The editorial in The Guardian to day on Putin and Syria blames them for the deaths and refugee crisis.
There is one brief mention of Saudi Arabia and Turkey, describing them as mere "actors"!!!
So, when debating the Syrian war, it is important to discriminate between the various external state involvements. There are so many actors that it has become tempting to think responsibility for the death toll and the human misery are equally shared by the west, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iran, Turkey and others.
Look more closely at the dynamics of the war and it becomes obvious that some actors are much more implicated – directly or indirectly – in the massacres of civilians. Russia has a special responsibility, not only because it is Mr Assad’s most powerful backer but because, unlike Iran, it holds a permanent seat on the UN security council.
[source : The Guardian view on the bloodshed in Syria: Russia has a lot to answer for, The Guardian, http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/sep/11/the-guardian-view-on-the-bloodshed-in-syria-russia-has-a-lot-to-answer-for, 11th September 2015]
But apart from that it is all Assad this, Russia that, Iran the other.
If you were still giving The Guardian the benefit of the doubt (for whatever dumb reason) that The Guardian was a safe source of news, then this editorial should skewer those doubts once and for all.
In 2009 Syria was a much more peaceful and stable nation that it is now.
So what happened between then and now?
To answer that question we need to go all the way back to 1991. For it is in 1991 that General Wesley Clark was told by then Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Paul Wolfowitz that the USA had 5 to 10 years to "take out those old Soviet client regimes: Iraq; Syria, Iran". This thinking was developed by Zionists in Israel in A Clean Break, which was written for then Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. And then in 1998 Wolfowitz along with Jeb Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld were signatories to the Statement of Principles of PNAC, who later wrote to then President Clinton demanding war on Iraq, and later publishing Rebuilding America's Defenses calling for the USA to wage war pretty much everywhere around the globe, but particularly on Iran and Iraq, but also recognising the need for a "new Pearl Harbor" to provoke Americans into supporting such bloodshed. On 9/11 PNAC got their new Pearl Harbor when Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were in charge of America's defences as alleged hijacked planes somehow managed to fly unimpeded around the most protected airspace in the world for nearly 2 hours before flying into the WTC and...get this...THE PENTAGON!!
Shortly after 9/11 General Wesley Clark was told the USA was going to war and implement regime change in seven countries in five years: Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Sudan, Libya and Somalia, none of whom had anything to do with 9/11. Two of them (Libya and Syria) even helped in the CIA rendition program!!
We first invaded Afghanistan, to allegedly hunt down bin Laden but it was really to restore opium harvests.
After that, it was on the plan: Iraq in 2003: Israel started a war on Hezbollah in 2006.
So by 2007, 5 years after 9/11, only Iraq and Lebanon had experienced war. So an agreement was reached between the USA, Israel and Saudi Arabia that the latter would unleash the nastiest international cutthroat Jihadis onto Syria, Lebanon and Iran. So that NATO could provide them with support these Jihadis were to be given cover as 'freedom fighters' in a US State Dept-engineered Arab Spring.
But first it was Libya in 2011, when the Jihadis killed Gaddafi. The Jihadis received ground support from British Special Forces and air support from NATO.
The Arab Spring also erupted in Syria in 2011. After killing Gaddafi the Jihadis in Libya were smuggled into Syria. In 2009 former french foreign minister Roland Dumas was asked by the British to organise the smuggling of Jihadis into Syria, which shows a degree of planning of the carnage in Syria by the British. We can assume that the Jihadis were expected to also kill Assad. But by 2013 the Jihadis were on the verge of defeat, so Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia was sent to Moscow to threaten Putin: either dump Assad or Bandar would unleash hell on earth in Syria. Putin declined. On 21st August 2013 Bandar unleashed hell, to provoke a NATO campaign against Assad, but that failed.
So a plan proposed by the US DIA in 2012 to facilitate the rise of a Salafist entity in order to isolate Assad has been implemented. That Salafist entity we know as Islamic State. And to help Islamic State grow, intelligence services hostile to Syria have been encouraging and allowing Jihadis to go to Syria, so that now the nations that in 2007 first planned to unleash the Jihadis onto Syria are now openly bombing Syria and are being joined by the UK and nations from its 'commonwealth' Australia and Canada, as well as France.
The reason for all these warnings to Putin, this anti-Putin hysteria over Syria, is that significant Russian involvement in Syria might actually help to defeat Islamic State, because the USA, UK etc have only been pretending to defeat Islamic State. They want Assad out. They want their Saudi-Qatar-sponsored cutthroats in so that a pipeline from the Pars gas field can be built from Qatar through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and Turkey and onto Europe to threaten Russia's business and thus influence over Europe. Assad also wants a pipeline from the Pars gas field but starting in Iran not Qatar and then through Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and onto Europe, but not threatening Russia's business with Europe. Israel wants a branch from the former pipeline. Turkey has played its part in this bloodletting by protecting the Jihadis, allowing them to recruit in Turkey and allowing the Jihadis transit into and out of Syria through its porouos border with Syria, and instead of attacking Islamic State Turkey has been attacking an effective enemy of Islamic State, the Kurds.
That is the reason for the conflict in Syria: a pipeline.
Assad and his allies want one route. But the NATO/Zionist/Gulf states want a different route.
And for that the NATO/Zionist/Gulf states have first unleashed cutthroat Jihadis onto Syria, then tried to mug us all off with a false flag chemical attack to provoke a war on Syria, and then facilitated the rise of Islamic State.
So does Syria have the right to decide which pipeline goes through Syria or not?
And then, does Syria have the right to defend itself from international cutthroat Jihadis or not?
The NATO/Zionist/Gulf states think not.
No comments:
Post a Comment