Manchester Attack: Chickens Home To Roost?

Theresa May and her ilk arm people like this Manchester bomber in foreign lands, to achieve imperial aims; people who decapitate children and carry out attacks like this on a daily basis. Our governments do this with little thought about the incredibly complex nature of the Middle East - just topple a perceived dictator using barbaric jihadists and all will be well! Truth is, they don't care. They just want the oil and the power; plus perpetual war is a huge money making business. 

Meanwhile, we allow people from our country to go and fight for these jihadist groups. We can't possibly start arresting them, because the public would then become wise to the nature of these militant groups and our monstrous 'foreign policy', and it would be politically incorrect. So we'll just let them back in no bother. 

Yes, we all need to stick together at times like these, and not give in to the scaremongering of the Right, who want to blame an entire religion. But we also need to react angrily; not towards each other, but towards our governments, who via all their wars and their geopolitical alliances, are fuelling this violence both abroad and at home. 

We also need to acknowledge that we now have a problem with radicalism in this country, that is being allowed to fester and expand, partly as a result of Saudi Arabia's exporting of Wahhabism throughout Europe, and the world; of our continuous bombings of Muslims; of the fear of being politically incorrect; and of neoliberal policies destroying communities. It's a perfect storm of chaos. 

The Right needs to understand that it is only a hateful sect of 'Islam' that is the problem. The Left needs to acknowledge that it exists, or else the Right will become increasingly infuriated and racist. And we both need to direct our anger at our 'establishment' and foreign policy. 

If our governments really wanted to tackle this problem, they would challenge Saudi Arabia's funding of ultra conservative/hateful Mosques around the world; and their direct support of ISIS/al Qaeda. But no, instead we sell them tonnes of weapons! What is the point in evermore surveillance and security, if none of this is addressed? Could it be that 'they' want this? - keep the public under threat, under surveillance and carefully controlled. Isn't this what rulers have done throughout history? Is it naive of us to think that we live in this enlightened time of freedom and transparency where there is nothing sinister going on? 

I don't know. It just doesn't make much sense to me, and these are my thoughts.

Islamist Terrorism and the Refugee Crisis

It's difficult, perhaps impossible, to acknowledge the problem of islamist extremism/terrorism, without encouraging Islamaphobia against the vast majority of peaceful Muslims and refugees. But it IS a problem, and to tackle it, shouldn't our governments be targeting the root causes of it? 

The extreme islamist ideology, Wahabism, originates in Saudi Arabia (and Qatar). They export it, by funding/arming Jihadist groups (including Al Qaeda and ISIS), and by building and funding Wahabi Mosques around the world (including many in Europe). Note that most 9/11 attackers were from Saudi.

Another major root cause has been military interventionism in the Middle East by NATO countries, along with our Gulf allies (Saudi, Turkey, etc). Undoubtedly, this has destabilised the region, and caused mass suffering - during the first Gulf war, not only did many die during the conflict, but following it, over 500,000 children died as a result of cruel US sanctions. Some have estimated that 4 million Muslims in total have died since 1990 as a result of western intervention. These are crazy, unthinkable, Holocaust-esque figures. 

Is it any wonder that this encouraged a deep hatred of the west from these Wahabi fundamentalists, and enabled them to easily recruit more fighters/followers? The resulting power vacuums from these interventions has allowed them to rise up and create their barbaric, west hating, 'Islamic' Caliphate. 

Many in the west still genuinely believe that all these interventions have been for 'humanitarian' reasons, despite significant evidence that this is not the case. We were lied to about WMDs in Iraq. We were lied to about Gadafi's intentions in Benghazi, Libya. We were lied to about chemical weapons usage in Syria, (there is plenty of evidence that the 'rebels' had such weapons too, possibly supplied by Saudi). 

Look up neoconservatism, and watch this video, filmed in 2007. All countries mentioned in this video have now been bombed by the US, (except for Iran...). Many argue that the destabilisation of the Middle East has been the plan of the US all along - in order to help protect Israel, open up markets, and access oil. Is there truth in this? Given all the interventions based on lies, it does seem likely that there were ulterior motives.

Under Obama, NATO created a failed state in Libya, previously the most successful country in Africa in terms of GDP. Wikileaks have revealed that the bombings had little to do with humanitarianism. I'm still researching Gadafi, but I think it likely that he was somewhat misrepresented by our media. (A former well respected German journalist, Dr Udo Ulfkoffe, has revealed that he was paid by intelligence services to write fabrictaed, inflammatory articles about Gadafi in the lead up to NATO's bombing of Libya). Gadafi certainly did a lot of 'good' for Libyans, providing free healthcare and education. Of course, he was authoritarian, and he did some 'bad' as well, but the west CLEARLY cannot take any moral high ground on doing 'bad' - 500,000 child deaths? And, as evidenced now, perhaps a degree of authoritarianism is, sadly, needed in the region, to quell the rise of islamism?

In Syria, the US are still arming so-called 'rebels', despite it being widely acknowledged, (outside of the mainstream media), for several years now that they are mostly Jihadists, and that there is barely any genuine pro-democracy/pro-human rights revolution movement. A genuine revolution requires significantly more of an uprising than what has been seen - it's an important fact that the (predominantly Sunni) Syrian army has largely remained loyal to the government, despite huge losses; and President Assad still has huge support. Saudi backed militants (amongst others) hijacked the peaceful protests from the outset, but this is rarely explained in the media; there are many other factors in this war that have been continuously ignored by most of western mainstream media.

Tulsi Gabbard, a US congresswoman, is currently trying to get a Bill through congress to 'Stop Arming Terrorists' in Syria. If the fact that congress require a Bill to 'stop the US arming TERRORISTS' doesn't make us all question US intentions in the Middle East, then nothing will. (Of course, the media are currently, and shamefully, doing their utmost to discredit Tulsi. Her Bill goes completely against their narrative).

Neoconservatism is basically USA/Western imperialism; we seem to think that we have authority on the best system for running a country, with our corporation influenced 'democracies', our huge inequality, our child poverty, our horrid treatment of 'whistleblowers' (aka 'traitors'), our homelessness, our institutional racism (how many unarmed black men were shot dead in the US last year?), our Guantamino Bay, our drone bombing of civilians, our expensive education and healthcare (US), our erosion of freedoms (internet surveillance), our corruption, our housing crisis, our loyalty to barbaric Saudi, our 'boom and bust' economies, etc.

It may be true that, overall, we have it best, but we certainly have no right to interfere in sovereign nations and inflict upon them our extremely imperfect neoliberal ideology. Genuine revolutions should be undertaken by those who dwell in the given country, as happened in Tunisia and Egypt during the Arab Spring.

Western destabilisation of the Middle East, and Saudi (et al) funded extremism terrorising the region, have directly led to the current refugee crisis. In order to help solve this crisis, we must tackle both these causes. We 'liberals' and 'lefties' have been focussed on welcoming refugees, and that's great, but it's both a short term solution, and is encouraging a reactionary rise of nationalism throughout the west, (Trump, UKIP, Le Pen).

One reason for the popularity of Trump (et al) is that he calls islamic extremism/terrorism what it is, unlike Obama, who never mentioned it, fearing he'd fuel Islamaphobia. We have had numerous islamist terrorist attacks, (and other crimes), in Europe recently, some carried out by so-called refugees, and most inspired by ISIS. Is it really that unreasonable for this to have scared people? Personally, I am totally against making a group of people suffer based on the actions of a minority; I am totally pro welcoming refugees into our country, particularly because they are largely coming from countries that have been destabilised, in part, by the actions of my government; but if there is any truth in what this former Syrian refugee is saying, is it not understandable for some of our citizens to be weary? Nationalism is generally considered a dirty word, but a desire to protect your homeland from any potential threat is only natural. 

It would all be well and good for our leaders to stay quiet about it, (like Obama did), if they were actually tackling it at the root, but they haven't been, and this has led to immense frustration. Instead, our governments method for tackling islamist terrorism is to sell arms to Saudi Arabia and the wider region (?!); and to implement ever more powerful 'spying' laws - they can now look at pretty much anything we do online. There are some who believe this is a big conspiracy - allow terrorists into the country and use this as an excuse to crack down on our civil liberties. I'm not sure about this at all; at most, I'd say it is a convenient by product. But it certainly is suspicious, or just downright idiotic, that our governments sell weapons to these terrorist supporting countries, and never seem to tackle the root causes of these problems.  

At the moment, everyone is focussed on Trump's actions now that he is President; the far bigger issue, and what we should be focussing on as well, is to try and understand what led to his popularity. There are various factors, but the refugee crisis and terror attacks in Europe are certainly significant. There has been scaremongering and exaggeration, yes - Trump did play hugely to peoples fears. And yes, the US have other, bigger threats (white supremacist terrorism, for example), but that doesn't mean that islamist terrorism isn't also a threat. Following the multiple attacks in Europe, it is very reasonable for US citizens to be fearful of the refugees. It may be discrimatory and illogical, but by implementing his 'Muslim Ban', (on 7 majority Muslim countries previously singled out by Obama's administration), Trump is ensuring that, having examined the vetting process himself, his administration will be accountable. 

Furthermore, we simply will not be able to convince all westerners to live happily alongside those who are of a very different culture whilst we have such poverty and lack of opportunities in our current neoliberal society; taking this into account, hostility towards 'outsiders' is understandable. Ultimately, the most effective way to lessen nationalism, in my opinion, is via decent education and opportunities for all. Without this, a cohesive, multicultural society is unrealistic, and will only lead to more Trumps and Farages. I'm also not sure we have the infrastructure for such mass migration; not without significant investment, which we won't be seeing in the current times of austerity. 

