I stated a few days ago that a few years ago my comments on their CiF forums were deleted without explanation. The comments were not violent, aggressive, racist, sexist, or had any other property that they could claim for deletion other than they were informing an uninformed readership that they were being mugged off in lots of ways. Result? Comments deleted.
OK. Back to today's shameful embarrassing editorial that shows up precisely what being "British" and "Britishness" is all about. The Guardian is supposed to be the flagship of British journalism; unbiased, accurate, caring.
The editorial is entitled Syria: the only plan in town, and can be found at
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/12/syria-annan-plan-nato
The first point to note is that the editorial lays all the responsibility to implement the Annan peace plan on the Syrian government.
But a start is only what Thursday's events represent. The other five points calls on Assad to pull the troops out of population centres, make sure aid gets in, release prisoners, allow journalists in and demonstrations to go ahead.
But I thought the plan was a six point plan, with all six points applying to both the Syrian government AND the opposition, as splintered as it is.
But, you may ask, how can the opposition stop protests? Well, do not assume that any snipers reported to be shooting at protestors are members of the Syrian military firing on an anti-Assad protest. Equally, the snipers could be FSA firing on an anti-Assad protest to blame the Syrian government, or the FSA might snipe at a pro-Assad protest.
No matter. All "six" points should equally apply to the Syrian government AND the opposition, as splintered as it is.
Second, the editorial reports only violence reported to have been committed by the Syrian government.
The Local Co-ordination Committees activist group claimed yesterday that 11 were killed by the Syrian security forces yesterday, six in Homs, four in Idlib and one in Damascus.
But the Syrian government is reporting three terrorist incidents in which three people were killed.
A First Lieutenant officer was martyred while 24 officers, non-commissioned officers and a number of civilians were wounded in an explosive device blast in Aleppo.
...In Daraa, an armed terrorist group assassinated Naser Bhkeit Naser, Secretary of al-Baath Party Department in al-Mazareeb town while he was heading to buy bread.
...An armed terrorist group assassinated Brigadier General Walid Jouni in Jaramana, Damascus Countryside.
[source : An Officer Assasinated in Damascus Countryside, Another Martyred, 24 Wounded in Explosive Device Blast in Aleppo... Law-enforcement Members Wounded in Blast in Idleb, SANA, http://www.sana.sy/eng/337/2012/04/13/412228.htm, 13/04/2012]
And we all know who the armed terrorists are. Or we would, if the "British" media reported the contents of the Arab League report on the observer mission earlier this year, in which the observers stated that armed terrorist gangs are operating inside Syria, and that NATO and some Arab League media, e.g. Al Jazeera, either exaggerate or simply make stuff up about violence involving the Syrian military. None other than the leader of al Qaeda, Ayman al-Zawahiri, has called for the "lions of Syria" to rise up and chop the heads off the Syrian infidels. This resulted in a rise of car bombings in Syria, most notably in Aleppo. And several employees of Al Jazeera have resigned citing the biased unprofessional journalism against the Syria government. This supports the Arab League observer mission report, and is why certain Arab League members (guess who?) withdrew their observers and cancelled the mission.
Let's get things absolutely crystal clear.
Syria is just one of seven nations targetted for war on a list given to General Wesley Clark shortly after 9/11. Clark has since stated that there was a foreign policy coup after 9/11. On that list were Iraq(2003), Libya(2010), Lebanon(2005/6), Sudan, Somalia(just coming into the crosshairs), Iran(very soon) and Syria(ongoing). Iraq and Iran were both named in PNAC's Rebuilding America's Defenses as well as in A Clean Break along with Lebanon, written by the same bunch of warmongering nutters, who are thousands of miles away from the wars they monger. This group were in very, very powerful positions on and shortly after 9/11.
9/11 was exactly what they were looking for, "a new Pearl Harbor" to persuade the American public to go on a global warmongering rampage to attack the likes of Iraq and Iran.
What we have seen since 9/11 is that seven-nations-in-five-years plan given to General Wesley Clark.
And we would not have seen it had it not been for the highly suspicious 9/11. I mean, how could hijackers fly planes around the most protected airspace in the world for nearly 2 hours without being intercepted, even when many fighter planes had been taken away (deliberately?) from that area on "exercises"? And to fly into The Pentagon?! PNAC founder Donald Rumsfeld was Secretary of Defense and had quietly been given the sole power to stand down the military shortly before 9/11.
C'mon people!!
9/11 was an inside job to enable this warmongering, and threaten a nuclear WW3 with Russia and/or China while the global economy implodes due to derivatives, the point being to trick and/or terrify us into calling for or accepting a world government to stop all the engineered chaos.
But then the true horrors will have only just begun...
It looks like The Guardian (or whoever wrote that editorial) wants the horrors to begin!
No comments:
Post a Comment