EXPANDED COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY SIMON JENKINS IN
THE GUARDIAN (AND PROMPTLY REMOVED BY EDITORS)
"Only Assad’s
victory will end Syria’s civil war. The west can do nothing”
Well, I don't know how you might write something more
selective with objective reality.
First, there is no civil war, and there never has been.
Assad is as legitimate a leader as any in the Middle East. He is supported by a
majority, he is supported by all Christians who greatly fear the forces at work
attacking a man who has always protected them, and the armed forces have
loyally stood by him despite years of horror.
There are gangs of mercenaries, posing as jihadis, tearing
this beautiful country apart.
It is well known that those gangs are supported supplied and
paid by a club consisting of the United States, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Britain,
France, and originally Turkey.
The evidence is overwhelming if a person looks for it. The
Syrians have found numerous arms caches loaded with weapons of American and
Israeli origin.
Facilities for manufacturing poison gases have been
uncovered a couple of times as areas are liberated by the army.
We have the world’s best old investigative reporter, Sy
Hersh, having told us of the operation in Libya to move some of the murdered
Gadhafi’s chemical weapons to the terrorists in Syria. Hillary Clinton led the
effort under an Obama plan to “create” a “red line” so that the self-righteous
United States could launch an all-out bombing campaign on this beautiful land
and reduce it to the chaos they made of a well-run Libya. This dark-op gimmick
has now been tried a few times, and you could almost accuse CIA of a lack of
imagination.
We had some honest Turkish border guards, some years ago,
who got in hot water when they discovered containers of poison chemicals hidden
aboard a government truck headed into Syria.
By the way, with regard to the latest American claims of the
government’s having used poison gas, the local hospital and the Red Crescent
(the Red Cross in the Middle East) report no cases of chemical poisoning, quite
contrary to the claims of a previously-demonstrated dishonest outfit like the
White Helmets and newspaper editors at their desks in London and Washington.
So, over time, we have had both real and fake gas attacks – all by the
mercenaries operating in Syria – all with the complicity of Washington and
London and Paris.
America and France actually occupy part of the country in
complete contravention to international law. Israel regularly bombs targets in
Syria.
Israel actually treats some of the wounded terrorists, as
al-Nusrah, in its northern hospitals.
American helicopters have been observed and photographed
moving terrorist leaders from areas about to be liberated.
The Russians, too, involved by invitation in assisting an
ally have several times give us graphic evidence of American covert operations
and of excessively brutal American bombing in places like Raqqa.
Oh, it is possible to write an even more selective and less
objective headline. The Guardian was up to the job in another item with
something along the lines of “Syria and Russia accuse Israel of missile attack
on regime airbase.”
Accuse? It happened, full stop. I think witnesses on the
ground know the situation better than an editor at his or her desk in London. I
Regime? f you aren’t trying deliberately to be pejorative, it is called a
government. Otherwise, how is it that governments like that of Saudi Arabia or
Bahrain aren’t called regimes?
_________________
Further comment
(comments were closed before it could be posted):
Readers get few enough opportunities to comment about
anything related to Syria and the truth of that deliberately-created horror.
Just as they get almost zero opportunity to comment on the
clearly-manufactured Skripal Affair.
But in the very few opportunities provided by The Guardian
for commenting on either of these extremely serious matters, editors busy
themselves cleaning the record almost like employees in 1984's Ministry of
Truth busy re-writing history.
I made a solid, fact-based comment which has been deleted.
Really, you don't believe truth can emerge from
cross-examination? Or that readers can decide for themselves where truth is to
be found in such matters?
