Views: 24652|Replies: 79

Syria: Another Western War Crime In The Making — Paul Craig Roberts   [Copy link] 中文

Rank: 6Rank: 6

Post time 2013-8-27 15:50:55 |Display all floors

The relentless march of US Global Tyranny and the cowardice of the Muslims all
over the World - that's 21st century. It's time for Muslims everywhere to
resume their assymetric warfare against the United States and the United Kingdom!

Reliability of Russia as a weapons suppliers to helpless nations is in the balance.
Now maybe a good time to wage that nuclear war with the United States?

                         ---------------------------//----------------------------

Syria: Another Western War Crime In The Making

Paul Craig Roberts
August 26, 2013

The war criminals in Washington and other Western capitals are determined to maintain their lie that the Syrian government used chemical weapons. Having failed in efforts to intimidate the UN chemical inspectors in Syria, Washington has demanded that UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon withdraw the chemical weapons inspectors before they can assess the evidence and make their report. The UN Secretary General stood up to the Washington war criminals and rejected their demand. However, as with Iraq, Washington's decision to commit aggression against Syria is not based on any facts. http://rt.com/op-edge/syria-un-war-investigation-006/

The US and UK governments have revealed none of the “conclusive evidence” they claim to have that the Syrian government used chemical weapons. Listening to their voices, observing their body language, and looking into their eyes, it is completely obvious that John Kerry and his British and German puppets are lying through their teeth. This is a far more shameful situation than the massive lies that former Secretary of State Colin Powell told the UN about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. Colin Powell claims that he was deceived by the White House and did not know that he was lying. Kerry and the British, French, and German puppets know full well that they are lying.

The face that the West presents to the world is the brazen face of a liar.


Washington and its British and French puppet governments are poised to yet again reveal their criminality. The image of the West as War Criminal is not a propaganda image created by the West’s enemies, but the portrait that the West has painted of itself.

The UK Independent reports that over this past week-end Obama, Cameron, and Hollande agreed to launch cruise missile attacks against the Syrian government within two weeks despite the lack of any authorization from the UN and despite the absence of any evidence in behalf of Washington’s claim that the Syrian government has used chemical weapons against the Washington-backed “rebels”, largely US supported external forces, seeking to overthrow the Syrian government.

Indeed, one reason for the rush to war is to prevent the UN inspection that Washington knows would disprove its claim and possibly implicate Washington in the false flag attack by the “rebels,” who assembled a large number of children into one area to be chemically murdered with the blame pinned by Washington on the Syrian government.

Another reason for the rush to war is that Cameron, the UK prime minister, wants to get the war going before the British parliament can block him for providing cover for Obama’s war crimes the way that Tony Blair provided cover for George W. Bush, for which Blair was duly rewarded. What does Cameron care about Syrian lives when he can leave office into the waiting arms of a $50 million fortune.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/syria-un-weapons-inspectors-attacked-as-they-try-to-enter-poison-gas-attack-site-8784435.html

The Syrian government, knowing that it is not responsible for the chemical weapons incident, has agreed for the UN to send in chemical inspectors to determine the substance used and the method of delivery. However, Washington has declared that it is “too late” for UN inspectors and that Washington accepts the self-serving claim of the al Qaeda affiliated “rebels” that the Syrian government attacked civilians with chemical weapons. http://news.antiwar.com/2013/08/ ... a-prepares-for-war/ See also http://news.antiwar.com/2013/08/ ... s-call-as-too-late/


In an attempt to prevent the UN chemical inspectors who arrived on the scene from doing their work, the inspectors were fired upon by snipers in “rebel” held territory and forced off site, although a later report from RT says the inspectors have returned to the site to conduct their inspection. http://rt.com/news/un-chemical-oservers-shot-000/


The corrupt British government has declared that Syria can be attacked without UN authorization, just as Serbia and Libya were militarily attacked without UN authorization. In other words, the Western democracies have already established precedents for violating international law. “International law? We don’t need no stinking international law!” The West knows only one rule: Might is Right. As long as the West has the Might, the West has the Right.

