Search This Blog


對敘利亞及伊朗的一些想法 Some Thoughts on Syria and Iran

Dees Illustration
By Andrew J. Fell

I had a disheartening conversation with my friend a few days ago. We were discussing, as we often do, the current geo-political events that are unraveling and the subject moved onto Syria pretty quickly. I don't often watch TV, but I sat with him and watched some of the coverage pretending to be news and felt sick to my stomach; the media bandwagon is whooping and cheering its way into yet another conflict -- deja vu doesn't quite describe it.

The reason I said the conversation was disheartening is that not only did my friend, who is normally a staunch advocate of peace, feel that it was right for 'us' (as he put it) to be arming an armed insurgency in a sovereign country, but he strongly supports the West becoming embroiled in another regime change for the second time in a year.

This isn't to say he is now a bad human being -- far from it -- merely that he, like most of the general population, continues to be duped, time and again by an ever more crafty military-industrial propaganda machine. Coverage from the BBC, CNN, CNBC and all the other 'alphabet' news agencies are testament to that -- if one were to believe their word alone, this conflict has been a purely one-sided affair where President Assad has just suddenly decided to start massacring his civilian population for holding up some protest signs. I would say ten minutes research into these claims should put them to rest, or, at the very least, demonstrate that neither side is in the right. The key issue, once again, is not the information contained within the corporate media's news coverage, but it is the systematic omission of key facts regarding the relevant background to these events -- thus not allowing people to make their own critical decisions based upon all the information available. The question should be asked, how did this chain of events start in the first place?

The Assad government in Syria is not smelling of roses, but this whole scenario has been carefully set in motion from its inception via the pumping of money and training of armed groups by the Western powers -- something admitted to only 2 years ago by the American Government -- to its unfortunate, seemingly inevitable, conclusion: Assad being deposed and Syria [followed by Iran perhaps?] in chaos and flames. It's pretty much the exact definition of the Hegelian Dialectic -- problem, reaction, solution. For example, if the US had not been funding armed militants in Syria, there would be no unrest and therefore no interventionist solution would be required. The US hasn't been funding the opposition in Saudi Arabia have they?

But what about the humanitarian situation? Isn't it the moral duty of NATO, with the backing of the UN, to start bombing Syria in order that its civilians be saved, ergo the twisted logic of today's mass media? The very suggestion that America is concerned about the humanitarian crisis is laughable to say the least; the examples of Bahrain, Iraq or Israel puts that to rest!

If the Americans were funding armed opposition groups in (lets pick some arbitrarily) Bahrain, Egypt, China, Oman, Ethiopia, Kazakhstan, Israel, Uzbekistan, Saudi Arabia, Burma, Nigeria, Thailand, Morocco, Qatar -- how do you think these governments would react? I would argue that not only would they react comparably, but in actuality even more ruthlessly; one only has to look at the brutal crackdown and murder of its own citizens during the uprising by both Bahraini and Saudi forces last year to see this in practice -- not to mention the jailing of dozens of doctors for doing nothing more than assisting the injured. Similarly, there have been massacres committed in China (Ngaba) and Uzbekistan (Andijan) just within the past few years during protests there. There are many more examples throughout the world.

Imagine foreign-funded snipers taking pot-shots at the police in the UK? Not only would this be treated as an act of war, but I'm pretty sure the authorities would come down on them like a ton of bricks -- just like they did in Northern Ireland in the not-so-distant past.

I'm not seeking to excuse the killing of civilians by Assad, and I'm not suggesting that we support these despotic governments, but we should look at the wider context of what is going on and how this particular state of affairs has been fomented from the start.

Who exactly is this opposition? Are they any better than Assad? Search for 'US funding Syrian Opposition' or 'Syrian Opposition Terrorist' and you will see articles including this one which shows openly how the West has been posturing for this current stand-off for several years.  Or this:  And this: which shows that the 'intelligence' [sic] services are fully aware that the very same people who are fighting US troops in Iraq are now being backed by the US in the insurgency in Syria. Wednesday -- terrorist, Thursday -- freedom fighter. It boggles the mind!

This rhetoric directed towards Syria is, of course, inexorably linked with that being directed toward its ally Iran with -- and I say this with a sad heart -- a larger regional war being the probable eventual outcome.

If we can recall, the media and the government prior to the Iraq invasion were absolutely adamant that not only did Saddam Hussein have WMD's, but that he could use them in a matter of minutes, sexed up or not! The similarities between current reporting and the news stories, then, are staggering -- have a quick watch of this video for some examples of this occurring:

I don't believe, however, that Iran is trying to produce nuclear weapons, as has been confirmed by all 16 US Intelligence Agencies,,0,5827032.story. And we shouldn't forget that they, so far at least, have been developing their civilian nuclear program well within the auspices of their international commitments -- it is in fact their right to do this, having signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (unlike Israel which never complies with any international sanctions or agreements directed towards them).

