I try my best to be an informed about what is, and has happened, in Syria. When I watch mainstream media’s coverage I am horrified at their “Fake News”. For example, Lester Holt of NBC nightly news recently referred to Bashar Assad as the “brutal dictator”. Does Lester know that in 2014 there was a multiparty election in Syria? Does he know that Assad won the election with 88% of the vote? Critics might say, but it was not a fair election! Was ours?
Most of the coverage has centered around Aleppo, and the mainstream Aleppo narrative has been, it was besieged by the brutal dictator, who wanted to slaughter all the residents of Aleppo. The fact is, Aleppo is divided into two parts and has been for four years. West Aleppo is controlled by the Syrian government, and East Aleppo was captured, and has been held by terrorists and thugs for the past four years. Residents of East Aleppo have not been allowed to leave, and have been shot in the streets for trying. The jihadists who control East Aleppo, these would be the same “moderates” and “rebels” that beheaded the 9-year-old boy, and showed the beheading to the world, have also controlled the hospitals in east Aleppo and have used them to treat their own, and to launch artillery barrages into west Aleppo, killing innocents every day for the past four years.
Finally, with the help of the Russians and others, the Syrian government liberated East Aleppo and rescued its’ resident from the terrorists. This is a completely different narrative from what one gets watching mainstream news, which gets its news from “anonymous” twitter accounts, “unnamed activists”, and the White Helmets. That fake organization is funded by the US, France, and other western nations to the tune of $100 million, and is nothing more than a propaganda tool for the west. It has been completely exposed and thoroughly discredited, except by mainstream media, which uses its propaganda as if it were factual. The US had no actual reporters anywhere near Aleppo. There are however, reporters from other countries who were in and out of Aleppo daily, like Vanessa Beeley and Canadian journalist Eva Bartlett, who fully understand what has happened and report it accordingly. If your goal is trying to defeat the terrorist and jihadists forces in Syria, the liberation of east Aleppo is a major victory. If, on the other hand, you support terrorists, or have as your goal, prolonging the war to weaken Assad, then the taking of Aleppo represents a tragedy. According to mainstream media, the retaking of Aleppo by government forces and defeating the terrorist is a tragedy.
One of the best journalists in the world, when it comes to the middle east, is Patrick Cockburn. You probably never heard of him if you rely on mainstream “fake” media, because his voice is not allowed. He is however, recognized as one of the best sources in the world on Syria and the Middle East, but his voice and work cannot get by the censors of mainstream media. Cockburn’s most recent article: “There’s More Propaganda Than News Coming Out of Aleppo This Week” argues that jihadists early on, killed or captured western journalists, and gained the narrative using fake sources, twitter accounts and the like. When is the last time you heard Noam Chomsky on mainstream media? He is one of the best minds in the country, but he cannot get by the censors. Other great foreign policy journalists such as Eric Margolis, Pepe Escobar, the great Glenn Greenwald, and Jeremy Scahill, are not tolerated by mainstream “fake” media.
It is interesting to see mainstream media shed crocodile tears for the civilians of Aleppo, yet when the US besieged the city of Fallujah in Iraq in 2004, the “fake” news folks were cheerleaders. This was a city of 300,000, which was basically leveled by the US led forces. The US claimed Fallujah was held by terrorists and proceeded to level the city to save the city. No one knows, nor will ever know, how many civilians were killed in a brutal assault on a civilian city. The point here is, mainstream “fake” news acted as cheerleaders, and never once worried about civilians being slaughtered, nor did they shed any tears during the “Shock and Awe” destruction of Baghdad. Funny how they can just turn around and shed crocodile tears for the civilians of Aleppo, but cheer when we kill civilians.
In no way am I a champion of Bashar Assad, but I respect the right of the Syrian people to pick their own leader. How many times have you heard Obama and officials in the administration, along with crazies like John McCain and Lindsey Graham, chant in unison: “Assad must go”. None of the crazies ever tried to explain what gives the US government the legal right to decide who should lead the Syrian people. Then again, what is the law, when you have power. Still, it is interesting to see how upset and angry these same folks are, when Russia is falsely accused of trying to hack into our elections. Julian Assange and Craig Murray claim them never got anything from Russia, and they know who leaked the e-mails. Former ambassador Craig Murray, even claims to have met the individual, and insists the individual is an insider. William Binney, the man who designed the NSA’s surveillance system, has come forward and vehemently argued if anyone hacked those e-mails, the NSA would instantly know who hacked, when, where, and whether those e-mails were passed on to another party. Binney, the foremost expert in the world, is banned from mainstream “fake” media, as are Murray and Assange. They cannot get over the wall of censors who wish always to control the narrative.
If you really are curious about world events, you must work at it, and find good alternative sources. You are ignorant of world events if you only rely on mainstream “fake” media.
