Tuesday, 7 February 2012

Vultures circling over Syria

How to end or limit one form of state murder while trying to prevent it happening on an even greater scale?

With the lurch to civil war in Syria, people are undoubtedly suffering at the hands of the Assad regime.

But, we need only look at NATO's orchestrated assaults on Libya to see the much greater levels of state-led killing and destruction likely to ensue should the West get its expanded resolution to 'intervene' over Syria.

Ever-amplifying the Western line, little of this more dire scenario is up for reasonable discussion within the mainstream media.

Some typical BBC output: "William Hague says UN veto a 'betrayal' of Syrian people".

Imagine, if you can, Hague - a ready supporter of the mass-killing in Iraq  - describing any such US/UK veto in support of Israel as a 'betrayal of the Palestinian people'. Imagine the BBC using this kind of language to report the West's indifference to the bombing and suffering in Gaza. 

As Craig Murray reads it, Russia and China, having witnessed Nato's blatant abuses, will not be party to a deal that gives the West carte blanche to effect regime change in Syria. Murray may confess his non-expertise in matters Syrian:  
"But what I understand most is the diplomacy. On Libya, NATO took a UN Security Council Resolution authorising a no fly zone, and twisted it as cover to wage all out aerial warfare on one side in a civil war. Long after pro-Gadaffi sources lost any serious offensive capability, NATO were carpet-bombing Sirte, killing many times more people than Assad has killed in Homs to date. If given an inch you take 500 miles, you should not be surprised when in future nobody will give you half an inch. That is the context of Russian and Chinese veto of any UNSCR authorising action against Syria." 

Both the geopolitical strategy and hypocrisy of the West should now be patently obvious. The ousting of Assad would mean the removal of a key Iranian ally, a move encouraged by Saudi Arabia, the lynchpin regional dictatorship that the West protects at all costs. 

None of this insidious agenda is addressed in the Guardian's leader piece castigating Russia as being on the wrong side. Nothing here in this loaded verbiage to suggest that aligning oneself with people like Hillary Clinton is, in itself, to be in very dark and dangerous company. As ever with the liberal media, 'international responsibility' means the placing of automatic trust in the 'benign' intentions of 'our' leaders. 

Russia's patronage of Syria is being used as a ready pretetext for pouring in more weaponry to the opposition, with the media talking it all up as humanitarian-type relief.

Again, the tragedy of Libya should be a stark warning of where this latest 'missionary act' may eventually lead. 


No comments: