Eleven, 13 or 14 “rebel” brigades (depending on the source) have ditched the “moderate”, US-propped Syrian National Council (SNC) and the not-exactly Free Syrian Army (FSA). The leaders of the bunch are the demented jihadis of Jabhat al-Nusra – but it includes other nasties such as the Tawhid brigades and the Tajammu Fastaqim Kama Ummirat in Aleppo, some of them until recently part of the collapsing FSA.
The position I advocate is called maintaining “critical distance” and it the only insurance policy against being duped by our own side’s much more powerful and insidious propaganda. The denial of this obvious point by so many of those cheerleading another violent US-led assault on a Middle Eastern state makes me doubt their sincerity.
When asked who he believed was responsible for the use of chemical munitions in Ghouta, the UN official, who would not permit disclosure of his identity, said: “Saudi intelligence was behind the attacks and unfortunately nobody will dare say that.” The official claims that this information was provided by rebels in Ghouta…
A senior United Nations official who deals directly with Syrian affairs has told Al-Akhbar that the Syrian government had no involvement in the alleged Ghouta chemical weapons attack: “Of course not, he (President Bashar al-Assad) would be committing suicide.”
The UN commission report does not say how the chemical agent found in some of the investigated areas was distributed. It does not say that it came from rockets. It identified two impact sites of rockets and directions that allows to assume the direction, not the distance, from where those rockets were fired from. But one of those sites and rockets was never exposed to the chemical agent in question while the other site, and the ammunition debris found there, was. To conclude from these finds that ammunition carrying chemical agents were fired from a specific point or army unit or was fired by rockets at all is not legit but propaganda.
Mother Agnes’ investigation goes on to say chillingly: “Our first concern was the fate of the children we see in the footages. Those angels are always alone in the hands of adult males that seem to be elements of armed gangs. The children that trespassed remain without their families and unidentified all the way until they are wrapped in the white shrouds of the burial. Moreover, our study highlights without any doubt that their little bodies were manipulated and disposed with theatrical arrangements to figure in the screening.”
At the end of July Saudi Prince Bandar met with Russian President Vladimir Putin and with the full support of the United States of America first attempted to bribe President Putin to pull Russian support for Syria and President Bashar Al-Assad and then threatened the President and the Russian Federation with terrorist acts during the Sochi Olympic Games.
It must be heartbreaking for many of these people who were looking forward to some bombing in Syria. One of them was on Question Time, trying hard to make a strategic case for war, but so frustrated he looked as if he was about to shout “Oh look it’s not FAIR – I wanted MISSILES and EXPLOSIONS and the bloke who wrote Bravo Two Zero on Sky News guessing what would be blown up next. I WANTED it. I WANTED it. I HATE that Putin.”
BSN Editor Note: In case you were wondering about the recent saber rattling and media hype for attacking Syria with Tomahawk cruise missiles, remember the real reason the west attacked Libya in 2011. The 144 tons of gold belonging to the people of Libya is currently sitting in a bank vault in the city of London – will this ever be returned we ask rhetorically?
Beyond what is legal or illegal in the United States, the Nuremberg Trials of 1946, which convicted a number of Nazi leaders, clearly defined the starting of a war of aggression as the “supreme international crime,” a view that was endorsed by the court’s American prosecutor Robert Jackson and which was also accepted by the administration of President Harry Truman. So by that standard bombing Syria would be a war crime and President Obama would be a war criminal.
The officially presented reason for the US threat of military action against Syria is the alleged use of chemical weapons against civilians by the Assad regime. Thus far, credible evidence supporting this claim has not been presented. Also, US condemnation and outrage over the use of chemical weapons by Assad seems rather peculiar, given Washington’s history of systematic practice of large-scale chemical warfare against civilians.
… in 2003, we proposed to the United Nations, to the Security Council, a Syrian proposal to get rid of the WMDs from the Middle East, to have chemical-free zone or WMD-free zone in the Middle East. And actually, the United States opposed that proposal…
