Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: Assad e la solidarietà antimperialista

E poi dicono che Fisk non ha ragione...
 
http://30secondi.globalist.it/2012/08/02/la-guerra-in-siria-sulla-rotta-dei-profughi/
 
 
[...]
 
Emblematico è ciò che tocca in sorte in questi giorni ai profughi 
palestinesi in Siria. Come scrivevo due giorni fa: “ai primi segnali di 
una nuova solidarietà dei palestinesi-siriani con i rivoltosi, il regime 
reprime direttamente nei campi profughi. Poi i carri armati di al-Asad 
bombardano il campo di Yarmuk, alla periferia di Damasco. Verso la fine 
di luglio viene bombardato anche il campo profughi di Deraa. Poi è 
l’ufficio dell’UNRWA, l’agenzia dell’ONU che si occupa dei rifugiati 
palestinesi, a essere bombardato, il 26 luglio. Lo stesso giorno 
giungono notizie di bombardamenti sull’ospedale del campo profughi di 
Yarmuk. E poi ancora sul campo di Deraa. In breve, i palestinesi uccisi 
dal regime di Damasco nei campi profughi si contano a centinaia, ormai”.
 
[...]
-- 
Namib
--
I have examined maps of the city with the greatest care, yet have never 
again found the Rue d'Auseil (HPL)

 [...]
 
niente, non ci cotona neanche un misero pipponcino.
 
<:3)- 
 
-- 
"Comunque, a prescindere dal fatto che nahum è uno stronzo integrale, 
bisogna riconoscere che come ebreo ha le carte più in regola tra quanti 
bazzicano su IPI." [persio su ipi] 

 E poi dicono che Fisk non ha ragione...
 
Ma tu hai letto/capito l'ottimo articolo di Fisk?  Ne dubito.
Te lo riposto per intero:
 
---------------------------------------------------------
Has there ever been a Middle Eastern war of such hypocrisy? A war of 
such cowardice and such mean morality, of such false rhetoric and such 
public humiliation? I'm not talking about the physical victims of the 
Syrian tragedy. I'm referring to the utter lies and mendacity of our 
masters and our own public opinion – eastern as well as western – in 
response to the slaughter, a vicious pantomime more worthy of Swiftian 
satire than Tolstoy or Shakespeare.
 
While Qatar and Saudi Arabia arm and fund the rebels of Syria to 
overthrow Bashar al-Assad's Alawite/Shia-Baathist dictatorship, 
Washington mutters not a word of criticism against them. President 
Barack Obama and his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, say they want 
a democracy in Syria. But Qatar is an autocracy and Saudi Arabia is 
among the most pernicious of caliphate-kingly-dictatorships in the Arab 
world. Rulers of both states inherit power from their families – just as 
Bashar has done – and Saudi Arabia is an ally of the Salafist-Wahabi 
rebels in Syria, just as it was the most fervent supporter of the 
medieval Taliban during Afghanistan's dark ages.
 
Indeed, 15 of the 19 hijacker-mass murderers of 11 September, 2001, came 
from Saudi Arabia – after which, of course, we bombed Afghanistan. The 
Saudis are repressing their own Shia minority just as they now wish to 
destroy the Alawite-Shia minority of Syria. And we believe Saudi Arabia 
wants to set up a democracy in Syria?
 
Then we have the Shia Hezbollah party/militia in Lebanon, right hand of 
Shia Iran and supporter of Bashar al-Assad's regime. For 30 years, 
Hezbollah has defended the oppressed Shias of southern Lebanon against 
Israeli aggression. They have presented themselves as the defenders of 
Palestinian rights in the West Bank and Gaza. But faced with the slow 
collapse of their ruthless ally in Syria, they have lost their tongue. 
Not a word have they uttered – nor their princely Sayed Hassan Nasrallah 
– about the rape and mass murder of Syrian civilians by Bashar's 
soldiers and "Shabiha" militia.
 
Then we have the heroes of America – La Clinton, the Defence Secretary 
Leon Panetta, and Obama himself. Clinton issues a "stern warning" to 
Assad. Panetta – the same man who repeated to the last US forces in Iraq 
that old lie about Saddam's connection to 9/11 – announces that things 
are "spiralling out of control" in Syria. They have been doing that for 
at least six months. Has he just realised? And then Obama told us last 
week that "given the regime's stockpile of chemical weapons, we will 
continue to make it clear to Assad … that the world is watching". Now, 
was it not a County Cork newspaper called the Skibbereen Eagle, fearful 
of Russia's designs on China, which declared that it was "keeping an eye 
… on the Tsar of Russia"? Now it is Obama's turn to emphasise how little 
clout he has in the mighty conflicts of the world. How Bashar must be 
shaking in his boots.
 
But what US administration would really want to see Bashar's atrocious 
archives of torture opened to our gaze? Why, only a few years ago, the 
Bush administration was sending Muslims to Damascus for Bashar's 
torturers to tear their fingernails out for information, imprisoned at 
the US government's request in the very hell-hole which Syrian rebels 
blew to bits last week. Western embassies dutifully supplied the 
prisoners' tormentors with questions for the victims. Bashar, you see, 
was our baby.
 
