Now the truth emerges: how the US fulled the rise of Isis in Syria and Iraq

The sectarian terror group won’t be defeated by the Western states that incubated it in the first place

The war on terror, that campaign without end launched 14 years ago by George Bush, is tying itself up in ever more grotesque contortions. On Monday the trial in London of a Swedish man, Bherlin Gildo, accused of terrorism in Syria, collapsed after it became clear British intelligence had been arming the same rebel groups the defendant was charged with supporting.

The prosecution abandoned the case, apparently to avoid embarrassing the intelligence services. The defence argued that going ahead with the trial would have been an “affront to justice” when there was plenty of evidence the British state was itself providing “extensive support” to the armed Syrian opposition.

Terrorism has come about in assimilationist France and also in multicultural Britain. Why is that?

Kenan Malik
Kenan Malik

Read more
That didn’t only include the “non-lethal assistance” boasted of by the government (including body armour and military vehicles), but training, logistical support and the secret supply of “arms on a massive scale”.

Reports were cited that MI6 had cooperated with the CIA on a “rat line” of arms transfers from Libyan stockpiles to the Syrian rebels in 2012 after the fall of the Gaddafi regime.

Clearly, the absurdity of sending someone to prison for doing what ministers and their security officials were up to themselves became too much. But it’s only the latest of a string of such cases.

Less fortunate was a London cab driver Anis Sardar, who was given a life sentence a fortnight earlier for taking part in 2007 in resistance to the occupation of Iraq by US and British forces.

Armed opposition to illegal invasion and occupation clearly doesn’t constitute terrorism or murder on most definitions, including the Geneva convention

But terrorism is now squarely in the eye of the beholder. And nowhere is that more so than in the Middle East, where today’s terrorists are tomorrow’s fighters against tyranny – and allies are enemies – often at the bewildering whim of a western policymaker’s conference call.

For the past year, US, British and other western forces have been back in Iraq, supposedly in the cause of destroying the hyper-sectarian terror group Islamic State (formerly known as al-Qaida in Iraq). This was after Isis overran huge chunks of Iraqi and Syrian territory and proclaimed a self-styled Islamic caliphate.

The campaign isn’t going well. Last month, Isis rolled into the Iraqi city of Ramadi, while on the other side of the now nonexistent border its forces conquered the Syrian town of Palmyra. Al-Qaida’s official franchise, the Nusra Front, has also been making gains in Syria.

Some Iraqis complain that the US sat on its hands while all this was going on. The Americans insist they are trying to avoid civilian casualties, and claim significant successes. Privately, officials say they don’t want to be seen hammering Sunni strongholds in a sectarian war and risk upsetting their Sunni allies in the Gulf.

A revealing light on how we got here has now been shone by a recently declassified secret US intelligence report, written in August 2012, which uncannily predicts – and effectively welcomes – the prospect of a “Salafist principality” in eastern Syria and an al-Qaida-controlled Islamic state in Syria and Iraq. In stark contrast to western claims at the time, the Defense Intelligence Agency document identifies al-Qaida in Iraq (which became Isis) and fellow Salafists as the “major forces driving the insurgency in Syria” – and states that “western countries, the Gulf states and Turkey” were supporting the opposition’s efforts to take control of eastern Syria.

Raising the “possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality”, the Pentagon report goes on, “this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran)”.

American forces bomb one set of rebels while backing another in Syria
Which is pretty well exactly what happened two years later.

The report isn’t a policy document. It’s heavily redacted and there are ambiguities in the language. But the implications are clear enough.

A year into the Syrian rebellion, the US and its allies weren’t only supporting and arming an opposition they knew to be dominated by extreme sectarian groups; they were prepared to countenance the creation of some sort of “Islamic state” – despite the “grave danger” to Iraq’s unity – as a Sunni buffer to weaken Syria

That doesn’t mean the US created Isis, of course, though some of its Gulf allies certainly played a role in it – as the US vice-president, Joe Biden, acknowledged last year. But there was no al-Qaida in Iraq until the US and Britain invaded. And the US has certainly exploited the existence of Isis against other forces in the region as part of a wider drive to maintain western control.

The calculus changed when Isis started beheading westerners and posting atrocities online, and the Gulf states are now backing other groups in the Syrian war, such as the Nusra Front. But this US and western habit of playing with jihadi groups, which then come back to bite them, goes back at least to the 1980s war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, which fostered the original al-Qaida under CIA tutelage.

It was recalibrated during the occupation of Iraq, when US forces led by General Petraeus sponsored an El Salvador-style dirty war of sectarian death squads to weaken the Iraqi resistance. And it was reprised in 2011 in the Nato-orchestrated war in Libya, where Isis last week took control of Gaddafi’s home town of Sirte.

In reality, US and western policy in the conflagration that is now the Middle East is in the classic mould of imperial divide-and-rule. American forces bomb one set of rebels while backing another in Syria, and mount what are effectively joint military operations with Iran against Isis in Iraq while supporting Saudi Arabia’s military campaign against Iranian-backed Houthi forces in Yemen. However confused US policy may often be, a weak, partitioned Iraq and Syria fit such an approach perfectly.

