Syria: John Kerry’s “Big Lie” syndrome.

“Political language… is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidarity to pure wind.” – George Orwell.

US secretary of state John Kerry has just delivered what may turn out to be his most shameful moment in history. Kerry has been handed the baton of sabre-rattler-in-Chief by a President that has much vested interest in upholding his facade of “reluctant warmonger”. Since President Obama declared his now infamous “red-line” over the use of chemical weapons in Syria; it has invariably been White House underlings and members of the State Department who are given the task of misleading the public – Kerry is not doing a very good job of it.

In his most recent outing, Kerry reiterated – 22 times no-less – that the US administration – through its ever trustworthy “intelligence community” – “knows” with “high confidence” that Bashar al-Assad’s regime carried out chemical weapons attacks upon opposition areas in the suburbs of Ghouta, Damascus, on the morning of the 21st August. Kerry adamantly repeats what US intelligence “knows”, without actually providing any solid evidence to bolster his ever-increasing, outlandish claims – Kerry is on the path to Colin Powell stardom, one suspects this speech will be remembered for a long-time to come, and for all the wrong reasons.

Kerry frames his speech in a typically Orwellian fashion. Immediately discarding any semblance of honesty Kerry tells the world that his decades in Congress have taught him the valued lesson that the US must “ask the tough questions” prior to engaging in military attacks upon a sovereign nation, and in turn “get the tough answers before taking action, not just afterward”. It would take only a cursory glance at the United States’ foreign policy record form the last 2-3 years to realise that this opening gambit of attempting to portray American virtue and patience is an outright lie and the total reverse of decades-long aggressive US foreign policy. For example: did the United States “ask the tough questions” before it dropped nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki – killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians? Or did the United States “ask the tough questions” before it manufactured a casus belli to engage in an illegal war in Vietnam – again resulting in the murder of hundreds of thousands of innocents through the indiscriminate carpet bombing of civilian areas and chemical/biological weapons? How about Iraq? Did Kerry “ask the tough questions” prior to that particular murderous, genocidal rampage? One wonders if Kerry asked himself “the tough questions” before he made the decision to support the US’ illegal invasion and subsequent destruction of Iraq in 2002? Or even if he attempted to gain the “tough answers” after the decision had been taken. It seems even 18 months after the invasion of Iraq, at a time when the country was rapidly spiralling out of control, Kerry adamantly stood by his decision to support the war with the sole justification that he “would have done things very differently to Bush” – knowing full well by this point that Saddam Hussein’s alleged “WMD” and links to Al Qaeda were a figment of Dick Cheney and the US “intelligence community’s” imagination. The list of reckless US aggression is quite literally endless, these are but a few prominent examples.

Ostensibly touted as an opportunity for the US to show the world its supposed “intelligence” to prove chemical weapons had been used by the Assad regime; Kerry made clear from the outset that his audience would not be privy to any information that may empirically prove the allegation. Instead, the administration chose to repeat unsubstantiated allegations and “intelligence assessments” that must remain confidential to protect “methods and sources”. Relying on slogans such as “NGO” and “Syrian officials” Kerry attempts to mask the fact that the vast majority of the allegations originate from a primary belligerent in the Syrian conflict; namely, the Syrian “opposition”; the “rebels” themselves; and the plethora of State Department-trained “activist” networks responsible for the reams of misinformation and propaganda repeated uncritically in western corporate-media. Kerry goes on to say that the release of the governments “estimate” is so important because its findings are as “clear as they are compelling”. How does one make a clear and compelling estimate? Surely an estimate would infer that there is a degree of doubt, how can one “know” anything from an “estimate”?

Kerry urges his audience to: “read for yourselves the evidence from thousands of sources, evidence that is already publicly available.” Yet neither Kerry, nor the “intelligence summary” provide any of these alleged “thousands” of sources that are “publicly available”. The US intelligence “assessment” does not hold a single link to any secondary or primary source material, or any empirical/scientific data, there is nothing in it other than a summary of previous allegations. So what is Kerry referring to? One can only assume Kerry, in his half-arsed attempt to bolster what is an evidence-free allegation is now relying on YouTube videos – and urging the world to take them as hard evidence to determine war-crimes and culpability.

In true authoritarian manner, Kerry moves swiftly into the “trust us” narrative, imploring his audience to read the administrations verdict – no longer a pretense of independent evidence to prove guilt; merely a self-appointed verdict. Of course, at every opportunity Kerry reminds his audience exactly what that verdict is: the Assad regime is responsible, our verdict is your evidence, nothing more, nothing less, “these are facts, this is evidence”.

In an effort to impersonate Donald Rumsfeld’s infamous “unknown unknowns”, Kerry tells us: “in order to protect sources and methods, some of what we know will only be released to members of Congress, the representatives of the American people. That means that some things we do know, we can’t talk about publicly. So, what do we really know that we can talk about?” Well, considering he has just told his audience he cannot disclose even the “estimated” information that forms what his intelligence community “knows”, it seems we can’t talk about very much; other than repeated unsubstantiated allegations we have now heard for over a week – but surely that is the administrations intention. It is reminiscent of a certain theory of an English political ploy that the leaders of the Nazi regime admired – and no doubt employed upon their own population. Goebbels wrote in 1941: “The essential English leadership secret does not depend on particular intelligence. Rather, it depends on a remarkably stupid thick-headedness. The English follow the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous.” Of course, Goebbels and Hitler were equally, if not more so, proponents of the “Big Lie”. It can only be reasonable to expect the empire of the age to adapt and expand such duplicitous policy to hoodwink its own citizens into yet more hegemonic militarism.

Repeatedly punctuating the word “know” so as to implant it in every vapid mind available, Kerry then starts to reel-off exactly what the administration “knows”: “Well, we know that the Assad regime has the largest chemical weapons programs in the entire Middle East. We know that the regime has used those weapons multiple times this year, and has used them on a smaller scale but still it has used them against its own people, including not very far from where last Wednesday’s attack happened.” Already, Kerry is telling some revealing porkies. Syria has by no means the largest chemical stockpile in the Middle East, that honour lies with the US’ number one ally in the region: Israel. As former US deputy assistant secretary of defense responsible for chemical and biological defense, Bill Richardson, said in 1998 “I have no doubt that Israel has worked on both chemical and biological offensive things for a long time… There’s no doubt they’ve had stuff for years.” Not to mention the fact Israel have a huge, illegal, nuclear warheads stockpile – the biggest obstacle to a nuclear-free middle east. Kerry says the administration “knows” the Assad regime has used chemical weapons on “multiple occasions” of a smaller scale in the past. Yet again, the United States, nor its allies and the Syrian opposition have provided any empirical, or objective, independent scientific evidence to back up these claims. It should be reiterated that in May this year, UN investigator Carla Del Ponte pointed the finger at the “rebels” for the use of chemical weapons, a fact that has been thoroughly whitewashed in both western media and from the duplicitous mouths of western diplomats such as John Kerry – who still claim that “rebels” don’t have the capability to launch such munitions. Contrary to western diplomats hollow claims; in late May militant cells with links to Jabhat al Nusra and the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham were found in both Iraq and Turkey with sarin and other chemical weapons materiel in their possession – another fact that received only light attention in western media, and has been virtually ignored in any western diplomats talking points.

Furthermore, recent interviews with Doctors, Ghouta residents, “rebel” fighters and their families carried out by long-standing Associated Press contributor, Dale Ghavlak, allege that it was in fact extremist elements within the “rebels” that were directly responsible for the chemical attack; even alleging the chemical weapons were supplied by Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan:

“… from numerous interviews with doctors, Ghouta residents, rebel fighters and their families, a different picture emerges. Many believe that certain rebels received chemical weapons via the Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, and were responsible for carrying out the dealing gas attack… My son came to me two weeks ago asking what I thought the weapons were that he had been asked to carry,” said Abu Abdel-Moneim, the father of a rebel fighting to unseat Assad, who lives in Ghouta… Abdel-Moneim said his son and 12 other rebels were killed inside of a tunnel used to store weapons provided by a Saudi militant, known as Abu Ayesha, who was leading a fighting battalion. The father described the weapons as having a “tube-like structure” while others were like a “huge gas bottle.”

Are these interviews, and this report included within the administrations “high confidence” assessment that the regime carried out this alleged attack?

Again, omitting any specific evidence to bolster his clams Kerry has asserted that the administration “knows” that the Assad regime was preparing for chemical attacks with vague reference to the regime utilising gas masks, making precautions associated with chemical weapons, and “specific instructions”. Such specific instructions that Kerry is once again unable to produce any evidence of. How this speculation is supposed to determine what happened in Ghouta – let alone culpability – is left to the audiences’ imagination. Kerry states that the US “know” where and when the ordnance was launched from, but again the audience is left with words and zero physical evidence to back this up.

In what can only be described as a desperate attempt to bolster a weaker case for war than the lies and fabrications that justified the US’ invasion of Iraq, Kerry then turns to social media to outline what the administration “knows”. He clams that US intelligence has over 100 videos that show the symptoms of a chemical weapons attack. Moreover, the US does not believe that such an amount of videos could possibly be fabricated, or manipulated in any way, why would the fluffy “rebels” – that have been busy with ethnic cleansing; systematically killing religious clerics; indiscriminately targeting and killing civilians; and chopping off heads – bother to stage such an atrocity? Kerry forgets that for over two years social media has been the primary vehicle for “rebel” agitprop and fabrication. The “rebels” have been caught numerous times fabricating videos to further their agenda, but the “intelligence community knows”, in this case, that all of the videos surrounding Ghouta must be true. Kerry says the world has seen thousands of reports – yet not one of those “reports” is either independent nor verified by any independent agency. There is no elaboration or further evidence provided as to why YouTube videos, unverified “reports”, and social media should receive such credence, let-alone be used as a justification for war, only that they bolster the verdict the United States has already drawn.

The “evidence” supposedly weaned from YouTube is morphed into emotional agitprop. Kerry recalls images of dead women and children: “not a scratch, not a shrapnel wound, not a cut, not a gunshot sound. We saw rows of dead lined up in burial shrouds, the white linen unstained by a single drop of blood.” Yet Kerry has absolutely no way of determining how those people were killed, does Kerry assume that once a body is dead and covered in a burial shroud it will carry on bleeding? Such contradictions to the administrations simple narrative are gradually marginalised from the uncritical media and replaced with verbatim stenography; yet in the margins even US intelligence officials are purposefully leaking doubts. It should be noted that Kerry’s description is quite accurate, there was indeed no sign of trauma on the vast majority of victims present in videos on YouTube. But crucially; there is also no evidence within those videos that can scientifically determine how they died – let alone who killed them.

