The Syrian Conflict: The Lies of our Government and Corporate Media
By Richard Nogueira – Global Research – 31 August, 2013

The U.S.-Iraq War as precedent: The U.S.-Iraq War was an illegal invasion based on lies that killed over a million innocent Iraqi people.

The real purpose was to control Iraqi natural resources (both oil resources and strategic regional geography), for globalist exploitation – so that corporations like JPMorgan Chase, CitiBank, Goldman Sachs, Halliburton, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, ExxonMobil, BP, Shell Oil Company, etc., etc., could enrich themselves to even greater heights.

This reality is both an egregiously immoral and unethical event as well as a violent horror that has destroyed millions of lives and left a country, Iraq, in shambles and at even greater mercy to the evil globalist forces that do not care about humanity, but base all their values on profit over people.

It is good to remember a little of the actual history here as well, since lack of this type of knowledge is part what makes the public at large so susceptible to government and corporate media lies, shaping what is politically viable by the establishment of disinformation.

Firstly, we need to remember that in general most of the Middle East as most of the rest of the developing world during the 20th century was under European and American colonization – essentially brutal standards that denied indigenous people their basic rights.

Part of that story is how Saddam Hussein came to power in Iraq. The CIA had hired him when he was in his early twenties to assassinate Qasim, a reformist leader that led a rebellion against the British puppet monarchy that was used to oppress the Iraqi people.

Saddam Hussein’s assassination attempt failed and he was whisked to safely by back-up CIA forces to hide in Egypt for two years, until continued efforts to kill Qasim were finally successful.

Once returned to Iraq, Saddam Hussein was set-up, again by the CIA, as head of Iraqi Intelligence. During this time the CIA taught him everything he was to learn to become a brutal murderous dictator. During that time, under his command (under the tutelage of the CIA), Iraqi society was purged of many different types of Iraqi citizens (constitutionalists, socialists, communists, democrats, etc.), that wanted to create a fairer society that allowed for more democratic participation.

“Purged” is of course a euphemism for murdered. It is difficult to know exactly how many, but at least hundreds of thousands of innocent people Iraqis were “purged”.

Over time The CIA found other uses for Saddam Hussien. One recently confirmed project was to supply him with chemical weapons of mass destruct (Sarin Gas) to be used against our “enemies” – the Iranians.

Ironically The Iranians were unhappy with the U.S. because America had previously done the same thing to Iran (Operation Ajax) – deposing a democratically elected moderate reformist (Mohammad Mosaddegh) with the reinstated Shah of Iran. The Shah then went on to torture and kill his own citizens to make sure his country was open to globalist exploitation – for sure, he was personally well compensated.

In 1980 there was a revolution in Iran, a hostage taking at the American Embassy – the Iranians were ready to kill Americans because they felt just in wanting a society free of American colonial rule.

So, Iranian Revolution against U.S. oppression, Saddam Hussein was employed with the task of gassing the Iranian Army, and the U.S. was more than just passingly complicit. (Saddam also had the idea to gas Iraqi Kurds who were independently fighting his dictatorial rule on his domestic front.)

The problem was that even Saddam Hussein became tired of U.S. oppression. The war he had been instigated to press against Iran left Iraq bankrupt and he started to flex his military muscles to express that Iraq wanted to be free from the oppression of U.S. Empire.

Big mistake on his part. Once you join this criminal gang of globalists and do a lot of their dirty work you are not allowed to then just walk away from them. The result of his rebellion was that he went from being a “public darling” of the U.S. (doing all the globalists dirtiest work of political purging) to suddenly being a “terrorist” – he became a threat to corporate profit centers.

Back to center stage today; Iraq’s neighbor, Syria and its President Bashar Assad:

While Assad may not be someone you and I might vote for, the U.S. has no business, no right, deposing him just because he does not play ball with our murderous globalists.

Plus, as independent forces in the Middle East, Syria is understandably now aligned with Iran, which continues to be the perverse target of U.S. aggressions. As Prof. Chossudovsky has said, “the road to Teheran goes through Damascus.”

