.
I very much doubt that.
The Russian expedition seems to genuinely have caught the Empire by surprise and they really do not know what to do about it.
The missiles were only withdrawn from Turkey only after the Russian air strikes commenced. The thing is that NATO does not trust Erdogan with advanced missiles, which is understandable.
What Kerry said about Iran and the dollar was more of an effort to sell the “Iran deal” to the “hawks” in Washington. Like I said in some of previous posts, the US$ is not in such a precarious state as many seem to believe.
Also, look at the reaction of many circles in both Europe and the US. They are genuinely appalled about what is going on right now. Also, just look at what the several think-tanks have to say about the events. They are at a complete loss.
Also, the IMF going against the US? The IMF takes orders from the US! You seem to be grossly underestimating US power.
The IMF and the West in general have not lost too much money on Ukraine, in fact Russia has lost a lot more. Also, the amount of money they are losing on Ukraine (which they will be from now on) is the price that they have to pay to have any kind of leverage of Russia. Otherwise they have precious little to pressure Russia with. They have already crashed the oil price (only partly their work) they have already placed severe financial sanctions and they have already completed their “revolution” in Ukraine. Without the Porky/Yats regime in Kiev causing headaches for Moscow all the time (some big, others small) how can they put any serious pressure on Russia from now on? I am not saying that Ukraine is not a headache for them as well, but they need it, otherwise their loss of face and loss of leverage against Russia will be even more disastrous. As things now stand in Ukraine, both Russia and the West are between bad and very bad choices.
Germany announced removal of missiles a long time ago. Removal may have been recent. Obama on 60 minutes questioned whether we wanted or needed to be in the Mid-East forever. If it isn’t the IMF someone else is running and changing things. And I still think Europeans and the Ukraine lost big time on the Ukraine, although Russia also lost money. The media just doesn’t want us to know what we lost with our $5 billion dollar investment in destabilizing the Ukraine. The Ukraine is pretty much a failed country as I understand it. What is the price of saving it? Since September, things have changed very dramatically, and although it is played as accidental by the media, or “caught the empire off guard,” my sense is that things are going as planned for someone, just not John McCain or the Neo-Cons, and that is very much fine with me. I think they have been dumped. Good riddance. And I think it is all coordinated with someone in the EU, Obama and Kerry, and the Russians. Let’s test the idea. Let’s see if the US military gets re-involved, and if the carriers come back.
“And I think it is all coordinated with someone in the EU, Obama and Kerry, and the Russians. Let’s test the idea. Let’s see if the US military gets re-involved, and if the carriers come back.”
I have been saying this on the Saker’s Blog for the last two years. In this I also include both McCain and Graham. Good cop / bad cop. Now, I include Boehner. Basically, the whole deep state is together.
You left out the motive which is Israel. Both AIPAC and Netanyahu would not have allowed Russia to go to Syria, to be at the doorsteps of Isreal with the latest Russian Military Hardware. But, alas both AIPAC and Netanyahu are very, very weak. Netanyahu, no longer can run to Boehner, as he has already resigned. So, he goes to Moscow and comes back empty handed.
Kudos to Boehner, a true patriot like McCain, Graham, Obama, Kerry …….
“It took me by surprise,” Obama said from the Rose Garden on Friday. “John Boehner is a good man. He is a patriot. He cares deeply about the House. He cares about his constituents and he cares about America.”
I have gone through the god cop bad cop and you got to act a little crazy to make the other guy think twice so they have no idea what you are capable off and put them off balance etc etc etc etc etc…
But you know what, I believe they ARE crazy, They have destroyed the lives of hundreds of millions of people, killed tens of millions of people, blown off limps of even more people…
So nothing you say like how you mean it would actually fit the situation unless you also take into account that they are evil.. they are greedy and absolutely corrupt and they think they are gods chosen and you also accept you are such a low life beneath even their contempt. You keep excusing their demonic possessions like they are actually out to do good.
Your hero Osama.. actually drones people to death! By now what he has droned like close to 5000 people and a report came out today that less than 5% of the people he has killed are al queda.. The very same al queda he is supporting in Syria to torture civlians, murder kids throw people off buildings and rape women and children.
You can see the arrogance and contempt on the faces of these people. When some guy comes on TV after bombing and wedding and killing 150 people or bombing a hospital and killing 20 volunteers form the world who went there to help people taking time off from their real jobs…
There is no deep state as such.. Unless you can accept these people would use your organs if they could live an extra day. because their actions say they would.
I never said that they are not evil. Neither is Obama my hero, nor Putin. They are both just tired of Netanyahu, so they are cooperating to rid of the menace to the world.
Also, Obama knows that the Dollar cannot keep up any longer, so there has to be some other currency.
Both Obama and Putin are sworn to upheld their respective countries constitution. Both are working for their own country benefits, and no one else. If they did, then they will be considered traitors by their respective people.
People don’t like the idea that Putin can be working with Obama. In their minds, how can a white knight work with Obama. It is repulsive to them, so they can’t even acknowledge it.
I dont think the loss of these villages is too important. The villages only have 50-60 houses and so theyre probably only lightly defended.
The SAA just dont have enough heavy equipment to dig in and hold everything.
Hopefully over time they can where ISIS down enough to be able to roll over them.
I think that the woman speaker was right that the other two speakers were doing bit of a wishful thinking. The picture on the ground isn’t rosy for the Syrian Army/Assad so I think a compromise is being sought.
Here is from BBC headlined – Syria war: Lavrov seeks talks with ‘full spectrum’ of opposition
[[[ Speaking at the start of talks in Vienna on Friday, Mr Lavrov said: “Our common position is that we need to boost efforts for the political process in the Syrian settlement.
“This foresees the start of full-scale talks between representatives of the Syrian government and the full spectrum of the Syrian opposition, both domestic and external – with the support of outside players.” ]]]
This looks like a change in position to me. Before Russia was refusing to differentiate between rebels and terrorist, now it wants full spectrum of the Syrian opposition.
And from RT : Syria talks should be more ‘representative,’ include Iran, Egypt – Moscow
[[[ Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said that a dozen actors ranging from international organizations to regional countries ‒ particularly Iran and Egypt ‒ should join the talks on finding a political solution to the Syrian crisis.
On Friday the foreign ministers of Russia, United States, Turkey and Saudi Arabia held talks on the Syrian conflict in Vienna, Austria.
“Many external actors and not only those four that gathered in Vienna are obviously involved in the Syrian crisis. For this reason, we called for our future meetings to be held in a more representative format that would include a range of regional powers,” Lavrov said after the meeting.
“We specially stressed that it should include Iran and Egypt,” he stressed
According to Lavrov, the format of talks on Syria should not be “endlessly extended,” although it could “reasonably” involve about a dozen states and organizations, including the Arab League and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation.
The Russian foreign minister also stressed that the ongoing crisis in the Middle East and North Africa concerns not only Arab countries, Turkey and Iran, but “the whole Islamic world.”
US Secretary of State John Kerry called the meeting “constructive and productive,” adding that the ideas proposed at this meeting might positively influence the pace of changes in Syria.
Kerry did not rule out a possibility of inviting Iran to take part in the negotiations on Syria, conceding that Tehran could “eventually” be asked to join the talks, according to Bloomberg. He also said that the next talks on Syria could take place next Friday. ]]]
It looks like a big conference including all influential players is afoot.
I agree with you that there is some degree of wishful thinking by Pepe and some on the pro-Assad camp, but there is no way this ends with some big conference in the near future.
Russia and Iran are prepared to go all in to keep Syria whole.
Before the end of November, I expect a serious escalation on the part of Russia and Iran. The rats will be defeated on ground so that Syria (and Iraq) remain whole with some considerable autonomy for the Kurds (Zionists and US will make sure of that)
It may also be the case that Russia will commit ground troops in Syria. Maybe not the regular Russian Army, but some combination of Special Forces, Kadyrov’s men and “volunteers”
I also expect to see more warplanes, more helicopter gunships on the part of the RuAF, and also more T-72s (with some kind of reactive armor) and also lots more heavy artillery.
Surely “opposition” does not mean “rebels” who have taken up arms against their govt, or foreigners who go there to topple the legal govt.
Let’s recall what happened when the Johnny Rebs decided to take up arms against Washington. The South was smashed and forced to remain in the Union. End of story. The rebels who couldn’t get over it left the country (many of them). In this case, DAmascus is WAshington and Assad is Lincoln.
So, armed opposition does not constitute the type of opposition to engage in a conference of any kind, seems to me.
Still wondering why teh Syrian ambassador to the UN doesn’t make a speech in which he declares syrian air space off limits to all except Syrian air craft and those of her allies.
Katherine
I wish Peter would have had only Pepe on his program. But then it wouldn’t be CrossTalk which seems to be quite literally the way it works.
The lady always started by disagreeing but then never could get to a point that made sense to me. She made a number of questionable assertions like non-existent concessions. She felt attacked which I don’t think was true. Pepe deferred to her. Peter gave her equal time with the others but became irritated when she went on and on with what she herself said was wishful thinking.
The other gentleman was a book writer and it showed in the rehashing of the obvious.
Oh well, I suppose the same could be said about me.
I thank our lucky stars that Putin is not a pundit. He has a job to do and does it pretty well.
I like Pepe because he makes sense and talks in colorful way. Chickens without heads and sitting ducks indeed. I think he might be carried away by his own rhetoric, like the terrorists will be crushed in two or three months.
To me there are some facts that are so obvious that it makes this cross-talking like a superfluous circus. For example, if the US wanted to stop the terrorists it could just stop paying them and paying those who pay the terrorists. Supplying them with weapons, food, information is also a form of payment.
“Follow the money” is a pretty good rule that we heard in the Watergate shenanigans. We should apply it to the inflate-gate hooligans today.
The tragedy to my mind is that we all pay for our own destruction. The US prints the money which some say is made from nothing, in other words counterfeit. It steals it with all kinds of tricks of the trade. And then it pays the going price for a terrorist.
And Russia tolerates this financial farce by pampering its bankers? That’s paying for the weapons used against you. Hopefully this favorite son status will change soon.
Eventually the beast of interest/usury will have to go because it is the deep terrorist destroying us all. Calvin’s false distinction between interest and usury makes Protestants of us no matter what beliefs we have.
If Russia can win the battles against the bankers and the banker fed terrorists, perhaps it can go on and win the war for planetary survival.
Peter says it’s OK to jump in at any time; then he usually jumps on the jumpers to wait until called upon. Sounds like the teacher who told his students to stand up for themselves. When they did he told them to sit down.
