Wonder Woman is a hero only the military-industrial complex could create

Middle East
on 22 Comments

For a while I have been pondering whether to write a review of the newly released “Wonder Woman,” to peel back the layer of comic book fun to reveal below the film’s disturbing and not-so-covert political and militaristic messages.

There is usually a noisy crowd who deride any such review with shouts of “Lighten up! It’s only a movie!”–as though popular culture is neither popular nor culture, the soundtrack to our lives that slowly shapes our assumptions and our values, and does so at a level we rarely examine critically.

My argument is that this much-praised Gal Gadot vehicle–seemingly about a peace-loving superhero, Wonder Woman, from the DC Comics stable–is actually carefully purposed propaganda designed to force-feed aggressive western military intervention, dressed up as humanitarianism, to unsuspecting audiences.

In short, this is straight-up propaganda for the military-industrial complex. It would have looked and sounded identical had it been scripted by a joint team from the Pentagon and the Israel Defense Forces.

My reticence to review the film has lifted after reading the latest investigations of Tom Secker and Matthew Alford into the manifold ways the U.S. military and security services interfere in Hollywood, based on a release of 4,000 pages of documents under Freedom of Information requests.

In their new book “National Security Cinema,” the pair argue that the Pentagon, CIA and National Security Agency have meddled in the production of at least 800 major Hollywood movies and 1,000 TV titles. That is likely to be only the tip of the iceberg, as they concede:

“It is impossible to know exactly how widespread this military censorship of entertainment is because many files are still being withheld.”

They write that their book “details how U.S. government involvement also includes script rewrites on some of the biggest and most popular films, including James Bond, the Transformers franchise, and movies from the Marvel and DC cinematic universes.”

The need for Pentagon toys

This isn’t just about minor adjustments, but wholesale collusion between film-makers and the military: “If there are characters, action or dialogue that the DoD [Department of Defense] don’t approve of then the film-maker has to make changes to accommodate the military’s demands. If they refuse then the Pentagon packs up its toys and goes home. To obtain full cooperation the producers have to sign contracts—Production Assistance Agreements—which lock them into using a military-approved version of the script.”

The fact that script-writers, producers and directors on these mega-budget pictures know their film may never make it into production if it does not get a thumbs-up from the Pentagon inevitably influences the choice of subjects, the political and military premises of selected films, and the story lines.

One movie, “Countermeasures,” was ditched after the military objected to a script that “ included references to the Iran-Contra scandal … Similarly “Fields of Fire” and “Top Gun 2” were never made because they couldn’t obtain military support, again due to politically controversial aspects of the scripts.”

One can imagine just how stringent the conditions imposed by the Pentagon must be, if it felt compelled to reject a movie like “Top Gun 2,” the sequel to the “flyboys with toys” killing fest that starred a young Tom Cruise.

The two authors add: “The documents also record the pro-active nature of the military’s operations in Hollywood and that they are finding ways to get involved during the earliest stages of development, ‘when characters and storylines are most easily shaped to the Army’s benefit’.”

Bad apples, not bad institutions

In addition, film-makers are pressured into changing scripts that suggest institutional or systemic problems in the U.S. security agencies.

The two authors observe that producer Jerry Bruckheimer has admitted that the script of the film Enemy of the State was changed under pressure from the NSA so that the wrongdoings at the heart of the film would be the responsibility of a single individual, not the agency itself.

“This idea of using cinema to pin the blame for problems on isolated rogue agents or bad apples, thus avoiding any notion of systemic, institutional or criminal responsibility, is right out of the CIA/DOD’s playbook,” they observe.

So not only are movies critical of U.S. and western politics and militarism almost certain to be off-limits for a big-budget production, but that void is certain to be filled by film proposals the studio is confident will win approval from the Pentagon, CIA and NSA.

And this is, of course, on top of the fact that the Hollywood money-men are themselves part of a larger globalized financial elite that depends on the proceeds of the homeland security industry, arms manufacturers and war profiteers. These financiers themselves are certain to prefer funding films that support a neoliberal worldview at home and a neoconservative policy of warmongering abroad.

