Political Assassination of Assad Since the outbreak of hostilities, we have appeared to be subjected to constant media and propaganda manipulation in order to discredit the Syrian government, and build a case for support of opposition against it. Vitriolic personal attacks have been made in particular on President Assad. In 2012 and 2013 especially, but right through until the present, speech after speech from western politicians, including those such as William Hague of the UK and Senator John McCain from the US, have poured an almost evangelical hatred upon Assad, creating the impression that he represents the embodiment of all evil. Assad only left his career as an eye surgeon in London, to go into politics, due to the sudden death of his elder brother. He was initially hailed as a reformist, and he indeed began to introduce political reforms in giving greater political freedoms, in the early part of his tenure, before the reformist programme was shelved due to security concerns. This shelving of the reform agenda though did not stop US Secretary of State John Kerry courting an alliance with Assad’s government, and in fact after he and his wife were photographed having an apparently amicable dinner with Assad and his wife in Damascus in 2009, Kerry hailed Assad as a “key player in the Middle East peace process”[7] . By 2012 however, Kerry had labelled Assad as a modern day “Hitler”, David Cameron has recently enthusiastically called him, “The Butcher”, and throughout the war his government has consistently been referred to by governments and press as, “the regime”. This either appears to reflect a massive misjudgement on John Kerry’s part, by not noticing during his dinner and discussions with Assad that he was akin to Hitler, and mistaking him for an important political partner, or it smacks of media manipulation. In fact, the Hitler reference itself appears to be inappropriate, as Assad has run a secular Syria which very clearly seeks to protect against genocide, rather than to practise it. Comparisons with someone notorious for acts of genocide therefore appear designed to mislead. As for the label of “The Butcher”, well that was the name given to Libya’s head of intelligence who was known to have personally carried out massacres of political prisoners by machine gunning them. There is no suggestion that Assad has personally machine gunned prisoners to death, in fact the idea seems absurd. David Cameron therefore either appears to have got mixed up by giving the name to the Syrian President, or – as seems more likely – it is a way of building the myth about the Syrian government.
Framing of the regime This campaign to portray the Syrian government and army as monsters has also included the deliberate suppression of information which detracts from the case against the Syrian government. At least two notable examples of this behaviour relate to the chemical weapons attack which took place in rebel held territory on the outskirts of Damascus in 2013. The background to this event was that in August 2012, President Obama stated that a "red line" would be crossed if the Syrian government used chemical weapons in its civil war, implying that this would trigger US military action against the Syrian government. Accusations followed by the US, that the Syrian army was using chemical weapons "against its own people". The UN sent a request to the Syrian government to send weapons inspectors to Damascus to investigate the claim. The government denied that it was using chemical weapons, and invited the weapons inspectors to Damascus in accordance with their request. Two days after the weapons inspectors arrived, a massive chemical weapons attack occurred in a suburb of Damascus, in which 100s of people were killed. Obviously it seems patently absurd that in circumstances where the US has threatened to bomb the Syrian army if it used chemical weapons, the Syrian army would fire chemical weapons into civilian populations only a few kilometres away from where UN weapons inspectors who had arrived 2 days earlier, were staying. If that contention was not absurd enough, any reasonable person would surely disregard it as a possibility entirely if when the UN weapons inspectors went to inspect the scene of the crime a few days later, they were shot at by rebels who controlled the area to prevent them from gaining access. You would think so. But this did not stop the US from seeking to lay blame on the Syrian government. Indeed, a special broadcast was made by US Secretary of State John Kerry, in which he announced - to great fanfare and a backdrop of US flags - that the US Government had proof that the Syrian government was responsible for the weapons attack. That was 2 years ago, and no proof has ever been made public. In fact, when pressed as to what proof the Americans had, Mr Kerry said simply that it was "a judgment...clear to the world". In other words, the US had just made it up for convenience. In fact, when the UN issued its formal report into the incident, some weeks later, it did not apportion blame, but stated that evidence was being concealed and manipulated with while the inspectors were carrying out their inspections. It seems self evident that as the areas in which the inspections were taking place were controlled by rebels, then it was the rebels who were concealing and manipulating evidence. None of this was mentioned by the US or UK governments, who continued to insist that Assad was responsible and should be personally held account for war crimes. It wasn't just the formal UN report that appeared to suggest that the Syrian government should be exonerated. In fact, a UN spokesperson based in Syria, gave an unofficial interview in which she said the UN had in fact found no evidence of chemical weapons use by the Syrian government, but did have evidence of chemical weapons use by rebel groups [8] The western media gave little attention to the interview, western governments never mentioned it, and the spokesperson who gave the interview, has to my knowledge never been interviewed publicly again since. The chemical weapons incident, is far from the only example of the Syrians being framed. The framing of the Syrian Army for various atrocities carried out by rebel groups, including the Houta massacre...
