Neil Clark, in RT Français, September 9, 2016
Translated by Tom Winter, September 15, 2016
6. It is an established fact that Assad / the Syrian government used chemical weapons in Ghouta
If I received ten pounds every time I heard “Assad gassed his own people in the Ghouta” or other words of this kind, I’d be rich. But what is presented as an indisputable fact by western war propagandists is anything but indisputable. Three years later, it is still unclear who carried out the attack with chemical weapons. Yes, it could have been the Syrian authorities, but it could also be a false flag operation carried out by the anti-government “rebels.”
Common sense tells us that Assad should have been mad to order such an attack knowing that the UN inspectors were in Damascus at the time, and that the western hawks were desperate for a reason to bomb. The next time you see some hawk claiming “Assad gassed his own people” in Ghouta – ask for the evidence. There is a good chance that you won’t get any.
7. Russia and the Syrian government have helped Daesh
This is a good example of an acceptable “conspiracy theory.” After the Russian bombing of Daesh and other terrorist groups in Syria in September 2015, we were told that Russia gave Daesh an air force. However, when a Russian plane was shot down a few weeks later, the line got changed: the attack was a “warning shot” for Russia from Daesh.
But if Russia was providing Daesh an air force, why would this group shoot down a Russian plane?
In fact, Russia and the Syrian army have inflicted more losses on Daesh in Syria over the past year than the US and its allies ever have. In March, the ancient city of Palmyra was released from Daesh by the Syrian army, with the backing of Russian air strikes.
As Danielle Ryan wrote at the time, it was “the biggest failure for Daesh since the declaration of their caliphate, but the West does not seem interested. Why ? Because, otherwise, they have to show some gratitude to Russia.”
8. The West is on the side of “good guys” in Syria
The truth is that the West is not fighting against ‘terror’ in Syria, but helping it. In all fairness, the “moderate rebels” backed by the US, the UK, and their allies have committed horrendous crimes that would certainly qualify as “terrorism” if they were committed in a Western country or a country allied with the West. As for the fact of being appalled by the rise of Daesh, we learn from US intelligence secret documents declassified in 2012 that the prospect of a Salafist principality in the east of Syria was “exactly that the powers supporting the opposition wanted” as this would “isolate the Syrian regime.”
9. There are 70,000 moderate rebels in Syria
This bizarre and unconfirmed statement was made by the British Prime Minister, David Cameron, when he was trying to get the approval of the British Parliament for airstrikes in Syria last November. This is what Cameron said specifically:
“We believe there are about 70,000 fighters of the Syrian opposition – mainly from the Free Syrian Army – which are not part of extremist groups […] and with whom we can coordinate attacks against Daesh.”
But in January, the former British prime minister (after winning the vote) was already walking it back, admitting that some of the “70,000” were “relatively extremist Islamists.”
When RT’s Ali Eisa asked Cameron the following question: “Why is it that you or your defense secretary won’t name the so-called moderate groups in whose name these fighters are on the ground?” He replied: “We will actually give President Assad a list of groups and individuals and potential areas that should be targeted.”
The affirmation of “70,000 moderate rebels” is likely to go down in history as Cameron’s variation on Tony Blair’s 2002assertion that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction that could be “activated in 45 minutes.”
10. Western intentions in Syria are humanitarian, while Russia is pursuing its own interests
Repeat after me (on the order of the neocons): “The West just wants to help the Syrian people to be free, while the Russians support the wicked Assad for their own selfish goals.” In fact, the “regime change” in Syria was on the Western agenda well before the anti-government protests began in 2011, and they go back – at least – to 2006, when Syria’s support for Hezbollah was blamed for Israel’s inability to defeat the Lebanese group in the 33-day war that year.
Imagine what would have been the response of the US, if Russia had planned violent regime change in a longtime US ally! Certainly Russian actions would not be presented as “humanitarian” and “pure of any self-interest”!
For Part One, with lies 1 through 5, click here!