As Secker and Alford conclude: “In societies already eager to use our hard power overseas, the shaping of our popular culture to promote a pro-war mindset must be taken seriously.”

Gal Gadot and the IDF

All of this is the context for deciphering the egregious propaganda in favor of western military violence, and the portrayal of peace-seeking as “appeasement”, that is Wonder Woman.

There has been plenty of guffawing at Middle East countries, including Lebanon, for seeking to ban Wonder Woman because it stars Gal Gadot, an Israeli beauty queen turned actress who plays the title role.

In fact, it is understandable that the Lebanese might object to a film heavily promoting Gadot as the world’s savior, given that she served in the Israeli army, one that brutally occupied parts of their country for two decades until 2000 and continues to maintain a belligerent occupation of the Palestinians.

But there is also an undeniable irony to Gadot playing an Amazonian goddess who opposes the militarism of men, and cannot bear to see the suffering of children in war, when in real life she publicly cheered on the Israeli army’s massive bombardment in 2014 of the imprisoned population of Gaza, which led to the killing of some 500 Palestinian children there.

But more importantly, it is not just that Gadot, a former IDF soldier, is now the face of Wonder Woman; it is that the film’s superhero character too almost perfectly embodies the shared militaristic values of the IDF and the Pentagon. If there is one film whose script suggests it was jointly engineered by the Pentagon and Israeli army, it is Wonder Woman.

Hillary Clinton as Wonder Woman?

The film is set near the end of the First World War, a cataclysmic confrontation between two colonial powers, Britain and Germany, each trying to assert its dominance in Europe. The film-makers blur their focus sufficiently to gloss over the problem that there were no good guys in that “war to end all wars”. Instead in true Hollywood fashion, the First World War is presented simply as a prelude (or prequel) to the Second World War and the rise of the Nazis.

The Germans are murderous villains, while the British are the flawed–until Gadot shows them the error of their ways – defenders of humanity. In fact, the film prefers to cast the anti-German side as “Allies”, the humane members of the world community, represented by the U.S.–Chris Pine is the male lead and Gadot’s love interest–and a ragtag support group that includes a Scot, a native American, and a generic Arab, presumably symbolizing “moderate” Arab states like Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan.

The British leadership is trying to find ways to make peace and end the war, but is stymied by an evil presence. A German super-general, Erich Ludendorff (Danny Huston), believes he can win the war decisively by developing a horrifying gas that will wipe out men, women and children, forcing the British to surrender on his terms. To demonstrate his power, he tests the gas on innocent villagers on the front lines in Belgium.

All of this might sound disconcertingly familiar to anyone who has been following the western media-scripted coverage that has for several years been trying to promote more aggressive “humanitarian intervention” in Syria–and before that, and more successfully, in Libya and Iraq.

Is Ludendorff supposed to be Bashar Assad, the evil Syrian president who – as long as we discount the dissenting voices of some experts – has twice used the chemical weapon sarin against innocent civilians? 

Are the British leaders, seeking a peace deal with the Germans, supposed to be those “appeasers” in the West who have stood in the way of “intervention” in Syria, blocking no-fly zones and bombing runs that could bring down the Syrian government?

And, in an even more disturbing, if now outdated parallel, given the film’s aggressive identity politics, is Wonder Woman–the Amazonian who brings peace through overpowering military violence–a stand-in for Hillary Clinton? When the movie was in production, the filmmakers must have assumed it would be released as Clinton was enjoying her early months in office as the first female U.S. president.

The use of Wonder Woman to justify Clinton’s well-documented blood lust–the woman who laughed as “our rebels” murderously sodomized Libya’s Col Gaddafi, saying: “We came, we saw, he died” – would have proved timely had the U.S. election turned out differently.


War is Peace, Ignorance is Strength

Those who have not seen the film, and take it seriously as entertainment, may wish to skip this section, which includes a significant spoiler.