The current insurgents that make up the Syrian opposition are 95% non-Syrian, in fact many al Qaeda groups are present and fighting Assad. (The al Qaeda were themselves originally organized and funded by the CIA. They were Mujahedeen fighters in Afghanistan were brought together, fanaticized, militarized even further, and trained to be the terrorists we are supposed to be at war with today.

On Thursday evening, 29 August 2013, President Obama, addressed the latest conflict-flares in Syria, paving the road to military attacks on Syria, again based on lies and disinformation, but also, inadvertently, admitting to the total illogic of America’s desire for war with Syria to depose President Bashar Assad. …more

Obama’s Bombs
By As’ad AbuKhalil – 2 September, 2013 – Angry Corner – Al Akhbar

The Syrian people are holding their breaths. And if you read Western media and believe their correspondents in … Beirut (who are surrounded by March 14 supporters who are members of the same Saudi coalition with the Syrian exile opposition), then the Syrian people – who have been receiving bombs from the Syrian regime, the Syrian armed opposition and Israel – are eager for more bombs from Barack Obama to fall on them. The West never intervenes and never invades and never enslaves and never colonizes without invoking high moral values. Why should this time be different? We knew that both John Kerry and Obama would invoke high moral views and feign outrage. They want us to believe that they just could not stomach watching scenes of carnage in Syria. But why did their stomach not turn when they watched scenes of carnage of the US-funded Egyptian army? And what about Bahrain and Palestine? But the list is too long.

But Kerry was more audacious. He stumbled upon new adjectives for Bashar: a “thug and murderer.” But why did Kerry have intimate one-on-one meetings with the thug and murderer, and why did he have private family dinners with the thug and murderer and his wife? Western governments often pretend that they never knew that their allies and friends were committing human rights abuses until they decide to take a stand for reasons that have nothing to do with human rights abuses.

But Obama drew a line in the sand and created a red line and is now compelled by virtue of imperial hubris and machismo to bomb. Not that Obama has stopped bombing. Thus far, Obama has bombed Mali, Libya, Yemen, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and the list is growing. The man who faulted Bush for launching a “dumb war” (his language carries no sense of idealism, of course), is about to launch another “dumb war” by his own terminology. A sign of typical American imperialist arrogance is the insistence that the US can manage to keep an attack or a war of aggression “limited.” The US engagement in Lebanon between 1982 and 1984 was supposed to be limited until it got out of hand and until Reagan declared – not an end to the US involvement – but a mere “re-deployment” of US troops (and the US troops were never re-deployed back in Lebanon since.)

US media typically cheer any president who is about to launch war on another country. In the 30 years that I have lived in the US, I would say that US media consistently support military interventions by a sitting president with the exception of interventions in Latin America. When it comes to US interventions in Latin America, some in the US establishment media raise questions and express skepticism. But that is not the case when a US president declares war on Middle East or African countries. There you see liberals and conservatives in agreement. Nicholas Kristof (the patronizing columnists for The New York Times who fancies himself as a modern Indiana Jones-type who goes on a white horse to formerly-colonized lands to rescue native women from bad native men) sounds very much John McCain when it comes to Syria. For some reason – call it Israel – there is no right and left, Republicans or Democrats, when it comes to the Middle East. …more

Britain quizzed over sale of chemicals to Syria
3 September, 2012 – By Olivia Alabaster – The Daily Star

BEIRUT: The British government is being asked to explain why it granted export licenses for the sale of chemicals to Syria which can be used in the production of nerve gases, after the civil war was well underway.

The export licenses – for sodium fluoride and potassium fluoride – were granted in January 2012, 10 months after the civil war had begun and by which point nearly 6,000 people had been killed, according to Local Coordination Committees, an activist network, and concerns about the use of chemical weapons had already been expressed.

A member of the Commons’ Committees on Arms Export Control, Thomas Docherty MP has written to Business Secretary Vince Cable, asking for further details on the deal.

The chemicals, which can be used in the production of sarin gas, did not reach Syria in the end, as EU sanctions introduced in the summer of that year blocked their export.

“However,” Docherty writes, “the actions of the U.K. government leave serious questions to be answered.”

“Did any discussions take place between your officials and those in either the Foreign and Commonwealth Office or Ministry of Defense to determine exactly what these chemicals could be used for?,” Docherty asks in the letter, seen by The Daily Star.

