Skip to main content

Breaking News: New Intelligence Shows Institutional Bias In Syria Towards Bashar al-Assad And Brings Up Questions As To The Legitimacy Of His Election Win

Despite claims of being "free, fair, and transparent", new intelligence has come to light showing that the 2014 Syrian election which Bashar al-Assad won had many issues. One bit of information obtained by US intelligence agencies shows that his party heavily favored him in the primary so that his much less hawkish Baathist competitor would not have a chance at defeating him. New intelligence also points to collusion between the Syrian media and Bashar al-Assad. For instance, a member at the largest Syrian news network, SANA, fed him questions that were to be asked at the debate. Other news agencies as well as major Syrian corporations also had extremely close relations with al-Assad. In fact, some of al-Assad's speeches to corporations have been uncovered, where he talks of colluding with them and having to have a public position (for Syrian commoners) and a private position (which is his true position that favors those he colludes with). Needless to say, all of this information being released may have a negative impact on the way Syrians perceive him. The Assad regime is currently considering actions to hurt the United States over their part in the leaking of these documents that hurt his legitimacy. However, the United States government (which has not admitted to the release of information) says rightly that the citizens of Syria need to know the truth about their leader, and that the aggression against the United States is just an empty gesture that Assad hopes will take the minds of his citizens off of the real problem, namely the accusations against him that have been proven to be true. Oh... Hold on a second! I meant Hillary Clinton, not Bashar al-Assad! I think I got my countries and elections confused! Well, I guess we've seen what those in power care about. Rather than apologizing for their shenanigans behind the veil of secrecy up to and including their attempted (and successful with Bernie) fixing of the election and collusion with others in doing it, they are more interested in blaming the whistleblower who let the American people know the truth. This is nothing new, as Chelsea Manning, Edward Snowden, and yes, Julian Assange will easily attest to...but it is particularly astonishing that they will go so far as blaming others for rigging the election when in fact it was they who were rigging the election the whole time. They merely got found out, so you can say that the election got un-rigged.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Islamic State has beheaded at least 21 Christians in Libya.

Whenever a Muslim brings up the Crusades, I have to laugh to myself.  Christians have done horrible things, including in later crusades against Constantinople and the Cathars in particular.  However, get this.  The Islamic State militants said, "Safety for you crusaders is something you can only wish for" right before butchering Egyptian Christians. It seems that many Muslims haven't taken a single history class.  If they had, they would have known that Christians existed in Egypt for 400 years before Islam.  (Heck, they were even around to murder Hypatia, perhaps the last major ancient female philosopher.)  It was the Muslims who were the "Crusaders"...yet almost nobody will admit to this.  Muslims instigated a merciless war against Christian Egyptians until they were overcome and under Islamic domination.  They did this to people across the world, from Spain to India...massacring any who resisted.  They tried to destroy the Byzaintine Em...
Post a Comment
Read more
Sokal-style hoaxes work for religious postmodernists, but (post) modernism is the real hoax Modernism in art and architecture, and postmodernism in philosophy are, like religion, insults to human intelligence.  Unfortunately, many people fall for their hollow propaganda. The "Sokal Affair" was a hoax whereby a man called Alan Sokal submitted a postmodern-sounding article to a postmodern journal.  It turns out that the English you hear isn't just unintelligible to you, but it's unintelligible to the people at the journal as well.  But if it's unintelligible, it must be profound, right?  The journal quickly accepted it, not knowing that it was all fake B.S.  They then got embarrassed when they were told that it was pompous-sounding drivel. Religion has done the same thing.  When people can't understand something, they generally think it's much more profound than if they can understand it.  If a priest speaks Latin, wears some weird costume, and sp...
Post a Comment
Read more

In Defense of...Cecil Rhodes?!

You all know Cecil Rhodes, right?  He was a British Imperialist (living from 1853-1902) who founded the De Beers diamond mining and trading company.  Just this morning, I came upon a post comparing him to Adolf Hitler, and claiming that Cecil Rhodes killed at least 60 million Africans.  It has been shared 99 times.  Here is the post: https://plus.google.com/+TonyJefferson/posts/CZ6HW3AxDo6 Unlike many, I decided to do some research on it.  That is my nature.  I don't accept things without evidence given, and even when no evidence is provided, I search for evidence.  If after looking, no evidence is forthcoming, then I discount the claim unless compelling evidence does surface.  After my research on this topic (taking up about an hour of my day and 28 open tabs on my browser...but still an enjoyable time because this is what I like to do), I found that my initial skepticism was well justified and that this comparison is incorrect.  Adolph H...
3 comments
Read more