Western-funded groups continue to destabilize Syria

Haaretz is reporting the 100 figure in their article about Obama’s condemnation of the Syrian government’s handling of the uprising.

In a White House statement, Obama said that “the reports out of Hama are horrifying and demonstrate the true character of the Syrian regime.”

The Jerusalem Post is reporting that at least 80 people are dead, also noting that a spokesperson for the German mission at the United Nations has requested a UN Security Council meeting on Monday.

As the day progressed, the number continued to grow with Bloomberg reporting that Syrian security forces killed at least 150 people. Yet, in the next paragraph they say “at least 113 were killed.”

This isn’t quite surprising due to the completely unverifiable nature of any of the claims made by human rights groups, however I wish the mainstream media was able to keep their manufactured narrative straight.

The Syrian government is claiming that the attack was an effort to “purge armed groups” in the Syrian city of Hama. However, U.S. press attaché J.J. Harder told The Jerusalem Post that “the authorities think that somehow they can prolong their existence by engaging in full-armed warfare on their own citizens.”

Harder also claims that the official Syrian accounts of the events are “nonsense,” without citing anything to back up his claims.

Unfortunately for those pushing for an escalation against Assad, there hasn’t been anything presented to the international community that can be independently verified. The simple fact is that the reports are coming from highly biased groups who unarguably have an agenda that is informing their reports.

That is not to say that the Syrian regime is not doing the things activists claim they are; however, I cannot comfortably side with the so-called peaceful activists when they having nothing to back up their claims.

The unqualified assumption that the rebels are unarmed and peaceful pro-democratic protesters is accepted as axiom by much of the West, but I would not so easily agree with this conjecture. What evidence is there that armed rebels do not exist? In the case of Libya, we know that the picture painted by the mainstream media of the rebels is far from reality.

Why is the Syrian opposition any different? Without so much as a single, independently verified incident to point to, the pro-interventionists in Washington and elsewhere might have some trouble drumming up support.

Then again, they were able to get enough support for the Libyan invasion without any evidence of Gaddafi’s alleged crimes. Furthermore, they were able to kick-start the bombing campaign even while the Russians were casting doubt on the Western claims of Gaddafi air strikes on civilians.

Therefore, it might be a bit foolish to think that a lack of evidence will stop the globalist imperialists from imposing themselves in another foreign nation.

Tony Badran, a research fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies told The Jerusalem Post that Assad is now facing “a tribal insurrection” in the east stretching from the north in Deir al-Zor, through the middle in Albu Kamal.”

It must be noted that the organization Badran represents is a neoconservative “think tank” (although they lack the necessary thinking factor) that has aggressively pushed for U.S. invasions in Iraq and Iran since the FDD’s creation two days after the attacks on September 11th, 2001.

The members of the Board of the FDD tell a great deal about the provenance of the supposedly non-partisan, non-ideological think tank.

They include: Judge Louis J. Freeh and R. James Woolsey former directors of the FBI and CIA respectively, Newt Gingrich, Joe Lieberman, Charles “Chucky” Schumer, Eliot Engel, Jim Marshall, Eric Cantor the Chairman of the House of Representatives Task Force on Terrorism, and many other former and current top-level government personnel.

The group’s media propaganda unit is composed of members including Steve Forbes, CEO of Forbes Magazine and Board Member of the Board of Directors of the FDD, Charles Krauthammer, and Bill Kristol.

Investigative journalist Eli Clifton has revealed:

FDD has a 10-year history of engaging in alarmist rhetoric and fear mongering – e.g. in 2002 FDD aired a series of ads conflating Osama bin Laden, Yasser Arafat and Saddam Hussein – and helped promote the “Bush doctrine” which led to the invasion of Iraq, its donors have, for the most part, hidden behind their anonymous contributions to the organization.

The donors supporting the FDD and their mission are quite telling as well. These include the likes of the Abramson Family Foundation ($222,523 in 2001 and an additional $600,000 from 2002-2004), Edgar and Charles Bronfman ($1,050,000 from 2001-2004), and Michael Steinhardt ($850,000 from 2001-2004).

The Bronfmans are prominent Zionists; Edgar M. Bronfman acted as President of the World Jewish Congress (WJC) from 1979-2007. Michael Steinhardt and Charles Bronfman founded the Taglit Birthright organization together which gives young Jewish adults free trips to Israel. This gives a bit of insight into the FDD’s rabid fear mongering surrounding Iran and Iraq.

Other donors are Bernard Marcus, cofounder of Home Depot ($600,000 from 2001-2003), Lewis Ranieri ($350,000 from 2002-2004), Bush administration ambassador to the Netherlands from 2006-2008 and owner of Ameriquest Roland Arnal ($1,802,000 from 2003-2004), and also the director of The Israel Project, Jennifer Mizrahi among many others.

It doesn’t take a genius to ferret out the biases of this organization and the information they peddle to the mainstream media. Therefore, any quotes you read obtained from FDD fellows or affiliated persons should be taken with a massive grain of salt or ignored altogether.