So, in my opinion, it is vital that we tackle the refugee crisis at the root. This means ensuring that, in four years time, the US doesn't end up with another neoconservative puppet like Obama, as president, who will continue meddling in foreign nations and causing mass displacement of people. We must focus on what is to come after Trump, by building a movement of genuine progressives who will put an end to military interventionism, focusing on diplomacy; we must acknowledge the threat of islamism whilst focussing on being extra friendly towards our Muslim neighbours, constantly addressing any Islamaphobia; and we must pressure our governments to do more to help those who have been left behind by decades of unfair globalisation, and neoliberalism. 

We must pressure our governments to stop their neoconservative regime-change interventions, and we must pressure them to limit any relations, business, and arms sales with Saudi Arabia. We must also pressure our governments to drop all sanctions - futile sanctions are currently harming Syrian citizens, which will only encourage more anger towards the west, and the creation of evermore extremists. The cycle will continue. Quite adversely, we should pressure our governments to send significant aid to these countries, so that one day, the refugees who wish to, can return home.

Fake News and Fascism

The current political trend in western countries has been described by the mainstream media, and the political establishment as a 'racist movement', a 'fascist movement', etc, (or at least, it has been implied). But just because racists support a movement, does not make it a 'racist movement'. What are these movements actually about?

What if all this is actually an anti-neoliberal, anti-globalist uprising? Has inequality become too great? Are people just fed up being treated like a 'commodity' by faceless corporations, paying them stagnant wages, primarily caring about profits for shareholders? Are people fed up with having to rely on zero-hour contracts to provide for their families? Are they fed up with a lack of good education and opportunities, for all? Are they fed up with government cuts taking any sense of community away from them? Are they fed up seeing our governments intervene militarily abroad at huge expense whilst doing nothing about rising homelessness and poverty back home? Are they fed up with having more and more, dare I say it, immigration, 'forced upon them'? In an ideal world, I would love everyone to embrace immigration and multiculturalism, but whilst so many are struggling to get by, it is unrealistic. (And being anti-mass migration is not racist). 

Yes, there ARE racists in these movements; racists have always existed and will always be attracted to any remotely nationalist movement. There is also a lot of 'xenophobia', but as I say, it should not be surprising, given the circumstances that a lot of people live under (low pay, few opportunities), that hostility towards 'outsiders' will fester. Thus, a degree of nationalism is understandable, and only a result of decades of poor government policy.

It makes perfect sense for the 'establishment' and for the media (aka corporations) to wish to smear these movements; they want to keep the status quo, for financial reasons, and to please their middle class, liberal readers. The people who support them are shunned, insulted, patronised, and generalised; everyone MUST be on board with the free-market, corporate, globalist agenda; anyone who isn't, is on the road to Nazism.

(Conservative tabloid media hasn't done this so much. Rather, it was the constant and sensationalised coverage of immigration, in newspapers like the Daily Mail, that encouraged the nationalist sentiment).

In my opinion, it is partly as a result of these movements that we now have this 'fake news' agenda, being pushed heavily by the political establishment and media. They're either being purposely deceitful, or they actually genuinely believe, that ONLY Trump and Brexit voters were looking at 'fake news'. There's simply no other explanation as to how these events could have come to pass; Brexit/Trump voters are all idiots and can't decipher real and fake. It's not like there was any 'fake news' from the EU Remain campaign is it? I'm pretty sure we're meant to be in a recession by now...

Interestingly, tabloids like the Daily Mail (and conservative news like FOX, in USA) are not pushing the 'fake news' agenda as much. I'm sure it's probably cynical, but it's interesting, given that the DM were/are one of the only newspapers on the side of the 'nationalists'; it supports my argument that this agenda is only being targeted at them. 

Personally, I'm yet to come across any actual 'fake news'. I think it's existence is being purposely exaggerated by the liberal media and politicians. If Remain had won the EU vote, and if Hillary had won the US election, would anyone be talking about 'fake news' right now? The liberal establishment lost and they need a scapegoat; Anything to avoid looking at the ACTUAL reason for this swing against them. If I were a Brexit voter (or a Trump voter), I'd be offended by the insinuation that 'we' are the only believers of 'fake news'.

All news is biased, to varying degrees, but little is 100% false. Yes, there are some sites that tell complete lies, but they have been around for a long time. There's nothing new here. Shouldn't we be encouraging people to use critical thinking and to research everything they read, rather than censoring? And yes, a lot of news outlets are creative with the truth, but if we're going to start closing all of them down, we will also need to close down much of the mainstream media, who are often very 'creative'.

The hypocrisy of the mainstream press (and politicians) demanding an end to this so-called 'fake news' is laughable. As seen during the EU referendum campaign, the media propaganda and bias in the UK is immense. Also just look at the biased and excitable coverage of our disastrous, imperialistic, neoconservative 'regime change' wars in the Middle East, or the way Jeremy Corbyn (and Bernie Sanders) have been treated with such contempt, or the way the west's arms sales to Daesh supporting and Yemen bombing Saudi Arabia is barely reported, or the way the current NHS crisis is being ignored by some. THIS is 'fake news'. I've spent the last month trying to understand what's been going on in Syria, having seen through so much misinformation and biased reporting on the day of east Aleppo's liberation; I've had to rely almost entirely on independent news sources in order to find some kind of 'truth'.

