In January 29, 2013, Britain’s most popular Daily Newspaper, in
its online version
A few days later they pulled the article.
What the reason was for the deletion remains unclear. The article was
published at this URL:
One day later, on January 30, a moderated news board thread was
created, which is still online, at Mail Online about that article.
In their initial article Mail Online refers to an Infowars.com
article (dated January 28, 2013), that’s where they probably found the
information on the leaked e-mail and other documents.
and others all claim in their
mirrored articles that the alleged e-mail from Britam’s David Goulding
to Philip Doughty was dated December 25, 2012.
) there also exists another
version of the alleged e-mail. There the e-mail is dated December 24,
2012.
Whether the content of the alleged e-mail is correct, that’s open for
debate. Fact is that
has an article online which supports the
claims in the alleged e-mail. And
to
then blame Assad for it. Those weapons came from Libya, according to RT.
This begs the question: Did Christopher Stevens know about those
weapons when he died in the
But there’s also this, according to Mail Online it was a Malaysian
hacker who got to the alleged e-mail(s), while Infowars claims that the
e-mail was
Either way, whoever initiated the Britam e-mail escapade did a good
job at fooling both mainstream and alternative news outlets because it’s
a real mess and few know what really happened and why.
Yet it’s ironic that Mail Online did not delete their other article
where they wrote about the UN’s
The same rebels who now receive resources from the EU and
the U.S., since the EU is buying
as the Washington Post describes it.
inside Syria, in the
occupied Golan Heights, to Genie Energy who’s shareholders include
Rupert Murdoch and Lord Jacob Rothschild.
US officials continued to press for war against Syria
yesterday, dismissing United Nations investigator Carla del Ponte’s
statement that Western-backed opposition forces, not the Syrian regime
of President Bashar al-Assad, had used chemical weapons.
Del Ponte’s comment, based on an investigation including extensive
interviews by UN officials, tore to shreds the lie with which Washington
has tried to justify its drive to war—namely, that it is attacking
Syria to protect the people from Assad’s use of chemical weapons. (See
also: “
UN
says US-backed opposition, not Syrian regime, used poison gas”).
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney summarily
rejected del Ponte’s report without offering a shred of evidence to
refute her statement. “We are highly skeptical of any suggestions that
the opposition used chemical weapons. We find it highly likely that any
chemical weapon use that has taken place in Syria was done by the Assad
regime. And that remains our position,” Carney stated.
There is every reason to believe, in fact, that the opposition has
used chemical weapons, as it has apparently received training on such
weapons from the US or allied forces. According to a
CNN
report in December, the US has dispatched contractors and
mercenaries for the purpose of training the rebels to “secure stockpiles
and handle [chemical] weapons sites and materials.”
Opposition forces have received numerous shipments of weapons and
equipment overseen by the United States and allied regimes such as
Qatar, Turkey and Saudi Arabia. Last December, opposition fighters
posted a
video
on YouTube showing them testing chemical weapons and declaring
their readiness to use them.
Taking their lead from Carney, US lawmakers issued calls for a
full-scale attack on Syria. Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman
Robert Menendez (Democrat of New Jersey) submitted legislation that
would officially authorize the Obama administration to arm the so-called
“rebels.”
“The Assad regime has crossed a red line that forces us to consider
all options,” Menendez said in a written statement, treating as fact the
completely unsubstantiated claim, refuted by del Ponte, that the Syrian
regime has used chemical weapons against the opposition.
Over the weekend, Senator John McCain (Republican of Arizona)
asserted that Obama’s “red line” on chemical weapons use has been
crossed and that the time had come for a “game-changing” escalation
against Syria.
Senator Bob Casey (Democrat of Pennsylvania) asserted the existence
of a “broad consensus” in favor of the US and its allies creating a
“safe zone” inside Syria. This would involve large-scale air strikes
against Syrian air defenses and the carving out of a significant portion
of Syrian territory under the control of the imperialist powers.
Senator Robert Corker (Republican of Tennessee), a senior member of
the Foreign Relations Committee, stated on Tuesday: “I do think we’ll be
arming the opposition shortly.” Corker went on to say that “we do have
to change the equation… The moderate opposition groups we support are
not as good at fighting.”
The senators’ calls for war come amid stepped-up military planning
against Syria. On Monday, the
New York Times reported that the
US, Britain and France are secretly discussing coordinated air strikes
for the purpose of imposing a no-fly zone over Syria. The newspaper also
reported that the US military, which has been working out plans to
attack Syria for months, has been told by the Obama administration to
step up its planning and coordinate it with key American allies.
The braying for war from Congress and the media follows Israeli air
strikes against Syria last Thursday and Sunday. There are reports that
42 Syrian soldiers were killed by Israeli strikes near Damascus.
A Hezbollah representative claimed that the Israeli attacks were
launched in support of the opposition groups: “This shelling is an
attempt at giving a morale boost to the terrorists and
takfiris
[extremists] and all those who are fighting to destroy Syria from
within,” he said.
