Madison Ruppert, Contributor
As I have pointed out in the past, Russia and China have been providing a pretty significant stumbling block for the Western nations which have so clearly been attempting to ratchet up the United Nations sanctions against Syria, likely in an effort to legitimize foreign intervention.
This has led to some heated statements, especially from Hillary Clinton. The most astounding, however, came earlier this month when she actually said that Russia and China “will pay” for supporting the sovereignty of Syria.
On July 19, Russia and China stepped up and vetoed yet another resolution which threatened Syria with even more crippling sanctions. According to the Washington Post this left “the United States and its allies grappling for a new strategy to end the violence at a time of spreading chaos within the country.”
This move supposedly “upended months of U.N. diplomacy aimed at stemming the crisis,” which, if true, would make both Russia and China look like vicious nations which could not care less about human life. In reality, however, the West has been fueling the conflict for quite some time now, and has no interest in peace. Furthermore, a significant number of the attacks pinned on government forces are actually the work of rebel terrorists.
The Washington Post also throws out what seems like a ludicrously inflated casualty number of “at least 14,000,” a number which is compiled from an assortment of dubious sources including, “Syrianshuhada.com via United Nations Institute for Training and Research; Institute for the Study of War; State Department; CIA; syriamap.wordpress.com; [and] staff reports.”
Unsurprisingly, Susan Rice, the United States ambassador to the United Nations was quick to condemn China and Russia’s decision, which marks the third time they have vetoed a Western effort to pass an anti-Syrian resolution.
“The Security Council has failed utterly in its most important task on its agenda this year,” Rice said, adding that the Russia and Chinese decision was “pitiful and deeply regrettable.”
In defense of the move, Russian envoy to the UN Vitaly Churkin pointed out that the resolution was inherently “biased.”
He said that it targeted only the Syrian government of President Bashar al-Assad, not the heavily armed opposition which has engaged terrorist activity for quite a while, although just recently it has become increasingly hard to ignore, even for the mainstream media.
However, since the West blindly supports these terrorists, they can never actually call it for what it truly is, instead opting to call the terrorist attacks “violent attacks against government targets.”
Of course, if these same attacks were to occur anywhere else there would be no hesitation in rightfully labeling them as terrorist incidents. Yet since we are supposed to picture the Syrian opposition as some kind of lovey-dovey peaceful pro-democracy movement, no such factual statements can be made.
With the UN’s monitoring mission in Syria’s mandate set to expire at the end of the day Friday, there is much left uncertain about what strategy the West will use moving forward.
Meanwhile, there are reports of armed Syrian rebels (read: terrorists) seizing border crossings on the borders between Syria and Iraq and Syria and Turkey. Yet the most touted capture on the border with Turkey was not actually held “because they knew they couldn’t withstand the superior firepower of Assad’s troops,” according to the Los Angeles Times.
“It pains me to say, but we are not on the track for peace in Syria, and the escalations we have witnessed in Damascus over the past few days is a testimony to that,” said Major General Robert Mood, the head of the monitoring mission, at a news conference before the vote.
A spokesman for the UN-Arab League emissary to Syria, Kofi Annan, stated that he was “disappointed that at this critical stage the U.N. Security Council could not unite and take the strong and concerted action he had urged and hoped for.”
Why Annan would ever be silly enough to hope for such a thing is beyond me, especially when we have such a clearly established precedent.
Russian envoy Churkin also stated that the West’s approach to Syria is actually designed to “fan the flames” of violence and it is actually about making way for a military intervention and regime change.
I couldn’t agree more. To posit otherwise seems ludicrous at this point.
Churkin said that Russia “simply cannot accept” any resolutions which could make the way for foreign military intervention.
They can hardly be condemned for taking such an approach after seeing how Libya turned out.
Unsurprisingly, the West disagrees, with British UN envoy Mark Lyall saying that Russia and China’s “arguments are irrational.”
Regardless of these claims and baseless attacks seen above, an informed individual can likely see through the thickening smokescreen of lies and obfuscation in order to see the truth: the West is backing the terrorists once again in an effort to topple the Syrian government, just as they helped topple that of Gaddafi.
Did I forget anything or miss any errors? Would you like to make me aware of a story or subject to cover? Or perhaps you want to bring your writing to a wider audience? Feel free to contact me at [email protected] with your concerns, tips, questions, original writings, insults or just about anything that may strike your fancy.
This article first appeared at End the Lie.