Wednesday, November 30, 2011

"Unknown Snipers" Are Really Well-Known

Sniper's view of Misratah Libya.

I repost this totally ridiculous "historical review and analysis" because I think the topic of snipers is important and should be focused on in more depth and detail, but not in the same frame as this Russian Pravda Party Line by an idiot Irishman.

Unknown Snipers and Western backed "Regime Change"
A Historical Review and Analysis

by Gearóid Ó Colmáin

Unknown snipers played a pivotal role throughout the so-called “Arab Spring Revolutions” yet, in spite of reports of their presence in the mainstream media, surprisingly little attention has been paid to to their purpose and role.

BK: There were daily reports of the snipers in every media, and a number of reporters were shot by snipers, including Franklin Lamb, a Gadhafi Loyalist who was shot in the leg outside his hotel by a Gadhafi sniper perched in the Tripoli Marriott hotel, which up to then had received very little damage. Afterwards, it was probably pummeled by return rebel fire. Snipers took a very heavy toll on the rebel forces and probably account for half of the casualties in the Battles of Misratha and Sirte. Some of the women snipers in Sirte were later captured alive, and all were loyalists, and their purpose and role was to kill all the rebel rats at Gadhafi's orders.

The Russian investigative journalist Nikolay Starikov has written a book which discusses the role of unknown snipers in the destabilization of countries targeted for regime change by the United States and its allies.

BK Notes: Starikov Nikolai Viktorovich (August 23 1970, Leningrad) — is a Russian writer and opinion journalist who describes his works as "historically political detective", a thrilling mix of geopolitics, economics, history of Russia and different countries and bases his historical books on memoirs of participants and eyewitnesses of a described event. Starikov is the organizer of the "Goebbels' Award", which is awarded to "people who lie about, slander and vilify Russia".
His Blog - There's also a list of books by SNV at Wiki but no book on snipers, as referred to by the author.

Romania 1989.
In Susanne Brandstätter’s documentary ‘Checkmate: Strategy of a Revolution’ aired on Arte television station some years ago, Western intelligence officials revealed how death squads were used to destabilize Romania and turn its people against the head of state Nicolai Ceaucescu.

Brandstätter’s film is a must see for anyone interested in how Western intelligence agencies, human rights groups and the corporate press collude in the systematic destruction of countries whose leadership conflicts with the interests of big capital and empire.

BK: I hope her film is easier to find than SNV's book on snipers. If anyone can find a reference to Starikov's book on snipers please send it to me at: thanks.

Former secret agent with the French secret service, the DGSE(La Direction générale de la sécurité extérieure) Dominique Fonvielle, spoke candidly about the role of Western intelligence operatives in destabilizing the Romanian population.

“How do you organize a revolution? I believe the first step is to locate oppositional forces in a given country. It is sufficient to have a highly developed intelligence service in order to determine which people are credible enough to have influence at their hands to destabilize the people to the disadvantage of the ruling regime”[2]

BK:Yes this is all true, from the perspective of a foreign intelligence officer, but not that of the domestic revolutionary who wants to overthrow the existing regime. Fonvielle certainly wouldn't consider Mohamid Bouazizi, who sparked the revolution in Tunisia, as being "credible enough to have influence at their hands to destabilize the people," so his comment can't be attributed to the Arab revolution in Tunisia or anywhere for that matter.

This open and rare admission of Western sponsorship of terrorism was justified on the grounds of the “greater good” brought to Romania by free-market capitalism. It was necessary, according to the strategists of Romania’s “revolution”, for some people to die.

BK: Yes, it is the admission of state sponsorship of terrorism, though I think he was speaking in generalities and not specifics, and didn't mention motive, or capitalism.

Today, Romania remains one of the poorest countries in Europe. A report on Euractiv reads:
“Most Romanians associate the last two decades with a continuous process of impoverishment and deteriorating living standards, according to Romania's Life Quality Research Institute, quoted by the Financiarul daily.” [3] The western intelligence officials interviewed in the documentary also revealed how the Western press played a central role in disinformation. For example, the victims of Western-backed snipers were photographed by presented to the world as evidence of a crazed dictator who was “killing his own people”.