“People are crazy and times are strange; I’m all locked in and out of range.” Well, present company excepted. Cheers for the circus of life, the sad clowns and those walking a high wire. Tears for the droned children and women drowning in tears. Why are there not more real men like Putin and company? I guess the answer is “blowing in the wind.”
I didn’t particularly like the way PL handled the show, but I think Raghida Dergham’s main
problem was that she failed to address the utter untrustworthiness of the Turkish, Saudi, Qatari and US State/CIA/neocon machinations as they appear to be creating a new front against Russia in Syria/Iraq that is intended to serve their own selfish national interests as well to bleed chaos into the Caucasus region. The same problem persists in Afghanistan: the Russians are facing a continuing attempt to find a way to undermine Russia. This is the new Great Game that the Russians are fighting. This is why Putin said at the UN: “However, it’s not about Russia’s ambitions, dear colleagues, but about the recognition of the fact that we can no longer tolerate the current state of affairs in the world.”
This is a realist Russian geopolitical policy that the above specified parties have to grapple with: how can we earn Russian and Syrian popular trust in the face of our concerted effort to destroy Syria’s sovereignty and what might result from that?
Raghida Dergham also needs to come to grips with this issue in a very realistic fashion: she needs to specify succinctly the value of statements she asserts have been made by various parties to the conflict that they are ready to compromise. The Russians and the Syrians will need very concrete evidence that there is any reason to trust the Turks, Saudis, Qataris and US State/CIA/neocons. I doubt that can be done, succinctly or otherwise.
“So Turkish people, especially Recep Tayyip Erdogan, he has colonialist ambitions. He is trying to put his hands on some places in Syria. If you read their newspapers, if you listen to their TV channels, they consider Aleppo as a part of Turkey and they say that Syrian Arabs has stolen this area and so and so and so.
So yes, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, which is a fascist and indeed a racist who wants only Turkish people to be in his border. He is bringing Turkish people from every place to fight President Assad to CHANGE the demographic structure of Syria.
And we have reliable information…that there was a kind of demographic replacement inside Syria nearby the city of Ar-Raqqa. There are two Chinese villages. The people, the Arab citizens from those villages were killed or displaced and Erdogan and ISIS brought Chinese Uyghurs to settle in those two villages. The Syrian people told me this story and they said we call it now the two Chinese villages.”
I actually don’t think Pepe Eschobar wishful thinks….he’s as up to date as anyone in journalism.
the woman is a reptile…you can see it….someone said “a shill’ yes that’s a pretty good description of her.
And about Peter’s way with his show…he’s doing this for a reason I think. The other night, when there was a guy saying that it was US foreign policy to ‘fail states’…well, Peter retorted that now Iraq and Iran are friends..Syria and Russia are friends and that the US policy is to thank for all that…
So the US is not as smart as some people would like us to think…And Peter is as good a journalist as Pepe…in his own way…and I think the people here should listen to Peter and not just complain so much about him..
@ Ann: — and I think the people here should listen to Peter and not just complain so much about him…
You are quite right, Ann.
People complaining forgot how they, – just a rather short time ago, when the West’s “elite” and their paid talking heads had made themselves beleive in the West’s uncontested hegemony in all spheres – treated their opponents. In the rare cases when the opponents had been allowed to open their mouths.
The opponents’ remarks had been immediately dissmised by the “elite” with arrogant and contemptuous wave of hand, after which only one side did the talking. So, the time, given by Peter to that side now, – in comparison – is generous.
But he immediately interrupts them when they start lying. Why shouldn’t he ? – They can lie at Foxnews and CNN studios. And not at RT.
Hersh Vindicated? Turkish Whistleblowers Corroborate Story on False Flag Sarin Attack in Syria –
This is quite the bombshell delivered by two CHP deputies in the Turkish parliament and reported by Today’s Zaman, one of the top dailies in Turkey.
It supports Seymour Hersh’s reporting that the notorious sarin gas attack at Ghouta was a false flag orchestrated by Turkish intelligence in order to cross President Obama’s chemical weapons “red line” and draw the United States into the Syria war to topple Assad.
Considering the furious reaction it can be expected to elicit from Erdogan and the Turkish government, the temerity of CHP and Today’s Zaman in running with this story is a sign of how desperate their struggle against Erdogan has become. Note that the author is shown only as “Columnist: Today’s Zaman”.
I expect the anti-Erodgan forces hope this will be a game changer in terms of U.S.and European support for Erdogan.
well, I think I can guess…before watching… which one of the guests is the reptile..the woman…I don’t believe for a moment that Putin called Assad to Moscow to tell him he was on his way out….
Okay, now I scrolled down to read the comments here and I see one comment after another complaining about Peter Lavelle…
Get a life you guys…Peter Lavelle is great and I’m sure Saker thinks he’s one of the very best…there’s a Crosstalk on Saker’s every night now, and we all watch it….and get informed by it.
I don’t think you complainers realize how much you learn on these Crosstalk shows…too bad….
Sorry, Ann; I have a “life”, thanks, such as it is, and I stand by my criticism of Lavelle.
I don’t buy into the premise that a public figure’s positive contributions entitle them to unconditional positive regard, nor do I apply the fictional George Babbitt’s “boost, don’t knock” dictum to politicians or journalists.
The term “unconditional positive regard” may be a bit strong, but unless there’s more than one “Ann” your comments always strongly imply that Lavelle is beyond criticism. And there’s a whiff of passive-aggressive or supercilious snark in the suggestion that anyone who has a “life” ought to share this view.
This snark has commutative properties: one might just as easily suggest that those who always take time to criticize the critics are the ones who “need a life”.
To (re)state my response in light of other subsequent comments:
I don’t insist that others share my impression, but I reiterate that my reaction to the way Lavelle treated Raghida Dergham has absolutely nothing to do with her background or stated positions. She may well be a reactionary Empire-defending reptile, but that’s all the more reason to give her space to demonstrate this to an audience who are unfamiliar with Crosstalk’s guests.
BTW, I also don’t insist on “misogynist”, which only entered my mind as a possibility when Lavelle rudely and waspishly cut her off at the end. I did notice that Pepe Escobar graciously yielded to her in the beginning, against Lavelle’s inclination to put her in her place early on, but even that degenerated into a spontaneous Good Cop/Bad Cop parody.
I don’t relish seeming to “defend” a reptile, but I disagree with the blunt assertions that “She started it”, or even “She had it coming.” She might have had it coming, but she never got past the pre-emptive bullying from the (im)moderator.
I’ve continued to watch “Crosstalk” because MOST of the time a modicum of conviviality is maintained, even when obnoxious “reptiles” get room to run and are appropriately challenged. All credit to Peter Lavelle and the producers when this standard is maintained!
I agree with Ort.
I find “get a life” to be one of the most singularly unpleasant conversational formulas that has surfaced within recent memory. Occasionally I use it (never to a person’s face, but as a comment on a third person) , and I know, when I do, that my intent is belittle, insult, and ridicule.
And I know I am taking a cheap shot.
“Get a life” skirts being a personal insult when said to a person directly.
Also, it is perhaps a refuge of a lazy mind.
An obvious rhetorical device that functions like a kind of end run around others’ right and wish to continue their conversation or hold their p.o.w. by putting them on the defensive and ridiculing them. A small intimidation.
I see this and other rhetorical techniques with similar intent on other lists.
Can we move on now? [[Hint: That is another one . . . ]]
This is getting catty!
I have always expressed my appreciation of Lavelle and his show on the occasions when I have criticized him for cutting off guests off in what I thought was a counterproductive way.
And I am not the only one on this list to point this out.
So it is pointless to try to shut down such observations/feedback.
As for “get a life”— Since I spend hours at the computer and online for my work, I do check in regularly with various websites etc.
I fail to see the relevance of the “Get a life” jibe and hope never to see it on this blog again.
I must say Ann, your belligerence is the reason I stopped visiting this place after being a very frequent reader. Never a pleasure to come across your “attack dog” posts. Please dis-appoint yourself from this role.
On the content of the show.
Irrespective of the methodology PL uses on CT, he does draw out key issues most of the time.
Here among the ‘noise’ are the 2-3 core points underpinning all the heat in the equation:
1. Firstly, something MUST happen — e.g., “X” must go (Assad in this case); “Y” must stay (the Al Khalifa clan); “Z” must return (Mansur Hadi) etc.
2. What this boils down to is simply “Must Comply” etc.
3. Comply with whom/what is rarely declared but clearly in most recent cases in focus it is whatever US foreign policy dictates and that mostly serves the sources of the $$$s being spent to ‘buy’ the best policy outcomes that money can buy by those with the money. Saudi regime and Arab Emirates are clearly front runners but the Zionist global banking systems also compete for leverage over the DC Zombie.
4. Secondly, looking past all this (most likely paid for) media bias and hysteria related to an “Assad must go” policy mantra we hear very little of what comes next after Assad has ‘gone’?
5. It is obvious there is either (a) some faith-based assumption that ‘democratic’ elections will replace Assad and the Syrian government (and they may, or may not); or (b) little or no concern what comes next even if it is a far worse failed state situation following previous examples of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, etc …
6. It seems clear also that Russia is taking the position that a stable base must be re-established first within the sovereign state of Syria before an appropriate process can be implemented so that Assad can stay or go depending on the democratic will of the Syrian people WHEN they have some credible alternatives to consider — i.e., when something better is available.
7. We can assume that chaos (a la Libya) is not something better for the Syrian people — even if it might appear something better for the various democratic and non-democratic governments in the region.
8. All I read of the Russian position in this is, firstly, this chaos MUST stop. And in that their policy position is incontestable. And from the evidence on the ground their implementation is responsible, planed, measured and systematic.
9. The only ‘shock and awe’ in this campaign is the reality attack on Washington DC inmates and their cult of “MUST” (Much Unstable Social Turmoil).
I have been reading this blog for over a year now, but this is the first time I actually commented.
For all those attacking Peter Lavelle, his only mistake was to invite that pointless & propagandistic female who read into Assad’s visit only what she wanted to read. In fact, just judging by the angry comments from the White House & assorted propaganda outlets like the NYT, WP etc, Russia clearly showed the Syrian state support to save its statehood. As for President Assad, Russia has repeated endlessly, that is only for the Syrian ppl to decide. Putin said it at the UNGA presser, he, Medvedev & Lavrov have repeated it ever since, and also after Assad’s visit.
I think, every honest observer understands that Assad is part of the solution. Even if he had an election today, he would win with a landslide again. Last time he won with 89%. That is more than anyone of those lovely fascist dictators that tell him to go.