In a response to the news report that the US, UK, and France are preparing to attack Syria, the Russian Foreign Minister, Lavrov, said that such unilateral action is a “severe violation of international law,” and that the violation was not only a legal one but also an ethical and moral violation. Lavrov referred to the lies and deception used by the West to justify its grave violations of international law in military attacks on Serbia, Iraq, and Libya and how the US government used preemptive moves to undermine every hope for peaceful settlements in Iraq, Libya, and Syria.

Once again Washington has preempted any hope of peaceful settlement. By announcing the forthcoming attack, the US destroyed any incentive for the “rebels” to participate in the peace talks with the Syrian government. On the verge of these talks taking place, the “rebels” now have no incentive to participate as the West’s military is coming to their aid.

In his press conference Lavrov spoke of how the ruling parties in the US, UK, and France stir up emotions among poorly informed people that, once aroused, have to be satisfied by war. This, of course, is the way the US manipulated the public in order to attack Afghanistan and Iraq. But the American public is tired of the wars, the goal of which is never made clear, and has grown suspicious of the government’s justifications for more wars.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 6Rank: 6

Post time 2013-8-27 15:51:40 |Display all floors
Cont.

A Reuters/Ipsos poll finds that “Americans strongly oppose U.S. intervention in Syria’s civil war and believe Washington should stay out of the conflict even if reports that Syria’s government used deadly chemicals to attack civilians are confirmed.” http://news.yahoo.com/syria-war- ... ters-003146054.html However, Obama could not care less that only 9 percent of the public supports his warmongering. As former president Jimmy Carter recently stated, “America has no functioning democracy.” http://rt.com/usa/carter-comment-nsa-snowden-261/ It has a police state in which the executive branch has placed itself above all law and the Constitution.

This police state is now going to commit yet another Nazi-style war crime of unprovoked aggression. At Nuremberg the Nazis were sentenced to death for precisely the identical actions being committed by Obama, Cameron, and Hollande. The West is banking on might, not right, to keep it out of the criminal dock.

The US, UK, and French governments have not explained why it matters whether people in the wars initiated by the West are killed by explosives made of depleted uranium or with chemical agents or any other weapon. It was obvious from the beginning that Obama was setting up the Syrian government for attack. Obama demonized chemical weapons--but not nuclear “bunker busters” that the US might use on Iran. Then Obama drew a red line, saying that the use of chemical weapons by the Syrians was such a great crime that the West would be obliged to attack Syria. Washington’s UK puppets, William Hague and Cameron, have just repeated this nonsensical claim. http://rt.com/news/uk-response-without-un-backing-979/  The final step in the frame-up was to orchestrate a chemical incident and blame the Syrian government.

What is the West’s real agenda? This is the unasked and unanswered question. Clearly, the US, UK, and French governments, which have displayed continuously their support for dictatorial regimes that serve their purposes, are not the least disturbed by dictatorships. They brand Assad a dictator as a means of demonizing him for the ill-informed Western masses. But Washington, UK, and France support any number of dictatorial regimes, such as the ones in Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and now the military dictatorship in Egypt that is ruthlessly killing Egyptians without any Western government speaking of invading Egypt for “killing its own people.”

Clearly also, the forthcoming Western attack on Syria has nothing whatsoever to do with bringing “freedom and democracy” to Syria any more than freedom and democracy were reasons for the attacks on Iraq and Libya, neither of which gained any “freedom and democracy.”

The Western attack on Syria is unrelated to human rights, justice or any of the high sounding causes with which the West cloaks its criminality.

The Western media, and least of all the American presstitutes, never ask Obama, Cameron, or Hollande what the real agenda is. It is difficult to believe than any reporter is sufficiently stupid or gullible to believe that the agenda is bringing “freedom and democracy” to Syria or punishing Assad for allegedly using chemical weapons against murderous thugs trying to overthrow the Syrian government.

Of course, the question wouldn’t be answered if asked. But the act of asking it would help make the public aware that more is afoot than meets the eye. Originally, the excuse for Washington’s wars was to keep Americans safe from terrorists. Now Washington is endeavoring to turn Syria over to jihad terrorists by helping them to overthrow the secular, non-terrorist Assad government. What is the agenda behind Washington’s support of terrorism?

