I have stated several times before that the conflict in Syria was World War iii. A blood bath that brought all the major powers into open conflict. The only difference between this world war and the other two was the fact the the slaughter was more or less contained to one specific region. The result was much the same, the major powers readjusted their areas of influence. Of course, as usual, this was at the expense of the civilian population, who suffered unimaginable misery, death and deprivation, as well as the total destruction of a country's infrastructure.
Most of us agree that the reporting of this slaughter of civilians was distorted, massaged and trimmed to suit the western power mongers. We know or should know, that the mainstream media is the propaganda mouth piece of the rich and powerful, to facilitate their grotesque and greed driven agenda. It is always heartening when you find a reporter that ignored the handed out script and pried for themselves to find out what was really happening in this well orchestrated slaughter for power.
The following are two extracts from a very detailed and informative article on the Syrian conflict. If you are interested in the truth of that crime against humanity, I can't emphasise enough, this is an article you must read in full.
The Secret History Of America's Defeat In Syria.
After years covering the "main battlefield
in World War III," Narwani says everything
you think you know is wrong. By Patrick Lawrence.
As you’ve just suggested, Syria has
long seemed to be a different kind of war, a
new kind — a war fought with images,
information and disinformation, true and
false portrayals of events, people,
organizations, and so on. Based on what
you’ve written over many years — and from
inside Syria, on the ground — I would think
you agree with this.
In some
ways, Syria wasn’t that different. All
modern Western wars have been fought with
manipulated imagery and disinformation. We
call it propaganda and accuse the Nazis and
Soviets of doing it, but the U.S. does it
better than anyone. It’s literally the main
tool in America's military kit: Otherwise,
Americans would never accept the
never-ending wars. There used to be laws
forbidding the U.S. government from
propagandizing the American people. The
Obama administration undid many of those
legal barriers. If you ever have a chance to
read the U.S. Special Forces’ Unconventional
Warfare manual, you will see how fundamental
propaganda is to U.S. efforts to maintain
hegemony. Everything starts and ends with
“scene-setting” and “swaying perceptions” to
prepare a population to support invasion,
occupation, drone wars, “humanitarian
interventions,” rebellion, regime change.
It was no
different in Syria. The U.S. government
imposed key narratives from day one — that
Assad was indiscriminately killing civilians
in a popular, peaceful revolution. Was this
true? Not particularly. Eighty-eight
soldiers were killed across Syria in the
first month of protests. You never heard
that in the Western media. That information
would have altered your perception of the
conflict, wouldn’t it?
The Syrian
opposition used to burn tires on the tops of
buildings to simulate shelling for TV
cameras. Did you see that footage here? The
only reason Syria seems like a “different
kind of war” is because we had Twitter and
Facebook and alternative media punching
holes in Washington’s storyline every day —
and because Syrians had the audacity
to resist for eight years. You can’t keep up
an act for eight years. People catch on.------
----
Another area of interest is the
question of when and how the opposition —
supposedly unarmed at the start — came to be
armed. The question of proportionate
responses to violence comes into this, as
you’ve just suggested.
Elements
of the opposition were armed from the very
start of the conflict. We have visual and
anecdotal evidence of weapons caches, armed
gunmen infiltrating the Lebanese border, and
“foreign” gunmen appearing in Daraa, the
city [in southern Syria] where
protests first manifested. In the early
days, it was hard to prove this because
efforts were made to hide evidence that the
opposition had weapons — and anyone claiming
so was instantly marginalized. But then the
Arab League (which had suspended Syria and
was therefore viewed as an impartial body)
sent in an observer team that produced a
stunning report — one you did not read about
in the Western press. The observer mission
detailed the opposition’s bombings and
terrorism and attacks on infrastructure and
civilians.
I also
know the opposition was armed from the start
[March 2011] because of my own investigation
and discovery that 88 Syrian soldiers were
ambushed and killed across Syria in the
first month of the conflict…. I have their
names, ages, ranks, birthplaces —
everything. Then in June 2011, over 100
Syrian soldiers were murdered in Jisr
Shughour, in Idlib Province, many with their
heads cut off, and nobody could dispute this
anymore. Yet we continued to hear “the
opposition is unarmed and peaceful” in the
media for a good long while.
But you
asked about proportionality, and to that I
would simply ask: What if there were armed
men in Washington who killed a few cops in
the last week of December? In January, these
unknown shooters began a campaign of
ambushing American servicemen coming and
going from their bases in Fairfax, Newport
News, Arlington, killing 88 in total. Then,
in March, over 100 U.S. soldiers are killed
in a single day, half with their heads cut
off. What is a “proportionate” response for
you…? That answer about proportionality will
be different for different people, I can
assure you.
The next question is obvious. Who
armed the opposition? Are we able to say?
We know
today the U.S., U.K., France, Qatar, Saudi
Arabia, the U.A.E. and Turkey are the main
countries that armed, trained, financed and
equipped the militants, and that they found
intricate ways to avoid detection,
especially at the beginning. Weapons came
into Syria from all five border countries
at different parts of this conflict —
Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey, Iraq, Israel — but
I would say the most weapons probably
arrived via Turkey, arms transfers that were
very much coordinated with its NATO
partners.
Read the full article HERE:
Visit ann arky's home at https://radicalglasgow.me.uk