Sorry folks… once again, I donno where to drop this “sort of” breaking news:
–
Russia Granted Authorization To Strike ISIS Inside Iraq – by: Anadolu Agency (brought to us via ICH)
“The Iraqi government authorized Russia to target Daesh convoys coming from Syria, a senior Iraqi official said.
The authorization for Russia to target Daesh inside Iraq comes amid security coordination between Iraq, Russia, Iran and Syria.
Hakem al-Zamli, chief of the Iraqi parliament’s security and defense committee, told Anadolu Agency on Friday that the measure contributed to weakening Daesh by cutting off its supply routes [..]”
Now, I’m not so sure if the Russians will want to overstretch themselves while still being in the early stages of their operations in Syria, but one thing is for certain, this is a massive, MASSIVE geopolitical victory for Russia.
This is what Pepe Escobar wrote about this, prior to the Iraqi green-light to Russia:
–
“Next week, Iraq’s parliament will vote on whether to request Russian air strikes against ISIS/ISIL/Daesh. Mowaffak al-Rubaie, former national security adviser to former Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, is convinced the vote will pass [..]
“A measure of Washington’s alarm is that the new chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, Marine Gen. Joseph Dunford was forced to fly to Baghdad to make sure this won’t happen [..]”
“This is all about imperial spheres of influence. A “yes” vote, on the ground, means the Russian Air Force working in tandem with ground intel collected by Shi’ite militias such as the Badr Corps and Asa’ib Ahl al-Haqq to smash all fake “Caliphate” positions. And geopolitically, a “yes” vote signifies the ultimate humiliation — after all those elaborate multi-trillion dollar plans for the “Greater Middle East” which Shock and Awe in 2003 should have set in motion [..]”
Assuming they’ve resigned themselves to loss of ever putting an oil or gas pipeline across/through Ghanistan, then the only fear they have left now is losing their DRUG supply & pipeline network.
Variously estimated at from $1B US/day to $1 trillion/year, just from Ghanistan.
This is really about Syria and Iraq. Afghanistan is some distance away, but anyway…
Anon said: “[..] then the only fear they have left now is losing their DRUG supply & pipeline network”
Well… one can only hope so ;-)
Side note: we shouldn’t forget that the opium poppy production in Afghanistan is not [really] exclusively earmarked for shady heroin traffickers.
Opium is the raw-material for a wide variety of legal pharmaceutical opiates such as; a range of strong pain killers, anesthetics, and anti-depressants.
So! What are the chances that Big-Pharma is actually the main buyers (at a considerable price-discount, of course!) of Afghani poppy crops rather than dodgy drug dealers in the Western ghettoes as we’re lead to believe…
Iraq and Russia Agree to Hit ISIL Militants Heading from Syria to Iraq
0
By News Desk on October 24, 2015 Middle East
Iraqi Parliament’s National Security and Defense Committee Hakem al-Zameli said that Baghdad and Moscow have agreed to hit ISIL militants heading from Syria to Iraq.
In a statement released on Friday, Zameli said that the joint data center between Iraq, Syria and Russia was still in its initial stage, noting that however, it has offered important intelligence information which helped end the battle in Baiji, raqi TV, al-Sumaria reported on Friday.
The Islamic State of Iraq and Al-Sham (ISIS) received a rude awakening inside the provincial capital of the Deir Ezzor Governorate on Friday morning, as the Russian Air Force’s fighter jets destroyed the imperative “Al-Siyasiyah Bridge” (Political Bridge) that sits over the Euphrates River, which links the city’s east and west districts.
TEHRAN (FNA)- The Syrian Armed Forces on Saturday morning stormed the 4th Battalion Base of the Free Syrian Army (FSA) in the Golan Heights and took full control over the base after fierce clashes with the FSA militants.
At sunrise on Saturday morning, the Syrian Army’s 90th Brigade of the 9th Armored Division, in coordination with Fouj Al-Joulani (Golan Regiment) and Liwaa Suqour Al-Quneitra (Al-Quneitra Hawks Brigade) of the National Defense Forces (NDF), launched a counter-assault at the 4th Battalion Base outside of the town of Taranjah, resulting in a series of intense firefights with the Free Syrian Army’s Southern Front Brigades.
TEHRAN (FNA)- The British government has been accused of potentially being complicit in Saudi war crimes after a UK Foreign Office (FCO) minister admitted that Saudi forces were “probably” using British-made weapons as part of the country’s intervention in Yemen.
When asked on the issue during a parliamentary debate on the matter, foreign office minister Tobias Ellwood said, “I can probably confirm that they [British manufactured arms] probably have been used.”
“We sell arms to Saudi Arabia — they are using weapons systems which we then sell. The more pertinent question is are they being used responsibly or not and that is the more important question and we need to make sure they are used in that responsible matter,” Ellwood said according to a Sputnik report. http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13940801000530
TEHRAN (FNA)- Iranian Parliament Speaker Ali Larijani voiced regret that the West-led coalition which claims to fight against the terrorist groups in Syria and Iraq is merely wasting time with no tangible results.
“One of the reasons for the strength of the ISIL is that they sell oil to neighboring countries and they do so by tankers which are easily seen by the Western coalition’s fighter jets, yet they had never been attacked,” Larijani said, addressing a press conference in Russia.
He added that “even if we accept the US argument that they are not willing to cooperate with the Syrian central government, the remaining question will be why they let ISIL sell oil using the same method in Iraq?” http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13940802000166
@ Ann: — and I think the people here should listen to Peter and not just complain so much about him…
You are quite right, Ann.
People complaining forgot how they, – just a rather short time ago, when the West’s “elite” and their paid talking heads had made themselves beleive in the West’s uncontested hegemony in all spheres – treated their opponents. In the rare cases when the opponents had been allowed to open their mouths.
The opponents’ remarks had been immediately dissmised by the “elite” with arrogant and contemptuous wave of hand, after which only one side did the talking. So, the time, given by Peter to that side now, – in comparison – is generous.
But he immediately interrupts them when they start lying. Why shouldn’t he ? – They can lie at Foxnews and CNN studios. And not at RT.
Peter, please invite that sleepyhead Philippe guy from the Left Coast on more often. That beady eyed dude is freaking hilarious! What a laugher on that “Confused Washington” episode. You almost fell out of your chair when he made the assertion that Assad was using ISIS to make himself look good. That was really funny! That guy is comedy gold. More please. We all need the comic relief.
I too think PL should control himself better. Even if we take into account the target audience, supposedly, used to more aggressive exchange of opinions, I don’t think it justified to cut off or antagonse your interlocutor the way Lavelle increansingly does. If he knows in advance the general stance one participant holds, and I assume he does, and still invites him to his program, the objective should be to expose that view as flawed somehow, preferably via his other participants, only relying on his own counter-view as a last resort.
There should be a limit to the heating up of the debate, he is the moderator, and has the responsability to allow the discussion to be fruitful. In the previous program “Sulking Superpower”, for instance, right at the begining, Sam Hussain was attempting to suggest that possibly there was a level of “cold rationality” in the actions of US foreign policy even if they would lead to the failed states of Lybia and Syria (in the examples mentioned) depending how one would recognise US stated versus actual goals in the region.
PL simply could not accept the employment of “rationality” in that analisis, departing in his rant as if Sam was condoning or defending himself such, whereas he was just pointing out that in US view that could be a possibility as long as one accepts that the US’s actual objective would be to have deconstructed Syria into a failed state, perhaps in a tactic of denial of access to US’s adversaries or whatever.
In the process, Lavelle impeded the other participants to evaluate the finer point, who knows how much of the audience likewise. Not to mention the injustice made to the point of view brought by Sam. I don’t expect Lavelle to be permissive and serve as a broadcaster of MSM delusionary talking points, but I expect even less of him to limit as much a debate.
well, Wilfried, some Syrians are fighting ISIL in Syria, many draft dodgers are in Europe from Syria and many Syrians are in refugee camps in Syria, and some are still in their homes…I don’t really get your question unless its a complaint about ‘What do Syrians think ?”…
Read some Syrian perspectives like Ghassan Kadi…some of his articles are here, and some are at his blog…Intibah Kadi is his wife…their blog is great, but I think Saker brings all Kadi’s more recent articles over here…look him up on this site
Very interesting must read article in Fortruss today :
“Novorossiya volunteers are forming Syria units”.
I posted on here a while ago that we might soon be seeing Motorola and co. in Syria and it looks like that may now be happening.
The evil morons in Washington have crossed Russias red lines in both Ukraine and Syria and now the gloves are well and truly off.
The full article can be read below :
http://fortruss.blogspot.de/2015/10/novorossiya-volunteers-are-forming.html
How awful, they should stay home and protect their country not go off and be blown up by some IED in the arab world.. And shame on LDPR governments for not taking care of their fighters and their families. These people risk their lives and now they are forced to fight in another country to get money? Unacceptable.
Liz,
Regarding givi, Motorola, etc.
I believe that it’s up to them to make decisions regarding their own lives. They’re obviously in a better position to know what’s going on in the Donbass then us. Besides, maybe this is Russia’s way of getting their battle-hardened operatives to help out where they’re needed the most.
I thought this was an Excellent crosstalk show, one of the better ones, I hope Peter gets even more edgier: criminal liars (i.e., Western establishment ideologues and their shills in the media) do not respect civility, instead they take advantage of it. Media professionals like Peter understand this.
Regarding raghida dergham, she’s a complete Empire shill and Sunni/Pro-Saudi partisan. I seen her many times on CNN and BBC and she’s treated with kid-gloves and unmerited deference (because she’s an part of their establishment), Peter Lavelle being a media professional (as well as Pepe Escobar) fully understands what Raghida really is: a pressitute in service to her pay-masters the Saudis and the Anglo establishment.
I love it when Peter invites these privileged MSM propagandists onto his show and then proceeds to obliterate their cover and expose them. There was no misogyny involved as Ort states. Raghida is the one who first interrupted (pepe Escobar) and first started a spin monologue regarding the “Assad must go” mantra which is a false argument from the start, that’s why Peter put an end to her nonsense. Why should Assad go? Says who? Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey? What business is it of theirs? It’s not even an argument, it’s a propaganda slogan coined in London and Paris.
I realize that you’ve mentioned that with truth on Peter’s side, he should be cold and logical; with due respect that does not work on American or British audiences nor on people that are not upto speed on these issues – these are the people Lavelle trying to reach and wake up.
People here need to realize that that show is not made for the converted, it’s trying to reach those unfamiliar with the issues (therefore the repetition of the background to this conflict).
