Source: Global ResearchProf. Michel Chossudovsky and Finian Cunningham
US
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has acknowledged that Al Qaeda and
other organizations on the US “terror list” are supporting the Syrian
opposition.
Clinton
said: “We have a very dangerous set of actors in the region, al-Qaida
[sic], Hamas, and those who are on our terrorist list, to be sure,
supporting – claiming to support the opposition [in Syria].” [1] (Click here to watch video)
Yet
at the same time, in the above BBC interview the US Secretary of State
repeats the threadbare Western claim that the situation in Syria is one
of a defenceless population coming under “relentless attack” from Syrian
government forces.
There
is ample evidence that teams of snipers who have been killing civilians
over the past year in Syria belong to the terrorist formations to which
Clinton is referring to.
As
Michel Chossudovsky points out in a recent article: “Since the middle
of March 2011, Islamist armed groups – covertly supported by Western and
Israeli intelligence – have conducted terrorist attacks directed
against government buildings, including acts of arson. Amply documented,
trained gunmen and snipers, including mercenaries, have targeted the
police, armed forces as well as innocent civilians. There is ample
evidence, as outlined in the Arab League Observer Mission report, that
these armed groups of mercenaries are responsible for killing
civilians.
While
the Syrian government and military bear a heavy burden of
responsibility, it is important to underscore the fact that these
terrorist acts – including the indiscriminate killing of men, women and
children – are part of a US-NATO-Israeli initiative, which
consists is supporting, training and financing ‘an armed entity’
operating inside Syria.” [2]
The
admission at the weekend by Hillary Clinton corroborates the finding
that armed groups are attacking civilians and these groups are
terroristic, according to US own definitions, and that the situation in
Syria is not one of unilateral state violence against its population but
rather is one of a shadowy armed insurrection.
Clinton’s
admission retrospectively justifies the stance taken by Russia and
China, both of which vetoed the proposed UN Security Council Resolution
on 4 February, precisely because that proposal was predicated on a
spurious notion that the violence in Syria was solely the responsibility
of the Al Assad government.
Clinton
also acknowledges in the BBC interview that there is “a very strong
opposition to foreign intervention from inside Syria, from outside
Syria” – which tacitly concedes the fact that the Syrian population is
aware that the so-called oppositionists within their country are Al
Qaeda-affiliated mercenaries.
Meanwhile,
the US Gulf allies, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, have separately issued
statements that they are willing to send arms to Syria to support the
insurrection against the Damascus government. Given the still
substantial popular support for the government of Bashir Al Assad, such a
declaration by Saudi Arabia and Qatar towards a fellow Arab League
member state signifies an unprecedented interference in the internal
affairs of a sovereign state. Indeed, legal opinion could argue that it
constitutes a self-indicting act of international aggression.
Besides,
such a declaration by Saudi Arabia and Qatar of being willing to arm
Syrian insurrectionists, can be seen as a cynical cover for what is
already taking place. It is known that the Gulf monarchical states are
already supplying weapons illicitly to the self-styled Syrian Free Army,
along with Turkey and Israel.
So
far, the US is officially maintaining the fiction that it is not
involved in supplying arms to Syria even though Washington has demanded
“regime change” and in spite of evidence that Western covert forces,
including American, British and French operatives, are actively engaged
with the opposition groups.
It
is richly ironic that the unelected fundamentalist Sunni regimes of the
Persian Gulf are supporting Al Qaeda affiliated groups within Syria
purportedly to “bring about democratic reforms”. This is the same
dynamic that prevailed in Libya where the overthrow of that country’s
government by Western and Gulf Arab powers has now led to a collapse in
human rights and social conditions.
Once
again, Syria is indicating the same alignment of allies: Washington,
London and other NATO powers comfortably in bed with Sunni/Salafist
tyrants and terrorists, claiming to be supporting democratic freedom and
human rights.
Of
course, the real agenda has nothing to do with either democratic
freedoms or human rights – as the awry alignment of allies clearly
indicates. Rather, this is about Washington and its proxy powers trying
to engineer regime change throughout the Arab World and beyond to
conform to geopolitical objectives, principally the control of raw
energy. Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and now Syria are but a sequence of
stops on a global roadmap of permanent war that also swings through
Iran. Russia and China are the terminal targets.
Washington
is evidently prepared to use any means necessary to assert this agenda:
illegal wars, death on a massive scale, possibly triggering global war
and the use of nuclear weapons. But surely the most preposterous mask is
the “war on terror”, when it is seen – from the words of US Secretary
of State Hillary Clinton – that Washington is now openly collaborating
with the supposed “terrorist enemy” to bring about regime change in
desired countries.
If
somehow the weasel words from Washington could be taken at face value,
then if it were serious about wanting regime change to facilitate
democracy, human rights and world peace, the first regime that
pre-eminently qualifies for such change is Washington itself.
Notes
[1] Transcript of Clinton interview on BBC, 26 February, 2012:
