Eight Years of Corrosive Lies about Syria

The western media, under the clutches of Zionists, is never tired of promoting United States as the biggest democracy and peacekeeper on this planet. The bitter reality is opposite and only displayed in social media, which is often not liked by those at the top of helm of affairs even in the United States. The most recent evidences are ongoing turmoil being created in Venezuela and the failed efforts to topple the incumbent government in Syria of the United States.  

The hallmark of the US administration is telling lies and spreading disinformation with such a frequency that often a person with average wit is misled and start believing in lies. It may be said that the US spy agencies tell lies the way authoritarians do to demonstrate and expand their power. Three of the most glaring examples of blatant lies of spy agencies are presence of OBL in Afghanistan, manufacturing of WMD by Iraq and nuclear program of Iran. All this could be best understood if one just has a cursory look at eight years of corrosive lies of the US administration about Syrian war.

Let us begin with a story published in the Wall Street Journal about Syria telling that the United States may leave 1,000 troops in that country after all. If one can recall, the US president had announced a complete withdrawal of troops from Syria months ago. Then, weeks later the White House announced that a small force of 200 would stay behind. Now, the Journal was reporting that it would actually be 1,000. A few hours later the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said the original plan remained unchanged.

Reviewing three assertions routinely made about Syria by pundits, politicians, and policymakers show complete hypocrisy: 1) Syria shows the perils of U.S. non-intervention; 2) We’re only in Syria to fight ISIS and 3) U.S. withdrawal from Syria would mean handing a victory to Vladimir Putin. All of the above statements have become conventional wisdom. The same people sometimes repeat more than one of them, but they are entirely irreconcilable with one another.

If withdrawing from Syria means handing a victory to Vladimir Putin, then the US is doing something other than fighting ISIS there, something that certainly can’t be described as non-intervention.

CIA began the US mission in the Syrian Civil War years before ISIS came into being, and a full year before President Barak Obama began talking up his red lines and proposing a congressional vote to authorize intervention in Syria.

The world was told that the US was arming moderate rebels, but these moderate rebels fought side by side Al Nusra fighters who were often known to be using weapons brought in by the CIA or the Department of Defense to fight this war in which the US was not intervening. The US also funded a group called Nour al-Din al-Zenki, until its members showed up on YouTube beheading a child, at which point the moderate label no longer quite fit.

Apparently the Congress refused to authorize US military intervention in Syria, which was already ongoing. Did the intervention stopped? No, it continued under the 2001 AUMF that authorized the president to make war on al-Qaeda. The US is now using the legal authority to hunt and destroy al-Qaeda to fund and arm al-Qaeda’s allies on the ground in Syria.