The source of man’s evil in Wonder Woman is the only surviving Greek god, Ares, who is hiding somewhere in the human world. Wonder Woman believes she can end all war and human suffering only if she can locate Ares and kill him–before he kills her.

No one in the human world, of course, believes Wonder Woman, and they foolishly dismiss her ideas as lunacy. And for a while Wonder Woman makes a terrible mistake in thinking the German Ludendorff (Saddam / Gaddafi / Assad) is Ares. It is late in the film that she discovers she has been on the wrong scent.

Humankind’s ultimate enemy is not Ludendorff, but the kindly Sir Patrick Morgan (David Thewlis), who has spent the entire film counseling for negotiations and peace with the Germans.

The ultimate evil, Wonder Woman finds, is the wolf in sheep’s clothing among us: those who preach fraternity, compassion and turning the other cheek are the ones who make possible the killing of the innocents.

Those who appear to care, those who seem to offer a route out of bloodshed and war–those who defeat the aims and threaten the profits of the military-industrial complex–are in truth nothing more than appeasers. Their efforts are certain, even intended, to lead to greater suffering.

Militarism, superior firepower, and an absolute belief in the justness of one’s cause, as Wonder Woman is reminded by her Amazonian tutors during her childhood Krav Maga combat training (Gadot was herself an Israeli army combat trainer) are the way to save mankind from the evildoers.

There is no time to delay, to stand back, to question or to negotiate. Wonder Woman is outraged by the dithering of the men around her. She wants to be at the front line as soon as possible, to kick ass.

“War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength”–and all of it is good for business, the film Wonder Woman concludes in truly Orwellian fashion.

A veneer of identity politics

Of course, this story–like all effective propaganda–is supposed to work its magic at a subconscious level, where it cannot be interrogated by our reason and our critical faculties. But even so, a few critics–themselves enthusiastic liberal interventionists–seem to have intuited the movie’s message.

Perhaps not surprisingly, a reviewer with the clearest sense of how the film panders to the pro-war sentiments and identity politics of many liberals is the film critic of the conservative Washington Free Beacon.

Sonny Bunch applauds the way the film “highlights the need for the strong to intervene on behalf of the weak and the oppressed, and treats as villains quislings who sue for a peace that will bring only more destruction.”

But he also understands how the film has been crafted to make its war-mongering more palatable to liberals. Wonder Woman, he writes, proves “you could slap an identity politics veneer on just about any neoconservative policy and progressives would lap it up. […] Liberal interventionism is back, baby!”

Drooling from liberals

And sure enough, the community of largely liberal film reviewers has mostly drooled over Wonder Woman. Despite dire acting from Gadot, preposterous dialogue and a risible screenplay, the film has racked up an astounding 92 percent approval rating from critics on the review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes.

Here is a brief selection of their assessments:

Dana Stevens, of Slate: “This is a movie about battling evil that pauses to ask what evil is and whether it’s necessary to understand its nature in order to defeat it.”

Mick LaSalle, of the San Francisco Chronicle: “What lingers […] is the feeling of hope that the movie brings, that it someday might be possible for female rationality to defeat male brutality.”

Richard Brody, of the New Yorker: Wonder Woman is “an entry in the genre of wisdom literature that shares hard-won insights and long-pondered paradoxes of the past with a sincere intimacy.”

A. O. Scott, of the New York Times: “Her sacred duty is to bring peace to the world. Accomplishing it requires a lot of killing, but that’s always the superhero paradox. […] Unlike most of her male counterparts, its heroine is not trying to exorcise inner demons or work out messiah issues. She wants to function freely in the world, to help out when needed and to be respected for her abilities. No wonder she encounters so much resistance.”

The paradoxes of power

Wonder Woman grapples with the paradoxes of military power every American interventionist and Israeli patriot understands. To save the “beautiful children”, we must sometimes hurry to intervene and kill ruthlessly, even if the other side’s children are the ones who must be sacrificed.

