For several decades, NATO has continued to act illegally.
To sell its illegal wars to the unsuspecting public, NATO has found a convenient rationale, claiming that it has the right to bomb all countries that are not democracies.
The United States and the United Kingdom have thus arrogated to themselves the right to overthrow governments when those governments contradict their interests or hinder the pursuit of their geo-economic objectives.
The argument of values and human rights—which these countries are the first to neglect (see Rwanda) when their own interests (e.g., coltan in the DRC) are at stake—serves as a façade to disguise geo-economic motives they would rather not reveal.
Syria is currently suffering the effects of such posturing.
Five years before the conflict began, destabilization maneuvers were already being carried out by the USA and the UK to bring about the regime change envisaged as early as late 2006.
This is what General Wesley Clark reported in a conference in San Francisco on October 3, 2007, which we quote here:
« These people took control of U.S. policy, and I understood it then. I remembered a meeting I had with Paul Wolfowitz in 1991. »
In 2001, he was Deputy Secretary of Defense, but in 1991, he was Under Secretary, the number three at the Pentagon.
At that time, he said to me: « We have 5 or 10 years to clean up all these pro-Soviet regimes—Syria, Iran, Iraq—before the next superpower emerges to challenge us. »
It was a staggering statement: the military would be used to start wars and topple governments, not to prevent conflicts. We were going to invade countries. My thoughts were racing. « I filed it away, like a nugget you keep. »
In 2013, Roland Dumas, a former French Foreign Minister, revealed that two years before hostilities began, the United Kingdom was preparing for the upcoming war in Syria by training future rebels.
And to topple the Assad regime, which nonetheless ensured Syria’s stability, the USA, France, the United Kingdom, and Turkey found two ideal allies: Qatar and Saudi Arabia.
We won’t delve into the geo-economic motives, such as Qatar’s longstanding desire to route a pipeline through Syria to carry its gas to Europe, which led certain states to support the plan to overthrow Bashar Al-Assad.
It is worth knowing that the British and Americans organized and trained Islamist insurgents to launch a civil war meant to serve their interests—and certainly not those of the Syrians, who were living in peace before this terrible conflict.
In the report below, Shri VP Haran, the Indian Ambassador to Syria from 2009 to 2012, wrote:
« It took a lot of persuasion and involvement from external forces to light the fire in Syria in mid-March 2011. »
As is often the case, the media—in this case, Al Jazeera, serving Qatar’s interests—fabricated events. « Buses full of people were driven to Aleppo, » where « they burned some items in the streets. »
With the scene set and actions staged, all that was left was to film them, broadcast them on television, inflame tensions, and provoke international outrage.
This is known as « astroturfing, » a term every informed citizen should know by heart. It can be defined as « a technique involving the simulation of a spontaneous or popular movement for political or economic purposes to influence public opinion »—the opposite of the Yellow Vest movement.
Thus, a « Syrian revolution » was invented, akin to the Orange Revolution in Ukraine in 2004, which was made possible by the hard work of 150 organizations that provided the protesting minority with substantial financial support, including NGOs such as Freedom House, Open Society Institute, the National Democratic Institute (NDI), and the International Republican Institute (IRI).
In Syria, using classic tactics—exploiting opposition power, training Islamist rebels, and a dash of false-flag operations—the usual formula was applied.
Meanwhile, Arab Salafist leaders were shouting: « Christians to Beirut, Alawites to the cemetery. » We know the fate this illegal war brought to Syria’s Christian minority.
The term « moderate rebels » was then coined to justify support for them. Yet in May 2016, Seymour Hersh stated: « We are still arming people whom we persuade ourselves are not Salafists. »
At the same time, U.S. Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard criticized the fact that « the CIA and the USA were trying to overthrow Assad’s government » and called for an end to this illegal war to focus on combating Islamist armed groups.
In this DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency) document provided to the reader, it is clear that NATO knowingly cooperated with jihadists.
Pg.-291-Pgs.-287-293-JW-v-DOD-and-State-14-812-DOD-Release-2015-04-10-final-version11.pdf
The former DIA Director, General Michael Flynn, confirmed that the USA had consciously chosen to work with jihadists simply to achieve the overthrow of Assad’s regime.
Philip Giraldi, a former CIA analyst, revealed that as early as December 2011, NATO was operating covertly in Syria, with NATO aircraft disguised as civilian planes landing at Turkish airports near the Syrian border to deliver equipment from Libyan military stockpiles.
Once again, not only did the elimination of Gaddafi create chaos in Libya, unfortunately, but it also generated a complete disaster in Syria.
In the summer of 2012, the ill-fated Nobel Peace Prize laureate Barack Obama declared he had authorized the CIA to support Syrian rebels, while Der Spiegel reported that former British SAS soldiers were training jihadists in Iraq near the Syrian border.
In March 2013, the New York Times confirmed that weapons from Qatar and Saudi Arabia were being delivered to Turkey and Jordan to be transported to the Syrian border.
In short, all these self-righteous actors were preparing to create mountains of corpses.
Ultimately, the USA repeated its tragic method of empowering the enemies of its enemies, even if these same Islamists would seize every opportunity to strike America and its warmongering allies.
Sadly, France still does not understand that the Anglo-Saxon is neither a competitor (who would theoretically respect the rules of the game), nor a friend, nor an enemy, but a formidable adversary who weakens and soils it.
The beginning of the end for France was that illegal war in Kosovo against our Serbian friends, which it shamefully and servilely chose to support.
Journal d'idées 