The lead role in this epic thriller is played by Bashar Al-Assad, who plays the part of the evil dictator who controls his nation with an iron fist and slaughters peaceful protesters. Brad Pitt plays the role of a heroic rebel leader who struggles to free his nation, and eventually manages to appeal to the decency of US authorities who step in and save the day. Vin Diesel has received numerous nominations for his role as Sam Colmes, a NATO officer who saves the day with his bravery and masculine figure.
This film is directed by the western, parrot media establishment and is produced by the Pentagon and CIA, who also brought us blockbusters like "The Liberation of Iraq" and "The Libyan Revolution"
The movie is rated R and is entirely fictional. Any resemblance to actual events or characters is purely coincidental.
Why ruin a good story with the truth?
Dear reader. We are being played like a violin.
The notion of the "arab spring" has been intentionally marketed to confuse people and to sell a war for resources and control.
News of uprising in Algeria, Tunisia and Yemen spread across the world and activists everywhere started taking notice. When it had spread to Egypt, a long standing ally of Israel, even the most cynical among us became excited.
Perhaps this is a start of a global popular uprising where long oppressed masses overthrow the control of the old colonial empires. A mass movement similar to those that have happened in South Ameria. Perhaps it would spread to Palestine?
Scores of people gathered in Tahrir Square to protest a corrupt state
with a western backed dictator and were met with violent force. You were able to watch live feeds ofthe protests and videos and pictures of it spread like wildfire across the online community. Some too horrific to even talk about.
The Egyptian people were angry at the support the west and Israel showed to Mubarak. But what was really being orchestrated was a subtle plot not many could have envisioned.
One of the early voices on record, exposing this plot was historian and author Webster G. Tarpley. I met him during his visit to Iceland and had been following his work since and before that.
At first I found his views likely to be misguided on this issue, perhaps based on too much pessimism or cynicism in general but I didn't dismiss them completely, as he did bring some convincing arguments. Also I become skeptical whenever the mainstream media paints a positive picture of something. Which they clearly did when it came to the protests in Egypt. But it was hard at that point to see the purpose of such a move.
Well, now I do. By sacrificing this western puppet to be replaced by a new one the stage had been set. The exposure of the brutality of such a dictatorship would be seared into the mass consciousness and now all they needed to do was to transfer the feeling of optimism, and horror onto other countries.
That way an "intervention" could be justified in other countries, simply by presenting it as a scenario unfolding that was similar to the Egyptian one.
As has now become painfully clear, the Egyptian "revolution" was not successful at all.
The idea of NATO and the west intervening to help in a revolution in the middle east is pretty ridicilous to begin with. Anyone who knows anything about the history of Africa and Asia will know that NATO and the west are the main source of problems for these countries. Any real protests would be directed at those institutions and aimed to get rid of their influence. Not invite them to come bomb the country and form a new puppet government.
So why would NATO assist in a revolution against NATO?
Why would nations whose people who have historically been fundamentally opposed to the west and especially Israel pray for their intervention?
They would not. Ever.
Forget that notion.
Do I really need to list all the terrible and brutal dictators the west have supported? It would be quite time consuming and if I'd begin it would be hard to see an end to it. But I will name a few examples as the article progresses. Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Chad and Marocco are amongst the ones that come to mind but these countries will not be invaded or "intervened" with.
If you doubt the NATO leaders hipocrisy in these matters for a second, here is an example that should relinquish all such thoughts immediately.
That is two days before the US decided to do this:
Because of this:
Note that this is a pictures of Gaddafi's supporters, not protesters.
In response to the massacres of Bahrain however, they did this:
Actually, this picture is from 2004 with Prince Charles and the crown prince of Bahrain, but he was actually invited to the wedding of Kate Middleton and Prince Harry in the midst of the violent repression in his country. Source
The hipocrisy meter had already gone off the charts, but recently they went further and had a royal dinner with the king of Bahrain.
It is an important piece and is a part of the same series as this article, which should essentially been viewed as a continuation of it, as I will try not to repeat too much of it, as much of it applies to both campaigns.
