Preparing to bomb Syria

Quite imply I do not believe the US, UK and French government’s assertion that the Syrian government has used chemical weapons against rebels “multiple times in small quantities”. Why on earth would they do that? The claim that “up to 150 people have died” spread over a number of incidents makes no sense at all. In a civil was when tens of thousands of people have died, where all sides of been guilty of massacres of scores at a time, I cannot conceive of any motive for killing a dozen or so at any one time with the odd chemical shell. It makes no military sense – chemical weapons are designed for use against population centres and masses armies. They are not precision weapons for deployment against small groups.

Why on earth would the Assad regime use a tiny amount of chemical weapons against tiny groups of rebels, knowing the West would use it as an excuse to start bombing? It makes no sense whatsoever. Cui bono?

The Russians have described the evidence as fabricated, and on this one I am with the Russians.

It is of course no coincidence that this humanitarian motive to start bombing Syria arises just as the tide of war turned against the rebels, and the government forces are about to move on Aleppo. I suspect now we will see massive NATO force intervention, with huge air to ground destruction of the government forces all over the country to “defend” Aleppo, just as we saw hundreds of thousands killed and whole cities destroyed in Libya to “defend” Benghazi. Whose people showed their gratitude by murdering the US Ambassador.

It is a further fascinating coincidence that this coordinated western switch of policy happens immediately after the Bilderberg conference. An analysis of which of the corporate interests there stand to gain in Syria might be a fascinating exercise.

There were two main reasons the tide of war turned against the rebels. Firstly, Hizbollah’s decision to enter the war on a large scale was provoked by the Israeli Air Force’s massive attack around Damascus, a fact the mainstream media has managed to hide completely. Secondly, at Turkish urging, the rebel forces had diverted much of their energies to attacking the Syrian kurds. This opens the interesting question of what the American client Kurds of Iraq will make of their patron sponsoring the massacre of their brethren in Syria.

Finally, chemical weapons are a terrible thing and their use should be condemned unreservedly. But where was all this Western outrage and activity when the Israelis were pouring down white phosphorous and kicking and maiming thousands of women and children in Gaza?

http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/

The general public ought not to be surprised at the double-standards and duplicity of corporate media given it's role as a conduit for Western power.

The state-media propaganda campaign was rudely interrupted on May 6 by former Swiss attorney-general Carla Del Ponte, speaking for the United Nations independent commission of inquiry on Syria. Del Ponte said, 'there are strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof of the use of sarin gas, from the way the victims were treated. This was use on the part of the opposition, the rebels, not by the government authorities'.

She added:

'We have no, no indication at all that the Syrian government have used chemical weapons.'

Lexis finds 15 national UK newspaper articles mentioning Del Ponte's claims since May 6. There has been one mention since the initial coverage (May 6- on May 11, more than one month ago. In other words, this is a good example of the way an unwelcome event is covered by the media but not retained as an integral part of the story.

On May 30, local Turkish media and RT News also reported that Syrian 'rebels' had been caught in a sarin gas bomb plot:

'Turkish security forces found a 2kg cylinder with sarin gas after searching the homes of Syrian militants from the Al-Qaeda linked Al-Nusra Front who were previously detained, Turkish media reports. The gas was reportedly going to be used in a bomb.'

This was another badly 'off-message' story that was again given minimal coverage, not pursued and instantly buried. Lexis records no UK newspaper mentions.

Last week, yet more unsubstantiated claims of possible Syrian government use of sarin generated a front page BBC report with the remarkable headline:

'World "must act" Over Syria Weapons'

And yet a BBC article indicated the lack of certainty:

'There is no doubt Syria's government has used sarin during the country's crisis, says France's foreign minister... But he did not specify where or when the agent had been deployed; the White House has said more proof was needed.'

A UK government statement observed merely: 'There is a growing body of limited but persuasive information showing that the regime used - and continues to use - chemical weapons.'

Readers will recall that intelligence indicating the existence of Iraqi WMD was also said to have been 'limited but persuasive'.

As Peter Hitchens notes in the Daily Mail, UK government policy is being 'disgracefully egged on by a BBC that has lost all sense of impartiality'.

The Guardian quoted 'a senior British official':

'Are we confident in our means of collection, and are we confident that it points to the regime's use of sarin? Yes.'

Is the case closed, then? The official added: 'Can we prove it with 100% certainty? Probably not.'

The Guardian also quoted 'A senior UK official' who said it 'appeared possible that Syrian army commanders had been given the green light by the regime to use sarin in small quantities'. 'Possible', maybe, but the Guardian failed to explain why anyone would trust 'a senior UK official' to comment honestly on Syria, or why anyone would trust an anonymous UK official after Iraq.

 

Yeah Trout. You can bet they are up to something. Now Syria is using chemical weapons, and Al Qaeda linked fighters are heroes. They are cooking up something, and it won't be good.

 

Ten minutes ago I witnessed one of the crudest pieces of pro-Western/anti-Assad propaganda on the BBC News 24 Channel that I have yet seen. It was utterly disgraceful, and made a mockery of their Charter. They are really ramping the up the bullcrap now that Assad is gaining the upper hand.

 

To remind readers, under the terms of its Royal Charter, the BBC is meant to be committed to impartiality in its broadcasting.

One of the BBCs key flagship programmes is its daily news and current affairs strands, the Today programme. In April of this year, a guy named Tony Hall was appointed as Director General of the BBC. Amongst his key appointments was to promote Today editor Ceri Thomas to the post of BBC head of programming. In his last full year as editor of Today, Thomas presided over a program that interviewed a senior Israeli politician or ambassador on average once every two months. Interviewees included Danny Ayalon, then Israel’s deputy foreign minister, and Tzipi Livni, an architect of the 2008-‘09 Gaza massacre. During the same period, not a single Palestinian leader or spokesperson was accorded a similar honor. There was no serious recognition, under Thomas’ reign at Today, of the Palestinian viewpoint.

Every single interview focused on a BBC obsession, the “threat” to Israel from its Arab neighbours and Iran. There was no grilling of any interviewee on Israel’s occupation of Palestinian land, its violence against Palestinian civilians, or its arsenal of nuclear weapons which threaten the whole of the Middle East.

The BBC's clear pro-Israel editorial decision overseen by Thomas on the Today programme is far from an isolated case. Since the new director-general took up his post at the BBC in April, Hall within two weeks, had installed a line-up of hardline Zionists at the top of the world’s largest publicly-funded news organization.

Tony Hall is clearly well-versed in the BBC’s values — he knows what the BBC wants.

Almost immedietely Hall named James Harding as the BBC’s new director of news and current affairs. Until December, Harding was editor of The Times, an avowedly right-wing, pro-Israeli paper owned by Rupert Murdoch’s News International group.

In 2011, Harding spoke at a media event organized by The Jewish Chronicle, telling his audience: “I am pro-Israel. I believe in the State of Israel. I would have had a real problem if I had been coming to a paper [The Times] with a history of being anti-Israel. And, of course, Rupert Murdoch is pro-Israel.”

The strongly Zionist Jewish Chronicle reprinted those words with glee as news of Harding’s BBC appointment broke. And it also took the opportunity to remind its readers that, during the Israeli massacre in Gaza in late 2008 and early 2009, when more than 1,400 Palestinians were slaughtered, Harding wrote a Times editorial titled, “In defense of Israel” (“Signs of The Times at JCC,” 14 April 2011).

Now bringing his pro-Israel biases into the top ranks of the BBC, Harding will be in charge of its flagship news and current affairs programs including Today, Newsnight, Panorama and Question Time. He will also be responsible for daily news bulletins on the BBC’s main television channels and radio stations.

According to the Guardian, Harding now holds “arguably the most important editorial job in Britain” (“James Harding: ex-Times editor could become the story at the BBC,” 16 April 2013).

The news of his appointment to the £340,000 ($518,000) per year post comes just a fortnight after the former Labour Party minister James Purnell took up his new position at the BBC as director of strategy and digital.

Purnell, who was one of Hall’s first appointments, served for two years while in Parliament as chairman of the Westminster lobby group Labour Friends of Israel. Hugely influential, Labour Friends of Israel has drawn support from senior figures within the party, including the former prime ministers Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.

Unsurprisingly, Purnell subscribes to the Zionist view, often taken in BBC news reporting, that Israel can do no wrong. Rather than as an aggressive occupier, Purnell portrays Israel as a victim of hostile, terrorist Arab neighbours. In a letter to Prospect magazine in 2004, Purnell wrote of the comparison made by campaigners between Israel and apartheid-era South Africa, saying: “I find it hard to reconcile that image to the reality on the ground. Israel is a democracy, suffering terrorist attacks, surrounded by countries that don’t recognize its existence, the victim of well-funded terrorist organizations that preach anti-Semitic hate” (“Judt on anti-Semitism,” 13 December 2004).

http://electronicintifada.net/content/apologists-israel-take-top-posts-bbc/12395

 

Here we go into another proxy war; this time the USA versus Russia. This will not end well.
Meanwhile, back in Iraq, over 170,000 people have been killed since Bush's 'mission accomplished' swagger. Syria will be worse.

 

We are, as was the case in the build up to the illegal military assault and subsequent occupation of Iraq, being fed yet again a stream of media lies, distortions and half-truths. You are absolutely right, we are walking hypnotized and blindfolded into another humanitarian disaster with the usual lies being used as justification. Next step: No Fly Zones. Ultimate goal: Iran... It's an apauling state of affairs it really is.

