THE GUARDIAN AND ITS ROLE IN ACCUSING ASSAD AND PUSHING FOR WAR ON SYRIA

The Guardian is controlled left. It wholeheartedly supported the push for green genocide at Copenhagen in 2009, publishing little booklets before and during the conference. But it had to. There is only one newspaper that could have possibly supported green genocide that way. Each newspaper has its part to play in projecting an image of the world into our brains, and it is the role of The Guardian to play a caring, humanitarian role. That the leaders of the Africa and Asia rejected the original Copenhagen agreement because they believed it would have led to a drastic decline in living standards and their economies while enriching the west was barely reported.

In the early hours of 21st August 2013 in Syria, it was reported that chemical weapons had been used in a suburb of Damascus called Ghouta. The immediate cry in the NATO media was that Assad did it. Why Assad did it was not addressed, because Assad had no reason to do it. Such an allegation was an insult to logic, because the Syrian Arab Army had turned the war against the invading foreign cutthroats in their favour a few months earlier at al Qusair, resulting in the SAA defeating the cutthroats in battle after battle after battle. The cutthroats were on the run, being chased out of their dens into a cloud of SAA bullets and a shallow grave, or back to where they came from (which is not Syria).

Every single major British newspaper blamed Assad for Ghouta.

Even The Guardian.

There now follows an analysis of the editorials of The Guardian and its sister The Observer.

The Guardian directly accused Assad in its first editorial after the event. They didn't wait for evidence. They know they are one of the most popular news outlets on the internet, and should therefore exercise caution and professionalism and responsibility. But they didn't.

There is next to no doubt that chemical weapons were used in Ghouta in eastern Damascus, and that, unlike previous alleged attacks, they produced mass casualties. Whether the death toll is in the hundreds or over a thousand, as the rebels claim, this is one of the most significant chemical weapons attacks since Saddam Hussein's on the Kurds in Halabja 25 years ago, and an unmistakable challenge to the vow Barack Obama made a year ago that, if proved, the use of chemical or biological weapons would "change my calculus".

Nor is there much doubt about who committed the atrocity. The Syrian government acknowledged it had launched a major offensive in the area and they are the only combatant with the capability to use chemical weapons on this scale.

[source : Syria: chemical weapons with impunity, The Guardian, http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/22/syria-chemical-weapons, 22nd August 2013]

A few days later and their accusations (at least in editorials) had calmed down a bit but were still present between the lines. But whereas just after the events in Ghouta The Guardian made accusations but did not call for war, on Sunday 24th August in an editorial in its sister The Observer, war was suggested, the reason was R2P, responsibility to protect. Read this and see what you think:

The stark and compelling evidence of large-scale atrocities, including the strongly suspected use of chemical weapons outside Damascus last week, killing perhaps hundreds of people, comes amid a growing perception that a weak and divided international community is powerless and unwilling to act on crimes against humanity. A sense of impunity feeds boldness and escalation. In Damascus, Cairo and elsewhere, actors today are making dangerous decisions based on the calculation that they will not be called to account.

In these circumstances, it is the easiest thing to say that, in the case of Syria in particular, there are only bad options. That may be true. But increasingly it may be that there is a worse option: doing nothing.

This paper has resisted the calls for military intervention in Syria. It remains the case that such intervention seems a deeply perilous route, with no guarantee of success and pregnant with the risk of triggering a wider regional war. But we do appear to be coming ever closer to a tipping point, with difficult judgments ahead. The recent statements from William Hague and President Obama have raised the temperature and increased the likelihood of some form of action or sanction if it is conclusively proved that the Syrian regime is authoring chemical attacks on its citizens. Hague is right to say that "a chemical attack ... is not something that a humane and civilised world can ignore".

[source : Choosing between bad options in Syria becomes ever more complex, The Observer, http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/24/options-syria, 24th August 2013]

There is the strong hint that Assad was to blame for Ghouta, as can be found in, "In Damascus, Cairo and elsewhere, actors today are making dangerous decisions based on the calculation that they will not be called to account."

And then in, "This paper has resisted the calls for military intervention in Syria...But we do appear to be coming ever closer to a tipping point", we see the strong hint that bombing Syria under R2P would be acceptable.

Readers should also note that in not one editorial of The Guardian or The Observer are the cutthroats ever accused or considered as culprits.

Then came the debate in The Marsten House, and to be fair The Guardian appeared to be less antiwar, and did not make any blatant accusations, and appeared pleased at the outcome of that vote.

But it made up for it the following weekend in another Observer editorial.

How many died in the Assad regime's chemical attacks? The UK's mini-dossier put to MPs last Thursday said 330 or so, the fatter US intelligence file cited by Mr Obama said nearly 1,500. One round of claims and responsibilities was described as "highly likely", another as "compelling"

[source : Syria: an air strike will have no practical benefit, The Observer, http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/31/observer-editorial-syria-air-strike-no-benefit, 31st August 2013]

You can't get more blatant than that, can you?

The next day the accusations against Assad continued.

The presumed use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime presented the whole international community with a dilemma which has not gone away since. Do nothing effective, and the world would be averting its gaze from a type of warfare which has always triggered a special repugnance from countries which regard themselves as upholding moral standards. Do something forceful, and the human and military impact in Syria and beyond might be hard either to control or to justify.

[source : US and Syria: gambling with engagement, The Guardian, http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/01/us-syria-gambling-engagement-obama, 1st September 2013]

In this editorial The Guardian tasks President Obama with "international responsibilities":

Taking the congressional route may be smart domestically.

...It is right that democracies facing wars of choice should vote on whether to go ahead. But democracies have international responsibilities as well as domestic ones. The priorities in Syria are to find a diplomatic solution to the conflict and bring the rule of law to bear. If that happened, Syria's humanitarian crisis could be addressed. Western nervousness is not making any of these things easier to achieve. On the contrary, Russia and Iran are likely to feel emboldened, and Israel more threatened, creating fresh instability. The democracies have rightly opted for a considered approach. But the need for an engaged strategy is as urgent as ever, and is neglected at our collective peril.

What do you think is meant by "engaged strategy"?

The following week Syria agreed to sign the Chemical Weapons Convention. The Guardian was pleased:

But for now, the problem and doubts over enforcement should not be allowed to obscure the ultimate goal – that if Syria signs the CWC, and it said it would, a procedure will be put in place that is more thorough and more targeted at Syria's chemical weapons stock than any military action, barring full scale invasion, could achieve.

If the CWC route takes time, so be it. Renouncing the use of force – that Mr Obama's administration is deeply divided about and struggling to define –may be the price that has to be paid.

[source : Syria: a path worth exploring, The Guardian, http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/10/syria-a-path-worth-exploring, 10th September 2013]

And it is in this editorial that we really begin to see The True Guardian.

Can you see why?

Read the editorial again...and again...and again.

Have you read it?

There is not one mention of Israel's chemical weapons or its publicly stated desire to sign the CWC.

Why is The Guardian so pleased at Syria relinquishing its chemical weapons while not mentioning Israel's huge stockpiles of all kinds of nasty stuff, chemical, biological and nuclear?

And in response to the deal reached over Syria's chemical weapons, The Guardian was sceptical:

A bleaker view is to be had on the ground in rebel-held Syria. The rebels see Mr Assad as strengthened by the deal. Giving up weapons which were anyway becoming a liability is a small sacrifice for the implied protection from an air strike which he will secure for at least one year. His chemical weapons stocks were never the crown jewels they were described as being. He has allegedly used them on 14 different occasions before, but always on a small scale – enough to terrify the civilian population, but in small enough quantities to escape verification. It is no exoneration of Mr Assad to say that the most likely explanation for the massacre in Ghouta in Damascus was that it may have been the work of an overzealous local commander. Taking these weapons off the battlefield will be little relief to civilians, who are coming under fire from all manner of conventional high explosive, and no help to the Free Syrian Army.

...Last week Russian diplomacy was at its opportunistic peak. But its arguments that Mr Assad had not used chemical weapons were specious.

[source : Syria: the deal that only goes so far, The Guardian, http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/15/syria-deal-only-goes-so-far, 15th September 2013]

But at least in this editorial Israel is mentioned, but its nuclear, biological or chemical weapons stockpiles are not.

And note that nearly a month after Ghouta, the most accurate assessment that The Guardian has as to the culprit is, "It is no exoneration of Mr Assad to say that the most likely explanation for the massacre in Ghouta in Damascus was that it may have been the work of an overzealous local commander." In other words, not Prince Bandar bin Sultan and his merry band of cutthroats.

AND THIS IS THE PAPER SELLING US GLENN GREENWALD AND ED SNOWDEN AFTER ALL THE PREVIOUS NSA WHISTLEBLOWERS WERE IGNORED!? And Greenwald is now cavorting with Jeremy Scahill following Scahill's dirty war against Mother Agnes Mariam.

WHAT A TRANSPARENT SHAM!

So to summarise:
1. The Guardian immediately accused Assad of the horrific events of Ghouta;
2. The Guardian and its sister The Observer pushed R2P as a reason to attack Syria (remember, the loyal readership of The Guardian is generally the antiwar left);
3. The editorials of The Guardian and The Observer continued to accuse Assad of Ghouta after the humiliating defeat for Der Fuhrer in The Marsten House, and not once considered the rebels as the culprits;
4. Following the proposals for Syria to relinquish its stockpile of chemical weapons, The Guardian not once mentioned Israel's stockpiles of WMDs in its editorials.

So from this evidence is The Guardian working for, or at least protecting, somebody?