US & UN Openly Waging War on Syria by Tony Cartalucci


Thursday, June 7, 2012
US & UN Openly Waging War on Syria
UN & US Maneuver Against Syria Upon Baseless Activist Hearsay
by Tony Cartalucci

June 8, 2012 – « It was not possible to independently confirm many details of the massacre Wednesday afternoon in Qubair, a small Sunni hamlet northwest of the city of Hama that is surrounded by villages populated by members of Assad’s Shiite-affiliated Alawite sect, » reported the Washington Post. Even days after the alleged atrocity unfolded, no evidence has been produced to match the torrent of sensational headlines now being exploited by the West and the UN to justify another round of condemnation and threats against the Syrian government.

As with all atrocities committed with impeccable timing to be paraded out before the world on the eve of pivotal UN meetings, little more than « activist » hearsay is used to condemn the Syrian government to more foreign pressure and edge it ever closer to a US-engineered sectarian war planned as early as 2007. Kofi Annan as well, after posing as « peacemaker » for months, finally dropped all pretenses and credibility to « blame » the Syrian government for the failure of his plan – a deceitful ploy from the very beginning.

Image: Brookings Institution’s Middle East Memo #21 « Assessing Options for Regime Change (.pdf), » makes no secret that the humanitarian « responsibility to protect » is but a pretext for long-planned regime change.

….

Western policy makers openly admit that the goal in Syria is not to restore peace and order, but to topple the government, even if it means purposefully, and indefinitely prolonging the violence to do so. Brookings Institution in their March, 2012 Middle East Memo #21 « Assessing Options for Regime Change (.pdf), » openly states that:
« The United States might still arm the opposition even knowing they will probably never have sufficient power, on their own, to dislodge the Asad network. Washington might choose to do so simply in the belief that at least providing an oppressed people with some ability to resist their oppressors is better than doing nothing at all, even if the support provided has little chance of turning defeat into victory. Alternatively, the United States might calculate that it is still worthwhile to pin down the Asad regime and bleed it, keeping a regional adversary weak, while avoiding the costs of direct intervention. » -pages 8-9, Assessing Options for Regime Change, Brookings Institution.

Confirming this, Clifford May of the Neo-Conservative Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) openly admits that « humanitarian concerns » has nothing to do with the West’s involvement in Syria, and that it is rather a proxy war being fought against Iran, and by extension, Russia. May also clearly states that ousting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is the objective of Western machinations, not the restoration of order or any sort of brokered ceasefire that ends the killing. May in fact states very explicitly that he would like to see a repeat of NATO’s intervention in Libya carried out against Syria. It should be remembered that NATO’s intervention saw the unfolding in reality of the atrocities falsely attributed to Qaddafi in the lead up to the war.

Libya now lies a wrecked nation of tribal infighting, a fact May himself is quite proud of, and consoles himself with the fact that at least the « the oil is again flowing and those attempting to use Islamism to paper over ancient tribal differences have so far not succeeded. » Clearly, no one was « saved » by NATO, but the intervention was a textbook case of neo-imperial « divide and conquer. »

Unconfirmed Reports = War Propaganda

The UN and the Western special interests for whom it works, has already begun moving against Syria based on what are admittedly unconfirmed reports from opposition « activists. » Were the UN a credible, objective purveyor of « international law, » a proper investigation would be carried out before leaping to any conclusions. The UN, were it credible, would in fact berate the West for attempting to exploit the confusion and emotions invoked by the irresponsible reporting of the Western press.

However, the fact that punitive measures are already being leveled against Syria before UN monitors can even examine the latest alleged « massacre » let alone conduct an investigation and draw objective conclusions as to who in fact was responsible, illustrates not the illegitimacy of the Syrian government, as UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon maintains, but the illegitimacy of the United Nations itself.

US policy makers at Brookings Institution declared their intentions to « bleed » Syria. And now Ban Ki-moon concedes, »the Syrian people are bleeding. » Ban is either complicit or incompetent to point the finger at the Syrian government based on the claims of « activists » emanating from the British-based « Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, » a single man masquerading as a rights « organization » who openly seeks to see the Syrian government overthrown. Ban’s conclusion is especially troubling when he has in front of him, Brookings’ own signed documents, conspiring against world peace and describing with exactitude in March, 2012 what is now unfolding today.
Posted by Land Destroyer at 8:59 PM
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to Facebook
Labels: middle east, propaganda, Syria
Neo-Con: Syria Has Nothing to do with Humanitarian Concerns
FDD’s Clifford May admits Syria is a proxy war with Iran and Russia, Neo-Cons in bed with Al Qaeda. Human rights merely a pretense.
by Tony Cartalucci

June 8, 2012 – Foundation for Defense of Democracies’ Clifford May in an article titled, « The Battle of Syria: Assad’s survival would be a victory for Iran — and a defeat for the US, » openly dispels the commonly held notion among the West’s remaining public support, that their meddling in Syria’s ongoing strife has anything to do with humanitarian concerns. In fact, May openly states that defeating Syria as a proxy of Iran is far more important than « the dearth of sincere Muslim freedom fighters » or « humanitarian concerns. »

Video: Clifford May begins by playing the « humanitarian card » but ends admitting the entire conflict is a proxy war with Iran, and by implication, Russia. Amid a myriad of lies directed at Iran, May proposes worldwide occupation is necessary to maintain American « influence in the long run, » a notion that sounds suspiciously a lot like Empire.
….

May also makes mention of « strange bedfellows » in the current conflict, by quoting a fellow commentator who stated, « the McCain wing of the Republican party, and the rest of Washington’s progressive, Islamophilic clerisy” are aligning with “al-Qaeda emir Ayman al-Zawahiri and Muslim Brotherhood icon Yusuf al-Qaradawi.”

Aligning with Al Qaeda indeed, something that, while May claims is a spontaneous convergence of interests, was actually being planned as early as 2007, as stated in Seymour Hersh’s article, « The Redirection » in the New Yorker. And just like May concedes now, Hersh painted a picture of US-Israeli-Saudi machinations to destroy Lebanon and Syria as a means of undermining and toppling Iran – and using sectarian extremists to do so. Hersh specifically mentioned that many of the militant groups the West was arming and staging for this operation now unfolding in Syria today, were affiliated with Al Qaeda. The 2007 article specifically states:

« To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has coöperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda. »

May, perhaps hoping his readership is as profoundly ignorant of history as he assumes they are of current events, claims that Al Qaeda was a creation of Iran, willfully remiss of the fact that America’s CIA indeed created the terror organization in the mountains of Afghanistan to fight the Soviets in the 1980’s, and have continuously retooled it to execute Western foreign policy since, up to and including in Syria now. Essentially, May expects readers to believe that Iran created Al Qaeda and unleashed it upon its own ally. Clearly, May’s narrative not only falters at face value, but contradicts the somewhat more reputable, and certainly better cited work of Seymour Hersh.

May’s faulty conclusion is that should Syria prevail against these long-planned US machinations, with the help of Russia and Iran, the world would face a « nuclear armed » Iran emboldened by its ability to throw off American influence and would run roughshod over the peoples of the Middle East. May induces fear with the threat of an uncontrollable « nuclear armed » Iran specifically as a smokescreen for his true fear, and the fear of all Western neo-imperialists – that Iran, Syria, and Russia would begin overturning the decades old hegemonic order of Wall Street and London.

The internal documents of US policy makers, including Brookings Institution’s « Which Path to Persia? » concede that even if Iran were to obtain nuclear weapons, they would not be deployed as anything but a means of deterrence, just as the US and Soviets did during the Cold War. Brookings concedes that it is a feared shift in geopolitical influence at the expense of America and its proxies that drives Western ambitions toward regime change in Iran, not any legitimate threat to the national security of either America or Israel.

The doomsday scenario Clifford May paints is unfounded, his accusations against Iran as being a « state sponsor of terror » ring hollow as he himself backed the overthrow of the Libyan government and direct military intervention that saw millions of dollars of weapons and cash, along with air support and diplomatic backing go to the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), literally a wing of Al Qaeda. May also conveniently fails to mention that the US and Israel are funding, training, and arming a US State Department-listed foreign terror organization (#29), Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MEK) against Iran. May does however mention Al Qaeda being in Syria, and how US policy runs parallel to its agenda. Since the US is admittedly funding these armed militants, it turns out that the US is yet again a state that is sponsoring terrorism.

Image: Brookings Institution’s Middle East Memo #21 « Assessing Options for Regime Change (.pdf), » makes no secret that the humanitarian « responsibility to protect » is but a pretext for long-planned regime change.

….

While May’s writings may seem like throwaway statements designed to stoke fear amongst the weakest of minds, it is instructive to note, after navigating through overt contradictions, that he makes no illusions of Syria being a battle fought for humanitarian causes. His colleagues at Brookings Institution, who authored the « Middle East Memo #21 » that suggested Syria be « bled » with unending violence confirms this is the general consensus of prevailing Western policy makers. The goal is to remove Syrian President Bashar al-Assad at any cost, including the utilization of « strange bedfellows » like Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood, and regardless of how high the cost is in terms of human life – with some options including US-subsidized bloodshed that extends over the period of several years.

