Hi Mox & Geoff,

Isn't paranoia fun You make some quite ridiculous assertions and we are supposed to believe them. For once, the Yanks are caught in a multi-sided battle, not of their own making, and y the look of it, not of their own sorting out either.

The US backing ISIS ? We'll see. RT ? You're aware that it's owned by Putin ? Also, partly, the now-defunct Independent.

As for Syria, there are a lot of dogs in this fight. I'd be more worried about a war between Russia and Turkey. I fear, in that case, for the future of the Kurds, the only major force fighting ISIS.

And who are the main backers of the Kurds ? I do believe it's the Yanks. How does Roberts fit that into his schema ?

Joe

To Loudmouth particularly: Is not surprising that those whose opinions of the current Syrian situation have been based just on news emanating from Western mainstream media tend to have "cognitive dissonance" when confronted with alternate news and views indicating they have been misled. For a start, I recall seeing several different stories of Yanks and Poms being caught out supplying arms, etc to terrorists they have been pretending to fight in Iraq and Syria.. Also, note it seems amongst the strongest and best informed critics of western policies and actions on alternate and Russian and Iranian Internet news sites are or were from Western countries. Nowadays mainstream news organisations should be be more conscious than ever trying to avoid circulating obvious lies. Otherwise they lose audience - and revenue especially if soliciting paid advertising. Seems the New York Times, which once was a reputable paper has this problem. Offering very cheap introductory subscriptions to online edition. A significant proportion of reader comments to one ad I saw were uncomplimentary. eg "Award winning lies by award winning liars." was apparently particularly applicable to NYT coverage of recent events in and views of Syria.