By Tony Cartalucci
BLN Contributing Writer
Blatant lies told by alleged "human rights activists" led to ignominious NATO-sanctioned brutality and ultimately brought BP, Shell, Total-sponsored Petroleum Institute representative, Abdurrahim el-Keib, into power in Libya. Now, these same corporate-financier interests, through their same networks of propaganda, duplicity and deception, are laying the ground work for a repeat performance in Syria.
It was just recently revealed that the UN Human Rights Council report regarding Syrian "crimes against humanity" was actually co-authored by Karen Koning AbuZayd, a director of the US Washington-based corporate think-tank, Middle East Policy Council, that includes Exxon men, CIA agents, US military and government representatives, and even the president of the US-Qatar Business Council, which includes amongst its membership, AlJazeera, Chevron, Exxon, munitions manufacturer Raytheon (who supplied the opening salvos during NATO's operations against Libya), and Boeing. The conflict of interest is so monumental it is only outdone by the corporate media's eager acceptance of the report and their complete negligence in airing the compromised backgrounds of those responsible for compiling it.
The UN report itself (.pdf) contained no verifiable evidence, but rather hearsay accounts recorded in Geneva by alleged "victims" "witnesses," and "defectors," put forth by "all interested persons and organizations." In other words, it was an open invitation for Syria's enemies to paint whatever image of the ruling government they pleased. While critics claim this is due to the Syrian government's lack of cooperation with the UN, it is more likely that the UN itself, with a proven track record of doing so in Iraq, the Ivory Coast, and most recently Libya, is merely complicit in providing "window dressing" for Wall Street and London's otherwise naked military conquests.
How to Start the War
And it is through this purposefully distorted lens that calls for military intervention are being made. After months of denying the opposition was armed, the Wall Street-funded think-tank Council on Foreign Relations now openly claims that not only are the "protesters" armed, but there is a resistance army of "15,000." The CFR claims this "Free Syrian Army" is requesting weapons and air support. It has already been revealed that weapons are freely flowing over Syria's borders from foreign-supporters, most notably, Turkey, Lebanon, Israel, and now even as far as Libya. The CFR report then goes on to explore the options available to NATO for facilitating "regime change" including the use of "overhead surveillance assets, logistical enablers, peacekeepers, armed drones, combat aircraft, ground troops," and "smuggled weapons."
Of course the number of Syrian defectors are as baseless as the UN human rights report. However, even the claim of a large, armed militant force operating inside of Syria directly contradicts the West's concurrent narrative that Syria's military is running rampant over defenseless civilians. With an army of "15,000 defectors" attempting to seize the nation by force with the help of foreign money, weapons, and diplomatic support, one finds it difficult to believe the Syrian government would instead be spending its time "massacring civilians." Just as in Libya, or any number of nations where foreign-backed "revolutions" have been attempted or achieved, Western-enabled violence is always a predetermined part of the equation, fully provisioned ahead of time with the subsequent violence cloaked behind tales of one-sided brutality aimed at the targeted regime.
As mentioned in the corporate-funded Brookings Institution report "Which Path to Persia?" the inclusion of covert armed support for US-backed protests is not just an option, but a necessity when carrying out such operations within a nation possessing competent security forces.
Using Military Force to Assist Popular Revolutions, page 109-110 (page 122-123 of the PDF): "Consequently, if the United States ever succeeds in sparking a revolt against the clerical regime, Washington may have to consider whether to provide it with some form of military support to prevent Tehran from crushing it." "This requirement means that a popular revolution in Iran does not seem to fit the model of the “velvet revolutions” that occurred elsewhere. The point is that the Iranian regime may not be willing to go gently into that good night; instead, and unlike so many Eastern European regimes, it may choose to fight to the death. In those circumstances, if there is not external military assistance to the revolutionaries, they might not just fail but be massacred.
Consequently, if the United States is to pursue this policy, Washington must take this possibility into consideration. It adds some very important requirements to the list: either the policy must include ways to weaken the Iranian military or weaken the willingness of the regime’s leaders to call on the military, or else the United States must be ready to intervene to defeat it."
More Blacklisted News...
Calling for Contributors!Got something to say?
We want to hear from you.
Submit your article contributions and participate in the world's largest independent online news community today!