According to John Kerry, the United States also “knows” exactly how many people were killed in this alleged attack. Kerry puts the death toll at 1,429 people, including 426 children. A figure that has outstretched even the most inflated estimations, which have ranged from the “dozens” to up to 1,300. Yet contrary to the US figure, Doctors Without Borders, and the much-touted Syrian Observatory have put the death toll from the alleged Ghouta attack at 355 people. It is all the more perplexing that the United States has suddenly developed the ability to accrue such accurate death tolls and information in a country it supposedly has no personnel operating within; yet after ten years the United States still cannot – and will not – determine the amount of innocent Iraqis or Afghanis it has murdered during its illegal aggression upon each of those countries. The US can barely acknowledge – let alone tally – the thousands of innocents it has killed as a result of its extra-legal drone assassination program; we are supposed to now believe the US has developed the capability to count victims of atrocities in foreign countries? Moreover, Doctors Without Borders (DWB) represent the “credible medical” source that Washington allude to with regard to Ghouta, due to the fact they supplied field hospitals in the area. Astonishingly, and again cannily omitted by Kerry, Doctors Without Borders did not have a single member of their own personnel in the region, or at any field hospitals within Damascus; the medics that relayed information to Doctors Without Borders were “rebels” and people working directly with the Syrian opposition. The administration is attempting to lay credence to their allegations through the flimsy connection of Doctors Without Borders with opposition elements in the area, while simultaneously contradicting the death toll DWB provided.

In another attempt to lay credence to unfounded accusations, Kerry claims the Syrian regime attempted to block the UN inspectors from visiting the site in Ghouta by bombarding the area in unprecedented levels for four days straight. Again, the physical evidence to prove this accusation is omitted. It may just have slipped Kerry’s attention but the Syrian army has been on a concerted offensive in the suburbs of Damascus for months – and was indeed, winning its chosen battles. More importantly, the US made the accusation in attempts to portray the regime as unwilling to meet the demands of the UN because it “had something to hide”. Washington immediately backtracked this false narrative when it became apparent that it was the UN itself blocking any investigation and had not requested permission to visit the area until the following Saturday. It took the Syrian government a total of 24 hours to permit the UN’s request. When this became public knowledge, the administration changed its talking points; now alleging that the regime purposefully bombarded the area to “systematically destroy evidence”. The UN, alongside several chemical weapons experts have since debunked this theory, noting it can take months for Sarin and other military-grade CW to disperse, and assured that it was still possible for the team of experts to gather necessary evidence despite the time elapsed since the alleged attack.

Despite the numerous contradictions, and massive lack of physical evidence, Kerry again urges his audience to trust the intelligence community’s high confidence: “In all of these things that I have listed, in all of these things that we know — all of them — the American intelligence community has high confidence, high confidence. This is common sense. This is evidence. These are facts.” One can easily recall supposed “facts” the US intelligence community has had a “high confidence” of in the not-too-distant past, yet the popular refrain being bandied around establishment and corporate media circles to deter scepticism of such claims are the very same refrains that were thrown at sceptics ten years ago. “The shadow of Iraq” is being used as a rhetorical tool to attack sceptics of these allegations, yet in reality, the scepticism surrounding these renewed WMD allegations are of exactly the same nature and equally as justified as they were during the build-up to Iraq. Moreover, in a reference to the then-CIA Directors false claims of Iraqi WMD being a “slam dunk”, several US intelligence officials leaked to various media that White House allegations are anything but a “slam dunk”; rendering Kerry’s claims even-less credible than the outright lies that lead to the invasion of Iraq.

It is indicative of the glaring lack of physical evidence that the remainder of Kerry’s speech is spent avowing lofty claims of “US credibility”, and that countries must believe the United States when it says (threatens) something. What Kerry is actually saying is that the US cannot back down from its own reckless hubris without losing face, and the United States relies on that militaristic hubris – and will rely on it ever more so in the future – to uphold its own geopolitical and economic “interests”. Obama’s reckless “red-line” moment effectively backed the United States into a position itself and its allies knew they could engineer toward an overt intervention. That overt western intervention is now needed more than ever as the Syrian Army move toward a de-facto military victory.

In the remainder of the speech, and equally as vapid in the “intelligence assessment”, the secretary of state warns of various other “enemy” nations and political factions on the wrong side of Imperialism taking heed from a supposed lack of US “action”. Attempting to evoke fear and trepidation the Empire’s “boogeyemen” are rolled out one by one, from North Korea to Hezbollah. Kerry attempts to evoke the oft-repeated sentiment that the United States speaks for the entire world, he hastily casts aside the international allies of Syria. Yet, the populations of the western world itself are increasingly against the US-led drive to attack Syria. In the UK – before and after the recent defeat for David Cameron’s motion for UK involvement in a possible attack on Syria – up to 90% of the UK population were against any military intervention. That stance has only hardened as the conflict has dragged on. For once, and much to David Cameron’s dismay, this public sentiment was reflected in the vote, and the UK will not be taking part in any military action. The figures against intervention are reflected across the Atlantic; the American public, despite the massive propaganda campaign, and overt lies streaming from their supposed “diplomats” do not support US military intervention. But the lies and propaganda will continue unabated, and an uncritical corporate media will slavishly repeat and embellish on cue.

Kerry ended his speech with the doublethink-laden quote: “…the world’s most heinous weapons must never again be used against the world’s most vulnerable people.” This is a fact, but a fact that evidently does not apply to the millions of vulnerable people the United States murders unabated – with every kind of weapon known to man.

Syria: Obama’s pretext for war?

It seems many have forgotten the last two and a half years of western sabre-rattling and covert military aggression against the Syrian state. It is worth reiterating that without the vast amount of military, financial, and diplomatic largesse the west and their regional clients have thrown at the “revolutionary rebels” in Syria – who have now beyond doubt been exposed as sectarian extremists, lead and dominated by Al Qaeda ideologues – the violent insurgency in Syria would have been defeated long ago by the Syrian army.

These extremist-dominated “rebels” were armed and funded by Syria’s enemies – with the tacit approval and coordination of the west – from an early stage in the supposed “Syrian uprising” (read: local protests), to wage a sectarian insurgency upon the Syrian state and its security apparatus on behalf of the US and its various allies. The US-led military and intelligence alliance comprises of: the United States, Israel, United Kingdom, France, Qatar, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, United Arab Emirates, aswell as numerous Lebanese political and paramilitary factions under the influence of Saudi Arabia. Although individual relationships and objectives have been in flux between this group, elements within all their respective establishments; governments; intelligence agencies; wealthy private donors and military contractors have worked to facilitate the transfer of arms and militants into Syria since the onset of the insurgency in March/April 2011. Although their individual desired outcomes and long-term objectives may differ; this alliance has held one common objective throughout: the destruction of an independent Syrian state.

The pathetic attempt at media “debate” surrounding Obama’s imminent plan to bomb Syria in response to an alleged chemical weapons attack – which morphed from a couple of hours of feigning scepticism straight into accepting unsubstantiated western allegations as fact, and then repeating them verbatim – all have one common theme: that of a reluctant Obama, unwilling to sacrifice “boots on the ground” and desperate to avert wider regional conflict in another endless war in the Middle East. Yet, upon analysing the conflict from a realistic perspective – which was from the onset, a sectarian, foreign-funded insurgency – as opposed to the corporate-media, and western politician’s manufactured fantasy-narrative of a “democratic grass-roots uprising”; it becomes clear that the reluctant facade of Obama has also been manufactured from false media narratives, propagated by the government “sources” that shape them. In contrast to Obama’s apparent reluctance to exacerbate the Syrian crisis; at every periodic occasion that the Syrian opposition have had setbacks – be it on the battlefield; diplomatic theatre; or within public opinion – the US has stepped up its covert militarism with its partners operating on Syria’s borders. For example, we now know that when the much-desired No Fly Zone was blocked by China and Russia in the UNSC the White House made efforts to step up its covert support to the “rebels” through the CIA and Qatar, transitting the shipments through the Turkish/Syrian border. Accordingly, with the increase of militarism; came the increase of death-toll and displacement.

With regard to the early demands for a sovereign states’ President to “step aside”; westerners must first ask ourselves: do any world leaders demand Obama, Cameron, Bush, Blair, or any other variety of western diplomatic mass-murderer “step aside” for killing possibly millions of innocent civilians of countless nations? Or does the “International Community” only frown upon dictators allegedly “killing their own people” with “Weapons of Mass Destruction”? Is this the moral bar for western society as a whole? “Our leaders” can be proven to kill vast numbers in illegal wars anywhere on earth with impunity, but those “our leaders” deem enemies cannot defend allegations, let alone defend their nation from a foreign-funded insurgency?

Even if one finds this repugnant, hypocritical state of affairs as agreeable; how do Obama and Cameron explain their lack of condemnation toward Egypt’s coup-leaders; killing up to a thousand people from mainly peaceful protests in the space of a few days? One suspects any real condemnation of the military coup and subsequent crackdown (justified or not) will only come from the “moral” leaders of the west when and if Sisi and his feloul cohorts decide to cut-off the US’ vital “interests” in Egypt; those “interests” being primarily the protection of Israel; unfettered access (control) of the Suez Canal, and a continuation of the long-standing US-dominant military relationship and billion-dollar contracts. Those US “interests” do not include the lives, much less the “freedom” or “democracy” of the Egyptian people.

Furthermore, how do Obama and Cameron explain their silence or complete lack of “action” regarding their close ally the Al-Khalifa monarchys’ brutal crackdown of protesters and dissidents in Bahrain over the last two years? Of course, the United States does not need regime change from a compliant monarchy in Bahrain that dutifully host its fifth-fleet in one of the world’s most strategic locations. Further still, where is the “moral outrage” regarding Saudi Arabia’s brutal regime and its decades-long sponsorship of terrorism? The Saudi type of terrorism is often purported in the west as in “our interest”. Saudi-sponsored terrorism comes only in the name of supporting “freedom fighters” who at the time may just so happen to be enemies of our enemies, who are then dutifully facilitated, fomented and sponsored by the west; inevitably resulting in small instances of blowback that provide the western security establishment further pretext to encroach upon civil liberties with draconian and over-expansive “anti-terror” laws – a win-win for the National Security State and the Military Industrial Complex.

The west’s proxy-forces in Syria are, in reality, close to defeat. Against the odds, and a considerable multi-national effort to destroy an army and divide a nation; Assad has solidified his core base and territories. In the last few months the Syrian army has made considerable gains on the battlefield, recapturing strategic choke-points along the rebel supply route and utilising its bolstered numbers from the National Defense Forces to protect regained territory. Assad has also maintained his own critical supply lines, both of a military and diplomatic nature and has upheld his side of whatever bargains he has made with international allies. Russia has remained steadfast in its support of Assad up to the point of writing, but this may yet change in the face of a possible world-war-III scenario. Russia’s military supplies have been critical to the Syrian army’s success on the battlefield, and its diplomatic efforts in the UN have stalled what has been a determined effort by the west to gain a pretext for military intervention. Moreover, anti-rebel sentiment has been on the rise in Syria for months. An example lies in the border town of Tal Kalakh, which was recently peacefully transferred to army control; not out of any particular love for Assad I must add, but simply due to the fact the extremists had moved on and the locals were more inclined to keep their livelihood and live in peace than face death or imprisonment. In a recent interview Assad also highlighted an increase in defections from the rebels back to the army as a result of government amnesty’s This, and an and added impetus from the Hezbollah-aided victory of Qusair had set the army on a trajectory that would be difficult to stop without massive foreign intervention.