Wonder Woman wants to “function freely”: she must enjoy the right to go wherever her interests take her. She cannot be shackled by borders in her quest for justice. She is there to “help out” others in trouble, even if she alone gets to decide who needs help and what counts as trouble. And she needs “respect”, and is prepared to force others to accord it to her, through her superior strength if need be.

She will face “so much resistance” because others are jealous of her power and her freedoms. They are the evildoers, and they must and will be defeated.

Is it any surprise that in the Hollywood-Pentagon world of Wonder Woman, the values of a female superhero sound exactly like those of the military men who run the West’s wars?

Now roll on “Wonder Woman 2: Time to Intervene (Humanely)”.

About Jonathan Cook

Jonathan Cook won the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His latest books are “Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East” (Pluto Press) and “Disappearing Palestine: Israel’s Experiments in Human Despair” (Zed Books). His new website is jonathan-cook.net.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

22 Responses

  1. Citizen
    July 7, 2017, 4:51 pm

    Yep, good assessment of the movie. Now, do I dare send it to my beloved, feminist, “politics sucks” sister?

    • Mooser
      July 8, 2017, 12:57 pm

      “Now, do I dare send it to my beloved, feminist, “politics sucks” sister?”

      Hmmm, that’s a tough one. The last time I contested feminism with a woman, I lost the argument by a knock-out.

  2. Keith
    July 7, 2017, 5:55 pm

    JONATHAN COOK- “My argument is that this much-praised Gal Gadot vehicle–seemingly about a peace-loving superhero, Wonder Woman, from the DC Comics stable–is actually carefully purposed propaganda designed to force-feed aggressive western military intervention, dressed up as humanitarianism, to unsuspecting audiences.”

    Since this is the essence of a Mondoweiss comment I made (quoted at the end), I concur completely. Furthermore, as you point out, this Hollywood/Deep State collusion is extensive and pernicious. I personally feel that the entertainment media is the prime transmitter of our social mythology, hence, is more important than the news media insofar as it creates the mythological worldview against which the news is evaluated. And yes, it creates a good guy versus bad guy mentality where violence is normalized and systemic factors ignored. Below is my comment from June 11.

    “Wonder Woman is, perhaps, the ultimate imperial feminist. That is to say, not a feminist at all. Rather, she represents the (dare I say it?) the masculinization of feminism. The feminist as a warrior princess. Wonder Woman fits in well with our hyper militarized warfare state where violence is the primary method of combating “evil.” A real feminist would be a staunch opponent of militarism and foreign interventions, would struggle to redirect “defense” spending towards universal health care, child care, eliminating nuclear weapons, dealing with climate change, etc. In other words, transforming society away from war and militarism rather than becoming female warriors. All of these films about comic book super heroes are manifestations of a sick society. And having a Zionist Israeli as the warrior princess adds another layer of manipulation to this toxic mythology.” http://mondoweiss.net/2017/06/intersectional-feminism-palestinians/#comment-881641

  3. jd65
    July 7, 2017, 8:14 pm

    Jonathan Cook: Excellent as ever, and thank you.

    “…the manifold ways the U.S. military and security services interfere in Hollywood…”

    As Cook, and likely every one else here knows, this is nothing new. If anyone’s interested, here’s a short vid, from ’bout 5 years ago, where I edited together some of Glenn Greenwald’s comments about similar issues on Zero Dark Thirty:

  4. gamal
    July 8, 2017, 10:45 am

    it’s not antiwar then like American Sniper, how disappointing, can you imagine a sort of “Soldier Blue” movie about the Arab/American wars, maybe after the East is won… or lost.. or destroyed.

    Maybe the “The Outlaw Jihad Wali”.

    • Mooser
      July 8, 2017, 12:59 pm

      “Maybe the “The Outlaw Jihad Wali”.

      Versus the “Hole-in-the-Wailing-Wall Gang”?

