Wednesday, 18 April 2018

Robert Fisk's search for truth in the rubble of Douma makes him doubt whether there was a chemical attack

SHARE
Please read this article. After visiting Douma and speaking to many people there, Robert Fisk doubts there was a chemical attack in Douma.

I don't have any direct information and was beginning to think the British and French governments may have been right about the Syrian government using chemical weapons, until I read this.

The truth is that I am sure the inhabitants of Eastern Ghouta , which was blockaded rather than besieged from 2013 until last year, did not want to be blockaded because they

preferred the rebels to the Government (whatever their private opinions). They were effectively held hostage by the rebels, most of whom are by now Islamists or jhadis.


The rebels have been very clever at playing the Western media as we saw with Eastern Aleppo, but only because the media want to be played. The rebels are for the Economist, etc, the good guys and the government and the Iranians are the bad guys. 



I am not sure why we readers and viewers have to back the Saudis, who are responsible for so much of the terrorism which has afflicted the Christian world in the last twenty years, or why we should fear Iran. I see no reason why we should take sides. Most of all I dislike how we are manipulated. 


Oddly, it is genuine liberals like the writers for the Economist and false liberals like the American Democrats and Blairites who want intervention, not real conservatives like Ron Paul or Nigel Farage. Had he been alive Enoch Powell, so much in the news lately, would have argued that we had no national interest in Syria as he argued that we had to national interest in intervening in Croatia in 1991.

I have no problem about intervening where we have decisive force and can get in and get out quickly without consequences. That might have happened in Rwanda, Croatia or Bosnia. It certainly would not be the case in Syria or anywhere in the Middle East.

Do liberals never tire of throwing away the lives of young men on endless and pointless wars for supposedly noble causes that do not serve the interests of their countries?

5 comments:

  1. 'Pearson Sharp is one of the anchors on the OAN cable news network (One America News Network).

    That's notable above all else because the OAN is the Donald's next bestest cable network after Fox. It was launched a few years ago by a right-wing San Diego entrepreneur and now boasts 30 million subscribers to Fox's 90 million.'

    Here is his report:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSXwG-901yU

    Link via http://davidstockmanscontracorner.com/the-deep-state-and-the-big-lie-douma-deposed/

    ReplyDelete
  2. I don't have any direct information and was beginning to think the British and French governments may have been right about the Syrian government using chemical weapons, until I read this.

    At this point I don't think the British government is capable of telling the truth, about anything.

    That's what democracy is all about. It's about telling lies. Our governments are certainly more dishonest and more vicious today than they were a century ago but let's not kid ourselves that they were ever honest.

    Did the British government tell the British people the truth in 1914? Did Chamberlain tell the British people what the guarantee to Poland would almost certainly lead to? Did Chamberlain tell the British people that antagonising Mussolini would drive him into Hitler's arms and make war much much more likely? Did FDR tell the American people in 1940 that he was going to do everything in his power to get the US involved in the war? Did Churchill tell the British people that he was willing to sacrifice the Empire in order to appease the Americans?

    The only difference with Theresa May is that she is a clumsy liar.

    ReplyDelete
  3. It was Bush and Cheney who really spearheaded the Iraq War. Not really liberals.

    ReplyDelete
  4. But their reasons so far as they can be understood were liberal ones, to bring democracy to the region etc. Bush 2 was a Wilsonian liberal in his foreign policy. Reagan also was described as a Democrat in foreign policy. Bush 1 and Baker were conservatives who took Metternichian conservatism to the extent of wanting to help Gorbachev preserve the USSR. See for example Victor Sebastian's book 1989.
    Please give a name!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Patrick Cockburn reminds us of a bombed baby milk factory, a story I remember. https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/syria-assad-uk-government-christian-persecution-isis-foreign-office-a8314616.html

    ReplyDelete