Perhaps the purpose of the wars is to radicalize Muslims and, thereby, destabilize Russia and even China. Russia has large populations of Muslims and is bordered by Muslim countries. Even China has some Muslim population. As radicalization spreads strife into the only two countries capable of being an obstacle to Washington’s world hegemony, Western media propaganda and the large number of US financed NGOs, posing as “human rights” organizations, can be counted on by Washington to demonize the Russian and Chinese governments for harsh measures against “rebels.”

Another advantage of the radicalization of Muslims is that it leaves former Muslim countries in long-term turmoil or civil wars, as is currently the case in Iraq and Libya, thus removing any organized state power from obstructing Israeli purposes.

Secretary of State John Kerry is working the phones using bribes and threats to build acceptance, if not support, for Washington’s war crime-in-the-making against Syria.

Washington is driving the world closer to nuclear war than it ever was even in the most dangerous periods of the Cold War. When Washington finishes with Syria, the next target is Iran. Russia and China will no longer be able to fool themselves that there is any system of international law or restraint on Western criminality. Western aggression is already forcing both countries to develop their strategic nuclear forces and to curtail the Western-financed NGOs that pose as “human rights organizations,” but in reality comprise a fifth column that Washington can use to destroy the legitimacy of the Russian and Chinese governments.

Russia and China have been extremely careless in their dealings with the United States. Essentially, the Russian political opposition is financed by Washington. Even the Chinese government is being undermined. When a US corporation opens a company in China, it creates a Chinese board on which are put relatives of the local political authorities. These boards create a conduit for payments that influence the decisions and loyalties of local and regional party members. The US has penetrated Chinese universities and intellectual attitudes. The Rockefeller University is active in China as is Rockefeller philanthropy. Dissenting voices are being created that are arrayed against the Chinese government. Demands for “liberalization” can resurrect regional and ethnic differences and undermine the cohesiveness of the national government.

Once Russia and China realize that they are riven with American fifth columns, isolated diplomatically, and outgunned militarily, nuclear weapons become the only guarantor of their sovereignty. This suggests that nuclear war is likely to terminate humanity well before humanity succumbs to global warming or rising national debts.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 6Rank: 6

Post time 2013-8-27 18:16:44 |Display all floors



Big Lies launch wars

by Stephen Lendman
Monday, August 26th, 2013


Waging war requires manufacturing consent.

Public opinion’s manipulated to do so.

Big Lies substitute for full and accurate reporting.

Truth is systematically avoided. Americans get a steady diet of managed news misinformation.

On August 20, Al Jazeera America (AJAM) debuted. Qatar’s monarchy controls programming.

It’s waging war on Syria. AJAM didn’t explain. It claims to offer “unbiased, fact-based, in-depth stories of US in international news.”

On August 22, it said “Syrian activists (offered) horrific images of dead and dying children from near Damascus.”

AJAM called it “proof of a chemical-weapons attack by forces loyal to President Bashar al-Assad.”

It did so despite no verifiable evidence whatever.

It repeated the Big Lie.

Follow-up reports were just as biased.

It’s promoting war.

It spurns peaceful conflict resolution.

Nation magazine cheerleads Obama’s administration. It’s done so throughout his tenure. It’s done it shamelessly. Editor Katrina vanden Heuvel’s an establishment figure.

Her maternal grandfather, Jules Stein, founded entertainment conglomerate MCA. Her father, William, was executive assistant to William Donovan. He was involved in CIA’s creation. He was a Farfield Foundation board member. During the Cold War, it was a CIA front group. Vanden Heuvel supports humanitarian interventions. She does so for “security” and “stability.” She’s a regular on scoundrel TV. She’s a Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) member.

Historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. once called it a “front organization (for) the heart of the American Establishment.”

Last May, she discussed “the reported use of chemical weapons by Syria’s embattled Assad regime.” She did so without saying no evidence suggests it’s true.

She ignored clear proof insurgents used CW multiple times. She called Assad a “dictator.” She said he heads a “brutal regime.” She ignored Washington’s war. She blamed Assad for insurgents’ crimes.

Last June, Media Lens co-founder David Edwards said “Guardian Editors Swallow US Claims on Syrian WMD.”

