 |
| "Time For War" - Anthony Freda Art |
The Islamic State and the war in Syria is back on the front pages of the news once again on the heels of the alleged killing of James Mark Foley, an American journalist working in Syria. The outrage surrounding the alleged beheading of Foley, while justifiable if it is real, is already being used for propaganda purposes, namely in order to build up American support for an aerial bombing campaign against the Syrian government.
With this in mind, it is important to examine the facts surrounding the alleged execution of James Foley and the ways in which this incident is being used to justify more American military intervention in the Middle East and Syria specifically.
Questions Surrounding The Authenticity of the Video
While beheadings are by no means unbelievable or foreign to the Syrian destabilization crisis, the alleged beheading of journalist James Foley is one that should be viewed with some amount of healthy skepticism. Indeed, there are a number of anomalies associated this particular video that set it apart from the scores of other beheading videos produced by the Western-backed death squads attempting to overthrow the government of Bashar al-Assad and establish an Islamic caliphate across the Middle East.
A number of commentators have pointed out that James Foley
seems remarkably calm and collected in the video, particularly given the fact
that he knows that he is not very much longer for this world. Some may argue
that Foley is calm due to fact that he knows he is going to die and has made
peace with this fact, a condition that overtakes many when death is imminent.
Others, however, may point to this as evidence to the contrary, i.e. that Foley
knows he is not going to die and thus suggests that he is, in fact, acting in a
cleverly devised propaganda video.
Second, there is the fact of a distinct lack of blood in an execution that
involves the slicing of a human throat. As Syrian Free Press reports, when one slows down the
video, it is evident that the knife held by the death squad fighter cuts back
and forth 7-10 times. Yet there is not one drop of blood to be seen. This is
highly unusual to say the least.Third, and perhaps most damning, is the fact that the process of the actual beheading is censored. In all the videotaped beheadings that have taken place in the Syrian war since 2011, there have been none (at least as far as this writer knows) that have been censored by ISIS or any other death squad organization. Indeed, if the entire purpose of the beheading video is to create fear and outrage, then censoring the actual beheading is counterproductive.
US Controls ISIS
Lastly, it is important to point out that the Islamic State is not some shadowy force that emerged from the caves of Afghanistan to form an effective military force that is funded by Twitter donations and murky secretive finance deals. IS is entirely the creation of NATO and the West and it remains in control of the organization.
As Tony Cartalucci writes in his article “Implausible Deniability: West’s ISIS Terror Hordes In Iraq,”
Beginning in 2011 - and actually even as early as 2007 - the
United States has been arming, funding, and supporting the Muslim Brotherhood
and a myriad of armed terrorist organizations to overthrow the government of
Syria, fight Hezbollah in Lebanon, and undermine the power and influence of
Iran, which of course includes any other government or group in the MENA region
friendly toward Tehran.
Billions in cash have been funneled into the hands of
terrorist groups including Al Nusra, Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), and what is now
being called "Islamic State in Iraq and Syria" or ISIS. One can see
clearly by any map of ISIS held territory that it butts up directly against
Turkey's borders with defined corridors ISIS uses to invade southward - this is
because it is precisely from NATO territory this terrorist scourge originated.
ISIS was harbored on NATO territory, armed and funded by US CIA
agents with cash and weapons brought in from the Saudis, Qataris, and NATO
members themselves. The "non-lethal aid" the US and British sent including the vehicles we now see ISIS driving around in.
They didn't "take" this gear from
"moderates." There were never any moderates to begin with. The deadly
sectarian genocide we now see unfolding was long ago predicted by those in the
Pentagon - current and former officials - interviewed in 2007 by Pulitzer
Prize-winning veteran journalist Seymour Hersh.
Hersh's 9-page 2007 report, "The Redirection" states explicitly:
To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush
Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the
Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has coöperated with Saudi Arabia’s
government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to
weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has
also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A
by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist
groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and
sympathetic to Al Qaeda.
"Extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of
Islam" and are "sympathetic to Al Qaeda" - is a verbatim
definition of what ISIS is today. Clearly the words of Hersh were as prophetic
as they were factually informed, grounded in the reality of a regional conflict
already engineered and taking shape as early as 2007. Hersh's report would also
forewarn the sectarian nature of the coming conflict, and in particular mention
the region's Christians who were admittedly being protected by Hezbollah.
While Hersh’s report was written in 2007, knowledge of the
plan to use death squads to target Middle Eastern countries, particularly
Syria, had been reported on even as far back as 2005 by Michael Hirsh and John
Barry for Newsweek in an article entitled “The Salvador Option.”
Regardless, Cartalucci states in a separate article, “NATO’s Terror Hordes In Iraq A Pretext For Syria Invasion,”
Regardless, Cartalucci states in a separate article, “NATO’s Terror Hordes In Iraq A Pretext For Syria Invasion,”
In actuality, ISIS is the product of a joint NATO-GCC [Gulf
Cooperation Council] conspiracy stretching back as far as 2007 where US-Saudi
policymakers sought to ignite a region-wide sectarian war to purge the Middle
East of Iran's arch of influence stretching from its borders, across Syria and
Iraq, and as far west as Lebanon and the coast of the Mediterranean. ISIS has
been harbored, trained, armed, and extensively funded by a coalition of NATO
and Persian Gulf states within Turkey's (NATO territory) borders and has
launched invasions into northern Syria with, at times, both Turkish artillery
and air cover. The most recent example of this was the cross-border invasion by
Al Qaeda into Kasab village, Latikia province in northwest Syria.
Cartalucci is referring to a cross-border invasion that was coordinated
with NATO, Turkey, Israel, and the death squads where Israel acted as
air force cover while Turkey facilitated the death squad invasion from inside its
own borders.
Propaganda Used Early On To Blame Assad
It is also important to keep in mind that, when Foley was originally abducted, it was widely publicized that his captors were the Syrian government itself. This, of course, was a ridiculous assertion and was recognized as such by all legitimate researchers familiar with the Syrian crisis. The American people, however, bought the propaganda hook, line, and sinker. Now that a video has been released of Foley being beheaded by ISIS, the American people have shown that they do not have an attention span that reaches back to when Foley was used as propaganda in Syria the first time around.
For those that do have a lingering memory, propaganda pieces have been produced such as that ofMichael B. Kelley of Business Insider who laughably claims that Assad may have handed Foley over to ISIS, a group that Assad has been actively fighting since the start of the destabilization campaign in 2011. Kelley’s absurd suggestion reaches the point of absolute insanity when he even goes so far as to suggest that Assad created ISIS.
Propaganda Purposes in August, 2014 – American Bombing Of Syria
Regardless of whether or not the beheading video is real, the fact is that it is being used as a shameless piece of propaganda. The NATO powers are certainly not letting a good crisis go to waste.
As I have written on a number of occasions in the past, the goal is to drum up support from the American people for a bombing campaign or “limited strikes” inside Syria for the purpose of creating a buffer zone, a desire of NATO since the destabilization campaign began.
The reason that ISIS was allowed to seize such large swaths of territory across Iraq was an attempt to create a justification for the eventual invasion of Syria in addition to the reinvasion of Iraq. Indeed, any deployment of American troops, airstrikes, or any other type of US military force, will necessitate a battle against ISIS inside Iraq as well as “cross-border” strikes against the organization in Syria. Such “cross-border” strikes would likely be met with apathetic support from the American people since any restraint regarding borders will be presented and then viewed as placing “handcuffs on the troops.”
Any military action taken across the border inside Syria will not be taken for the purposes of eliminating ISIS. The truth is that such military action will be nothing more than a backdoor attempt at establishing the “buffer zone” that NATO so ardently desired early on in the Syrian conflict. With the establishment of this “buffer zone,” a new staging ground will be opened that allows terrorists such as ISIS and others the ability to conduct attacks even deeper inside Syria.
This pretext has already been publicly discussed in mainstream media outlets across the world. Take, for instance, the article by Patrick Cockburn published in The Independent on June 19, 2014 entitled “Iraq Crisis Exclusive: US Rules Out Military Action Until Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki Stands Down,” where Cockburn argues the necessity of a series of airstrikes to be launched against both Iraq and Syria.
Cockburn writes,
Propaganda Used Early On To Blame Assad
It is also important to keep in mind that, when Foley was originally abducted, it was widely publicized that his captors were the Syrian government itself. This, of course, was a ridiculous assertion and was recognized as such by all legitimate researchers familiar with the Syrian crisis. The American people, however, bought the propaganda hook, line, and sinker. Now that a video has been released of Foley being beheaded by ISIS, the American people have shown that they do not have an attention span that reaches back to when Foley was used as propaganda in Syria the first time around.
For those that do have a lingering memory, propaganda pieces have been produced such as that ofMichael B. Kelley of Business Insider who laughably claims that Assad may have handed Foley over to ISIS, a group that Assad has been actively fighting since the start of the destabilization campaign in 2011. Kelley’s absurd suggestion reaches the point of absolute insanity when he even goes so far as to suggest that Assad created ISIS.
Propaganda Purposes in August, 2014 – American Bombing Of Syria
Regardless of whether or not the beheading video is real, the fact is that it is being used as a shameless piece of propaganda. The NATO powers are certainly not letting a good crisis go to waste.
As I have written on a number of occasions in the past, the goal is to drum up support from the American people for a bombing campaign or “limited strikes” inside Syria for the purpose of creating a buffer zone, a desire of NATO since the destabilization campaign began.
The reason that ISIS was allowed to seize such large swaths of territory across Iraq was an attempt to create a justification for the eventual invasion of Syria in addition to the reinvasion of Iraq. Indeed, any deployment of American troops, airstrikes, or any other type of US military force, will necessitate a battle against ISIS inside Iraq as well as “cross-border” strikes against the organization in Syria. Such “cross-border” strikes would likely be met with apathetic support from the American people since any restraint regarding borders will be presented and then viewed as placing “handcuffs on the troops.”
Any military action taken across the border inside Syria will not be taken for the purposes of eliminating ISIS. The truth is that such military action will be nothing more than a backdoor attempt at establishing the “buffer zone” that NATO so ardently desired early on in the Syrian conflict. With the establishment of this “buffer zone,” a new staging ground will be opened that allows terrorists such as ISIS and others the ability to conduct attacks even deeper inside Syria.
This pretext has already been publicly discussed in mainstream media outlets across the world. Take, for instance, the article by Patrick Cockburn published in The Independent on June 19, 2014 entitled “Iraq Crisis Exclusive: US Rules Out Military Action Until Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki Stands Down,” where Cockburn argues the necessity of a series of airstrikes to be launched against both Iraq and Syria.
Cockburn writes,
The general support for the Sunni revolt in northern and
western Iraq will make it very difficult for any counter-offensive, which would
be facing far more opponents than Isis originally fielded. Isis now controls
almost all the Euphrates valley from Fallujah west of Baghdad through western
Iraq and eastern Syria as far as the Turkish border. Any long-term campaign
against Isis by the Iraqi government backed by US air power would require air
strikes in Syria as well as Iraq. The two countries have effectively become a
single battlefield.
Consider also, the writings of former State Department
Director of Policy Planning under the Obama administration, Anne Marie Slaughter, who has been foaming at the mouth
every bit as much as John McCain when it comes to the prospect of intervening
militarily in Syria. In her most recent op-ed in the New York Times, “Don’t Fight In Iraq And Ignore Syria,” the
appropriately-named Slaughter writes,
Deciding that the Syrian government, as bad as it is, was
still better than the alternative of ISIS profoundly missed the point. As long
as we allow the Syrian government to continue perpetrating the worst campaign
of crimes against humanity since Rwanda, support for ISIS will continue. As
long as we choose Prime Minister Maliki over the interests of his citizens, all
his citizens, his government can never be safe.
