Anti-Assad Rhetoric Intensifies
by Stephen Lendman
US-led anti-Assad efforts continue. Obama’s going all out to topple him. He’s heading America for more war.
His imperial strategy prioritizes it. Rule of law principles are discarded. Unchallenged global dominance alone matters. America’s longstanding permanent war agenda advances it.
Syria’s now being ravaged. Assad’s wrongfully blamed for US proxy death squad crimes. Ad nauseam propaganda claims otherwise. Facebook
have Stop Assad campaigns.
UK-based Media Lens
reports reliably on media bias. On May 8, it headlined ” ‘ This Madman Must Be Stopped’ – Syrian Chemical Weapons.”
Propaganda wars precede hot ones. Western efforts are relentless. Media scoundrels regurgitate official lies. Quasi-progressive print publications and web editors are involved. So are NGOs like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.
Corporate foundations fund them. Well-known ones include Ford, Rockefeller, Carnegie, Soros, and MacArthur. Tainted money expects services rendered in return. Conflicts of interest are rife.
Sources viewers, listeners and readers believe are reliable replicate their scoundrel media counterparts. Critics call America’s NPR National Pentagon Radio. They do so for good reason.
On major world and national issues, Britain’s BBC is all propaganda all the time. America’s dominant media are deplorable. Truth is systematically suppressed.
Managed news misinformation substitutes. When America goes to war or plans one, they march in lockstep. In modern times, it’s never been any other way. Television makes it easy.
Stop Assad images
proliferate. Doing so overwhelms anti-war voices of truth. Anti-Assad propaganda aims to fool enough of the people enough of the time to matter.
Selling war depends on enlisting public support. All wars are based on lies. Doing so lets rogue governments get away with murder. America’s by far the worst.
Permanent war is official policy. Independent governments aren’t tolerated. PR and media deception turn sinners into saints.
Big Lies repeated enough manipulate public sentiment to believe nonbelligerent governments want war. Headlines claim it. It works every time.
On May 9, Al-Monitor
headed “Davutoglu Warns of ‘Ethnic Cleansing’ in Syria,” saying:
“Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu publicly expressed concern for the first time on May 7 that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is taking steps to divide the country.”
He “argued that Assad has attacked the Sunni population in Baniyas to cleanse this part of the land for Alawite domination.”
He called it Assad’s “Plan B.” On Tuesday, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said he was appalled by images of children massacred by the government.
Turkey’s Hurriyet Daily News
headlined “Obama’s ‘red line’ on Syria crossed long ago: Turkish PM Erdogan,” saying:
He called on America “to take stronger action.” He did so days before his scheduled May 16 Washington visit.
“We want the United States to assume more responsibilities and take further steps. What sort of steps they will take, we are going to talk about this,” he said.
Asked if he’d support a US-enforced no fly-zone, he added:
“Right from the beginningâ€¦.we would say ‘yes.’ “
He rejected notions that so-called “rebels” used sarin. “There is no way I can believe in this now. First of all, how are they going to obtain this? Who would give such weapons to them?”
When America and Israel wage war, they prioritize using chemical and other toxic substances. They do it repeatedly.
US, UK and other NATO partners actively fund, arm and train insurgents in weapons use.
Iran accused Western countries of supplying Syrian terrorists with chemical weapons.
On May 8, Michel Chossudovsky
told Press TV that “CNN just a couple of months ago confirmed that contractors hired by the Pentagon were in fact training the terrorists in the use of chemical weapons.”
He criticized US hypocrisy saying “(y)ou can’t on the one hand support an armed insurrection of Al Qaeda terrorists against the Syrian government – provide them with chemical weapons and give them funding – and at the same time present yourself as a mediator.”
America’s an imperial aggressor. It deplores peaceful conflict resolution. It’s “financing and supporting the opposition terrorists as well as the Israeli bombings.”
It prioritizes ousting Assad. It wants pro-Western puppet governance replacing him. Options used include crimes of war, against humanity and genocide. Tactics include using banned toxic substances.
On May 10, Today’s Zaman
headlined “Report: 12 Syrians treated in Turkey show signs of chemical weapons.”
Prime Minister Erdogan used the report to say:
“It is clear the regime has used chemical weapons. There are patients who are brought to our hospitals who were wounded by these chemical weapons.” He urged Washington to “assume more responsibilities and take further steps.”