BK: Wait a minute, where did these "Western-backed snipers" come from? If you get so much wrong so far, how do we know you are telling us the truth about the documentary documenting "Western backed snipers." I haven't seen any evidence of such a thing yet, let alone any disinformation of Western press falsely portraying the victims as evidence of a crazed dictator "killing his own people," though I know of a half dozen such dictators.

To this day, there is a Museum in the back streets of Timisoara Romania which promotes the myth of the “Romanian Revolution”. The Arte documentary was one of the rare occasions when the mainstream press revealed some of the dark secrets of Western liberal democracy. The documentary caused a scandal when it was aired in France, with the prestigious Le Monde Diplomatique discussing the moral dilemma of the West’s support of terror in its desire to spread ‘democracy’.

BK: I thought the West supported terror to in its desire to spread free market Captialism and greed and soak up Eastern Oil, and the "democracy" was just a ruse.

Since the destruction of Libya

BK: Libya wasn't destroyed, the city of Misratha and other coastal towns were destroyed by Gadhafi's military forces, and the cities of Sirte and Ben Waldi were destroyed by revolutionaries from Misratha, but Tripoli and most cities are pretty much intact, as the NATO bombing was very precise and destroyed primarily military targets.

and the ongoing cover war on Syria, Le Monde Diplomatique has stood safely on the side of political correction, condemning Bachar Al Assad for the crimes of the DGSE and the CIA. In its current edition, the front page article reads Ou est la gauche? Where is the left ? Certainly not in the pages of Le Monde Diplomatique!

BK: What does Le MOnde have to do with the snipers?

Russia 1993

During Boris Yeltsin’s counter-revolution in Russia in 1993, when the Russian parliament was bombed resulting in the deaths of thousands of people, Yeltsin’s counter-revolutionaries made extensive use of snipers. According to many eye witness reports, snipers were seen shooting civilians from the building opposite the US embassy in Moscow. The snipers were attributed to the Soviet government by the international media.[4]

BK: Another fine example of the state security and military snipers killing civilians as is the situation in almost every case study we have seen.

Venezuela 2002

In 2002, the CIA attempted to overthrow Hugo Chavez, president of Venezuela, in a military coup. On the 11th of April 2002, an opposition March towards the presidential palace was organized by the US backed Venezuelan opposition. Snipers hidden in buildings near the palace opened fire on protestors killing 18. The Venezuelan and international media claimed that Chavez was “ killing his own people” thereby justifying the military coup presented as a humanitarian intervention. It was subsequently proved that the coup had been organized by the CIA but the identity of the snipers was never established.

BK: So because the identity of the snipers were never established, the CIA had its own snipes shoot the opposition marchers it supported? I don't think so. I can accept the idea the failed coup was supported if not organized by the CIA, but the snipers who killed 18 people were most definitely Chavez's state security police and/or military, and I'll bet on it. Certainly not "unknown."

Thailand April 2010

On April 12th 2010, Christian Science Monitor published a detailed report of the riots in Thailand between “red-shirt” activists and the Thai government. The article headline read: ‘Thailand’s red shirt protests darken with unknown snipers, parade of coffins’.

Like their counterparts in Tunisia, Thailand’s red shirts were calling for the resignation of the Thai prime minister. While a heavy-handed response by the Thai security forces to the protestors was indicated in the report, the government’s version of events was also reported: “Mr. Abhisit has used solemn televised addresses to tell his story. He has blamed rogue gunmen, or “terrorists,” for the intense violence (at least 21 people died and 800 were injured) and emphasized the need for a full investigation into the killings of both soldiers and protesters. State television has broadcast repeated images of soldiers coming under fire from bullets and explosives.” The CSM report went on to quote Thai military officials and unnamed Western diplomats: “military observers say Thai troops stumbled into a trap set by agents provocateurs with military expertise. By pinning down soldiers after dark and sparking chaotic battles with unarmed protesters, the unknown gunmen ensured heavy casualties on both sides.

BK: Yes, "...a trap set by agents provocateurs with military expertise..." - that's military expertise, as in trained by the military if not in the military when they were shooting, just like Oswald.