What’s clear is that Isis and its monstrosities won’t be defeated by the same powers that brought it to Iraq and Syria in the first place, or whose open and covert war-making has fostered it in the years since. Endless western military interventions in the Middle East have brought only destruction and division. It’s the people of the region who can cure this disease – not those who incubated the virus.

With many thanks to: The Guardian and Seumas Milne for the original story @seumasmilne

 

Isis missile strike injures two British SAS soldiers fighting in Syria against Assad government forces

The men were fighting with the Syrian Democratic Forces in two towns east of the River Euphrates

The men were fighting with anti-government Syrian Democratic Forces (who are Kurdish based) in two towns east of the river Euphrates DELIL SULEIMAN/AFP/GETTY IMAGES

Two SAS soldiers seriously injured in Syria were hit as Islamic State militants counterattacked in one of their last two strongholds.

The two men were embedded with the Syrian Democratic Forces, Britain and America’s local allies in eastern Syria, as they attacked the Isis-held town of al-Shaafa.

A local fighter, a Kurd from the YPG militia, which dominates the Syrian Democratic Forces, was killed when an Isis unit fired what local commanders said was a heat-seeking missile at the group on Saturday morning.

One SAS soldier received a serious injury to his throat, while the other suffered lesser injuries. Both were taken to a field hospital at the nearby al-Omar oilfield and flown by helicopter to an unnamed US-run military base for hospital treatment.

The Times understands that neither Briton is in a critical condition and both are expected to survive. The Ministry of Defence would not discuss their condition, saying that it did not comment on special forces operations. Neither man has been named.

The two men are among several hundred members of British, American, French and other western special forces fighting alongside the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) in eastern Syria against the remnants of Isis. The militants are surrounded in two towns east of the River Euphrates in Deir Ezzor province, al-Shaafa and al-Susah. Al-Shaafa has been the scene of intense fighting for a week, and inroads have been made against Isis, with up to half the town seized, according to local journalists.

Kamiran Sadoun, a Syrian Kurdish journalist who was in the area at the time, said that there had been five to seven SAS soldiers on patrol with SDF fighters when the clash happened. He said that he had spoken to wounded SDF soldiers at the al-Omar field hospital.“They told us they were attacked — they shot at the Isis fighters then they fired back with a thermal missile,” he told The Times. He said that besides the fighter who was killed, two more were injured.

There have been heavy coalition air strikes, including one on Friday that was said to have killed 11 civilians, among them a Russian woman and her child. Thousands more civilians have fled the area.

The death of the Kurdish fighter and the two Britons’ injuries will be used to highlight a clash between Britain and America over plans for the region. Last month President Trump announced that he would withdraw all 2,000 American troops operating in Syria. The move, contradicting a policy he announced last summer to keep American troops in Syria to ensure Isis remained defeated and to maintain a bulwark against Iranian influence, prompted fierce criticism across the West and was followed by James Mattis, US defence secretary, announcing his resignation. British politicians argued that Isis was “not yet defeated” and Gavin Williamson, the defence secretary, said that it was necessary to “keep a foot on the throat”.

No timetable for the withdrawal has been given, although Mr Trump’s initial demand that it be within 30 days has been discounted.

A senior British defence source said yesterday: “This attack goes to show that the fight against Daesh is by no means over. There’s a question now over whether Daesh are ramping up their operations ahead of the US troop withdrawal to ‘prove’ that they drove American forces out. It could be similar to what the Taliban tried to do in Helmand in Afghanistan.”

With many thanks to: The Times/ The Sunday Times for the original story

BBC Caught Promoting exact Indiviuals, who Beheaded Child, Staging Syria Propaganda

In the aftermath of what people believed may culminate into WWIII in Syria, with the US directly bombing the Syrian government after it was once again accused of using chemical weapons, it is necessary for people to refresh their memory about what transpired over the last several years.

Every single year since 2013, the US and its coalition (along with the UN and all those usual institutions) have tried to blame Syria for using chemical weapons against their own people.

2013 was the year that, as you may recall, chemical attacks supposedly occurred in East Ghouta, Syria on August 21. The side of the conflict known for killing innocent children is actually both ISIS/the Syrian Rebels, and the US and its coalition for bombing them and killing children with airstrikes.

Nevertheless, that didn’t stop an explosion of mainstream media coverage in August 2013 pressing for war with Syria. Back then, activists had more enthusiasm for opposing the war, naturally. Now people are tired.

Horrific, graphic photos circulated and were reported by mainstream media. They depicted children stacked up, supposedly killed by Assad’s regime with chemical weapons. The children’s corpses were strategically positioned and photographed to look as horrifying as possible, according to investigations.

 YouTube ‎@YouTube

xmaseveevil@xmaseveevil1

RT PROBABLY BEST VIDEO ON THIS. More evidence the BBC faked footage from Syria.. Of ‘gas attacks’…. IMPEACH TRUMP. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OI3-0xIcvgI …

However, the BBC was caught faking footage of a woman speaking about a napalm attack, and was even accused of using actors and staging Syrian war propaganda in 2013. The British Broadcasting Corporation of course has been pushing for the war in Syria for almost the entirety of the conflict, alongside the US and other coalition powers.

The BBC reported that they happened to be invited to a remote hospital, when a “world changing atrocity” occurred. A British doctor was being interviewed when dying people allegedly began to pour into this hospital.

RT, the Russian government’s media arm which happens to be in a position to report on this exposed the BBC report and pointed out that the BBC duplicated the exact same footage from two separate incidents, only changing the words “chemical” and “napalm.”

Robert Stuart@cerumol

#TVNovosti: BBC’s Syria footage “clearly was faked” http://bit.ly/1izeHHC  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-34316047 …

8:43 PM – May 8, 2016

Ofcom backs BBC in Russian TV case

The BBC has won a case against TV station RT (formerly Russia Today), which claimed the corporation had faked a news report on Syria.

bbc.co.uk

The “doctor” in this report was also outed as a Syrian rebel, Mousa al Kurdi. An ex-British ambassador, Craig Murray commented on the issue:

“The disturbing thing is the footage of the doctor talking is precisely the same each time. It is edited so as to give the impression the medic is talking in real time in her natural voice – there are none of the accepted devices used to indicate a voiceover translation. But it must be true that in at least one, and possibly both, the clips she is not talking in real time in her own voice. It is very hard to judge as her mouth and lips are fully covered throughout. Perhaps neither of the above is what she actually said.

Terrible things are happening all the time in Syria’s civil war, between Assad’s disparate forces and still more disparate opposition forces, and innocent people are suffering. There are dreadful crimes against civilians on all sides. I have no desire at all to downplay or mitigate that. But once you realise the indisputable fact of the fake interview the BBC has put out, some of the images in this video begin to be less than convincing on close inspection too.”

So the BBC had the audacity to write an article titled “The BBC has won a case against Russian TV channel RT” in September 2015, when they made a case against RT for saying they faked the footage.

However, they did not in fact win the case because Ofcom investigated and ruled that parts of the BBC program were “materially misleading.”

Ofcom even found the BBC guilty of a dramatically wider propaganda campaign, breaching sponsorship rules at least 20 times by airing “propaganda films” that promote foreign governments, “charities,” and those shady NGO’s. A “blatant breach” of rules for broadcasting, is what the BBC was truthfully accused of by regulator Ofcom in a 112 page report.

 

Now, the RT video is very difficult to find on YouTube. This is what you find if you try to click one of the original videos about it, from presumably MOX News.

RT is also being flagged as Russian propaganda on YouTube, as it is funded by the Russian government, but to make it more accurate YouTube is also flagging videos from United States government funded intuitions like CBS and Radio Free Asia. One could argue Radio Free Asia is much more egregious propaganda than RT.

It gets much worse. The BBC literally reported on “Syrian rebels” who are indistinguishable from ISIS as some protagonists, as some good guys, when the exact same individuals they interviewed ended up beheading an innocent child on camera.

The BBC had to retract their report promoting those exact individuals, because those exact individuals beheaded a child on camera.

In conclusion, the BBC is known to fake footage, and they are known to promote people who behead children on camera to the world as good people while their allies in America murder innocent women and children in drone strikes.

Also, here is a brief timeline of the supposed chemical attacks on Assad’s own civilians that make no strategic sense, that they have been accused of year by year since 2013.

2013: The Ghouta chemical attack occurred on August 21, 2013.

2014: The Kafr Zita chemical attack occurred on April 11, 2014. Three were killed and about 100 were wounded. The Syrian government blamed the “Syrian rebels” of the Al-Nusra Front for using toxic chlorine, and the US and its coalition blamed the Syrian government.

2015: The Syrian government was again accused of committing strategic suicide and pointlessly gassing its own people in Idlib, Syria attacks between March 16, and March 31, 2015. At least 206 people were injured, and 3 children were killed.

2016: The propaganda construct known as the White Helmets reported that Assad again gassed his own people, releasing video of children gasping for air after a chemical attack in Aleppo in September, 2016.

2017: Donald Trump ordered dangerous strikes on Syria on April 6, 2017 after another alleged chemical attack that killed 80 civilians in Khan Sheikhoun, Syria.

2018: Again the Syrian government is directly struck by the US, but this time its the US, UK, and France who have been lusting after war with Syria for years now, seamlessly carrying the agenda through each president in each country. Around the exact same time of year as 2017, another strategically suicidal alleged chemical attack occurred in Douma, Syria on April 7th.

With many thanks to: FB News for the origional story.

Syria intervention plan fueled by oil interests, not chemical weapon concern

Massacres of civilians are being exploited for narrow geopolitical competition to control Mideast oil, gas pipelines.

U.N. chemical weapons experts visit people affected by an apparent gas attack, at a hospital in the southwestern Damascus suburb of Mouadamiya.

