28974: White (reply) Re: 28941: Sontaine (comment) 28935: White (question) Re: 28932: (news?) Chamberlain (fwd)

[Bob Corbett <corbetre@webster.edu>]

From: Randall White <raw@haitiaction.org>

Georges,

Here, let me help you out and replace the references that were "unintentionally" removed from the subject line.

There's a temptation here to devolve into the pedantic mode, but to do so would be to forget that the regulars here consistently employ the "fallacy of transubstantiation" as a rationale.

Thank you for replaying a couple classics from the pre-coup disinformation campaign. Which is a good example of another type of "destabilization."

In  28941:  Sontaine (comment) - "The below articles I have collected (in chronological order) from many journalists will help enlighten him?"

The one thing I might quibble about there is the operative "many," it appears that most of the articles come from the same source. Or am I being too subtle, once again?

So let me be a bit pedantic in pointing out that I was referring to the current trend in Reuters intentional disinformation:

28932:  (news)  Chamberlain
The gangs in Cite Soleil, which is home to thousands of Aristide
supporters, were mostly responsible for violence aimed at destabilizing the
U.S.-backed interim government installed after Aristide was ousted from
power on Feb. 29, 2004.

28955:  (news) Chamberlain:
The gangs in Cite Soleil, which is home to thousands of supporters of
former President Jean-Bertrand Aristide, were mostly responsible for
violence aimed at destabilizing the U.S.-backed interim government
installed after Aristide was ousted from power in February 2004.

To "clarify" what could have been clear (to most) was that the Reuters wags are implying that the motive of the armed resistance in Cité Soliel was to "destabilize" the U.S.-installed coup government. I thought I had made it clear that their top priority then - as it is now - was the survival of their neighborhood:

"As far as I can tell those who might have been "pro-Lavalas" militants stayed in their own neighborhoods as a defensive resistance to an overwhelmingly-armed occupation force which included the U.S.-backed coup government's police." [should have included MINUSTAH and US Marines in that sentence]

What Reuters' - or their handlers' - tactic here is unclear. What is clear is that it's the lie that is being fed into the bandwidth consistently.

Not that I would have taken offense if resistance movements decided that they needed to destabilize Latortue by direct action that - might have - employed the use of arms outside of their neighborhoods. As far as I can tell, it didn't happen. Therefore the charge, that they keep arms to destabilize any government, is intentional disinformation.

It was - most likely - clear (to most) that my questions about "armed gangs" were in reference to the period of time "after March 2004 to the present." I didn't specify that time frame as I wanted to see what shook out:

"When did armed gangs from Cite Soliel ever march around the capital - let alone unchallenged?

When did armed gangs from Cite Soliel attack unarmed citizens or commit massacres?

When did armed gangs from Cite Soliel attack power stations, dams, water  supplies, radio stations, journalists, priests, missionaries, doctors or hospitals?"

Even though exactly none of your examples directly address any one of the questions - or the intended topic - they do serve a purpose. With all the time you spent researching this topic (for which I'm grateful) you were unable to provide one instance that the alleged incident took place after March 2004. If it happened, I'm sure you would have included it (along with overblown analysis).

To point out the obvious (to most), we have too many documented examples of anti-Lavalas atrocities that put those questions into perspective.

The questions still stand, but it's possible that I might admit to being subtle and point out that there is an intended time frame.

RAW