No evidence whatever suggests Syria used chemical or other banned weapons. Doing so would be self-defeating. It would give Washington the pretext it seeks.
It’s inconceivable that Assad would participate in his own downfall. It’s unimaginable he’d want Western-back death squads massacring Syrian civilians.
He’s courageously struggling to stop them. He’s largely succeeding. He’s forcing Obama to consider Plan B. Libya 2.0 looms.
It features air power. It made the difference against Gaddafi. If initiated, perhaps it’ll succeed in Syria. Media scoundrels, neocons, and other anti-Assad elements urge it.
On May 8, Washington Post
editors headlined “What if the US doesn’t intervene in Syria,” saying:
Whatever the risks of intervening, inaction risks more. Post editors want more arms for insurgents. They urge an air campaign. “(T)he situation in Syria has grown more dangerous to US interests.”
It’s “increasingly clear that the greatest risk to the United States lies in failing to take decisive action to end the Assad regime.”
In other words, national sovereignty doesn’t matter. Nor does popular sentiment. Might makes right. Rule of law principles are old-fashioned. US imperial priorities count most. Ravaging another country is a small price to pay.
On April 22, George Sabra was named Syrian National Council president. He’s an imperial US ally. On May 9, Chicago Tribune
editors gave him feature op-ed space.
He took full advantage headlining “While US hesitates, Syria’s catastrophe grows.” He pointed fingers the wrong way saying:
“Reports from NATO, other allies and internal sources from Syria indicate that medical symptoms from civilians, soil samples and the discovery of fields of poisoned animals support allegations that sarin gas has been used in Syria’s civil war.”
“Despite this breach of using a banned nerve agent, the Obama administration remains hesitant to pursue a specific course of action to stop the violence there.”
“US inaction is giving the Assad regimeâ€¦.a green light to take even more outrageous steps to kill innocents.”
He urged “safe zones with protected air space.” Instituting them declares war. There’s nothing civil about Syria’s conflict. Western-backed terrorists invaded.
“It is critical that the Obama administration move swiftly and strategically to take the right course of action.”
In less than so many words, Sabra urges Libya 2.0.
Chuck Freilich’s a former Israeli deputy national security adviser. The Los Angeles Times
gave him feature op-ed space. On May 9, he headlined “Options for action in Syria,” saying:
“Ignoring Assad’s use of chemical weapons would set a terrible precedent.”
He lied claiming “nearly irrefutable intelligence regarding Syrian use of chemical weapons.”
Syrian insurgents used them more than once. No red line’s drawn against them. Freilich didn’t explain. LA Times editors published his lies.
He urges targeted air strikes. He wants one or more Syrian chemical storage facilities destroyed. Doing so would spread toxicity if these substances are inside.
The objective, he says, “would be to deliver a clear message that the US will not acquiesce even to limited use of chemical weapons and to deter their future useâ€¦.”
He supports imposing “a no-movement zone or even a limited no-fly zone.” He opposes “an orderly transfer of power.” He wants Assad replaced by someone amenable to Washington.
On April 28, Media Matters
headlined “Fox News Sunday Beats Syria War Drums.”
Project for the New American Century co-founder/now Foreign Policy Initiative director Bill Kristol called Obama “totally irresponsible” for not wanting “to start another war. You’ve got to do what you’ve got to do,” he added.
Host Brit Hume claimed:
“There is something to be said for doing something. This isn’t ‘mission impossible.’ “
Washington’s clear aim hasn’t changed. Assad must go. All means will be used against him. Full-scale intervention appears a likely option.
On May 6, US-led Persian Gulf military exercises began. Forty-one countries are participating. Dozens of warships are involved. Maneuvers precede Iran’s mid-June elections.
They may reflect plans to attack Syria. They’re ongoing at a very sensitive time. They’ll continue through May 30. They’re clearly provocative.
US officials “know that Iran will not carry out aggression acts but they want to turn the Arab countries against Iran and isolate it on a mass scale.”
“The exercise is a provocation on a global scale. This is not only to pressure Iran, these exercises are also meant to pile pressure on Syria.”
“The US exercises come on top of arming the region, constant presence in the Middle East and fueling new conflicts in the region. Any mass US-led operation risks a new conflict.”
Obama appears heading for more war. It could come any time. Public sentiment’s being manipulated for support. Don’t bet against it succeeding.
His new book is titled “Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity.”
Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.
It airs Fridays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.