The Orbiting Eye pulls back the cloak concealing why Syria was attacked and what the attackers’ ultimate aim is following this egregious breach of international law. The real target, the Eye, a Middle East expert writes, is Iran
SIXTY-TWO YEARS after the ‘tripartite aggression’ (Britain, France and Israel) against Egypt in 1956, otherwise known as the Suez War, we have another tripartite aggression, this time the attack on Syria by the US, Britain and France.
The Orbiting Eye advises readers not to believe a word they are being told. The mainstream media, including the Australian media, has run little but propaganda about Syria for the past seven years. Readers and viewers everywhere have been deceived. The internal allies of the governments attacking Syria are some of the most violent armed groups on the face of the earth.
There is not the slightest doubt that the alleged chemical weapons attack in Douma was a set-up. The probable culprits were the Jaysh al Islam (Army of Islam) terrorist group, whose chemical weapons plant east of Damascus was recently discovered by the Syrian army, along with the so-called ‘White Helmets’ and the Syrian American Medical Society, both of which are funded by the US and British governments and both of which are fully complicit in the crimes committed across Syria for the past seven years. They are embedded with the terrorist groups and operate only in the areas which they have infiltrated.
US President Donald Trump (above) , leader of the latest ‘tripartite aggression’ in the Middle East, is seemingly unconcerned by the niceties of international law. British PM Teresa May (below, left) probably finds Syria a useful diversion as she fights to retain the British leadership. The popularity of new French leader Emmanuel Macron (below right) has plummeted since his election last May.
Jaysh al Islam was on the point of being completely driven out of Douma when this ‘chemical attack’ was reported. Even logically, it was the only party likely to use such a weapon but evidence, proof and logic are irrelevant to the governments attacking Syria.
Inspectors from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) were due to begin their investigation in Douma on Saturday. But at 4am that day, before they could begin their work, the US, the UK and France launched their attack. They had no evidence, let alone proof, that the Syrian government was responsible for what happened in Douma.
The reason they attacked before the chemical weapons inspectors could investigate could only be their fear – if not their certainty – that the inspectors would not support their claims, and might not even be able to confirm that there was an attack at all, from the air as alleged, rather than the release of this material on the ground.
The three governments have violated international law, but then the attack on Syria in 2011 was a gross violation of international law in the first place. That law specifically prohibits wars of aggression, defined at the post-WW2 Nuremberg tribunal as the ‘supreme international crime’. In 2011 Syria had committed no act of war against any of the countries that teamed up to destroy it through armed proxies, after the UN Security Council had refused to give them a mandate for an aerial war.
International law also prohibits support by outside governments for armed groups operating in other countries. At numerous levels the US and its allies are tearing up international law, as they did over Iraq. It is shameful that Australia, by acting as an echo chamber for the US, associates itself. Advance Australia, fair we hope, but where?
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad speaks about the ‘rebels’ attacking his government, aided by the US, Britain and France. Click on image to enlarge.
Orbiting Eye suggests that readers closely consider the real reason behind all of this, which is who controls the Middle East. The end target of the attack on Syria is Iran: if Syria was chosen first it is because it has a strategic relationship with Iran and because Iran is too big and too dangerous to be attacked first. Now Russia is involved, through its intervention in support of and at the request of the Syrian government, the legal government of the country, representing Syria at the UN. The Spanish government was in the same position in the 1930s. It represented Spain at the League of Nations when it was attacked by the fascists, with the support of the British government behind the cloak of ‘non-intervention’.
Now, outside governments using the pretext of ‘transition to democracy’ and moving on to ‘chemical weapons’, are engaged in an attack on Syria that rates comparison with the fascist attacks of the 1930s. The interest, aspirations, interests and even the lives of the Syrian people have no part in their calculations, despite the floods of crocodile tears.