I totally agree with you there.Its amazing to me that a women like Raghida would be supporting the Saudi position.If she was in Saudi Arabia she would never even be allowed to speak on political issues.And would be covered head to foot if she went outside her house.She must be planning on moving to the US or Western Europe soon.Since, if ISIS or other Saudi backed jihadis win.They would next take over Lebanon,and she would end with a bullet in her head,or with no head at all.Unless they sold her in a slave market to some of their fighters.They don’t play around with “uppity women” in the “Caliphate”.
Thank you Espelho; couldn’t have put it better myself. Good show. Showed up an MSM hack. well done Peter – keep it up!
In regard to volunteers going to Syria – that is their choice; it is their lives. They see the bigger picture of just how dangerous these terrorists are – who are we to question whilst sitting comfortably in front of our computers in a peaceful land?
I didn’t know Raghida before I’ve seen this crosstalk episode, unlike Pepe Escobar or Lavelle himself, but from what I’ve just seen it appeared to me that she was talking absolutely nonsensical rubbish. She didn’t even managed to concisely uphold her main line of argument, or may I say mantra (Assad must go), as it is (to be honest) truly indefensible. But, to be just here, Peter Lavelle have acted overly aggressive against her at times which can be rightly considered unprofessional or unethical (the emotional fervour can be acceptable in a private discussion but it shouldn’t be modus operandi of any professional anchor or moderator). It has been, in my opinion, a bit harmful to the subject matter being discussed, that Peter wasn’t able to refrain from such an overly partial approach, even though he got his message absolutely right. It could have discouraged those viewers seeking an impartial and unbiased honest discussion, so for next time, I would have advised him to keep his emotions more at bay.
Oh, Peter’s probably been sick of her since Desert Storm days…
Liz, with all due respect, there is nothing aweful about them going off to fight in Syria and they are in effect protecting their country by doing so as the enemy is ultimately the same enemy they have been fighting. Everything is connected and I wish people would open their eyes and get their brains into gear to realise that.
I generally share Pepe Escobar’s perspective.
I’m not familiar with Raghida Dergham, and wasn’t particularly sympathetic to what she had to say.
This said, I regret to say that Peter Lavelle is increasingly prone to lose control (i.e. lose his temper) and abandon even the pretense of “moderating” the group discussion. Lately, the shows have fallen into a rut in which Lavelle clearly gets annoyed, then angry, at a dissenting participant and– there’s no other way to say it– gets increasingly UGLY as the program proceeds.
I certainly can’t say that Dergham had it coming, because after her first few remonstrances Lavelle literally didn’t give her a chance to finish her thoughts. Instead, he cut her off and threw the discussion back to the others, especially Escobar. All things being equal, it’s OK if Lavelle is simpatico, even chummy, with certain regular guests– but not when it degenerates to rank favoritism, which amounts to an abuse of power.
FWIW, I appreciate that, while moderators/anchors do function as timekeepers, the better ones do it discreetly and artfully. Unfortunately, even well-regarded interviewers like Peter and Amy Goodman of “Democracy Now” are ham-fisted about it, as if interrupting a speaker by barking “Fifteen seconds!” is not only necessary but helpful.
It seems obvious to me that sharply barking out time constraints can fluster and disrupt speakers rather than “concentrate their minds” so they can use their remaining time wisely.
Today, when Lavelle snarled “Twenty seconds!” after soliciting Dergham’s final comment, it was unquestionably to discourage her. He was livid. Thus, whatever the merits of her position, she was quite right to decline to fall into this trap.
Again: ugly– malicious, with a whiff of misogynism. Lavelle needs to get a grip.
I agree with you, Lavelle is one those guys that propagandists against Russia can use to to genuinely discredit RT and many other platforms of pro-Russian information.
He becomes aggressive to any dissenter to a cartoonish degree.
I honestly believe that Crosstalk needs a far more cold-blooded and subtle host.
Yes, agreed, RT has the massive advantaged of having the truth on their side most of the time, as oppose to USA that most of the time needs to lie. This advantaged is best exploited by RT by having a cold and rational person as host. That uses logic instead of emotions.
To be frank, in this and many other crosstalk episodes Lavelle reminds me more of western media and how they threat political opponents. Unfair, rude, interruptive, obviously biased.
@Liz Yes, my thoughts too.
There was a recent appearance of Ken Roth on RT hosted by Anissa Naoui. She was clever enough not to interrupt him almost at all, and just let him for the majority of the time to just run with his nonsense. The effect was infinitely better to what Peter is doing. That idiot Ken Roth (of HRW and “barrel-bomb” fame) was just making a total fool of himself, and all that Anissa had to do was to ask him a few clever (but not provocative) questions and he just revealed his extreme bias.
But even in her case, I would make one complaint. She had a sarcastic look on her face for most of the duration of the interview. While many may find that appropriate (and yes, Ken Roth was being abysmally stupid and biased) I prefer people who are deeply subtle and know how to completely demolish their opponents without showing their emotions.
Like you said earlier, truth is (almost) exclusively on our side and we don’t need to adopt the ludicrous propaganda mechanisms of the Western MSM.
It’s that simple. Here’s the Naouai clip:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDEB4YFbRYw
I totally agree, it is to RT advantaged to come off as fair and objective as possible. Cold poker face, and a neutral tone, and then short logical question to totally crush their narrative. When the truth is on your side, the more objective and neutral you seem, the bigger you win.
Of course nobody is objective, but it is important to pretend as best you can, and I feel that Lavelle many times does not even seem to be trying. And while some pro-Russian viewers might feel “Yea, yeah, crush him, you are the man Lavelle!” most people that are neutral to the matter will just see a host that is being a bully, and reject him and worse, his political stance/message based on that.
I agree completely. If I understood correctly the woman would like to point ill doing / done stuff of Aasad and his military, etc.
These terms and facts could be easily wiped out by using information and logic. However Escobar is doing it from first.
I’m sorry to say, its too costly to pay 25 mins in this conversation.
I don’t watch crosstalk anymore. I used to like it however.. But now Lavelle reminds me of Alex Jones, always interrupting and sometimes shouting. The format is not very interesting either, it always seem to be the very “biast Lavelle” and two people that agree with him, and then a third lone person that they all hammer on..
I live in Sweden, perhaps the most liberal country on the planet, and his shows reminds me of Swedish shows where they invite one conservative or nationalist and then all other participants and the pre-selected audience hammer him and interrupt him during the entire program.
Altought to be fair Lavelle is better then most such Swedish shows, because at most such Swedish shows, they don’t even invite a conservative or nationalist to defend herself, they just sit and talk smack with eachother totally unchallanged.
Are you Swedish? Then even though Sweden is prosperous and so on, I feel sorry for you. The PC dictatorship in that country is reaching insanity levels.
Yes, indeed, you would not believe, but as in most western countries now, there is a very strong counter-movement growing, SD the anti-PC “opposition” party recently scored 26% in opinion polls. So hopefully the days of PC elite are numbered.
Well now I understand your perspective, you’re from Sweden and this show style does not jive with the social culture or style you’ve grown accustomed to. However it does jive with the TV culture of the Anglo-Saxon world which has become edgier and more aggressive. I’m afraid a genteel and civil discussion would fail utterly to influence the audiences of countries of real significance in the Anglo part of the Western alliance: the US & Britain, Canada and least, Australia. Sweden just doesn’t matter to the leadership of the West, however, the opinion of the electorate in the US, Britain and Canada do matter and that’s why RT English is culturally configured to those audiences.
I for one cannot stand RT’s “redacted tonight”, lee camp’s humor is lame to me, but the show does have a following among young and liberal single kids, it is reaching a segment different than my demographic group, so good for them and too bad for me.
I fully agree. This formate works well and unfortunately a “civilized” calm discussion would not keep viewers watching until the end. But this kind of sensationalism is necessary to make viewers listen . Reminds me of a program on Al Jazeera Arabic called “The opposite view” where from the start of the Syrian war they had discussions culminating in the guests throwing chairs, walking off and insane shouting including the moderator whose job was to provoke, insult and pose suggestive questions. It works to the extend to get more viewers and make them watch again next time.
Liz…Enjoy your “conservative” talks in so call liberal Sveden but do not complain about Cross talk here …
Sejmon:
Reallly?
You actually instructed Liz in what to say in her posts on this blog and “gave your permission” for her to watch what she wants in Sweden but not comment on what she sees here?
Huh.
To you, Sejmon, I say: if this is your debut here, it is not an auspicious one.
Katherine
Katherine
He was trying trying to cut his old habit of interrupting speakers but there was one one interview in which he was genuinely pissed about what were outright lies from coming from one of his guests. And some people commended him for that. I think after that he has grown even more hostile to any views that aren’t in line with his own. I dont think there is any interview where he hasn’t cutoff Mark Sleboda and he is supposed to be on our side. Well, to be fair Mark isn’t as good a speaker as other guests and he sometimes repeats already known stuff but if you invite him again and again you should let him speak or simply don’t invite him anymore.
@ Whoever:
“I don’t think there is any interview where he hasn’t cutoff Mark Sleboda and he is supposed to be on our side. Well, to be fair Mark isn’t as good a speaker as other guests and he sometimes repeats already known stuff [..]”
You might be onto something there… I adore Mark, but he’s not very good at making a point quickly, same goes for Pepe, he’s insanely brilliant [and genuinely witty to boot], but he takes way too long to get to the meat of the main point he’s trying to make. And don’t even get me started on Paul Craig Roberts [who I also loooove] or Norman Finkelstein in particular. In a live-broadcast situation, he kind of thinks he’s talking to a captive student university lecture with nowhere to go for the next two and a half hours (sorry Norman)
And I do love Finkelstein, it’s just that his style of communication doesn’t really mesh with the CrossTalk format – that’s not to say I don’t wanna see him again on CrossTalk, on the contrary!
Love it or hate it: CrossTalk is meant to be a short show with guests presenting their point of view as quickly and succinctly as humanly possible.
Granted; not many people can do that effectively – my personal favorite in this department is Eric Draitser, he can give it to you in 3 minutes or less. But it’s understandable not everyone’s brains work as fast as Eric’s. That’s when you have to make a judgment-call and instead of having three guest, you might want to have two. Peter did this in the not so distant past, more than once.
The other alternative, as I already said previously; if you have some big guest on the show [one who takes his time to make a point], you might want to make it a one-hour special edition of that show.