On the other hand, the disparate factions of Bin-Ladenite “rebels” have been bogged down with infighting and internal conflict, which has resulted in a further increase of their brutality toward the civilian population. Just this week the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) executed three Alawite truck drivers on video for the crime of forgetting prayer ritual. A prominent Alawite cleric was also recently executed by “rebels”, the latest in a long line of clerics and religious officials that have been targeted by the extremists. The cleric was kidnapped during the ISIS/JaN sectarian onslaught in Latakia; the mass graves that were found as a result of this particular sectarian assault on a civilian area didn’t merit much attention in the western press. Moreover, recent rebel attacks – predominantly ISIS and jabhat al Nusra – on the Kurdish community in the north have taken on a broader and intractable dimension; resulting in the mass exodus of 30,000 Kurds over the border to Iraqi Kurdistan. In relation to the north of Syria where jihadist groups are most dominant; ISIS recently released a message to all international aid organisations to leave the region or be killed. Accordingly, the “rebels” public appeal is arguably at an all-time low. Several defining events throughout the course of the conflict have been imprinted on the minds of millions of people across the globe. From children being forced to behead prisoners; to rebels – from the supposed “moderate western-backed” militants no less – eating the organs of slain Syrian soldiers.

There is little sympathy in the west for the militants western governments support. A recent Reuters poll showed only 9 percent of Americans support any form of US military intervention in Syria. Even if the Assad government were found to be guilty of using chemical weapons that figure only rose to 25% percent. With a resounding 60% percent against. These figures are almost mirrored in the UK and have reflected such opinion throughout the Syrian conflict. Yet if military intervention was to occur, it would undoubtedly be the UK and the US at the forefront of the attacks: that is western “democracy”.

President Assad and the Syrian establishment have long known that they have been on the US’ target list. Indeed, it was public knowledge in the west that during the post-9/11 Bush administration Syria was placed under “the axis of Evil”. During that decade several prominent reports highlighted covert policies the US and its allies were directing at Syria. These covert policies ran parallel to USAID “democracy” programs that the US had implemented in Syria in order to bolster opposition elements and leverage the Assad government – as is the protocol for US subversion. Many of these same initiatives have formed a part of the US State Department-trained anti-Assad “activists”, so prevalent on social media and often touted as objective sources in the western corporate press. More importantly, Assad has also known for a long time that any use of chemical weapons would undoubtedly result in the west – at the very least – abandoning any pretense of negotiations and reverting to type: the military option. Why would Assad choose now to entice a western military intervention? What can he possibly gain from his own certain downfall? At a time when it was becoming more and more likely that the Assad government would hold on to some sort of power in Syria and the “rebels” and their international alliance were looking increasingly likely to fall apart, why would Assad choose to use chemical weapons? Furthermore, we must also remember that the UN team is in Damascus at the Syrian governments request, it simply defies logic that Assad would willingly commit such a grave act right under the nose of the UN, particularly when the trajectory of the war was firmly in his favour.

Conversely, there are multiple logical scenarios in which the “rebels” would benefit from staging a chemical weapons attack. This is plain objective common sense. Since Obama declared his famous “red-line” it has been a casus belli waiting to happen. The “rebels”, and their many international backers, intelligence agencies and private contractors are all in the knowledge that a chemical weapons attack will incur a western military response, resulting in their desired objective: the removal of Assad. There is already a strong case being made that the “rebels” have deployed a form of sarin in a home-made shell fired on government forces in Khan al-Assal. Russia has provided the UN with evidence to this effect and Khan al-Assal was one of the sites on the list to be visited by the UN inspection team. Moreover, in May this year UN investigator Carla Del Ponte pointed the finger at the “rebels” for the use of chemical weapons, a fact that has been thoroughly whitewashed in both western media and from the duplicitous mouths of western diplomats – who still claim that “rebels” don’t have the capability to launch chemical weapons. Contrary to western diplomats hollow claims; in late May militant cells with links to Jabhat al Nusra and the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham were found in both Iraq and Turkey with sarin and other chemical weapons materiel in their possession – another fact that received only light attention in western media, and has been virtually ignored in any western diplomats talking points.

Framed in the above context, and with the “evidence” – or glaring lack of it – to date to prove the US’ assertions; it cannot be logically, or honestly implied that the Syrian military has used chemical weapons – or has any intention to, knowing it would be certain suicide. Thus, one can only logically draw the assumption that this latest alleged CW attack is a repeat of previous attempts to incite western intervention, but on a much larger and deadlier scale. It could have any number of culprits, but the Syrian government is possibly the least likely. Yet the United States (arbiter of the world) has dismissed such notions on the premise that the “rebels” don’t have the capability: the United States is quite literally overruling UN investigators in order to carry out regime change to meet its own geopolitical objectives (again).

The clearest signal of this intention came when several members of the Obama administration intentionally mislead reporters and stated several times that the Syrian government blocked an immediate investigation into the recent alleged CW attack in Ghouta. This was a blatant lie and the US knew it; it was in fact the UN that held up the investigation through fear for their own safety in a what was a contested area. The Syrian government gave its immediate blessing for an investigation and escorted the UN team to the site for a short time; at which point it was fired upon by unknown snipers and retreated to the safety of an army checkpoint. Another clear indicator of Obama’s aggressive intention is the blatant double-standard being applied; the UN team is inside Syria to specifically investigate alleged CW attacks that occurred 5 months ago, and presumably the US would have accepted its findings. Not only this, but the UN team does not have a mandate to determine the source of chemical weapons use – only to determine whether they have been used or not. Yet the UN team has been granted access to an alleged CW attack site by the Syrian government only 5 days after the event, and the Obama administration is claiming that any results from the investigation are now “too late to be credible”?

Now why would the Obama administration lie? I thought they were reluctant for war?

Egypt: Divide and Conquer?

Since the onset of the recent turmoil that is once again enveloping Egypt, (read: military coup) a long-standing current within political discourse has surrounded, and inevitably started to dominate the debate. False dichotomies attached to regional and national disputes in the Middle East by commentators and media organs have provided an unending  “analysis” of specific events based on the opinions of predominantly either of two “sides” within any given conflict; regardless of the disparity of, and number of belligerents.

This almost-religious concentration on false dichotomies within media occurs regardless of whether either of the two predominant “sides” enjoys a popular or distinct amount of support within respective communities or populations, while also ignoring, or actively marginalizing certain factions within conflicts whose opinions or doctrines do not coincide with either of the dominant narratives emanating from the media; which in turn are controlled by corporate and ruling class entities who determine editorial restrictions.

In the case of Egypt, post-military coup, the media narrative seems to be transforming into a conflict between “Secularist Liberals” and “Islamists”. Yet contrary to this simplistic, and overtly sectarian narrative, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia – a Wahhabi Monarchy that many would describe as “Islamist” – was the first party to congratulate the Egyptian military’s’ “wisdom and moderation” for overthrowing a democratically elected and supposedly Islamist President. Media reports have also quickly forgotten that the Salafist Nour Party – who could also be described as “Islamist” – initially supported the military overthrow of Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood.

Nuance and conflicting opinions such as those above are omitted within media to uphold the dominant simplistic narratives of warring factions of society – as opposed to the reality of warring factions of Elites manipulating larger factions of society’s legitimate dissent for their own ends. Manufacturing conflict and division is a long-standing policy of any modern government or dominant structure. Divide and Rule social policies have provided the ideal tool for Elites to keep the masses downtrodden and reliant for centuries on end.

Within Western dominant structures the false two-party masquerade of corporate politics that has engulfed the United States, the UK, and increasingly Europe are testament to the lengths the ruling class will go – and indeed the apathetic masses are willing to accept –  to create the illusion of democracy and political pluralism. Furthermore, within modern societies – including those in the supposed “enlightened world” – ethnic and sectarian division is possibly the most successful tool in any bourgeois state’s repertoire. Dominant structures go to great lengths to build social divisions in which enslaved and impoverished masses find solace in the knowledge they belong to a “side” that continually provide them false hope and ineffective leadership. But a “side” nonetheless, and with many “sides” there are always “others” to blame and deflect the ruling class’ failures. Accordingly, large swathes of populations become consumed and subverted by identity politics – whilst simultaneously being drawn further and further away from what exactly “the masses” are yearning for: self-determination, an end to oppression, economic impoverishment, elite corruption, and unrepresentative governments/dominant structures.

Although the Muslim Brotherhood have been illegally overthrown, and were indeed “democratically elected”; the Brotherhood itself does not represent a democratic political entity. Evidently, the Brotherhood does not represent massive parts of Egyptian society either, including “Islamists”. The Brotherhood have a long and documented history of sedition, violence and an intolerant, misogynistic ideology verging on Salafism. The Brotherhoods short reign of power was mired in controversy, incompetence, attempted power-grabs and a tendency toward sectarianism, including the incitement of Egyptian youth to Holy War in Syria. On the other hand, General Sisi and the Egyptian military – who also have a long and very recent history of violence, corruption and oppression – are not a democratic entity in any sense of the word either. They are a military leadership funded in part, and trained by the United States, who have upheld a domestically unpopular peace treaty with Israel for decades to empower themselves economically, whilst helping to oppress the Palestinians (which has also taken on a dramatic increase since Sisi’s “revolution”), and have just engaged in an unlawful coup of a democratically elected President. Yet in turn, these actors have fraudulently become the representatives of the whole of a supposed “Islamist” branch of Egyptian society on the one hand, and the opposition “Secularist Liberal” movement on the other; predominantly as a result of various branches of media portraying them to be so. There is no room left in the debate for any other public opinion or political party: “you’re either with us or against us”.

As a result of this media control and manipulation, any working class grass-roots movement or actual collective public voice outside of the two dominant belligerents is marginalised, whilst civil movements that do become effective in relaying the desired messages and popular sentiments are quickly hijacked or oppressed by dominant power, ie: powerful religious/social organisations or the military/political/corporate elite. Accordingly, the political doctrines and demands – and indeed the actual political and civil courses of action taken – are manipulated and led in directions that meet the dominant structures needs to survive or increase its relative power. In this type of bourgeois structured media debate, the “people” can only be represented by a particular “side” of a very limited amount of parties – often portrayed from extreme ends of the respective ideological spectrum. These “sides” are predominantly made-up of corporate relics of regimes and power-structures of the past; (the Mubarak feloul and the Brotherhood in Egypt’s case) who in turn control the levers to mainstream political discourse.

