Syria – The Bigger Picture

It is possible that an attack on Syria by NATO forces was forestalled by popular opposition. From what I can see a large majority of people in both the US and UK are opposed to military intervention despite what seemed to be a near consensus from the mainstream media (MSM) that Assad should be punished for his alleged use of chemical weapons against civilians.

Using the website, I wrote to my MP Stephen Timms saying:

I am concerned and distressed to learn that the British Government is planning military action against Syria because of an alleged chemical weapons attack by the Syrian government on citizens in a rebel held area of Damascus. I think that such action is morally and logically indefensible for the following reasons:

1. We have no clear evidence that the chemical weapons attack was perpetrated by government forces.
2. We know that in previous, smaller scale, incidents involving the use of chemical weapons that evidence points to the rebels rather than the government being the perpetrators.
3. There would be no benefit to the Syrian government in perpetrating a chemical weapons attack since they have been winning the war and to use such weapons would invite exactly the response that we are seeing from the US/UK and their allies.
4. However deplorable the record of the Syrian government in repressing opposition they appear to have the support of the majority of the Syrian people so any military action would not simply be an attack on an oppressive regime but an attack on the Syrian people.
5. An attack on Syrian forces would aid the rebels who have a record of atrocities against many sections of the Syrian people. Patrick Cockburn in an article in today’s Independent writes that “over the past week, anti-government rebels have been carrying out a campaign of ethnic cleansing against Syrian Kurds in the north-east of the country, forcing 40,000 of them to flee across the Tigris into northern Iraq in less than a week.”
6. A military strike against Syria cannot be limited as it will elicit a response which will lead to further escalation.
7. Previous military interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya have not been successful in establishing stable governments and security for their people.

I urge you to take all possible action to forestall this rush to war.

Maybe thousands of messages like this had some impact. At any rate the Labour party said that it would not support a resolution permitting immediate military action against Syria. I’m glad to hear this but we should remain wary that agreement on any less specific resolution is not used as permission to proceed with the use of force a few weeks down the line.

Although both the US and UK seem to be backing off immediate military action they are keeping that option open and continue to insist that the Syrian government was responsible for the chemical attack. A balanced account of the chemical attack is given in this Democracy Now interview with Patrick Cockburn and Razan Zaitouneh:

Razan Zaitouneh has no doubt that the attack was perpetrated by the Syrian government, Patrick Cockburn is not so sure. Both seem to agree that atrocities have been committed by both sides. I am sceptical of the narrative that paints Assad and the Syrian government as monsters capable of anything and the certain perpetrators of the Ghouta attack. To understand what it happening in Syria we need to step back and look at the bigger picture.

It is no secret that the the US/UK have had plans to attack Syria long before the rebellion began. A NATO general, Wesley Clark admitting that there is a plan to systematically destabilise and attack several Middle East countries including Iraq, Syria and Iran is open enough:

Roland Dumas a former French Foreign Minister also openly says that the UK had plans for regime change in Syria since 2009. This is apparently okay with him, he just thinks people should know about it:

It is easy to see the chaos in the Syria and the Middle East as part of a plan to extend the economic and military dominance of what has been variously called the US Military Industrial Complex (MIC), the Global Elites, the Corpratocracy, the Globalists etc. To understand what is happening in Syria and the Middle East we must have some awareness of this plan.

John Perkins, author of the book and documentary “Confessions of a Economic Hitman” shows how, since the 1950’s, the US MIC has undermined democratic governments in a number of countries through bribery, assassination, incitement of coups and rebellions and finally direct invasion in order to advance their interests. I consider this video a really useful and accessible summary:

Mimi Al-Laham, aka Syrian Girl, suggests that the Ghouta attack is a direct or indirect consequence of the Globalist game plan. In this interview she also contextualises the situation in the Middle East:

Mimi is worth following. Her posts offer a good counterweight to what is coming out of the MSM.

I think we need to understand all this. We don’t need to be history geeks or political geeks but we need to pay attention and have some understanding of contexts because as citizens of a democratic country where to some degree we can discuss stuff and hold opinions and vote for representatives we have responsibility for what our leaders do abroad as well as domestically.

Icke, Wogan and the Pattern

The two Icke/Wogan interviews resembles the classic story of the kid who gets bullied goes away and bulks up and then comes back to take on the bully. While Icke’s physical bulk doesn’t look so good his intellectual bulk blows Terry Wogan away. David Icke is often criticised for being ‘off the wall’ in some of his expositions about global conspiracies and many would say that this ‘craziness’ detracts from the useful information that he puts out. Personally I would rather have Icke around than not have him. Icke says that he ‘joins the dots’ and while we might not agree with his interpretation of the pattern that emerges he alerts us to the presence of an underlying pattern.

Note on Cancer

This is note rather than an argument. It’s also a note completed late at night.

I saw this documentary, Cancer the Forbidden Cures, some time ago. It was referenced in a comment about an article, in, claiming that chemotherapy boosts cancer growth:

The scientists found that healthy cells damaged by chemotherapy secreted more of a protein called WNT16B which boosts cancer cell survival. The protein was taken up by tumor cells neighboring the damaged cells.
“WNT16B, when secreted, would interact with nearby tumor cells and cause them to grow, invade, and importantly, resist subsequent therapy,” said Nelson.
In cancer treatment, tumors often respond well initially, followed by rapid regrowth and then resistance to further chemotherapy.

The comments on the article are interesting – they argue for and against chemo:

Caitlin Pryce-Davies Trigatti · Grace Lutheran College
This is all very well–but what the hell do you do when your child has an aggressive cancer and you don’t want them to die? I’m currently in this position and while I am open to alternatives I am going thru with chemo to save my daughters life—I’m so scared as it is and am constantly hearing that my choice to give treatment to my child could end up killing her anyway—I’m over it!!

This is the ‘argument from fear’ and it is understandable. We tend to trust the expertise of the medical profession. According to GP Online, a recent poll showed that doctors are the most trusted profession in the UK; It is rational to trust science and people whose expertise is based on science. Claims that there are cures for cancer that have been suppressed by the medical establishment appear to be the stuff of paranoia. The Mayo Clinic website argues that:

If you still believe a cure is being purposefully withheld, ask yourself why a doctor would choose to specialize in cancer research. Oftentimes doctors go into cancer research because they have a family member or friend affected by the disease. They’re just as interested in finding a cure as anyone else, for exactly the same reason — it affects them personally. They hate to see a loved one in pain and don’t wish to lose this person. They also want to spare others what they have gone through.

This is a good point. The documentary cites the success of Gerson Therapy and suggests this is a possible cure but there are several articles online that challenge the effectiveness of this therapy. Gerson Therapy, which emphasises a high intake of fruit, also seems to be contrary to other alternative therapies such as the alkaline diet.

There are clearly difficulties with mainstream medicine in general and with chemotherapy and radiotherapy in the case of cancer treatments but this does not mean that we have to give alternative approaches a ‘free pass’

Ultimate Conspiracy

Despite its title, ‘The Gods of David Icke’, this video has nothing to do with David Icke. Rather it contends that what can broadly be described as the ‘New Age movement’ is part of an extensive ‘Luceferian’ conspiracy that links Aleister Crowley, HP Blavatsky, Teilhard de Chardin, Spiritualism, The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, Ecumenism, Darwinism, the United Nations, the New World Order, Nazism and much else. The premise is that dark spiritual forces have been enticing mankind to rebel against God since the original enticement in Eden.

The video does a nice job of connecting the dots to depict an ‘ultimate conspiracy’ that culminates with the extermination of billions of people and the coming of the ‘Antichrist’. While I do not endorse the underlying thesis I think that there are elements of truth here and the video was interesting enough to keep me watching for two and a half hours.