The US is about to commit another holocaust in the Middle East based on lies, just like the huge Iraqi WMD lies. Millions of people in the Middle East are in grave risk of being slaughtered. YOU MUST SPEAK UP AND PUT AN END TO THIS CRIMINAL PLOT. Force the American public to think – FOR ONCE!
To disbelieve the lies we are now told – that the Syrian government killed hundreds of innocent Syrians in a chemical weapon attack – means we must disbelieve our leaders and all the media who report and parrot their words. But this is only the start of it; we often mistrust these leaders anyway, and we can usually choose from different viewpoints in our media and select which ones we trust. It’s only the start of it because this time it is different – all our media and all our leaders say the same thing so if we disbelieve one we must disbelieve them all.
Corporate media coverage of atrocities in Egypt, Libya and Syria has closely matched US-UK government interpretations and priorities.
While the US government has refused to describe what was very obviously a military coup in Egypt on July 3 as a coup, many media have also tended to shy away from the term, referring instead to the ‘ousting’ and ‘removal’ of the elected government.
In reporting atrocities in Libya and Syria, the BBC focuses heavily on the word ‘crime’, but described the mass murder in Egypt on August 14 as a ‘tragedy’. Killing in Syria is routinely described as a ‘massacre’, but in Egypt often as the less pejorative ‘crackdown’.
Last night’s vote in the Commons is welcome, but a blip. It owes more to political tribalism than to principle. Miliband and New Labour did not oppose military action, they merely wanted to be seen to be dictating the terms. As neither Tories nor Labour were prepared to accept the other’s terms for military action, the anti war minority could combine with the tribalists of each to make sure everything got defeated. Good but fortuitous.
During an inspection visit in 2001, a team of specialists from the OPCW (Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons), confirmed the existence of US chemical weapons in Panama, left behind –like other war materials and poisoning items- by the US armed forces who had to evacuate the country to comply with the Canal Treaties, signed in 1977 by Omar Torrijos and James Earl Carter.
Even those who are no fans of the Bashar al-Assad regime must question why the regime would use chemical weapons as government forces have just won the upper hand in the fight against the opposition, and it is clear such a move would be tantamount to suicide.
How ironic that as regards objectives that the National Security Council in Britain was set up after 9/11 to protect Britain from al-Qaeda-linked atrocities and what threatened them.
And here is Britain threatening to go in with the United States to support al-Qaeda-linked militancy. I think even American generals are expressing their concern of the objectives of any attack by these warships in the Mediterranean. What are those objectives?
Instead of outright denunciation of Cameron and his war-salivating ministers, rather than explicit exposure of their mendacious motives, we’re asked to indulge this set of political psychotics, ruminate on Blair’s prior ‘mistakes’ and kowtow to the great charade of ‘parliamentary accountability’.
After initially insisting that Syria give United Nations investigators unimpeded access to the site of an alleged nerve gas attack, the administration of President Barack Obama reversed its position on Sunday and tried unsuccessfully to get the U.N. to call off its investigation.
The administration’s reversal, which came within hours of the deal reached between Syria and the U.N., was reported by the Wall Street Journal Monday and effectively confirmed by a State Department spokesperson later that day.
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.
There is absolutely no evidence or confirmation that the Assad government carried out the alleged chemical attack.
United Nations weapons inspectors are in Syria at the direct REQUEST of the Syrian government to prove that they have not used chemical weapons. The attack took place a mere ten miles away from the inspection team, on the very day they arrived.
Carla Del Ponte, a United Nations Human Rights investigator, has stated that the Syrian government has not used chemical weapons but the rebels have.
The BBC, for example, refers to the armed opposition in Syria as “rebels” – a word which has a subliminal influence on the unsuspecting reader or listener as it implies ‘freedom fighters’. But in Mali, the BBC refers to Islamist fighters there as ‘militants’ which, of course, has a whole different connotation as it conjures up thoughts of extremists and violence.
The reference by the BBC to ‘rebels’ in Syria and ‘militants’ in Mali is not a case of semantics.
Rather, it is, as the foreign diplomat told me over lunch, exactly in line with how the British government sees the conflicts in Syria and Mali – in Syria, a case of freedom fighters versus a dictatorship, and in Mali, a case of al-Qaeda-linked fighters versus the legitimate government of the country.
