57 votes

Full Disclosure - Ben Swann: What The Media Isn't Telling You About Syrian Civil War - VIDEO

Posted by Ben Swann | June 28, 2013


http://youtu.be/ZLTkMYg4zbI

Guest contributor Ceylan Ozbudak continues the conversation about Syria in her BenSwann.com article:

The world is a place created to be deficient. Everything constantly needs to be protected and improved with great effort. A garden must be tended, or it becomes choked with weeds. Streets must be swept clean every day. Do you have an aquarium? Change the water, or you will lose the fish. Fences have to be mended, or they break. Relationships have to be maintained, or they die. According to the second law of thermodynamics…

Read more: http://benswann.com/what-the-media-isnt-telling-you-about-sy...



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Yep

Just like the movie...

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/12/Back_door_mov...

'live... love and kill like an animial' ;)

donvino

This is the point

Ben Swann wants to put out the information your not getting from the media so that people CAN have an educated debate. Should we stay out of it? Should we back Assad? Should we back the FSA?

Up till now from what I have seen we had a choice of backing Al-Qaeda and the rebels or the Syrian government and Hezbollah.

With this new info it may be that Washington wants to back the FSA as their new puppet so Syria goes to neither Al-Qaeda or Hezbollah. The defections to Al-Nostra may be due to the FSA's limited resources (weapons)

The unspoken question is what outcome is best for America's interests but the real question is do we have that right to choose. We certainly have the ability.

Why back anybody?

None of their domestic squabbles are any of our business!!! If we have a military base there, it should be closed and all the toys brought home to the US. If the tribes want to kill each other it's not our problem...we need to butt-out. Remember Ron's point of a "non-interventionalist" stance.

------------------
BC
Silence isn't always golden....sometimes it's yellow.

"The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." - Patrick Henry

Ben

= awesome

Bump for Ben

I'm really concerned that his kickstarter program does not seem to be on track to meet goal.
Many of us looked to Ben's Reality Check segments during the last presidential election as a bonfire of truth amidst a corrupt media landscape.

Ben's project has the potential to bring MILLIONS of people to the cause of liberty. We NEED more people to wake up if we want to see real change in our country.

Ron Paul galvanized a legion of Americans and raised a record breaking $4.2 million in 24 hours. It's time to rekindle that passion.

Ron Paul: "I'm optimistic that things are going to do well and I'm optimistic because you're (Ben Swann) involved in this fight with us."
http://www.dailypaul.com/290263/why-support-ben-swann
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/439668500/liberty-is-ris...

I support Ben Swann, but not the guest's article

I support Ben Swann. I believe in the Truth in Media project. I have donated and will continue to as I believe an "upscale delivery mechanism" of truth is needed. HOWEVER, after reading and digesting, (or at least trying to), Ceylan Ozbudak's guest article, I cannot agree with the author's conclusions. And that's alright. I don't hope to, nor do I strive to, agree with everyone's opinions on every subject--much less a topic as hot as Syria or the Middle East. While I appreciate the fairly thorough background that the author believes she has offered, by the time I had reached the end of the page, I felt I had been apologized to. I had been apologized to on behalf of Obama.

Here's a link to the guest article on BenSwann.com: http://benswann.com/us-policy-shift-in-syria-will-the-empire...

She writes:

When Obama arrived in Washington DC, a man with no military background found himself the Commander-In-Chief of two wars. To surge or not to surge, that was the question. Although he was able to extract the United States from these engagements, conflict in Libya soon awaited. Limited in his involvement, the President soon found himself in plenty of controversy surrounding events during and after this engagement. War has become the President’s Gordian Knot. And the conflict in Syria has now become its latest twist. No sooner is he able to leave one conflict, he becomes ensnared in yet another. Oh what a tangled web he weaves.

...Even Secretary Kerry has grown frustrated, arguing vigorously in a high-level situation room meeting this past Wednesday for air strikes directly against Syrian regime military targets. It’s not a stretch to imagine, with so much pressure building up on the President Obama from so many places, he feels not like the captain of his own ship on this issue, but rather more like someone about to be asked to walk the plank.

It is clear President Obama has been trying to exercise prudence in this matter. He stands in considerable contrast to his predecessor, George W. Bush, who rarely found a war he did not wish to join, if not begin. President Obama’s preferred pace of action is similar to the way an elderly person drives in the slow lane on the expressway. President Bush was a man who would speed down the highway going 150km/h before looking back and realizing he forgot his car.

Poor fellow, he's being forced into doing things he really doesn't want to do. I just don't buy it. His foreign policy has been a bloody one--not that much different from his predecessor. I believe the only reason he has hesitated in being fully engaged in Syria, is Russia.

The bottom line, the article supports America's intervention into this conflict--another sectarian conflict that I believe the CIA has exacerbated--intentionally. There are many more layers to be peeled back that the author hasn't revealed--or perhaps hasn't discovered--as yet.

Is President Obama willing to win this staring contest against the Russians, and make direct strikes against the regime in order to end this conflict sooner? From everything we have seen so far, it appears he is not even close to taking this decision.

If President Obama isn’t willing to commit to the kind of mission necessary to resolve the conflict in the favor of the side he has chosen to support, it’s reasonable to ask why he has chosen to soil himself in this conflict in the first place. According to a recent NBC/WSJ poll, only 15% of Americans favor military action in Syria. Only 11% favor the arming of the opposition fighters. Fortunately for President Obama, he is in his last term, so he has the luxury of going against public opinion on issues he believes to be of great importance. Even Roosevelt defied the US public opinion and went to war against Hitler. It was the right thing to do. It would seem apparent the President believes the interests of US allies in the region are best served by US intervention. But what is the goal of his actions, exactly?

But the clock is still ticking and it’s not too late. The people of the Middle East deserve their stability, their own free trade, a free travel environment like the European Union employs, but based on their warm morality, which comes from the morality of normative Islam. Therefore, if President Obama helps the people of Middle East build their own unity, he will score a tremendous amount of points with the people here. He will prove the US is not against the whole Muslim world but only against bigotry and extremism, which can flourish in any other belief system or ideology. He will make sure these countries will be able to establish their own monetary funds and won’t be dependent on Western help during their transition to democracy.

Sadly, if the author believes that America's involvement in the region is to "save those who are unable to save themselves", I believe she is terribly misguided and has accepted too much of this government's foreign policy rhetoric/propaganda.

And she concludes by declaring, "I support President Obama’s decision to make an American intervention in Syria. I simply wish it had come so much sooner."

I can think of no better rationale for intervention than to save those who are unable to save themselves, from a brutality they did not invite, from an evil they did not appoint, and from an ending they do not deserve.

I support President Obama’s decision to make an American intervention in Syria. I simply wish it had come so much sooner. Like many others, I have high hopes for the future of Syria and the way this conflict might end, but enough realism to understand this may not in fact come to pass exactly as I wish. But I believe just because we can not accomplish everything, does not mean we should not try to accomplish something. Although I would prefer for regional nations to be able to handle their own affairs and solve their own problems in a way specific to their cultures, the might and experience of America does indeed sometimes make it an indispensable nation in resolving global conflicts.

This decision did not require Alexander’s wit and creativity. It only required the American President to summon the courage of his convictions and apply it to the problems of his day. There is indeed a time to walk, but there also a time to run. As William Shedd noted, “A ship in harbor is safe, but that is not what ships are built for. The Syrian people have shown great courage and ample amounts of bold action. I look forward in the coming days to seeing if the United States and their allies in the international community can act with equal conviction and help the people of Syria find a path to the liberty they seek.

If I am misguided in my assessment of Ceylan Ozbudak's article, I would invite admonishment and added direction on the subject.

What do you think?

fireant's picture

OBarry brought the Zbigniew Brzezinski foreign policy model

into the White House, and it clearly had Syria on the list of nations to conquer. So, you are correct, and anyone whining "poor Barak" is either ignorant or a front-man apologist. I choose the latter.

Undo what Wilson did

Nail on the head.

I've heard others echo this sentiment too. Is it just establishment democrat propaganda? Poor Obama, being forced into being a warmongering tyrant. Must of had a gun to his head when he signed the NDAA on new years after he said he'd veto it. Poor Obama.

Holy cow! Why'd he even have her on his show?

"I support President Obama’s decision to make an American intervention in Syria. I simply wish it had come so much sooner."

???

Thank you for your very informative comment. Vigilance like yours is what I come to the DP for; I can't research every little thing by myself.

To clarify

She wasn't on his show (as far as I know), but has written the above mentioned article in her blog, and has been included as a "guest" article on his web site.

This article from a guest columnist does NOT detract me from supporting Ben, as I think debate is healthy. I just hope people don't begin to believe that her article in any way reflects the ideology or opinion of Ben Swann.

UPDATE: The article is actually not by Ceylan Ozbudak, but merely posted on her blog. The original author is Yayınlanmış Haziran. The original can be found here: http://www.ceylanozbudak.net/index.php/u-s-policy-shift-in-s...

Not sure I'm buying all that he is selling here...

Should a "super-state" of muslim extremists be created, isreal would be in a world of poo-poo. The Zionist lobby here in the US government would not allow that to happen.
So, what do we need to take from all this: MIND OUR OWN FRIGGIN BUSINESS...LET THEM ALL KILL EACH OTHER!!

------------------
BC
Silence isn't always golden....sometimes it's yellow.

"The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." - Patrick Henry

Do you think they

are opposed to starting another war to stop it? Perhaps that's the intensive.

Ben needs to get the sibling link between WH & ABC & NBC

To go mainstream...this will sell his product! Everyone can understand this simple unethical connection----siblings working for WH and MSM!

http://www.dailypaul.com/285252/presidents-of-abc-and-cbs-ne...

Ben Swann - Awesome

Bump and donate for journalistic integrity!

Sorry to nitpick

but the half-visible graphics annoy the heck out of me. I want clarity and clear-cut points, not gimmicks.

Also, who or what is Al Qaeda? Is there really a group in Iraq that stands up and says, "Hi, we are Al Qaeda, and we have this branch in Syria...."

Where did that information come from, I wonder?

...

One graphic... the Al Nusra was made to look BIGGER than the FSA graphic... although the info on Nusra was very good and clear...
the FSA, is still much larger.. in proportion of the 'Rebel' forces.

Yes.. the 'defections' to the Nusra are increasing, but no, they are not 'bigger' in number. They are the psychotic, sociopathic 'warrior' class.. fierce and trained.

►Take this for what you will...
http://investmentwatchblog.com/breaking-al-nusra-front-leade...

Who or What is Al Qaeda: How Zbigniew Brzezinski created Al-Qaed

Who or What is Al Qaeda: How Zbigniew Brzezinski created Al-Qaeda and Taliban

According to the American Heritage Dictionary, al-Qaeda means "[Arabic al-q'ida, the base : al-, the + q'ida, foundation, base, feminine participle of qa'ada, to sit.]".

But Robin Cook, a deceased British MP, wrote last year that "Al-Qaida, literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians."

The 9/11 Commission Report says the origin is: "Bin Ladin and Azzam agreed that the organization successfully created for Afghanistan should not be allowed to dissolve. They established what they called a base or foundation (al Qaeda) as a potential general headquarters for future jihad."

http://msgboard.snopes.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_to...

How Zbigniew Brzezinski created Al-Qaeda and Taliban
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nA7E6EVXl1A

Youtube Syria Search

to Ben Swann & Full Disclosure Crew:
I regularly do Youtube searches using keywords like: Syria
You didn't come up (afaik) and that's a shame.

(assuming no 'foul play' by Youtube crawlers.)
Usually...
all you have to do is include the 'word' Syria in your title
and you should come up...
but it helps to have key words in your ABOUT section as well.

Your ABOUT section is seriously lacking in this upload.
It merely has your ben swann and kickstart site links... understandably.

Would recommend you expand this section when uploading.
Cheers,
G.
btw... the below is what 'would' appear in the search... and like I say... you are no where to be found under a 'Syria' search/by most recent upload date.

http://youtu.be/ZLTkMYg4zbI

Wow compared to Reality check this is a huge upgrade

I really dig like the whole video info-graphic format to the segment. Benn Swann's Journalism is really slick I look forward to more Full Disclosure's. On the Subject of Syria this is yet just more interventionism I don't see why we have to get involved.

DON"T FORGET TO DONATE!!! BEN HAS PAYPAL NOW!!!!

DONATE FOR FREEDOM!!! YOU ALL PLEDGED 1.2 MILLION!!! SO BACK UP YOUR WORDS WITH YOUR CASH!!!! COME ON FREEDOM FIGHTERS!!!! GET GOING!!!! PAY PAL IS UP AND RUNNING ON BEN'S PAGE!!!!

Great Work Guys

Thanks for all the good links..