Then there's that neighbouring country which owes us so much gratitude: 
Iraq. Last week, it suffered in one day 29 bombing attacks in 19 cities, 
killing 111 civilian and wounding another 235. The same day, Syria's 
bloodbath consumed about the same number of innocents. But Iraq was 
"down the page" from Syria, buried "below the fold", as we journalists 
say; because, of course, we gave freedom to Iraq, Jeffersonian 
democracy, etc, etc, didn't we? So this slaughter to the east of Syria 
didn't have quite the same impact, did it? Nothing we did in 2003 led to 
Iraq's suffering today. Right?
 
And talking of journalism, who in BBC World News decided that even the 
preparations for the Olympics should take precedence all last week over 
Syrian outrages? British newspapers and the BBC in Britain will 
naturally lead with the Olympics as a local story. But in a lamentable 
decision, the BBC – broadcasting "world" news to the world – also 
decided that the passage of the Olympic flame was more important than 
dying Syrian children, even when it has its own courageous reporter 
sending his despatches directly from Aleppo.
 
Then, of course, there's us, our dear liberal selves who are so quick to 
fill the streets of London in protest at the Israeli slaughter of 
Palestinians. Rightly so, of course. When our political leaders are 
happy to condemn Arabs for their savagery but too timid to utter a word 
of the mildest criticism when the Israeli army commits crimes against 
humanity – or watches its allies do it in Lebanon – ordinary people have 
to remind the world that they are not as timid as the politicians. But 
when the scorecard of death in Syria reaches 15,000 or 19,000 – perhaps 
14 times as many fatalities as in Israel's savage 2008-2009 onslaught on 
Gaza – scarcely a single protester, save for Syrian expatriates abroad, 
walks the streets to condemn these crimes against humanity. Israel's 
crimes have not been on this scale since 1948. Rightly or wrongly, the 
message that goes out is simple: we demand justice and the right to life 
for Arabs if they are butchered by the West and its Israeli allies; but 
not when they are being butchered by their fellow Arabs.
 
And all the while, we forget the "big" truth. That this is an attempt to 
crush the Syrian dictatorship not because of our love for Syrians or our 
hatred of our former friend Bashar al-Assad, or because of our outrage 
at Russia, whose place in the pantheon of hypocrites is clear when we 
watch its reaction to all the little Stalingrads across Syria. No, this 
is all about Iran and our desire to crush the Islamic Republic and its 
infernal nuclear plans – if they exist – and has nothing to do with 
human rights or the right to life or the death of Syrian babies. Quelle 
horreur!
 
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-syrian-war-of-lies-and-hypocrisy-7985012.html
 
-------------------------------------------------
 
 
-- 
Sostieni Rete ECO
 
http://rete-eco.it/it/sostienici.html
 
 

 Ma tu hai letto/capito l'ottimo articolo di Fisk?  Ne dubito.
 
e tu leggi la posta?
 

 Ma tu hai letto/capito l'ottimo articolo di Fisk?
 
Direi proprio di sì. Anzi, l'ho anche postato qui.


 Direi proprio di sì. Anzi, l'ho anche postato qui.
 
Lo so che l'hai postato, so anche che ritieni che Fisk porti acqua alla 
campagna contro Assad che conduci in sintonia con l'analoga campagna 
mainstream, per questo ho espresso dubbi sul fatto che tu l'abbia 
letto/capito.
 
Mi ripeti cosa hai concluso dalla sua lettura?


 Mi ripeti cosa hai concluso dalla sua lettura?
 
No. Se ri è chiaro, bene, otherwise, amen.


 Te lo riposto per intero:
 
copincolli al posto di cotonare, stai perdendo colpi.
 
persio, sei un pirla inceppato.


 No. Se ri è chiaro, bene, otherwise, amen.
 
Dunque adesso l'hai capito.
 
Un'altra domanda: ti ha suggerito qualcuno di pubblicarlo?


 copincolli al posto di cotonare, stai perdendo colpi.
 
Oltre che pinocchietto sei anche un fasciosionista stupido. Hai un sacco 
di qualità.


 Un'altra domanda: ti ha suggerito qualcuno di pubblicarlo?
 
Il locale ufficio del Mossad.


 Il locale ufficio del Mossad.
 
Non penso siano così stupidi.  Penso piuttosto a qualcuno dei tuoi 
stimabili amici fasciosionisti.  Ma vedo che preferisci non rispondere.


 stimabili amici fasciosionisti.  Ma vedo che preferisci non rispondere.
 
Perché Persio è così incazzato?
 
 
-- 
Io non gufo l'Inter. Le spacco le corna.

 Perché Persio è così incazzato?
 
Più che altro è pirla.
 
PP
 
 


Questo si sapeva.
Ma cos'è che stavolta gli ha fatto così male?
 
Per arrivare al minicomplotto sionista con Namib come burattino, dev'essere
grossa.
 
 
-- 
“Those who expect to reap the blessings of  freedom, must, like men,
undergo the  fatigues of supporting it.”  - North Idaho 21st Batallion of
Light Foot

 Oltre che pino
 
e il pipponcino?


 stimabili amici fasciosionisti.  Ma vedo che preferisci non rispondere.
 
Cosa si può rispondere a una domanda così imbecille? :)


 Cosa si può rispondere a una domanda così imbecille? :)
 
Bastava un no, che non hai scritto.