On 21 August, hundreds – perhaps over a thousand – people were killed in a chemical weapon attack in Ghouta, Damascus, prompting the US, UK, Israel and France to raise the spectre of military strikes against Bashir al Assad’s forces.

The latest episode is merely one more horrific event in a conflict that has increasingly taken on genocidal characteristics. The case for action at first glance is indisputable. The UN now confirms a death toll over 100,000 people, the vast majority of whom have been killed by Assad’s troops. An estimated 4.5 million people have been displaced from their homes. International observers have overwhelmingly confirmed Assad’s complicity in the preponderance of war crimes and crimes against humanity against the Syrian people. The illegitimacy of his regime, and the legitimacy of the uprising, is clear.

Experts are unanimous that the shocking footage of civilians, including children, suffering the effects of some sort of chemical attack, is real – but remain divided on whether it involved military-grade chemical weapons associated with Assad’s arsenal, or were a more amateur concoction potentially linked to the rebels.

Whatever the case, few recall that US agitation against Syria began long before recent atrocities, in the context of wider operations targeting Iranian influence across the Middle East.

In May 2007, a presidential finding revealed that Bush had authorised CIA operations against Iran. Anti-Syria operations were also in full swing around this time as part of this covert programme, according to Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker. A range of US government and intelligence sources told him that the Bush administration had “cooperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations” intended to weaken the Shi’ite Hezbollah in Lebanon. “The US has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria,” wrote Hersh, “a byproduct” of which is “the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups” hostile to the United States and “sympathetic to al-Qaeda.” He noted that “the Saudi government, with Washington’s approval, would provide funds and logistical aid to weaken the government of President Bashir Assad, of Syria,” with a view to pressure him to be “more conciliatory and open to negotiations” with Israel. One faction receiving covert US “political and financial support” through the Saudis was the exiled Syrian Muslim Brotherhood.

According to former French foreign minister Roland Dumas, Britain had planned covert action in Syria as early as 2009: “I was in England two years before the violence in Syria on other business”, he told French television:

“I met with top British officials, who confessed to me that they were preparing something in Syria. This was in Britain not in America. Britain was preparing gunmen to invade Syria.”

The 2011 uprisings, it would seem – triggered by a confluence of domestic energy shortages and climate-induced droughts which led to massive food price hikes – came at an opportune moment that was quickly exploited. Leaked emails from the private intelligence firm Stratfor including notes from a meeting with Pentagon officials confirmed US-UK training of Syrian opposition forces since 2011 aimed at eliciting “collapse” of Assad’s regime “from within.”

So what was this unfolding strategy to undermine Syria and Iran all about? According to retired NATO Secretary General Wesley Clark, a memo from the Office of the US Secretary of Defense just a few weeks after 9/11 revealed plans to “attack and destroy the governments in 7 countries in five years”, starting with Iraq and moving on to “Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran.” In a subsequent interview, Clark argues that this strategy is fundamentally about control of the region’s vast oil and gas resources.

Much of the strategy currently at play was candidly described in a 2008 US Army-funded RAND report, Unfolding the Future of the Long War (pdf). The report noted that “the economies of the industrialized states will continue to rely heavily on oil, thus making it a strategically important resource.” As most oil will be produced in the Middle East, the US has “motive for maintaining stability in and good relations with Middle Eastern states”:

“The geographic area of proven oil reserves coincides with the power base of much of the Salafi-jihadist network. This creates a linkage between oil supplies and the long war that is not easily broken or simply characterized… For the foreseeable future, world oil production growth and total output will be dominated by Persian Gulf resources… The region will therefore remain a strategic priority, and this priority will interact strongly with that of prosecuting the long war.”

In this context, the report identified several potential trajectories for regional policy focused on protecting access to Gulf oil supplies, among which the following are most salient:

“Divide and Rule focuses on exploiting fault lines between the various Salafi-jihadist groups to turn them against each other and dissipate their energy on internal conflicts. This strategy relies heavily on covert action, information operations (IO), unconventional warfare, and support to indigenous security forces… the United States and its local allies could use the nationalist jihadists to launch proxy IO campaigns to discredit the transnational jihadists in the eyes of the local populace… US leaders could also choose to capitalize on the ‘Sustained Shia-Sunni Conflict’ trajectory by taking the side of the conservative Sunni regimes against Shiite empowerment movements in the Muslim world…. possibly supporting authoritative Sunni governments against a continuingly hostile Iran.”

Exploring different scenarios for this trajectory, the report speculated that the US may concentrate “on shoring up the traditional Sunni regimes in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Pakistan as a way of containing Iranian power and influence in the Middle East and Persian Gulf.” Noting that this could actually empower al-Qaeda jihadists, the report concluded that doing so might work in western interests by bogging down jihadi activity with internal sectarian rivalry rather than targeting the US:

“One of the oddities of this long war trajectory is that it may actually reduce the al-Qaeda threat to US interests in the short term. The upsurge in Shia identity and confidence seen here would certainly cause serious concern in the Salafi-jihadist community in the Muslim world, including the senior leadership of al-Qaeda. As a result, it is very likely that al-Qaeda might focus its efforts on targeting Iranian interests throughout the Middle East and Persian Gulf while simultaneously cutting back on anti-American and anti-Western operations.”

