“This article, with all its irony, contradictions and intellectual dishonesty, reads at first sight as the work of an aging hack with nothing to say but who is going to say it anyway, in as obfuscating way as possible. But the article is more sinister than that:
Fisk’s article is an obscene call for increased ‘humanitarian’ intervention by NATO, to wage open warfare on Syria, in order to put in place a repressive regime of head-chopping, cannibalistic, Wahhabi extremists, who are total anathema to the vast majority of the Syrian people.”
I think it’s the first of these two. Fisk merits attention only because he has a wide readership (and therefore a degree of influence) through his articles in The Independent.
At the start of the ‘Arab Spring’ in 2011, brighter people in the West remembered Iraq, and so from the outset were sceptical about the forces behind this ‘awakening’. For us slower folk, it took the realisation that the West was never going to allow democracy in Saudi Arabia, but was intent on enforcing regime change in the most progressive and independent countries in the greater Middle East, to realise what a wicked scam the whole Arab Spring deal was.
Robert Fisk, however, embraced the ‘Arab Spring’ from the outset, and has promoted it directly or indirectly since, campaigning vigorously, for example, against Muammar Gaddafi and Bashar al Assad, and generally peddling the NATO line of peace-loving demonstrators, met with violent repression, particularly in the cases of Libya and Syria. Nothing since has given him pause: not the presence of armed militants from an early stage, the enormous pro-government demonstrations…
View original post 1,621 more words