 

I think it hilarious that so many idiots don't even know what Bush meant in that speech on that aircraft carrier. They can only recall two words. The stupidity of people with BDS is rather amusing.

So snakestretcher, can you tell us what mission Bush was congratulating those sailors for completing? Or are you just another MSNBCbot?

 

You have to wonder if the recent army recruitment drive on UK tv is coincidental. Somehow I doubt it...

- - - Updated - - -

The stupidity was going to war in the first place-an American speciality. It achieved nothing but death.

 

Reasonable and rational Americans think that the death of people like Saddam Hussein and the thousands of hardcore Al Qaeda members in Iraq is a good thing. Idiots think otherwise.

 

They were a tiny minority, and dwarfed by the number of civilians killed by allied bombs. Iraqis continue to die-170,000 more since the idiot Bush decided he needed to impress daddy.
Everywhere America sticks its snout people die. Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos are great examples with hundreds each year still dying from unexploded munitions, and the genetic effects of chemical sprays. And America whines about Iran and the screw-up in 1953 from which America is now reaping the results. You could cut the irony with a knife.

 

Over a million Iraqi deaths and nearly 5,000 US troops in coffins are an indication of where the real idiocy lies.

 

Whatever dude, why are you parroting Al Qaeda's disinformation practically word for word. Are you an Al Qaeda member?

 

Since when has the John Hopkins University, Baltimore, been Al Qaeda? Strange.

 

Syrian refugee families where I live just opened in last 2 weeks a shawerma shop and last night an ice cream shop ( all ice creams were free last night at the opening).
Families have pulled together to open these businesses and another unit is being renovated to start another.
They are getting huge business and I am glad of that.
They have no intention of returning to their country for a very long time if ever, now that their country is now overrun with Saudi horse statue destroying Hannibal Lecter rebels.



God help them all.

 

Empire of Goodness on killing spree. Who could possibly imagine that happening. [/sarcasm]

 

Why do you say Syria will be worse?

 

True or not, the use of chemical weapons in Syria doesn't make our involvement justified or even practical.

 

I thought that Iraq was in violation of ceasefire terms. Had no idea the Congress and the UNSC voted to authorize action to take whatever means necessary to achieve compliance was centered around them wanting to impress an ex president.

Please supply some proof of this thanks.

They were dying at a greater rate in Iraq prior to the US conducting regime change.

 

The dumbest thing about deposing Saddam was that it gave Iran much, much more power than before.

Saddam may have been our enemy, but he was a useful counterbalance to Iran's power.

 

I've noticed a dramatic increase in these tv recruitment drives recently. In parallel, I expect that there will be a dramatic rise in army careers advisors' attending schools with the aim of persuading more working class kids to risk their lives as fodder for a bunch of thieves. Shares in BAE Systems will rise and the whole dirty business of the industrial-military complex will continue.

 

For those who think the BBC is partial and spins things...you're right! As an example, there was an incident about a week ago in which a boat full of migrants was turned back by the Greek coast guard. The Turkish navy suddenly appeared and tried to force Greece to take them in. This happened in Greek waters and was quite a serious incident, so what did the BBC say about it?

Their article condemned the Greeks for not accepting Syrian refugees who were trying to escape the fighting in worn torn Syria, when only three migrants were from Syria. No mention was made as to why these migrants wanted to leave Turkey, and why Turkey had shipped in more than one million of them in the past years. No mention was made either about the EU laws that prohibits Greece from shipping them into other EU countries, and why isn't Britain willing to take them in since Greece can't afford to feed them? Then the article went on condemning Greece for building a wall to keep them out....

It makes one wonder who is paying them, the Queen or the Turks?

 

Simply because the conflict has a real likelihood of spreading beyond Syria's borders-not that borders appear to have much significance in the region right now. I don't even want to think what might happen if America sends troops in. Russia would not be impressed...

 

How about producing some - evidence preferable from any ]-respectable/[] reliable source to support your story ?

....

 

The BBC is blackmailed by the Gov, Thatcher again!

 

I read that there are tens of thousands of volunteers from Russia and Ukraine willing to go and fight to keep Nato and Turkey out of Syria. I gather from that, it's Turkey they hate. This is probably why the U.S. has declared the no fly zone next to Jordan and not Turkey. Also I read that it has now become a war between the Shias and Sunnis, and that Saudi Arabia and Kuwait have kicked out the Lebanese business men. Maybe we're being forced into this by Saudi Arabia? Of course it's freaking Israel out that Hezbollah has gained a foot hold in Syria, so I'm sure that's pushing us as well.

I don't think Nato will bomb any major facility if the Russians are there. I'm sure they are talking to one another... and to Nentanyahu as well.