The liberal establishment and media are threatened, and this 'fake news' agenda is an attempt to distract from the realities of these anti-establishment movements; to take back the readers being lost to these 'fringe' sites; and to regain the control that the internet is taking from them. Anybody who goes against the mainstream is a 'conspiracy theorist' and any news not reported by a 'reputable news organisation' will soon be labelled fake. Facebook are already hiding certain articles from timelines, and Youtube (Google) are now demonetising some videos that go against mainstream opinion. 

'Fact check' websites will be used more and more by these 'reputable news organisations', but these too will have a bias. Politifact, for example, is seen as having a left-wing/liberal bias. Plus Facebook's new 'fact check' system is funded by Democrat donors.

Will these 'fact checking' websites be checking the mainstream (liberal) media, or just independent news, and statements by politicians?

We now have a situation where much of the mainstream media, a lot of which is owned by just a few very wealthy men, (some of whom often collude with politicians), and most of which are politically aligned to neoliberalism, is trying to take back full authority on news publishing; AND we have the reality that western governments have gradually been bringing in tighter controls on civil liberties, (they can now monitor pretty much everything we do online), supposedly purely to prevent (western created) terrorism, but it will also conveniently allow them to more easily handle any possible 'nationalist' (anti-capitalism/neoliberalism) uprising.

If you're concerned about fascism, perhaps you should be focusing your concern elsewhere...

(Edit: ITV have reported that the government are now considering setting up a committee for looking into 'fake news'. This is turning into full-on government censorship).

Syrian 'Civil War'

Some thoughts on Syria/Aleppo. Feel free to research what I've written, and correct me if I've got anything wrong. I have no agenda, just simply trying to understand the mess that Syria has become, and whether or not we are told the whole 'truth'.

..................... 

Pro-Democracy Revolutionary or Terrorist?

There definitely were some genuine pro-democracy dissidents at the start of this conflict. Many refugees attest to this. At the original 2011 protest in Damascus, there were several thousand people. (Note: there were many more thousands at the pro-Assad rallies).

Peaceful protests quickly became violent. At one of the original demonstrations, several Syrian policeman were shot and killed, as were four of the protesters. According to many sources, it was the protestors who fired the first shots; not the Syrian police, as is usually reported in western media.

From very early on, it has been reported that the dissidents were receiving arms from Turkey and Lebanon, (potentially funded by the USA and Saudi Arabia). All with vested and long standing interests in toppling Assad. 

Arms and anger also appeared from the outlawed Muslim Brotherhood, who had been oppressed by Hafez al-Assad (Bashar's father), because of his adamance that government should be secular, not Islamic. The Muslim Brotherhood's ultimate goal was/is to replace Syria's secular government with an Islamic one. They were eager for revenge, and it's unclear as to how many of them there were at those original protests, perhaps posing as 'pro democracy' protesters. It's possible that what were simplistically described in our media as pro-democracy demonstrations, were made up of a significant number from the Muslim Brotherhood, who, as I said, wanted an Islamic government, not necessarily a democratic/pro human rights one. By all accounts, the Muslim Brotherhood were armed and violent from the outset.

The protests spread. Some Syrian army soldiers defected (though most remained loyal). Violent clashes between the Syrian army and the armed protesters ensued. Many innocent, genuine pro-democracy protesters were killed in the crossfire. 

Assad offered reforms, but they were rejected out of hand.

From the beginnings of the fractured 'uprising', hardline Islamist groups like Nusra Front (formerly 'Al Qaeda in Syria', and supported by Saudi Arabia), gradually became the more prominent of the rebel groups, undermining efforts by the reportedly more moderate Free Syrian Army, who, by mid 2012, were not much of a force.

In 2013, the Syrian government offered amnesty to the rebels, and many accepted. The offer of amnesty to all rebels has remained ever since. Surely from around this point, any genuine pro-democracy dissidents will have realised that they were massively outnumbered by the Islamist rebel groups of varying extremes; And thus surely they will have realised that, to continue fighting Assad, they would effectively be fighting to install an Islamic government? 

For a genuine 'freedom fighter' to continue to fight alongside jihadists, seems a strange choice, given the kind of archaic, anti-freedom laws that would be installed under Sharia law. Surely they will have either accepted amnesty or fled the country long ago?

(Perhaps they didn't trust the amnesty offer, but I've not seen any reports of those who have accepted it being treated badly by the Syrian government. That's not to say they definitely haven't).

Aleppo's Liberation

The inhabitants of east Aleppo had been offered 'safe passage' out of the city on numerous occasions - flyers were dropped by Russian/Syrian planes, explaining where the safe passages were.