He discussed “questions and doubts surrounding claims that the chemical weapon sarin has been used in Syria.”

“The Obama administration has since claimed that its ‘red line’ has indeed been crossed – it now has firm evidence that Syrian government forces have used chemical weapons.”


IRAQ PROPAGANDA

Despite no evidence suggesting it, Guardian editors said:

“That use is an outrage and is against international agreements. It adds to the charge sheet against the Assad regime.”

According to Edwards:

“These are among the most shocking comments we have ever seen in the Guardian.”

“Despite the indisputable fraudulence of US-UK claims regarding Iraqi WMD, an equally staggering litany of lies on Libya, and despite the existence of gaps and doubts so reminiscent of Iraq 2002-2003, the Guardian is willing to quietly endorse the latest claims on Syria – ‘Assad’ clearly has used chemical weapons and that use should be added to the charge sheet against him.”

“Once again, when it really matters, the Guardian editors are on-message, on-side and boosting war propaganda.”

It’s not alone. British major media misreport like their US counterparts. BBC’s a longstanding imperial tool. It’s owned, operated and controlled by Britain’s government.

It’s a propaganda service for elitist interests. It’s notoriously so for issues mattering most. None rise to the level of war and peace. BBC’s selling war on Syria. It does so by misreporting.

BBC’s selling war on Syria. It does so by misreporting.

Weeks earlier, BBC said “pressure to act has intensified in recent days after emerging evidence that Syria has used chemical weapons such as the nerve gas sarin.”

It did so despite no proof whatever. On August 23, it headlined “Syria ‘chemical attack:’ Distressing footage under analysis,” saying:

” ‘Chemical attack:’ What we know:

August 21: Facebook pages of Syrian opposition report heavy fighting in rebel-held districts of Ghouta, the agricultural belt in eastern Damascus.

Opposition posts Facebook report of ‘chemical shelling’ in Ein Tarma area of Ghouta.

Second opposition report says chemical weapons used in Zamalka area of Ghouta.

Unverified video footage shows people being treated on pavements in the dark and in a makeshift hospital.

Reports say chemical weapons were used in Ghouta towns of Irbin, Jobar, Zamalka and Ein Tarma as well as in Muadhamiya to the west, but this is not confirmed.

Syrian government acknowledges military offensive in the Ghouta area but denies chemical weapons use.”

BBC manipulates viewers and listeners. It conditions them to believe Syrian opposition claims.

Dismissively it says Syria’s government refutes them. Doing so shows its reporting lacks credibility.

Nowhere does BBC cite verifiable evidence. Opposition claims suffice. Government shelling’s highlighted. “Chemical attacks on civilians shocked the world,” it said.

“Rebel strongholds” were struck. Ignored were credible reports about homemade rockets fired from insurgent-held territory. They contained toxic substances.

Considerable coverage was given to “ambulances with sirens screeching.”

Another report “show(ed) victims being laid out on a pavement to be methodically washed down in an apparent attempt to decontaminate them.”

“And from the overwhelming and distressing litany of footage of victims an overview of the symptoms can be gleaned,” said BBC.

“Most of those being treated are men of all ages and very small children.”

“One man twisting and shivering on the floor seems to be having convulsions. Several are in such distress, they seem to be foaming at the mouth or nose.”

“One man whose stark, glazed eyes stand out from his ashen face looks almost frozen, his pupils apparently contracted – a telling indication of possible nerve gas.”

BBC duplicitously built an anti-Syrian case. It did so without credible evidence. Innuendo furthers it. Assad’s blamed for insurgents’ crimes.

It’s been this way throughout the conflict. BBC’s a weapon of mass deception. Lies substitute for truth. Pressure builds toward military intervention.

BBC and other media scoundrels bear much responsibility. Supporting imperial lawlessness makes them culpable.

America’s National Public Radio and Public Broadcasting operate the same way. They’re called public to conceal their real agenda.

Critics ridicule NPR. They call it National Pentagon or Petroleum Radio. They do so for good reason. PBS operates the same way. Calling it Propaganda Public Broadcasting more accurately explains its mandate.

Both operations long ago abandoned truth and full disclosure. They’re indistinguishable from other corporate media sources. They’re corrupted like the rest.

They’re house organs for government and business interests. They’re well funded for services rendered.

On August 21, NPR headlined “Syrian Government Accused Again of Using Chemical Weapons.” Credible sources aren’t interviewed. They aren’t cited. They’re ignored.

So-called “Syrian activists accuse President Bashar al-Assad’s forces of launching a huge chemical weapons attack in the suburbs of Damascus,” said NPR.

Washington Post reporter Loveday Morris was interviewed. A graphic account of what happened followed.

“(W)hat else could have killed these people, other than some kind of toxic gas,” was claimed. Assad was blamed.

“(I)t seem(s) very brazen for (him) to launch an attack of this size with UN weapons inspectors in the country at the time, but the West has said on multiple occasions if these red lines are crossed, there will be action.”

“And I think their government has obviously reached a stage where they feel that there won’t be any consequences.”

This type reporting repeats with disturbing regularity. Voices of truth are systematically shut out. Listeners get one-sided accounts. It happens every time.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 6Rank: 6

Post time 2013-8-27 18:18:55 |Display all floors
Cont.

On August 22, PBS’ New Hour interviewed Robert Zarate. He’s Foreign Policy Initiative’s policy director. FPI’s the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) successor organization.

It sells war. It deplores peace. It promotes US global military dominance. It targets independent governments. It urges replacing them with pro-Western subservient ones.

Zarante told News Hour host Margaret Warner he “think(s) the West has an obligation – the United States in particular has an obligation to intervene militarily, and not just because of what happened in the suburbs of Damascus, but because of what has happened over the last two-and-a-half years, since the Assad regime began its conflict with the Syrian people.”

He blames Assad for insurgent crimes. He ignored the worst ones they commit.

“Look, what we’re seeing right now in Syria is a rogue regime that has used weapons of mass destruction, ” he added.

Professor Joshua Landis was interviewed on the same program. His comments were more measured. He stopped short of explaining things accurately.

He called Syria “a failed nation.” It operated normally until Western-backed death squads arrived. He didn’t explain.

He’s concerned about making things worse, not better. He failed to lay blame where it belongs.

“(I)f we go in,” he said, “we have to either rebuild Syria or we have to divide it up into three states, like we did in Yugoslavia.”

He ignored international law saying so. No nation may interfere in the internal affairs of others. Doing so is brazenly illegal.

Landis didn’t explain. Zarante wants US military intervention. International law is clear and unequivocal.

No nation may attack another except in self-defense. It may only do so only until the Security Council acts. It has final say.

Syria threatens no one. Zarante didn’t explain. Nor did Landis. Host Margaret Warner betrayed News Hour viewers. One-sided reporting’s featured. It happens every time.

Democracy Now manipulates viewers. It does it subtly. It does it deceptively. Followers believe it’s a reliable alternative news and information source. At times it is. Too often it’s not. When it matters most, it’s on the wrong side of issues.

Ford, Rockefeller, Carnegie, Soros, MacArthur, and other corporate foundations provide funding. They expect payback in return. They’re not disappointed.

Misinformation’s featured. Propaganda substitutes for honest reporting. Guests represent imperial interests. Legitimate alternative media avoid them. Not Democracy Now. It shows in its Syria coverage. It’s shameless. It’s one-sidedly anti-government. Opposition figures are featured. Assad’s wrongfully vilified. He’s blamed for insurgent crimes.

On August 23, Razan Zaitouneh was interviewed. She’s actively involved in anti-Assad activities. Syria calls her a foreign agent. She blames insurgent-committed atrocities on government forces.

“(T)he regime launched a chemical attack on civilians two days ago,” she claimed. She pointed fingers the wrong way. She did so shamelessly.

Assad had nothing to do with Wednesday’s incident. She maintained otherwise. “I haven’t seen such death in my whole life,” she said.

“People were lying on the ground in hallways, on roadsides, in hundreds.”

Asked how she knew who was responsible, she said:

Rockets used came “from the regime forces, it’s clear. There is no doubt about it.”

She ignored clear evidence otherwise. Rockets fired came from insurgent held territory.

Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Aleksandr Lukashevich said reports circulated online. They did so hours before Wednesday’s incident.

