The Broader
Design of the Anti-Syria Forces
The
Imperialist Violence in Syria, Part 2 of 7 -
Part 1
By Kim
Petersen and B. J. Sabri
January 09,
2016 "Information
Clearing House"
-
Previously, we
asked,
why is Russia concerned about US-promoted violence
Syria?
In a news
dispatch, "Why
Russia is standing by Syria's Assad,"
BBC, the voice of British imperialism,
answers our question with these words, "By standing
up for Damascus, the Kremlin is telling the world
that neither the UN, nor any other body or group of
countries has the right to decide who should or
should not govern a sovereign state." The writers
agree with the expressed sentiment; however,
Russia's position on the Syrian conflict should be
looked at from a different perspective. A principled
Russia appears to have concluded that the
US-engineered violence in Syria, Iraq, Yemen,
Ukraine, and other parts of the world is a means to
implement a longstanding agenda: global US
imperialist domination. We, therefore, view Russia's
intervention in Syria as a way to stop the United
States from carrying out its plans for devouring the
world, one country at a time. If the relentless US
attempts to place world nations under its control or
tutelage are allowed to go unchallenged, Russia and
China will be left completely isolated to defend
their own people, territory, history, culture,
economy, aspirations, and way of life from American
imperialist predation.
Most notably,
after Russian jets started hitting terrorist camps
and infrastructures regardless of their "Islamic" or
"secular" affiliations or the phony distinction
between "extremist" and "moderate," many voices,
especially American and those of her Arab and
European vassals, clamored against its entry in
Syria. Their objection is preposterous: that
Russia's involvement is an aggravating factor
leading to the prolongation of war.
First, if that
were so, why did the West and co-actors allow the
carnage to continue before Russia called their
bluff? Second, the US is not interested in ending
the war on the Arabs even if Assad falls. There is
no reason to doubt that after Assad, ISIS and
sisters would take his place in the American agenda
as evidenced by US officials repeatedly declaring
that defeating ISIS would take 10 to
30 years. However, 30 years
later and long after ISIS has disappeared from the
news, it is expected—based on the historical
record—that the United States would continue to
create pretexts and persist in its interventionist
policies. Emphatically, deciding how this conflict
should end must never be allowed to rest in the
hands of US imperialists and Zionist neocons—and
this is what Russia is trying to do. In essence,
starting with Syria, Russia is powerfully moving to
end US hegemony. Second, the clamor seems to suggest
that only the United States (and its European
vassals) should enjoy the unrequested privilege to
fly sorties against targets of its choosing—like
hitting bare dunes or insignificant targets instead
of encamped or convoyed armed groups. This can
explain why after 14 months of American bombardment
of Syria and Iraq, US-trained groups (like ISIS,
al-Nusra, etc.) were still doing well and expanding.
Curiously, did
analysts ever point to the fact that western air
campaigns, regardless of who carries them out, are
destroying Syria's civilian and economic
infrastructures? Consider this: While Russia is
confining itself to hitting the military structures
and transport logistics of ISIS and affiliated
organizations, the West pursued an extremist agenda
to bring about the dissolution of the current Syrian
state: namely, the systematic destruction of its
economic assets. When the Pentagon brags "Most
of Islamic State’s oil refineries in Syria have been
destroyed,” when Britain's
RAF bombs ISIS "oil fields,”
and when
France joins in the wanton
destruction, the fact remains: there is no "Islamic
State" except in name. And there are no refineries
belonging to it—snatching them is another issue.
However, what the US, British, and French
jetfighters—and as of late even Russia, as reported
by the
Independent—destroyed
were expensive oil-refining structures, facilities,
and oil trucks belonging to the Syrian people.
Ample evidence
suggests that the West created so-called ISIS as a
pretext to attack Syria (and partition Iraq) without
a declaration of war. As for the denomination of
"Islamic State," we should mention that, besides how
this terrorist organization likes to call itself,
only the West emphasizes it is a "state" and
capitalizes both noun and adjective. Most Arab
media, on the other hand, correctly call it "the
organization of the islamic state." (Notes: 1) there
is no capitalization in the Arabic language, 2) the
present writers call it islamist state without
capitalization because this western creation has
nothing to do with Islam, hence it should not share
its adjective; in addition, it is not a state.)
Based on our
observations of the military developments just after
the entry of Russia, we could say that the US was in
a race with time to destroy Syria before Russia
destroys the foreign-backed Islamist groups.
Secretary of State John Kerry explained this design
in a twisted way. He recently said, "US
wants to avoid total destruction of Syria."
What he essentially meant was this:
the United States wants the destruction of Syria but
not all the way to total. Besides, why did he say
this just now and not immediately after becoming
State Secretary?
