UN & NATO Setting Syria Up For Libya Style Takeover

PDF Version: World Affairs Brief June 1, 2012                                                                     

World Affairs Brief, June 1, 2012 Commentary and Insights on a Troubled World. Copyright Joel Skousen. Partial quotations with attribution permitted. Cite source as Joel Skousen’s World Affairs Brief (http://www.worldaffairsbrief.com)

PROVOKING ARMED INTERVENTION IN SYRIA

The US and its NATO allies continue to provoke a justification for a military response in Syria. First was the refusal to tell the world that the so-called unarmed protestors did, in fact, harbor armed provocateurs among them who were shooting at Syrian police in order to provoke an armed response that the international media could condemn. Then there was the massive importation of foreign arms from Turkey to build up an armed resistance movement within Syria. But the latest and most egregious has been the creation of a massacre of women and children and blaming it on the Assad regime.

Let me be very clear. I’m no fan of the tyrannical Assad regime that has controlled Syria for decades, and who has colluded with the US in torturing people under the auspices of “extraordinary rendition.” But all of us must protest the use of trumped up provocations to justify an armed intervention, for what surely is in furtherance of a globalist agenda, not democracy.

It should be sufficient to tell the truth, but the US and its allies don’t dare give Syria a chance to tell how the West was complicit in keeping them in power for so many years, just as the West played ball with tyrannies in Egypt, Libya, the Sudan, Ethiopia, Zimbabwe, Iraq and Iran.

It would also highlight an embarrassing contradiction in American foreign policy whereby it selectively prosecutes some tyrannical regimes while letting others, much worse, like North Korea (the most repressive in the world) get off with token sanctions, or outright aid in food and oil shipments. The US has even given North Korea guarantees of “no military option” and “no regime change.” How is that merited?

Instead of taking the high road of “no provocation” and “no provoked intervention”, mainstream Republicans are trying to out-warmonger Obama and use the evils of this manipulated massacre for political advantage—of course, hyping intervention to those dumbed-down Americans who listen to the drum beat of the establishment media. For example, the BBC has been caught in the past using photos of dead Iraqi children as victims of Assad, to justify the US’s proxy war and hoped-for war, according to Travis Holte at Lewrockwell.com.

The UK Guardian touts the official line. I will interject the contrarian facts in [brackets] : “The US’s top military officer has warned Syria it could face armed intervention as international outrage grows over the massacre of women and children by tanks and artillery in Houla.”

Analysis of the Big Lie: The attribution of this massacre to “tanks and artillery” is simply untrue, but done so that the readers could come to no other conclusion than “the Syrian military must have done this.” Just one day earlier the UK Independent gave a much more detailed account which explains why this could easily have been agent provocateurs within the opposition—not military strikes:

“In a massacre of unprecedented savagery that brings Syria close to civil war, some 32 children and 60 adults have been slaughtered in villages in the Houla area of central Syria. Anti-government militants blame pro-regime gunmen for carrying out the butchery in which children and their parents were hacked and shot to death.

“The figure for the number of children and adults killed was confirmed in an interview with the Independent on Sunday by General Robert Mood, the head of the team of 300 UN observers which is seeking to reduce the level of violence. My patrols went into the village,’ he said. ‘I can verify that they counted 32 children under 10 killed. In addition, there were more than 60 adults dead.’ General Mood would not explain how the villagers died, but horrific pictures posted on YouTube appear to show that they were shot or knifed to death, some having their throats cut.”

Tanks and artillery don’t cut children’s throats, and neither do soldiers of the Assad Regime who know very well that the international community is trying to justify an invasion. Strict orders have gone out long ago to all military units to avoid civilian casualties at all costs. Yet, the opposition continues to fight among the civilians in villages taken over, so as to make sure there are civilian casualties that can be blamed on the Assad regime.

Even worse in this case, the city of Houla was under the control of the opposition forces, not the Syrian Army. So, who is the most likely group to have access to the crime? The Russians, ever playing both sides, dropped the idea that al Qaeda must have infiltrated the opposition and done the throat slitting. Russia knows very well that the US and NATO are arming the rebels, and that al Qaeda doesn’t exist—but they play along with the phony war on terror because it too serves their purposes.

The original Guardian article continues: “General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff… added that the US would be prepared to act militarily if it was ‘asked to do so.’ ‘There is always a military option,’ he told Fox News. ‘You’ll always find military leaders to be somewhat cautious about the use of force, because we’re never entirely sure what comes out on the other side [because most are unaware of the globalist agenda being pursued by political leaders that order these interventions]. But that said, it may come to a point with Syria because of the atrocities [it is obvious he has bought into the government reports blaming all on Syria].’

Here comes the part about Republican neocons pushing Obama (who isn’t resisting) into taking strong military action: “The warning comes as Barack Obama is under increasing pressure from his Republican opponent in November’s presidential election, Mitt Romney, and members of Congress to take tougher action over Syria. Romney accused Obama of weakness and disparaged his support for efforts by the former UN secretary general, Kofi Annan, to revive a failing peace plan.

“Romney said Washington should instead arm opposition groups [Romney is a trusting fool who being kept in the dark by his neocon advisors. The US has been using secret black market arms dealers to funnel arms to Syria Rebels for months now. Of course, even the Obama administration denies any knowledge of arming the opposition—so it has become an official lie]. ‘After nearly a year and a half of slaughter [again, Romney has no knowledge of the false flag provocateurs who did the killings], it is far past time for the United States to begin to lead and put an end to the Assad regime.”

Taleb Ibrahim, a political analyst from Damascus, told Press TV on Monday that “agents of the US company Blackwater are operating inside Syria and are involved in the deadly turmoil in the Arab country that began in March 2011. “We have real evidence now that the Blackwater company is working in Syrian territories,” he said.

So while the US is covertly arming the rebels via Turkey, Republicans like Romney have been completely suckered into this justification for armed intervention. Obama will play the reluctant diplomat and allow the UN peace plan to continue onward to failure, for several reasons: 1) a Democrat must always act slightly different than his Republican opposition, just to maintain the illusion that we have a two-party system; 2) the failure of UN one-sided peace overtures are essential to getting the Security Council to finally rule in favor of military intervention. 3) the US never does anything nowadays without UN approval to show the American public that international support is more important than the Constitution (without saying so directly).

As I have said before, it is my analysis that the US is intent on removing Syria as a missile threat to Israel before the US and Israel attack Iran—thus mitigating perhaps the single largest source of missile threats to Israel in the inevitable retaliation that Iran will order in the aftermath of the Israeli preemptive strike.