When the US´ favorite gets 93% of the votes, the west won´t call elections a farce

Look at this BBC article about Egypts Sisis landslide (93%) win of the presidential elections:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-27614776

Though the article mentions that turnout was low and the powerful Muslim Brotherhood was banned, it does not quote a single western (almost always an american president or foreign secretary or their british-french counterparts) calling the elections a farce, or a fraud or a „parody of democracy“ as UKs William Hague already did with regards to the upcoming Syrian elections.

Imagine Assad would get 93%. Western press and politicians would tear apart the event and ridicule the Syrian regime.
Not however in Egypt where the darling of the US  (and Saudi Arabia) has won.

Watch out for the reports coming after Assads electoral victory in a couple of days:
You will read about „irregularities“ and manipulation, reported by „activists“. You will read that each and every Syrian was bullied and observed by a Mukhabarat thug or the notorious „Shabiha“ to intimidate him towards voting for Assad. Local „activists“ will report about having witnessed how the same Alawites travelled from one village to the neighbouring one to vote for Assad multiple times while Sunnis were prevented from voting (against Assad) by pro-Assad militiamen. You will read about Assad having allegedly received 100% of votes even from rebel strongholds. All these „facts“ that will rain down on you from various – of course – totally reliable sources inside Syria will be intended to prove to you that – unlike the elections in Ukraine or Egypt – the Syrian election was a „joke“, an insult to „millions of Syrians“ who hate Assad and love the rebels and and and…

 

What? Syrian refugees want to vote FOR Bashar???

After 2-3 years of constantly hearing and reading biased and polemic anti-Assad reporting and comments in the media of their host countries you could expect the broad majority of Syrian refugees to either abstain from voting or use the event to express their opposition to Assad by explicitly voting for another candidate.
Instead it seems that quite a many refuguees appeared at the voting stations to vote for Assad:

The massive turnout for the expatriate Syrian vote at the embassy above Beirut produced scenes rarely observed at any embassy or polling station in the world.

At times it turned into a rowdy support rally for the incumbent Bashar al-Assad, with none of the normal election decorum…

The strength and assertiveness of the vote may have reflected an underlying feeling among many Syrians abroad that the tide is running in the regime’s favour, and it is time to climb aboard.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-27599868

Did Bashar forget to „wipe Homs from the map“?

Back in early 2012 Nicolas Sarkozy was pressing for military intervention in Syria to prevent Bashar al Assad from massacring the people of Homs like Ghaddafi wanted to massacre the people of Benghazi. The following article is reminiscent of Sarkozys „warning“ back then:

„Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, said Sarkozy, “wants to wipe Homs from the map like Qaddafi wanted to wipe Benghazi from the map.”“
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/paul-pillar/wiping-out-6832
This was obviously quite a bizarre analogy referring to something (wiping off Benghazi) that actually never happened.

2 years after the allegedly imminent massacre of civilians or as Sarkozy said the wiping off the map of Homs, the Syrian Army drove out the rebels and retook control of the „capital of the revolution“, but interestingly two things occured of which one actually DID NOT happen despite predictions to the contrary:
1. The government forces did NOT massacre the people
2. Instead of fleeing to the „safety“ of „liberated“ rebel-held areas many of Homs´ inhabitants who had fled the city earlier started returning to Homs

Now a flashback to the original siege of Baba Amr in 2011/12:

The entire western news coverage of the siege of Homs´ Baba Amr district was deceptive and polemic serving merely the purpose of demonizing one side of the conflict.
Baseless claims were made to the effect that the Syrian Army was besieging and indiscriminately shelling entire Homs, Syrias 3rd biggest city. BBC ran a report quoting a rebel (or pro-rebel civilian) that in entire Homs only two bakeries were intact.
Taking a look at this map it becomes clear that Baba Amr is a peripheral district of Homs and putting it under siege is by far not tantamount to besieging entire Homs:
https://i0.wp.com/news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/58789000/gif/_58789122_syria_homs_624_v6.gif

 

Syria and the idiocy of western reporting and policies

Analyzing todays BBC report http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-27535380 of a deadly attack on (mainly) civilian Syrian government supporters during an election rally is quite insightful and yet another chapter in the series of shamelessly biased western reporting.

While the report almost entirely quotes two clearly anti-government and pro rebel sources, namely the „SOHR“ and „activists“, who are both supporters of the attacks perpetrators, not a single government official or pro-government civilian is allowed to speak and condemn the attacks, something that the BBC neither does directly nor indirectly (e.g. by explicitly avoiding to call the attack an act of terrorism or provide pictures).
One might contract this with reports of government shelling of rebel areas, in which cases at least one rebel or rebel sympathizer is quoted either accusing Assad of killing his own people or calling for western countries to supply (even more) weapons to the rebels. Plus, almost certainly such a report would feature a photo series showing debris, bloodied civilians, crying mothers and heroic rebels carrying the wounded.

