Sunday, April 9, 2017

Kristina Wong — Pentagon Official: ‘No Credible Alternative’ to Syrian Regime Carrying Out Chemical Attack


Pentagon official on background:

"We believe.…" "We think.…" "We suspect.…."

Again no evidence.
Pentagon on Friday laid out its case for why it believes the Syrian regime conducted the April 4 chemical weapons attack, which led to President Trump ordering a cruise missile strike against a Syrian military airbase.
So the US violated international law (UN Charter) and US law (50 U.S.C. 1541–1548) based on belief without an investigation.

Breitbart News
Pentagon Official: ‘No Credible Alternative’ to Syrian Regime Carrying Out Chemical Attack
Kristina Wong

12 comments:

Penguin pop said...

Hey Tom, which news sources do you seem to trust the most? I know Counterpunch is one and probably Jacobin Magazine and other "alt-left" sources. Just saying because I also want to develop a better list of go to sources for info and sources I can consistently rely on before even checking the blog each day. I never read NYT, WaPo, or the mainstream junk. I just want the truth about Syria from sources I can 100% trust, and not Breitbart.

Penguin pop said...

I do occasionally check up on channels like The Real News Network and the occasional Democracy Now clip too, but some people have been very suspicious about people like Amy Goodman and called her a "gatekeeper."

Ryan Harris said...

The pilot Gen Mhmd Hasoury who stands accused of carrying out the chemical massacre in Khan Sheikhoun on the 4th of April has been reportedly killed today by a bomb blast under his car.
http://syria.liveuamap.com/en/2017/9-april-the-pilot-gen-mhmd-hasoury-who-stands-accused-of

Tom Hickey said...

There is no single source, or even a few sources, that are entirely reliable or objective. Everyone has a POV, and some things are hard to document. Some sites are good on somethings and not on others. A lot of potential information is in non-Western languages that don't turn up in searches for those that don't know the language.

I take the intelligence approach in which I was trained, as well as my training in scholarship. Survey as much and as widely as possible, and check documentation. But there are many limitations on that, not the least being the amount of time.

Governments have thousands of agents processing information in all languages and they also hire contractors. But their intel is classified, of course. Even POTUS relies on a summary interpretation. Probably no single person has the big picture that the organization as whole develops.

So In many if not most cases, it is difficult to impossible to arrive at a definitive conclusion for some one like us doing this part time.

Another one of the problems is that disinformation has become an art and a science and it coming from many directions. It can be difficult to detect.

Even looking back in the past, it is not possible to come to a definitive conclusion about many of the most salient issues, especially when the victors get to write the history and obliterate contrary evidence.

So just about everything is tentative in my view.

Bob said...

A preferred source is one that doesn't have a political stake in the topic being discussed. For example, an article in Al Jazeera about the economic situation in the US. By the same token, an Al J article on Syria would be suspect.

I have found that ideologically based sources like the WSWS can provide a good perspective for the same reason: they have no dog in the fight. You'll get some facts and a predictable conclusion, which can be ignored.

Everything you read should be taken with a grain of salt, or at face value. Do not extend trust unless you have the time to verify the accuracy of what's being presented. This means reading several sources per topic.

GLH said...

Pp: I watched Amy Goodman everyday for years before I realized that she is a gatekeeper. I did the same with Chomsky. I even donated a car to Amy's show. Even when I listened to her I thought it suspicious that she would lead off with news from the New York Times which I considered back then to be a propaganda rag. I am not telling you what to do but I suggest that you ask a lot of questions about who Amy is leaving out of her reporting. It is possible that she has changed since I haven't watched her show in many years. I hope so. Chomsky will never change, he is gatekeeper all the way.

Postkey said...

"Chomsky will never change, he is gatekeeper all the way."


And GLH is part of the 'smear campaign' against Chomsky?

Ryan Harris said...

Amy Goodman does like any show producer in terms of selecting reliable content. She has to produce an hour of show each day and she has many of the same people like Chomsky and a few other guests over and over. After a awhile of listening to her and her world view, I don't think she is maliciously blocking people as selectively choosing reliable guests and news just like cnn or fox that also adopt particular world views.. I think she knows they will make a good hour of programming.

If not for her and her husband, the entire radio network would have collapsed and for my neighborhood, that would be a terrible loss. If you look at Tom, he presents a few articles each day, he can't possibly select from everything in the world every night, so he has a few regulars that are trusted and then he selects a few that he finds relevant or interesting to his themes. I think this is totally normal for production and deadlines in a time constrained world.

Noah Way said...

No TV, to start. And I ignore most corporate media entirely. An occasional glance at the NYT to confirm the hilarity of their "journalism". But mostly independent blogs like this one where articles are discussed and debunked.

Is that cognitive bias? Seems to me that once you understand how the system works it all becomes pretty clear. Easy to get lost in details but the big picture is transparent.

Tom Hickey said...

If you look at Tom, he presents a few articles each day, he can't possibly select from everything in the world every night, so he has a few regulars that are trusted and then he selects a few that he finds relevant or interesting to his themes. I think this is totally normal for production and deadlines in a time constrained world.

Right. The objective is generally to present alternative views relevant to the news cycle, while continually putting up posts that are relevant to MMT and economic conditions.

My view is that the social, political and economic aspects of life are part of a whole and they cannot be disaggregated without losing something essential. Therefore, even the views that wrong or bogus can be significant because they indicate how a lot of people align or else how power is being wielded in favor of interests.

I would say that Amy Goodman doing something similar but her focus is different and in my view, she sometimes gets it wrong inadvertently. I don't think that she is a shill.

Ryan Harris said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
bbbar said...

Penguin pop, I've found the Moon of Alabama blog to have excellent commentary and analysis on Syria. The comments section is good too (occasionally great).