He adds, “When did the U.K. government first become aware of their potential use in chemical weapons?”

The revelations, which were first reported in the Scottish Sunday Mail, come as the U.S. weighs taking militarily against the Syrian regime, as it says it has evidence the government used sarin gas in the Damascus suburb of Ghouta on Aug. 21, killing at least 1,429 people, including over 400 children.

Damascus has confirmed that it has chemical weapons, but has said it would not use them against its own people, and vehemently denies claims that it carried out the Ghouta attack.

British government guidelines state that “the government will not issue licenses for exports which would provoke or prolong armed conflicts or aggravate existing tensions or conflicts in the country of final destination,” according to the Campaign Against Arms Trade, a British NGO.

“The chemicals licenses were issued when Syria was in turmoil, with massive government repression and armed opposition,” Kaye Stearman, spokesperson for the CAAT, said.

“The parliamentary CAEC had already criticized the government for lack of caution when approving licenses – this episode seems to bear their criticisms out,” she added.

In a statement issued Monday, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, which issued the export licenses, claimed the intended recipient company in Syria had “demonstrated that the chemicals were for a legitimate civilian end use – which was for metal finishing of aluminium profiles used in making aluminium showers and aluminium window frames.”

It added, “The U.K. government operates one of the most rigorous arms export control regimes in the world, and has been at the forefront of implementing an international sanctions regime on Syria.”
…more

Dubious Intelligence and Iran Blackmail: How Israel is driving the US to war in Syria
Max Blumenthal – 1 September, 2013 Mondoweiss

President Barack Obama’s August 31 announcement that he would seek congressional authorization to strike Syria has complicated an aggressive Israeli campaign to render a US attack inevitable. While the Israelis are far from the only force in bringing the US to the brink of war – obviously Assad’s own actions are the driving factor – their dubious intelligence assessments have proven pivotal.

On April 25, the head of the Israeli army’s Military Intelligence research and analysis division, Brig. Gen. Itai Brun, delivered a high profile lecture at the military-linked Institute for National Security Studies. “To the best of our professional understanding, the [Syrian] regime has used lethal chemical weapons,” Brun declared, referring to March 19 attacks near Damascus and Aleppo.

“The very fact that they have used chemical weapons without any appropriate reaction,” Brun said, “is a very worrying development, because it might signal that this is legitimate.”

The stunning statement by the Israeli army’s top intelligence analyst was significantly stronger than suspicions expressed days before by the UK and France about the Syrian regime’s use of chemical weapons. It was clearly aimed at Obama, who had declared in the summer of 2012 that chemical weapons attacks on civilian targets would transgress a “red line” and trigger US military action. But the White House pushed back against the Israeli ploy, dispatching Secretary of State John Kerry to demand Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu supply more conclusive evidence.

“I don’t know yet what the facts are,” Kerry said after a phone call with Netanyahu, “I don’t think anybody knows what they are.”

Specious intelligence brightens the red line

Flash forward to the August 21 Ghouta massacre, where over 1000 Syrian civilians died without any sign of external wounds in a series of attacks. As in April, Israel has come forward with intelligence supposedly proving that the victims of the attacks died from nerve gas deployed by units from Assad’s Syrian Arab Army (SAA).

On August 24, Israel’s Channel 2 broadcast a report claiming that the 155th Brigade of the 4th Armored Division of Assad’s SAA fired the nerve gas shells on Ghouta. Channel 2 added that Israel was relaying its concerns to Washington, suggesting an urgent demand for US action. The report was echoed by an August 30 article in Germany’s Focus magazine claiming that Israeli army’s Unit 8200 — a cyber-warfare division that functions much like the American NSA — had intercepted communications of top Syrian officials ordering the chemical attack.

Oddly, neither outlet was able to reproduce audio or any quotes of the conversation between the Syrian officials. Channel 2 did not appear to cite any source at all – it referred only to “the assessment in Israel” – while Focus relied on an unnamed former Mossad official for its supposed bombshell. The definitive nature of the Israeli intelligence on Ghouta stood in stark contrast to the kind introduced by other US allies, which was entirely circumstantial in nature. At the same time, it relied on murky sources and consisted of vague assertions.