Some were caught on camera and seen by reporters, including this one. Snipers targeted military ground commanders, indicating a degree of advance planning and knowledge of Army movements, say Western diplomats briefed by Thai officials. While leaders of the demonstrations have disowned the use of firearms and say their struggle is nonviolent, it is unclear whether radicals in the movement knew of the trap.

BK: Exactly, the demonstrators, as they tried to be in Egypt and Syria, were clearly non-violent, did not have firearms, disowned them and advocated a nonviolent struggle. The snipers are always and clearly state security or military marksmen, not protesters or even revolutionaries, who prefer machine guns, rockets and anti-aircraft guns mounted on technical pickup trucks.

“You can’t claim to be a peaceful political movement and have an arsenal of weapons out the back if needed. You can’t have it both ways,” says a Western diplomat in regular contact with protest leaders [5]

BK: Exactly, you can't have it both ways, and the snipers are state loyalists in every case.

The CSM article also explores the possibility that the snipers could be rogue elements in the Thai military, agents provocateurs used to justify a crack down on democratic opposition. Thailand’s ruling elite is currently coming under pressure from a group called the Red Shirts.[6]

Kyrgystan June 2010

Ethnic violence broke out in the Central Asian republic of Kirgystan in June 2010. It was widely reported that unknown snipers opened fire on members of the Uzbek minority in Kyrgystan. reports: “In many Uzbek mahallas, inhabitants offer convincing testimony of gunmen targeting their neighborhoods from vantage points. Men barricaded into the Arygali Niyazov neighborhood, for example, testified to seeing gunmen on the upper floors of a nearby medical institute hostel with a view over the district's narrow streets. They said that during the height of the violence these gunmen were covering attackers and looters, assaulting their area with sniper fire. Men in other Uzbek neighborhoods tell similar stories

Among the rumours and unconfirmed reports circulating in Kyrgyzstan after the 2010 violence were claims that water supplies to Uzbek areas were about to be poisoned. Such rumours had also been spread against the Ceaucescu regime in Romania during the CIA - backed coup in 1989. goes on to claim that: “Many people are convinced that they’ve seen foreign mercenaries acting as snipers. These alleged foreign combatants are distinguished by their appearance – inhabitants report seeing black snipers and tall, blonde, female snipers from the Baltic states. The idea that English snipers have been roaming the streets of Osh shooting at Uzbeks is also popular. There’ve been no independent corroborations of such sightings by foreign journalists or representatives of international organizations.” [7]

None of these reports have been independently investigated or corroborated. It is therefore impossible to draw any hard conclusions from these stories.

BK: I think they have been corroborated in Libya, where many of the snipers were black mercenaries from sub-Sahara Africa and many were women Gadhafi had trained to be his personal bodyguard, so why can't the same tactics be used in Kyrgyzstan? Though it is unlikely since the independent journalists couldn't confirm it as it was confirmed in Libya.

Ethnic violence against Uzbek citizens in Kyrgyzstan occurred pari pasu with a popular revolt against the US-backed regime, which many analysts have attributed to the machinations of Moscow.
The Bakiyev régime came to power in a CIA-backed people-power coup known to the world as the Tulip Revolution in 2005. Located to the West of China and bordering Afghanistan, Kyrgyzstan hosts one of America’s biggest and most important military bases in Central Asia, the Manas Air Base, which is vital for the NATO occupation of neighbouring Afghanistan.

Despite initial worries, US/Kyrgyz relations have remained good under the regime of President Roza Otunbayeva. This is not surprising as Otunbayeva had previously participated in the US-created Tulip Revolution in 2004, taking power as foreign minister. To date no proper investigation has been conducted into the origins of the ethnic violence that spread throughout the south of Kyryzstan in 2010, nor have the marauding gangs of unknown snipers been identified and apprehended.

BK: What marauding gangs of unknown snipers? The regime is supported by the USA and the popular unrest is not being supported by CIA backed "unknown snipers," the supposed topic of this report.

Given the geostrategic and geopolitical importance of Kyrgyzstan to both the United States and Russia, and the formers track-record of using death squads to divide and weaken countries so as to maintain US domination, US involvement in the dissemination of terrorism in Kyrgyzstan cannot be ruled out. One effective way of maintaining a grip on Central Asian countries would be to exacerbate ethnic tensions.