Just sayin’… ;-)
-TL2Q
I love Eric Draitser—he is very articulate and forceful and puts things together very clearly. He has honed his message. BUT, I have to say, when I have seen him on Crosstalk, Lavelle does not break in. I have been surprised at how long Lavelle lets Draitser speak. Draitser also speaks very fast—as I said, his message is honed and I am sure he practices before he goes on the show. Perhaps other guests should do the same. So they don ‘t have to do so much thinking on their feet, but make sure they get their view out there in one piece.
Re the idea of the format and tone being what Anglo-Saxon audiences are used to: Sadly this is probably the case. And one reason a lot of them are totally turned off by this talk show style. It usually isn’t the best way to generate a discussion of complex issues, plus is so full of hostility and rudeness and rhetoric of various kinds, especially in the way questions are posed. So, it is a shame to see Lavelle resorting to the same. A little bit of the same is OK when directed against MSM shills of various sorts.
Katherine
Glad to see these comments of yours. I had been having very similar thoughts lately, but tended to push them aside because of my very high appreciation of Mr. Lavelle and his program.
So now I know that I am not the only one. Hopefully someone can get these sorts of observations to Lavelle and convince him to do something about the matter.
Taking a long time to say it and never finishing it, Raghida Dergham didn’t really have anything to say aside from disagreeing with the other three and dismissing their statements as ‘wishful thinking’.
On Crosstalk you had better make your arguments short otherwise you will get cut down -and sooner rather than later if Lavelle doesn’t like what you have to say. That’s all known beforehand and it is Lavelle’s show, so participants are forewarned.
There’s usually only ‘one against’ as it were, and sometimes none so it is unbalanced. But the squabbling with two (or more) against would be un-viewable and might even end up like those physical ‘discussions’ in the Kiev Parliament.
Lavelle’s premise of what’s more important: ‘fighting terrorists or regime change’ is in itself false and Pepe Escobar in fine form summed things up at the beginning saying it was the same US script over and over again.
If a country of strategic or mineral importance does not bow down and accept US vassal status then the US will create and fund terrorists to precipitate regime change and make it so or failing that turn it into permanent chaos.
re: Syria Phoenix Crosstalk. A truce will require a coalition of the willing and that is not happening. Forget Minsk like agreements for the midEast because they will be used to bolster positions for a new battle as everyone buries their weapons and plays a waiting game. And these folks can wait for a long, long time. What is required is a clear victory involving land and the ability to hold territory because anything less will be a defacto agreement to fracture the Syrian nation forever.
As for Syrian opposition: If that woman who just babbled in run on sentences with no coherent idea or program of principles and action is an example of “Syrian opposition”, well, maybe that is the reason why the best have left to become busboys/waitresses in Germany.
I am also somewhat let down by Pepe and the other guy, who did not stress the point that the Syrian “regime” was systematically being destabilized and sabotaged by foreign powers and secret services from before any of the fighting took place. The pawns and infrastructure for the war against Assad (and by extension, Syria) were being put in place for many years, reaching an apogee with the transfer of weapons from Croatia and Libya and then from all over the Middle East.
Also, RT guests should be stating more openly that ISIS is the creation of the anti-Assad coalition of NATO+GCC. Even Putin is now strongly hinting at that, why not the guests of RT?
Peter you have a great program with the most amazing guest that are subject matter experts in most cases, while you, are an intelligent man with a very well informed opinion but, can you please allow your guests to speak. We know how you feel personally, i don’t need to hear any more from you to learn how you feel cause i have watched you and will continue to watch your great show but, i already know your opinion.
SAA just lost some territory to rebel counter-attack.
Hm, my links were lost when I posted, here they are :
“Breaking: Jaysh Al-Fateh Captures Markabah in Northern Hama
Jaysh Al-Fateh has captured Lahaya”
http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/breaking-jaysh-al-fateh-captures-markabah-in-northern-hama/
” (al-Qaeda in the Levant) and information reported that the factions restored control of al-Hamriyyeh village”
http://www.syriahr.com/en/2015/10/continuous-clashes-on-the-road-between-khanasser-atharayya-and-booby-trapped-vehicle-in-the-vicinity-of-kweris-airbase/
Yes, that is definitely very bad news.
But we must realize that capturing territory may not be the SAAs primary goal at this time. I think the primary goal is to probe the rats defenses and put a ratpower and logistical strain on their resources.
Kartapolov sounds very positive with the campaign so far and claims that in the last couple of days hundreds of Daish rat-fighters have been killed by the SAA and air strikes.
I am of the opinion that General Kartapolov would not be making false claims.
Also, the main attack has not yet started for sure. Russia’s air component will grow significantly larger than the current one, and a lot more heavy weaponry will be provided by Russia.to the SAA.
Having said that, I will readily acknowledge that the rats seem to be extremely brave fighters (at least from what I realize) and that there is a long way ahead, fraught with potential surprises and extreme danger.
The Empire has so much riding on this one, and they will not lie down and die that easy, especially since they are not risking their own skins.
Indeed, also the villages might be taken back by SAA tomorrow, the offensive so far has only been going on for two weeks at most, and from what I heard it is expected to go on for 4 months. If SAA continues to capture 20 towns and lose 3 every 2 weeks that would sound pretty successfull, also one could hope that the “rebels” would eventually collapse under SAA pressure and Russian airstrikes and start losing ground faster.
Yes, wahhabits are probably the best fighters on earth right now, not that they get the best training or best technology, but because they are fanatics, they will capture a town, digg in, borrow tunnels everywhere, and then live on rice-cakes for years fighting fanatically under the worst conditions, running around in their rat tunnels, and the only way to remove them is to go into the tunnels after them, and if their ammo runs out, they’ll strap explosives on their bodies and jump out from roof tops at secular soldiers and detonate themselves.(Not kidding, actually happens),so they are definitely no pushovers.
Which might be a reason to not even attempt to take them prisoner,shoot on the spot.I’ve seen many videos where the SAA tries to take jihadis prisoner.And for the Syrian ones that might be a workable solution.But for the foreign terrorists I wouldn’t even bother about that.Let them either flee or die.That would be the only choice I’d accord them.
We also need to remember that the rats are often drugged up on a form of methamphetamine, especially a drug called Captagon.
“In 2014 it was widely reported that Syria was manufacturing and trafficking large amounts of amphetamines, primarily a drug called, generating hundreds of millions of dollars in profits. Captagon, a brand name for Fenethylline, is a synthetic stimulant that is a popular recreational drug in the Middle East.”
“Islamic ideology rationalizes the violence and the drugs transform them into Mujahideen maniacs with enhanced stamina, superhuman strength, no empathy, no fear and who literally feel no pain.”
http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/252783/isis-meth-heads-tweeking-name-islam-dawn-perlmutter
Could very well be.Remember all the reports from Ukraine about the Ukrainian troops being on drugs to get them to fight.It may be that is part of the US plan for their proxy armies.Get them high and they’ll fight harder.
You are all missing something. The Russian military’s involvement in Syria was pre-planned and approved. Before Russia got involved, the following had to and did occur.
1. Germany withdrew its missiles from Turkey 2 months(?)
2. The Syrian refuge problem, which have been ongoing, suddenly became a big deal in the press.
3. Us removed sanctions on Iran. They could not have participated like they are now in Syria under sanctions.
3. There are no US aircraft carriers any where near the Middle East, at all. The US military is out of it.
Guess 1: All of this Syrian stuff is run out of the CIA on separate budgets which seem to be attached to the ongoing NEO Con programs headed by McCain. They may be running out of time and money. How would you like to be the ones trying to sell Congress on supporting Al Qaeda? I think he is a terrorist.
Guess 2: With Germany’s involvement in doing the deal with Gazprom to bypass Ukraine for their gas, and their pulling their missiles from Turkey, the whole change thing seems to be run out of Europe, and with Kerry’s comments that the dollar couldn’t be a reserve currency without Iran, the IMF is a good candidate for changing things around.
Guess 3: The IMF and Europeans were very disappointed with what happened in the Ukraine, and they lost billions and billions in the transaction, and crippled the never recovering European economy, which we hear little about now, but will again soon. When the US decided not to accept the bill for the Ukraine and gave it to the Europeans, they asked if the US if they were going to leave the Middle East a mess also, and why was the US supporting terrorists, and why did they terrorize their own people on 911 – was it to get a new Pearl Harbor. It seems Europeans are more sensitive to the 911 issue than Americans because they know more. So the IMF told Obama and Kerry they needed to allow Iran and Russia clean up the Middle East, and they should end sanctions on Iran, and the US would stop making problems there, which really suited Kerry and Obama fine as we do seem bogged down with terrorists in the Mid East, and that just isn’t a good thing. Perhaps they enjoy seeing McCain and Petraeus twist in the wind.
Guess 4: Although the US military doesn’t like what is going on, their only option is to make the cost of success high for Russia. I would be surprised if they interfered.
Now, if you guys would get with the program and show the pictures of McCain with the ISIS terrorists, which is fairly commonplace on the net, maybe we could get rid of Armageddon in our near future, and maybe even war in the future. The budget is the thing, and all Congress is guilty, which I am going to remind both my Liberal leading and Republican Senator of their support of terrorism.
And if I can figure all this out and you can’t, are you really insiders?
Even though you raise several very valid points there, you make it sound as if there has been some kind of grand coordination between Russia and the US/EU.
I very much doubt that.
The Russian expedition seems to genuinely have caught the Empire by surprise and they really do not know what to do about it.
The missiles were only withdrawn from Turkey only after the Russian air strikes commenced. The thing is that NATO does not trust Erdogan with advanced missiles, which is understandable.
What Kerry said about Iran and the dollar was more of an effort to sell the “Iran deal” to the “hawks” in Washington. Like I said in some of previous posts, the US$ is not in such a precarious state as many seem to believe.
Also, look at the reaction of many circles in both Europe and the US. They are genuinely appalled about what is going on right now. Also, just look at what the several think-tanks have to say about the events. They are at a complete loss.
Also, the IMF going against the US? The IMF takes orders from the US! You seem to be grossly underestimating US power.
The IMF and the West in general have not lost too much money on Ukraine, in fact Russia has lost a lot more. Also, the amount of money they are losing on Ukraine (which they will be from now on) is the price that they have to pay to have any kind of leverage of Russia. Otherwise they have precious little to pressure Russia with. They have already crashed the oil price (only partly their work) they have already placed severe financial sanctions and they have already completed their “revolution” in Ukraine. Without the Porky/Yats regime in Kiev causing headaches for Moscow all the time (some big, others small) how can they put any serious pressure on Russia from now on? I am not saying that Ukraine is not a headache for them as well, but they need it, otherwise their loss of face and loss of leverage against Russia will be even more disastrous. As things now stand in Ukraine, both Russia and the West are between bad and very bad choices.
Germany announced removal of missiles a long time ago. Removal may have been recent. Obama on 60 minutes questioned whether we wanted or needed to be in the Mid-East forever. If it isn’t the IMF someone else is running and changing things. And I still think Europeans and the Ukraine lost big time on the Ukraine, although Russia also lost money. The media just doesn’t want us to know what we lost with our $5 billion dollar investment in destabilizing the Ukraine. The Ukraine is pretty much a failed country as I understand it. What is the price of saving it? Since September, things have changed very dramatically, and although it is played as accidental by the media, or “caught the empire off guard,” my sense is that things are going as planned for someone, just not John McCain or the Neo-Cons, and that is very much fine with me. I think they have been dumped. Good riddance. And I think it is all coordinated with someone in the EU, Obama and Kerry, and the Russians. Let’s test the idea. Let’s see if the US military gets re-involved, and if the carriers come back.
Salam Jim G,
“And I think it is all coordinated with someone in the EU, Obama and Kerry, and the Russians. Let’s test the idea. Let’s see if the US military gets re-involved, and if the carriers come back.”
I have been saying this on the Saker’s Blog for the last two years. In this I also include both McCain and Graham. Good cop / bad cop. Now, I include Boehner. Basically, the whole deep state is together.
You left out the motive which is Israel. Both AIPAC and Netanyahu would not have allowed Russia to go to Syria, to be at the doorsteps of Isreal with the latest Russian Military Hardware. But, alas both AIPAC and Netanyahu are very, very weak. Netanyahu, no longer can run to Boehner, as he has already resigned. So, he goes to Moscow and comes back empty handed.
Kudos to Boehner, a true patriot like McCain, Graham, Obama, Kerry …….
President Obama: John Boehner Is a ‘Patriot
http://time.com/4050311/president-obama-john-boehner-is-a-patriot/
“It took me by surprise,” Obama said from the Rose Garden on Friday. “John Boehner is a good man. He is a patriot. He cares deeply about the House. He cares about his constituents and he cares about America.”
One really needs to connect the dots!
Rejoice,
Mohamed.
I have gone through the god cop bad cop and you got to act a little crazy to make the other guy think twice so they have no idea what you are capable off and put them off balance etc etc etc etc etc…
But you know what, I believe they ARE crazy, They have destroyed the lives of hundreds of millions of people, killed tens of millions of people, blown off limps of even more people…
So nothing you say like how you mean it would actually fit the situation unless you also take into account that they are evil.. they are greedy and absolutely corrupt and they think they are gods chosen and you also accept you are such a low life beneath even their contempt. You keep excusing their demonic possessions like they are actually out to do good.
Your hero Osama.. actually drones people to death! By now what he has droned like close to 5000 people and a report came out today that less than 5% of the people he has killed are al queda.. The very same al queda he is supporting in Syria to torture civlians, murder kids throw people off buildings and rape women and children.
You can see the arrogance and contempt on the faces of these people. When some guy comes on TV after bombing and wedding and killing 150 people or bombing a hospital and killing 20 volunteers form the world who went there to help people taking time off from their real jobs…
There is no deep state as such.. Unless you can accept these people would use your organs if they could live an extra day. because their actions say they would.
Salam mmiriww,
I never said that they are not evil. Neither is Obama my hero, nor Putin. They are both just tired of Netanyahu, so they are cooperating to rid of the menace to the world.
Also, Obama knows that the Dollar cannot keep up any longer, so there has to be some other currency.
Both Obama and Putin are sworn to upheld their respective countries constitution. Both are working for their own country benefits, and no one else. If they did, then they will be considered traitors by their respective people.
I am not in any hero worship!
Best regards,
Mohamed.
Power, Politics and Money are all evil. Anyone who dabs into these, …..
Mohamed.
Mohammed, you are out of touch with the real world..sorry to have to say.
People don’t like the idea that Putin can be working with Obama. In their minds, how can a white knight work with Obama. It is repulsive to them, so they can’t even acknowledge it.
Mohamed.
because its not true ?
There are reports that SAA has lost three villages and some other territory to “rebels.”
“Breaking: Jaysh Al-Fateh Captures Markabah in Northern Hama ”
“Jaysh Al-Fateh has captured Lahaya”
http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/breaking-jaysh-al-fateh-captures-markabah-in-northern-hama/
“and information reported that the factions restored control of al-Hamriyyeh village, and also confirmed information about deaths”
http://www.syriahr.com/en/2015/10/continuous-clashes-on-the-road-between-khanasser-atharayya-and-booby-trapped-vehicle-in-the-vicinity-of-kweris-airbase/
I dont think the loss of these villages is too important. The villages only have 50-60 houses and so theyre probably only lightly defended.
The SAA just dont have enough heavy equipment to dig in and hold everything.
Hopefully over time they can where ISIS down enough to be able to roll over them.
I think that the woman speaker was right that the other two speakers were doing bit of a wishful thinking. The picture on the ground isn’t rosy for the Syrian Army/Assad so I think a compromise is being sought.
Here is from BBC headlined – Syria war: Lavrov seeks talks with ‘full spectrum’ of opposition
[[[ Speaking at the start of talks in Vienna on Friday, Mr Lavrov said: “Our common position is that we need to boost efforts for the political process in the Syrian settlement.
“This foresees the start of full-scale talks between representatives of the Syrian government and the full spectrum of the Syrian opposition, both domestic and external – with the support of outside players.” ]]]
This looks like a change in position to me. Before Russia was refusing to differentiate between rebels and terrorist, now it wants full spectrum of the Syrian opposition.
And from RT : Syria talks should be more ‘representative,’ include Iran, Egypt – Moscow
[[[ Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said that a dozen actors ranging from international organizations to regional countries ‒ particularly Iran and Egypt ‒ should join the talks on finding a political solution to the Syrian crisis.
On Friday the foreign ministers of Russia, United States, Turkey and Saudi Arabia held talks on the Syrian conflict in Vienna, Austria.
“Many external actors and not only those four that gathered in Vienna are obviously involved in the Syrian crisis. For this reason, we called for our future meetings to be held in a more representative format that would include a range of regional powers,” Lavrov said after the meeting.
“We specially stressed that it should include Iran and Egypt,” he stressed
According to Lavrov, the format of talks on Syria should not be “endlessly extended,” although it could “reasonably” involve about a dozen states and organizations, including the Arab League and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation.
The Russian foreign minister also stressed that the ongoing crisis in the Middle East and North Africa concerns not only Arab countries, Turkey and Iran, but “the whole Islamic world.”
US Secretary of State John Kerry called the meeting “constructive and productive,” adding that the ideas proposed at this meeting might positively influence the pace of changes in Syria.
Kerry did not rule out a possibility of inviting Iran to take part in the negotiations on Syria, conceding that Tehran could “eventually” be asked to join the talks, according to Bloomberg. He also said that the next talks on Syria could take place next Friday. ]]]
It looks like a big conference including all influential players is afoot.
I agree with you that there is some degree of wishful thinking by Pepe and some on the pro-Assad camp, but there is no way this ends with some big conference in the near future.
Russia and Iran are prepared to go all in to keep Syria whole.
Before the end of November, I expect a serious escalation on the part of Russia and Iran. The rats will be defeated on ground so that Syria (and Iraq) remain whole with some considerable autonomy for the Kurds (Zionists and US will make sure of that)
It may also be the case that Russia will commit ground troops in Syria. Maybe not the regular Russian Army, but some combination of Special Forces, Kadyrov’s men and “volunteers”
I also expect to see more warplanes, more helicopter gunships on the part of the RuAF, and also more T-72s (with some kind of reactive armor) and also lots more heavy artillery.
Surely “opposition” does not mean “rebels” who have taken up arms against their govt, or foreigners who go there to topple the legal govt.
Let’s recall what happened when the Johnny Rebs decided to take up arms against Washington. The South was smashed and forced to remain in the Union. End of story. The rebels who couldn’t get over it left the country (many of them). In this case, DAmascus is WAshington and Assad is Lincoln.
So, armed opposition does not constitute the type of opposition to engage in a conference of any kind, seems to me.
Still wondering why teh Syrian ambassador to the UN doesn’t make a speech in which he declares syrian air space off limits to all except Syrian air craft and those of her allies.
Katherine
I wish Peter would have had only Pepe on his program. But then it wouldn’t be CrossTalk which seems to be quite literally the way it works.
The lady always started by disagreeing but then never could get to a point that made sense to me. She made a number of questionable assertions like non-existent concessions. She felt attacked which I don’t think was true. Pepe deferred to her. Peter gave her equal time with the others but became irritated when she went on and on with what she herself said was wishful thinking.
The other gentleman was a book writer and it showed in the rehashing of the obvious.
Oh well, I suppose the same could be said about me.
I thank our lucky stars that Putin is not a pundit. He has a job to do and does it pretty well.
I like Pepe because he makes sense and talks in colorful way. Chickens without heads and sitting ducks indeed. I think he might be carried away by his own rhetoric, like the terrorists will be crushed in two or three months.
To me there are some facts that are so obvious that it makes this cross-talking like a superfluous circus. For example, if the US wanted to stop the terrorists it could just stop paying them and paying those who pay the terrorists. Supplying them with weapons, food, information is also a form of payment.
“Follow the money” is a pretty good rule that we heard in the Watergate shenanigans. We should apply it to the inflate-gate hooligans today.
The tragedy to my mind is that we all pay for our own destruction. The US prints the money which some say is made from nothing, in other words counterfeit. It steals it with all kinds of tricks of the trade. And then it pays the going price for a terrorist.
And Russia tolerates this financial farce by pampering its bankers? That’s paying for the weapons used against you. Hopefully this favorite son status will change soon.
Eventually the beast of interest/usury will have to go because it is the deep terrorist destroying us all. Calvin’s false distinction between interest and usury makes Protestants of us no matter what beliefs we have.
If Russia can win the battles against the bankers and the banker fed terrorists, perhaps it can go on and win the war for planetary survival.
Peter says it’s OK to jump in at any time; then he usually jumps on the jumpers to wait until called upon. Sounds like the teacher who told his students to stand up for themselves. When they did he told them to sit down.
“People are crazy and times are strange; I’m all locked in and out of range.” Well, present company excepted. Cheers for the circus of life, the sad clowns and those walking a high wire. Tears for the droned children and women drowning in tears. Why are there not more real men like Putin and company? I guess the answer is “blowing in the wind.”