Related Slideshow: Winners, Losers, and Defining Moments in First Clinton - Trump Debate
Clinton won the debate by controlling the conversation and getting many more of her attack lines into the debate. He barely mentioned her emails and made no mention of Benghazi.
2. Why do you think the other candidate lost?
He missed many opportunities to criticize her. Her killer line was that she prepared for the debate and is prepared to be president.
He got irritated easily and had many sighs and groans. He did not have a good answer on why he has not released his tax returns.
3. What was the defining moment - what does it mean for the campaigns moving forward?
He had a number of factual errors in his statements. This was not a close debate. She dominated from start to end.
I think Clinton "won," but I don't think she scored any knock out blows.
2. Why do you think the other candidate lost?
As expected, Trump wasn't prepared. Clinton threw a lot of bait and Trump took it every time.
3. What was the defining moment - what does it mean for the campaigns moving forward?
I don't know that there was a defining moment. Whatever impact this debate may have will be short lived. I don't think this moved the needle much for either candidate.
Jennifer Lawless, Professor at American University
1. Who do you think won?
Clinton, and it wasn't even close. She won on substance, style, and reminding viewers of her opponents weaknesses. She was prepared, kept her cool, and was very respectful of both Trump and Lester Holt.
2. Why do you think the other candidate lost?
Donald Trump was on the defensive the entire night. He attempted to bait Clinton and it never worked. But every time Clinton tried to do the same, Trump took the bait. You know it's bad when a candidate has to reference private conversations with Sean Hannity as a defense of his character and policy positions.
3. What was the defining moment - what does it mean for the campaigns moving forward?
When Hillary Clinton responded to Trump's criticism that she wasn't campaigning this week, she told voters that she spent the week preparing for the debate, and that she'll also prepare when she's president. That one response really highlighted a key difference between them and the fact that experience matters. It also seemed that at that point, Trump started to come undone.
I should also note that there will likely be a lot of discussion about the extent to which Trump was sexist or was beating up on a woman. Here's my take: He was behaving EXACTLY the way he did with Bush, Rubio, etc. I see little here that is about Clinton being a woman. Trump has demonstrated time and again that he has no respect for people he debates, women or men. That's not to say that Trump isn't sexist. I think the evidence suggests he is. But I'm not sure that his behavior tonight is the best evidence for that claim.
The two candidates stayed true to their primary contests styles. Trump was unscripted and undisciplined. Clinton was practiced and policy-focused. Clinton... is likely to have moved some of those undecideds her way.
2. Why do you think the other candidate lost?
Trump probably did not lose his hard core supporters tonight because he performed pretty much as he had in the primaries. What is likely is that voters who were leaning his way but undecided, may have moved away from him.
3. What was the defining moment - what does it mean for the campaigns moving forward?
I watched the debate with about 100 students about 25 of whom were sporting Trump hats and shirts. As the debate went on, the Trump supporters became increasingly quiet and then began to leave. Hilary's contingent, for its part, became more jubilant. That should tell you something.
On most measures, I would say Clinton won, but it was close. She didn’t start out well – her answers seemed stiff and too full of policy details that were hard to digest. But Clinton got better and stronger as the debate went on. She exhibited policy knowledge, competence, and a calm but firm temperament in the face of some tough questions and provocations from Trump.
2. Why do you think the other candidate lost?
In the end, Trump lost because I think he failed to convince a lot of undecided voters that he has the temperament and command of issues to be president. While he may have outperformed many people’s expectations on these fronts, it wasn’t enough to give him a significant boost. He did really well in the first half or so of the debate – for example, his segments on trade were right on point with his message and he had Clinton on the defensive – but he couldn’t maintain that momentum.
3. What was the defining moment - what does it mean for the campaigns moving forward?
It’s hard to pin down a defining moment in this one. I would say that it was about half-way through, when Clinton began to go on the offensive about Trump’s tax returns, his business record, his company’s past issues with race relations and his skepticism about President Obama’s citizenship. All those moments – but especially the exchange about the president’s birth certificate --- were great for Clinton. She was aggressive while remaining dignified, while Trump was overly combative and provided fairly unpersuasive answers.
I think largely because of that sequence, Clinton may get a bit of bump in the polls from this debate. Given the volatility of this campaign, it’s hard to say how lasting that will be.
Joe Paolino, Clinton Apointee, Ambassador to Malta
1. Who do you think won?
I don't know if there's a big winner -- I know that some said there was a high bar set for Hillary Clinton and she surpassed it
2. Why do you think the other candidate lost?
I think Trump lost a lot of points about his taxes. Give us something -- he's the only person in 40 years who hasn't released them. And when it came to nuclear bomb and the whole discussion about NATO he didn't have the grasp that she did.
3. What was the defining moment - what does it mean for the campaigns moving forward?
I think that when [Lester] Holt asked at the end, the Trump line that she didn't "look Presidential," I thought she'd give a Lincoln Chafee response and just end it there, but she didn't. I think it showed that Trump just doesn't have the temperament.