In August 6th 2008, the Russian newspaper Kommersant reported that a US arms cache had been found in a house in the Kyrgyz capital Bishkek, which was being rented by two American citizens. The US embassy claimed the arms were being used for “anti-terrorism” exercises. However, this was not confirmed by Kyrgyz authorities. [8]

BK: Where's the "unknown snipers" in Kyrgyz, as I haven't seen any evidence of them yet?

Covert US military support to terrorist groups in the former Federal Republic of Yugoslavia proved to be an effective strategy in creating the conditions for “humanitarian” bombing in 1999. An effective means of keeping the government in Bishkek firmly on America’s side would be to insist on a US and European presence in the country to help “protect” the Uzbek minority.

BK: It would be but wasn't. You can speculate all you want about what could start a revolution, but this, as every other example so far, fails to support the idea that there are "unknown snipers" supported by the CIA fermenting revolutions.

Military intervention similar to that in the former Yugoslavia by the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe has already been advocated by the New York Times, whose misleading article on the riots on June 24th 2010 has the headline “Kyrgyzstan asks European Security Body for Police Teams”. The article is misleading as the headline contradicts the actual report which cites a Kyrgyz official stating:

“A government spokesman said officials had discussed an outside police presence with the O.S.C.E., but said he could not confirm that a request for a deployment had been made.”

There is no evidence in the article of any request by the Kyrgyz government for military intervention. In fact, the article presents much evidence to the contrary. However, before the reader has a chance to read the explanation of the Kyrgyz government, the New York Times’ writer presents the now all too horribly familiar narrative of oppressed peoples begging the West to come and bomb or occupy their country: “Ethnic Uzbeks in the south have clamored for international intervention. Many Uzbeks said they were attacked in their neighborhoods not only by civilian mobs, but also by the Kyrgyz military and police officers”[9]

Only towards the end of the article do we find out that the Kyrgyz authorities blamed the US-backed dictator for fomenting ethnic violence in the country, through the use of Islamic jihadists in Uzbekistan.

BK: Wait a minute, I don't believe for one minute that the US supports any Islamic jihadists anywhere, even if Uzbekistan. It's just not true.

This policy of using ethnic tension to create an environment of fear in order to prop up an extremely unpopular dictatorship, the policy of using Islamic Jihadism as a political tool to create what former US National Security Advisor Zbigniew Bzrezinski called “ an arc of crisis”, ties in well with the history of US involvement in Central Asia from the creation of Al Qaida in Afghanistan in 1978 to the present day.

BK: Ah ha, the USA CIA did use al Qaida to fight the Ruskies in Afghanistan when there still was a Soviet state, and they won, and now there is no Soviet state. I'm sure SNV's book details how the USA CIA supplied them with plenty of sniper rifles, though I haven't seen any evidence of this either.

Again, the question persists, who were the “unknown snipers” terrorizing the Uzbek population, where did their weapons come from and who would benefit from ethnic conflict in Central Asia’s geopolitical hotspot?

BK: I would venture if they existed they were supplied by some national state security or military as they are the most efficient at it, but I don't believe that the snipers are "unknown" at all, but easily identified if you take the trouble to check them out.

Tunisia January 2011

On January 16th 2011, CNN reported that ‘’armed gangs’’ were fighting Tunisian security forces. [10] Many of the murders committed throughout the Tunisian uprising were by “unknown snipers”. There were also videos posted on the internet showing Swedish nationals detained by Tunisian security forces. The men were clearly armed with sniper rifles. Russia Today aired the dramatic pictures.[11]

BK: Well we know the Tunisian revolt began in mid-December 2010 with the self-immolation of Mohamid Bouazizi, and that indeed, the protesters who were not non-violent, did fight, but were not generally armed, and all of the victims of sniper fire were shot by state security and Tunisian military - some 300 victims in all.

