CRITICAL QUESTIONS on Ex-CIA Giraldi [A Case Study]
We know that the US/NATO have bombed for ISIS and today clearly protect ISIS in Syria (links below). And we have John Kerry's leak from 2016, that the Obama Administration had a clear policy of wanting ISIS to grow in Syria to remove Pres. Assad from power.
So, why does the alleged well informed Ex-CIA Giraldi in an interview on Russia Today [in 2015] say that ISIS is the enemy in Syria, which the US should go after? Why, when that is exactly, what the US propaganda wants the world to believe? In the interview, Giraldi also explicitly echoes Obama's words on the need to 'contain' ISIS. And he - as is a great habit from US analysts - excuses US policy as a matter of 'poor planning'. Yes sure ... Not.
If Giraldi wanted to tell the most important truth, so that people should be able to get the correct picture of US 'foreign policy', he would say that the Mujahedins, Al Qeada and now Al Nusra, ISIS etc. were always very well planned and funded US foreign policy tools. He doesn't.
He is also completely silent about the fact that the US interference and presence in Syria is illegal under international law. Actually on a Nuremberg level. Finally, Giraldi explains the situation in Syria as being 'very complex' thereby effectively discouraging people from thinking that they can (easy) understand, what is happening.
The General Point
The simple truth is that the US (UK etc.) deliberately use terror groups by design, that they support, fund, train, arm, protect and even bomb for Al Nusra and ISIS etc. And that they spend hundreds of millions of dollars on CIA paid and controlled journalists and PR companies to cover up reality with lies, propaganda and fabrications. Such as the White Helmets etc.
The fact is that his commentary supports the propaganda frame instead of explaining reality. He does not provide the most necessary cognitive tools to break and escape the official 'foreign policy' propaganda. In short, Giraldi leaves people with the understanding that the US makes mistakes but is fighting terrorism. Just like the US officals always do.
It is not of much practical importance, whether Giraldi is being polite or diplomatic or if he deliberately provides a kind of controlled 'critical information' as an advanced form of CIA propaganda, a so-called 'controlled opposition'. This analysis is not an ad hominum critique of the person Philip Giraldi. His person is not interesting from a sociological point of view.
The analysis is a case study of a general tendency of critical commentators not really telling the critical truth and therefore silently supporting the Big lie of US as a law-abiding legitimate player in world politics.
All such 'critical' commentators might as well talk about the weather in Sweden, if they are not going to explain the elephant in the room anyway: that the US 'foreign policy' is using terrorism by design - on a big scale.
A few links to back up the critique
Prof. F. Boyle: 'A Baseless Justification for War in Syria', June 2017_LINK
NB. This began as a fb post that I saw did not do so well on Facebook. So, I thought I would try to disguise it a bit. Below is a little edited copy of the post. (Lars Jørgensen har delt HomoSociologicus' opslag — sammen med Luciana Bohne og 48 andre. 19 min. - I have shared this post several times, now. Tagging fifty people in it. But it not on my wall.. So I try again.).