WHERE IS THE PUBLIC OUTRAGE ON SYRIA?

The Secretary General of The Norwegian Refugee Council, Jan Egeland, has written his first comment on The ZioGuardian's Comment is Free. The focus of his comment is Syria. The title of his comment is, "Where is the public outrage over Syria?" Egeland contrasts the apparent apathy over Syria to the outrage that was provoked over the events in Rwanda and the Balkans in the 1990's.

But has Egeland written his comment in the wrong paper?

Does Egeland believe that The ZioGuardian is the source of all wisdom and truth?

As I have shown on this blog, The ZioGuardian is perhaps the most dangerous weapon that NATO has in its arsenal of psychological weapons against us, the muggins taxpaying British public. Newspapers like The Daily Telegraph, The Times, The Sun, The Daily Mail can all be depended upon to cry for war. But the other three, The Daily Mirror, The Independent and The Guardian, because they are not on the right, and usually not being on the right means being anti-war, then these papers must tread a careful line if they are to call for war. But The Guardian must do this extremely carefully because it is one of the most widely read newspapers on the internet, and has this air of respectability and credibility about it. So if The Guardian calls for war then surely that war is a worthy war? ABSOLUTELY NOT!! I have shown here that The Guardian is a highly suspect newspaper, defending Rothschild agents and defending Israel but attacking Israel's enemies in its editorials.

If The Guardian repeated just 1% of what I write here about Syria then there would be public outrage on Syria. But that outrage would be directed at our ruling establishment who at the least agreed to 9/11 and then used the public outrage over 9/11 to launch a series of wars that was revealed to General Wesley Clark, that series of wars targeting Israel's enemies who were named in A Clean Break, Iraq, Iran, Syria and Lebanon, together with Libya, Sudan and Somalia.

As yet no such 1% has been repeated, and by doing so The Guardian supports and defends the elite 1% and their wars.

Egeland's ignorant comment assists the NATO cause by calling for Russia and Iran to pressure Assad, citing a violation of international law.

The "bad guys" on either side have not lacked the arms to attack or besiege civilians. The regime's army and the most extreme opposition groups access supplies of arms and other support from UN member states every single month. The recipe for reversing a generation of humanitarian advance must be to have the security council applying pressure on all sides to stop violating basic international law. Only when Russia and Iran put real pressure on the regime, and commensurate pressure is put on extremist armed opposition groups by Gulf States, can we end this humanitarian free fall.

[source : Jan Egeland, Where is the public outrage on Syria?, The Guardian, http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/14/syria-public-outrage-horrors, 14th February 2014]

I have to disagree with Egeland. His comment shows his not complete ignorance of the series of wars since 9/11 (he does recognise the support that the cutthroat Jihadis have comes primarily from the Gulf states), but there is still a hell of a lot of naivete. Syria has been invaded by a plague of cutthroat Jihadis in a plan agreed between Israel, the USA and Saudi Arabia. 'The Syrian War', as Egeland calls it, is essentially an undeclared war on Syria by these 3 nations supported by Great Britain, France and Turkey. And that is the true violation of international law that Egeland should be discussing. Syria should be allowed to deal with this illegal invasion by itself, and be allowed to ask for assistance from whoever it likes, be it Russia and/or Iran, to conquer the cutthroat cannibal invaders, BUT AT THE SAME TIME ALL PRESSURE SHOULD BE PLACED ON THE INVADERS AND THEIR SUPPORTERS TO CEASE THIS ILLEGAL UNDECLARED WAR ON SYRIA!

As with Seamus Milne's comments, Egeland's comments serve one purpose and one purpose only; to give The Guardian some anti-war credibility while its editorials and comments from others writers, such as Nick Cohen, support war.

And to add to this danger posed by The Guardian, Douglas Alexander has written a comment in The Guardian.

Alexander immediately blames Assad for all the bloodshed in Syria!!

In every generation there are horrors that define an age and events that scar the global conscience. In Syria's war over 130,000 are already dead and millions more displaced. The country is melting away, the region destabilised and extremism is taking hold. The responsibility for this war lies primarily with Bashar al-Assad, but this conflict also represents the abject failure of the international community to act decisively and collectively. Given the sheer scale of the continued suffering, it is an understandable response to reflect on steps taken, and not taken, over recent years.

[source : Douglas Alexander, Progress in Geneva is slow, but it's still Syria's best chance of peace, The Guardian, http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/13/geneva-slow-syria-best-chance-peace-military-intervention, 13th February 2014]

BUT THIS IS THE SHADOW FOREIGN SECRETARY!!

WITH A FIRST CLASS DEGREE IN MODERN HISTORY!!

What the hell do these history students get taught at university?

Alexander showed some rejection of the agenda by being at the forefront of the move to reject Cameron's motion for war last August. So some recognition of that is deserved.

But as with everything that gets published in The Guardian regarding Syria, Assad is blamed. Assad is the accused. Assad is the firestarter (a twisted firestarter).

And Alexander pushes the agenda by implying that Assad has to go.

So now is the time to establish a much-needed "contact group" to bring all the stakeholders to the table, rather than leaving them free to continue a proxy war. Under the auspices of the UN, such a group would include the US and Russia, but also crucially Iran, Saudi Arabia and Turkey. Only a political transition will end the war but further and immediate action must be taken to ease the suffering.

NO!

NO!

NO!

Last summer NATO had data that suggested that 70% of Syrians supported Assad, 20% were neutral and only 10% supported the rebels. This is why the violence in Syria is in reality an invasion. This is why there are so many 'stakeholders', as Alexander calls them (who are in reality warmongers).

If Assad goes then the illegal warmongers win.

So even though Alexander stopped war on Syria he still pushes the agenda by blaming Assad for the violence and calling for Assad's resignation.

This is why The ZioGuardian is arguably the most dangerous newspaper in the UK. The likes of The Daily Telegraph etc are bona fide warmongers. But in this era of war weariness after Blair's illegal war on Iraq, people could get fooled into thinking that if The Guardian supports a war then that war must be a worthy war.