But some of the rebel/Jihadist groups in east Aleppo reportedly refused to let any civilians leave, shooting anyone who tried to escape. Cue the bombardment and civilian casualties by the Russian/Syrian jets. Awful, but what choice did they have? It was either that, or allow the rebels/jihadists to gradually recruit more civilians. (The rebels have reportedly been stockpiling food - according to Reuters. And some civilians have said that they were bribed with food rations to 'join up'). The rebels had also been bombing and killing civilians in government controlled western Aleppo.

Who is more barbaric - the Syrian government/Russia for going ahead with the bombing, or the rebels for refusing to let civilians leave? (And for indiscriminately bombing west Aleppo). 

Following the victory of the Syrian army in east Aleppo, at least 14 NATO officials were found hiding in a bunker, including officials from the USA, Saudi Arabia and Israel. This was confirmed on Facebook by a Syrian MP. (This hasn't been reported in the mainstream press, for some reason. Perhaps to protect their families? Or perhaps because NATO/our 'establishment' all have something to hide?). We can only assume that these NATO officials were there working alongside the 'moderate' rebels. But even with the influence from these officials, (whom you would assume would want to help the civilians), the rebels STILL refused civilians 'safe passage' out of the city. This suggests that it was the more extreme rebels who had most control of east Aleppo. 

NATO (along with Saudi/Turkey/Qatar/Israel) have been supporting these rebel/Jihadist groups for years now, whether directly or indirectly. They are so intent on 'regime change', that they are prepared to let arms get into the hands of radical Islamists, usually the west's number one enemy, ('War On Terror' anyone?). Just recently Obama signed a waiver to arm more so-called 'moderate' rebel groups. It is widely accepted that it is impossible to prevent these weapons from getting into the hands of extremist groups like Nusra Front, (a rebranded Al Qaeda), as it cannot be guaranteed that they won't fight alongside the more 'moderate' rebels, at some point. And, are the groups deemed 'moderate' by the US really that moderate? Who knows. Of course any rebel group will say that they are, in order to get the support. Does the US REALLY believe that there are enough of these 'moderate' rebels to topple Assad AND beat Nusra Front/other extremist groups?! 

Saudi Arabia support Nusra Front, (they reportedly encouraged them to change their name, because, let's face it, Al Qaeda have some baggage). Being such close allies with Saudi, are the USA secretly compliant in this support? Or perhaps the US/CIA have been knowingly arming jihadists directly? This would not be the first time - they did so in Afghanistan in the 1980s.

Surely NATO should be encouraging the rebels to accept the amnesty offer? Not continue arming a never ending rabble of rebel groups of varying levels of extremism; Thus prolonging an un-winnable war, and causing more deaths? 

Who is to blame?

Did NATO, along with their Gulf allies, cause this war? Without their intervention, arming the original protesters and supplying foreign mercenaries, (and without an overexcited and biased media, following the Arab Spring), the protests may have dissipated quickly.

Or, perhaps if Assad had stood down? They did have an election in 2014, overseen by a committee from 30 countries. Assad won 88% of the vote. The vote was only in government controlled areas, but Vanessa Beeley, an independent journalist who has been to Syria several times during the conflict, reported seeing Syrians in refugee camps rushing to vote for him. Furthermore, the Syrian government has suggested that they will carry out another election, with the UN overseeing it, providing all the rebels accept amnesty and NATO etc stop intervening, but there is little chance of the security council accepting this offer. 

Or, is the west's inaction to blame? NATO could have carried out a full ground invasion and/or airstrikes - huge battles, huge civilian deaths, Assad removed, power vacuum, chaos, another Libya, a lot of very unhappy Syrians who seem to genuinely like their leader and country, nuclear war? (If Russia still decided to get involved).

Russia

Russia's involvement changed things hugely. Without Russian intervention, the removal of Assad, followed by the vacuum and chaos, will have become a far more likely outcome; The rebels/Jihadists, with support from NATO etc, may have toppled the Assad government. It seems very naive and far fetched to believe that a democratic government and leader, along with a stable and peaceful society, would have followed. Just look at what happened when Ghadafi was 'removed' in Libya. Is it not quite likely that Nusra Front would have joined forces with ISIS and taken over Syria to form a giant Caliphate? And forced all the people of Syria to live under strict Sharia law?

Many argue that Putin only intervened in Syria in order to gain influence in the region, but US secretary of State John Kerry has said, (in a leaked recording), that Russia intervened because they could see ISIS growing stronger and they understandably did not want an ISIS controlled Syria on their doorstep. 

Assad 'the Brutal'

In the aforementioned leaked recording, Kerry also says that the US allowed ISIS to grow in order to put pressure on Assad. For some inexplicable reason, Assad is considered a bigger enemy than militant Islamism; so much so that the US are willing to favour ISIS, and support very questionable Syrian rebel groups, many of whom will fight alongside Nusra Front (Al Qaeda). Syria is a country that, by middle eastern standards, was relatively stable and functional. And officially secular - Sunni and Shia Muslims, and Christians, living peacefully side by side. Yes, Assad and his government are guilty of human rights abuses, but are they nearly as barbaric as as ISIS? (Or Saudi, for that matter?). And also, who isn't guilty of human rights violations? 500,000 Iraqi children died following the first Gulf war, due to cruel US sanctions. The west cannot take the moral high ground on human rights abuses!

