Två resolutionsförslag i FN:s säkerhetsråd om Syrien – vem gynnas?

Massmedia rapporterar att president Putin inställer en planerad resa till Frankrike för att träffa president Hollande, som dessförinnan nedgraderat mötet. Som skäl anges att Ryssland lagt in sitt veto mot Frankrikes förslag om en flygförbudszon över östra Aleppo. En sådan zon skulle förstås gynna terroristorganisationen al-Nusra, som dominerar i östra Aleppo. I FN-ledda förhandlingar har man kommit överens om att al-Nusra, IS och liknande inte omfattas av vapenvilan, och de har också direkt meddelat att de inte respekterar vapenvilan. Frankrikes förslag, som stöddes av bl.a. USA och Storbritannien är en fin hjälp åt fundamentalistiska och antidemokratiska terrorister. De ledande ”demokratierna” i Väst är kanske inte alls demokratiska och respekterar kanske inte alls inte FN-stadga eller folkrätt. Erfarenheterna från Jugoslavien och Libyen har lärt oss att USA & Co använder FN-resolutioner om flygförbudszon till att groteskt överskrida den och slå sönder självständiga stater.

Ryssland la fram ett förslag som skulle ge terroristerna i al-Nusra och andra terroristorganisationer möjlighet att under fri lejd lämna östra Aleppo, vars befolkning då skulle befrias från att leva under fundamentalistiskt kvinnoförtryckande styre. Och då fanns inte heller behov av bombningar av terroristställningar i östra Aleppo.
Detta skulle verkligen gagna befolkningen i östra Aleppo.
Denna resolution avslogs av USA, Frankrike och Storbritannien.
”This is not a draft which is right for adoption, I have this suspicion that the real motive is to cause a Russian veto,” said Russian UN ambassador Vitaly Churkin on Friday of the French text. ”I cannot possibly see how we can let this resolution pass.”

Security Council diplomats, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that while the Russian draft contained a lot of reasonable language, the lack of any references to ending air strikes on Aleppo was likely to be a problem.” Två FN-resolutioner om Syrien

Expressen skriver ”Det är särskilt ryska och syriska regeringarnas förödande bombkampanjer mot rebellkontrollerade områden i Aleppo som väcker vrede”
Hemläxa: Studera hur våra stora, etablerade massmedia beskriver detta.
Kuggfråga: Hur ser de på kampen mot terrorismen? Putin ställer in resa till Frankrike

Kommentarer i övrigt överflödiga – eller?

Några artiklar om Syrien.
Fortsatt svenskt stöd till terrorister i Syrien
De USA-stödda ”moderata rebellerna” i FSA i Syrien nära kollaps
Caesar: Gammal otillförlitlig rapport om Syrien dammas av
Amnesty: Ny partisk och otillförlitlig rapport om Syrien
Artikel av mig i Flamman 19/11 2015:Syrienkriget är en av USA planerad intervention
Lögner om Syrien
Aftonbladet desinformerar om Syrien
Vem startade kriget i Syrien?
USA-general, Obama, Biden: Vi har medvetet släppt fram al-Qaida och ISIS i Syrien
Vi har beskjutits av terrorister i 4 år

i Andra om: , Syrien, , , ,, , , ,

2 svar till “Två resolutionsförslag i FN:s säkerhetsråd om Syrien – vem gynnas?”

  1. HYCKLERI är det rätta ordet!

    ”The United States has no stake in the wellbeing of Syrian civilians, despite their condemnations of Russia’s offensive in Aleppo. This is clearly shown in the fact that the people they are supporting are guilty of the same crimes they accuse Russia and Syria of: indiscriminate attacks, targeting of civilians, destruction of schools, hospitals, etc. Furthermore, the offensive in Aleppo is really no different from what the US did in Manbij, where they are said to have incorporated a “scorched earth policy” while they liberated the city from ISIS, whereby the civilian population was treated “as if they were terrorists or ISIS supporters.” Arguably their conduct was even worse, as they there earned the distinction of launching the deadliest single airstrike on civilians out of the entire 5-year conflict, massacring at least 73 where no ISIS fighters were present. The Manbij operation elicited no moral outcry from the media and punditry, understandably since these were “unworthy victims” given that they were our victims and not those of our enemies.

    The same can be said about the US operations in Kobani and Fallujah, whereby the entire towns were essentially reduced to rubble without any uproar.

    The UN’s special envoy for Syria recently explained that over half of the fighters in eastern Aleppo are al-Nusra (al-Qaeda’s Syria affiliate), while according to the US Department of Defense, it is “primarily Nusra who holds Aleppo.”

    It is these fighters, al-Qaeda and their affiliates, that the US is trying to protect from the Russians, and as well other US intelligence operatives that are likely embedded with them. The narrative that Russia is committing a humanitarian catastrophe is intended to hide this fact, as well as to shift the blame for the suffering in Aleppo off of the US’ shoulders. Yet it was the US support to the rebels that is primarily responsible for the suffering.

    To illustrate this, the people of eastern Aleppo never supported the rebels nor welcomed them. The rebels nonetheless “brought the revolution to them” and conquered the people against their will all the same. Of the few reporters who actually went to the city, they describe how Aleppo has been overrun by violent militants through a wave of repression, and that the people only “saw glimmers of hope” as the Syrian army was driving them from the area. The people decried this “malicious revolution” and characterized the rebel’s rule as a “scourge of terrorism.” This, of course, was of no concern to the US at the time, who now proclaims to be the “protectors” of the civilians in Aleppo.

    During the first ceasefire, humanitarian corridors were opened and the civilians were encouraged by the Syrian army to leave, yet the rebels stopped them, with reports saying they went as far as to shoot at those who tried. The attempt to evacuate the civilians was condemned by the US, who argued that the innocent people “should be able to stay in their homes.” The radical groups were using the civilian population as human shields in order to protect themselves, and the US was supporting it.

    Further corroborating this is the special UN envoy Steffan de Mistura, who quotes reports indicating that the rebels have been utilizing “intentional placement of firing positions close to social infrastructure, aside and inside civilian quarters.”

    When the US was driving ISIS from Manbij, just as Syria is now driving al-Qaeda from Aleppo, killing hundreds of civilians at a time, there was not so much as a debate about it, much less an international outcry.

    This is an international proxy war and humanitarian concerns are being manipulated unscrupulously in support of interests having nothing to do with concern for innocent lives. Don’t fall for this faux humanitarianism from which more war, imperialism, and thus more death and destruction will result.”