I didn’t particularly like the way PL handled the show, but I think Raghida Dergham’s main
problem was that she failed to address the utter untrustworthiness of the Turkish, Saudi, Qatari and US State/CIA/neocon machinations as they appear to be creating a new front against Russia in Syria/Iraq that is intended to serve their own selfish national interests as well to bleed chaos into the Caucasus region. The same problem persists in Afghanistan: the Russians are facing a continuing attempt to find a way to undermine Russia. This is the new Great Game that the Russians are fighting. This is why Putin said at the UN: “However, it’s not about Russia’s ambitions, dear colleagues, but about the recognition of the fact that we can no longer tolerate the current state of affairs in the world.”
This is a realist Russian geopolitical policy that the above specified parties have to grapple with: how can we earn Russian and Syrian popular trust in the face of our concerted effort to destroy Syria’s sovereignty and what might result from that?
Raghida Dergham also needs to come to grips with this issue in a very realistic fashion: she needs to specify succinctly the value of statements she asserts have been made by various parties to the conflict that they are ready to compromise. The Russians and the Syrians will need very concrete evidence that there is any reason to trust the Turks, Saudis, Qataris and US State/CIA/neocons. I doubt that can be done, succinctly or otherwise.
“So Turkish people, especially Recep Tayyip Erdogan, he has colonialist ambitions. He is trying to put his hands on some places in Syria. If you read their newspapers, if you listen to their TV channels, they consider Aleppo as a part of Turkey and they say that Syrian Arabs has stolen this area and so and so and so.
So yes, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, which is a fascist and indeed a racist who wants only Turkish people to be in his border. He is bringing Turkish people from every place to fight President Assad to CHANGE the demographic structure of Syria.
And we have reliable information…that there was a kind of demographic replacement inside Syria nearby the city of Ar-Raqqa. There are two Chinese villages. The people, the Arab citizens from those villages were killed or displaced and Erdogan and ISIS brought Chinese Uyghurs to settle in those two villages. The Syrian people told me this story and they said we call it now the two Chinese villages.”
http://21stcenturywire.com/2015/10/23/the-real-cause-of-the-sudden-syrian-migrant-crisis-into-europe-turkey/
I actually don’t think Pepe Eschobar wishful thinks….he’s as up to date as anyone in journalism.
the woman is a reptile…you can see it….someone said “a shill’ yes that’s a pretty good description of her.
And about Peter’s way with his show…he’s doing this for a reason I think. The other night, when there was a guy saying that it was US foreign policy to ‘fail states’…well, Peter retorted that now Iraq and Iran are friends..Syria and Russia are friends and that the US policy is to thank for all that…
So the US is not as smart as some people would like us to think…And Peter is as good a journalist as Pepe…in his own way…and I think the people here should listen to Peter and not just complain so much about him..
@ Ann: — and I think the people here should listen to Peter and not just complain so much about him…
You are quite right, Ann.
People complaining forgot how they, – just a rather short time ago, when the West’s “elite” and their paid talking heads had made themselves beleive in the West’s uncontested hegemony in all spheres – treated their opponents. In the rare cases when the opponents had been allowed to open their mouths.
The opponents’ remarks had been immediately dissmised by the “elite” with arrogant and contemptuous wave of hand, after which only one side did the talking. So, the time, given by Peter to that side now, – in comparison – is generous.
But he immediately interrupts them when they start lying. Why shouldn’t he ? – They can lie at Foxnews and CNN studios. And not at RT.
Hersh Vindicated? Turkish Whistleblowers Corroborate Story on False Flag Sarin Attack in Syria –
This is quite the bombshell delivered by two CHP deputies in the Turkish parliament and reported by Today’s Zaman, one of the top dailies in Turkey.
It supports Seymour Hersh’s reporting that the notorious sarin gas attack at Ghouta was a false flag orchestrated by Turkish intelligence in order to cross President Obama’s chemical weapons “red line” and draw the United States into the Syria war to topple Assad.
Considering the furious reaction it can be expected to elicit from Erdogan and the Turkish government, the temerity of CHP and Today’s Zaman in running with this story is a sign of how desperate their struggle against Erdogan has become. Note that the author is shown only as “Columnist: Today’s Zaman”.
I expect the anti-Erodgan forces hope this will be a game changer in terms of U.S.and European support for Erdogan.
It will be very interesting to see if and how the media in the U.S. covers this story. In case it doesn’t acquire enough “legs” to make into US media, I attach the full Zaman piece below:
http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/10/23/hersh-vindicated-turkish-whistleblowers-corroborate-story-on-false-flag-sarin-attack-in-syria/
well, I think I can guess…before watching… which one of the guests is the reptile..the woman…I don’t believe for a moment that Putin called Assad to Moscow to tell him he was on his way out….
Okay, now I scrolled down to read the comments here and I see one comment after another complaining about Peter Lavelle…
Get a life you guys…Peter Lavelle is great and I’m sure Saker thinks he’s one of the very best…there’s a Crosstalk on Saker’s every night now, and we all watch it….and get informed by it.
I don’t think you complainers realize how much you learn on these Crosstalk shows…too bad….
Thanks Ann- my only compliant about Cross talk is just too short. What about make it 10min. longer…so it would not be so compressed..
Sorry, Ann; I have a “life”, thanks, such as it is, and I stand by my criticism of Lavelle.
I don’t buy into the premise that a public figure’s positive contributions entitle them to unconditional positive regard, nor do I apply the fictional George Babbitt’s “boost, don’t knock” dictum to politicians or journalists.
The term “unconditional positive regard” may be a bit strong, but unless there’s more than one “Ann” your comments always strongly imply that Lavelle is beyond criticism. And there’s a whiff of passive-aggressive or supercilious snark in the suggestion that anyone who has a “life” ought to share this view.
This snark has commutative properties: one might just as easily suggest that those who always take time to criticize the critics are the ones who “need a life”.
To (re)state my response in light of other subsequent comments:
I don’t insist that others share my impression, but I reiterate that my reaction to the way Lavelle treated Raghida Dergham has absolutely nothing to do with her background or stated positions. She may well be a reactionary Empire-defending reptile, but that’s all the more reason to give her space to demonstrate this to an audience who are unfamiliar with Crosstalk’s guests.
BTW, I also don’t insist on “misogynist”, which only entered my mind as a possibility when Lavelle rudely and waspishly cut her off at the end. I did notice that Pepe Escobar graciously yielded to her in the beginning, against Lavelle’s inclination to put her in her place early on, but even that degenerated into a spontaneous Good Cop/Bad Cop parody.
I don’t relish seeming to “defend” a reptile, but I disagree with the blunt assertions that “She started it”, or even “She had it coming.” She might have had it coming, but she never got past the pre-emptive bullying from the (im)moderator.
I’ve continued to watch “Crosstalk” because MOST of the time a modicum of conviviality is maintained, even when obnoxious “reptiles” get room to run and are appropriately challenged. All credit to Peter Lavelle and the producers when this standard is maintained!
I agree with Ort.
I find “get a life” to be one of the most singularly unpleasant conversational formulas that has surfaced within recent memory. Occasionally I use it (never to a person’s face, but as a comment on a third person) , and I know, when I do, that my intent is belittle, insult, and ridicule.
And I know I am taking a cheap shot.
“Get a life” skirts being a personal insult when said to a person directly.
Also, it is perhaps a refuge of a lazy mind.
An obvious rhetorical device that functions like a kind of end run around others’ right and wish to continue their conversation or hold their p.o.w. by putting them on the defensive and ridiculing them. A small intimidation.
I see this and other rhetorical techniques with similar intent on other lists.
Can we move on now? [[Hint: That is another one . . . ]]
Katherine
Ok, Katherine, .I have to read down 20 complaining comments, many of them yours, every night on the crosstalk threads…get a life.
Wow.
This is getting catty!
I have always expressed my appreciation of Lavelle and his show on the occasions when I have criticized him for cutting off guests off in what I thought was a counterproductive way.
And I am not the only one on this list to point this out.
So it is pointless to try to shut down such observations/feedback.
As for “get a life”— Since I spend hours at the computer and online for my work, I do check in regularly with various websites etc.
I fail to see the relevance of the “Get a life” jibe and hope never to see it on this blog again.
Katherine
The last time someone told me to get a life it was a snotty little 6-year-old girl. It was not appropriate even for her.
I must say Ann, your belligerence is the reason I stopped visiting this place after being a very frequent reader. Never a pleasure to come across your “attack dog” posts. Please dis-appoint yourself from this role.
Dear Saker,
Thank you so much for this show…I just loved it…especially the way Pepe and Peter get along..its just great.
On the content of the show.
Irrespective of the methodology PL uses on CT, he does draw out key issues most of the time.
Here among the ‘noise’ are the 2-3 core points underpinning all the heat in the equation:
1. Firstly, something MUST happen — e.g., “X” must go (Assad in this case); “Y” must stay (the Al Khalifa clan); “Z” must return (Mansur Hadi) etc.
2. What this boils down to is simply “Must Comply” etc.
3. Comply with whom/what is rarely declared but clearly in most recent cases in focus it is whatever US foreign policy dictates and that mostly serves the sources of the $$$s being spent to ‘buy’ the best policy outcomes that money can buy by those with the money. Saudi regime and Arab Emirates are clearly front runners but the Zionist global banking systems also compete for leverage over the DC Zombie.
4. Secondly, looking past all this (most likely paid for) media bias and hysteria related to an “Assad must go” policy mantra we hear very little of what comes next after Assad has ‘gone’?
5. It is obvious there is either (a) some faith-based assumption that ‘democratic’ elections will replace Assad and the Syrian government (and they may, or may not); or (b) little or no concern what comes next even if it is a far worse failed state situation following previous examples of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, etc …
6. It seems clear also that Russia is taking the position that a stable base must be re-established first within the sovereign state of Syria before an appropriate process can be implemented so that Assad can stay or go depending on the democratic will of the Syrian people WHEN they have some credible alternatives to consider — i.e., when something better is available.
7. We can assume that chaos (a la Libya) is not something better for the Syrian people — even if it might appear something better for the various democratic and non-democratic governments in the region.
8. All I read of the Russian position in this is, firstly, this chaos MUST stop. And in that their policy position is incontestable. And from the evidence on the ground their implementation is responsible, planed, measured and systematic.
9. The only ‘shock and awe’ in this campaign is the reality attack on Washington DC inmates and their cult of “MUST” (Much Unstable Social Turmoil).
I have been reading this blog for over a year now, but this is the first time I actually commented.