It’s anybody’s guess how voters will respond to what mostly amounted to incoherent blather, and an exhibition of personality. With that said, Hillary did manage to successfully blame the Obama economy on George W. Bush and free-market economic policies several times.
2. Why do you think the other candidate lost?
Trump failed over and over again to connect economic despair with eight years of top-down progressivism. When you combine that with Clinton’s success in keeping Trump on the defensive most of the night, reasonable people could decide that Hillary was last night’s winner.
3. What was the defining moment - what does it mean for the campaigns moving forward?
I can’t imagine two less articulate candidates, particularly the apish Donald Trump. I also can’t imagine a bigger waste of time – in terms of substantive debate. Clinton’s personal attacks spawned petty bickering over the origin of the birther movement, Trump’s tax returns, Clinton’s physical endurance, and who is the kinder and less racist individual. This crowded out important discussions over foreign policy, freedom, socialism, the Constitution, the Supreme Court, policy specifics, and Hillary’s corrupt dealings and scandals in regards to Benghazi and the Clinton Foundation.
Of course, Trump – an impulsive liberal who happens to be championing several important conservative issues – remains the better choice, largely because he operates from within the Republican Party, a more conservative network whose members will undoubtedly have access and influence over the direction of the Oval Office should he occupy it.
I think Trump won. Donald Trump hit all the key points with his supporters (trade, ISIS, crime), and hit Hillary on 30 years of failed leadership.
2. Why do you think the other candidate lost?
Hillary was overly prepared, had obvious set talking points, and never touched on inner city crime . Hillary had a fake smile, fake laugh, and condescending attitude.
3. What was the defining moment - what does it mean for the campaigns moving forward?
Key moments were missing question: Clinton foundation, Benghazi, and email scandal. Lester Holt was clearly more aggressive towards Trump on taxes and birther issue.
Clinton better accomplished her goal of getting under Trump's skin, than Trump did in trying to show that he has thick skin ... even though Trump may have won two of the three debate sections.
2. Why do you think the other candidate lost?
The American people lost, as it more obvious than ever that we have very poor Presidential choices this November 8.
3. What was the defining moment - what does it mean for the campaigns moving forward?
Very early on ... when Trump showed that he could not maintain equanimity, he lost a major opportunity to attract voters skeptical of his presidential demeanor.
The clear loser the entire Republican Party and mainstream media for allowing Trump to be the Republican nominee. He is a buffoon.
3. What was the defining moment - what does it mean for the campaigns moving forward?
Best moment for Trump - he was right the Obama administration had no exit strategy for Iraq - and in all likelihood that most likely did a cause a resurgence in Iraqi citizens aligning themselves with Al Qaida and other terrorist organizations (I contribute these alliances to be a last resort).
The winners? Third Party Candidates like Stein, Johnson, whose focus is on the issues, which represents the essence of their campaign.
2. Why do you think the other candidate lost?
The losers were the American people. We were treated to an extended “conversation” about government’s ability to create jobs -- total fiction. And stop & frisk's Constitutionality? “A very against police judge”? Really?
3. What was the defining moment - what does it mean for the campaigns moving forward?
Watching Trump begin to unravel towards the end, when his… veracity was challenged, was eerily reminiscent of a Law & Order episode, when Sam Waterston would start challenging the accused manhood on the stand … and out of sheer desperation, said perp would admit his guilt. Not a pretty picture, if the Secret Service is gonna use your name & POTUS in the same sentence.
Hillary Clinton clearly won the debate. The bar for her was high and she exceeded expectations.. She was prepared, cool, calm, collected and answered all the questions with specifics.
2. Why do you think the other candidate lost?
Despite the bar being low for Donald Trump, he clearly underperformed. Beteeen not answering the questions because of being woefully unprepared, interupting Hillarly all night, fighting with the moderator, and having a complete melt down over the final half hour like a marathober hitting the wall, Donald Trumps performance was completely underwhelming.
3. What was the defining moment - what does it mean for the campaigns moving forward?
The defining moment for me is when Donald Trump said thst he had a better temperment than Hillary Clinton and the audience laughed. Seldom have we seen a candidate for president look and sound so erratic at a debate.
I just don't trust her with all the rhetoric no action for 30 years.
3. What was the defining moment - what does it mean for the campaigns moving forward?
You release your taxes when you release your 33,000 emails.
The biggest issue s the trust factor. I don't trust her but do trust Trump.
As for jobs, when she was senator she didn't too good in New York.
Trump was on the defensive more than Clinton (hardly anything on Clinton's email).
3. What was the defining moment - what does it mean for the campaigns moving forward?
The turning point was the discussion on race. Trump's defense on birther issue was weak, and claiming he settled a racial discrimination suit with no admission of guilt is hardly proclaiming innocence.