Recently, 55
Wahhabist and Muslim Brothers "scholars" in Saudi
Arabia issued a so-called jihad fatwa against the
"Russian Orthodox Crusaders."1
Well, during the past 14 months of illegal US
bombardment of Syria (and now of ground troops in
the guise of advisors to their terrorist groups), we
never heard these dubious characters releasing even
a whisper against the "American multi-religion
Crusaders." This episode can tell us just a little
bit, as to who is directing Saudi Wahhabists and
associates.
Writing about
violence in Syria without investigating first the
forces that created and shaped it is similar to
investigating ocean tides without mentioning the
role of the moon in creating them. Accordingly, we
must attempt to frame the issue of violence in Syria
in exacting terms: who is turning Syria into a
wasteland and theater of death similar to those the
United States and Britain created in Iraq, to a
slightly lesser extent in Libya, and now in Yemen
via the fascist Wahhabi state of Saudi Arabia?
Let us begin
by citing the Syrian regime's harsh response
(resulting in deaths) to the anti-regime protests in
Daraa. First, that Daraa was the starting point of
the protests is by itself very suspicious for one
good reason. Daraa is a border city with Jordan.
This means many foreign intelligence services in
cooperation with the sold-to-imperialism Jordanian
regime had easy access to foment protests under the
guise of the so-called Arab Spring.
Our
question: who, just three weeks after that response,
poured gasoline on the fire and began installing
tent cities in Turkey and Jordan in expectation of
refugees? This suggests that someone was expecting
mass violence to erupt and refugees to start
escaping to neighboring countries. Who then sent
Saudi, European, Chechen, and others Islamists to
Syria, armed them with heavy weapons, anti-tank
missiles, gave them salaries, dressed them with
Afghani garbs, made them carry black banners with
religious themes taken from the Saudi flag, and
topped all that with convoys of brand-new shimmering
Toyota trucks?2
What should be
done if the anti-war front does not possess the
material means to end the bloodshed? How to stop the
tens of thousands of foreign groups paid for and
armed mostly by Saudi Arabia and Qatar, and trained
by the US and its regional clients Turkey and
Jordan? Is it not ludicrous to watch killers coming
to Syria from every corner of the world to overthrow
the Syrian government under the banners of an Islam
turned into a cult and re-defined and supported by
the Wahhabis of the Gulf, by the United States, by
the West, and of course by Israel?
To emphasize
our point: the unspeakable destruction of Syria is
not a Syrian-made event. Those who are destroying
Syria and killing its people are doing it following
a precise imperialist design using tried-and-tested
violence carried out before in many parts of the
world. The pain of the Syrian people is undoubtedly
real. While the present writers express our deepest
sorrow for all those who have died and empathy with
all those who are still alive but may still die
senselessly pending a solution, we need to uncover
more facts.
For instance,
we noticed that those who armed the domestic
opponents of the Syrian regime— such as so-called
free Syrian army (composed of defectors and other
unknown elements), as well as foreign islamist
terrorists, and non-Muslim mercenaries—never tire
from repeating that they are fighting in response to
the Syrian regime's atrocities. Yet, they themselves
are the direct cause of atrocities and terrorism.
We also
noticed that the US and its Arab and Turkish
instruments are in the sleazy habit of saying they
support freedom in Syria. We wonder, since when have
the rulers of Americans, Turks, Saudis, Qataris, and
Emiratis ever cared about freedom, democracy, human
rights, and the prosperity of nations? Where is
meaningful evidence for this? What is the broader
design of the forces that organized international
death legions and ordered them to destroy Syria
under the pretext of fighting a bad regime?
While we are
on the subject, since the objective of US
imperialism is known: global, unrestrained
hegemony, why is Syria in the bullseye of
countries like Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Qatar? Have
these countries, known for their dreadful
suppression of freedom and political rights become
overnight the standard-bearers of humanist values,
personal freedoms, and political emancipation!
From the
Right, Left, and from everywhere, genuine and
crocodile tears had been shed for the victims of
violence in Syria; sincere but also fake grief had
been heaped on the plight of refugees. Yet, with all
exceptions considered, the near generalized
destruction of Syria and its rich historical and
human heritage is obliquely mentioned. And, we see
images of cities destroyed, heads decapitated,
people thrown from rooftops, captives burnt alive,
women raped, and men and women (accused of “illicit
sex”) stoned to death, the blame in western media
and Arab news outlets (mostly owned by Saudi Arabia
and Qatar) invariably goes to the Syrian regime—but
never to terrorist groups and their backers.
Is it not odd
that the Qatari ruling family supports the Muslim
Brothers in Syria with all means possible while its
governing system, besides housing American military
bases, is void of any sign of the Brothers' values?