In Egypt’s current and ongoing crisis since the fall of the Mubarak regime, it was initially the Muslim Brotherhood, with the aid of the Qatari Monarchy and its mouthpiece Al Jazeera, that usurped the Egyptian publics oppression and subsequent dissent; (while the Ikhwan and its supporters have also suffered much oppression of their own) eventually riding an anti-Mubarakist/Military sentiment to power in a low turn-out election. Merely a year later it appears the Mubarak bourgeoisie, behind the cover of the massive popular dissent directed at the Brotherhood’s inability or unwillingness to change policies and rule effectively, have inserted themselves to the throne of representation; primarily due to their respective ability to manipulate the debate and its ensuing political consequences, along with those that dominate it (corporate media) propagating them to such positions.

Whether you agree with the coup or not, the publics voice, and in turn its civil actions and political consequences have been hijacked, and replaced by that of dominant Elitists that claim to represent them, in this case the military. The media vehicles that propagate that unending dynamic enable dominant parties to hold on to power by promoting figureheads and political actors that suit their owners needs, (both foreign and domestic) before the needs and collective demands of the public. The longer the dominant power structures are able to control and manipulate the media and mainstream political discourse to create illusory, and real, divisions within any impoverished and subservient society (including “the West”); the longer those power structures will remain dominant; be they the Muslim Brotherhood, or the Egyptian military.

 

Syria: How far will Obama go to save the insurgency?

The Obama administration has yet to publicly reveal any of its ‘evidence’ to prove the Syrian Government or armed forces have used Sarin, or any other chemical weapon. This can simply be put down to the administration not having have any credible evidence. Sarin, or a similarly abhorrent chemical weapon may have been used to some extent inside Syria, but by whom, why and how is most definitely undetermined. Indeed, the UN itself has pointed the finger directly at the Gulf proxies fighting on behalf of Obama and his Gulf allies, and several leading chemical weapons experts, along with the Russian Government have immediately cast doubt upon the claims. If the Obama administration had the physical evidence they derive their “belief” from, it would have been on the front page of every newspaper by now.

Yet Obama seems determined to hold his line of intransigence against the Syrian Government, this could be explained because the US has no way back without ‘losing face’ within the ‘International Community’, Obama declaring ‘red-lines’ has effectively backed himself into a corner. The US is the world’s arbiter after all, once lines are set, the pride of Empire and the need to uphold the false image of the world’s ‘moral’ judiciary take hold, and any relinquishing of geo-political dictate is a sign of weakness. The paranoid war-careerists within the Pentagon and State Department establishment cannot allow this to happen, and are eager to continue to attempt to inflict damage on Iran and Hezbollah (whether this is even attainable or true remains to be seen). It seems to US militarists and their many allies, defeat and concession to the Syrian government and their respective allies; would be far worse a blow than dragging Syria through yet more years of warfare and death.

The US Governments militaristic hubris knows no bounds, they shall not be defeated, even if the whole Levant is destroyed; The US image of strength and unbeatable military power must not be shown for the self-perpetuating hollow monolith it has become. No doubt Obama wants out; but only from self-interest and on the terms that appease the rest of the US political and military establishment (after all, his public decision to arm rebels came immediately after Bill Clinton called him a wimp). His ‘legacy’ is almost in tatters; another overt US war in the middle east is off the cards until Obama’s presidency comes to an end. Or so we are led to believe; lets not forget, almost every overt, large-scale war the US has engaged in over the past 60 years have all been predicated on outright lies. Do the ‘Presidents’ incumbent at the time of these murderous lies ever suffer as a consequence? Does anyone?

In essence, Obama’s recent rhetoric and statements of intent to directly arm extremist dominated militants could be seen as self-serving and outright obscurantism. In efforts to salvage his ‘dove’ persona and Nobel Peace Prize image; Obama must uphold the illusion of the US coming to the aid of “freedom fighters” and “good rebels” in order to justify the fact that the US has been arming and funding the “freedom fighters” for nigh on two years. Current public opinion, along with the mass of public evidence and reportage that reveals the true nature of the ‘rebels’ is making this task more and more difficult. The Recent build-up of US patriot batteries, a new fleet of F-16 fighter-jets, along with increased military manoeuvres in Jordan and Turkey suggests muscle-flexing for the benefit of Russia, and also alludes to the US working on new proxy forces; minus the extremists. The sectarian and extremist core of the militant dynamic of the ‘revolution’ has been acknowledged by the world. This nuance can no longer be hidden by false declarations of freedom and democracy.

Towards and during the recent G8 summit, Vladimir Putin’s rhetoric has become increasingly disparaging toward the ‘rebel’ movement. But his remarks are not mere hyperbole. As David Cameron found out to his horror and embarrassment (which many a Brit took delight in watching), Putin is not about to let the West and its propaganda war walk over Russia’s only foothold in the Middle East. Putin was quick to question Cameron’s false intent, and did it in spectacular and public fashion. Cameron, the PR man, was lost, bewildered and knee-deep in his own Orwellian mindset. There was no answer ready for Putin’s straightforward question: “Do you want to arm those that eat the organs of their enemy on camera?”

The US has been ‘in’ Syria from the start, obfuscation and media narratives have done much to subvert the US, and its Gulf clients’ leading role in the creation and vital support of the plethora of militants fighting the Syrian Government. This policy is not an anomaly, it is a recurrence of a tried and tested US tactic across the globe. From early on we learnt of who, and exactly what, the Syrian ‘opposition’ was. Its multiple diplomatic creations have formed nothing more than Chalabi-esque outfits engaged in fractious power-struggles in five-star hotels. Furthermore, in what proves to be an ominous precedent, previous US/GCC covert escalation’s during the crisis have been synonymous with drastic increases in both death toll and displacement. When based upon this logic, Obama’s policy directly contradicts the reasoning he professes. Indeed, the age-old war for peace oxymoron springs to mind. The blatant relationship between death toll and increased militarism has been noted by several major observers during the Syrian crisis, including the UN, who call for a cessation of all arms being sent into to the conflict. Yet this causality seems to evade the highest echelons of Western diplomacy.

Obama’s current policy seems to be to continue the proxy insurgency at a steady rate in order to keep what pressure it can on the Syrian Government, appearing to be a dove is obviously important to Obama’s image. But, Obama has also taken the decision knowing that Putin will react in kind and aim to shore up his ally in Syria and avert a US attack, so is Obama playing a false hand? Diplomatic brinkmanship with Putin is one thing, but if Putin is openly being resilient towards the West, Obama could be retroactively declaring he will provide arms, simply to cover the now almost two-year old policy of doing exactly that. These public declarations of military plans also come at a time when Obama is under increased domestic pressure. Some  analysts have suggested this could be the perfect time for a US war,  insofar as to say that certain domestic pressures may be being put upon the Obama administration to force its hand and avert the publics attention; nothing like a war and the rallying cry of ‘patriotic’ Generals and Senators repeating falsehoods about ‘chemical weapons’ and ‘evil dictators’ to subvert public scrutiny.

The state of Israel is again suspiciously quiet, considering they are the closest western ally to have overtly attacked Syria several times – all acts of war and illegal under international law – there has been rare mention of Israeli Government policy within Western media. Investigative journalist Jonathan Cook recently noted that the Israeli military put forward an “optimal scenario” of Syria breaking up into three separate states. An effective ‘balkanization’ of Syria, who at times, though not consistently, nor through entirely altruistic intention, has been a key bulwark in the face of Israeli expansion, and a crucial ally to the resistance movements of Lebanon and Palestine. Moreover, the Israeli leadership will see the benefit of Hezbollah and Iran becoming enveloped in a long, protracted war, depleting morale and Hezbollah’s capabilities to defend any future Israeli aggression. None of this is to suggest that Israel particularly want an outright loss for Assad. Broadly speaking, the ultimate Israeli objective is to weaken any opposition to Israeli dominance in the region, by whatever means necessary.

The UK and France are now isolated within the EU, if arms are sent to ‘rebels’ in Syria, or if they already have been and evidence is found; the UK will be in breach of International Law. Cameron has pledged a vote in the Commons to determine whether any future shipments of weapons are to be sent to the rebels; the British public, aswell as the majority of British MP’s, including the Mayor of London and the Deputy Prime Minister, are firmly against arming Cameron’s idea of ‘freedom fighters’. Boris Johnson, in an article titled “Don’t arm Syria’s maniacs” vehemently rejected the idea of the UK arming so-called ‘rebels’, and seemed to be calling on his old chum to call off the charade.

Just last week, a former French foreign minister, who has a penchant for being liberal in the press with certain snippets of information, claimed the UK Government was plotting a ‘rebel’ insurgency in Syria two years before the so-called “Arab Spring”. This may well be true, and it coincides directly with US/GCC/Israeli covert plans of the same nature that have been covered and reported on thoroughly. To suggest the UK would not be involved or ‘in the loop’ in such a covert policy with such close allies is naive in the extreme. But the same caveat applies to France, during the former ministers employment or not; it is also highly doubtful that the French Government or intelligence services would choose to be ‘out of the loop’ in taking apart their former colony. Particularly considering their direct role in recent colonial-era ‘humanitarian intervention’s’ in Mali and Libya.

It remains to be seen if Obama has truly swayed toward overt US intervention, or whether other regional or international actors will act without the US, this seems highly unlikely. It is also highly doubtful the current President would be foolish enough to deploy US troops into Syria. But many other willing players – including influential members of the US Government – are heavily involved, and have much vested interest in seeing both Syria and its allies at least partially weakened, and otherwise occupied for at least some time to come. But, the SAA, along with Hezbollah, are on the offensive and winning, as that trend continues and Russian support solidifies, there will be nothing left for Obama to bargain with; without the extremist dominated insurgency there is no longer a US stake remaining in Syria, how far will Obama go to save it?

Chemical Weapons: Building the case for further US aggression.

The US Government is claiming it has definitive ‘evidence’ to prove the Assad Government has used chemical weapons (CW) “against its own people”. Chemical weapons are abhorrent, indiscriminate and cause massive human suffering. But what, if any, is the strategic gain acheived by the Syrian Arab Army using CW against disparate rebel groups encamped inside densely built civilian areas?

As we have learnt previously, as far back as 2012 US military contractors were training ‘rebel’ forces, the very same forces allied to Al Qaeda affiliates, in the use of chemical weapons, supposedly to counter them “getting in the wrong hands”. If Al Qaeda affiliates have been trained to aquire and secure chemical weapon stockpiles, who does Obama think the “wrong hands” are? As Professor Chossudovsky at Global Research noted in May:

What is unfolding is a diabolical scenario –which is an integral part of military planning– namely a situation where opposition terrorists advised by Western defense contractors are actually in possession of chemical weapons.This is not a rebel training exercise in non-proliferation. While president Obama states that “you will be held accountable” if “you” (meaning the Syrian government) use chemical weapons, what is contemplated as part of this covert operation is the possession of chemical weapons by the US-NATO sponsored terrorists, namely “by our” Al Qaeda affiliated operatives,  including the Al Nusra Front , which constitutes the most effective Western financed and trained fighting group, largely integrated by foreign mercenaries. In a bitter twist, Jabhat al-Nusra, a US sponsored “intelligence asset”, was recently put on the State Department’s list of terrorist organizations.

To add to this somewhat counterintuative scenario, many mainstream outlets also openly reported on the fact that the US was training ‘rebels’ specifically to aquire and secure Assad’s chemical stockpiles that may have been left unguarded, in essence, training them in the finer arts of chemical warfare:

Pentagon planners are more focused on protecting or destroying any Syrian stockpiles that are left unguarded and at risk [of] falling into the hands of rebel fighters or militias aligned with Al Qaeda, Hezbollah or other militant groups. ( U.S. has plans in place to secure Syria chemical arms – latimes.com, August 22, 2012 )

Furthermore, several factors contradict the US-led line that Assad would gain anything from using chemical weapons:

1.) Chemical weapons have a terrible track record as an effective weapon against any type of enemy, targeting and deployment is crude and effectiveness is largely determined by the weather, if the wind blows the wrong way, they are useless. CW are also easily negated through simple countermeasures such as gas masks. During the Iran/Iraq war, thousands of chemical shells were used indiscriminately, the effective death rate to enemy combatants was miniscule in comparison to the amount and cost of chemicals used, against other conventional forms of warfare, (which the Syrian Army have in abundance) chemical weapons are ineffective and costly.

2.) The Syrian Government and Armed Forces know from previous US aggression in the region, and since Obama made his infamous “red-line” dictate, that any use of CW would result in an overt US ‘intervention’. (NB: US has been covertly ‘intervening’ in Syria from day one.) Why would the Government or members of the SAA decide to use Sarin at this stage? Particularly considering the SAA has been on the front foot for months, the SAA has routed rebel strong-holds and vital land and highway routes. If anything, Assad’s popularity inside Syria has only increased as the SAA has expanded its territorial gains.

3.) Using CW would undoubtedly alienate the SAA and the Government from the population. Assad is winning ‘hearts and minds’ in Syria. why would he risk it by allowing such recklessness when the Army is winning its chosen battles and gaining public support?

4.) To use CW on such a small-scale, there is absolutely no strategic benefit gained to the SAA. It has far more devastating and terrorising weapons in its arsenal, an SAA Commander relayed this fact to Robert Fisk the last time CW agitprop was being doled out: “why would we use CW when we have Mig fighter jets?”. The US claims 100 -150 people have been killed by Sarin use, (while also claiming it has ‘evidence’ from only two victims.) Yet the UN claims upwards of 90,000 people have been killed in the conflict. (NB: at least half of which are SAA soldiers according to SOHR.) So why risk overt US intervention for the sake of killing 100 people in such small operations?

The Obama administration clearly states that they have no evidence to suggest ‘rebels’ have used CW. Yet many reports, including former UN Chief Prosecutor Carla Del Ponte have pointed the finger directly at them, whilst removing any Syrian Government culpability. The US Government seems to think it knows better than the UN, and it must also think it has proof of chain of command, which undoubtedly it cannot obtain. Obama also clearly stated in previous remarks on CW in Syria that “intelligence assessments are not enough”. Yet now “intelligence assessments” seem to be all the US is basing its claims upon, as National Security advisor Ben Rhodes said in a White House statement: “Our intelligence community accesses that the Assad regime has used weapons, including the nerve agent sarin, on a small-scale against the opposition multiple times in the last year.”

Recently, in both Iraq and Turkey, Al Qaeda cells were found in possession of Sarin and the equipment made to use it, it is no secret the ‘rebels’ just across the border are heavily affiliated with Al Qaeda ideologues and have poured into Syria through Turkey and Iraq. These reports have been almost whitewashed from Western press. After earlier rebel claims of CW use, several reports suggested rebels were in possession of Sarin or a similar agent and had used it in Aleppo on an attack on Syrian Government forces, in which an estimated 15 soldiers died. The Syrian Government immediately reported this incident to the UN and asked for an investigation. Under US pressure, the UN replied that it would only conduct a nation-wide investigation and again, the reports were marginalised, obfuscated and forgotten about.

Obviously, to anyone with half a brain, it is clear that the SAA willingly using chemical weapons is suicide. And offers the SAA no short-term, or long-term strategic benefit. This brings us to who directly benefits from false claims of the SAA using CW. The rebels would obviously benefit a great deal from Obama enforcing a No-Fly Zone, and providing direct US military aid. It is well within the rebels interest to frame the Syrian Government to build a pretext for overt US intervention. The timing of these revelations is also highly indicative as to their purpose.

As mentioned above, the rebels are losing in a big way inside Syria, supply lines have been cut off, key towns and transit routes have been retaken by the SAA. Rebel numbers and sanctuary are dwindling, if the ‘balance’ were to remain the same, the insurgency would soon be over; permitting Syria could secure its borders to a reasonable extent. The brutal war ending is not what the US and its allies want in Syria. This war has never been about the safety, self-determination, or will of the Syrian people. This war has always been about regime change, by any means necessary.

Now that US and Gulf proxies are desperately losing, the ‘WMD’ Casus Belli must be utilised once again. Regardless of a lack of public evidence or willingness to believe these outlandish, and tainted claims, the US will persevere and is no doubt already increasing its military supplies to Salafist ‘rebels’, these falsehoods just offer further retrospective legal cover for the illegal proxy-war the United States has waged against Syria. The US Government and Military Industrial Complex cannot be seen to back down in the International Community.

When Obama declared “Assad Must Go” he did not envision the Syrian people and state (and, to an extent, their international allies) to stand up and defeat the US led subversive proxy war. Two years later and the insurgency is being crushed, the administration is perplexed, its Gulf clients could not pull off the ‘regime change’ the US military and intelligence community are usually so adept at achieving. The Obama administration is lost and has no face-saving policy with which to proceed in removing Assad, so it must pursue the WMD card, knowing that when it is all over, the CW will be in Syria. (unlike Iraq) Whether the Syrian Government actually used them or not will be yesterdays news, who cares, Assad was a “bad man” who “killed his own people” (including tens of thousands of his own soldiers??) and look at all these Chemical Weapons we found!!

The ‘media’ and Western leaders again bang the drums for this criminality and ‘intervention’. Will it take another ten years before we are mocked with vapid mea culpa’s and skewed death tolls? Russian MP’s are already stating the ‘evidence’ of CW use is fabricated, we should listen to their advice. We were fooled by Western governmental criminals into aggression and genocide ten years ago, the same is happening now.

Tony Blair continues to push the Neo-Con agenda.

Tony Blair, one of the Chief architects of the wholly illegal, and barbaric act of aggression put upon the state of Iraq and its population in 2003 – resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians – has once again been given a platform to further the West’s Imperial agenda and designs for the Middle East.

A recent article in the Mail on Sunday penned by Mr. Blair, reveals how very little this man truly thinks of the public’s collective and individual ability to see straight through his “liberal” veneer and blatant war propaganda. The man British citizens twice voted into the office of Prime Minister, is now, a de-facto figurehead for the vast apparatus’ of the Western Corporate Military Industrial Complex (MIC), and a fully fledged leader of the MIC’s quasi-humanitarian facade. Can one honestly believe this man – thought by many of his own former constituents to be a proven war criminal – holds the title of Middle East Peace Envoy? One looks on at this scenario and see’s nothing more than a sickening insult to the Palestinian’s and their brethren. You want peace? The right of return? Your indigenous land? And compensation for the brutality the UK and the rest of the Western world has encouraged and abetted israel to commit unhindered? Here, have “our” Tony; a proven war criminal responsible for the death and suffering of millions of Arab’s, a man so despised in the region he is supposed to be helping, that he dare not step foot in it outside of Zionist control or with a small army in tow.

The simplistic narrative Mr. Blair is trying to force onto readers is that, contrary to all available evidence and the vast majority of informed scholarly opinion, even indeed, contrary to his first paragraph in which he uses his charm and “liberal” facade to portray an understanding of peaceful Islam; that there is an “ideology” behind the brutal murder of Lee Rigby by extremists on the streets of London, and that this ideology is “profound and dangerous”. Tony then veers straight into the Neo-Con/AIPAC dominated western narrative on the Middle East, casually inferring that the “ideology” he speaks of is “out there”: (my emphasis.)

However, we are deluding ourselves if we believe that we can protect this country simply by what we do here, the ideology is out there, it isn’t diminishing.

This one sentence alone, is complete Neo-Con fantasy. In 2012 – and this is a recurring statistic – more American’s died as a result of being crushed by their TV or furniture (16) than by “terrorism” (10). When is Tony going to warn the Western world of the imminent danger and “profound ideology” which is inherent in every Panasonic superstore or large furniture outlet? I for one agree, we should do all we can to combat such a “profound” threat. Three-piece-suite “terror cells” are currently gathering at Ikea superstore’s across the whole of  Britain. The country must be prepared for this imminent, pernicious “ideological” attack from sofa’s, TV’s and extremist chaise lounge alike.

Tony takes us on a tour of the current conflagrations erupting throughout the Middle East, yes, of course, this man has the right to opine and the status to gain platform, who is to stop him? The millions across the globe that strongly feel he should be prosecuted for his murderous actions don’t have a say, the Corporate Elite that run the editorial boards of Western media outlets willingly parade this man’s opinion as credible. Tony asks us, subservient citizens of the west, to “consider the Middle East”. Has this man ever considered the Middle East in any other context than an oil-well, for him and his corporate cronies and warmonger’s alike to rape and pillage? Yet we, as hapless subordinates should “consider the Middle East”?

Of course Tony’s considerations fall alongside such prominent peace activists as US Senator John McCain, currently to be found posing with Islamic extremists guilty of war crimes. On Syria, Tony tells us:

Many in the region believe that the Assad intention is to ethnically cleanse the Sunni from the areas dominated by his regime and then form a separate state around Lebanon. There would then be a de facto Sunni state in the rest of Syria, cut off from the wealth of the country or the sea.

Again, this could not be further from reality, or even come close to the Syrian Governments intention’s. The intention of his great friend George Bush and his administration on the other hand, dutifully carried out by Obama and their GCC partners, is exactly what has transpired inside Syria and is now engulfing Lebanon. This intention through covert policy was a de-facto sectarian division and destruction of the Syrian state, Hezbollah, and Lebanon along with it, to ultimately lay the ground for the “Path to Persia”. Western and Gulf nations sponsorship of supposed “rebels” fighting for democracy has done nothing but bolster Al Qaeda affiliated ideologues and groups that openly espouse sectarian hatred against Shia Muslim’s, Christians, and any other minority sect residing in Syria or on this planet.

Yet Assad, whose domestic popularity has apparently never been higher according to NATO sources, and the President of a secular and multi-ethnic state is now willingly dividing his own country to escape a sectarian extremist takeover that has the support of around a meagre 10% of Syria’s population? It beggars belief, and Tony is turning the conflict on its head. Since the very start of the Syrian conflict it has been the groups that espouse this sectarian agenda that have directly received the most support, arms and funding from Western and Gulf donors, and has undoubtedly resulted in the vast amount of extremist dominated militia currently waging war on the Syrian state, its whole social fabric, and its once tolerant and peaceful population.

