rt.français, September 9, 2016
Translated from French by Tom Winter September 15, 2016
“Every time a country is targetted for a ‘regime change’ by the American Empire, its chief is delegitimized.”
Here are the ten worst lies about Syria peddled by the West in order to give the people of Western countries a completely false picture of the conflict that has ravaged the country since 2011, collected by journalist Neil Clark.
As with previous US wars, the ones waged against Yugoslavia, Iraq, and Libya, the lies about the ongoing conflict in Syria are quite scandalous.
1. The West was not able to intervene in Syria – and that’s the problem
This often repeated assertion (just last week the Washington Post lamented the “disastrous non-intervention” in Syria) is a complete inversion of the truth.
Even without directly bombarding the Syrian government in 2013 (as the super hawks wanted), the West intervened massively in Syria, through the funding, support, and training of violent “rebels.” Many of these weapons for the “rebels” have ended up in the hands of Daesh. The West not only ignited the conflict; but also supplied it for more than five years.
Brendan O’Neill was able to find the perfect answer to the tirade of the neocon / fake-left brigade “if only we had intervened in Syria:”
“The Western intervention is the ultimate creator of nightmare in northern Iraq and Syria. Do something? You have already done something. You did it, you created this horror. “
2. The conflict is the fault of the wicked Assad (and the Russia that supports him.)
The dominant Western narrative has it that the conflict was initiated by Assad with the evi dictator’s crackdown on peaceful demonstrations opposing his regime in March 2011. The reality is that the peaceful pro-democracy demonstrations were “diverted” at a very early stage by those who were determined to provoke a violent reaction from the Syrian authorities. In the border city of Daraa, where conflict actually started, seven policemen were killed. The headquarters of the Baath party and the courthouse were torched.
During the first month of the war, as many eighty-eight soldiers were killed.
Assad was faced with a violent insurgency against the Syrian state, led by terrorists many of whom came from outside the country. Should he simply let these ‘rebels’ take power (as required by the West), even though there is no evidence they had a real popular support? We must ask ourselves: what would the US government do if exposed to a violent insurgency by “rebels” backed by foreign officials who would kill the American state and would blow up the government buildings? The answer would be, I am sure, even more ruthless than that of the Syrian government.
3. President Assad enjoys little support in Syria
Whenever a country is targeted for a regime change undertaken by the American Empire, its leader is delegitimized. We are told that the head has no popular support and remains in power only because he is a “brutal dictator. But there is much evidence that Assad, a thing not thought about by Western elites, has strong support in his country. In early 2012, a survey showed that 55% of Syrians want their president to remain in office. When a veteran foreign correspondent of the Guardian, Jonathan Steele – a man who is very familiar with Syria – wrote an article on this subject entitled: “Most Syrians support President Assad, but you’ll never learn that from the Western media,” Steele was attacked by the “Imperial Guards of Truth.”
In 2014, Assad won a landslide victory in the first pluralist presidential elections in the country for fifty years.
Assad and the Syrian government showed repeatedly the desire to make concessions to try to end the conflict
Once again: this did not receive much – if any – coverage in the West. A survey conducted in July 2015 showed that 47% of Syrians felt Assad had a positive influence on Syrian affairs – compared with the 35% who think the same of the West’s Syrian army, and 26% in favor of the coalition of the Syrian opposition.
Further evidence Assad enjoys wide support is that he is still in power after five and a half years of war. Should we really be surprised that millions of Syrians prefer the secular power – respect the rights of women and religious minorities – to that of Daesh medieval choppers and fanatical jihadists?
Of course, the view of the Syrians who support their president is ignored by the West’s pseudo-democrats. They are considered “non-persons” because they hold the “wrong” opinions. The only perspective that counts in Syria is the one that matches the bell sound of the Western regime-changers.
4. Assad has made no concessions and is not interested in peace and reconciliation
In fact, Assad and the Syrian government have repeatedly shown their desire to make concessions to try to end the conflict. In 2012, a draft new constitution ending the monopoly of political power of the Baath party which had continued over several decades, was submitted to the Syrian people.It won approval with 89.42% of the votes. Article 8 of the new of the new Constitution stipulates: “The state’s political system must be based on the principle of political pluralism and the democratic exercise of power through the ballot box. “
Again: little or no coverage of this important reform in the Western media. Similarly, the varioous amnesties for the ‘rebels’ did not receive wide coverage (the last took place in July of the current year) Nor did the government’s national reconciliation. These concilatory moves just don’t fit the “official narrative” of a president without compromise, who is just interested in “killing his own people.”
5. The conflict in Syria is only sectarian
This rhetoric “Sunni against Shia / Alawite” ignores the fact that the Sunnis, in addition to serving (in large numbers) in the Syrian Arab Army, also hold key positions. Sunnis also hold important positions in the Syrian government, as demonstrated in The National Interest.
Some 74% of Syrians are Sunnis. So is it likely that Assad is still in power after five and a half years of war, if all – or most of them – were against him? The truth is that the secular Syrian government is supported by Sunnis and Shiites, and it is the US who have tried everything they could to exploit religious divisions and exacerbate tensions, as revealed by Wikileaks.
In 2006, William Roebuck, charge d’affaires at the US Embassy in Damascus, described the attempt to destabilize the Syrian government with “playing on Sunni fears of Iranian influence” being “a possible action.”
Divide and rule is a strategy used by the imperial powers through the centuries, and the American Empire is not an exception.
Russia and the Syrian army have inflicted more losses on Daesh in Syria over the past year thn the US and its allies together.
Part two, with lies 6 through 10, is here!