Saudi Arabia is another ridiculous story. It
proselytizes Wahhabism, arms and trains the
inductees, put them at the service of the United
States to conduct terrorism—especially in the Arab
states that oppose US hegemony, but then it boasts
it is fighting a Syrian regime that kills its
people!
From our side,
we shall never tire from repeatedly posing the same
questions: who wants to see Syria destroyed and
why? Unless one posits a pathological
intolerance and hatred for Syria's government, it is
hard to come up with an elucidating rationale for
Saudi Arabia's violent animus. This leads us to
consider an outside agent. What caused the Saudi
rulers to assume a primary role in the destruction
of Syria, and before it a role in the destruction of
Iraq, then Libya, and now Yemen? Who is destroying
the Arab lands with their marvelous cultural,
ethnic, and religious mosaics? How could anyone
understand anything about violence in Syria if the
prevailing tendency to analyze it is focused on
flash news and made-for-mass-media stories?
Overlooking related facts—by design, conformity,
lack of specific knowledge, or just plain
powerlessness—has also become a trend. This has not
only caused the roots of the conflict to be
eventually oversimplified, but it has also diluted
the long documented history behind the war's growth
and expansion. In short, who wants to see Syria
destroyed and why? Let us investigate.
In a 2007 TV
interview, Gen. Wesley Clark stated the following:
About
ten days after 9/11, I went through the Pentagon and
I saw Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary
Wolfowitz. I went downstairs just to say ‘hello’ to
some of the people in the joint staff who used to
work for me, and one of the Generals called me in.
He said, ‘Sir, you’ve got to come in and talk to me
for a second.’ I said, ‘You’re too busy.’ He said,
‘No. We have made the decision we’re going to war
with Iraq.’ I said, ‘We’re going to war with Iraq?
Why?’ He said, ‘I don’t know, I guess they don’t
know what else to do.’ So I said, ‘Well did they
find some information connecting Saddam to
Al-Qaeda?’ He said, ‘No, there’s nothing new that
way, they just made the decision to go to war with
Iraq.’ So I came back to see the same guy a few
weeks later, and by that time we were bombing in
Afghanistan. I said, ‘Are we still going to war with
Iraq?’ And he said, ‘Oh it’s worse than that.’ And
he reached over to his desk, picked up a piece of
paper and he said, ‘I’ve just got this down from
upstairs.’ (Meaning the Secretary of Defence’s [sic]
office) and he said, ‘This is a memo that describes
how we’re going to take out seven countries in five
years, starting with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon,
Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran.’ I said, ‘Is it
classified?’ He said, ‘Yes, sir.’ I said, ‘Well
don’t show it to me.’ And I saw him a year or so
later and I said, ‘You remember that…?’ He said,
‘Sir, I didn’t show you that memo. I didn’t show it
to you.3
In a TV
interview
that took place two years before large-scale
violence exploded in Syria, Roland Dumas, former
French Foreign Minister said the following:
I’m
going to tell you something. I was in England, two
years before the violence in Syria, on other
business. 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 organizing an invasion of rebels into
Syria. They even asked me, although I was no longer
Minister for Foreign Affairs, if I would like to
participate.” Responding to a question on the motive
behind inciting violence in Syria, Dumas said, “Very
simple, with a very simple aim – to overthrow the
Syrian government because in the region it’s
important to understand that the Syrian regime makes
anti-Israeli talk.” And then the former Foreign
Minister added that he’d been told, by an Israeli
Prime Minister a long time ago, that Tel Aviv would
seek to destroy any country that did not get along
with it in the region. It is not just about Israel,
it is about the acquisition of country after country
across the Middle and Near East, North Africa and
then going deeper and deeper South into Africa. This
has been planned for decades.4
Next: Part 3
of 7
NOTES
-
Al Monitor, “Saudi
religious scholars enraged over Moscow's recent
Syria strikes.”
-
For
reading: “Obama
Proposes $500 Million to Aid Syrian Rebels”;
“The
nations that sent arms and money to Syria”;
“Where
Does ISIS Get Those Wonderful Toys?”;
“See
other "ISIS" convoys.”
-
Reported at Humans Are Free
website, “The
Hidden Truth Behind Syria and the Arab Spring.”
-
Reported at Humans Are Free
website, “The
Hidden Truth Behind Syria and the Arab Spring.”
Kim
Petersen is a former
editor of the Dissident Voice newsletter. He can
be reached at
kimohp@inbox.com
B. J.
Sabri is an observer of
the politics of modern colonialism, imperialism,
Zionism, and of contemporary Arab issues. He can be
reached at
b.j.sabri@aol.com
|