One purpose of the Israeli strikes was to test Syria’s air defense
capacities amid preparations for massive air strikes by the US, France
and Britain. According to Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic
and International Studies, “Israel’s success does indicate that the
purely military risks in enforcing some form of no-fly or no-move zone
are now more limited than when the fighting in Syria began.”
Cordesman made clear that imposing a so-called “no-fly zone” would
involve large-scale war: “It would take a massive US air and cruise
missile attack… difficult for even two carrier groups to carry out and
sustain.”
A May 7 editorial in the
Wall Street Journal, “The
Non-Intervention War,” made the case for a major war against Syria. The
Journal
wrote, “The US could still steer this conflict toward a better outcome
if Mr. Obama has the will. At this stage this would require more than
arming some rebels. It probably means imposing a no-fly zone and air
strikes against Assad’s forces. We would also not rule out the use of
American and other ground troops to secure the chemical weapons.
“The immediate goal would be to limit the proliferation of WMD, but
the most important strategic goal continues to be to defeat Iran, our
main adversary in the region. The risks of a jihadist victory in
Damascus are real, at least in the short term, but they are containable
by Turkey and Israel.”
The US is preparing for yet another imperialist war on the scale of
the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Though cynically advertised to the American
public as an extension of the so-called “war on terror” against Al
Qaeda, the goal of such a war will be to consolidate US imperialism’s
control over the entire Middle East and its vast energy resources. The
US ruling elite is not concerned about defeating “the terrorists,” who
are in fact its allies.
The ease with which the Obama administration dismissed reports of Al
Qaeda-linked opposition forces mounting attacks with chemical weapons is
particularly significant, especially as lies about Al Qaeda acquiring
WMD were a major pretext for invading Iraq. This underlies the
long-running and continuing alliance between US imperialism and the most
reactionary Islamist forces.
Starting in the late 1970s and throughout the 1980s, during the
Soviet-Afghan war, US intelligence oversaw the arming of Islamist
forces, including Osama bin Laden, who went on to fight as shock troops
in US-backed wars in the Balkans and the Caucasus in the 1990s. While
certain elements of Al Qaeda were targeted by the US after the September
11 attacks, Washington’s political connections with these forces were
maintained during the 2000s.
For its 2011 Libyan war and now in Syria, the US mobilized Al
Qaeda-linked forces of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group and, in Syria,
the Al-Nusra Front.
Secretary of State John Kerry traveled to Moscow on Tuesday,
attempting to gain Russian support for US regime-change efforts in
Syria. Together with China, Russia has vetoed three separate UN
resolutions condemning Assad for his government’s crackdown on the
US-backed “rebel” groups.
“The United States believes that we share some very significant
common interests with respect to Syria—stability in the region, not
having extremists creating problems throughout the region and
elsewhere,” Kerry declared.
The United States and Russia reportedly agreed to organize a
conference on the war that both the Assad regime and the opposition
would attend.
Nevertheless, Kerry received a chilly welcome from Putin, who kept
him waiting for hours and reportedly fiddled with his pen distractedly
while Kerry spoke. The Russian Foreign Ministry released a statement,
implicitly critical of US policy, that declared: “The further escalation
of armed confrontation sharply increases the risk of creating new areas
of tension and the destabilization of the so-far relatively calm
atmosphere on the Lebanese-Israeli border.”
Hawks Desperate to Drum Up an Excuse for War
It is likely that Al Qaeda rebels – and not the Syrian government –
carried out the chemical weapons attack which the hawks in Washington
are trying to use as a reason to invade.
Haaretz reported on March 24th, “
Jihadists, not Assad, apparently behind reported
chemical attack in Syria“.
Te
Syria Tribune released a video in December
allegedly showing Syrian
rebels killing
rabbits with chemical weapons, and threatening to use them against
supporters of the Syrian government. (It is impossible at this point to
say whether this is genuine or propaganda).
Col. Lawrence Wilkerson – the former chief of staff to Secretary of
State Colin Powell under President George W. Bush – said yesterday that
the Syrian chemical weapons could be a “Israeli false flag operation”.
Wilkerson said that he had been told by his sources in the intelligence
community that evidence that Syria had used chemical weapons was
“really
flaky” and that President Barack Obama should think twice before
intervening.
“This could have been an Israeli false flag operation,” he said.
“You’ve got basically a geo-strategically, geo-political — if you will —
inept regime in Tel Aviv right now.”
Indeed, Neoconservatives planned regime change in Syria – and
throughout the Middle East and North Africa –
20
years ago.
And carrying out acts of violence and blaming it on the Syrian
government as an excuse for regime change – i.e.
false
flag terror – was discussed
over 50 years ago by British and American
leaders.
And the “rebels” in
Syria that the U.S. has
been supporting are
Al
Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood. Indeed, the New York Times s
reported last week that
virtually all of
the rebel fighters are Al Qaeda terrorist,
But that doesn’t matter … war is sold just like toothpaste, and once
there is a sufficient excuse for war –
real
or made up – we can march forward.