Downplaying of domestic public support in Syria for President Assad As well as appearing to deliberately and misleadingly trash the reputation of the Syrian government, a clear policy by western governments not to give recognition to the support base President Assad has within Syria seems to have emerged. As well as anti government protests in 2011, there were massive pro government rallies, of hundreds of thousands of people[10]. These were downplayed in the west, with attention being given almost exclusively to anti government protests. Similarly, when Assad won an overwhelming majority of votes in the scheduled 2014 election, it was declared meaningless by western governments even though international monitors had declared the election free and fair[11]. As pointed out by critics of the 2014 elections, they only took place in government held areas of Syria. And yet even despite that, over 10 million Syrians voted for President Assad, out of a population (of the whole country at that time, including children) of 18 million. So even if everyone in non government held areas had voted for another candidate, President Assad would still have had a majority. This is not the only poll though which shows the support Assad has in Syria. Tim Anderson’s article, which I have linked in a section above, notes that, “The Syrian Muslim Brotherhood and other sectarian Islamist groups did hate him, along with the secular state. Yet even these enemies, in their better moments, recognised the man’s popularity. In late 2011 a Doha Debates poll (created by the Qatari monarchy, a major backer of the Muslim Brotherhood) showed 55% of Syrians wanted Assad to stay. Armed Islamists went further. In 2012 Reuters, the UK Guardian and Time magazine reported three ‘Free Syrian Army’ (FSA) leaders in Aleppo saying the Syrian President had about ‘70 percent’ support; or that the local people, ‘all of them, are loyal to the criminal Bashar, they inform on us’; or that they are ‘all informers … they hate us. They blame us for the destruction’. That view is backed up by two Syrians that I have recently met, both of whom stated that the people want Assad, that he is the only solution for the country, and that given the chance, almost everyone in Syria would go back to how things were in 2011 before the war broke out. Indeed, one of the gentlemen that I spoke with claimed to have played a major role, in 2011and 2012 for drumming up popular support overseas for the rebellion, but he insists that the bast majority even of those who were involved in the rebellion, now regret their actions, and consider that they were wrong. Both of the guys I spoke to, lauded the fact thar prior to the war Syria had no debt to other nations, and was as liberal as almost any country in the world, so long as people didnt interfere in politics or get involved in acts of sectarianism. In fact, as I discuss in the evidence section below, the key western governments are refusing to "allow" President Assad to take further part in elections in syria, even if it means possible peace. Such is their apparent fear of the popularity Assad has in Syria. And yet they refuse to acknowledge this, and instead give the impression to their people, that the Syrian people are united in wanting Assad to go.
Downplaying of attrocities and acts of aggression by parties other than the Syrian government. For example, throughout the conflict, the media and western governments have blamed the Syrian government for bombing rebel held areas, apparently ignoring the fact that in many cases, this is in direct response to and in defence against (western backed) rebels bombing government held civilian areas. A typical specific example of this, was the bombing of Damascus University by western backed rebels, which killed a number of students[12]. but this was downplayed in the west and this and similar incidents are barely known about. Recent similar examples include the news covered only by some outlets, that western backed rebels in the south of the country, have rounded up civilians who - in spite of living in rebel held areas - still openly support the government, and have put them in cages on top of buildings used by the rebels to fire rockets into damascus, in order to discourage the army from firing back[13] . Another example is the lack of reporting and condemnation of acts of genocide by Syrian rebels in Alawite territory, and open threats by the western backed Free Syrian Army to wipe Alawites out of existence [14] Even the most outrageous atrocities by Isis have been largely ignored, certainly until recently, with little or no mainstream press coverage, and barely any government recognition given to appalling events such as children being kidnapped and used as 'child brides', children and priests being beheaded, 100s of soldiers being executed in cold blood, and even their own fighters being massacred for trying to leave. I won't provide a link, but such atrocities can be readily googled. BBC reporting in particularly has been hugely bias against the Assad government, since the deaths early in the conflict of two western journalists.