The RAND document contextualised this disturbing strategy with surprisingly prescient recognition of the increasing vulnerability of the US’s key allies and enemies – Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states, Egypt, Syria, Iran – to a range of converging crises: rapidly rising populations, a ‘youth bulge’, internal economic inequalities, political frustrations, sectarian tensions, and environmentally-linked water shortages, all of which could destabilise these countries from within or exacerbate inter-state conflicts.

The report noted especially that Syria is among several “downstream countries that are becoming increasingly water scarce as their populations grow”, increasing a risk of conflict. Thus, although the RAND document fell far short of recognising the prospect of an ‘Arab Spring’, it illustrates that three years before the 2011 uprisings, US defence officials were alive to the region’s growing instabilities, and concerned by the potential consequences for stability of Gulf oil.

These strategic concerns, motivated by fear of expanding Iranian influence, impacted Syria primarily in relation to pipeline geopolitics. In 2009 – the same year former French foreign minister Dumas alleges the British began planning operations in Syria – Assad refused to sign a proposed agreement with Qatar that would run a pipeline from the latter’s North field, contiguous with Iran’s South Pars field, through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and on to Turkey, with a view to supply European markets – albeit crucially bypassing Russia. An Agence France-Presse report claimed Assad’s rationale was “to protect the interests of [his] Russian ally, which is Europe’s top supplier of natural gas”.

Instead, the following year, Assad pursued negotiations for an alternative $10 billion pipeline plan with Iran, across Iraq to Syria, that would also potentially allow Iran to supply gas to Europe from its South Pars field shared with Qatar. The Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) for the project was signed in July 2012 – just as Syria’s civil war was spreading to Damascus and Aleppo – and earlier this year Iraq signed a framework agreement for construction of the gas pipelines.
The Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline plan was a “direct slap in the face” to Qatar’s plans. No wonder Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan, in a failed attempt to bribe Russia to switch sides, told President Vladmir Putin that “whatever regime comes after” Assad, it will be “completely” in Saudi Arabia’s hands and will “not sign any agreement allowing any Gulf country to transport its gas across Syria to Europe and compete with Russian gas exports”, according to diplomatic sources. When Putin refused, the Prince vowed military action.

It would seem that contradictory self-serving Saudi and Qatari oil interests are pulling the strings of an equally self-serving oil-focused US policy in Syria, if not the wider region. It is this – the problem of establishing a pliable opposition which the US and its oil allies feel confident will play ball, pipeline-style, in a post-Assad Syria – that will determine the nature of any prospective intervention: not concern for Syrian life.

What is beyond doubt is that Assad is a war criminal whose government deserves to be overthrown. The question is by whom, and for what interests?

• This article was amended on 7 October 2015 to provide clearer attribution to a quote about tAssad’s rationale for rejecting Qatar’s proposed oil pipeline.

Dr Nafeez Ahmed is executive director of the Institute for Policy Research & Development and author of A User’s Guide to the Crisis of Civilisation: And How to Save It among other books. Follow him on Twitter @nafeezahmed

A more detailed in-depth special report based on this article is available at the author’s website here.

With many thanks to: The Guardian for the origional story.

Follow these links to find out more: http://anonhq.com/cia-hell-bent-destroying-syria-oil-declassified-document-reveals/

https://skwawkbox.org/2018/04/15/video-bbcs-cbs-clip-gives-away-no-chemical-weapons-in-destroyed-syria-lab/

Corbyn gets my vote to be next leader of Labour

IF JEREMY Corbyn had been Labour leader and prime minister in 2002-2003 instead of Tony Blair millions of Iraqis now dead or displaced would be alive and living in their home country.

Saddam would still be alive, still a dictator, and there would be no Isis, no American/British nightly bombing in Iraq/Syria if he had been leader and prime minister instead of David Cameron in 2011. There would not have been half-million tons of bombs dropped on Libya. Gaddafi would still be ruling Libya and it would still be a prosperous country not as it is today, a governless wasteland. The Africans would be employed by Gaddifi in Libya, so no boat people drowning in the Mediterranean; no deaths trying to reach the country of their tormentor and wrecker of their homes. Similar could be said re Africans in Syria, Yemen and Afghanistan. Oh that there were multiple Jeremy Corbyns in the past century. Certainly a Corbyn clone would not have allowed the Palestinians to be punished (as the British did) for other peoples’ crimes. I’m not too sure how he would have handled the Second World War. It is possible that if there had been no British Empire (which a Jeremy Corbyn would never have allowed) Hitler might not have got the same idea. No wars, no deaths, no terror and definitelty no trident. No Hiroshima, no Nagasaki and definitely no drones. The billions saved would have paid for welfare reform. I’m sure there would be a downside to a Corbyn government but at least a lot more human beings would be alive and the world would not target or hate the British for what they did worldwide with their military killing machines.