It was a “pre-planned action,” he said. It was an insurgent attack. Assad had nothing to do with it. Claiming otherwise is spurious anti-government propaganda.

Journalist Patrick Cockburn was interviewed on the same program. He called video evidence “compelling and convincing.” He asked why would government forces use chemical weapons?

“That seems pretty extraordinary,” he said. It’s “the one thing most likely to lead to a foreign intervention. It’s not an argument they didn’t do it.”

Host Amy Goodman accepted State Department spokeswoman Jennifer Psaki’s claim. She said opposition forces “don’t have the capability to use chemical weapons.”

False! On December 9, 2012, CNN headlined “Sources: US helping underwrite Syrian rebel training on securing chemical weapons.”

“The United States and some European allies are using defense contractors to train Syrian rebels on how to secure chemical weapons stockpiles in Syria, a senior US official and several senior diplomats told CNN Sunday.”

Training takes place in Jordan, Turkey and covertly in Syria. It involves using CW.

On May 8, 2013, Michel Chossudovsky said “CNN confirmed that contractors hired by the Pentagon were in fact training the terrorists in the use of chemical weapons.”

“And now we have a statement by a United Nations Independent Commission, which has confirmed unequivocally – and it was revealed on the same day – that the terrorists who are backed by the United States and its allies, are in possession of deadly sarin nerve gas, which they are using against the civilian population.”

“And once these Al Qaeda rebels had been supplied and trained in the use of WMDs by military contractors hired by the Pentagon, the Syrian government would then be held responsible for using the WMD against the Syrian people.”

Chossudovsky correctly explained a “diabolical scenario.” It’s part of Washington’s regime change strategy. Anti-Syrian media scoundrels proliferate the Big Lie. They blame Assad for insurgent CW use.

Democracy Now’s like the rest. Anti-Syrian programming betrays its viewers. It repeats with disturbing regularity.

Western media scoundrels report one way. Managed news misinformation substitutes for truth and full disclosure. It’s verboten. It’s polar opposite how things should be.

John Pilger calls journalism war’s first casualty. It’s a “weapon of war,” he says.

“(V)irulent censorship” by misinformation or “omission” condones imperial lawlessness.

George Seldes (1890 – 1995) called media scoundrels “the most powerful force against the general welfare of the majority of the people.”

AJ Liebling (1904 – 1963) said “Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one.”

“People everywhere confuse what they read (or view) with news.”

Big Lies launch wars. Public opinion’s manipulated. It’s done to enlist support. Truth is suppressed. Fear and misinformation substitute.

Patriotism means supporting what’s wrong. It means ignoring state lawlessness. Terrorism’s what they do, not us.

Imperial wars are called good ones. Reasons why they’re waged aren’t explained. Wealth and power alone matter. Sacrificing human lives and freedoms are small prices to pay. Humanity’s at risk but who cares.

Media scoundrels aid and abet state crimes. Truth is the most dangerous disinfectant. Suppressing it matters most.

Syria was largely peaceful until Washington initiated conflict. So were Libya and Iraq earlier. Iran’s moment of truth awaits.

An entire region’s being systematically destroyed. The worst of all possible outcomes may follow. Where things end, who knows.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 6Rank: 6

Post time 2013-8-27 18:27:34 |Display all floors


The Truth About Syria – What the Obama Administration Doesn’t Want You To Know

Western sponsored propaganda leads the news cycle as the U.S. and Britain plan to strike Syria under a false pretense.


By Shepard Ambellas
August 26, 2013

GHOUTA, DAMASCUS — Mainline media rhetoric echoes across most of the western world in the form of globalist sponsored propaganda designed to play games with the hearts and minds of the average citizen. Although lately there has been a shift in consciousness.

Many government sponsored false flag events are now being brought to the attention of the general public through large independent news organizations like Intellihub.com and others.

It is now pretty well-known that the Obama Administration has been desperately seeking a new war with Syria over the past few days. In fact, Britain even jumped on the bandwagon as warships armed with cruise missiles pre-position for a strategic strike on Syria later this week.

However, some wonder what the justification for this new emerging war with Syria would be.

According to the Obama Administration, the Syrian government is responsible for chemically attacking their own people last week killing hundreds and permanently injuring thousands.