President Obama should be asking the same question in Iraq and Syria. What course of action will be best, in the short and the long term, for the Iraqi and Syrian people? What course of action will be most likely to stop the violence and misery they experience on a daily basis? What course of action will give them the best chance of peace, prosperity and a decent government?
The answer to those questions may well involve the use of force on a limited but immediate basis, in both countries. Enough force to remind all parties that we can, from the air, see and retaliate against not only Al Qaeda members, whom our drones track for months, but also any individuals guilty of mass atrocities and crimes against humanity. Enough force to compel governments and rebels alike to the negotiating table. And enough force to create a breathing space in which decent leaders can begin to consolidate power.
President Obama should be asking the same question in Iraq and Syria. What course of action will be best, in the short and the long term, for the Iraqi and Syrian people? What course of action will be most likely to stop the violence and misery they experience on a daily basis? What course of action will give them the best chance of peace, prosperity and a decent government?
The answer to those questions may well involve the use of force on a limited but immediate basis, in both countries. Enough force to remind all parties that we can, from the air, see and retaliate against not only Al Qaeda members, whom our drones track for months, but also any individuals guilty of mass atrocities and crimes against humanity. Enough force to compel governments and rebels alike to the negotiating table. And enough force to create a breathing space in which decent leaders can begin to consolidate power.
Bombing Syria – A
Strike At Russia
Slaughter’s previous op-eds, of course, betray an underlying
reason for her obsessive warmongering against Syria – the strategic desire to
weaken Russia. In this, Slaughter reveals herself as an adherent to the Brzezinski
doctrine as it is espoused in The Grand Chessboard.[1] Even if Slaughter does not openly
state her affinity for such a destructive and provocative foreign policy by
name, her ideology is revealed by both her actions and her work. It is
important to point out that Slaughter’s position should not be construed as
merely her own, but as a representation of the desires of the NATO powers that
employ her.
Indeed, in her April, 2014 op-ed for Project Syndicate, entitled “Stopping Russia Starts In Syria,” Slaughter is nothing if not obvious about her offensive geopolitical targeting of the Russian Federation as well as that of China and Japan. She writes that,
Indeed, in her April, 2014 op-ed for Project Syndicate, entitled “Stopping Russia Starts In Syria,” Slaughter is nothing if not obvious about her offensive geopolitical targeting of the Russian Federation as well as that of China and Japan. She writes that,
The solution to the crisis in Ukraine lies in part in Syria.
It is time for US President Barack Obama to demonstrate that he can order the
offensive use of force in circumstances other than secret drone attacks or
covert operations. The result will change the strategic calculus not only in
Damascus, but also in Moscow, not to mention Beijing and Tokyo.
Slaughter essentially argues that Putin is much too strong
to inflict damaging geopolitical costs in Ukraine. She suggests that Putin is
much weaker in Syria, however, and, therefore, it is Syria where the United
States must strike. Slaughter states,
Regardless of Putin’s initial motivations, he is now
operating in an environment in which he is quite certain of the parameters of
play. He is weighing the value of further dismemberment of Ukraine, with some
pieces either joining Russia or becoming Russian vassal states, against the pain
of much stronger and more comprehensive economic sanctions. Western use of
force, other than to send arms to a fairly hapless Ukrainian army, is not part
of the equation.
That is a problem. In the case of Syria, the US, the world’s
largest and most flexible military power, has chosen to negotiate with its
hands tied behind its back for more than three years. This is no less of a
mistake in the case of Russia, with a leader like Putin who measures himself
and his fellow leaders in terms of crude machismo.
It is time to change Putin’s calculations, and Syria is the place to do it.
It is time to change Putin’s calculations, and Syria is the place to do it.
After repeating the tired, disproven, and borderline idiotic
propaganda of Assad’s alleged “chemical weapons attacks,” “killing his own
people,” and “barrel bombs,” Slaughter attempts to cover up what is nothing
more than a geopolitical strategy as a humanitarian issue.
Slaughter laments the fact that “It is impossible to strike Syria legally so long as Russia sits on the United Nations Security Council, given its ability to veto any resolution authorizing the use of force.” However, she continues her article by stating that the United States should act anyway, unilaterally or multilaterally, by striking Syria and, at the very least, destroying its “fixed wing aircraft.”
