| Online: | |
| Visits: | |
| Stories: |
| Story Views | |
| Now: | |
| Last Hour: | |
| Last 24 Hours: | |
| Total: | |
The Stage Is Set For The Syrian Invasion
ZeroHedge
One week ago, when reporting on the latest bizarre plan presented by the Pentagon, namely providing Syrian rebels (but only the moderate ones, not the jihadists like al Nusra, or, well, ISIS) with B-1B Bomber air support in their attacks on ISIS, when we wrote that this “means in the coming weeks and months look forward to a surge in false flag “attacks” blamed on the Assad regime, aiming to give Obama validation to expand the “War against ISIS” to include Syria’s regime as well.”
We didn’t have long to wait: in an entirely unsourced Time article written today by Aryn Baker, the Middle East Bureau Chief, the stage for the second attempt at invading Assad regime is finally set.
The article, titled “Why Bashar Assad Won’t Fight ISIS” is essentially an essay that, as the title suggests “proves” that the Syrian leader is, in fact, quite close with ISIS and derives strategis benefits from his relationship, which is why he won’t attack them, and thus by implication is just as bad as ISIS and worthy of America’s wrath.
How does Baker build up her propaganda? First, she cits a “Sunni businessman who is close to the regime but wants to remain anonymous for fear of repercussions from both ISIS supporters and the regime” and who “trades goods all over the country so his drivers have regular interactions with ISIS supporters and members in Raqqa, the ISIS stronghold in Syria, and in ISIS-controlled areas like Dier-ezzor.” According to this Syrian version of Amazon:
The regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad has long had a pragmatic approach to the Islamic State of Iraq and Greater Syria. Even from the early days the regime purchased fuel from ISIS-controlled oil facilities, and it has maintained that relationship throughout the conflict. “Honestly speaking, the regime has always had dealings with ISIS, out of necessity.”
“Honestly speaking” of course being used quite loosely, considering that it is by now no secret that ISIS, in the words of General Wesley Clark, “got started through funding from our friends and allies“, most notably Qatar and Saudi Arabia, and according to some even the CIA is involved so, no: honestly speaking, if anything, the Assad regime has been doing its best to stay away from ISIS, which at least on paper, was created as a result of extremist Al Nusra factions, who were fighting Assad in 2013, and were funded and weaponized by the US.
Of course, none of that is mentioned. What is, however, duly emphasized is the goalseeked conclusion that Assad and the Islamic State are like two peas in a pod:
Assad does not see ISIS as his primary problem, the businessman says. “The regime fears the Free Syrian Army and the Nusra Front, not ISIS. They [the FSA and Nusra] state their goal is to remove the President. But ISIS doesn’t say that. They have never directly threatened Damascus.” As the businessman notes, the strikes on ISIS targets are minimal. “If the regime were serious about getting rid of ISIS, they would have bombed Raqqa by now. Instead they bomb other cities, where the FSA is strong.” That said, the businessman does not believe that the regime has a formal relationship with ISIS, just a pragmatic one. “The more powerful ISIS grows, the more they are useful for the regime. They make America nervous, and the Americans in turn see the regime as a kind of bulwark against ISIS.”
Actually, the “Americans” see ISIS as the perfect false flag placeholder to build up yet another case about invading Damascus, after the humiliation of the bumbled attempt to use a doctored YouTube clip showing paid actors following what the CIA guaranteed was an Assad “chemical weapon” attack as a pretext to launch an invasion on Syria in the first attempt to topple Assad. It took an escalation that involved numerous Russian ships side by side with US cruisers in the Mediterranean before John Kerry realized that building Qatar’s nat gas pipeline to Europe is not worth rising World War III over, and promptly backed off.
This time, ISIS is the bait.
Read more at ZH:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-02-26/stage-set-syrian-invasion
Want to know what “moderate” rebels generally means? This:
https://latuffcartoons.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/radical-and-moderate-syrian-rebels-middle-east-monitor.gif
Yes Washington has allowed the U.S.-backed dictatorships in Saudi Arabia and Qatar (and the brutally ISIS-enabling NATO-member, Turkey) to support ISIS and Al Qaeda, but even the so-called “moderates” are generally brutal.
It’s a LIE that that “the reasons for the civil war is that Assad cracked down” and the proof that it’s a lie? Bahrain cracked down even MORE quickly than Assad, basically beating and killing from the first day or handful of days. Assad according to even U.S. sources was working hard to reform the brutal system he inherited from his father, but U.S. plans to dominate the entire Middle East led to U-turn and to pretend Assad is the new “Hitler” to they can empower far, far more extreme “rebels” see my article:
https://www.popularresistance.org/the-hidden-history-of-the-syrian-civil-war/
See especially the sections:
“Syria: Digging Deeper into the Back Story” and “Digging Deeper: A Son Inherits Power”
And the section “igging Deeper: 2004, pre-Arab Spring, and still more reforms?”
Just a lie, or Assad’s actual views? The reason we can’t know whether Assad’s 2004 statement was true and still in place in 2011 when the Arab Spring started, open to peaceful reforms continuing forward, is that unfortunately, the West and its allies (you know, the ones who shot bullets into the backs of, threatened rape against, and sent tanks to crush peaceful protesters in Bahrain, yeah, those guys) quickly moved to make sure the courageous peaceful Syrian protesters were joined, early on, by violent ones and insurgents — right from the early (possibly very earliest) stages.
Before turning finally to that ugly chapter, let’s note that by 2004 Assad’s reforms already included:
“The elimination of martial law courts. Now anyone charged with a crime has the right to hire a lawyer and fight the charges in court.
Some political prisoners have been freed.
Private banks have been allowed.
A private newspaper has opened.
A private radio station begins soon.”
In case you’re wondering, this is not a press release by some pro-Assad flak, it’s the above-quoted article in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer reporting on the legal, newspaper, banking, etc, reforms that Bashar had instituted by 2004
Was Assad’s governmetn still evil? YES. But the United States, given a choice between supporting significant moves to keep Syria moving to becoming, over time, less and less evil (which it did initially in the 2000s) versus salivating over HEGEMONY, power, and control of the Middle East, did what it has always done (despite isolated well meaning individuals in government who might have tried to steer the Ship of State away from the catastrophic usual course) and chosen to support or allow the dictatorships it funds and supports and arms (Saudis and Qatar especially, and Turkey) to support brutal “rebels” instead of supporting the peaceful Syrian opposition, because of the usual reasons (See Chomsky’s 1991 article in Z magazine, the same happened in the 1991 Gulf War build up) namely: if you support peaceful opposition, those folks often support the civilians, but the U.S. wants instead to support those who will put Washington’s interests ahead of civilians.