UN & US Maneuver Against Syria Upon Baseless Activist Hearsay
Tony Cartalucci, Contributor
“It was not possible to independently confirm many details of the massacre Wednesday afternoon in Qubair, a small Sunni hamlet northwest of the city of Hama that is surrounded by villages populated by members of Assad’s Shiite-affiliated Alawite sect,” reported the Washington Post. Even days after the alleged atrocity unfolded, no evidence has been produced to match the torrent of sensational headlines now being exploited by the West and the UN to justify another round of condemnation and threats against the Syrian government.
As with all atrocities committed with impeccable timing to be paraded out before the world on the eve of pivotal UN meetings, little more than “activist” hearsay is used to condemn the Syrian government to more foreign pressure and edge it ever closer to a US-engineered sectarian war planned as early as 2007. Kofi Annan as well, after posing as “peacemaker” for months, finally dropped all pretenses and credibility to “blame” the Syrian government for the failure of his plan – a deceitful ploy from the very beginning.
Image: Brookings Institution’s Middle East Memo #21 “Assessing Options for Regime Change (.pdf),” makes no secret that the humanitarian “responsibility to protect” is but a pretext for long-planned regime change.
Western policy makers openly admit that the goal in Syria is not to restore peace and order, but to topple the government, even if it means purposefully, and indefinitely prolonging the violence to do so. Brookings Institution in their March, 2012 Middle East Memo #21 “Assessing Options for Regime Change (.pdf),” openly states that:
“The United States might still arm the opposition even knowing they will probably never have sufficient power, on their own, to dislodge the Asad network. Washington might choose to do so simply in the belief that at least providing an oppressed people with some ability to resist their oppressors is better than doing nothing at all, even if the support provided has little chance of turning defeat into victory. Alternatively, the United States might calculate that it is still worthwhile to pin down the Asad regime and bleed it, keeping a regional adversary weak, while avoiding the costs of direct intervention.” –pages 8-9, Assessing Options for Regime Change, Brookings Institution.
Confirming this, Clifford May of the Neo-Conservative Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) openly admits that “humanitarian concerns” has nothing to do with the West’s involvement in Syria, and that it is rather a proxy war being fought against Iran, and by extension, Russia. May also clearly states that ousting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is the objective of Western machinations, not the restoration of order or any sort of brokered ceasefire that ends the killing. May in fact states very explicitly that he would like to see a repeat of NATO’s intervention in Libya carried out against Syria. It should be remembered that NATO’s intervention saw the unfolding in reality of the atrocities falsely attributed to Qaddafi in the lead up to the war.
Libya now lies a wrecked nation of tribal infighting, a fact May himself is quite proud of, and consoles himself with the fact that at least the “the oil is again flowing and those attempting to use Islamism to paper over ancient tribal differences have so far not succeeded.” Clearly, no one was “saved” by NATO, but the intervention was a textbook case of neo-imperial “divide and conquer.”
Unconfirmed Reports = War Propaganda
The UN and the Western special interests for whom it works, has already begun moving against Syria based on what are admittedly unconfirmed reports from opposition “activists.” Were the UN a credible, objective purveyor of “international law,” a proper investigation would be carried out before leaping to any conclusions. The UN, were it credible, would in fact berate the West for attempting to exploit the confusion and emotions invoked by the irresponsible reporting of the Western press.
However, the fact that punitive measures are already being leveled against Syria before UN monitors can even examine the latest alleged “massacre” let alone conduct an investigation and draw objective conclusions as to who in fact was responsible, illustrates not the illegitimacy of the Syrian government, as UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon maintains, but the illegitimacy of the United Nations itself.
US policy makers at Brookings Institution declared their intentions to “bleed” Syria. And now Ban Ki-moon concedes,”the Syrian people are bleeding.” Ban is either complicit or incompetent to point the finger at the Syrian government based on the claims of “activists” emanating from the British-based “Syrian Observatory for Human Rights,” a single man masquerading as a rights “organization” who openly seeks to see the Syrian government overthrown. Ban’s conclusion is especially troubling when he has in front of him, Brookings’ own signed documents, conspiring against world peace and describing with exactitude in March, 2012 what is now unfolding today.