Gaddafi was painted as the evil dictator overthrown by a popular revolution, albeit after a months bombing campaign by the most powerful military force in the world.
This was the next move on the Grand Chessboard. By way of deception, thou shalt do war.
Gaddafi said in the wake of the revolution in Egypt that this was a time for a revolution of the people, and he hoped that Palestine would be the next country to rise up against their oppression.
He probably hadn't calculated the next move of the elite, where he was the target. The fact is that Gaddafi led the people's revolution in Libya in 1969. What was happening now was the recolonization of Libya, disguised as a people's revolution.
That is exactly what they are attempting to do in Syria as well.
Is it a coincidence that the countries now being targeted as part of the 'arab spring" just happen to be the same countries the US has been planning to invade for years?
Just listen to general Wesley Clark, as he describes the plan to take over 7 countries in 5 years. Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Sudan, Somalia and finally Iran./
Is it just a coincidence that this army general who ran for president in 2006 stated this and it has thus far played out to the word?
Sure, their time frame was a bit optimistic, but these are the countries we see targeted in all of the latest propaganda effort.
A more detailed coverage of these plans can be seen here, and keep in mind that the people he refers to all have substantial power, the fact that democrats have replaced republicans in the presidency is just an illusion. These are two different arms of the same person.
Why is there only talk of invading countries who are considered adversaries of Israel?
Israel is the worst human rights violator of them all! They have been conducting a slow and disgusting genocide of the Palestinian people for more than 60 years!
And they are choosing the targets for this humanitarian campaign of warfare?? Does no one recognize how absurd this is?
Where is the outcry for Palestinian protesters? Sure there has been some, but it's nothing like the concentrated effort to get people to demand action be taken in countries like Libya and Syria.
How do you think the world would react if Palestinians started violently attacking and burning Israeli police stations and committing random acts of terror targeting Israeli civilians?
If you already studied my article about Libya I'm sure you can already see the writing on the wall, it is simply a reproduction using the same script. But for two rather different circumstances.
Let's get to the point
There is no peaceful revolution against the government of Syria
Let's begin by reviewing the mainstream version of events. This will help those who are oblivious as to what I am talking about and to illustrate the obvious falsehoods contained in these reports.
Here we have a story about economic sanctions over Syria and Obama's condemnation of violence against protesters.hér.
Then there is this interview with Barack Obama:
Here we have Bill O'Reilly presenting his strange propaganda, as he claims that Saddam Hussein manage to escape with his WMD's. Where does he think he put them? Well, of course in Syria and Libya!
Who just happen to be the next target of military propaganda...
Here is an interesting clip worth reviewing. Hillary Clinton sings a note outside of the songsheet and says from what she can gather, Assad is a reformist who is making positive changes in Syria.
One of the most effective propaganda tricks is when the media criticizes the military or the media itself for not doing what they are doing, or are already planning on doing. They then get people to demand such action be taken.
Here, Hillary has been given the correct speech:
Surely most people know that Bill O'Reilly is one of the most vicious propaganda monster of recent generations.
But hold on, what about these pictures? Is it all just a lie?But, but, but, they had pictures of the protests!
No, what you just saw, and all the large media institutions are showing, is three kinds of footage.
A: Pictures of supporters of Bashar Al Assad
B: Footage from riots in other countries than Syria
C: Absurdly small groups, usually no more than 50 people protesting against Assad.
If you don't believe Fox News or other media outlets would stoop so low we have many prior convictions.
Let's watch Fox News cover the "riots" in Iceland:
Right, was this Iceland?
Why did Fox not just use the pictures of the protest that actually took place in Iceland? Except just at the end? There was plenty of such footage available.
This can not be brushed off as mere sensationalism, this is a serious matter. They are portraying peaceful protests as massive riots and they accomplish it by showing pictures from other countries!
And you think they wouldn't do this to countries they see as enemies?
Let's look at the other side of this story:
This huge flag was sewn by the Syrian people to demonstrate the loyalty and unity of the Syrian people and the support they had for their government. Did you see this in the news? Of course not.
These are all supporters of Assad:
These are all supporters of Assad:
These are all supporters of Assad:
This picture comes from Reuters REUTERS Notice the phrase "according to activists" as you will see it repeatedly when referring to unsubstantiated accusations against the Assad government.
If this picture was taken from a protest these would at least be on the scale of the protests in Egypt and Spain. But they are marches of support!
The only thing they are protesting is the intervention of the western powers.
Why do you choose to ignore their wishes but instead focus on the perceived struggle for freedom by some allegedly oppressed people? These are sentient beings. They want peace. They support their president. Who are we to say that they shouldn't, and that their country should be bombed!?
It is their country! How can you suggest that you are better equipped to make a decision for these people based on some hyped up war propaganda you've been conditioned to accept as truth?
The people protesting in Syria is a distinct minority! This is a provable fact! What kind of madness is this??
Hér Here is a story from the NY Times about an Assad support rally in Assepo, one of Syria's major cities.
Let's make one thing clear.
Either, Assad is an evil dictator who oppresses his people, tortures them and murders them, or he is supported by the majority of the people. There is no way that both of these statements can be true.
Hence if we can demonstrate that he is in fact supported by a large majority of the Syrian people it is logical to assume the accusations against him are not true.
Besides, the impression being given is that he is wildly unpopular, and that all of Syria dreams of a country free from his rule.
In Greece, when one student got shot by the police the whole country went ballistic. This is what would happen in any country if the government would turn on their own people. This has not happened in Syria and it did not happen in Libya.
You either have to be a downright racist, to believe that the Syrian people are somehow capable of supporting a murderous tyrant, who is killing innocent people who oppose them. Or you are simply pulling a doublethink, where you consciously accept two contradictory statements to be simultaneously true.
Doublethink describes the act of simultaneously accepting two mutually contradictory beliefs as correct, often in distinct social contexts
But you could think that many Americans supported George W. Bush, despite his crimes. Try imagining what would have happened if he had started ordering troops to fire on peaceful protesters. Not even the most manipulative media establishment in the world could have turned that around.
Also, remember that the media that tricked people into believing Bush meant well is the same one that is now convincing you that Syria needs our "help"
It is this same media who praised Obama as the man of change and hope, just as Bush had turned unpopular enough when his murderous and tyrannical policies were exposed.
I am advocating no conspiracy theory in this case. Even though I enjoy conspiracy theories this has only to do with solid facts and sound logic.
It is not a conspiracy theory to claim that authorities lie to take us to war. Please don't act like it is.
It is 2012! Do you really think we simply HAVE TO bomb each other? That there is no alternative solution?
Of course not!
You actually believe that people are incabable of meeting and finding peaceful resolutions to issues relating to international politics?
That would be a joke. Authorities MUST lie to get us to accept war!
Their own documents state that the biggest obstacle to reach their military objectives is YOU. In order for the plans to be initiated they must first convince you that it is justified. The public was listed as the nr.1 obstacle to success in Iraq.
To go into a war without propaganda would be as unorthodox for these people as it would be to produce something for sale without advertising it. And trust me, these people know how to sell a war.
They know what pushes our buttons. They use the most simple form of manipulation there is. In order to get a child to do something, make the child thing that it was it's own idea to do what you want it to.
This is very basic.
This is why they tell us the story of the Syrian struggle for justice, before the actual invasion takes place.
Peaceful protesters attack a police convoy, kill 7 officers:
This video is technically imperfect, but the information in it is quite important.
Notice that the girl in the video who lost her father is singing "Allah, Souria, Bashar wo bas" which translates too: God, Syria, and only Bashar"
Here is a syrian listener calling Al Jazeera:
"The truth is that the protests in Bania are all supporting our government, the people are chanting fu** you al jazeera, fu** the prince of qatar"
This is what the supporters are synging, as we can clearly tell in the video.
This video on youtube is labeled as protests against Assad:
Again, notice what the people are singing! Also they are all waving the Syrian flag.