Another point worth considering: would the policies being put into place, the sanctions etc., actually not have the opposite effect and put Iran in the direction of actually trying to develop a nuclear capability due to their backs being against the wall? If this is the case, then the question must be posed, Why the hell would anybody in their right mind want to do this? Well, it's a fairly easy question to answer -- the elites are completely and utterly out of their minds with barely any semblance of rational morality!

However, let's assume for the sake of argument that what they say concerning Iran's nuclear ambitions has a semblance of truth. If we are to contemplate the logical process of Iran having WMD's, we also have to consider what Iran would do if indeed they did have them.  I would say, without any hesitation, precisely nothing; just like if this had been the case of Saddam having them. Would Iran really attack nuclear-armed nations such as the US, Israel, or Britain? Would they hell! If they did develop this capability would it not serve as a deterrent, just like in the case of North Korea? I think, fairly obviously, it would. This is without going into the discussion on the morality of anyone having these horrendous, insane devices in the first place, but I feel the point is made.

One doesn't have to look too hard to see that the West has been doing everything in their power to evoke a reaction from the Iranians. Here are but a few: the banning of all currency transactions with the non-Rothschild-owned Iranian Central Bank; the electronic blocking and subsequent banning of the broadcast of PressTV; the murder of Iranian nuclear scientists on the streets of Tehran; the positioning of carrier groups just outside of Iranian territorial waters; flimsily blaming very fishy attacks on Israeli diplomats on Iran; etc etc.

The global elites are not pursuing peace in any shape of form as they claim to be, which should be patently obvious to any rational observer; far from it, they are doing everything in their power to not only foment a war, but one the likes of which we have never seen. A war which would most likely drag in China and Russia, and truly polarize this world in which we live.

War, especially pre-emptive war, does not solve these issues, and only leads to more human misery without improving the plight of those who are having to live through it -- look at Iraq -- prima facie!

So, in conclusion, if what is being presented to us is not the truth then what is? This is a loaded question with a multitude of possible subsidiary questions which, together, probably all form a part of the real story. Some of these are below and not all of them tie in with my current thinking, but they should at the very least be put into consideration:
  • Is it a stepping stone along the way toward instituting a One World Government? Probably -- in order for the elites to introduce their concept of a NWO (look up Tragedy and Hope by Carroll Quigley) they must first remove any obstacles from their path, and that would include regimes who are not sympathetic to their goals -- Syria and Iran are quite firmly in this category.
  • Is the West deliberately attempting to draw the other great super-powers, China and Russia into an all-out war by squeezing them of both their influence and their oil supplies? Quite probably -- Russia has a large naval presence in Syria, whilst China has lost major oil contracts with Libya and Sudan over the past year and is increasingly relying on Iran. It is also worth noting that Zbigniew Brzezinski, a key foreign policy adviser to Obama and previous administrations, has advocated through books such as the Grand Chessboard, the deliberate playing off of China and Russia through the disruption of China's oil supplies from the Middle East, thus forcing them to look greedily northwards towards Siberia. A seemingly outlandish view on the face of it, but increasingly more likely once you look at a map and see how China's supply lines are being increasingly taken away.
  • Are they purposefully destabilizing the Middle East in order to create an actual terrorist threat? Quite possibly -- the actions of the past 10 years certainly could be explained somewhat by this, especially in the context of September 11th, the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, which I think most people would agree have not reduced the so-called 'terrorist threat' by any measure of the imagination.
  • Is it part of the Zionist plan for a greater Israel of which Syria would be a part, or the Zionist/Evangelical Christian Belief (of which George Bush is one) that the 'rapture' will only come once there is a major conflict in the Middle East?  The fact that so many politicians in the west are publicly pro-Zionist in their philosophy gives more weight to this scenario. (Source)
  • Creating war will help save the world's economy from meltdown? I doubt it -- at most it would put the economic problems on hiatus.  However, considering that the world's economic problems can largely by blamed on these same people who are creating these wars, I think that it is unlikely this is their reason for starting them.
I'll leave it for you to decide what the real reasons are, for these are only some possible explanations for this seemingly inexplicable insanity. The only thing that I'm truly sure of at this point is that the pretext being fed to us for war is a lie and, personally, I'm trying to work backwards logically from that point.

We must learn our history and see that in many respects it is repeating itself.  It is a very Orwellian thing to say 'war is peace and peace is war' but that to me, in no uncertain terms, is exactly what is being presented to us. We should be outraged at this ridiculous state of affairs! Spread the word.