Could it have something to do with the fact Syria is fairly socialist, or anti-Israel, that the USA/NATO etc hate them so much? Will the USA do anything to weaken anti-Israel countries in the Middle East? Or perhaps it is something to do with a gas pipeline? Or something to do with opening up their markets for trade? Or do they just want to weaken any non-globalist, or pro Russian, country? Or all of the above?

Why is it that we particularly hate Assad? The barrel bombs? As reported recently, Saudi have been using British made 'cluster bombs' in Yemen, yet they remain a staunch ally. And I don't see a huge difference between Assad's 'barrel bombing' and the USA's bombing of, for example, Fallujah, in 2003. The chemical attack in Ghouta? (This is what almost pushed the west into full-on war with Syria). Despite what we were told by our media/politicians, there is no conclusive evidence, as far as I can tell, that this attack was carried out by the Syrian government. On the day of the attack, the government had the UN inspecting their chemical weapons stockpile. What kind of crazed, stupid madman would carry out a chemical attack on the same day as having the UN inspect their chemical weapons?! Also, the missile reportedly had a 2km reach, and the 2km around the bomb site were all rebel held areas; and there is some evidence that Turkey/Saudi Arabia were funniling chemical weapons into Syria, for the 'rebels'.

Crimes have been committed on all sides since 2011, but they must be judged in the context of war and the threat/reality of significant outside intervention. 

Motive and Who to Trust?

Syria was/is a sovereign nation, where a lot of the population do genuinely appear to support Assad. Russia was invited by Assad to assist in the removal of the 'terrorists'. According to international law, this is legal. NATO's involvement is not.

You have to question NATO's motives; Why target Assad and not other countries, like Bahrain, where the government crushed protests, arresting, killing & torturing thousands? 


Why, in 2006, did the CIA decide on a policy of undermining Syria by any means possible? (According to Wikileaks). And even as far back as 1986, the CIA had planned for regime change, desiring a complaint Sunni Sectarian state, good for USA 'business interests' (according to a declassified CIA memo). 

The CIA should not be underestimated. During the conflict, they have had an annual 'Syrian budget' of $1billion. And they have a long history of toppling foreign governments. Did they influence the Syrian situation right from the beginning? Somehow encouraging some Syrian people to revolt? Was it them who arranged for Saudi/Lebanon to pass on weapons to the original protesters? Did they carry out a covert operation at those first protests to kill Syrian policeman/protesters and stoke up fear and anti-government fervour? Who knows, but it's not out of the question. This is the CIA. 

The Media

It's extremely hard to know what sources and evidence to trust. When our corporate media is owned by a handful of very rich men, who may have real, or just ideological ties with western governments, how do we know that the general narratives of their newspapers/tv news shows haven't been influenced by this? As for the other newspapers/tv shows, that are not owned by these rich men, they need sales/viewers/advertisers, and so most likely will stick with the general narrative that others purport. Just imagine if The Guardian suddenly started sympathising with Assad? Or if they suddenly started saying positive things about Russia/Putin? 


There are a few mainstream journalists who go against the mainstream narrative (Robert Fisk, Seamus Milne, Patrick Cockburn), but on the whole, mainstream newspapers/tv news are just an echo chamber. 

'Proof' of the media's misinformation came for me on the day of east Aleppo's 'liberation', seeing all the news reports of alleged massacres by the Syrian army/Russians, despite there seemingly being no evidence, and with little mention of the possibility that the jihadists could have done some awful things. Nor barely any mention of the overjoyed and relieved civilians, many of whom can be seen dancing in the streets in videos captured by independent journalists. BBC/Channel 4 News etc kept repeating the same general line, 'we're hearing reports of massacres by the Syrian/Russian forces'.

It was a day of incredible bias, misleading information and propaganda, from the media, our politicians, and the United Nations. And it made me question everything. How much is our media to blame for encouraging/perpetuating these wars? How often do they, (and our politicians) misinform us? Do they sometimes choose a narrative and stick with it, whatever? Do our intelligence services have a degree of influence over the media? 

By buying these newspapers, watching these tv news shows, (and voting for establishment political parties with close ties to terrorist supporting countries like Saudi Arabia), are we all complicit in our government's deadly foreign interventions? Has it not been proven, given how we were deceived on Iraq and Libya, that our establishment is, at best, catastrophically failing, or at worst, hugely corrupt?

Here's some specific examples of misinformation/propaganda/bias that I discovered, on the day of east Aleppo's liberation, and the following days/weeks

* Both Channel 4 News and BBC reported that the Syrian/Russian armies were massacring civilians, burning babies etc, on their entry into the city. I looked but could not find any evidence. Most of the sources used by western media are on the rebel side, so of course they are going to say such things.

* The UN's official statement on the situation made a similar claim. Again, no evidence to back it up. And on the following day, when questioned, the UN human rights spokesperson said that there was actually no way of knowing who exactly had done these things. But, too late, the media had their fuel.

* There were videos going around on social media, of Aleppo 'civilians' giving their 'last messages'. One messenger was Lina Shamy. I looked her up and discovered that on her Facebook page, as a former header photo, she has a photo of Zahran Alloush, deceased leader of Islamist rebel group Jaysh al-Islam, who called for cleansing Damascus of all Shiites and Alawites. (I believe the other messengers were either activists or journalists, not ordinary civilians).

* There was a video uploaded by an independent news source, showing some rebels evacuating Aleppo; the video was then acquired by Al Jazeera, who went on to add extra gunfire to it. (The original video had some gunfire at the end of the video, but the Al Jazeera version has rapid gunfire throughout. Why do this?!).

* There was barely any reporting of the civilian celebrations. And barely any interviews with them. The only interviews with civilians that I have seen have been on non-mainstream media news outlets, and in all the videos, the civilians describe a horrific life under the 'rebels'.

* There was no reporting on the NATO officials found in a bunker in east Aleppo.

* All newspaper/tv news sources seem to be on the rebel side, so of course they are going to get a very skewed picture of reality. The only newspaper not to decry massacres by the Syrian forces was the left-wing Morning Star, who were roundly condemned for praising the 'liberation'. 

* I have seen/heard little mention of the bombings carried out by the rebels - according to many sources, they have been bombing and killing many civilians in government controlled west Aleppo.

* Tima Kurdi, the aunt of Aylan Kurdi, the Syrian child refugee who was photographed washed up on a beach, has said that her attempts to speak out about the reality on the ground in Syria has been ignored by the mainstream media.

* US congresswomen Tulsi Gabbard has been trying to pass a Bill in congress to stop the US from arming terrorists. She has been attacked for it by the media. Surely the media should be attacking the government for arming terrorists?! 

* Andrew Ashdown, a British vicar who has visited Syria several times recently, has said that when they interviewed him, the BBC instructed that he was not allowed to say anything on air that Syrian civilians had told him which contradicts the BBC's narrative on Syria.

Nobody Is Blameless

Despite all of the misinformation, some things seem clear - it is a grade A mess. All sides have blood on their hands - Assad, for not standing down/holding an immediate election following the original protests; Assad and Putin, for killing civilians, in order to free the surviving civilians from a rabble of rebel/Jihadist groups. 

However, if it is true that the rebels had effectively been keeping the civilians hostage, they must take much of the blame. (Also note: The west are hardly innocent when it comes to 'collateral damage').

Imagine we had the same situation in the UK; a genuine reformist protest movement hijacked by jihadist extremists. Imagine these jihadists were being supported, supplied and armed by multiple foreign forces. Imagine your hometown became overrun with jihadists who enforced strict sharia law, torturing/killing anyone who didn't obey. How would our government deal with it? Would it be possible to deal with humanely? Would you want your government to try and liberate you, even if that meant possible death, or would you rather stay living under the rule of jihadists?

I also think it's important to take western imperialism (neoconservatism) into account. Overreaction seems far more understandable when you have that threat. 


We in the west seem to think that we have a right to 'spread democracy' throughout the world; we seem to think that we have authority on the best system for running a country, with our corporation influenced 'democracies', our huge inequality, our child poverty, our horrid treatment of 'whistleblowers' (aka 'traitors'), our homelessness, our institutional racism (how many unarmed black men were shot dead in the US last year?), our Guantamino Bay, our drone bombing of civilians, our inhumanely expensive healthcare (US), our erosion of freedoms (internet surveillance), our corruption, our housing crisis, our loyalty to barbaric Saudi, our 'boom and bust' economies, etc. 

Does the west's globalist agenda for 'spreading democracy' cause these devastating wars? 

In any case, just focussing on Syria, NATO, (and Saudi/Turkey etc) have immense blood on their hands, for encouraging a civil war despite there being no significant, unified and moderate opposition, and despite Assad being a popular leader amongst most Syrians; For arming an array of 'moderate' rebel groups; And for sticking to exactly the same course of action for years despite no change; For sticking to their biased and self-interested assessment that this is a 'revolution', and not just an incredibly fractured  'uprising' of sectarian groups, propped up, emboldened and supplied by outside intervention.

If this war had anything to do with 'humanitarianism', the intervention would have ended long ago. Effectively all NATO etc are doing now is trying to topple Assad and replace him with a sectarian government. And Islamic governments are rarely either democratic or pro human rights.

I fear that this stubbornness by NATO, and the refusal/inability of the media to change their general narrative (that Assad and Putin are the ultimate evils in this world - even more evil than militant Islamic extremism), thus keeping public opinion on side, is costing/has costed hundreds of thousands of lives. 

Surely our real enemy should be Saudi Arabia, who fund ISIS and Nusra Front, and who are committing atrocities in Yemen with OUR weapons. By toppling Assad, the West are just helping them spread their evil ideology. The West are not helping to spread democracy; All they are doing is helping to spread strict Sharia/Wahabism. The hypocrisy of the West's close friendship with Saudi, whilst condemning Assad, is unreal. Western governments argue that they need them as an ally, as they give vital intelligence about terrorists; but it is they who fund and arm jihadists and export the militant ideology (Wahhabism).

...................

I've never been an avid newspaper reader; I watch BBC/Channel 4 News, and read occasional Guardian/Independent articles online. I can't profess to know that all our media has omitted the above details, but I see the general anti-Assad/Putin headlines. And I have spoken to friends and family (who mainly read the Times/Daily Mail), and like me until a week ago, they were not aware of these details - Assad's amnesty offer, the suggestion that they will hold a UN inspected election as part of a peace agreement, the reports that 'safe passage' has always been offered, reports that civilians were being kept hostage by the rebels, the fact that the Syrian army are largely Sunni, or that more Syrian soldiers have died than 'rebels'.

....................

I'm worried about what will happen now. Before long, NATO will have to give up effectively supporting these Jihadists, and accept their catastrophic failure. This is going to lead to much anger from Islamic extremists, who do exist in our country, (and throughout the world). I fear that this will lead to even more 'blow back' than that which we have already seen. As a result, we will then see even more Islamaphobia against all Muslims, the vast majority of whom, are not jihadists, obviously. The far right will continue to rise, and genuine refugees will be targeted and persecuted. 

Those who are 'anti establishment', having seen through all the misinformation, will be labelled as right/left wing nut-jobs, but they (or should I say 'we'?) are on the rise, and for good reason, (as this whole Syria debacle shows). 

I'm worried that our governments will continue to use the fear/threat of terrorism to continue in clamping down on our liberty, introducing evermore internet surveillance; Clamping down on 'whistle-blower' websites like Wikileaks, on independent (non mainstream) news sites, labelling them all as 'fake news'.

I'm also worried that, because the Syrian situation no longer fits their narrative, and because they've realised that many people have seen through it, the media will stop reporting on it as much. There are civilians who need aid, I don't question that. But they won't get that aid unless the conflict remains in the news. (Please do some research on the White Helmets before donating to them. There are other, more impartial charities to give to).

........

Some sources:

https://gowans.wordpress.com/2016/10/22/the-revolutionary-distemper-in-syria-that-wasnt/

http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/07/30/why-no-revolution-exists-in-syria/

https://www.facebook.com/vanessa.beeley/posts/10155951071728868

https://www.facebook.com/vanessa.beeley/posts/10155917543148868

http://21stcenturywire.com/2016/06/15/syria-aleppo-doctor-demolishes-imperialist-propaganda-and-media-warmongering/

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/03/us-considering-openly-arming-syrian-al-qaeda-faction-al-nusra.html

https://www.facebook.com/EvaBoBeeva/posts/1392775177399139

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-11-21/barrel-bombs-and-bullshit-tangled-threads-washington-lies-about-syria-and-russia

http://dissidentvoice.org/2016/05/about-bias-and-propaganda-on-syria/

http://www.ibtimes.co.in/syria-assad-offers-full-amnesty-rebels-putting-down-weapons-668948

https://store.globalresearch.ca/store/new-the-dirty-war-on-syria-washington-regime-change-and-resistance-print-copy/

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/aleppo-falls-to-syrian-regime-bashar-al-assad-rebels-uk-government-more-than-one-story-robert-fisk-a7471576.html

https://www.ajamubaraka.com/elections-in-syria-the-people-say-no-to-foreign-intervention/

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/9054182

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/246709-genocide-in-syria

https://www.facebook.com/james.s.bishop.1/posts/10155216902392923

http://archive.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2011/04/14/false_pretense_for_war_in_libya/

http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2011/forte200411.html

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/andrewgavinmarshall.com/2011/08/26/lies-war-and-empire-nato%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%9Chumanitarian-imperialism%E2%80%9D-in-libya/amp/?client=safari

https://youtu.be/VvOlW7OjbY0

https://theintercept.com/2016/12/29/top-secret-snowden-document-reveals-what-the-nsa-knew-about-previous-russian-hacking/

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-08-14/true-story-how-war-broke-out-syria

https://wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/19/1940519_syria-4-26-member-of-extremist-terrorist-cell-arrested-in.html

http://www.mintpressnews.com/turkish-mp-faces-treason-charges-after-admitting-isis-used-

turkey-for-transiting-sarin/212107/

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/off-guardian.org/2015/10/07/free-syrian-army-is-just-a-brand-name-without-a-product/amp/?client=safari

https://youtu.be/e4phB-_pXDM

https://youtu.be/ZTX4-wNPIps

https://www.rt.com/news/375864-syria-artificial-conflict-western-msm/

https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2017/02/tulsi-gabbard-true-maverick.html