Like the completely unverifiable claims put forth by activist groups in Syria, the claims of the FDD are suspect at best.

Regardless of what the propaganda being pumped out of the Middle East seems to be saying, the simple fact is that the Syrian people realize that United States and UN intervention would not be beneficial for anyone.

Syrian opposition figures in Algeria have been speaking out against any foreign intervention in their nation. This means that if the Germans were able to draw together the UNSC and obtain a resolution of some kind, it would be against the will of the people of Syria.

This is not the only evidence of the Syrian people not wanting American involvement, earlier in July Syrian protesters vandalized a U.S. embassy and demonstrated in front of the French embassy until they had warning shots fired at them by the security guards.

In response, the United States is reportedly going to seek compensation for the destroyed property. It isn’t quite pretty when the people realize who is fomenting and funding these failures of revolutions that only result in civilian deaths.

The fact that the opposition groups in Syria are backed heavily by the United States is irrefutable. Therefore, it is quite hard to argue that the West has not already interfered in their domestic affairs and is currently controlling the pseudo-revolution.

According to a WikiLeaks cable, the State Department has been secretly funding opponents of the Syrian President, Bashar al-Assad. This includes at least $6 million in funding to a Western-controlled propaganda TV station and opposition groups within Syria.

The report showed that funding was set aside all the way through September 2010 and the events that have followed indicate that the funding has not ceased.

Was it just the ranting of an insane and fearful leader attempting to hold on to power when Bashar al-Assad said that his country was the target of a conspiracy? The cables leaked to the Washington Post by Wikileaks might disagree.

Assad has called for a national dialogue even though he thinks that international forces are covertly supporting and fomenting the protests.

However, much like the attempts of Gaddafi to have peaceful negotiations, the globalist forces behind the opposition do not seek a peaceful, democratic, and diplomatic resolution.

In late June Assad said, “We admit the fairness of the peaceful demonstrators’ demands, but we will not allow them to use their discontent to spread violence in the country.” Unfortunately, that seems to be what is occurring.

Something left out of most of the mainstream media reports covering the alleged massacre in Hama today is the important fact that “scores of opposition gunmen were reportedly battling Syrian Army troops in Hama.”

Another major piece of information all but completely ignored by the Western corporate-controlled media is the fact that less than a week ago the Syrian government officially approved a law allowing formation of political parties in opposition to the ruling Baath party. This ban was put in place in 1963 and is just now being lifted, yet the media has not been praising this as a major stride forward and instead act as if it didn’t even happen.

Just like in Libya, the rebels are being falsely portrayed as peaceful pro-democracy demonstrators when in fact they are armed murderous rebels.

While the Germans are making a full-court press towards a United Nations resolution regarding Syria, many astute nations are standing up against the globalist interventionists.

Like in the case of the Libyan resolution, Russia and China have threatened to veto a resolution put before the Security Council. Temporary Security Council members including India, Lebanon, Brazil, and South Africa also declared threat they would not support “even a simple condemnation.”

Thankfully, these nations realize that any resolution could be the beginning of a Western military intervention, just as was the case with Libya.

To make the special interests behind the Syrian “revolution” even more diverse and questionable, earlier this month al Qaeda expressed their support for the Syrian opposition. It is quite interesting how neo-cons (and the many Zionists that are a part of the hawkish neo-con establishment) and their al Qaeda operatives have recently been openly agreeing on more issues like Libya and now Syria.

Ayman al-Zawahiri, alleged leader of al Qaeda, praised the anti-government protesters saying, “It is better for you not to ally yourself with the colonialist powers of the world and the new crusades.” Whoops! Too late!

Al-Zawahiri laughably claims that the United States changed its stance on Syria after leaders of Tunisia and Egypt were ousted as a result of the uprisings. Quite interesting given the massive praise given by American bureaucrats and pundits in regards to the failed Egyptian revolution and the other Western-controlled “Arab Spring” pseudo-revolutions.

Al-Zawahiri claims that after America saw “the ground [shake] from the thunder of [the Syrian protesters’] rage and after it was devastated by the loss of its two biggest agents in Egypt and Tunisia” it moved to stand with the people of Syria. Al-Zawahiri must not read the news because he is a few years late on pointing out American support for the Syrian opposition.

Some Syrian opposition leaders have mentioned the fact that because al Qaeda does not have a strong footing in Syria, the militants would love to hijack this movement to gain one. One prominent Syrian human rights leader and former political prisoner told CNN that, “Al-Zawahiri is trying to enter the picture and pretends he has credibility with the ranks of demonstrators on the streets of Syria. This will be a failed attempt because the youth of Syria’s revolution have no interest in the jihadists of al Qaeda.”

The activist claims that the revolution is nationalistic in nature and not religious.

While this might be true, we are seeing a current of Anglo-American empire-affiliated pseudo-Islamic groups like al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood support and guidance in these uprisings.

The fact remains that we cannot know what is really going on in Syria and the propaganda and media support for intervention and the mysterious opposition is undeniable. For some of my previous coverage and analysis of this situation please read the following articles here, here, and here.