Då och då görs försök att sammanfatta konflikten i Syrien, bl.a. på denna blogg. Se Några artiklar om Syrien. Rapporteringen i Väst-media är generellt osaklig, och några av artiklarna innehåller ordet ”lögner”.
Den här artikeln publicerades här på dagen för ett år sedan. Tyvärr finns starka skäl att påminna om den även idag!
lögner och sanningar om Syrien;
lögner om Syrien;
Några sanningar och några lögner om Syrien och
Barnen i Aleppo dansar och ler
Denna artikel av Neil Clark har publicerats på Ron Pauls hemsida De tio största lögner om Syrien och förtjänar läsning av alla som inte är bergsäkra på Syrienkonflikten – eller så är det just dessa som bör läsa artikeln! Större delen av texten är på engelska.
För övrigt rekommenderas boken ”Det smutsiga kriget mot Syrien” av Tim Anderson.
Here are 10 of the worst lies that have been peddled by the West regarding Syria, with the aim of giving people living in Western countries an entirely false view of the conflict that has been raging in the Middle East country since 2011. As in the case of previous US-led wars against Yugoslavia, Iraq and Libya the lies told in relation to the ongoing conflict in Syria have been quite outrageous.
1. Väst har misslyckats att intervenera i Syrien – det är problemet.
This oft-repeated claim is a complete inversion of the truth. The west has intervened massively in Syria, by funding, supporting and training violent anti-government “rebels,” many of whose weapons just happened to end up in the hands of ISIS. The west not only ignited this conflict (see here), they’ve also helped to keep it stoked for over five years.
2. Konflikten beror på den usle Assad (och på Ryssland som stödjer honom)
The dominant western narrative says that the conflict was started by Assad after the “evil dictator” clamped down on peaceful protests against his rule in March 2011. The reality is that peaceful pro-democracy protests were hijacked at a very early stage by those determined to provoke a violent response from the Syrian authorities. In the border city of Daraa, where the conflict effectively began, seven police officers were killed and the Ba’ath Party headquarters and a courthouse were torched.
In the first month of hostilities, no fewer than eighty-eight soldiers were killed.
Assad was faced with a violent insurrection against the Syrian state – by terrorists – many of whom came from outside the country. Was he expected simply to allow these “rebels” take power (as the west was demanding) even though there was no evidence they had widespread popular support? The question we need to ask is what would the US government do if faced by a violent insurrection by foreign-backed “rebels” who were killing officials of the US State and blowing up government buildings. Its response would, I’m sure, be even more ruthless than the Syrian government’s has been.
3.President Assad har föga stöd i Syrien.
Whenever a country is targeted for regime change by the US Empire, its leader is de-legitimised. We’re told that the leader only remains in power because he’s a “brutal dictator.” But there’s plenty of evidence that Assad, whatever western elites may think of him, has considerable support in his country. In early 2012, a poll showed 55 percent of Syrians wanted their President to stay.
In 2014, Assad won a landslide victory in the country’s first multi-party Presidential election for fifty years.
A poll in July 2015 showing that 47 percent of Syrians thought Assad had a positive influence on matters in Syria compared to 35 percent thinking the same about the western-backed Free Syrian Army and 26 percent about the Syrian Opposition Coalition.
The further proof that Assad has widespread support is that he’s still in power after five and a half years of war. Should we really be surprised that millions of Syrians prefer his secular rule – in which the rights of women and all religious minorities are respected – to that of the medieval head-choppers of ISIS and fanatical jihadists?
4. Assad har inte gjort några eftergifter och är inte intresserad av fred eller försoning.
In fact, Assad and the Syrian government have repeatedly shown a desire to make concessions to try and end the conflict. In 2012, a new constitution, which ended the Ba’ath Party’s decades-old monopoly of political power, was put to the Syrian people, who endorsed it with an 89.4 percent vote. Article 8 of the new constitution states: ”The political system of the state shall be based on the principle of political pluralism, and exercising power democratically through the ballot box.”
Again, little of this significant reform was reported in the western media. Neither has there been much coverage of the various amnesties Assad has granted to “rebels” (the latest in July this year) or of the government’s National Reconciliation Programme.
5. Syrien konflikt är helt enkelt sekteristisk.
This “Its Sunni versus Shia/Alawite” narrative ignores the fact that Sunnis not only serve (in large numbers), but also hold key positions in the Syrian Arab Army. Sunnis also hold important positions in the Syrian government.
Around 74 percent of Syrians are Sunnis, so it is likely if all or the vast majority of them were against President Assad he’d still be in power after five and a half years of war? The truth is that the secular Syrian government is supported by Sunnis and Shia.
Divide and conquer has been a strategy deployed by imperial powers down the ages, and the US Empire is no different.
If I received ten pounds for every time I’ve read “Assad gassed his own people at Ghouta” or words to that effect, I’d be a very rich man.
Common sense tells us that Assad would have been mad to order such an attack knowing that UN inspectors were in Damascus at the time, and western hawks were itching for a reason to bomb him.
7. Ryssland och Syriens regering har hjälpt IS.
This is an acceptable “conspiracy theory.” After Russia had started bombing ISIS and other terrorist groups in Syria in September 2015, we were told that Russia was giving ISIS an air force.
In fact, Russia and the Syrian army has inflicted far more damage on ISIS in Syria over the past year than the US and its allies have. In March, the ancient city of Palmyra was liberated from ISIS by the Syrian army, supported by Russian air strikes. It was ”the single biggest defeat for ISIS since it declared its caliphate, but the West does not seem interested.
8. Väst stödjer the “good guys” i Syrien.
The truth is the West hasn’t been fighting “terror” in Syria but aiding it. By any objective standard, “moderate rebels” supported by the US, the UK and their allies, have been guilty of appalling crimes which would definitely be classed as “terrorism” if they were committed in a western country or in a country which was an ally of the West. We know from declassified secret US intelligence documents from 2012 that the prospect of a “Salafist” principality being established in eastern Syria was “exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want” as it would “isolate the Syrian regime.”
9. Det finns 70,000 moderata rebeller i Syrien.
This claim was made by British Prime Minister David Cameron when he was trying to get British Parliamentary approval for airstrikes in Syria. Cameron‘s exact words were: ”We believe there are around 70,000 Syrian opposition fighters – principally the Free Syrian Army – who do not belong to extremist groups… and with whom we can co-ordinate attacks on ISIL.” But in January, the former British Prime Minister (having won his vote) was already back-tracking by admitting that some of the ”70,000” were ”relatively hardline Islamists.”
The ”70,000 moderate rebels” claim is likely to go down in history as Cameron’s version of Tony Blair’s 2002 claim that Iraq had WMDs, which could (in 2003) ”be activiated within 45 minutes.”
10. Västs intentioner i Syrien är humanitära,medan Ryssland handlar i eget intresse.
In fact, “regime change” in Syria was on the West’s agenda long before anti-government protests began in 2011, and dates back to at least 2006 when Syria’s support for Hezbollah was blamed for Israel’s failure to defeat the Lebanese group in the 33-day war in that year.
Just imagine what the US response would be if Russia set out to bring about a violent regime change in a country that was a long-standing ally of the US. We can be sure the Russian actions would not be portrayed as “selfless” and “humanitarian”!
Läs mer om kriget i Syrien! Några artiklar om Syrien.