There’s a blog entry by a diplomat, Craig Murray from the UK, who does a good job of looking between the lines and seeing the players and their agendas.
Syria is a place where it is hard to know who the real villains are. People are dying, people are starving and there is that extremist religious conservative element — all three of the major patriarchal religions are playing their political cards to get an outcome which they believe is in their best interest. Women and children be damned — drop the bombs already — seems to be the chant of the patriarchy.
Anyway check out what Craig Murray’s take is on the latest —
The problem with the Geneva Communique from the first Geneva round on Syria is that the government of Syria never subscribed to it. It was jointly chaired by the League of Arab States for Syria, whatever that may mean. Another problem is that it is, as so many diplomatic documents are, highly ambiguous. It plainly advocates a power sharing executive formed by some of the current government plus the opposition to oversee a transition to democracy. But it does not state which elements of the current government, and it does not mention which elements of the opposition, nor does it make plain if President Assad himself is eligible to be part of, or to head, the power-sharing executive, and whether he is eligible to be a candidate in future democratic elections.
Nothing is simple — especially when an oil pipeline and access to the seaports in Syria is on the line. Oh and Qatar is involved — this is the country that wants to get gas through that pipeline.
What the West are trying to achieve is what the CIA and Mossad have now achieved in Egypt; replacing the head of the Mubarak regime while keeping all its power structures in place. The West don’t really want democracy in Syria, they just want a less pro-Russian leader of the power structures.
England is also up to her armpits in dirty tricks and diplomatic back stabbing.
The mainstream news media will report the news as written by the White House etc.
How much different would the US news be if it were just the plain old state media — or US Federal media service? One way or the other it seems we are getting the corporate media point of view which is the white house point of view which is repeated by the talking heads of the corporate media.