NYT Insults Intelligence in Latest Syrian Op-EdDear New York Times: It Takes Two to Tango In New York Times (NYT) latest, anonymous editorial, they berate the Syrian government for not making good on Kofi Annans alleged peace deal, openly admitted by US policy think-tanks as a rouse to buy time for a floundering NATO proxy force and to be used as leverage to justify a partial invasion by NATO-member Turkey into northern Syria. More specifically, the Fortune 500 funded Brookings Institution think-tank, in their latest report, Assessing Options for Regime Change stated (emphasis added): An alternative is for diplomatic efforts to focus first on how to end the violence and how to gain humanitarian access, as is being done under Annans leadership. This may lead to the creation of safe-havens and humanitarian corridors, which would have to be backed by limited military power. This would, of course, fall short of U.S. goals for Syria and could preserve Asad in power. From that starting point, however, it is possible that a broad coalition with the appropriate international mandate could add further coercive action to its efforts. page 4, Assessing Options for Regime Change, Brookings Institution. And now that is exactly what the UN, NATO, and its massive network of propagandists are attempting to sell the public including the New York Times anonymous editorial board. While the NYT unprofessionally throws around adjectives like despicable brutal and describes the events unfolding in Syria as slaughter, even by the Syrian oppositions own admissions and throughout reports by top rights groups like Human Rights Watch (HRW), they are fighting just as despicably, brutally, and committing slaughter just as readily. The HRW report titled, Syria: Armed Opposition Groups Committing Abuses, is broken into three parts in regards to the rebels forces; kidnapping, torture, and executions. And while the report attempts to focus mainly on atrocities carried out against security forces and government supporters, the mention of civilian victims is made as well. The report states: Abuses include kidnapping, detention, and torture of security force members, government supporters, and people identified as members of pro-government militias, called shabeeha. Human Rights Watch has also received reports of executions by armed opposition groups of security force members and civilians. Under the title Kidnappings, it is stated: Abuses include kidnapping, detention, and torture of security force members, government supporters, and people identified as members of pro-government militias, called shabeeha. Human Rights Watch has also received reports of executions by armed opposition groups of security force members and civilians. Human Rights Watch also expressed concern about FSA [Free Syrian Army] kidnappings of Iranian nationals, some of whom the group has confirmed are civilians. Under Executions, HRWs report describes the Syrian oppositions practice of rounding up suspects and killing them without trial, generally on the grounds of confessions coerced through torture. Other executions are simply carried out as reprisals with no apparent offense beyond suspected affiliations being cited. What responsible government would allow overtly armed factions to carry out such crimes within its borders? What responsible journalist would omit these documented crimes during a discussion over how to end the bloodshed in Syria? Clearly both sides are armed, both sides are fighting one another, both sides are alleging the other is committing atrocities while declaring their own hands clean. What the NYT also conveniently fails to mention is that the rebels they are so adamant in defending, have outright rejected Kofi Annans peace deal, in effect rendering the entire deal null and void, declaring their intentions to continue fighting the Syrian government with the constant torrent of cash and weapons pledged to them during the last Friends of Syria summit a summit that disingenuously supported the peace deal while openly making provisions to continue the bloodshed. How could President Bashar al-Assad withdraw troops then, even if he wanted to? Finally, the NYT shamelessly cites hearsay over an alleged cross border incident admittedly unconfirmed and involving conflicting reports in an attempt to further demonize the Syrian government and provide the impetus for Turkey, a NATO member since the 1950s, to establish Wall Street and Londons prescribed safe havens and humanitarian corridors from which to continue their attempts to topple the Syrian government. As a matter of fact, Todays Zaman literally announced verbatim that Turkeys next step would be indeed to implement this very strategy, conjured up not from within the halls of the Turkish government in Ankara, but within the pages of a Fortune 500-funded Washington think-tank. An informed citizen would recognize NYTs editorial as just another mouthpiece of a singular Western agenda of premeditated violence with predetermined prescribed courses of action prepared to topple the government of Syria a plan decades in the making. It is not that conditions on the ground have coincidentally converged to justify these plans it is that professional liars like the NYT, the TV networks and the governments of NATO are creating and/or lying about the conditions on the ground when they otherwise would not exist to justify these plans. Recognize that we are once again being lied to by the New York Times, just as we were by Curveball and Donald Rumsfeld regarding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, or the admittedly false humanitarian claims made by the Libyan opposition, or most recently by the US government-funded Kony 2012 propaganda campaign. How many more times must we be lied to by the exact same shrill voices before we, as a rule, doubt, question, and challenge everything they say? Tony Cartaluccis articles have appeared on many alternative media websites, including his own at Land Destroyer Report. Read other contributed articles by Tony Cartalucci here. linkwithin_text=Related Articles: 