“The Syrian opposition is made up of many groups. The fighters are increasingly the Al Qaeda- affiliated group Jabhat al-Nusra. They are winning support, and arms and money from outside the country.

Surely the question Tony should be asking himself is: who is sending “support, arms and money from outside the country“? He doesn’t seem to be able to determine that it is his own allies in the region and across the Atlantic that have poured billions of dollars into the insurgency. Qatar alone, have thrown $3 billion dollars at the Salafi/Jihaddi dominated “opposition”, along with thousands of tonnes of arms. Yet the spread of extremism is the fault of the Syrian Government?

In Tony’s eye’s, the billions of dollars provided by the West, along with thousands of tonnes of western coordinated arms sent to “rebels” in Syria has absolutely no relevance to the proliferation of extremists. Western intelligence agencies training the very same militia for the last two years simply doesn’t correlate. Does he think the CIA, MI6 and their Turkish, Qatari, Saudi and Jordanian counterparts are training Greenpeace activists in Mafraq and Incerlik to go and wage war against the Syrian Army? Or do these “freedom fighters” only become radicalized once set-loose from their Western/GCC mentors and trainers the minute they cross the Syrian border?

Of all those least qualified to make an assumption about chemical weapons, Tony provides his readers with another Golden Nugget of complete falsehood:

“Assad is using chemical weapons on a limited but deadly scale.”

The man has absolutely nothing to back this claim, he probably has less “evidence” than the first time he used the “chemical weapons” Cassus Belli to wage war on Iraq. UN investigator Carla Del Ponte, may well like to correct him, as it was her – along with many other analysts and informed individuals – that pointed the finger directly at the “freedom fighting” rebels Tony and his ilk have been supporting for over two years. Not to mention the fact that just this week, Syrian militant cells tied to Jabhat al Nusra (Al Qaeda) – the prominent opposition fighting force in Syria – were arrested in possession of Sarin Gas canisters in neighboring Iraq and Turkey. False flag anyone?

Tellingly, Tony tells us: “we are at the beginning of this tragedy”. Revealing his true desire in such a way as to say: look, I told you so, we should have intervened and bombed them back to the stone age two years ago. Again, his cognitive dissonance and ability to whitewash any western culpability for the increase in sectarianism, destruction and conflict spread throughout the Middle East goes far beyond ignorance or hypocrisy. Blair uses “we” to pull in readers as if he is a spokesperson for the world, when in reality he is a willing public relations shill for Western-led aggression. He says “we are at the beginning” just at the point of him addressing Iran, at which he offers another complete fear-factor falsehood to his readers:

Then there is the Iranian regime, still intent on getting a nuclear weapon, still exporting terror and instability to the West and the east of it.

Without even bothering to address the Neo-Con-led lie that Iran is “intent on getting a nuclear weapon”, we should simply sit back and take a look at the current reality of the situation. Israel has had for years, an illegal and rather huge nuclear warhead stockpile. Has Tony ever thought about challenging that illegality in his efforts as “Middle East Peace Envoy”? – of course not. It goes without saying that Iran have every right to engage in their nuclear energy program; they are a party to the IAEA and comply regularly with US-led invasive measures, not to mention Iran is also party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty.  Israel on the other hand, are not a member of either, yet it is often Israel found at the forefront of allegations against Iran.  All the while Israel sit on a huge illegal nuclear stockpile; engage in decades long occupation and land theft; apartheid; and multiple acts of violent aggression including invasion of several neighbouring states, all of which is only possible with the enablement and approval of hegemonic Western states. But of course, Iran is the threat in the Middle East. And Israel’s security is of utmost importance.

Tony must be so fearful of his security within the occupied territories, or anywhere else in the Arab world for that matter, that he is failing to speak to the people he claims to know so much about. It would only take a quick review of the plethora of polls held in the region for him to realise, it is not Iran or Syria that Arabs fear. In the vast majority, Arab’s think of the United States and Israel as the two main threats to peace in the region. It is not in Tony’s or his paymasters interest’s to point this out.

But as Blair warns himself “lets not get carried away”. This isn’t all down to Iraq and Israel after all. No, the policy of fomenting and using radical Islam for geopolitical gain runs far deeper and wider, decades at least. Blair touches on an enlightening subject when he states:

The Taliban grew out of the Russian occupation of Afghanistan and made the country into a training ground for terror.

To some extent, this is true; but what Tony is wilfully omitting is the fact the Russian invasion of Afghanistan was a result of the US-led proxy war against it. Tony knows full well that the US was arming the very same ideologues he pretends to rally against in Afghanistan, often with the tacit coordination of British military and intelligence agencies. It was the West that enabled, funded and armed Osama Bin Laden, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, the Haqqani network and many other extremists during the eighties, all for the value of “giving Russia its Vietnam”. It was US and UK military trainers, alongside their Pakistani and Saudi counterparts, that armed and trained these men in the finer arts of warfare and terrorism. According to official documentation, much of these western-led efforts commenced long before the Russian’s decided to invade. Furthermore, thousands of Islamic extremist’s were given billions of dollars and armed to the teeth during the Yugoslavia break-up, this had far more relevance to economic designs for the region than the West enabling “freedom and democracy”. A policy which the US, along with its NATO ally Turkey has continued along Russia’s North Caucasus, the blowback of which can be seen on the streets of Boston today. Much the same happened in Libya when that “Dictator” got above his station and actually dared to provide his people independence from the Western economic stranglehold. And has also been happening on Syria’s borders since at least the original protest movement kicked off in March 2011.

These are just a few example’s of the plethora of evidence that proves outright Western leaders are in no rush to defeat fundamentalism. While western domestic populations are whipped into Islamophobic fever and their civil liberties encroached upon through false “National Security” measures, whole populations of “others” are dehumanized and demonized to enable Western-led military aggression. Coddling extremist and reactionary autocrats and their ideological militant proxies  has for decades provided the Western Elite the ultimate subversion tool abroad, from Gamal Abdel Nasser, to the Soviet Union itself, using radical Islamists as foot soldiers in proxy wars in the Arab World is but one of the Capitalist elites weapon’s of choice.

To further the point of Tony’s glaring moral expediency, it just so happens the West’s biggest ally in the region since its UK-designed inception: The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, garners not a single mention in Blair’s article, of course, this is the nation we have supplied and armed throughout its existence to wage war on our behalf. Saudi Arabia is the state that oppresses its population through archaic and barbaric interpretations of Islam. But Tony’s wallet will not allow a harsh word to be said.

While the Saudi Arabian absolute monarchy indocrinate, fund & arm Islamic extremists all over the Middle East, and pour billion’s into Madrassa’s all over the world to spread the brutal Saud monarchy’s Wahhabi abomination of Islam; western Governments such as Blair’s are more than happy to sell them billions of dollars worth of war materiel at knock-off prices, and indeed, have used Saudi Arabia as a key conduit and enforcer of all things “terror” in the region, on the West’s behalf, for decades on end.

Lets not pretend we don’t know why these counterintuitive dynamics continue to occur. One has to take a serious look at the disparities that are inherent within Western Governments to understand the very nature of the real “threats” and establishment “ideologies” that are forced upon us. It is not Islam, nor any other religion that is the threat, it is not even the extremist marginal ideologies that our leaders use to entrap and enslave us at home, or promote and foment war and subversion abroad. Neither can compare to the destruction and death Western leaders have willingly caused. It is Tony and his ilk that have proven to be the biggest detriment to mankind and peace.

Israel, Syria, airstrikes and “game changers”.

Israeli military officials today confirmed IAF warplanes targeted a supposed shipment of “game changing” weapons inside Syria, allegedly destined for Hezbollah. These “game changing advanced missiles”, (if they exist) have been reported to have been “advanced ground to ground missiles”

Whats interesting, is the similar modus operandi of another recent IAF airstrike on Syria in January, which was also claimed to be targeting a “weapons convoy”. Indeed, the convoy that was targeted may well have been carrying weapons/Manpad’s, but that was not Israel’s primary target. In this case the target, and result of the strike was the death of Iranian IRCG General Hassan Shateri: a major coup for Israel’s continuing aggression and shadow war against Iran. The Times of London reported in February that an Israeli military source revealed Israeli assets spotted Shateri in Damascus, trailed him as he boarded the “convoy” headed for Lebanon, after which the airstrike option was “utilized”. This shows that Israel’s military planners are willing to take huge risk in their opportunistic “targeted killings” of IRGC and Hezbollah commanders, and fully exploit the current conflict in Syria as a means to eradicate and weaken its enemies.

In the run-up to the Shateri assassination, there was also a heavy and blatant increase in IAF airspace violations over Lebanon, these were ultimately recon flights and strike simulations. This strategy appears to be the case in the recent strike on Syrian soil, at the moment of typing, it appears Israeli missiles were fired from jets in Lebanese airspace across the border into Syria.

With the Syrian Government and armed forces facing a full on insurgency; it is hard to believe they would choose to ship large consignments of sophisticated weapons out of the country, during a period it is facing an increased threat of western/GCC military action against it. Further still, Hezbollah is currently engaged in the war against western/GCC proxies in Syria, it poses no offensive threat to Israel at this moment in time. Another major issue going against this “game changing missiles” narrative is the fact that similar range missiles will already be in the arsenal of both the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF), and, to some extent Hezbollah.

Although more of these weapons would prove a major obstacle to any future Israeli aggression on Lebanon, it’s certainly not a “game changing” dynamic. Israel’s huge military apparatus and air supremacy bare no comparison to the small arsenal’s inside Lebanon. Indeed, after the Shateri strike an IDF official was quoted in the Times article as saying: “a weapons convoy to Lebanon is not on its own a good enough reason for Israel to risk its pilots in an attack through a heavily protected air defense zone.” Although striking from the oft-violated Lebanese airspace puts paid to these Israeli concerns, it still seems an awfully risky manouvre for the sake of a few missiles.

Speaking on Friday Lebanon’s President Michel Sleiman accused Israel of:  “trying to destabilise the country” and, called continuing IAF airspace violations: ” Israel’s policy of intimidation”. So who or what was the real target? On the face of it, Israeli airstrikes against Syrian Army/Hezbollah are only going to bolster radical Sunni militia affiliated with Al Qaeda? Oh sorry i forgot, they’re on the same side in this proxy-war. The west’s (ergo Israel’s) strategic moral expediency in plain sight.

Western media and the War Machine.

It is now well over two years since the Syrian conflict began. I for one, will no longer give credibility to the falsehood that this brutal conflict simply aroused itself from the Syrian Government’s oppression of peaceful protest. There were many peaceful protests in Syria, there was, and still is a widespread call for reform and change within the Syrian government. No doubt, there was also brutal oppression. But the critical element that has been dutifully removed from the narrative by our subservient western media, is the fact that radical militia – some affiliated with “the west’s biggest enemy” Al Qaeda no less – were attacking the Syrian Arab Army from day one. Those attacks greatly intensified; as US/Gulf propagated “opposition” elements conflated the two separate dynamics for their own political benefit.