Although none of this adds up.

Why would the Syrian leader allow a chemical attack on his own people?

It was also reported earlier in the week that the Russians weren’t buying the official story of the White House, as they believe likely more is at play. Furthermore, leaked emails came out casting doubt that the Syrian government attacked their own people in the first place, signifying that likely the U.S. sponsored a “false flag” event to constitute the technical war terms per United Nations “rules of engagement”.

In fact, it now looks like U.S. sponsored forces tried to either foil the U.N. inspection probe in a sniper attack earlier today, or make it look like Syrian forces did. CNN.com reported, “shortly before Monday’s inspection, unidentified snipers shot multiple times at a vehicle used by the U.N. team, the United Nations said. There were no reports of injuries.

The Syrian government accused “terrorists” of firing on the inspectors, Syrian state TV reported.

The United Nations has not said who may have been behind the shooting, which came after an explosion near the site the team planned to visit. Some witnesses said it was caused by incoming ordnance, perhaps a mortar shell.”[1]



All of this action is likely to reach a boiling point later this week when the U.N. announces the findings of the investigation. The Obama Administration is set to act swift and “very deliberately” according to reports out of Washington. While some, including the Russians, feel the U.S. was already predetermined to strike. The NYTimes reported, “On Sunday, a spokesman for Russia’s Foreign Ministry, Aleksandr K. Lukashevich, said that those who advocated an armed response to any chemical weapons attack — without citing the United States or other countries — were prejudging the results of the United Nations inspections.

“In these conditions, we again resolutely call on all those who are trying to impose the results of the U.N. investigations and who say that armed actions against Syria is possible to show common sense and avoid tragic mistakes,” Mr. Lukashevich said in a statement released on the ministry’s Web site.”[2]

So what’s not being reported?

According to reporter Ben Swann, 300 U.S. Marines now sit along the Syrian border as the situation intensifies. ”What’s happening in Syria is an enormous problem for the United States… the war in Syria is not a true civil war”, points out Swann in a video report.[3]

Ladies and Gentlemen, get ready to enter another war under a false pretense.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 7Rank: 7Rank: 7

2018 Most Popular Member 2016 Most Popular Member Glod Medal 2015 Most Popular Member 2012's Best Moderator Medal of honor August's Best Contributor 2012 July's Best Contributor 2012 Gold Medal

Post time 2013-8-27 18:27:36 |Display all floors
laoda1 Post time: 2013-8-27 18:16
Big Lies launch wars

by Stephen Lendman

We should bomb the crap out of that place once and for all.

Let the frogs help also, they can get a double portion then

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 6Rank: 6

Post time 2013-8-27 18:32:18 |Display all floors


Media’s Reporting on Syria as Terrible as It Was on Iraq

Posted on August 26, 2013

After Giving Mea Culpas for Horrible Iraq Coverage, Media Does the Exact Same Thing On Syria

Preface: We wrote this in May. Media coverage has gotten even worse since then.

Common Dreams notes:

Former New York Times’ executive editor Bill Keller is not the only un-’reluctant’ war hawk under fire for publicly pushing for US military intervention in Syria, but for those who remember the media debacle that ushered in the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, he has exemplified the troubling trend among the nation’s pro-war punditry class.

Since Keller’s column appeared in the ‘paper of record’ on Monday—following a weekend of disturbing news about Israeli airstrikes inside Syria and amidst shaky reports about “chemical weapons” and “red line” rhetoric—those seeking wiser guidance on the path forward in a deeply fragmented Middle East are hoping that people like Keller, so wrong when it came to Iraq, will be pilloried for their positions on Syria.

Pilloried—then disregarded.

In his op-ed, Keller describes that though his mistaken assessment of the Iraq war may have left him “gun-shy” about Syria at first, he is now of the opinion that the US should flex its military muscle in the war-torn country.

But, stating he was “frankly appalled” by both the “mindlessness” and prominence of Keller’s article in the Times, noted foreign policy analyst Jim Lobe argued the piece is “filled with the same kind of arrogance that [Keller] brought to Iraq as a “reluctant hawk” ten years ago.”