There is nothing noble about the West’s involvement in Syria – the architects and promoters of this agenda, like Neo-Con Clifford May and those amongst the Bookings Institution, confirm this in their own words. It is and always has been about expanding Western hegemony across the planet. If common sense, healthy skepticism, and critical thinking have yet to awaken some amongst the public, perhaps their governments’ own policy makers telling them the conflict is an unjust act of aggression, will.
Posted by Land Destroyer at 11:19 AM
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to Facebook
Labels: 4GWarfare, middle east, propaganda, R2P, Syria
Wednesday, June 6, 2012
US to Russia: Give Up or Swim in Our Sea of Syrian Blood
US Attempts to Mass-Murder Its Way to Victory in Syria.
by Tony Cartalucci
• US planned Syrian sectarian violence since at least 2007.
• US willfully arming sectarian extremists to perpetuate violence.
• US using violence of its own creation to pressure nations into accepting « regime change. »

June 6, 2012 – As revelations emerge that the violence in Syria has been premeditated by Western planners years before the Arab Spring unfolded, and as the facade of « democratic aspirations » collapse in the face of a sectarian-driven bloodbath, US officials and Western think-tank policy makers speaking with Bloomberg have stated that their final message to Russia in order to begin regime change is essentially this: the violence will continue to be purposefully escalated until regime change is accomplished – Russia can capitulate now and have a say in how a transition occurs, or capitulate later and suffer exclusion as was the case in Libya.

Bloomberg cites « US officials » who claim they are meeting with Russia to seek an « orderly transition. »

Image: Brookings Institution’s Middle East Memo #21 « Assessing Options for Regime Change (.pdf), » makes no secret that the humanitarian « responsibility to protect » is but a pretext for long-planned regime change.

….

Just how close the US is, or believes it is to actually overthrowing the Syrian government is a matter of varied opinion. What is not opinion is the fact that the US has openly conspired to « bleed » Syria to death to either perpetually limit its geopolitical influence throughout the Middle East, or to eventually precipitate the fall of the government. This was stated very clearly in Brookings Institution’s « Middle East Memo #21 « Assessing Options for Regime Change (.pdf): »
« An alternative is for diplomatic efforts to focus first on how to end the violence and how to gain humanitarian access, as is being done under Annan’s leadership. This may lead to the creation of safe-havens and humanitarian corridors, which would have to be backed by limited military power. This would, of course, fall short of U.S. goals for Syria and could preserve Asad in power. From that starting point, however, it is possible that a broad coalition with the appropriate international mandate could add further coercive action to its efforts. » -page 4, Assessing Options for Regime Change, Brookings Institution.

On pages 8 and 9, the memo states:
« The United States might still arm the opposition even knowing they will probably never have sufficient power, on their own, to dislodge the Asad network. Washington might choose to do so simply in the belief that at least providing an oppressed people with some ability to resist their oppressors is better than doing nothing at all, even if the support provided has little chance of turning defeat into victory. Alternatively, the United States might calculate that it is still worthwhile to pin down the Asad regime and bleed it, keeping a regional adversary weak, while avoiding the costs of direct intervention. » -pages 8-9, Assessing Options for Regime Change, Brookings Institution.

For those following the « humanitarian » rhetoric proposed by the West as their alleged motivation for involvement in Syria, it is clearly unconscionable to purposefully perpetuate violence, particularly the brutal sectarian violence now admittedly unfolding, simply to keep « a regional adversary weak. » And it is from this position of moral depravity that the West is negotiating with Russia for a « transition » in Syria.

The West believes that by continuing this bloodshed and by manipulating public perception that it is « the doing of the Syrian government, » « enabled » by the Russians, Chinese, and Iranians, they can « shame » opponents of their campaign of destabilization into backing this ongoing crime against world peace. However, Western propaganda is faltering in the face of the alternative media. Additionally the public in general, weary of unending war, are increasingly voicing suspicion over the motives and involvement of the West in regards to Syria. The intended sting of what appears to be a Western orchestrated atrocity in Houla Syria, exists only in the op-eds of the Western press, and extends no further – not even in the comment sections below. In other words, no one has bought it.

Image: Never again? Appeasing tyranny never works. In 1939 Hitler singed a non-aggression pact with Russia it never intended to honor. Up until the day Hitler invaded Russia in 1941, he denied his intentions of driving all the way to Moscow, claiming he was lining up troops on Russia’s borders to « protect them from British bombing. » Today, we see NATO playing the same game with the European ballistic missile shield intended for « Iran, » while undermining and invading one Russian ally after another. Apathy and tacit complicity for wars of aggression may seem « easy, » that is until one considers the price Germans ultimately paid when their fortunes finally turned.
….

What Russia decides to do with Syria will determine the shape of the battlefield upon which they will fight when inevitably forced to confront the encroaching machinations of Wall Street and London.

One misconception that cannot be made, however, is that by appeasing the West by giving up on Syria, like was done with Libya, will somehow placate the hegemonic ambitions driving this agenda in the first place. Like Hitler denying he intended to invade Russia up to the day he indeed invaded, Wall Street and London intend to go all the way to Moscow and Beijing, despite the myriad of excuses and denials they make along the way, and denials and excuses they will continue to make until the very day Western forces and their proxies begin unraveling both Russia and China.

