Ever since the unrest in Syria started towards the end of 2011, I have been interested to understand what has been happening there. I also reserved a space for skepticism, as I always to tend to reserve my beliefs over what the accepted stories we are given through the media. Thankfully I don’t watch TV, … Read More
Ever since the unrest in Syria started towards the end of 2011, I have been interested to understand what has been happening there. I also reserved a space for skepticism, as I always to tend to reserve my beliefs over what the accepted stories we are given through the media. Thankfully I don’t watch TV, so I suppose I am less exposed to the propaganda of news media channels and the close-minded and purposely naive mainstream media. One very important development I have come to learn about the entire puzzle of the Syrian crisis is the signing of the gas pipeline deal in early July 2011 between Iraq, Iran and Syria which would allow for gas to travel from Iran to Europe, greatly increasing Iran’s gas production by double when completed within 2 to 3 years. This news was reported by Tehran Times in July 25, 2011. It was not only about short few weeks that we started to hear about the opposition to President Bashar al-Assad on July of that year and oppositions groups formed the Syrian National Council in October of 2011. All efforts to remove Bashar al-Assad from power have resulted in deaths of thousands, just as al-Assad reported that he felt no remorse as he was fighting terrorists and defending the Syrians from these proclaimed terrorist organizations like al-Qaeda.
“We are fighting terrorists,” he said. “80-90% of those we are fighting belong to al-Qaeda. They are not interested in reform or in politics. The only way to deal with them is to annihilate them.”
It was not long until the U.S. proclaimed their wish for al-Assad to step down his presidency and attempted several times to set sanctions in place which have been blocked off by Russian and Chinese veto power in the UN. Ever since then, we have been seeing a split in the international community over Syria, with Russia on one side and U.S. on the other. What boggles most of people’s minds is that the so-called Syrian opposition has been openly been known to be conformed of al-Qaeda militants or terrorists and that the U.S. has been supplying them with weapons. In August of 2012, Obama announced his famous “red line”:
“We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus. That would change my equation.”
Now, if you were to think for a second, would not a leader of a terrorist organization who have openly become part of the opposition of Syria hear this and say: “Umm…You mean to tell me that if we were to use chemical weapons and we find a way to blame it on al-Assad, we could get the U.S. to officially back us up and finally topple the Syrian government?” To me this sounds reasonable to assume, as many experts and intellectuals have concluded, that if there is a side who would have benefit from the blaming of chemical weapons on the Syrian president is the rebels and not al-Assad. To top this all off, on July of this year a report came out that the Russian government had evidence that it was the rebels who have been using chemical weapons, most specifically Sarin gas in Aleppo. The report perhaps holds more validity than the U.S.’s because it did not come from a third party source, rather it was obtained by Russian sources directly and validated samples were tested by an internally certified lab. Therefore, if we are talking about chemical weapons usage, all evidence (and common sense) says that rebels most likely were behind all of this. So, the reason can not be chemical weapons and the U.S.’s sense of morality because we have enough historical data that suggests that were many instances of the U.S. openly being aware of mass killings of populations and children with chemical weapons and not only allowing it to happen but aiding it; some clear examples are Iraq, Sudan and Vietnam. So, does the West really care about people and they simply want to protect them from the possibility that Syria would attack America? Everything points that this is not the case, just as there were no WMDs in Iraq and the reason was simply because of oil. The reason now is not that much different this time and all we have seen is an opposition which has been aided by the U.S. as the culprit. If this is the case, not only is everyone being lied to but also we have tyrannical government ruling the world with threads of attacks and of omnipotent surveillance thanks to the NSA. We would have to wait and hope for the U.S. congress to be as intelligent as the U.K. parliament in their decision to not intervene and not go to war because it might just be a big one.