The Swindle Appears To Have Failed in Syria
The logic of events seems to indicate that the deception over chemical weapons was revealed on time to prevent American aggression.
The usual media war of moderation could not this time play the role that it previously had carried out to unleash the bloody aggression against Iraq, Libya and other countries in the United States’ recent history.
The intense propaganda campaign over the Syrian government’s supposed use of chemical weapons against "rebel" forces, which is prohibited by international standards, unleashed the main flow of global media information. At one point, this flow of information reached such an intensity that there weren't many informed people who doubted that this was an indisputable incident and that, although Washington had no right to intervene in the internal conflict of another country, the international community had to condemn the behavior of Bashar al-Assad's government.
Until then, everything seemed to be going just as it had gone in prior wars of U.S. aggression against third-world nations. But this time a masterful move of Russian diplomacy intervened in what seemed to be the repetition of the script already put into practice for the launching of prior aggressions by the United States.
The savior arrived in Washington, by way of Moscow, when Obama found himself in a mess after having drawn up irreversible threats with fixed terms that would have inevitably led to incalculable global consequences or if the threats didn't materialize, a huge discredit for President Obama and the governing Democratic Party.
After agreements in the U.N. Security Council, due to the Moscow initiative that became the "Russian-American Project," Obama was able to save face and even claim victory and declare the agreements as a "significant step ahead." Putin, for his part, seemed to be able to fulfill his promise to help Syria without embroiling himself in a conflict that would be as unavoidable as it would be undesirable for Russia.
But it is worth examining now, without the rush imposed by already decided aggression against Syria, the elements that were silenced by the deafening media war campaign about the chemical weapons attack supposedly ordered by the Syrian president in the suburbs of Damascus on Aug. 21.
For example, consider the revelation from an interview that journalist Dale Gavlak from the Associated Press (AP) made with various "rebels" in Ghouta, near Damascus, in which they confessed that it was they who used these toxic weapons on Aug. 21 and that they were sent by Saudi Arabia and, due to lack of proper training in their use, suffered the accident that caused the death of hundreds of people, including a dozen of their own. This information was not reported by AP, although it was reported by INFOWARS, which specializes in cybertechnology.
Also not highlighted in Western media was a declaration by Michael Maloof, the ex-analyst of the U.S. Department of Defense Security Policy, who announced on Sept. 17 that Washington had intelligence reports of sarin gas that had come out of Iraq and Turkey and was in the hands of Syrian opponents.
Very little was revealed about how the organization Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), made up of 12 ex-agents of high levels of security in U.S. intelligence, had sent a memo to Obama in which they pointed out to him that, contrary to his government's declarations, the most trustworthy reports indicate that Bashar al-Assad is not responsible for the chemical incident on Aug. 21, "a fact known also by British Services." VIPS accused the CIA director, John Brennan, of committing the same kind of fraud that was done in Iraq.
It was known that on Aug. 13 through 14, "rebel" forces based in Turkey made preparations for a large intervention in Syria against the army and, with the support of the Turks and Saudis, that would coincide with the U.S. military intervention announced by Barack Obama.
We must take into account that, although news about the Syrian government's possession of chemical weapons was widely disseminated, equal acknowledgement was not given to the "rebel" groups, despite their bragging on Internet videos about their ability to produce sarin gas.
These elements, and many more that are already known, should be sufficient to question Washington's accusations. But if they're not, the achievement of negotiations in the United Nations must be awarded to Russian diplomacy.
The usual media war of moderation could not this time play the role that it previously had carried out to unleash the bloody aggression against Iraq, Libya and other countries in the United States’ recent history.
The intense propaganda campaign over the Syrian government’s supposed use of chemical weapons against "rebel" forces, which is prohibited by international standards, unleashed the main flow of global media information. At one point, this flow of information reached such an intensity that there weren't many informed people who doubted that this was an indisputable incident and that, although Washington had no right to intervene in the internal conflict of another country, the international community had to condemn the behavior of Bashar al-Assad's government.
Until then, everything seemed to be going just as it had gone in prior wars of U.S. aggression against third-world nations. But this time a masterful move of Russian diplomacy intervened in what seemed to be the repetition of the script already put into practice for the launching of prior aggressions by the United States.
The savior arrived in Washington, by way of Moscow, when Obama found himself in a mess after having drawn up irreversible threats with fixed terms that would have inevitably led to incalculable global consequences or if the threats didn't materialize, a huge discredit for President Obama and the governing Democratic Party.
After agreements in the U.N. Security Council, due to the Moscow initiative that became the "Russian-American Project," Obama was able to save face and even claim victory and declare the agreements as a "significant step ahead." Putin, for his part, seemed to be able to fulfill his promise to help Syria without embroiling himself in a conflict that would be as unavoidable as it would be undesirable for Russia.
But it is worth examining now, without the rush imposed by already decided aggression against Syria, the elements that were silenced by the deafening media war campaign about the chemical weapons attack supposedly ordered by the Syrian president in the suburbs of Damascus on Aug. 21.
For example, consider the revelation from an interview that journalist Dale Gavlak from the Associated Press (AP) made with various "rebels" in Ghouta, near Damascus, in which they confessed that it was they who used these toxic weapons on Aug. 21 and that they were sent by Saudi Arabia and, due to lack of proper training in their use, suffered the accident that caused the death of hundreds of people, including a dozen of their own. This information was not reported by AP, although it was reported by INFOWARS, which specializes in cybertechnology.
Also not highlighted in Western media was a declaration by Michael Maloof, the ex-analyst of the U.S. Department of Defense Security Policy, who announced on Sept. 17 that Washington had intelligence reports of sarin gas that had come out of Iraq and Turkey and was in the hands of Syrian opponents.
Very little was revealed about how the organization Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), made up of 12 ex-agents of high levels of security in U.S. intelligence, had sent a memo to Obama in which they pointed out to him that, contrary to his government's declarations, the most trustworthy reports indicate that Bashar al-Assad is not responsible for the chemical incident on Aug. 21, "a fact known also by British Services." VIPS accused the CIA director, John Brennan, of committing the same kind of fraud that was done in Iraq.
It was known that on Aug. 13 through 14, "rebel" forces based in Turkey made preparations for a large intervention in Syria against the army and, with the support of the Turks and Saudis, that would coincide with the U.S. military intervention announced by Barack Obama.
We must take into account that, although news about the Syrian government's possession of chemical weapons was widely disseminated, equal acknowledgement was not given to the "rebel" groups, despite their bragging on Internet videos about their ability to produce sarin gas.
These elements, and many more that are already known, should be sufficient to question Washington's accusations. But if they're not, the achievement of negotiations in the United Nations must be awarded to Russian diplomacy.