The Assad regime may indeed be responsible for the Ghouta massacre, but Israel’s military-intelligence apparatus does not exactly have a reputation for trustworthiness. (Consider, for example, the Israeli army’s shameless attempt to link the Gaza Freedom Flotilla to Al Qaeda by plastering Israeli media with crude and easily discredited propaganda, always sourced to anonymous national security officials.) Yet in his determination to see the US attack the country he recently referred to as “Iran’s testing ground,” Netanyahu appeared to be succeeding in his campaign to bring Obama’s red line back into focus.

The rush to war, interrupted

On August 26, an Israeli delegation containing Netanyahu’s National Security Advisor Yaakov Amidror and a collection of Shin Bet and top army officials arrived in Washington for a series of meetings coordinated by US National Security Advisor Susan Rice. The agenda was to plan for the aftermath of a US strike on Syria that was already inevitable, at least from the perspective of the meeting’s participants.

The following day, Vice President Joseph Biden became the highest level US official to blame Assad for Ghouta, declaring, “There is no doubt who is responsible for this heinous use of chemical weapons in Syria: The Syrian regime.” The Obama administration supported Biden’s claim by citing classified communications intercepted from Syrian officials – intelligence that appeared to have been supplied by the Israelis.

Giora Inbar, a former Israeli intelligence officer, told Channel 2 that the US was not only “aware of” Israel’s intelligence gathering efforts in Syria, it “relies upon it.”

With Kerry and Rice joining Biden in the spotlight to make the case for bombing Syria, the White House released an intelligence report “assess[ing] with high confidence that the Syrian government carried out the chemical weapons attack against opposition elements in the Damascus suburbs on August 21.”

The content of the report was extremely general in nature, containing a caveat that some intelligence had been omitted “to protect sources and methods.” One of the report’s strongest passages referred to “intercepted communications involving a senior official intimately familiar with the offensive who confirmed that chemical weapons were used by the regime on August 21 and was concerned with the U.N. inspectors obtaining evidence.” Though no source was named, the language tracks almost exactly with the Israeli intelligence leaked to Channel 2 and Focus magazine.

It was August 30 when the report appeared. By this point, the question was not whether the US would bomb Syria, but how soon.

And then Obama blinked.

Iran blackmail, the coming campaign

Now that Obama has turned to Congress to authorize force against Syria, he is under relentless attack in Israel, with a chorus of pundits and politicians hammering him for his act of betrayal and cowardice in the face of evil. Amidst the din of condemnation, a talking point has emerged that will likely figure at the heart of Israel’s case to Congress and the American public this week.

The message was neatly summarized in the headline of a piece by the Likud-friendly correspondent Herb Keinon in the Jerusalem Post: “Weak world response on Syria boosts chance of strong Israeli action on Iran.” Referring to Obama’s decision and the British’ parliament’s vote against participating in a strike on Syria, Keinon wrote, “That kind of international dallying is not the type of behavior that will instill confidence in Israeli leaders that they can count on the world when it comes to Iran.”

At Haaretz, Amos Harel reinforced the talking point in a piece of analysis that claimed “Arabs perceive Obama as weak” – but which cited absolutely zero Arabs. Running through a litany of examples of supposed American weakness, Harel concluded, “it’s no wonder that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is becoming increasingly persuaded that no one will come to his aid if Iran suddenly announces that it is beginning to enrich uranium to 90 percent.”

The threat of a unilateral Israeli strike on Iran if the US does not act on Syria is slowly seeping into American media, and will almost certainly grow more pronounced this week as pro-Israel pundits and members of the Obama administration unite on their message. AIPAC may also join the push for congressional authorization, a move the night flower-style lobby managed to avoid during the run-up to invading Iraq. If the Israel lobby is forced into the open, it could hold the prospect of an attack on Iran like a gun to the heads of members of Congress, warning them that the price of inaction is a regional conflagration.

Though Congress will be under unrelenting pressure from powerful forces to authorize force, the vote provides an unprecedented opportunity for opponents of US military intervention in the Middle East to mobilize. Anti-war forces may not be able to match the financial muscle or public relations power of pro-war elements, but they have opinion firmly on their side. And a direct conflict with the American public may be the one fight Netanyahu does not want to pick. …source

Russia asks Turkey for info on sarin terrorists
6 June 2013 – Turkish Weekly

Russia has called on Turkey to share its findings in the case of Syrian rebels who were seized on the Turkish-Syrian border with a 2kg cylinder full of nerve gas sarin.

Russia’s top foreign official Sergei Lavrov tolday said the Kremlin wanted to get clear on the issue of chemical weapons used in Syria, since the allegation had taken on the role of a trading card in the conflict, becoming a focus of constant provocations.

“I do not rule out that some force may want to use it [the rumour] to say that the “red line” has been crossed and a foreign intervention is needed,” the minister said.

“We are still waiting on a comprehensive report from our Turkish colleagues,” he added, citing the incident when a gang of terrorists carrying a canister with nerve gas sarin was arrested inside the Turkish territory about two weeks ago.

Moscow calls to pick side in Syria conflict

Russia’s chief of foreign affairs has urged the international community to finally take its pick and decide whether it is going to side with forces set to topple the Syrian regime or with the ones calling for a nationwide dialogue on Syrian peace.

Speaking at a press conference, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said: “We want that… the international community took off the blinders that make its focus on its immediate urge to overthrow one leader, then unseat another one, while turning a blind eye on the outcome of these actions.”

“Whatever has been happening during this ‘Arab Spring,’ it is clear now that these events are closely connected, so it is important to choose who you are siding with… with those who want to cut the knot without looking back at the suffering nation – or with those who want to solve this problem though dialogue,” Mr. Lavrov said.

Russia urges prompt inquiry into chemical arms use in Syria – Lavrov
All of the possible instances of chemical weapons use in Syria should be established as soon as possible, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said.

“I would like to support Guido [German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle] regarding the need to urgently establish all of the facts linked to reports about the possible use of chemical weapons by the sides,” Lavrov said at a press conference in the Kaliningrad region on Thursday.

A serious mistake was made when the Syrian government’s request to investigate the possible use of chemical toxic substances in the city of Aleppo on March 19 was left without any response, but unlimited and unhindered access to any facility on Syrian territory was demanded instead, the Russian minister said.

All opposition groups in Syria should be able to be involved in reaching compromise – Lavrov

Russia insists that all structures related to the settlement of the situation in Syria should take part in the international conference on Syria, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said.

“All structures should be present at that conference. That applies not only to the national coalition, which has so far failed to take a constructive stance in the conference. That also applies to those opposition structures that do not want to be present at the Geneva conference if it is called under the ‘umbrella’ of the national coalition,” Lavrov told a press conference on Thursday.

Among the organization that want to take an independent part in the conference are the National Coordination Committee and the Syrian Kurds, he said.

“We believe all opposition structures in Syria should be given an opportunity to communicate their viewpoint and participate in the achievement of a compromise, which will ensure peace, stability, ad equal rights for all ethnic and religious groups in the country,” Lavrov said.

Russia vows to bring Iran to Syria parley amid Western criticism

Russia is set to push for Iranian presence at the planned Syria conference, dubbed Geneva II, in Switzerland, Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Thursday.

Mr. Lavrov stressed Moscow was intent on bringing all countries who can influence the parley to the negotiating table. And one of those world powers is Tehran, he pointed out.

The West has met this motion with a great deal of resentment. “At the current stage our partners have been quite outspoken and critical about Iran’s participation,” Sergei Lavrov said at a briefing today. “We think they are mistaken,” he added.

The Russian foreign minister vowed that Russia “will keep pressing for including all influential parties in the conference.” …source

Many – from alternative news outlets to mainstream to governments – find the Obama administration’s justification for launching an attack on Syria full of holes.

Suspicions That Rebels Launched Chemical-weapons Attack Refuse to Die
By Russ Wellen, 3 September, 2013 – Foreign Policy in Perspective

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad once again denied, in so many words, that his regime was responsible for chemical-weapons attacks. In an interview with Le Figaro, he said, “I’m not at all suggesting that the Syrian army does or does not possess such weapons.” Then he reiterated what he said in an earlier interview:

Let’s suppose that our army wishes to use WMD: is it really going to do so in an area where it is actually present and where soldiers have been wounded by these weapons, as the UN inspectors found during their visit to the hospital where they were being treated? Where is the logic in that?