Since over 100 Syrian Army troops (Named in state media, unmentioned in western press) were killed in April 2011 alone it begs the question; who was killing them at this early stage? Once one delves a little deeper, and beyond the usual outlet it is easy to find evidence of armed gangs attacking checkpoints, militry convoys and installations throughout the early stages of the conflict. Long ago many analysts (not attached to dubious Washington or London-based “NGO’s”) and a few politicians were warning of the ramifications of allowing Wahhabi propagating theocracy the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, with the archaic, oppressive, misogynistic, and outright autocratic promoters of the Muslim Brotherhood, Qatar, the prominent role in supporting the so-called “rebels” in and outside of Syria.

These states (US clients), alongside NATO member Turkey – who have mainly facilitated the distribution of arms and funds, whilst harbouring said “rebels” and providing training camps on Syria’s border – were given “the green light” by the US to arm and determine who waged war in Syria in a supposed fight for “freedom and democracy”. A supposed future democracy which neither of these US clients has ever practiced themselves, or plan to in the future. Many knew this would only lead to a dramatic increase in the conflict and in turn spur the sectarian tensions within Syria. Why would western media deem it necessary, or in the publics interest to omit these vital facts? Simply because the vast majority of western “news” media is subservient to its corporate financiers, ergo: government. In the realm of Foreign Policy and ‘National Security’, to give western media any more credence than state media within the ‘axis of evil’; (constantly ridiculed in western media) is to omit, or conveniently forget, the barefaced, constant falsehoods that have plagued our so-called ‘independent media’, and in turn led us into wars of aggression. When in reality, these wars are about nothing other than hegemony and resource: not human rights and democracy.

The same few public voices that raised these concerns at the time were dutifully whitewashed from the public sphere. Media plays an ever more vital role in promoting the west’s wars of aggression. As governments and corporations start to fear mass unrest and upheaval within their own societies; alongside the huge rise in public communication and media sharing thanks to the internet, which currently every “developed” western government is trying to obliterate. It is becoming ever harder for Governments to dupe populations into overt aggressive, hegemonic military operations against sovereign nations. This is not to say the publics opinion will dissuade western powers to enter such wars. On the contrary, several polls in the UK have shown that in the majority, the public are against arming “rebels” or intervening in Syria. A recent binational YouGov-Cambridge poll showed that only 16% of both US and UK voters were in favour of supplying munitions to the opposition. This is not a consideration with either Whitehall, or the Guardian’s editorial team.

With ever-expanding covert armies, unaccountable private military contractors and paramilitary intelligence agencies that western nations are building, and continue expanding. Alongside the growing encroachment into what becomes public knowledge: under “National Security” grounds. Western governments are adapting their subversion and have added small-scale insurgencies as a pertinent strategy, which now primarily fall under the doublespeak auspices of “the Right to Protect” or “Humanitarian Intervention.” These small-scale insurgencies are referred to in the western media as “rebels”, “revolutionaries”, “freedom fighters” etc when attacking a Government and its apparatus our leaders would like removed. Yet when these same “freedom fighters” turn their western/GCC provided arsenal’s on western friendly targets: they are immediately labelled as “terrorists”. Indeed, there are many recent examples of this.

A prominent example arises in Libya. The same radical Islamic groups western powers armed and funded to illegally and brutally overthrow Gaddafi’s government; (Along with a six month 9,000+ NATO air strike campaign.) have since turned on their main donors not only once, but three times. These predominantly extremist forces first attacked the British Ambassador; then attacked the US “consulate” in Benghazi: killing the US Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stephens in a supposed CIA “safe house”. ( widely believed to have been stockpiling arms in Libya to send to the next “revolution” in Syria) and, recently attacking the French embassy. This western moral expediency is but a continuation of our governments recklessness, and the continual use of primarily Gulf propagated, fomented and funded radical Islamic forces to subvert, leverage, and ideally remove Governments within the middle east that are outside, or; unwilling to become part of the west’s economic influence.

The western media apparatus is currently engulfed in a coordinated campaign, to use what is highly circumstantial and dubious ‘evidence’ (the crucial parts we the public are not privy to) that the Assad government has deployed chemical weapons: “on its own people” as a pretext for further intervention against the Syrian government. Yes, we have been here before, and over a million Iraqi civilians at least half of them children; (that is a conservative estimate of total deaths due to US/UK led war, economic or otherwise against Iraq.) alongside thousands of British and US military personnel: paid the ultimate price for our Governments and their compliant media’s malfeasance.

When we scrutinise these “reports” for the “evidence” our diplomats and politicians speak of, it is hard to find anything other than speculation. But the speculation will persist, evolve and grow tenfold. The language will become stark, the images shocking, and within a couple of weeks (…days?) the majority of uninformed readers and headline watchers will ultimately believe the claim without the necessary evidence. This is the role western media and its apparatus plays in the middle east. It is not designed to inform the western public; it is certainly not designed to bring about any understanding. The media is a mere tool within the western Military Industrial Complex to further the “legitimacy”, or, more appropriately: the public apathy towards the rapacious, illegal, aggressive and outright imperialistic military ventures undertaken by our governments throughout the region.

One wonders why this media campaign has taken a dramatic increase in the last week or so? Indeed, it was only a few weeks ago that the Syrian Government itself was calling on the UN to investigate alleged opposition use of Chemical Weapons, in response to an alleged “terrorist” attack on Government forces in Aleppo. The UN reluctantly obliged, but under pressure from Washington the UN decided it would only investigate all claims of chemical weapons use across the whole of Syria; including the rebel claims of Government use. Considering the CIA’s habit (and UN complicity) of infiltrating supposed UN investigations for the benefit of the US military and Administration, while also considering the US (CIA) is a prime belligerent in this conflict: I don’t think its hard to fathom the Syrian government may be suspicious of these attempts to send UN investigators all over the war-torn country.

Why would the UN choose not to investigate what was readily available and choose instead to add invasive pre-conditions? In relation to the timing of this current media campaign, it is obvious. The Syrian Arab Army is currently on a nationwide offensive, and it is succeeding. In areas all across the country the SAA has retaken vital towns, villages and checkpoints. The Army is also currently opening up the once restricted supply routes and highways to Government strongholds in Damascus, and the coastal enclave of Latakia and Tartous. In Homs and the town of Qusair close to the Lebanese border, fighting has greatly intensified and is in danger of spreading to Lebanon. Indeed just this week, two prominent Lebanese Salafi Sheikhs declared Jihad upon the Syrian Government. This was supposedly in response to Hezbollah’s ongoing support of the regime. Again, what is omitted in this simplistic western narrative: is that Salafi fighters have used Lebanon as a key route into Syria; they have indeed attacked Shiite villages and inhabitants in the region for months. These attacks were the initial reasoning given by Hezbollah for its limited involvement.

Of course, this does not sit kindly with the narrative of “rebels” good guys, Hezbollah/Assad Regime bad guys: so it must be spun. All to the benefit of the greatest military threat to Lebanon, and if we are to believe polls; the greatest threat to the whole region: The US and Israel.

Turning a ‘blind eye’ to extremism.

Abu Bakr al-Husayni al-Qurashi al-Baghdadi the emir of the Islamic State of Iraq, (ISI) a jihadist organisation formerly affiliated with Al Qaeda recently released an official statement declaring that Jahbat al Nusra, (JN) the jihadist group that has been operating inside Syria, as officially its own product and a franchise of the ISI. The name of both groups has also been revised, signalling the unification of the Islamic State in Iraq and Jabhat al Nusra in Syria, both now officially being named: “The Islamic State of Iraq and Greater al Sham [or Levant]” (ISIS). In the communique Baghdadi states:

“It’s now time to declare in front of the people of the Levant and the world that al-Nusra Front is but an extension of the Islamic State of Iraq and part of it,” …….”We thus declare … the cancellation of the name of the Islamic State of Iraq and the name of al-Nusra Front and grouping them together under one name, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant,”

Syria analysts, and indeed the US state department have long acknowledged that Jahbat al Nusra was at least in some form an affiliate of the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI), which explains the US designating it as a terrorist group. Most analysts covering jihadist groups in the region have drawn the conclusion that Baghdadi’s recent statement is of no real consequence. For fighters on the ground in Syria, that appears to be the case. The two largest Salafi coalitions currently fighting in Syria under the umbrella groups of the Syrian Islamic Front (SIF) and the Syrian Islamic Liberation Front (SILF) will have no qualms operating with ISIS. As has been demonstrated continuously throughout the conflict. Ideologically, the SIF and the SILF’s main objective is an Islamic state in Syria, yet the SIF’s spokespeople have paid lip-service to fair treatment of minorities in any post Assad Syria. Al Qaeda, on the other hand, is a different matter altogether, their mission is an enforced Islamic world through jihad. This could provide an opportunity for Gulf states and prominent donors of the Syrian Salafi brigades to counter AQ’s prominence and attempt to move away from extremism. But, JaN are revered throughout the Salafi battalions for their fighting prowess, expertise, and overall prominence and success in taking the fight to the Syrian Army. In other words Jahbat al Nusra, now known as the Islamic State of Iraq and al Sham aren’t going anywhere anytime soon. If anything, I expect this statement to further alienate any supposedly ‘moderate’ elements inside Syria and further bolster the already dominant extremists within the opposition.

On the other hand, this ‘new’ development isn’t guaranteed to help the opposition. It could prove to be Jahbat al Nusra’s downfall in Syria, which right now would be a blow to the main opposition objective of ousting Assad. The ‘moderate’ Salafi elements may reject ISIS’ vision for Syria and try to marginalize it, which will result in a violent backlash and infighting. Western actors supporting the opposition will be pushing them to do this, the Muslim Brotherhood dominated SNC will also at least publicly distance itself from extremist elements, but no doubt ties on the ground will remain strong. Evidence of this is already becoming clear, as posted before, US/GCC “increases” and “expansion” of their military efforts on Syria’s southern border toward the middle of 2012 from a multi-national staging ground in Jordan has only resulted in the further bolstering of jihadist elements entering Syria.

  “his group [ISI] had deployed battle-hardened fighters and sent funds to local al-Nusra cells set up in Syria to lay the groundwork for the armed uprising“.-Reuters.

In this McClatchy report we learn that despite continuing State Department rhetoric on ‘moderate’ rebels, and the multi-national military presence on the Jordan/Syria border, the flow of fundamentalist militia entering Syria has gone completely unimpeded:

For all the Obama administration’s vocal concern about Islamist extremists fighting in Syria, neither U.S. officials nor regional allies have taken significant action to stem the flow of jihadists to rebel ranks.The jihadist pipelines – mainly via Turkey, but also through Jordan and Iraq – are an open secret, according to interviews this month with fighters and eyewitnesses, as well as analysts……The foreign fighters would be hard to miss for Turkish and Western intelligence operatives – they stay at established safe houses, openly recruit comrades and often stand out with distinctive appearances and habits – yet there’s been no overt effort to crack down on their presence in frontier towns.

