A condensed and referenced analysis of the cause and instigation of the war on Syria, by Angelis Dania.
As anyone seriously following the war in Syria will be aware, leaked and declassified US cables and emails have demonstrated that this proxy war for regime-change was in the planning from before the end of 2006, with the documents citing the use of false propaganda, incitement of sectarian division, and the use of terrorist proxy forces to achieve the toppling of the Syrian government for the benefit of Israel, among other reasons.
[DOD Information Report - Syria]
[Influencing the SARG in the end of 2006]
[Hillary Clinton email: New Iran and Syria 2]
US funding for the Syrian opposition and subversive measures against the Syrian government began years before the instigation of the war in March 2011, and helped to pave the way.
[USG funding Syrian Opposition - 2006]
[WikiLeaks Reveals How the US Aggressively Pursued Regime Change in Syria, Igniting a Bloodbath]
Despite these revelations, anti-Assad analysts, journalists, and activists continue perpetuating the same narrative without accounting for the implications of this exposed US involvement. The fact that the US was plotting regime-change in Syria with the use of false propaganda should colour every report on events in Syria, subjecting them to the need for review in light of the now established pre-existing US regime-change campaign.
Particularly, reports from any activists, NGOs (such as the White Helmets), and armed groups in Syria that have any affiliation with or funding from the US government or its agencies, partners, or allies, should be flagged as having a conflict of interest, and as being from sources partisan to the US regime-change campaign in Syria.
[US funding for White Helmets]
The essential component of the anti-Assad narrative that should come under scrutiny as a result, first and foremost, is the premise that the war in Syria began with a “brutal regime crackdown on peaceful protesters”.
Given that subversive and deceitful tactics were declared in the US “regime-change manifesto” for Syria, and given also that the US has precedents of inventing pretexts for war, it then follows that the alleged crackdown on allegedly peaceful protesters was also a contrived pretext to instigate this regime-change war.
One of the Syrian eyewitnesses to the events at the beginning of this war, Jesuit priest, Father Frans van der Lugt, stated that “I have seen from the beginning armed protesters in those demonstrations … they were the first to fire on the police. Very often the violence of the security forces comes in response to the brutal violence of the armed insurgents”
[Testimony of Father Frans van der Lugt]
(ps: You can use Google Translator to translate to English - also copied down at the end of the article)https://mediawerkgroepsyrie.wordpress.com/2012/01/13/bij-defaitisme-is-niemand-gebaat/
It should be critically noted that the Syrian government responded to the protests by collating the reform demands of the Syrian people, and then implementing them into legislation. Perhaps the most significant of these came in the form of a new democratic constitution that was voted in by national referendum, and which included provisions for a multi-party system and presidential elections.
Parliamentary and internationally observed presidential elections were then held in accordance with the nationally ratified constitution, giving Syrians the opportunity to vote for a President other than Dr. Bashar Al-Assad. President Assad won the elections by a large majority, and with a voter turnout of over 70%. The independent observers of the election gave their report to the UN in New York.
[June 2014 election results]
[Election observers report to the UN]
https://youtu.be/ZnFQd4wBXnk
If the aim of the opposition is to remove President Assad from power, and if they claim that this is the will of most Syrians, then an independently observed election was an opportunity too good to refuse, to achieve their goal in a peaceful way.
The opposition refused to participate in the elections, just as they refused dialogue with the Syrian government at every stage in this conflict, and refused to join the reform protesters who took part in the political process that brought about the reforms.
When you observe the massively popular support that President Bashar Hafez Al-Assad has on the streets of Syria, it is no wonder that the opposition did not see the elections as an opportunity to achieve the US backed goal of regime-change.
[Mass country-wide pro-Assad rallies]
END.
[[by Angelis Dania ~ 5 June 2016 ]
-------------
Report by Pater van der Lugt about the situation in Homs
We are obliged to be nuanced by the citizens of Syria. Otherwise their battle is lost.
There are many people here who truly believe that we can move forward with this government, that it is capable of reforming (see the President's last speech) and that it may be more democratic than any alternates.
Most citizens in Syria do not support the opposition. This even claims a country like Qatar after a poll. That is why you can not say that this is a popular uprising. The majority of the people are not in revolt and certainly not in armed uprising. It is mainly a battle between the army and armed Sunni groups, which aim at the fall of the alawian regime and the takeover of power.
From the beginning, the protest movements have not been purely peaceful. From the beginning I have seen armed demonstrators walk in those demonstrations, who were the first to shoot the police. Very often the violence of the security services is a reaction to the cruel violence of the armed insurgents.
It is not certain that the government plays the two groups (Sunnis and Alawites) against each other. In Homs it is the other way around. The army ensures that the two groups do not go into bloody battle with each other. If the army leaves, we have a civil war here in Homs.
Bachar al-Assad never demanded the support of the Christian leaders. Most of them are behind him because they are convinced that they are worse with a different solution.
Father Frans van der Lugt from Homs.
January 13, 2012.
==================================================
[[by Angelis Dania ~ 5 June 2016 ]
-------------
Testimony of Father Frans van der Lugt]
No one benefits from defeatism - January 13, 2012
Report by Pater van der Lugt about the situation in Homs
We are obliged to be nuanced by the citizens of Syria. Otherwise their battle is lost.
There are many people here who truly believe that we can move forward with this government, that it is capable of reforming (see the President's last speech) and that it may be more democratic than any alternates.
Most citizens in Syria do not support the opposition. This even claims a country like Qatar after a poll. That is why you can not say that this is a popular uprising. The majority of the people are not in revolt and certainly not in armed uprising. It is mainly a battle between the army and armed Sunni groups, which aim at the fall of the alawian regime and the takeover of power.
From the beginning, the protest movements have not been purely peaceful. From the beginning I have seen armed demonstrators walk in those demonstrations, who were the first to shoot the police. Very often the violence of the security services is a reaction to the cruel violence of the armed insurgents.
It is not certain that the government plays the two groups (Sunnis and Alawites) against each other. In Homs it is the other way around. The army ensures that the two groups do not go into bloody battle with each other. If the army leaves, we have a civil war here in Homs.
Bachar al-Assad never demanded the support of the Christian leaders. Most of them are behind him because they are convinced that they are worse with a different solution.
Father Frans van der Lugt from Homs.
January 13, 2012.
==================================================
