Sunday, March 4, 2012

Not Actually "Debunking" State Department photos?

So Sharmine Narwani thinks she can just lambast the State Department and all Western journalists and the thousands of deaths in Syria with intellectual dishonesty and subterfuge.  Well I will not allow her too.  She discusses a potential mistake by CNN as if it were damning but as all secretly pro-regime liars do relies on the fact that aid and journalism agencies are banned from reporting the truth or having a presence in Syria.  She takes full advantage of the subterfuge created by the regime to point out how "unverified" everything is.

On the other hand she makes a very clear and hypocritical mistake and shows the extent to which her bias and intellectual dishonesty when she sites the "Moon of Alabama" site as if it were true.  While she lacks the journalistic integrity to scrutinize he "work" let alone the ability, I have managed to do so myself.  Here is what I came up with:

1. First I have to ask how the "author" knows SO much about where and what is a military base in Syria unless he is part of the paid Shabiha paid to make up revolution facts...
2. While the Author points out the distances required between equipment in military manuals... he neglects to point out a variety of points to include a reference to such a manual. To assume Assad's goons actually follow rules in manuals is the first mistake. One assumes that the Syrian Army is a professional organization carefully implementing safety rules, but anyone who has ever served in or with a military in the Arab world knows better than this. Of course as it is easy to see here the artillery being used to pound Homs or Baba Amru is in fact sitting in the middle of an area seeming to have craters. An Army concerned with the safety of its Soldiers and equipment would not operate in such an area without cleaning it up first.

2. He is right that "There are many dug out U-type emplacements that shield from the front and the sides and allow to pull out to the back." This is absolutely correct, except for none of them are being used for that purpose here, but rather they are being set up facing directly at Baba Amro to the point where straight line distances are quite obvious, a point neglected by the author for obvious reasons it is very damning.

3. We must ask therefore, why "training" has all the artillery facing a residential area that is well within range of the equipment? Obviously not to fire live rounds for "training purposes"

4. "They point into various directions." The Author is correct: the training dugouts are indeed pointing in various direction in fact in a formation likely useful for training for conventional warfare. As a major road in fact this site is probably seen as a major holding point were any conventional war to occur, except... the author dishonestly points to the direction of the dugouts and not the artillery pieces that are clearly pointed at the city. The dugouts point to large fields: ideal places to fire at. Again the artillery face the city.

5. "There are also blast holes in the ground likely from the earlier use of training ammunition in the area." This proves the lack of concern of authorities for everyone with knowledge in this area knows that unexploded ordinance is a huge risk in using former bombardment sites. Later uses in the page about "manual safety" neglect to point out that the regime is already not adhering to safety standards.
6. "The guns shown are out in the open, not camouflaged" the author makes this point as if it matters. What he forgets or NEGLECTS to mention is the fact that camouflage of positions in such a case are for hiding positions in conventional warfare. That they feel no need to do so to fire on the innocent civilians of Homs who have no air support or ability to use artillery in return speaks volumes.

7. "and with no ammunition stacks or the like visible nearby." We can actually see several trucks that could easily deliver ammunition, we also see near many of the guns small structures that could easily in fact be the very ammunition stacks that this "piece" claims aren't there.

8. His point about the site of the bombardments speaks volumes. This individual assumes that these pieces could not be fired at Homs simply because it is already military ground, and claims a barracks is nearby. That doesn't prove anything... ooops.

9. "So while the State Department says these picture are showing guns "operationally deployed" It is clear that they are in fact "deployed" in such a function despite the authors feigned cry of foul.

10. The rest is at best speculation from an individual who claims the State department chose regular images of a "known military training area" but I have shown this to be false.

11. The Author claims to be a former tank officer: for which army is my question, and what does the set up of tanks have to do with knowledge of detailed knowledge of efficient deployed artillery which relies on very different range, positions, maneuverability, etc. so much for his "expert" opinion.
What a bunch of obscene pro-regime propaganda. Viva la revolution!

The popular revolution in Syria still continues even while the pro-regime defamers of the revolution push hard against it with both propaganda and lies. The brave members of the free Syrian Army and Baba Amro have pushed back hard against it, and showed brave resistance in the face of massacres and adversity.

People like Narwani who use subterfuge and spout pro-regime propaganda and secretly wish for Syrians to die or be silent, while they deny the facts on the ground as verified by a number of dead and injured journalists  who actually bravely report and speak the truth.

1 comment: