THE GUARDIAN CONTINUES ITS PRO ESTABLISHMENT ANTI SYRIA POLICY

In The Editor's Picks section of The Guardian today, the editorial team have selected a rant from Rime Allaf. Her rant propagates the pro-establishment anti-Syria policy.

So, who is Rime Allaf? She works for Chatham House.

So, what is Chatham House? According to their own history:

In 1919 British and American delegates to the Paris Peace Conference, under the leadership of Lionel Curtis, conceived the idea of an Anglo-American Institute of foreign affairs to study international problems with a view to preventing future wars. In the event, the British Institute of International Affairs was founded separately in London in July 1920 and received its Royal Charter in 1926 to become The Royal Institute of International Affairs. The American delegates developed the Council on Foreign Relations in New York as a sister institute. Both are now among the world's leading international affairs think-tanks.

[source : Chatham House History, Chatham House, http://www.chathamhouse.org/about-us/history, Accessed 27th January 2014]

Which seems innocent enough. But behind this apparently simple, innocent paragraph lies some evil warmongering. Readers should by now be fully aware that World War 1 was a conspiracy designed to establish a world government that Great Britain would control, and whose will would be enforced by the USA. But the USA voted out of it all, which led to World War 2. Lionel Curtis was the brains behind the Milner/Rhodes cabal who dreamed of a British empire controlling the planet. This cabal were the ultimate British Imperialists, and after the death of Edward VII they implemented World War 1 through their network including the use of Freemasonry to assassinate Arch Duke Ferdinand, and then King George V and Sir Edward Grey tricked Germany into invading Belgium, with a little help from Rothschild cousin Bethmann-Hollweg.

So this is no ordinary think tank that Allaf works for. It is THE British Imperial Establishment think tank.

And how many times has Allaf written on The Guardian? This is only her 4th comment on The Guardian.

So what does Allaf say?

Nevertheless, the diplomatic process has delivered some surprises. For one, the Syrian regime's delegation exasperated even its Russian backer with belligerent statements and a disrespectful flouting of the meeting's protocol; the abusive and obnoxious speech by the Syrian foreign minister, Walid Muallem, was in particular received very poorly. In contrast, the president of the national coalition, Ahmad Jarba, was rational and constructive, impressing even the most sceptical of watchers.

While Assad's delegation launched into absurd tirades, hysterical interviews and petty time-wasting tactics during various encounters with the media, the coalition's outreach was disciplined and open-minded.Most importantly, for the international community and Syrians of all persuasions, the meeting proved a few points. First, by agreeing to the process, the Assad regime has recognised that there is a formal, organised opposition, and that the uprising is not the global conspiracy or the terrorist invasion it has always claimed.

[source : Rime Allaf, Geneva's endless peace process plays into Bashar al-Assad's hands, The Guardian, http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/26/geneva-peace-process-bashar-al-assad-syria, 27th January 2014]

But Muallem's speech was one of the greatest, most accurate and passionate speeches that I have heard or read. It was that great that Ban Ki Moon tried to shut him up! Allaf's complete ignorance, witting or unwitting, is exposed in this sentence:

First, by agreeing to the process, the Assad regime has recognised that there is a formal, organised opposition, and that the uprising is not the global conspiracy or the terrorist invasion it has always claimed.

But as this blog has continuously exposed, the violence in Syria is both a global conspiracy AND a terrorist invasion. General Wesley Clark was told shortly after the inside job 9/11 that there would be war on seven nations in five years, and that Syria was one of those seven. But by 2007 this plan was seriously behind schedule, so a Faustian agreement was reached between the USA, Israel and Saudi Arabia (and where was the DFQ while all this was being agreed?) that Saudi Arabia would unleash nasty Jihadis onto Syria, among others.

So, why is The Guardian's editorial team picking this load of shite from Allaf? It is obvious why. After I destroyed the credibility of The Guardian through an analysis of its editorials on Syria after Ghouta, The Guardian is blatantly the controlled left of NATO's media psyops against this Disunited Fascist Queendom.