Pretexts are created for intervention in Syria
Events in Syria resemble the run-up to Obama’s Libya war. Victims are called aggressors. Pretexts are created for intervention.
Washington appears headed for more war. Lack of public support doesn’t matter. A New York Times/CBS poll showed 62% of respondents don’t believe America has a “responsibility” to intervene.
Perhaps Israeli involvement is planned. Thousands of Israeli reservists were called up. On April 30, special drill exercises began along the Syrian/Lebanese borders.
They continued through Sunday, May 5. Ground, air and naval branches are involved. A senior Israeli official said the drill simulates a sudden security threat escalation. It tests the Israeli ability to respond quickly.
Zionists said they’re “ready for a role in a potential American operation against Syria.” Perhaps they’ll be co-aggressors. NATO countries may join them. It’s usually planned that way.
On April 30, the Washington Post headlined “Obama moving toward sending lethal arms to Syrian opposition groups, officials say.”
The New York Times reported the same thing. It said “(s)uch a decision would be a policy shift for the Obama administration, which has stepped up its nonlethal aid but stopped short of lethal weaponry and expressed reluctance about greater military” involvement.
The Times ignored its June 21, 2012 report. It headlined “CIA Said to Aid Steering Arms to Syrian Opposition.” They’re based in southern Turkey. They’re funneling arms cross-border.
They include “automatic rifles, rocket-propelled grenades, ammunition and some antitank weapons….They’re using “a shadowy network of intermediaries….”
The operation “is the most detailed known instance” of direct US support. “CIA officers are (in Turkey) trying to make new sources and recruit people said one Arab intelligence source who is briefed regularly by American counterparts.”
The Times hinted but stopped short of saying CIA agents operate covertly inside Syria. Washington’s been involved in supplying weapons and munitions all along. They flow through Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan and perhaps Israel.
On April 30, The Times should have headlined Obama Considers Expanding Lethal Aid.
The Washington Post went further. It cited an unnamed US official saying Obama’s ready to move on “the left side” of options. They range from “arming the opposition to boots on the ground. We’re clearly on an upward trajectory. We’ve” upped the ante. We’ve put “more skin in the game.”
CNN interviewed former IDF Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi. He said after “confidently” determining that Syrian government used chemical weapons, not responding would send “the wrong message.”
“Doing nothing (is) not an option.” He suggested helping opposition forces “in a more concrete way, like providing them….weapons (and) maybe impos(ing) a no-fly zone, at least on part of Syria.”
He omitted explaining that imposing one is an act of war. It requires taking out Syrian air defenses, as well as command and control capability. It means bombing Syria to do it. It replicates Washington’s-led NATO war on Libya.
Ashkenazi called Syrian government change a major blow to Iran and Hezbollah. He said achieving it represents a “mixed picture” for Israel.
“Syria was and still is the logistical hub of Hezbollah, and most of (its weapons come) from Syrian depots,” he claimed.
“Iran really (may) lose” its major regional ally “so that’s good news for Israel.” He added that Israel can deal effectively with “cross-border terror.”
On May 1, Press TV headlined “terrorists in Syria carried out new chemical attack near Idlib: Syrian UN envoy,” saying:
Bashar al-Jaafari said militants spread plastic bag contents containing chemical material during an attack. Many Syrians were harmed by the “heinous and irresponsible act.”
Al-Jaafari stressed that his government won’t ever use chemical weapons against its people.He demanded that countries claiming Syrian chemical weapons use “provide credible information on the alleged incidents so as to study and assess them.”
He denounced baseless accusations. “We expect the UN General Secretariat not to be part of this campaign targeting Syria.”
“What happened in Iraq has been alive in our mind until this moment, and our region in general and Iraq in particular are living the repercussions of such false claims.”
Despite repeated requests, no information’s been provided. Failure to do so suggests Ban Ki-moon’s attempt “to politicize the issue.” He does it repeatedly in league with Washington, other Western countries and anti-Syrian regional ones.
What’s ongoing is “similar to what happened in Iraq before it was invaded,” said al-Jafaari, he added that terrorists spread “unknown powder in the faces of Syrians gathered in Shabour neighborhood in Idleb. Many showed symptoms of chemical weapons exposure.
Those affected were taken to Turkish hospitals. Al-Jafaari expects “today or tomorrow you will hear again that the Turkish government has new tools indicating that the Syrian government used chemical weapons against its own people.”
The “headlines are all the same: Syria uses chemical weapons. That’s how the theatre works.” Truth isn’t stranger than fiction. It’s entirely absent. A mantra of lies replaced it.
On April 30, Wall Street Journal editors hyped an alleged Al Qaeda threat. “In recent months,” they said, it “revived or started terrorist franchises in Iraq and Syria, across northern Africa and in Nigeria.”
It “set up bases in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia.” It’s “more active in more places.”
Al Qaeda is a CIA creation. Washington uses it strategically as both enemy and ally. Sometimes it’s done simultaneously. Al Nusra is an Al Qaeda affiliate.
It’s a key part of Washington’s war on Syria. Death squad diplomacy describes it. The State Department declared Al Nusra a foreign terrorist organization. It doesn’t matter when used against enemies. It’s getting Western supplied lethal aid.
Al Qaeda “resurgence” and “Middle East instability” reflect official US policy. Journal editors revealed their position. Fear-mongering was intentional.
They want US forces kept “on offense overseas.” They urge more war, not peace. Obama may likely oblige them. His comments and body language suggest it.
Source: claritypress.com-By: Stephen lendman
B.N