THE GUARDIAN PUSHES FOR WAR ON SYRIA

An editorial in The Observer pushes for war on Syria, and actually has the cheek to give a nod to Tony Blair for proposing what has become known as The Blair Doctrine, or Responsibility to Protect (R2P), and then amending Blair's criteria.

...After the cold war, a loose consensus grew in western capitals around the idea of humanitarian intervention. Tony Blair, speaking in Chicago in 1999, revived the concept of the "just war". In a globalised, interconnected world, he argued, nations should abandon the outdated principle of non-interference. Combining self-interest and moral purpose, they had a duty to defend and uphold universal values, including human rights. "We are all internationalists now," he declared.

...One consequence of Iraq has been the refusal by politicians and publics in the US and Britain to back intervention in Syria. In Syria, it might be persuasively argued, the case for forcibly halting President Bashar al-Assad's murderous war on his people, curbing dangerous region-wide destabilisation and preventing further radicalisation by hardline Islamists, is overwhelming. In Syria, each day, unnumbered innocents are killed, tortured, raped or maimed, as it were before our eyes. Yet our eyes are tight shut.

...All cases are different. But forging a new international consensus on the principles governing armed interventionism is an urgent challenge. As a starting point, the likely fulfilment of five criteria, significantly different from Blair's, should be considered. Those contemplating intervention must ask themselves: 1) Does such action have broad domestic and international support? 2) What exactly are its aims and are they realistic? 3) Is it legal? 4) Is it morally justified? And 5) How does it end?

[source : Our view on foreign intervention is in chaos. We need a solution, Editorial, The Observer, http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/30/global-consensus-foreign-intervention-observer-editorial, 30th March 2014]

The eyes of The Guardian/Observer are wide shut.

War on Syria was planned decades ago, named in a Zionist warmongering document entitled A Clean Break which also named Iraq, Lebanon and Iran as targets for Israeli aggression.

Shortly after the inside Ziojob 9/11, General Wesley Clark was told of a plan for war on seven nations in five years. Those nations were:
Iraq (invaded in 2003);
Lebanon (Israel engineered a war on Hezbollah in 2006);
Libya (in 2011 NATO perverted UN SCR 1973 into a Get Gaddafi campaign);
Syria (since 2011 has been the focus of a covert invasion of cutthroat Jihadis sponsored by Saudi Arabia at the request of the DFQ);
Sudan (since 9/11 Israel has attacked Sudan several times, and Sudan has fractured but not due to Israel's bombing);
Somalia (is slowly becoming the focus of anti-terrorist operations from the USA and the EU, and the DFQ named Somalia as the greatest threat to national security);
Iran (always the target of Zionist propaganda).

By 2007 the general public were weary and dubious of war, following the debacle of the invasion of Iraq in 2003, so a Plan B was implemented; the USA, Israel and Saudi Arabia agreed that the latter would unleash cutthroat Jihadis onto those nations named to Clark. The Arab Spring was engineered to give these Jihadis cover as 'freedom fighters'. It was these Jihadis that UN SCR 1973 was supposed to defend, but within days the initial campaign of defence of civilians was perverted into one of get Gaddafi at whatever cost. And The Guardian played its imperialist part through editorials encouraging NATO to abandon UN SCR 1973 and become the Jihadi Air Force, which NATO did, with British Special Forces assisting the Jihadis on the ground, turning a blind eye as the Jihadis lynched black Libyans.

And now those Jihadis, and others encouraged by preachers like Michael Adebalajo, the convicted murderer of Lee Rigby, are in Syria decapitating, or slitting the throat of, anything that moves, including defenceless Syrian children, thus causing the crisis in Syria that The Observer wants stopping.

And of course it should be stopped. But we should look at the source of the problem. And the source lies in the Saudi/Zionist Anglophile network of British agents under orders from The City of London.

So The Observer should actually be demanding that:
1. Saudi Arabia stop financing the Jihadis;
2. our politicians stop giving the Jihadis moral and political support in the fake CIA-engineered Arab Spring;
3. MI5 smash all Jihadi networks encouraging Jihadis to go to Syria and smuggling them in, and abandon the Covenant of Security it has with Islamic extremists which allows them to operate out of London;
4. offer all possible assistance to President Bashar al-Assad in his quest to quickly annihilate the Jihadis, which would stop them returning to their home nations and continuing their delusional Jihad at home.

Sadly, MI5 need those Jihadis to return to this DFQ to provide an excuse for more intrusive surveillance by the state and more power for the state.

But The Observer editorial does not discuss anything of the above, and instead slyly proposes war on Syria because such a war would be "moral" and "just".

ps if you bought The Observer today, next Sunday donate that money to your favourite charity and instead read The Truth Serum for free.