  5. JLewisDickerson
    July 8, 2017, 3:52 pm

    RE: For a while I have been pondering whether to write a review of the newly released “Wonder Woman,” to peel back the layer of comic book fun to reveal below the film’s disturbing and not-so-covert political and militaristic messages.
    There is usually a noisy crowd who deride any such review with shouts of “Lighten up! It’s only a movie!”–as though popular culture is neither popular nor culture, the soundtrack to our lives that slowly shapes our assumptions and our values, and does so at a level we rarely examine critically.
    ~ Jonathan Cook

    TAKE THE CHALLENGE! SEE HOW MANY MINUTES OF THIS YOU CAN WATCH WITHOUT GOING “BARKING MAD”:
    [This assortment of TV commercials were broadcast between January and April 1977.]

    P.S. ALSO RELEVANT:
    Von Caligari zu Hitler: Das deutsche Kino im Zeitalter der Massen (2014)
    En inglés: From Caligari to Hitler: German Cinema in the Age of the Masses

    Focuses on the Weimar Republic (1918-1933) and its ‘collective spirit’ in cinema. The purpose of film as a cultural tool is examined. Based on celebrated sociologist Siegfried Kracauer’s seminal book ‘From Caligari to Hitler’ (1947).

    Internet Movie Database – http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3908344/
    NETFLIX STREAMING – https://www.netflix.com/title/80017036

    Weimar culture – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weimar_culture

  6. JLewisDickerson
    July 8, 2017, 7:10 pm

    RE: “Wonder Woman is a hero only the military-industrial complex could create”

    MY COMMENT: Notwithstanding her putative gender, I can easily see Wonder Woman attracting a sizable, largely male, mostly misogynistic Neo-Confederate (a/k/a Southern Nationalist) following. It is not at all uncommon for those types to idolise a “Pistol Packin’ Mama”!

  7. StanleyHeller
    July 9, 2017, 10:00 am

    I haven’t seen “Wonder Woman” and won’t pay a nickel to see it, but Jonathan Cook mars his piece by his conspiracy thinking about Syria, claiming that the filmmakers are probably part of the plot to bring the U.S. into open war with Assad forces. Cook has written at least two articles defending Seymour Hersh’s muddled whitewash of Assad sarin attacks and can’t resist throwing in an irrelevant remark in this piece.

    Cook writes, “western media-scripted coverage that has for several years been trying to promote more aggressive “humanitarian intervention” in Syria–and before that, and more successfully, in Libya and Iraq. Is Ludendorff supposed to be Bashar Assad, the evil Syrian president who – as long as we discount the dissenting voices of some experts – has twice used the chemical weapon sarin against innocent civilians? Are the British leaders, seeking a peace deal with the Germans, supposed to be those ‘appeasers’ in the West who have stood in the way of ‘intervention’ in Syria, blocking no-fly zones and bombing runs that could bring down the Syrian government?”

    I’d make these points about Syria.

    1) The U.S. and its Coalition has been “intervening” in Syria for a long time, bombing with abandon ISIS in Syria and civilians under its domination. I can’t recall the “anti-imperialists” condemning and demonstrating against those attacks.
    2) It’s the Syrian people not some western media “script” who have been calling for help. Once Assad began slaughtering them Syrians pleaded for no-fly zones, and weapons to shoot down Assad planes. The West is generally uninterested in their plight (and has never been interested in overthrowing the Assad regime). The West has refused to even use its radar to let them know when the helicopters and barrel bombs are coming. Nor has it tried to end the sieges which right now torment 600,000 people.
    3) At this stage in the game denial that Assad forces used poison gas is unconscionable.

    Maybe the Ludendorff of the movie was …Ludendorff. Erich Ludendorff was a real person. He was a top German general in World War I and by the end of the war the de facto ruler of Germany. After the revolution that threw out the Kaiser, Ludendorff stood with all the forces demanding fascism for Germany. He took part in the Kapp putsch and marched side by side with Adolph Hitler in the Beer Hall Putsch.

    The Germans did use chemicals and poison gas in World War I, in fact they were the first to use chlorine gas to kill. (Note that Assad has been using chlorine in various forms in between sarin atrocities) Not to deny that all the other parties in WWI joined in with mustard gas and other chemical killing.

