Saturday, September 10, 2016

“If you keep repeating lies long enough, they become the accepted truth!”

Here we go again, exposing more lies about Syrian government and chemical weapons…

UN Team Heard Claims of 'Staged' Chemical Attacks
By Robert Parry

“United Nations investigators encountered evidence that alleged chemical weapons attacks by the Syrian military were staged by jihadist rebels and their supporters, but still decided to blame the government for two incidents in which chlorine was allegedly dispersed via improvised explosives dropped by helicopters…

Since Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has been thoroughly demonizedpretty much any accusation against him – no matter how unlikely or implausible – is widely accepted in the mainstream Western media and political circles. 

In other words, the U.N. team was under pressure to reach a guilty verdict…

Why the Syrian government, which was under intense international pressure regarding alleged chemical weapons use and was in the process of surrendering its stockpile of such weapons, would have jerry-rigged a handful of homemade bombs and dropped them for no discernible military effect makes little sense…

Since Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has been thoroughly demonizedpretty much any accusation against him – no matter how unlikely or implausible – is widely accepted in the mainstream Western media and political circles. In other words, the U.N. team was under pressure to reach a guilty verdict…

Yet, the evidence…suggests that an attack on Al-Tamanah on the night of April 29-30, 2014, might well have been staged by rebels and then played up by activists through social media

As with Iraq – where the U.S. government had helped fund anti-regime groups such as the INC – a similar situation exists inside Syria where U.S. officials have assisted the “opposition” in organizing politically and mastering propaganda skills. 

So, the means and opportunity for depicting regime “atrocities” through social media are there, along with the motive.

These activists – as well as the radical jihadists and other armed rebels – have become increasingly desperate to induce the United States to intervene militarily against the Syrian army and thus make their desired “regime change” possible

As the sarin case fell apart in 2014, the U.S. government shifted its emphasis toward chlorine-gas allegations. I first encountered this bait-and-switch tactic when I pressed a senior State Department official to back up or back off the increasingly discredited sarin gas claims…

But the more nettlesome question, which the U.N. report does not address, is why would the Syrian government launch these strange attacks while realizing that any chemical weapons incident could prompt U.S. military intervention that could tip the war in favor of the jihadists and other rebels, especially since the chlorine attacks had virtually no military value…

In both these cases – the sarin and chlorine investigations – U.N. officials were under enormous pressure from the U.S. State Department and Western governments to come up with something that could be used to justify “regime change” in Damascus

Significantly, the recent U.N. report was initially leaked to The New York Times, which has been at the forefront of agitating for another “regime change” operation in Syria. 

Not unexpectedly, the Times produced an article on Aug. 24 that applied no skepticism to the accusations and simply blamed the Assad government for two of the chlorine attacks.

The U.N. report wasn’t officially available until the end of August, but even then it was extremely difficult to access at the U.N.’s Web site. This week, I finally reached a U.N. press representative who walked me through the maze of links required to get to the right page, but it turned out that the page had been off-line since last Friday, the press aide said. Finally, on Tuesday, I was sent a link that worked.

Though these technical glitches may well have been coincidental, the effect was to delay any critical review of the U.N.’s report. By the time its evidentiary and logical gaps could be examined by the public, the conventional wisdom had already solidified regarding the Syrian government’s guilt.

Investigative reporter Robert Parry 
broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. 

Why are the U.S. and its various allies so determined to fuel this horrible terrorist war to destroy the Syrian government?
There may be other reasons, but here are 8 for starters:

1) Turkey in the north wants to use the waters of Euphrates and Tigris alone and not share it with Syria and Iraq, while Israel wants to keep the water rich Golan Heights. Israel also wants to conquer the Litani river area in southern Lebanon, and Hezbollah, a close ally of Syria, is in the way.

2) Qatar wants to have a pipeline crossing Syria to transfer gas to Europe.

3) Saudi Arabia, UAE, and fellow Arab monarchies consider any secular and socialist Arab government as a threatening example of an alternative system and want to prevent a Shiite dominated axis consisting of Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, Iraq.

4) Israel loves the chaos in the surrounding Arab countries. Syria was the biggest supporter of the Palestinian cause.

5) The MIC (military industrial complex) lobbyists need continuous war to boost profits, Pentagon and CIA need war to justify their excessive funding and to increase their influence. Syria buys weapons from Russia and not from the USA.

6) The USA plays the long-term geopolitical game of a destabilization push from Syria to Iran to Central Asia, North Caucasus, Volga region (Russia’s “soft underbelly” with a significant Muslim population).

7) Hillary Clinton’s email advocating regime change in Syria as a means of weakening Iran to ensure Israel’s nuclear monopoly in the Middle East.

8) The desire by the U.S., Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Israel to sabotage of the proposed Iranian-Iraqi-Syrian pipeline which would provide economic benefit to Iran, Iraq and Syria, while competing with Turkey’s energy hub and Israel’s marketing of its offshore natural gas (and oil from the Golan) to Europe (or at least its plans to do so). 

All mainstream media, including The New York Times, should be assumed to be lying about Syria (until proven otherwise)!

It took the NYT not one, not two, not three, but FOUR guesses to correctly describe Aleppo, so I think they can be fairly ignored for the remainder of the conflict.

To summarize,

1) First, they claimed Aleppo is the “de facto capital of ISIS” [ISIS isn’t in Aleppo at all]
2) Next, they changed that to say that Aleppo is an “ISIS stronghold” [wrong again]
3) Incredibly, they posted a “correction” that described Aleppo as “the capital of Syria” [It's Damascus]
4) Finally, they issued a “correction to the correction” and gave up, describing Aleppo as a “war-torn” city

Note that this was in their story correcting Gary Johnson for not knowing anything about Aleppo.

No comments: