Sunday night, “unnamed sources” reported to The Wall Street Journal that President Bashar al-Assad approved the use of chlorine gas attacks against anti-government forces holed up in Idlib Province in Syria. Naturally, the Journal reported this, and Fox News picked it up, and the narrative in the US media became “Assad is going to use poison gas on his own people, so the US must strike now to prevent this.” At The Duran we, too, have noted this with our own viewpoint of great concern over the situation.
But taken in context, this says something very powerful is taking place in establishment America. After all, President Trump gave Assad a warning not to use such weapons, and after two US strikes on Syria, President Assad knows that the US leader will not hesitate to unleash horrific military power against him if he does a chemical attack.
So, why would he do it?
The answer is most likely: He wouldn’t.
But the “unnamed sources” said he would. So these “sources” who do not care to even give their name to such an absolutely important claim, one that could precipitate a massive and prolonged military conflict, pitting the United States more and more directly against the Russian forces in the region…
Is anyone paying any attention to this? This is the epitome of fake news.
Military moves by definition must be kept secret from any news media, because the job of the news media is to say everything, and of late it has become painfully obvious that loose lips do indeed sink ships. They kill soldiers too, and in this case, with the US and its coalition of partner nations involved in the Syrian conflict as uninvited guests, facing up to Russia, which is invited and who has been the primary aid in helping al-Assad regain and retain control over his own nation’s government… what could be the result of taking “unnamed sources” seriously?
Before assuming that this is the truth, though, a critical thinker might do well to pause and consider these points:
- “unnamed sources” are responsible for the development and continuation of Russiagate
- “unnamed sources” regularly report that President Trump is somehow ‘not fit” for the Presidency, even as he scores success after success
- the self-same “unnamed sources” never report any specifics about what it exactly is that makes Trump ‘unfit.’ The recent New York Times “op-ed” was merely a re-framing of the same old narrative that paper has been posing for the last two years.
- “unnamed sources” create controversy everywhere. Britain used a similar tactic to assign blame on Russia for the poisoning of the Skripals and another couple in Ames, England, when there is no certified information, no cooperation with Russian authorities to agree as to the cause and intent of these events. Most likely these attacks are attempts to frame Russia.
- “unnamed sources” sometimes reveal themselves by name, as did Lanny Davis, only to say that what they told the media was in fact, incorrect.
So, with these and countless other examples, why should we give any credence to a source who declines to be named?
This is an amazingly effective tactic (at least for whipping up sensationalism for some people), but at the same time it is amazingly stupid. Using the qualification of “unnamed sources” here is highly dangerous, and could create a massive war with massive consequences for many people and nations.
The good news is that there are plenty of people who have come to the point of disregarding such reports. The National Interest website (nationalinterest.org) did a good job recording the reaction – or rather, the non-reaction of middle America to the NY Times “op-ed” fabrication: There was no reaction:
My first reaction to the anonymous anti-Trump op-ed in the New York Times was perhaps unusual for a resident of the swamp, which has been so hyper this week: I chuckled, rolled my eyes, and didn’t even make it to the end of the article before losing interest.
It probably helps that I spent the week in Colorado and Utah, where seemingly no one cares. In the conversations in which I have participated or overheard, this subject has come up zero times. Muted televisions in airports and hotel lounges, which still carry CNN and its angry commentators out of habit, are blissfully ignored as life happens.
Most people outside the swamp either know what the media is up to or just don’t care anymore.
With the outcome of this latest narrative effort as yet unknown, one certainly still has a choice to act to prevent it.
It would be possible to burn up the phone lines, so to speak, and call in and ask the US President to not believe the “unnamed sources” until they name themselves publicly.
It is also an option to say nothing and hope that cooler heads prevail in Washington. But it seems that with the amazing power of the Deep State displayed through various agencies of the government and the news media outlets, it may be better not to remain silent and trust the fate of the world to people with such sinister motives.
The big question posed to people in the United States and indeed, all over the world, is “How much do we want to give our trust to people who will not identify themselves by name to back up their claims?”
The fate of the world might well rest on this.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Duran.