In a poll conducted by the Pew Research Centre, 70% of US citizens (both Republican and Democrat) oppose arming the Syrian rebels, with only 20% in favour. Very similar results were found in polls conducted by Gallup, the Philadelphia Tribune, and NBC/Wall Street Journal.
This trend follows polls conducted in the UK, France, Turkey, and other countries around the world which produced similar results.
With international opinion so strongly against arming Syrian rebels, it is extraordinary that the ‘leaders’ of these countries continue with a policy set to make the Syrian opposition one of the best equipped terrorist organisations in the world using our own weaponry.
The Syrian Free Army has been proven time and time again to be totally incapable of engaging in a truly democratic process, and has concentrated its efforts on using extremism and jihad as the main reason for trying to topple the Assad regime.
If these extremists were to get into power in Syria, it would be a very dark day for the Syrian people.
The rebels have demonstrated that they rule though fear, beheading villagers, chopping off limbs, cutting out body parts of their enemies and eating them, raping children and women, and even fighting among themselves.
This is not a future we should impose on the Syrian people – yet it is being done, in particular by the USA who have been instrumental in fuelling the rebel forces since the conflict started in 2011.
The start of the Syrian conflict is often cited as being part of the ‘Arab Spring’, and it would be interesting to know if the US (CIA) were involved in that from the beginning.
In an all too simplistic account in the mainstream media, when demonstrators were fired on by the Syrian army, there was instant international condemnation. What was not so well publicised at the time (or since) was that there was an alternative side to the story.
According to Assad (stated in an interview with Libyan television), there were elements within the civilian protesters which opened fire – both on civilian protesters and the army.
This is evidenced by the report of the ‘League of Arab States Observer Mission to Syria’ for the period 24th December 2011 to 18th January 2012.
Paragraph 71 of the report states:
“The Mission determined that there is an armed entity that is not mentioned in the protocol. This development on the ground can undoubtedly be attributed to the excessive use of force by Syrian Government forces in response to protests that occurred before the deployment of the Mission demanding the fall of the regime. In some zones, this armed entity reacted by attacking Syrian security forces and citizens, causing the Government to respond with further violence. In the end, innocent citizens pay the price for those actions with life and limb.”
There is also evidence in the report that Assad was willing to enter into dialogue with all parties concerned.
Paragraph 73 states:
“The Mission noted that the Government strived to help it succeed in its task and remove any barriers that might stand in its way. The Government also facilitated meetings with all parties. No restrictions were placed on the movement of the Mission and its ability to interview Syrian citizens, both those who opposed the Government and those loyal to it.”
With regard to the mainstream media reporting of the conflict at that time, the Mission made the following statements in their report:
Paragraph 28 states:
“The Mission noted that many parties falsely reported that explosions or violence had occurred in several locations. When the observers went to those locations, they found that those reports were unfounded.”
Paragraph 29 states:
“The Mission also noted that, according to its teams in the field, the media exaggerated the nature of the incidents and the number of persons killed in incidents and protests in certain towns.”
Paragraph 68 states:
“Since it began its work, the Mission has been the target of a vicious media campaign. Some media outlets have published unfounded statements, which they attributed to the Head of the Mission. They have also grossly exaggerated events, thereby distorting the truth.”
Paragraph 69 states:
“Such contrived reports have helped to increase tensions among the Syrian people and undermined the observers’ work. Some media organizations were exploited in order to defame the Mission and its Head and cause the Mission to fail.”
The report of the Mission gives a very good overview of the situation in Syria at the start of the conflict – which is very different to that reported in the mainstream media at the time.
The Mission included representatives from Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Egypt, Sudan, Bahrain, and the UAE.
According to media reports, the Mission was forced to cease because of a ‘government crackdown’ – which is untrue. In the report, it is stated that the mission could not continue because of the rebel forces, stating in paragraph 79:
“It should be noted that the mandate established for the Mission in the Protocol was changed in response to developments on the ground and the reactions thereto. Some of those were violent reactions by entities that were not mentioned in the Protocol.”
We can determine that reporting on the Syrian conflict by the mainstream media has been managed and extremely bias in favour of the rebel forces from the beginning – most likely at the direction of the US and UK security services (CIA and MI6).
It is ironic that since the Mission has been stopped from returning to Syria, the nations involved have become proxy suppliers of arms to the rebels. Saudi Arabia and Qatar have been the main players, by transporting arms to Turkey. Qatar has also been used as a coordination centre for the CIA, Mossad, and Blackwater agents.
So the question still remains why the US, UK, and French leaders in particular are so keen to bring their arming of Syrian rebels into the public arena when they have been transporting weaponry by proxy, at a time when the rebels are losing battles because of their incompetence and disorganisation.
The agenda to destabilise the Middle East has been around for much longer than the Syrian conflict has been at the forefront of our daily news.
Having been planned years in advance of its implementation, it is doubtful that Obama and Cameron, and the other leaders involved are going to back down without a fight.
They counted on the public being stupid and believing everything they are told by mainstream media, and didn’t account for the truth coming out through other channels of communication.
It is interesting to note that when there was a deluge of information that contradicted their official accounts of the Syrian conflict (and other dubious matters both governments were involved with) both the US and UK governments attempted to silence the media and take control of the internet – neither of which have been as successful as they had hoped.
The public are much more well informed than they used to be, and can see though the lies that come out of our leaders mouths.
The ONLY acceptable involvement of other nations is to ensure that the people of Syria are the ones to choose who should govern them and to provide humanitarian aid.
The results of these polls on arming the Syrian rebels should send a clear message to those governments that we are not going to take their bullshit anymore, and it is time for THEM to comply with the wishes of the people – not the other way around.