In spite of articles by professor Michel Chossudovsky, William Engdahl and others showing how the uprisings in North Africa were following the patterns of US backed people-power coups rather than genuinely popular revolutions,

BK: These men have not showed any such thing, and those who persist in promoting the idea that the Arab revolutions were sponsored by the CIA fail to explain how or why the CIA would want to overthrow the dictators like Ben Ali, Mubarak and Gadhafi who they had already had deals with and were in bed with and had no motive to see removed, or to stir unrest and turmoil in the region. It only makes sense to those who don't want to believe that these revolutions are sincere in their goals of removing tyrants and establishing a revolutionary democracy, which they have done so far in Tunisa and Libya and are trying to do in Egypt, Syria, Bahrain and Yemen.

left wing parties and organizations continued to believe the version of events presented to them by Al Jazeera and the mainstream press.

BK: Yes, Al Jazerra has failed to support the revolt in Bahrain and elsewhere, while it does support the revolts in Libya and Egypt, according to its Qatar owners.

Had the left taken a left from old Lenin’s book they would have transposed his comments on the February/March revolution in Russia thus: “The whole course of events in the January/February Revolution clearly shows that the British, French and American embassies, with their agents and “connections”,.... directly organized a conjunction with a section of the generals and army and Tunisian garrison officers, with the express object of deposing Ben Ali”

BK: If Lenin was alive he would be disappointed his revolution failed in Russia, and he would be historically wrong if he tried to blame the North African revolutions on the French - whose foreign minister was at a Christmas party with Ben Ali when the revolution broke out, and the French minister offered Ben Ali extra tear gas and riot gear if his troops needed it. And the CIA not only had nothing to do with it, they failed to predict such unrest could develop not only in Tunisia but in the entire region, a major failure on their part.

What the left did not understand is that sometimes it is necessary for imperialism to overthrow some of its clients. A suitable successor to Ben Ali could always be found among the feudalists of the Muslim Brotherhood who now look likely to take power.

BK: The left fails to understand a lot, but certainly not the ways of imperialism, that's something only the Russians and the Irish get wrong.

In their revolutionary sloganeering and arrogant insistence that the events in Tunisia and Egypt were “spontaneous and popular uprisings” they committed what Lenin identified as the most dangerous sins in a revolution, namely, the substitution of the abstract for the concrete. In other words, left wing groups were simply fooled by the sophistication of the Western backed “Arab Spring” events.

BK: Yea, you explain Vladimre Lenin to us, and I'll explain John Lennon to you.

That is why the violence of the demonstrators and in particular the widespread use of snipers possibly linked to Western intelligence was the great unthought of the Tunisian uprising.

BK: Wait another minute, what do you mean "widespread use of snipes possibly linked to Western intelligence was the great unthought of the Tunisian uprising." After failing to give us one example in a half dozen case studies of the revolutionaries using "unknown snipers" against the national security states - including Tunisia, you now say they are "possibly linked to Western intelligence." How's that possible. It's not to any reasonable person.

The same techniques would be used in Libya a few weeks later, forcing the left to back track and modifiy its initial enthusiasm for the CIA’s “Arab Spring”.

BK: What same technique. None of the Ben Ali or Gadhafi military or loyalists forces were killed by revolutionary snipers, and the left only had to back track in its support for Gadhafi and critiques of NATO.

When we are talking about the" left" here, we are referring to genuine left wing parties, that is to say, parties who supported the Great People’s Socialist Libyan Arab Jamahirya in their long and brave fight against Western imperialism,

BK: Yea, we know what you mean, the ones like my friend Cynthia McKinney and Wayne Madsen who try to say that Gadhafi was the benevolent dictator who gave free education to the masses, and make me choke on the repeated slogans like Western imperialism.

not the infantile petty bourgeois dupes who supported NATO’s Benghazi terrorists.

BK: Bourgeouis dupes, like Western imperialists, are just overused Pravda cleches that no longer have any meaning, and NATO's Benghazi terrorists are now in power, so we'll just have to see how it plays out, won't we?

The blatant idiocy of such a stance should be crystal clear to anyone who understands global politics and class struggle.

BK: As only understood by an Irish idiot.