China, likewise faces encirclement and containment as the Pentagon openly declares it is shifting its attention and its fleets into the Pacific. While Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta attempts to « dispel » concerns that the US is arraying its forces to confront China, his less than credible word contradicts nearly 20 years of US policy papers that describe containing and collapsing China by this very method of reasserting US hegemony in the Pacific.

Confrontation will come sooner or later, and for those wondering why the world was so apathetic in the face of the Nazis, an obvious threat to world peace in retrospect, we are given a front row seat today as Wall Street, London, and those in their orbit incrementally violate the sovereignty and destiny of nation after nation, aided by their own population’s seemingly infinite apathy and ignorance. And like Germany, it will be these populations that pay the ultimate price for complacency and inaction in the face of their own governments’ reckless hegemonic ambitions.
Posted by Land Destroyer at 3:16 AM
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to Facebook
Labels: 4GWarfare, middle east, Russia, Syria
Monday, June 4, 2012
French Bishop: Syrian Soldiers Face Foreign Fighters, Mercenaries, and Militants
« The enemies of Syria have enlisted some of the Muslim Brotherhood in order to destroy the brotherly relations that traditionally existed between Muslims and Christians. »
by Tony Cartalucci

June 5, 2012 – The US, NATO, Israeli, and Gulf State-backed « heroic » Free Syrian Army has been accused by Syria’s Christian community and its foreign affiliates of waging a sectarian, not « pro-democratic » war on the Syrian people. French Bishop Philip Tournyol Clos stated, « the picture for us is utter desolation: the church of Mar Elian is half destroyed and that of Our Lady of Peace is still occupied by the rebels. Christian homes are severely damaged due to the fighting and completely emptied of their inhabitants, who fled without taking anything. The area of Hamidieh is still shelter to armed groups independent of each other, heavily armed and bankrolled by Qatar and Saudi Arabia. All Christians (138,000) have fled to Damascus and Lebanon, while others took refuge in the surrounding countryside. »

Image: Christians in Syria have been particularly hit hard by what is being described as « ethnic cleansing, » not by Syrian security forces, but by NATO-backed death squads under the banner of the « Free Syrian Army. » The LA Times has been quietly reporting on the tragedy of Syria’s minorities at the hands of the Syrian rebels for months – and indicates that wider genocide will take place, just as it is now in Libya, should Syria’s government collapse under foreign pressure.
….

Bishop Philip Tournyol Clos continued by stating, « the enemies of Syria have enlisted some of the Muslim Brotherhood in order to destroy the brotherly relations that traditionally existed between Muslims and Christians: Yet, to date,they are not able to: they have provoked a contrary reaction and the two communities are more united than before. The Syrian soldiers in fact, continue to face foreign fighters, mercenaries Libyans, Lebanese militants from the Gulf, Afghans, Turks »

The Bishop’s comments are corroborated by over a year of evidence trickling out of the Western media itself – with admissions that Libya has been sending cash, arms, and fighters to join the so-called « Free Syrian Army, » and that the Muslim Brotherhood is indeed heavily involved in the fighting, as they were in the 1980’s when last they were defeated in Syria. In regards to sectarian violence directed specifically at Christians, the Bishop’s narrative is confirmed by LA Times’ « Church fears ‘ethnic cleansing’ of Christians in Homs, Syria, » and more recently in USA Today’s distorted, but still telling, « Christians in Syria live in uneasy alliance with Assad, Alawites. »

It was also reported by the New Yorker in 2007, that the West knew well in advance that the sectarian extremists they were preparing to overthrow Syria with, were indeed terrorists and would incur considerable bloodshed. It was also reported that the West, even in 2007, was fully backing the Muslim Brotherhood.

Clearly the Western-backed « freedom fighters » have turned out, as they did in Libya, to be genocidal, sectarian-driven extremists, and must not be allowed to prevail in Syria. It appears that Russia, China, and Iran have been correct from the beginning, not to capitulate in the face of armed extremists, serving as proxies not for liberating the people of Syria, but for bringing about Western hegemony over the broken nation-state, and amidst unprecedented, wide scale bloodshed.
Posted by Land Destroyer at 9:25 PM

Publicités

Une réflexion au sujet de « US & UN Openly Waging War on Syria by Tony Cartalucci »

Laisser un commentaire

Entrez vos coordonnées ci-dessous ou cliquez sur une icône pour vous connecter:

Logo WordPress.com

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte WordPress.com. Déconnexion / Changer )

Image Twitter

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte Twitter. Déconnexion / Changer )

Photo Facebook

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte Facebook. Déconnexion / Changer )

Photo Google+

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte Google+. Déconnexion / Changer )

Connexion à %s