Coming back to the BBC report, the most brazen aspect is that the BBC abuses the report to ridicule Assad and hence the victims with insulting comments about the Syrian elections: „UK Foreign Secretary William Hague called the elections a „parody of democracy“ and repeated its call for Bashar Assad to stand down.“

Shamirs brilliant sarcasm exposes the US´ policy in Ukraine

„The new Kiev regime had dropped the last pretence of democracy by expelling the Communists from the parliament. This should endear them to the US even more. Expel Communists, apply for NATO, condemn Russia, arrange a gay parade and you may do anything at all, even fry dozens of citizens alive. And so they did.“
http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/05/19/the-ukraine-in-turmoil/

It is sad but true that in fact it is that cheap and easy to make populist politics in the US and „Nato“/central Europe by simply antagonizing, polemizing and, yes, insulting Russia and Putin.
The cheapest newspapers in Germany, usually only bought by the lowest and most voyeurist elements of the society because of the naked front page girl, and at the same time many, if not most of the allegedly better upper class dailies play to the same unified, remote controlled, unsceptic tune of Putin bashing.
Nowadays, you are an intellectual human rights activist by merely stating that Putin is the „new Hitler“, no matter how faulty, misleading and free of any facts the comparison is.

Be sceptic: HRW and Amnesty International have close ties to the US government

„Human Rights Watch characterizes itself as “one of the world’s leading independent organizations dedicated to defending and protecting human rights.” However, HRW’s close ties to the U.S. government call into question its independence.“

http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/05/14/human-rights-watchs-revolving-door-to-us-government/

 

„Mistakenly considered by many as the final word on human rights worldwide, it might surprise people to know that Amnesty International is in fact one of the greatest obstacles to real human rights advocacy on Earth…Amnesty international is indeed funded and run by not only governments, but also immense corporate-financier interests, and is not only absolutely entwined with political ideology and economic interests, it is an essential tool used for perpetuating just such interests.“
http://landdestroyer.blogspot.de/2012/08/amnesty-international-is-us-state.html

„For decades, Amnesty International has been a respected name in the cause of human rights, but its recent hiring of Suzanne Nossel, a longtime U.S. “humanitarian interventionist,” has swung the organization more behind the Afghan War and the use of U.S. military force..“
http://consortiumnews.com/2012/06/18/amnestys-shilling-for-us-wars/

„n May 2012, Amnesty International participated in a campaign to sell the war in Afghanistan under the logo: „NATO: Keep the Progress Going“. Ann Wright and Coleen Rowley discuss this campaign and the appointment of Suzanne Nossel, the new head of AI-USA and the possible source of this campaign.[6] Philip Weiss discusses the reason Amnesty might have embraced this campaign, and it has all to do with the appointment of Suzanne Nossel.[7]
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Amnesty_International

„International community“ – The western world´s unendurable self-complacency

I have come to the conclusion that most western people – and by this I mean mainly central Europeans and white Americans – are self-righteous racists in the sense that they are supremacists. Few of them would claim this vocally but there are clear patterns in their words, actions and minds that testimony to this impression. The anglo-saxon „white man“ is quite a narcissist, implicitly (and at times) explicitly believing in his superiority. There is wide spread belief that the western value system is inherently „good“, that westerners live up to higher moral levels, etc.


I am sure the „ordinary“ western citizen does not and cannot see what nine out of ten non-westerners living in central Europe see and feel every day. If you read and watch western (main stream) media these days you must be disgusted by a blatant lack of standard and decency. There is pogrom like polemic daily reporting on Russia and Putin. In an almost unprecedented twist of facts and total ignorance of truth a putchist, neo-Nazi junta in Ukraine has been romanticized as pro-democracy activists, simply as the „good guys“, the „legitimate“ „authorities“. It is a joke, though a sad and scandalous one, and the coverage of western European and american media is both infantile and propagandistic.


Nothing has changed: The arrogant people of the western world enjoy constructing yet another black and white phantasy world, where – as usual – they represent humanity, freedom, civilization, progress and happiness while their adversaries summarize everything bad in this world.


It is utterly laughable to hear western politicians talking about „the international community“. Who the hell makes up this self-complacent artificial entity, when major parts of the global population (China, India, Russia, wide parts of Africa, Middle East, South Asia and South America) often are not included?