With many thanks to: Peter McEvoy Banbridge, Co Down. In a letter to The Irish News. Friday August 21st 2015.

Posted from WordPress for Android

Revealed: Britain sold nerve gas chemicals to Syria 10 months after war began.

l

BRITAIN allowed firms to sell chemicals to Syria capable of being used to make nerve gas, we can reveal today.

Export licences for potassium fluoride and sodium fluoride were granted months after the bloody civil war in the Middle East began.

The chemical is capable of being used to make weapons such as sarin, thought to be the nerve gas used in the attack on a rebel-held Damascus suburb which killed nearly 1500 people, including 426 children, 10 days ago.

President Bashar Assad’s forces have been blamed for the attack, leading to calls for an armed response from the West.

British MPs voted against joining America in a strike. But last night, President Barack Obama said he will seek the approval of Congress to take military action.

The chemical export licences were granted by Business Secretary Vince Cable’s Department for

Business, Innovation and Skills last January – 10 months after the Syrian uprising began.

They were only revoked six months later, when the European Union imposed tough sanctions on Assad’s regime.

Yesterday, politicians and anti-arms trade campaigners urged Prime Minister David Cameron to explain why the licences were granted.

Dunfermline and West Fife Labour MP Thomas Docherty, who sits on the House of Commons’ Committees on Arms Export Controls, plans to lodge Parliamentary questions tomorrow and write to Cable.

He said: “At best it has been negligent and at worst reckless to export material that could have been used to create chemical weapons.

“MPs will be horrified and furious that the UK Government has been allowing the sale of these

ingredients to Syria.

“What the hell were they doing granting a licence in the first place?

“I would like to know what investigations have been carried out to establish if any of this

material exported to Syria was subsequently used in the attacks on its own people.”

The SNP’s leader at Westminster, Angus Robertson MP, said: “I will be raising this in Parliament as soon as possible to find out what examination the UK Government made of where these chemicals were going and what they were to be used for.

“Approving the sale of chemicals which can be converted into lethal weapons during a civil war is a very serious issue.

“We need to know who these chemicals were sold to, why they were sold, and whether the UK Government were aware that the chemicals could potentially be used for chemical weapons.

“The ongoing humanitarian crisis in Syria makes a full explanation around these shady deals even more important.”

Mark Bitel of the Campaign Against Arms Trade (Scotland) said: “The UK Government claims to have an ethical policy on arms exports, but when it comes down to practice the reality is very different.

“The Government is hypocritical to talk about chemical weapons if it’s granting licences to companies to export to regimes such as Syria.

“We saw David Cameron, in the wake of the Arab Spring, rushing off to the Middle East with arms companies to promote business.”

Some details emerged in July of the UK’s sale of the chemicals to Syria but the crucial dates of the exports were withheld.

The Government have refused to identify the licence holders or say whether the licences were issued to one or two companies.

The chemicals are in powder form and highly toxic. The licences specified that they should be used for making aluminium structures such as window frames.

Professor Alastair Hay, an expert in environmental toxicology at Leeds University, said: “They have a variety of industrial uses.

“But when you’re making a nerve agent, you attach a fluoride element and that’s what gives it

its toxic properties.

“Fluoride is key to making these munitions.

“Whether these elements were used by Syria to make nerve agents is something only subsequent investigation will reveal.”

The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills said: “The UK Government operates one of the most rigorous arms export control regimes in the world.

“An export licence would not be granted where we assess there is a clear risk the goods might be used for internal repression, provoke or prolong conflict within a country, be used aggressively against another country or risk our national security.

“When circumstances change or new information comes to light, we can – and do – revoke licences where the proposed export is no longer consistent with the criteria.”

Assad’s regime have denied blame for the nerve gas attack, saying the accusations are “full of lies”. They have pointed the finger at rebels.

UN weapons inspectors investigating the atrocity left Damascus just before dawn yesterday and crossed into Lebanon after gathering evidence for four days.

They are now travelling to the Dutch HQ of the Organisation for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons.

It could take up to two weeks for the results of tests on samples taken from victims of the attack, as well as from water, soil and shrapnel, to be revealed.

On Thursday night, Cameron referred to a Joint Intelligence Committee report on Assad’s use of chemical weapons as he tried in vain to persuade MPs to back military action. The report said the regime had used chemical weapons at least 14 times since last year.

Russian president Vladimir Putin yesterday attacked America’s stance and urged Obama to show evidence to the UN that Assad’s regime was guilty.

Russia and Iran are Syria’s staunchest allies. The Russians have given arms and military backing to Assad during the civil war which has claimed more than 100,000 lives.

Putin said it would be “utter nonsense” for Syria to provoke opponents and spark military

retaliation from the West by using chemical weapons.

But the White House, backed by the French government, remain convinced of Assad’s guilt, and Obama proposes “limited, narrow” military action to punish the regime.

He has the power to order a strike, but last night said he would seek approval from Congress.

Obama called the chemical attack “an assault on human dignity” and said: “We are prepared to strike whenever we choose.”