Egypt 2011

On October 20th 2011, the Telegraph newspaper published an article entitled, “Our brother died for a better Egypt”. According to the Telegraph, Mina Daniel, an anti-government activist in Cairo, had been ‘shot from an unknown sniper, wounding him fatally in the chest” Inexplicably, the article is no longer available on the Telegraph’s website for online perusal. But a google search for ‘Egypt, unknown sniper, Telegraph’ clearly shows the above quoted explanation for Mina Daniel’s death. So, who could these “unknown snipers’’ be?

On February 6th Al Jazeera reported that Egyptian journalist Ahmad Mahmoud was shot by snipers as he attempted to cover classes between Egyptian security forces and protestors. Referring to statements made by Mahmoud’s wife Enas Abdel-Alim, the Al Jazeera article insinuates that Mahmoud may have been killed by Egyptian security forces: “Abdel-Alim said several eyewitnesses told her a uniformed police captain with Egypt's notorious Central Security forces yelled at her husband to stop filming. Before Mahmoud even had a chance to react, she said, a sniper shot him.” [12]

While the Al Jazeera article advances the theory that the snipers were agents of the Mubarak regime, their role in the uprising still remains a mystery.

BK: Who cares what al Jazerra thinks, Mahmoud was shot, without a doubt, by a military or state security sniper - and their role in the uprising is no mystery, except to one idiot Irishman.

Al Jazeera, the Qatar-based television stations owned by the Emir Hamid Bin Khalifa Al Thani, played a key role in provoking protests in Tunisia and Egypt before launching a campaign of unmitigated pro-NATO war propaganda and lies during the destruction of Libya.

BK: Yet Al Jazera remains quiet about the uprising in Bahrain because the Qatar owner of Al Jazeera is pals with the dictator of Bahrain, but you are finally right about something - Al Jazeera is propaganda.

The Qatari channel been a central participant in the current covert war waged by NATO agencies and their clients against the Republic of Syria. Al Jazeera’s incessant disinformation against Libya and Syria resulted in the resignation of several prominent journalists such as Beirut station chief Ghassan Bin Jeddo[13] and senior Al Jazeera executive Wadah Khanfar who was forced to resign after a wikileaks cable revealed he was a co-operating with the Central Intelligence Agency.[14]

Many people were killed during the US-backed colour revolution in Egypt. Although, the killings have been attributed to former US semi-client Hosni Mubarak, the involvement of Western intelligence cannot be ruled out. However, it should be pointed out that the role of unknown snipers in mass demonstrations remains complex and multi-faceted and therefore one should not jump to conclusions.

BK: That Mubarak was a US client cannot be denied, and there was no reason for USA CIA to support the revolt in Egypt or anywhere in North Africa, and it should be pointed out that there has so far been no examples or case studies shown of any "unknown snipers" so their role is not complex and multi-faceted, except in the cluttered mind of an idiot Irishman, so we can certainly jump to that conclusion.

For example, after the Bloody Sunday massacre(Domhnach na Fola) in Derry, Ireland 1972, where peaceful demonstrators were shot dead by the British army, British officials claimed that they had come under fire from snipers. But the 30 year long Bloody Sunday inquiry subsequently proved this to be false. But the question persists once more, who were the snipers in Egypt and whose purposes did they serve?

BK: The snipers in Egypt, like the snipers in Tunisia and Libya were well trained and equipped military soldiers and state security police officers shooting at unarmed civilians revolutionaries who were trying to peacefully demonstrate. Their purpose was to kill the opposition to the regime, and they were very accurate and successful in serving their doomed masters.

Libya 2011

During the destabilization of Libya, a video was aired by Al Jazeera purporting to show peaceful “pro-democracy” demonstrators being fired upon by “Gaddafi’s forces”. The video was edited to convince the viewer that anti-Gaddafi demonstrators were being murdered by the security forces. However, the unedited version of the video is available on utube. It clearly shows pro-Gaddafi demonstrators with Green flags being fired upon by unknown snipers. The attribution of NATO-linked crimes to the security forces of the Libyan Jamahirya was a constant feature of the brutal media war waged against the Libyan people. [15]

BK: NATO may have supplied Gadhafi with the sniper rifles, but most of his military and police forces got their weapons from USSR. The revolutionaries did have a lot of the 60 year old Italian Manlicher Carcano rifles left over from the Italian occupation, like that said to have been used by Oswald to kill President Kennedy, but that rifle was also said to be the most humanitarian weapon ever made because of its inaccuracy.

Syria 2011

The people of Syria have been beset by death squads and snipers since the outbreak of violence there in March. Hundreds of Syrian soldiers and security personnel have been murdered, tortured and mutilated by Salafist and Muslim Brotherhood militants.

BK: Yes, the unarmed people of Syria have been beset by death squads and snipers, to the tune of a dozen a day, and they are all the victims of Al Assad's military and police.

Yet the international media corporations continue to spread the pathetic lie that the deaths are the result Bachar Al Assad’s dictatorship.

BK: No, that's me saying that, as well as anybody else who has been there and knows the situation except the Idiot Irishman.

When I visited Syria in April of this year, I personally encountered merchants and citizens in Hama who told me they had seen armed terrorists roaming the streets of that once peaceful city, terrorizing the neighbourhood. I recall speaking to a fruit seller in the city of Hama who spoke about the horror he had witnessed that day. As he described the scenes of violence to me, my attention was arrested by a newspaper headline in English from the Washington Post shown on Syrian television: “CIA backs Syrian opposition”. The Central Intelligence Agency provides training and funding for groups who do the bidding of US imperialist interests. The history of the CIA shows that backing opposition forces means providing them with arms and finance, actions illegal under international law.

BK: Who supplied the Syrian regime with sniper rifles, machine guns and gas? Imperalist Russia.

A few days later, while at a hostel in the ancient, cultured city of Aleppo, I spoke to a Syrian business man and his family. The business man ran many hotels in the city and was pro-Assad.

BK: Of course all the rich hotel owners support the regime.

He told me that he used to watch Al Jazeera television but now had doubts about their honesty. As we conversed, the Al Jazeera television in the background showed scenes of Syrian soldiers beating and torturing protestors. “ Now if that is true, it is simply unacceptable” he said. It is sometimes impossible to verify whether the images shown on television are true or not. Many of the crimes attributed to the Syrian army have been committed by the armed gangs, such as the dumping of mutilated bodies into the river in Hama, presented to the world as more proof of the crimes of the Assad regime.

BK: If the mutilated bodies were not dumped by Assad's regime, they were dumped by his supporters.

There is a minority of innocent opponents of the Assad regime who believe everything they see and hear on Al Jazeera and the other pro-Western satellite stations. These people simply do not understand the intricacies of international politics.

BK: How is it that most of the people of Syria are duped by Al Jazeera but foreign journalists aren't allowed in the country at all?

But the facts on the ground show that most people in Syria support the government.

BK: Well now we know why we can't believe anything you say.

Syrians have access to all internet websites and international TV channels. They can watch BBC, CNN, Al Jazeera, read the New York Times online or Le Monde before tuning into their own state media. In this respect, many Syrians are more informed about international politics than the average European or American. Most Europeans and American believe their own media. Few are capable of reading the Syrian press in original Arabic or watching Syrian television. The Western powers are the masters of discourse, who own the means of communication. The Arab Spring has been the most horrifying example of the wanton abuse of this power.

BK: The violent attempts to suppress the Arab Spring is the most horrifying example of wanton abuse of any power, as we have seen in Tunisa, Egypt, Libya, Syria, Bahrain and Yemen, where the dictators and the "unknown snipers" are losing in every case, and will lose in the end.

Disinformation is effective in sowing the seeds of doubt among those who are seduced by Western propaganda.

BK: If the revolutionaries of Tunisa, Egypt, Libya, Bahrain, Yemen and Syria have been seduced by Western propaganda, its because its so much better than this clap trap, as it is apparent that this mick is just mimicking the Pravda Party Line as the Ruskies would have us believe, if they could only convince us that Lenin was right.

Syrian state media has disproved hundreds of Al Jazeera lies since the beginning of this conflict.

BK: Except the one true fact that the Syrian state dictatorship of the Assad family dictatorship is kaput, and he will soon end up like Ali, Mubarak and Gadhafi, in exile, in jail or dead.

