"A journey in search for the truth."
Here is a superb, well documented 5-part expose on the true history of Syria and how it became a target for regime change by the western nations through manipulation and deceit by TPTB and their controlled media. It was written by Bas Spliet.
It is a very lengthy document but well worth the time spent.
The proxy war on Syria – part 1: The Syrian conflict in historical perspective
In April 2016, the UN special envoy to Syria, Staffan de Mistura, estimated the death toll of the Syrian crisis to be as high as 400.000. Most people in the West appear to be pretty confused. The major Western news outlets are telling them that all this suffering has been caused by a brutal dictator that refused to step down when thousands if not millions of Syrians took to the streets to demand democracy. Yet, at the same time, fragments of atrocities committed by foreign-backed opposition fighters occasionally reach their television screens. Nevertheless, they are told that however ruthless the armed opposition may be, supplying these insurgents with even more weapons is the best the West can do to help the Syrian people. After five years of relentless warfare, these alleged democracy-seeking revolutionaries – armed with sophisticated weaponry, joined by hordes of foreign fighters and supposedly having the full support of the Syrian people – still have not succeeded in overthrowing Assad, however. Doesn’t this all appear very strange and even contradictory? And if so, isn’t it our duty to humanity to find out what is really going on, even if there is but a tiny chance that there is more to the story? We all know it would not be the first time that we would be deceived into supporting a war that serves no one but a small but powerful elite. In this five-part series, I will try to dismantle all this confusion and take you on a journey in search for the truth.
According to the mainstream media narrative, the Syrian people finally rose up against an oppressive Alawite dictatorship which brutally ruled Syria for four decades after similar popular uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt had let to the ousting of Ben Ali and Hosni Mubarak. Assad, however, refused to step down and brutally cracked down on enormous peaceful demonstrations. After six months of oppression, the opposition decided to pick up arms, thereby starting a civil war. Although today this armed opposition is enforced by jihadi elements, it still has the full support of the Syrian people, and its main goal still constitutes of replacing dictatorship with democracy. The dominant view of the armed opposition thus revolves around two premises: 1) that the uprising was initially peaceful, and 2) that it is mainly let, to this day, by moderate revolutionaries. Let’s examine these premises.
In part 2 we have exposed the fallacy that “moderate democracy-seeking rebels” were forced to take up arms after “peaceful protests were cracked down by Assad’s loyalists.” In reality, without the Western and Gulf monarchies’ arming and financing of the jihadis, who hijacked the Arab Spring protests from the very beginning, there simply would not have been a war. Fortunately, more and more people are reaching this level of understanding. Yet, at this point, while acknowledging the crimes of the armed opposition, there is still a very large consensus that at the same time, Assad is “killing his own people.” Moved by powerful clips like those of the White Helmets and Qatari-funded AJ+, the Western public is to believe that the Syrian people need saving from the hands of a ruthless dictator.
In a twisted use of the “responsibility to protect” doctrine, our Western leaders are therefore trying to convince the world that, in order to save the Syrian people, “Assad must go.” And as the Western masses are reluctant to boots on the ground, this means giving even more finances and weapons to the “moderate” terrorists. But hold on a second, wasn’t there hardly any support for these alleged moderates among Syrians? Didn’t Syrians overwhelmingly reject armed protest and foreign involvement? Has the Syrian government not shown itself willing to make concessions by pursuing an inter-Syrian reconciliation policy, granting various amnesties to rebels, and allowing constitutional changes that urged for real presidential elections? Wasn’t Assad democratically re-elected in 2014 with a stunning 88,7% of the vote by 64% of the eligible electorate? And isn’t the Syrian army possibly even more popular than Assad, as Syrians opposed to the Ba’ath party as well as violent protest often choose to back the army, while not defending the Assad presidency? Doesn’t this imply that maybe just maybe, the Syrian army rather than the West is the one that is really committed to fighting terrorism? “No,” Western officials tell us, “Syrians are probably heavily indoctrinated.” To me, this is an outright insult to the intellect of the Syrian people. Calling out insults of course does not make good arguments, however. Therefore, let us examine some of the allegations that are used to smear Assad as a “brutal dictator.”
In the previous two parts, we have exposed two delusional fairy tales that are absolutely essential in keeping the conflict in Syria alive. Not only are the so-called moderates terrorists rather than peace-loving rebels, but the claim that Assad and his “loyalists” are terrorising their own people appears to have no real base in reality too. Indeed, thus far no credible evidence that the Syrian army deliberately targets civilians has been put forward. But still the Western public is let to believe that Syrians prefer the largely foreign, head-chopping, torturing terrorists to the Syrian army, in which – due to its large mobilisation and contrary to the armed opposition – many Syrians have relatives.
It is impossible, however, to dismiss 1) the large support the Syrian army and government enjoy, and 2) the terrible crimes not only of Jabhat al-Nusrah and Daesh, but also of the “moderate rebels.” Unfortunately, although this occasionally blows some holes in the official story, the dominant narrative in totality remains largely unquestioned. I often found myself thinking how this absurdly twisted logic is sustained. Indeed, the amount of disinformation in this conflict is enormous, but how is it possible that the West’s usual critical observers and anti-imperialists in this case are often not able to connect the dots and expose this as the propaganda war that it is?
The so-called Syrian “civil war” is not in any way, shape, or form a natural development. The US, NATO and their regional allies (Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, Jordan, and Israel) have played a key role in the emergence of all anti-Syrian extremist groups, including Daesh (or IS/ISIS/ISIL). Without foreign involvement, this war would simply not have occurred. Consequently, if the ongoing financial, armaments-, and ideological support to the insurgents would finally be brought to a halt, the suffering of the Syrian people will be over soon.
Rather than a conflict between Syrians, this is a war on Syria. Because an Iraqi-style invasion was off the table since the public is reluctant to boots on the ground, the foreign powers involved decided to wage a proxy war in which each has its own role. While the US, Qatar and Saudi Arabia arm and fund death squads that serve as proxy armies to overthrow the Syrian government, Turkey and Jordan host military bases in which the CIA and US special forces train Syrian “rebels” (including later Daesh militants) and serve as crossing points for foreign jihadis (see part 3). Besides training and funneling arms to the insurgents, the US – and the West in general – is responsible for shaping public opinion in support of the war. A final co-conspirator that should not go unmentioned is Israel. The Zionist state has a more hidden hand in this proxy war, as it can use its powerful lobby groups in the US to push its agenda.
The big question of course remains: what’s at stake?