The US, together with as many countries as will cooperate, could use force to eliminate Syria’s fixed-wing aircraft as a first step toward enforcing Resolution 2139. “Aerial bombardment” would still likely continue via helicopter, but such a strike would announce immediately that the game has changed. After the strike, the US, France, and Britain should ask for the Security Council’s approval of the action taken, as they did after NATO’s intervention in Kosovo in 1999,” she states.
Slaughter continues by writing,
Slaughter laments the fact that “It is impossible to strike Syria legally so long as Russia sits on the United Nations Security Council, given its ability to veto any resolution authorizing the use of force.” However, she continues her article by stating that the United States should act anyway, unilaterally or multilaterally, by striking Syria and, at the very least, destroying its “fixed wing aircraft.”
The US, together with as many countries as will cooperate, could use force to eliminate Syria’s fixed-wing aircraft as a first step toward enforcing Resolution 2139. “Aerial bombardment” would still likely continue via helicopter, but such a strike would announce immediately that the game has changed. After the strike, the US, France, and Britain should ask for the Security Council’s approval of the action taken, as they did after NATO’s intervention in Kosovo in 1999,” she states.
Slaughter continues by writing,
Equally important, shots fired by the US in Syria will echo
loudly in Russia. The great irony is that Putin is now seeking to do in Ukraine
exactly what Assad has done so successfully: portray a legitimate political
opposition as a gang of thugs and terrorists, while relying on provocations and
lies to turn non-violent protest into violent attacks that then justify an
armed response.
Slaughter, of course, is angry that the incessant and
nonsensical propaganda of her former office, the US State Department, and other
Western governments across the world have largely failed to manufacture a
string of lies that would serve to effectively motivate Americans to gear up
for war yet again.
So far, on this particular issue, American apathy largely contributed to preventing a war.
Unfortunately, with slightly more clever propaganda narratives, that apathy will easily be converted over to the benefit of the world oligarchy. Indeed, with the broadcast of the killing of an American citizen in such a grotesque fashion, that apathy can quickly be converted to rage and nationalistic fervor. Such techniques of propaganda are well understood by elites the world over.
As Hermann Goring stated years ago,
So far, on this particular issue, American apathy largely contributed to preventing a war.
Unfortunately, with slightly more clever propaganda narratives, that apathy will easily be converted over to the benefit of the world oligarchy. Indeed, with the broadcast of the killing of an American citizen in such a grotesque fashion, that apathy can quickly be converted to rage and nationalistic fervor. Such techniques of propaganda are well understood by elites the world over.
As Hermann Goring stated years ago,
Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor
slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of
it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't
want war: neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany.
That is understood. But after all it is the leaders of a country who determine
the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether
it is a democracy or fascist dictatorship, or a parliament or a communist
dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the
bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the peace makers for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.
The American people have tragically proven this statement
true time and time again.
Notes:
[1] Brzezinski, Zbigniew. The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy And Its Geostrategic Imperatives. Basic Books. 1997. Pp. 40-41
Recently from Brandon Turbeville:
Notes:
[1] Brzezinski, Zbigniew. The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy And Its Geostrategic Imperatives. Basic Books. 1997. Pp. 40-41
Recently from Brandon Turbeville:
Brandon Turbeville is an author out of Florence, South
Carolina. He has a Bachelor's Degree from Francis Marion University and is the
author of six books, Codex Alimentarius -- The End of Health Freedom, 7 Real Conspiracies, Five Sense Solutions and Dispatches
From a Dissident, volume 1and volume 2, and The Road to Damascus: The Anglo-American Assault on Syria. Turbeville
has published over 300 articles dealing on a wide variety of subjects including
health, economics, government corruption, and civil liberties. Brandon
Turbeville's podcast Truth on The Tracks can be found every Monday night 9 pm
EST at UCYTV. He is
available for radio and TV interviews. Please contact activistpost (at)
gmail.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.