Crocodile tears over Syrian casualties

American and British indignation over civilian casualties in Syria seem hypocritical when one considers the hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan killed by American and British forces. I don't remember Hillary Clinton or William Hague saying anything about those deaths. Nor have they seemed very concerned about Israel's treatment of the Palestinians.

The indignation about civilian deaths is just prolefeed.  If Syria was an American vassal state we would not be hearing a squeak of protest. The real agenda is regime change in Syria. Not only as a worthwhile objective in itself, but also as a way of removing a friend of Iran.

It is obvious that there are hidden hands at work in Syria. Some agency is organising the political and military activity. Some agency is supplying the rebels with arms.  The state media in Britain just shows unarmed protesters chanting in the streets, but the rebels must have heavy weapons. If the Syrian government has to use tanks and artillery they must be facing heavily armed rebels. No government would shell its own cities if less violent methods would work. No government sends in the army if they can send in the police. Where did the arms come from?

Innocent civilians in Homs
One hidden hand is obviously American. I suspect that another is Israeli. Israel has a clear interest in overthrowing the Bashar al-Assad regime but I have seen no suggestion in the UK media that their busy little hands might be at work. Our reporters know their place [and the power of the Zionist lobby in UK media].

There has been a lot of official ranting about Russia and Chinas veto of a UN resolution. It is a good thing that the USA or the UK have never  vetoed any UN resolutions aimed at Israel. If they had their indignation would just seem like cant.

The BBC's coverage has been  disgracefully unbalanced. Ministerial rants have been  broadcast ad nauseam, along with plaintive cries from the rebels. I have still to hear any BBC reporter or interviewer ask any critical questions.

Normally the BBC is the home of tricky questions, but not on this issue. There is clearly an organised media campaign and at times like this it becomes obvious that the BBC, for all its claims of independence, is a state controlled media outlet.

The assumption is that everybody in Homs is in favour of the rebellion. Perhaps most of the population of Homs would like to kick out the armed troublemakers and live in peace, even if it is under a rather unsavoury regime.

I hold no brief for the Assad government, they seem a nasty bunch. What worries me is that the aim of the current campaign seems to be to prep us for military action.  What will be the next step? A no fly zone?  Supplying arms to the rebels?  Military intervention by some US proxy?


The BBC has announced that the northern city of Bradford has been taken over by Muslim extremists [Bradford has a large Muslim population]. The rebels appear to be armed with rocket propelled grenades and assault rifles.  They have announced the formation of the Islamic state of Bradfordistan.

A resigned Prime Minister said that the government would not be taking any action to recover Bradford.

"Any attempt to take Bradford would obviously result in civilian casualties so is out of the question, " he said. "We cannot have any fighting so we will probably let them keep the place."

"And anywhere else they fancy," he added. "We don't want to seem aggressive."

No comments: