Let us be clear that the Syrian regime, its Muslim Brotherhood-led opposition (not the whole opposition), and the Western media which are willing to print and publish and post anything about Syria provided its damaging to the regime and as long as it is consistent with NATO goals in the Middle East. I mean, not a word is printed about Palestinian struggle against Israel without having to interview every witness by a team of psychiatrists and journalists before Western media accept their verdict. On Syria (somebody has to write an article about the unprofessional standards of Western (and Aljazeera, to be sure) media in covering Syria for the Columbia Journalism Review), the press has been reckless, casual, unprofessional, and thoroughly unreliable. Any image on Youtube would do the job. In fact, in the last issue of Time Magazine there is an article saying that all those who demonstrated in favor of Bashshar in Syria have been paid by the regime. It has gotten to that point of pure propaganda. This quality of Western coverage has only facilitated the propaganda of the Syrian regime because now it has come to dismiss the Western coverage of brutal repression by the regime. A Syrian emailed me today saying that many in Syria are now more likely to disbelieve Western (and Aljazeera) coverage than the coverage of the lying Syrian regime. So the article of the Sunday Times last Sunday: why was this not mentioned in other media? Only one person was able to verify the obvious? That there are indeed armed protesters in Syria? Or is there a conspiracy of silence in order to facilitate the Western agenda in the region?