Yet the western media has refused to even report the Syrian government’s position lest fair coverage of the other side of this story encourage a modicum of critical thought in the public mind.

BK: Report on the Syrian government's position that the only opposition to its tyranny is from outside foreign agitators who watch Al Jeezera and read the New York Times?


The use of mercenaries, death squads and snipers by Western intelligence agencies is well documented.

BK: Not by you. I haven't seen one example of a Western intelligence agency sniper - except the one I gave - Oswald - where are the other "well documented" cases - just name one, as you haven't done so yet

No rational government attempting to stay in power would resort to unknown snipers to intimidate its opponents.

BK: Except in the cases you have documented - Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Syria where the state security and military have killed hundreds - in Libya thousands,

Shooting at innocent protestors would be counterproductive in the face of unmitigated pressure from Western governments determined to install a client regime in Damascus. Shooting of unarmed protestors is only acceptable in dictatorships that enjoy the unconditional support of Western governments such as Bahrain, Honduras or Colombia.

A government which is so massively supported by the population of Syria would not sabotage its own survival by setting snipers against the protests of a small minority.

BK: You would think so, but its too late to tell that to your pal whose losing power quickly.

The opposition to the Syrian regime is, in fact, miniscule. Tear gas, mass arrests and other non lethal methods would be perfectly sufficient for a government wishing to control unarmed demonstrators.

BK: All revolutions are started by minorities - and the radical repression of it only increases its support and chances of success, as we have seen over and over again, but the dictators never learn.

Snipers are used to create terror, fear and anti-regime propaganda. They are an integral feature of Western sponsored regime change.

BK: So far we have only seen snipers used by the loyalist military and security state to try to repress and instill fear in the opponents of the regime, not the other way around.

If one were to make a serious criticism of the Syrian government over the past few months, it is that they have failed to implement effective anti-terrorism measures in the country.

BK: No the serious criticism would be their snipers killed too many of their citizens, as every one killed turned their entire family against the regime, so now it is doomed.

The Syrian people want troops on the streets and the roofs of public buildings.

BK: The Syrian people don't want troops on the streets or snipers on the roofs - they want stability first, a good economy open to all and not just the regime cronies, and now they want regime change and system change - democracy, freedom and justice, in solidarity with the revolutionaries of Tunisa, Egypt and Libya.

In the weeks and months ahead, the Syrian armed forces will probably rely more and more on their Russian military specialists to strengthen the country's defenses as the Western crusade begun in Libya in March spreads to the Levant.

BK: You got that right. The Ruskies have a base in Syria and with China, another dictatorship, they don't have any other friends left, but I would wager it will be a matter of weeks not months before the regime falls. My Irish bookie will give us some odds if you want to make a bet.

There is no conclusive proof that the snipers murdering men, women and children in Syria are the agents of Western imperialism.

BK: No, there is conclusive proof they are Syrian military and state security police, using Russian sniper rifles.

But there is overwhelming proof that Western imperialism is attempting to destroy the Syrian state.

BK: That is no longer just the goal of Western imperialists, but destroying the murderous Syrian state is now the goal of Turkey, the UN, the Arab League and most of the people of Syria.

As in Libya, they have never once mentioned the possibility of negotiations between the so-called opposition and the Syrian government.

BK: What, negotiate with Hitler? So he can stay in power? In the name of all those victims of the "Unknown snipers" the people will never accept that now. Assad must go and his whole regime will be deposed and a new system put in place, but he's good as dead now, thanks in part to his snipers.

The West wants regime change and is determined to repeat the slaughter in Libya to achieve this geopolitical objective.

It now looks likely that the cradle of civilization and science will be overrun by semi-literate barbarians as the terminal decline of the West plays itself out in the deserts of the East.

BK: I've never read so much clap trap in my life. I don't believe the person who wrote this even believes it.


1 comment:

  1. Though you've already done a good job of shredding this text to bits, I feel like this should still be pointed out:

    The link attributed to [11] depicts footage of Swedish nationals that were there on a boar hunting trip (title of video, mind), carrying SHOTGUNS, not sniper rifles. You'd have to be particularly obtuse to not spot it in the first 20 seconds of the video.