    Leaving the odious Gadot aside there seems to be plenty to criticize in the movie especially its demonizing of Germany. Reading summaries and reviews of Wonder Woman it sounds like the political point of the movie was to conflate 1916 Germany to 1942 Germany, and pretty up the Allies. Of course, the Great War was a crime on all sides. I can’t think of another movie in recent years glorifying the British-US in World War I. It seems to me that should be the main political criticism of WW.

  8. goldmarx
    July 11, 2017, 12:55 am

    I know Louis Protect, and he does not support any imperial agenda. His sympathies are with the Free Syrian Army, which contains the only genuine pro-democracy forces in the country. The FSA is both anti-Assad and anti-ISIL.

    Unlike some others here, I actually saw Wonder Woman. It is not an unbalanced anti-German film. True, Wonder Woman initially is led to believe Ludendorff is Ares, but, in a twist, it turns out Ares is the British fellow, Sir Morgan, whom she has believed is her kindly boss. This is meant to condemn both sides in the war – that was a major political point of the movie.

    And since Gal Gadot thinks Netanyahu is her boss, perhaps she should be told that Bibi is Ares.

    • gamal
      July 11, 2017, 9:48 am

      “I know Louis Protect, and he does not support any imperial agenda”

      except like Tatchell he always does

      “His sympathies are with the Free Syrian Army, which contains the only genuine pro-democracy forces in the country. The FSA is both anti-Assad and anti-ISIL”

      Like Jamal Maarouf former handy man now a major figure in the FSA in Idlib and newly minted billionaire who wanted to continue the hopeless and pointless siege of a government air base because money poured in from the Gulf, yeah you support the revolution that has been televised and the Last Poets and Gil-Scott warned you about it, heedless.

      Louis supports the FSA like, America, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Israel, Turkey, France…rebel without a pause.

      “Unlike some others here, I actually saw Wonder Woman.”

      odd boast

      “It is not an unbalanced anti-German film”

      yeah thats great , i don’t get the rest up to “Bibi is Ares”

      but I see MoA has a great piece up about the loathsome trinity of Blumenthal, Norton, Khalek,
      Blumenthal now plagiarising those he formerly condemned, at a crucial moment we might add that fatally blunted any resistance to the USAs’ destruction of Syria and any hopes for freedom in the Arab world.

      good read below, I support everything which I also unequivocally condemn, can’t be caught out there. Proyect is a whole order of magnitude more egregious, heinous.

      http://www.moonofalabama.org/2017/07/syria-a-grayzone-of-opinionated-turncoats.html#more

    • Keith
      July 11, 2017, 11:39 am

      GOLDMARX- “I know Louis Protect….”

      Why am I not surprised? Birds of a feather, eh?

      • Mooser
        July 11, 2017, 1:22 pm

        ” “I know Louis Protect….”

        So do I, “goldmarx”. And I’ll tell you one thing, he’s no Louis Proyect.

    • echinococcus
      July 11, 2017, 7:46 pm

      Gold Marks,

      know Louis Protect, and he does not support any imperial agenda. His sympathies are with the Free Syrian Army, which contains the only genuine pro-democracy forces in the country. The FSA is both anti-Assad and anti-ISIL.

      What do you know! Now that your recommendation is upon him, Proyect will be doubly certified as a malignant Imperialist propaganda warrior. Like you, a peddler of “genuine pro-democracy forces”, which as we all know are headed by the Only Democracy in the Middle West and the World and provide salvation of the soul by bombing.

      I suppose we have to thank you for this endorsement. Louis is sure to be so happy for it.

  9. goldmarx
    July 12, 2017, 9:19 pm

    Wow, all these attacks on Louis Proyect (sorry for the prior typo) without a single shred of evidence that he is pro-imperialist.

    “Like you, a peddler of “genuine pro-democracy forces”, which as we all know are headed by the Only Democracy in the Middle West and the World and provide salvation of the soul by bombing.”

    No, “we” don’t all know that. “Pro-democracy” does not mean the US.

    • Keith
      July 13, 2017, 1:04 am

      GOLDMARX- “Wow, all these attacks on Louis Proyect (sorry for the prior typo) without a single shred of evidence that he is pro-imperialist.”

      Okay, HALF an imperialist. He opposes Republican imperialism, but supports Democrat imperialism (“humanitarian” intervention). Shred of evidence? Read his comments on Syria which read like a State Department handout. Syria is an imperial destabilization, period. Only the willfully blind or those seeking a symbiotic relationship with empire (loyal opposition) would argue otherwise.

      • goldmarx
        July 13, 2017, 9:33 pm

        Sorry, Keith, but it is the Democratic imperialists who were advocating for a no-fly zone in Syria as ‘humanitarian’ intervention. Proyect is on record as opposing a no-fly-zone.

      • Keith
        July 14, 2017, 12:57 am

        GOLDMARX- ” Proyect is on record as opposing a no-fly-zone.”

        Big deal. Does he support regime change or not? Does the US seek regime change or not? But let us let Louis speak for himself:

        “Keith, it really wants me to puke my guts out when I see people making a stink about “violent and imperial regime change in Syria” as Russian jets have bombed every last hospital in East Aleppo to rubble.” http://mondoweiss.net/2016/11/gabbards-neocons-encouragement/#comment-860906

        Really? East Aleppo compares very favorably to what the US did in Mosul. As for “bombed every last hospital in East Aleppo to rubble.”, I link to the Saker: http://thesaker.is/how-many-last-hospitals-russia-led-airstrikes-destroyed-in-aleppo/

        The bottom line, Goldmarx, is that Louis Proyect supports the imperial agenda of regime change in Syria. Period.

      • Sibiriak
        July 14, 2017, 6:31 am

        goldmarx: Proyect is on record as opposing a no-fly-zone.
        ———————-

        Proyect’s position is either utterly incoherent or disingenuous: to maintain an anti-imperialist image he claims he doesn’t support a U.S. imposed no-fly zone–but he calls for Syrian rebels to be supplied with MANPADS (surface-to-air missiles) so they can establish a no-fly zone, and he strongly supports groups like The Syria Campaign that lobby for a no-fly zone.
        ——————

        Inside the Shadowy PR Firm That’s Lobbying for Regime Change in Syria

        Max Blumenthal

        […]By partnering with local groups like the Syrian civil defense workers popularly known as the White Helmets, and through a vast network of connections in media and centers of political influence, The Syria Campaign has played a crucial role in disseminating images and stories of the horrors visited this month on eastern Aleppo. The group is able to operate within the halls of power in Washington and has the power to mobilize thousands of demonstrators into the streets. Despite its outsized role in shaping how the West sees Syria’s civil war, which is now in its sixth year and entering one of its grisliest phases, this outfit remains virtually unknown to the general public.

        The Syria Campaign presents itself as an impartial, non-political voice for ordinary Syrian citizens that is dedicated to civilian protection. “We see ourselves as a solidarity organization,” The Syria Campaign strategy director James Sadri told me. “We’re not being paid by anybody to pursue a particular line. We feel like we’ve done a really good job about finding out who the frontline activists, doctors, humanitarians are and trying to get their word out to the international community.”

        Yet behind the lofty rhetoric about solidarity and the images of heroic rescuers rushing in to save lives is an agenda that aligns closely with the forces from Riyadh to Washington clamoring for regime change. Indeed, The Syria Campaign has been pushing for a no-fly zone in Syria that would require at least “70,000 American servicemen” to enforce, according to a Pentagon assessment, along with the destruction of government infrastructure and military installations. There is no record of a no-fly zone being imposed without regime change following —which seems to be exactly what The Syria Campaign and its partners want.

        http://www.alternet.org/world/inside-shadowy-pr-firm-thats-driving-western-opinion-towards-regime-change-syria

    • echinococcus
      July 13, 2017, 11:13 am

      Gold Marks,

      The longer you continue to endorse propagandists for international crimes, the more they stand out. Continue, please.

Leave a Reply