Tearing Apart The Western Narrative on the Syrian Conflict

How the Western Media Hide & Distort the Facts to Promote an Endless War

The West relies on the public’s acceptance of a a simplistic and incorrect version of the Syrian conflict. This narrative is the only narrative that supports the need to keep arming, training and funding jihadist militants, in order to perpetuate a civil war to the point that there is no stability left to rebuild.

I invite you to do a simple experiment. Pick your most-used search engines to find articles and informative videos for the phrase “Syrian war explained”. Now look at them very critically, fact-check along the way.

I looked for explanations for the Syrian war on Youtube. The first video I came across was created by Vox (an American news website) and is called “Syria’s war: who is fighting and why”. Please have a look at this video with me here.

The video starts off correctly in stating that the Syrian war is a mess, then continues by handily colour-coding the four groups on the ground: Assad, Hezbollah, Russia and Iran are an angry red, ISIL is black, the Kurds seem to be “kind of okay” in yellow, and the rebels, the USA, Turkey and Jordan are in blue.

Vox now takes us back to what they deem to be the beginning of the war: the “peaceful” protests in 2011. But was this truly the beginning, and were these protests really all that peaceful?

Back in 2013 — Vox’ video stems from 2015 — former French foreign minister for Foreign Affairs Roland Dumas gave french tv station LCP a bleak insight in the conception and therefore a more truthful starting point of the Syrian conflict:

“‘I was in England two years before the violence in Syria on other business. I met with top British officials, who confessed to me that they were preparing something in Syria. This was in Britain not in America. Britain was organising an invasion of rebels into Syria. They even asked me, although I was no longer minister for foreign affairs, if I would like to participate (…) ‘’This operation goes way back. It was prepared, preconceived and planned… in the region it is important to know that this Syrian regime has a very anti-Israeli stance. Consequently, everything that moves in the region- and I have this from the former Israeli prime minister who told me ‘we’ll try to get on with our neighbours but those who don’t agree with us will be destroyed.It’s a type of politics, a view of history, why not after all. But one should know about it.’’

Other sources date the birth of the British plan to bring down Syria (and Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran) all the way back as directly after 9/11 or even 1991.

The “peaceful” protestors who were so very mercilessly shot down by Assad’s forces, had actually been trained and armed with heavy machine guns and anti-tank machinery by NATO and the Turkish high command: Not your regular peaceful protestor (DEBKAfile, August 14, 2011).

There are reports of rooftop snipers having shot at both demonstrators and government forces in Dara’a, applying a similar “false flag” strategy as was used during the Ukrainian Maidan protest movement.

The Vox video does not delve into any of these allegations, but stubbornly continues stating that the protestors started shooting back at Assad’s forces in July (with guns found they happened to have lying around?), followed by the defection of some Syrian troops from the army, forming the Free Syrian Army.

The video twists reality and speaks of how Assad encouraged Jihadists to join the rebels, in order to make it harder for foreigners to back them.

In fact, it were the US and Britain who handpicked, inserted, funded, trained and armed jihadists and armed forces from the very start or even before the uprisings. The west has “religiously” followed a strategy of promoting sectarian divisions in order to bring about a civil war which would lead to the sort of instability required to prevent Syria from forging its own foreign policy, from supporting Palestine and allying itself with the Global South.

“At the same time the US quietly urges the Arab gulf states to stop funding extremists, but their requests go ignored.”

When it comes to fighting terrorism, the US and Britain seem to only be fighting ISIL when the group attacks their handpicked militias (or as Cameron likes to call them, the 70.000 “moderate” troops). Whenever ISIL is fighting soldiers or police they are being left to their devices, which shows a complete disregard for the threat ISIL poses and that ISIL is actually fulfilling the Western foreign policy. The Army of Conquest is a loose alliance consisting of a number of mostly Islamist factions, including the Nusra Front, Al Qaeda’s Syrian affiliate; Ahrar al-Sham, and more moderate rebel factions that have received covert arms support from the intelligence services of the United States and its allies.

So who was encouraging Jihadists again?

Vox continues to use its system of colour-coding to explain who is allied with who, who stepped in when, focusing on a handy narrative of “Sunni vs. Shia”, ignoring any possible Western imperialist strategy.

When moving on to a second video called “The war in Syria explained in 5 minutes” — it’s always a good sign when highly complex matters that took years if not decades of preparation are crammed into five minutes -, things don’t look much better. The video was posted by the Guardian (a British newspaper) in 2013. Please have a look at it with me here.

The Guardian’s video takes about two seconds to quickly move past the uprisings in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya, as success-stories of the populus taking down an authoritarian regime. Bashar-al Assad and his father — two silly-looking animations — are depicted as brutal leaders hated by their people: A premise hard to maintain when looking at a poll carried out in 2011 by Doha Debates, indicating that 55% of respondents wanted Assad to remain in power. According to Le Figaro in 2015, this figure had risen to 72%.

This video follows the lead of the Vox-video by explaining how friendly protestors were brutally mowed down by Assad’s forces in Dara’a. The Guardian’s video adds the sound of automatic rifles and mentions a death toll of “hundreds” during this event, a number which is not only vague, but also highly exaggerated.

The following ominous sentence “Any chance of a peaceful resolution died with the demonstrators” is most telling, as it has been convincingly argued by many that a continuation of war in Syria is exactly what the US and Britain want: Only war will destabilise Syria to the extent wished by the West, and of course pave the way for lucrative reconstruction contracts and increased arms sales.

The innocent question is posed why the UN, Europe and the US have not stepped in (ha-ha!), and answered with the blocking VETO’s of bullies Russia and China against international effort against Assad, since (only they) have an “interest” in Syria. Sadly the video does not specify what it is exactly that the West has no interest in at all: Natural resources? Something else?

This quick dissection of only the first two videos found when looking for “Syrian war explained” on Youtube clearly shows a Western eagerness to distort and hide facts that point towards Western involvement or even orchestration from the start, to in stead fit a narrative that promotes a preferably never-ending war.

I do not want anyone to simply adopt my views and take what I have written here for fact, but to be critical when digesting the information presented on a silver platter by our trusted Western media and governments.

Interested in hearing more critical voices? Check out this interview with Mehrnaz Shahabi (an independent researcher), Dan Glazebrook (freelance political journalist, author of “Divide and Ruin: The West’s Imperial Strategy In an Age of Crisis), Patrick Henningsen (investigative journalist), presented by Martin Summers and Tony Gosling on BCFM’s Politics Show. It’s a bit longer than the preferred five minutes, but definitely worth your time.

Show your support

Clapping shows how much you appreciated Else Feikje van der Berg’s story.