Downplaying of the moderate nature of the rebels, and the funding of extremist rebels by the west and its allies Obvious governmental attempts to mislead the public as to the nature of the armed opposition, have appeared to include John Kerry’s attempts to obtain endorsement from the US Congress for the government's plans to bomb Syria following the chemical weapons incident. In examining Mr Kerry’s plan for attacking Syria, Congress questioned Mr Kerry as to who would take power if the Syrian government was defeated, and as to whether the rebels contained a substantial islamic extremist element. Even though it was widely popularly known at that time (although Isis had not yet come to dominate as it does today) that a large proportion of the rebel opposition at that time were radical islamic groups, mr kerry claimed (i believe on oath) to the US Congress, that the rebels did not contain any significant number of islamists, and that they were almost exclusively "moderates". This apparent lie appeared to be told to suit an agenda to facilitate he precipitated removal of President Assad.
Efforts to achieve peace in Syria Western media and western governments, consistently state that they are trying to achieve peace in Syria, but that such efforts are thwarted by Russian and Iranian involvement, and by President Assad’s unwillingness to ‘negotiate’. In fact, a closer look reveals, that it is the other way around, and it is the west and its allies who are perpetuating the continuance of the war. Although the US and UK publically state that Syria should be given democracy, in fact it has been a central part of Russia, Iranian and Syrian policy for several years now, that the war, and the governance of Syria, should be settled by the popular will of the Syrian people[18] [19] . However, Gulf States and Western States, state that elections for Syria are not acceptable, unless President Assad steps down first and does not take part in the elections. In fact, the position taken by Iran, Russia, and Syria itself has for several years now, been that the Syrian people should decide the identity of the government, in other words that there should be open elections for the whole country, such as those which took place in areas currently held by the government in 2014, in which President Assad was re-elected with a massive majority. But the whole pretext of western involvement is that the people of Syria don't want to be ruled by President Assad. It's for this reason that the US and UK declared the 2014 elections (which were declared free and fair by international monitors), to be void. But if they are so convinced that the whole of Syria would not re-elect Assad, then why are they so worried about Assad being included in a nationwide ballot, that they won't countenance the idea ? And if they don't in fact believe that the Syrian people want to get rid of Assad, then what are these governments even doing getting involved, interfering in the affairs of his sovereign state ? The fact is, that it appears that most of the Syrian people do want Assad as their President. What they don't want is the civil war currently taking place due to armed groups trying to take the government down by force. That is what the west and gulf countries are afraid of. They know, that there is a very good chance that if there were fresh elections for the whole country, then Assad would be reelected if he was to take part. This would appear to reinforce the view, that the US and their allies' primary concern is not for the Syrian people, but for the removal of President Assad for their own needs. And their requests for Assad to negotiate his departure ? Why should he negotiate ? He is being invaded by foreign armies. To negotiate would amount to a surrender. The west must know this, and yet they continue to demand the departure of Assad. In doing so, they tacitly acknowledge that this is not a civil war, but an invasion of Syria.
The above are excerpts from the first section ("the lies we are told") of an article that I wrote a couple of years ago, about the great syrian deception.
On a separate note, the effects of Brexit are kicking in now. The pound continues to decline, imports are getting dearer a result, prices are bound to rise and so will inflation therefore, consumer spending will soon dip and we'll be in recession again. Fujitsu are pulling out of Britain too - but it's nothing to do with Brexit they say.
Just trying to think what the US/UK/France government's full explanation of the Syrian conflict would be. Something like this ? : Assad was a harsh President of Syria who had committed many attrocities down the years against his people. Amongst other things, he had banned religion, and being Kurdish. In 2011, some brave subjects took part in a peaceful protest march, seeking democracy in Syria. Assad ordered the army to kill the demonstrators, and they were machine gunned to death in the streets. When others complained about the massacre, Assad declared war on his own people. Since this time, Assad has attacked his own people, using his private Assad army - recruited from murderers and terrorists around the islamic region, and his air force to bomb them. Putin of Russia - who also enjoys killing civilians for fun - has joined in, and also bombs Assad's own people. They will not stop until the people all leave Syria, leaving it for Assad to use as his own giant garden. Since 2016, Putin and Assad have not only bombed Assad's own people generally, but have also specifically targeted hospitals to try to kill injured people and doctors. Analysts claim that is is because Putin gets extra kicks from killing injured people. Some brave Syrian people who refuse to leave, have made white helmets, which they wear to protect the other people.
Sterling is in free fall and there is just no respite visible for the next 6-12 months at least, although probably more likely for years ahead.
Why so many imports. Can't we do anything ourselves? I would like to see an end to all these Asian imports or put a bloody big tax on them. Here's something.A basketball player named Jordan has been advertising Haines underwear for years and probably made millions. I believe the underwear comes from Nicuaguar(?) in South America. Sweat shops? (Couldn't spell that from the top of my head!)
And the benifit is that with the pound has dropped 14% against a basket of world currencies, British Exports have become cheaper abroad. Only last week a British company in the midlands who manufacture packaging won a contract off Chinese competitors because they could supply packaging cheaper. Now if we have a hard brexit, i.e. no access to the free market, a 10% tarif on us will be reprociated. German and French cars, which already will have to rise in price due to the 14% offset, would have to rise another 10%. That would be shooting themselves in the foot. Don't get me wrong, the muppets that represent the whore that is the EEC in Brussels will invoke a tarif because they will not want to lose face, but it will hurt them much more than it will hurt us. Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned. However, we can trade with the rest of the world with a competitive exchange rate. From a personal point of view, it is great, I get paid in US dollars and since commencing my job, when it cost me $1.76 to buy a pound, I've had a 43% pay rise. My consumer spending has actually gone up because I can now afford to have my kit car rebuilt, which goes towards keeping people in work in the UK. If the cost to me is not being able to get another Mercedes when it's time to change my day to day car, it is something that I can live with.
We will be able to do things ourselves now the pound is not so over priced. Foreign imports will become dearer allowing British industry to compete. Basically, the minimum wage has been reduced by 43% in the last two years making British labour costs competitive.
It will continue to fall until the Brexit negociations are finalised. Somewhere about $1.05 to $1.10 I would guess. It is not a bad thing as ex govener of the Bank of England, Melvin King, pointed out this week. It will result in more jobs as British goods become more competitive abroad. Spending one's way out of recession, i.e. quantative easing, (printing money when you havent got any) is a very dangerous policy, which will come back to bite. Hard graft and expanding manufacturing base, like the Chinese and Koreans have done is the answer.
A week currency will help when you have a positive trade balance. The U.K. does not. Within 6-9 months, you will start to see prices rise in the shops due to the inflation that was imported by the weak pound. That's when this Brexit nonsense will start to bite the people that fed it.
Very true, prices of IMPORTED goods in the shops will rise. British industry then needs to get it's backside into gear and start producing. With the relative fall in the value of the stupid minimum wage we should now be able to compete, both at home and abroad.
Imported raw materials that are used by British manufacturers too. Many people overlook that although something is manufactured in the U.K., the raw materials to make it are imported. The fact is that the UK has a large negative trade imbalance with the rest of the world. With the fall against the dollar and, to some extent, the euro, the importation of inflation is unavoidable. That trade imbalance will not disappear any time soon. Prices will rise!...that will cause political problems for May and the Brexiteers.
And we don't have a manufacturing economy. We stopped mass producing things because they were cheaper to import. And we shut down our coal and steel industries - in favour of importing again. Look at the situation with cars.We can't suddenly start producing cars and competing with the major manufacturers from around the world. Those overseas manufacturers who produce cars here are uncertain whether they want to carry on doing so (take Nissan). If people here want new cars, they will be imported and we will have to pay a premium because of the weak pound. The reality will be that spending will slow down and the economy will go into further recession.