For all those attacking Peter Lavelle, his only mistake was to invite that pointless & propagandistic female who read into Assad’s visit only what she wanted to read. In fact, just judging by the angry comments from the White House & assorted propaganda outlets like the NYT, WP etc, Russia clearly showed the Syrian state support to save its statehood. As for President Assad, Russia has repeated endlessly, that is only for the Syrian ppl to decide. Putin said it at the UNGA presser, he, Medvedev & Lavrov have repeated it ever since, and also after Assad’s visit.
I think, every honest observer understands that Assad is part of the solution. Even if he had an election today, he would win with a landslide again. Last time he won with 89%. That is more than anyone of those lovely fascist dictators that tell him to go.
Sorry folks… once again, I donno where to drop this “sort of” breaking news:
–
Russia Granted Authorization To Strike ISIS Inside Iraq – by: Anadolu Agency (brought to us via ICH)
“The Iraqi government authorized Russia to target Daesh convoys coming from Syria, a senior Iraqi official said.
The authorization for Russia to target Daesh inside Iraq comes amid security coordination between Iraq, Russia, Iran and Syria.
Hakem al-Zamli, chief of the Iraqi parliament’s security and defense committee, told Anadolu Agency on Friday that the measure contributed to weakening Daesh by cutting off its supply routes [..]”
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article43239.htm
–
Now, I’m not so sure if the Russians will want to overstretch themselves while still being in the early stages of their operations in Syria, but one thing is for certain, this is a massive, MASSIVE geopolitical victory for Russia.
This is what Pepe Escobar wrote about this, prior to the Iraqi green-light to Russia:
–
“Next week, Iraq’s parliament will vote on whether to request Russian air strikes against ISIS/ISIL/Daesh. Mowaffak al-Rubaie, former national security adviser to former Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, is convinced the vote will pass [..]
“A measure of Washington’s alarm is that the new chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, Marine Gen. Joseph Dunford was forced to fly to Baghdad to make sure this won’t happen [..]”
“This is all about imperial spheres of influence. A “yes” vote, on the ground, means the Russian Air Force working in tandem with ground intel collected by Shi’ite militias such as the Badr Corps and Asa’ib Ahl al-Haqq to smash all fake “Caliphate” positions. And geopolitically, a “yes” vote signifies the ultimate humiliation — after all those elaborate multi-trillion dollar plans for the “Greater Middle East” which Shock and Awe in 2003 should have set in motion [..]”
http://sputniknews.com/columnists/20151022/1028936412/nato-pentagon-frustration.html
–
-TL2Q
Assuming they’ve resigned themselves to loss of ever putting an oil or gas pipeline across/through Ghanistan, then the only fear they have left now is losing their DRUG supply & pipeline network.
Variously estimated at from $1B US/day to $1 trillion/year, just from Ghanistan.
https://static-ssl.businessinsider.com/image/54e4d58769beddaa3ebdd5e5-2200-1595/aroundtheworld_wherethedrugmulestrek_02.png
This is really about Syria and Iraq. Afghanistan is some distance away, but anyway…
Anon said: “[..] then the only fear they have left now is losing their DRUG supply & pipeline network”
Well… one can only hope so ;-)
Side note: we shouldn’t forget that the opium poppy production in Afghanistan is not [really] exclusively earmarked for shady heroin traffickers.
Opium is the raw-material for a wide variety of legal pharmaceutical opiates such as; a range of strong pain killers, anesthetics, and anti-depressants.
So! What are the chances that Big-Pharma is actually the main buyers (at a considerable price-discount, of course!) of Afghani poppy crops rather than dodgy drug dealers in the Western ghettoes as we’re lead to believe…
-TL2Q
http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/iraq-and-russia-agree-to-hit-isil-militants-heading-from-syria-to-iraq/
Iraq and Russia Agree to Hit ISIL Militants Heading from Syria to Iraq
0
By News Desk on October 24, 2015 Middle East
Iraqi Parliament’s National Security and Defense Committee Hakem al-Zameli said that Baghdad and Moscow have agreed to hit ISIL militants heading from Syria to Iraq.
In a statement released on Friday, Zameli said that the joint data center between Iraq, Syria and Russia was still in its initial stage, noting that however, it has offered important intelligence information which helped end the battle in Baiji, raqi TV, al-Sumaria reported on Friday.
http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/isis-trapped-in-deir-ezzor-city-russian-air-force-destroys-al-siyasiyah-bridge/
ISIS Trapped in Deir Ezzor City: Russian Air Force Destroys Al-Siyasiyah Bridge
0
By Leith Fadel on October 24, 2015 Featured
The Islamic State of Iraq and Al-Sham (ISIS) received a rude awakening inside the provincial capital of the Deir Ezzor Governorate on Friday morning, as the Russian Air Force’s fighter jets destroyed the imperative “Al-Siyasiyah Bridge” (Political Bridge) that sits over the Euphrates River, which links the city’s east and west districts.
Sure enough, that thin blue squiggly line you see running through Deir Ezzor & parallel to the yellow border lines is the Euphrates.
http://media.npr.org/assets/img/2013/10/20/map_custom-070cea3321826c2d846c1b84ef6a53067f0195a6-s6-c30.jpg
http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13940802000094
OCT 24
TEHRAN (FNA)- The Syrian Armed Forces on Saturday morning stormed the 4th Battalion Base of the Free Syrian Army (FSA) in the Golan Heights and took full control over the base after fierce clashes with the FSA militants.
At sunrise on Saturday morning, the Syrian Army’s 90th Brigade of the 9th Armored Division, in coordination with Fouj Al-Joulani (Golan Regiment) and Liwaa Suqour Al-Quneitra (Al-Quneitra Hawks Brigade) of the National Defense Forces (NDF), launched a counter-assault at the 4th Battalion Base outside of the town of Taranjah, resulting in a series of intense firefights with the Free Syrian Army’s Southern Front Brigades.
TEHRAN (FNA)- The British government has been accused of potentially being complicit in Saudi war crimes after a UK Foreign Office (FCO) minister admitted that Saudi forces were “probably” using British-made weapons as part of the country’s intervention in Yemen.
When asked on the issue during a parliamentary debate on the matter, foreign office minister Tobias Ellwood said, “I can probably confirm that they [British manufactured arms] probably have been used.”
“We sell arms to Saudi Arabia — they are using weapons systems which we then sell. The more pertinent question is are they being used responsibly or not and that is the more important question and we need to make sure they are used in that responsible matter,” Ellwood said according to a Sputnik report.
http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13940801000530
OCT 24
TEHRAN (FNA)- Iranian Parliament Speaker Ali Larijani voiced regret that the West-led coalition which claims to fight against the terrorist groups in Syria and Iraq is merely wasting time with no tangible results.
“One of the reasons for the strength of the ISIL is that they sell oil to neighboring countries and they do so by tankers which are easily seen by the Western coalition’s fighter jets, yet they had never been attacked,” Larijani said, addressing a press conference in Russia.
He added that “even if we accept the US argument that they are not willing to cooperate with the Syrian central government, the remaining question will be why they let ISIL sell oil using the same method in Iraq?”
http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13940802000166
Sorry, the previous comment to Ann about Peter Lavelle was mine. Forgot to put the name.
BR
shed
Hi Shed, I don’t know what you said to me because there are so many comments now by anon…so I guess I missed it.
— Hi Shed, I don’t know what you said to me,,,
Hi, Ann, that’s what you have missed:
– Anonymous on October 24, 2015 · at 8:47 pm UTC
@ Ann: — and I think the people here should listen to Peter and not just complain so much about him…
You are quite right, Ann.
People complaining forgot how they, – just a rather short time ago, when the West’s “elite” and their paid talking heads had made themselves beleive in the West’s uncontested hegemony in all spheres – treated their opponents. In the rare cases when the opponents had been allowed to open their mouths.
The opponents’ remarks had been immediately dissmised by the “elite” with arrogant and contemptuous wave of hand, after which only one side did the talking. So, the time, given by Peter to that side now, – in comparison – is generous.
But he immediately interrupts them when they start lying. Why shouldn’t he ? – They can lie at Foxnews and CNN studios. And not at RT.
Best Regards,
shed
ok, Shed…thanks…I don’t know why people are so dissatisfied by others, that are giving giving giving to get the message out…
Peter, please invite that sleepyhead Philippe guy from the Left Coast on more often. That beady eyed dude is freaking hilarious! What a laugher on that “Confused Washington” episode. You almost fell out of your chair when he made the assertion that Assad was using ISIS to make himself look good. That was really funny! That guy is comedy gold. More please. We all need the comic relief.
I too think PL should control himself better. Even if we take into account the target audience, supposedly, used to more aggressive exchange of opinions, I don’t think it justified to cut off or antagonse your interlocutor the way Lavelle increansingly does. If he knows in advance the general stance one participant holds, and I assume he does, and still invites him to his program, the objective should be to expose that view as flawed somehow, preferably via his other participants, only relying on his own counter-view as a last resort.
There should be a limit to the heating up of the debate, he is the moderator, and has the responsability to allow the discussion to be fruitful. In the previous program “Sulking Superpower”, for instance, right at the begining, Sam Hussain was attempting to suggest that possibly there was a level of “cold rationality” in the actions of US foreign policy even if they would lead to the failed states of Lybia and Syria (in the examples mentioned) depending how one would recognise US stated versus actual goals in the region.
PL simply could not accept the employment of “rationality” in that analisis, departing in his rant as if Sam was condoning or defending himself such, whereas he was just pointing out that in US view that could be a possibility as long as one accepts that the US’s actual objective would be to have deconstructed Syria into a failed state, perhaps in a tactic of denial of access to US’s adversaries or whatever.
In the process, Lavelle impeded the other participants to evaluate the finer point, who knows how much of the audience likewise. Not to mention the injustice made to the point of view brought by Sam. I don’t expect Lavelle to be permissive and serve as a broadcaster of MSM delusionary talking points, but I expect even less of him to limit as much a debate.
…again, everybody is talking about Syria but the syrian people. Aren’t there any Syrians to talk with anymore?
well, Wilfried, some Syrians are fighting ISIL in Syria, many draft dodgers are in Europe from Syria and many Syrians are in refugee camps in Syria, and some are still in their homes…I don’t really get your question unless its a complaint about ‘What do Syrians think ?”…
Read some Syrian perspectives like Ghassan Kadi…some of his articles are here, and some are at his blog…Intibah Kadi is his wife…their blog is great, but I think Saker brings all Kadi’s more recent articles over here…look him up on this site