More about these supposedly "peaceful protesters" from Russia Today:
Hér This is a longer video from the armed rebels that NATO and western intelligence agencies have been supporting.
Pictures of Assad supporters used in stories of Syrian "protests"
Those of you who read my article about Libya will recall the many "mistakes" in the media, where people who were obviously supporting Gaddafi were portrayed in the media as his protesters. In some cases there was a small print stating that the picture was taken from a support rally, but in most it was simply shown as if they were pictures of the protests.
This is exactly what is happening now in Syria.
The flag of Libya was a solid green. This time, the Syrian rebels are uniting over has a green colour instead of the read and three stars instead of two
It is clear that those who carry the Syrian flag in protest do it as a symbol of unity for the Syrian government, not to protest against it.
The people of Syria have made huge flags. A clear indication of what message they have to the world. One they thought the people of the world could not ignore. Yet we have.
They don't want NATO to intervene. They don't want a war, a "no fly zone", an embargo. They don't want Assad to be killed, they want to be in peace!
Let's take a look at the old flag and the few pictures I could find of it:
Wikipedia is a convenient tool for military propaganda, but they can easily alter some articles to fit whatever propaganda narrative is being pushed.
Even there, good picture of the large crowds allegedly protesting Assads reign of terror, are scarce.
When this article was first posted in Icelandic in November they used a picture of Assad's supporters in Hama. It has now been removed.
Notice how the people form the Syrian flag together (by holding coloured signs, as is often done in sport events)
The message "Go out of Syria" is directed against the rebels who are massacring innocent people in an attempt to cause instability that can then be used to justify a war of aggression.
This is a protest directed against NATO countries, but just a month earlier, 120 police officers had keen brutally tortured and killed by the rebels.
Here is testimony from several residence of Homs, taken from a Syrian news outlet. Herewe can see the people who were killed
This blog tries to make it look like this picture is from a protest against Assad:
It demonstrates an extreme lack of knowledge on the subject and posts this picture of the Syrian protesters.
Only one problem. This picture is from Lebanon:
The lebanese flag:
Unless of course all these Syrian people decided to bring their Lebanese flags to protest Assad, this would seem like a complete hoax.
This echoes incidences like the BBC claiming a protest from India to be from Libya:
In fact, Lebanon, a fellow target of US and Israeli military plans, have been in good relations with Syria. Israel tried to damage these relations by murdering Rafiq Hariri and then trying to blame the murder on Syria.
For more examples of this type of manipulation please watch this video, as it documents many cases of it:
This article is interesting, where we have a quote from Barack Obama
After imposing sanctions on Syria this week as military forces in the country clamp down on demonstrators in the capital,Damascus, Obama again condemned violence against peaceful protesters. He demanded the administration of president Assad stop shooting protesters and allow peaceful demonstrations, release political prisoners, and pass democratic reforms. "The Syrian people have shown their courage in demanding a transition to democracy," he said. Assad, he added, could either lead the transition or "get out of the way."
There we can see, as clearly as day that the president of the United States is lying to people. These rebels are armed and he knows it. He still refers to them as "peaceful protesters".
Here is a student telling his story, but Al Jazeera had claimed that he as killed by his government.
Then there was the peculiar case of the gay girl from Damascus. She was posting blog entries that the mainstream media was giving close attention. People then started a huge uproar over her alleged arrest.
It later turned out that an American man was behing the blog. BBC
But when the first photograph of the blogger was posted, it turned out to be that of a woman living in London who said she had no connection with the blog. Later, the US embassy said they had no record of a citizen with dual nationality matching Amina's identity and it emerged no-one had spoken to Amina in person.
On Sunday, an "apology to readers" appeared on the blog signed by Tom MacMaster - a 40-year-old American Middle East activist studying at Edinburgh University who said he was "the sole author of all posts on this blog".
Finally, "Danny" the activist, was paraded around the media as a rebel hero. Here we can see him expose himself as an agent of misinformation:
The pattern we have already exposed in this article should be quite clear. In part 2 we will be focusing on the bigger picture, as to the reasons for why this is happening.