And AntiWar.com’s John Glaser characterized the piece as “absurd,” writing:

Keller lays out how terribly wrong he was for supporting the Bush administration’s war of choice in Iraq, and is now asking readers not to collapse in laughter as he speaks with an air of authority on why we should invade, or at least bomb, Syria.

Keller explains that “at the outset of the Iraq invasion, I found myself a reluctant hawk. That turned out to be a humbling error of judgment, and it left me gun-shy.” How harrowing the experience must have been for you, Bill – using your position as an opinion-shaper at the most widely read newspaper in the country to cheer-lead an illegal war that destroyed an entire country, killed hundreds of thousands of people, and cost trillions of dollars.

The Nation’s Greg Mitchell, who literally wrote the book on media malfeasance and the Iraq War, pulled no punches, writing of Keller:

He says he was gun-shy after his Iraq flub—but no more! Now he derides Obama for “looking for excuses to stand pat.” He also provides several reasons why Syria is “not Iraq,” and how now his hawkishness is based on reality: This time we really can hurt the terrorists gathered there, [never mind that we are actually supporting Al Qaeda and other terrorists in Syria] really can calm tensions in the region, and so on. Instead of a “mushroom cloud,” he warns of the next chemical “atrocity.” And he claims there’s a broader coalition of the willing this time.

He even revives the good old “domino theory,” endorsing the view that if we don’t do something in Syria it will embolden China, North Korea and Iran. And I love this one, straight from 2003: Doing nothing “includes the danger that if we stay away now, we will get drawn in later (and bigger), when, for example, a desperate Assad drops sarin on a Damascus suburb….” If a surge in aid for those Al Qaeda–lovin’ rebels fails against Assad, then we “send missiles against his military installations until he, or more likely those around him, calculate that they should sue for peace.” Yeah, how did that work out in Iraq in the long run? ***

What good would a US military campaign possibly achieve? Looking back on Iraq—even to ignore the justifications of war, say experts—shows that the US is ill-equipped to fulfill its promises to delivery democracy, stability, both, or either.

As Katrina vanden Heuvel writes in the Washington Post on Tuesday, “after war, years of occupation, many lives and hundreds of billions of dollars in Iraq, we have not been able to create a stable regime, power sharing or an end to the political violence.”

***

Filmmaker Michael Moore’s tweet that concluded thus:

Bill Keller of the NYTimes was wrong about Iraq but now wants 2 bomb Syria. Will some adult pls take his laptop away?

Common Dreams also points out that the U.S. claim that the Syrian government used chemical weapons is highly dubious. Indeed, a U.N investigator said – and on-the-ground reports confirm – that the Syrian government likely did not use chemical weapons.

In reality, it’s not just Iraq and Syria … the corporate media is always pro-war.

In addition, wars today are fought on the Web as well as on the battlefield … and Syria is no different.

Agence France-Press reported yesterday:

The Twitter feed of satirical US news website The Onion appeared to have been hacked Monday by a Syrian group aiming to inject its own sardonic spin on the deadly conflict.

***

“UN retracts report of Syrian chemical weapon use: ‘Lab tests confirm it is Jihadi body odor,’” said one tweet, still available in a screenshot on news blogs after being deleted.

Another tweet said: “UN’s Ban Ki Moon condemns Syria for being struck by israel: ‘It was in the way of Jewish missiles.’”

***

“Either @TheOnion has been hacked by the Syrian Electronic Army, or this is its most convincing stunt ever,” one tweet said.

Another user tweeted: “The Onion’s Twitter feed has been hacked and yet it is still a more reliable news source than CNN.”

The Syrian Electronic Army, which appears to be aligned with the government of President Bashar al-Assad, has previously claimed credit for hacking Agence France-Presse, the Associated Press and other news organizations.

No wonder someone has knocked Syria off the web.

Use magic tools Report

You can't reply post until you log in Log in | register

BACK TO THE TOP
Contact us:Tel: (86)010-84883548, Email: blog@chinadaily.com.cn
Blog announcement:| We reserve the right, and you authorize us, to use content, including words, photos and videos, which you provide to our blog
platform, for non-profit purposes on China Daily media, comprising newspaper, website, iPad and other social media accounts.