As mentioned before, it is highly likely such militia are operating along Jordan’s border adjacent to and in collusion with western and Gulf nation special forces. Who then enter Syria and target specific military targets and key supply routes, it is more than plausible that these actors have at least some loose military coordination:
“Essentially, Turkey is running a rat line of jihadists into Syria the same way the Syrians ran a rat line into Iraq,” said Joshua Landis, the director of the Center for Middle East Studies at the University of Oklahoma and author of the blog Syria Comment. “Turkey, with America’s blessing, is doing the same thing and we’ve done nothing to stop them. It’s a wink nod-nod situation.”……Analysts offer mixed views on why the U.S. hasn’t done more to block the jihadist routes. They argue that the pipelines are less of a priority for the administration because the jihadists aren’t targeting Americans – as they were in Iraq – that U.S. diplomats want to avoid confronting the Turks on the issue because they need Turkey’s help on other urgent regional matters and, perhaps most importantly, that the battle-skilled jihadists are a necessary evil to hasten the U.S. goal of ousting Assad.
Again we see clear evidence of the US ‘turning a blind eye’, or to be frank, colluding with its client Gulf states extremist proxies in order to meet strategic objectives. Indeed it may well be making ‘increased’ efforts to form a ‘moderate’ proxy force to protect Israel and the Golan Heights from the increasing number of jihadist groups coming together there and up to the Quneitra region, almost reaching Israels border. But at the same time the US military and its intelligence apparatus is in the full knowledge that hundreds of jihadists are crossing the border into Syria. Neither Israel nor the US seem to be overly concerned, or willing to make any policy change, military or diplomatic, to avert this increasing dynamic. Quite the opposite, recently, amid rumours that IDF forces had treated wounded Syrian insurgents near the Golan and sent them back over the border, a former head of the Israeli Knesset claimed….
“al-Nusra Front could not take control on Israeli-Syrian borders without the aid of Israel”, declaring that “the injuries of al-Nusra Front are transferred to Israeli hospitals and Israel devotes its military efforts to help the insurgents in the demilitarized zone”.

Terrorism has spread in Syria and so has chaos. This is reality.

As the death toll in Syria continues to rise, the month of March 2013 was the Syrian war’s most deadly to date. With estimates of death tolls in the region of 6,000 people in one single month. The US, along with its regional allies in the Middle East is now undoubtedly coordinating and waging a multinational covert war against the Syrian government, its security apparatus and the civilian population caught in the crossfire. In a recent article I attempted to show a synonymous rise in casualty numbers and refugees fleeing Syria, with the parallel increase of US/GCC military operations on Syria’s borders, along with CIA coordinated illegal arms programs. Another parallel is that since the US/GCC have stepped up their military efforts against the Syrian govt, it has only been the more extremist Salafi dominated groups that have gained in recruitment, equipment, funding, and ultimately success on the ground. Whether these things are mutually exclusive remains to be seen or proven. How much exactly US/GCC efforts have affected the composition of the Syrian insurgency and groups fighting on the ground emerging from US coordinated “nerve centres” or ‘staging grounds’ also needs more investigation. Here I will try to provide some more, and continuing evidence to bolster what is, whilst highly unorthodox, becoming a popular theory: that the US and its Gulf allies are responsible for at least vastly exacerbating the conflict in Syria, at most engaging in a full on proxy war, once again in the name of ‘humanitarianism’.

As anyone who has followed the Syrian conflict knows, data of any verifiable nature has been more than difficult to come by, especially when analysing the conflict from afar. The graph below gives us an idea of the periodic increase of casualty since the Syrian conflict erupted in Daraa in March 2011…

Weekly_deaths_over_the_course_of_the_Syrian_civil_war

As we see above, overall casualty figures took a dramatic increase toward the end of 2011, early 2012. Almost doubling in week 45 and continuing to rise, taking a dip around March of 2012 and rapidly increasing again around June/July 2012. What do we know happened from a US/GCC perspective around this time? According to this NYT report, US officials state that the illegal CIA involvement in GCC arms programs to Syrian ‘rebels’ began on a “small-scale” around “early 2012”. Obviously it can only be coincidental that this illegal CIA/GCC arms program into Syria coincides exactly with the same period the death toll takes a dramatic increase. Or not so coincidental, as CIA/US military history tells us. Diplomatically speaking, the end of 2011 also saw Russia and China declare their intentions to veto any US led plans of a No Fly Zone over Syria. Scuppering any Libya-esque ideas of rapid regime change, via illegal NATO bombing campaign. (3,000 plus NATO bombing sorties as a “rebel” airforce in the name of humanitarianism, quickly followed by Gaddafi’s sodomy with a bayonet and assassination.) We also learn from extensive reports that the CIA’s involvement in the ‘nerve centre’ at Adana in Turkey also started around this time, in the above Reuters report it is claimed the US’ involvement in Adana began around June/July 2012, again, this directly correlates with a rise in death toll increase. Rebel operations took a massive upsurge in and around Aleppo and Turkish border towns in this period. Later still the US chose to push for “defensive” Patriot missile batteries to protect Turkey from mortar shells fired from Syria. How a Patriot battery is supposed to defend against random mortar shells I will never know. (The origin or type of shell that struck a house in a Turkish border town is still to be identified.) The last of which was successfully installed in February along the Turkish border. This US “nerve center” in Adana simply could not have popped up overnight, it sits right beside the huge joint US/Turkish airbase Incirlik. So to recap, we know the US’ plans for a NFZ were put down, early 2012, we know that US operations (including “early 2012” CIA arms program) on the Turkish border increased a great deal, in turn, Salafi/Jihaddi groups were starting to become ever more exposed and prominent. Crucially, we also know, that violence and the death toll in Syria increased dramatically at the same time. Mere “coincidences” one might argue.

This brings us to what the US, along with its Gulf allies and the UK and France, have been implementing on Syrias southern border with Jordan, in Russeifeh, close to the town of Mafraq. In turn we need to assess the immediate ramifications throughout the southern province of Daraa and along the Quneitra region, reaching to the Golan heights. Contrary to Leon Panettas claims of a small training force of 150 soldiers being sent to Jordan, in a report in October 2012 from the National Post we learn that “thousands” of US special forces are training supposed rebels. The report claims that “troops, including intelligence officers, are coming from France, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, as well as from the US and the United Kingdom.” Quotes from Jordanian and Western diplomats allege “more than 1500 elite US soldiers have been moving across Jordans border for several months now” and that “hundreds of French troops are doing their work in the Northern city of Mafraq, let alone the assistance from the Gulf”. The report goes on to state that International involvement in Jordan began in May of 2012 when 1200 Arab soldiers from Gulf states held a chemical weapons attack response simulation. In a recent report from RT on March 11th 2013 on rebels being trained in Jordan, it states in the past three months, some 200 men have already received military training that focuses on anti-tank weaponry. Again, in a report in todays Washington Post titled “US, Jordan Stepping up training of Syrian opposition” it spells out the military measures being taken by the US and its allies in full knowledge of who is making gains in Daraa: “Training begun last year has been expanded and accelerated after rebel gains in the south, including capture of a stretch of the Jordanian-Syrian border near the Golan Heights, two military outposts and the country’s main border crossing with Jordan. Jordanian security officials said a previous timetable to complete training of about 3,000 Free Syrian Army officers by the end of June has been moved up to the end of this month in light of the border victories.”  This “training base” which sits next to both a Jordanian airbase and refugee camp (exact set up as that in Adana, Turkey) in Russeifeh Jordan, has undoubtedly been used as another staging ground where US/GCC military and intelligence agencies are providing training and support to supposed rebels currently attacking Syrian government forces.

What are the immediate ramifications of opening up this staging ground and corresponding increase in rebel activity on the southern front? And which ‘opposition’ groups are gaining ground in the same regions? In the majority, its the same Salafi/Jihaddi ‘rebels’ that have been gaining ground across the rest of the country. A speech on the 23rd March by a Daraa lawmaker in Syrian parliament, which was broadcast live on Syrian TV, helps to give us an idea of what is happening in Daraa.  Walid al Zohbi told parliament: “Syria is no longer going through a crisis. It is plunged in total war. Terrorism has spread in Syria and so has chaos. This is reality, and all Syrians know it,” Zohbi goes on to warn: “This is also happening in all towns and villages in Daraa province, which is torn from east to west after the army withdrew from many positions,” Under pressure from fellow MP’s to stop, Zohbi refused to be silenced and continued to tell MP’s that the Jordan border crossing, and subsequent highway leading to Damascus is under the control of “armed groups”, this proves to be correct. After a 16 day siege Jahbat al Nusra had taken a major border crossing, several checkpoints and crucially the highway and military base Zohbi was alluding to. That location was air defense Base 38 near the town of Saida, on the road linking Damascus to Amman. A key supply route if rebels are to make any inroads toward Damascus from Jordan.

These “armed groups” that are currently overrunning checkpoints and bases in Daraa are primarily Jahbat al Nusra and the Yarmouk Martyrs Brigade, the former being a US designated terrorist group and the latter, whilst being under investigation for the extra judicial killing of SAA soldiers decided to kidnap 20 UN peacekeepers from the Golan heights.  Democratic grassroots revolutionaries? Or extremist shock troops? Unless these groups, whose main source of funding, arms and prominence is still somewhat an unsolved mystery, have extremely proficient intelligence, it seems impossible for them to pre-empt US/GCC operations in the same region. This suggests that at least to some extent, members of rebel battalions and groups in Daraa are acting in collusion/coordination with those being trained and supplied from the multinational HQ just across the border in Mafraq. Sporadic battles have broken out in towns all across the Daraa province, resulting in large gains of territory and rebels taking the key town of Dael. This long battle was  orchestrated by the Dawn of Islam Brigade. In this NYT report The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights is quoted as saying that Dael was a specific rebel target due to its strategic position on the highway to Damascus from Jordan, and that weapons were funnelled for this battle from Jordan (Mafraq multinational HQ) to Dael.

Despite the obvious bolstering becoming apparent of what are determined extremist groups in first the North, and increasingly Eastern regions of Syria. As the militarism, fighting and violence spreads. The southern regions of Syria and Daraa are evolving in much the same fashion. Not that it appears to deter the US and Jordans attempts to “expand” and “accelerate” military training and enablement of such ideologues as Abu Molem :

“Whether we fight under the banner of Jabhat al-Nusra or the Free Syrian Army, we are all defending our families in the name of God,” said Abu Momen, who crossed the border last week along with the nightly influx of about 2,000 people. The 22-year-old said he was a fighter with the Jabhat al-Nusra group, which the Obama administration has said is a wholly owned subsidiary of al-Qaeda in Iraq.

“No buffer zone can stop our jihad in Syria,” Abu Momen said.