Fil

Asad’s emails : a hoax
http://angryarab.blogspot.com/2012/03/asads-emails-hoax.html

I have read Asad’s emails in the Guardian. My judgment? The Guardian is a victim of a hoax hatched by the propaganda machine of the Syrian National Council. It is so lacking in credibility. It took me minutes to reach my conclusion. Al-‘Alam TV guy is giving advice to Asad directly to his email? Let me guess: tomorrow the Guardian will show that the car salesman who was hired by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in DC through a Mexican drug cartel also contacted Asad and provided him with advice. And the notion that Asma’ Al-Asad, knowing that eyes are all on her, resorts to order goods through the internet is not believable. My suggestion? Syrian National Council should work harder on their propaganda output and the Guardian and Western media should at least have a little bit of skepticism when they receive propaganda materials from thus Syrian opposition.

PS The paper admits that they were obtained from Syrian National Council.

PPS This is a joke:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/mar/14/gilded-lifestyle-assad-coterie-conflict
Did not anyone at the Guardian raise alarms at such absurd fabrications? Let me guess:the Guardian will publish tomorrow an email from Bashshar to his wife in which he refers to himself as Hitler and a donkey and Shabbih. It is a matter of days.

Les arguments du Guardian :
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/mar/14/how-know-assad-emails-genuine

je trouve un peu bizarre que les époux correspondent par mails : dans une relation intime le téléphone et les messageries instantanées me semblent plus logiques et plus spontanées

Angry Arab: The Guardian responds to my reaction to the email hoax
http://angryarab.blogspot.com/2012/03/guardian-responds-to-my-reaction-to.html

“Update: A reference to the Angry Arab News service as ‘pro Assad’ has been deleted as this is not true. Apologies.” But that the Guardian, a newspaper that I often praise, would fall into this lousy error is not surprising: such is the climate in Western countries these days, including in progressive media. Anyone questioning the lousy standards of media coverage of Syria is automatically accused of being ‘pro-Asad regime’.

Après ses bourdes sur #wikileaks le Guardian n’avait pas besoin de ça… intéressant à suivre… #popcorn

parmi les achats présumés de madame :)
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2012/3/12/1331569310254/Christian-Louboutin-Aster-009.jpg
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/gallery/2012/mar/14/bashar-asma-assad-shopping-pictures#/?picture=387235891&index=7
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2012/3/12/1331569816742/Fondue-set-010.jpg

The Guardian n’a pas peur du ridicule

How the Guardian authenticated the emails of Asad
http://angryarab.blogspot.com/2012/03/how-guardian-authenticated-emails-of.html

“The Guardian also consulted Abdul Halim Khaddam”. Is this not laughable? They contacted a a guy who split with the regime more than six years ago to provide authentication? Why not contact Netanyahu and ask him if the emails are genuine? And did you notice in the explanation of verification they paper was basically able to reach people who contacted Bashshar’s father-in-law but not people who communicated with Asad himself? Wait. Did the Guardian hire the editor from the New York Times who authenticated Judith Miller’s dispatches about Iraqi WMDs?