He added: “Our capacity to execute this mission is not time-sensitive. It will be effective tomorrow, or next week, or one month from now.

“And I’m prepared to give that order.”

Some fear an attack on Syria will spark retaliation against US allies in the region, such

as Jordan, Turkey and Israel.

General Lord Dannatt, the former head of the British Army, described the Commons vote as a “victory for common sense and democracy”.

He added that the “drumbeat for war” had dwindled among the British public in recent days.

With many thanks to : Russell Findlay, Daily Record.

Related articles

• Another Obama War: All signs point to Syria chemical attack being a false flag (fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com)
• Syria Is Not the Threat… Cameron & Obama Are. (chrisspivey.co.uk)

ARMING REBELS IN SYRIA ‘ NOT THE ANSWER ‘ !!!

THE UNITED NATIONS peace envoy to Syria said he could see no swift end to textremelyrutal civil war and urged the international community to increase diplomatic pressure on the regime. ” I’m afraid I do not expect miracles any time soon,” Lakhdar Brahimi said.

But he insisted arming the rebels – a move being contemplated byieen and France – was not the solution. Mr Brahimi said the situation on the ground was ” extremely bad and getting worse all the time “. He said he had no contact with Syrian preident Bashar Assad since the end of December. ” I haven’t seen and I do not see any improvement. Each one of them, I think, still beleives that military victory is possible for their side,” he said. ” And therefore, the intensity of the intensity of the fighting is increasing and exspanding. ” I consider it a given the Syrian parties at present are not capable of solving the problem themselves. ” My hope and also my polite criticism is really to the international community – to the Security Council members, in particular to China and to Russia and the United States.

” I think they should be talking to one another with much, much more urgency and perhapes taking some decisions going to the Security Council and speaking to the parties and to the region in much more forceful terms than they have until now.” London and Paris are facing stiff resistance within the EU to calls for an arms embargo to be lifted to allow weapons to be sent to opposition forces – a move approved in recent days by the Arab League. Mr Brahimi said that was ” not the way ” to end the conflict. ” Pouring more arms to the opposition would bring more arms to the government and that will not solve the problem,” he said. He accepted that conditions for refugees were ” extremely bad ” but said the resources were simply not there to deal with the scale of the humanitarian crisis. The number fleeing the violence is projected to have trebled to three million by the end of the year. ” With all admiration, respect and gratitude for the generosity of the international community, I don’t think the international community is going to be able to provide 1.5 billion dollers every six months for the Syrians,” he said. So it is desperately urgent that some real work is done by everybody to get control over the situation inside Syria and bring this conflict to an end.”

With many thanks to : Irish News.

Related articles

• Breaking News: Arming Syrian rebels ‘not answer’ (crosbyherald.co.uk)
• Arming Syrian rebels ‘not answer’ (independent.ie)
• Arming Syrian rebels ‘not answer’ (standard.co.uk)
• Arming Syrian rebels ‘not answer’ The United Nations peace envoy to Syria said he could see no swift end to the brutal civil war and urged the international community to increase diplomatic pressure on the regime. (belfasttelegraph.co.uk)
• National News: Arming Syrian rebels ‘not answer’ (coventrytelegraph.net)

Activists: Dozens dead in new Syria massacre

BEIRUT(AP) — Syria on Thursday denied as “absolutely baseless” claims by opposition groups about a new massacre in the central Hama province in which government forces allegedly killed dozens of people, including women and children.

The exact death toll and circumstances of the overnight killings in Mazraat al-Qubair on the outskirts of Hama were impossible to confirm but the violence is bound to reinforce the growing belief that a peace plan brokered by international envoy Kofi Annan is unraveling as the country spirals toward civil war.

The violence comes on the heels of a horrific massacre in late May in Houla, a cluster of villages in the central Homs province, which left over 100 dead including many children and women gunned down in their homes. U.N. investigators blamed pro-government gunmen for at least some of the killings but the Syrian regime denied responsibility and blamed rebels for the deaths. The Houla massacre triggered international outrage and a coordinated expulsion of Syrian diplomats from world capitals.

Syria on Thursday said “an armed terrorist group committed an appalling crime” in Mazraat al-Qubair, killing nine women and children. A government statement published on the state-run news agency SANA said that after the crime, residents there appealed on Syrian authorities in Hama to intervene to protect them, adding that competent authorities headed to the farm and stormed a hideout of the group and clashed with them.

Clashes resulted in the killing of all members of the group. Two security agents were killed and five others wounded, it said.

The statement said the killings were meant to put pressure on the Syrian regime ahead of the U.N. Security Council meeting.

British Prime Minister David Cameron urged concerted action from the international community against Syrian President Bashar Assad‘s regime following the latest reports. He said Thursday that if the reports of the “brutal and sickening attack” are true, it adds further proof that the Assad regime is “completely illegitimate and cannot stand.”

Speaking during a visit to Norway, Cameron insisted more must be done to isolate Assad’s regime and show that “the whole world” wants to see political transition in Syria and condemns “absolutely” the Syrian regime.

The exact circumstances of the violence in Hama were impossible to independently confirm.

Al-Qubair is a small farm in the overwhelmingly Sunni village of Maarzaf around 20 kilometers (12 miles) west of the city of Hama with around 30 homes and around 160 inhabitants. Attempts to reach eyewitnesses and residents of the area were unsuccessful Thursday, making the verification of what went on extremely difficult. The Syrian government keeps tight restrictions on journalists.

Activists said the Sunni village is surrounded by a string of Alawite villages. Alawites are an offshoot of Shiite Islam and Assad is a member of the sect.

The Britain-based Observatory for Human Rights said Thursday that “dozens” of people were killed overnight in Mazraat al-Qubair but Rami Abdul-Rahman, the director of the group which relies on a network of activists on the ground, said he was still documenting names of the dead. He said the circumstances of the killings were still unclear and called on U.N. observers to visit the area immediately.

The Local Coordination Committees group gave a far higher death toll, saying more than 78 people were killed, including many women and children. It says pro-government militiamen known as shabiha first shelled the farming area and then went in and killed the residents there. It says some of the dead were stabbed to death while other bodies were burned.

Syria’s main opposition group in exile, the Syrian National Council, also said 78 people were killed. It said 35 of them were from the same Al-Yatim family and more than half of them women and children. It said the militiamen converged on Qubair from neighboring pro-regime villages. It said some of the dead were killed execution-style, others were slain with knives.

“Women and children were burned inside their homes in al-Qubair,” said Mousab Alhamadee, an activist based in the central province of Hama.

WITH MANY THANKS TO : By ZEINA KARAM, Associated Press

Related articles

• Syria accused of massacring 100 (guardian.co.uk)
• New ‘massacre’ in central Syria (bbc.co.uk)
• Hama Massacre: Activists Report New Violence In Qubair, Syria, At Least 78 Dead (inquisitr.com)
• Syria accused of massacring 100 – The Guardian (guardian.co.uk)
• Activists say pro-government militia and security forces have killed at least … – The Guardian (guardian.co.uk)

+18 A 7-year-old child girl is injured seriously by Assad in Ariha,Idlib,Syria June 02,2012.mp4

 For everyone who disagrees with me on this issue or that:
1- I respect your opinion but I don’t think that you understood the reason why we have a revolution in the first place,, and it is to SAY WHAT WE WANT WITHOUT FEARING ANYONE. WE SHOULD RESPECT EACH OTHER’S OPINION WHETHER WE LIKE IT OR NOT!! I am not defending anyone but whether I want to quote Bush or McCain, i think i am entitled to ! And will continue to speak up and say my opinion even if it is liked or not. We live in the 21 century.
2- Be sure that will not allow anyone to hijack this revolution, even if it was one of the field activists themselves. Syrians are fully aware of this! We are not going to substitute a tyrant with another.
3- The killing did not stop for 14 months so far, and in fact a massacre happened yesterday in Khan Shaykhon. DID YOU HEAR ANYONE SAY ANYTHING? 14 MONTHS AND WE ARE IN OUR SECOND YEAR. SO PLEASE DON’T ATTACK ANYONE FOR SPEAKING WHAT’S ON THEIR MIND.

 POSTED ON BEHALF OF :  We are all Hamza Alkhateeb

Related articles

• Military action in Syria only under U.N., says France (thehindu.com)
• Syria’s doctors risk danger to help wounded (altahrir.wordpress.com)
• Syrian Regime Ups Ante With Tanks, Artillery (raptureimminent.wordpress.com)
• US Senator John McCain calls for air strikes on Syria (telegraph.co.uk)
• You: Arabs urge UN action amid fears of civil war in Syria (nation.com.pk)

SLAUGHTER IN SYRIA

FRESH scenes of the horrific slaughter of innocent civilians in Syria have emerged as violence in the Middle Eastern country spirals out of control.The images show tearful children sobbing over the bloodied bodies of relatives killed in another massacre carried out by forces loyal to President Bashar Assad. In the most recent atrocity it was claimed that pro-regime militia killed 12 factory workers on Thursday after forcing them off a bus in the village of Qusair. 

Video footage released by Assad’s opponents showed the disfigured bodies of at least a dozen victims who were shot in the head or stomach at close range. It follows the slaughter of more than 100 civilians, including 49 children, in Houla last week. Syria’s most important ally, Russia, has again refused to support moves that could lead to foreign intervention.

Last Thursday, a Syrian goverernment investigation into the killings blamed armed rebel groups seeking to trigger foreign military interventon. The claim was dismissed by US permanent representative to the UN, Susan Rice, as a ” BLATANT LIE ” !

Related articles

• UN Condemns Syria, but Russia … (foxnews.com)
• I saw massacre of children, says defecting Syrian air force officer (guardian.co.uk)
• UN: Syria may face prosecution over massacre – Jerusalem Post (jpost.com)
• UN Rights Body Discusses Syrian Slaughter – Voice of America (voanews.com)
• More deadly clashes over Syria erupt in Lebanon (cbc.ca)