However far-fetched, according to Washington group-think and what’s now conventional wisdom, a hotly disputed article by Dave Gavlak at Mint Press News based in Minneapolis suggests that’s in our best interest not to discard the-rebels-did-it scenario just yet. Gavlak writes:

… from numerous interviews with doctors, Ghouta residents, rebel fighters and their families, a different picture emerges. Many believe that certain rebels received chemical weapons via the Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, and were responsible for carrying out the dealing gas attack.

However implausible to most, the tale “many” tell is too plausible to ignore. In other words, it sounds too realistic and detailed to be the work of their imaginations. Based on the excerpt below, see what you think.

“My son came to me two weeks ago asking what I thought the weapons were that he had been asked to carry,” said Abu Abdel-Moneim, the father of a rebel fighting to unseat Assad, who lives in Ghouta.

Abdel-Moneim said his son and 12 other rebels were killed inside of a tunnel used to store weapons provided by a Saudi militant, known as Abu Ayesha, who was leading a fighting battalion.

… Abdel-Moneim said his son and the others died during the chemical weapons attack. That same day, the militant group Jabhat al-Nusra, which is linked to al-Qaida, announced that it would similarly attack civilians in the Assad regime’s heartland of Latakia on Syria’s western coast, in purported retaliation.

The next touches are especially convincing.

“They didn’t tell us what these arms were or how to use them,” complained a female fighter named ‘K.’ “We didn’t know they were chemical weapons. We never imagined they were chemical weapons.”

“When Saudi Prince Bandar gives such weapons to people, he must give them to those who know how to handle and use them,” she warned. … A well-known rebel leader in Ghouta named ‘J’ agreed. “Jabhat al-Nusra militants do not cooperate with other rebels, except with fighting on the ground. They do not share secret information. … And unfortunately, some of the fighters handled the weapons improperly and set off the explosions,” ‘J’ said.

Feeding those suspicions, the Independent reports

It was Prince Bandar’s intelligence agency that first alerted Western allies to the alleged use of sarin gas by the Syrian regime in February.

More on Prince Bandar, Russia and the Chechens in a future post. Meanwhile, if you still need to hear reservations about the Syrian regime mounting the attacks from a source more respectable than Mint Press News, Hannah Allam and Mark Seibel summed them up for McClatchy yesterday:

The case Secretary of State John Kerry laid out last Friday contained claims that were disputed by the United Nations, inconsistent in some details with British and French intelligence reports or lacking sufficient transparency for international chemical weapons experts to accept at face value.

The first reservation cited:

The Obama administration dismissed the value of a U.N. inspection team’s work by saying that the investigators arrived too late for the findings to be credible and wouldn’t provide any information the United State didn’t already have.

U.N. spokesman Farhan Haq countered that it was “rare” for such an investigation to begin within such a short time and said that “the passage of such few days does not affect the opportunities to collect valuable samples.”

Second:

Another point of dispute is the death toll from the alleged attacks on Aug. 21. Neither Kerry’s remarks nor the unclassified version of the U.S. intelligence he referenced explained how the U.S. reached a tally of 1,429, including 426 children.

… Anthony Cordesman [of the Center for Strategic and International Studies] criticized Kerry as being “sandbagged into using an absurdly over-precise number” of 1,429, and noted that the number didn’t agree with either the British assessment of “at least 350 fatalities” or other Syrian opposition sources. … He added that the blunder was reminiscent of “the mistakes the U.S. made in preparing Secretary (Colin) Powell’s speech to the U.N. on Iraq in 2003.”

Third – and an embarrassing and possibly deadly gaffe on the part of the United States:

Another eyebrow-raising administration claim was that U.S. intelligence had “collected streams of human, signals and geospatial intelligence” that showed the regime preparing for an attack three days before the event. … That claim raises two questions: Why didn’t the U.S. warn rebels about the impending attack and save hundreds of lives? And why did the administration keep mum about the suspicious activity when on at least one previous occasion U.S. officials have raised an international fuss when they observed similar actions? …more

Episode 10: Pine Ridge, South Dakota from Radical Resistance Tour on Vimeo.