Angelis Dania
Aug 8, 2017 · 3 min read

This article will be well received by sectarians, and for a while also by those still tuned into the majority media. But to everyone who knows Syria, the reaction will be either a laugh at the embarrassing revisionism and critical omissions, or disdain at the attempt to sell the US funded narrative to those who’ve picked up a little history on Sykes-Picot and the Shia-Sunni schism, affording them a rewarding validation of their knowledge whilst not very subtly mis-framing it for them. For me it was a bit of both.

There’s a manure container full of way wrong in this write up, but here are a few to go off:

The vital omission that the CIA in 1949 (a year after they were established) began espionage and regime change operations in Syria that have never ceased.

Syria, rather than viewing Iran as a rival, was its key ally in the revolution of 1979 and in the subsequent US orchestrated and backed 8 year Iran-Iraq war (hint: this explains their solidarity).

Failure to mention that although in some parts of Syria there were incubators for extremism, the terrorist activities of the Muslim Brotherhood were instigated and sponsored by foreign actors, and that those who were targeted and killed (the CIA estimate at the time was around 2,000 but it grew in the telling as propaganda usually does), were not part of a political uprising, did not represent the majority of Syrians, were not unarmed, and left strings of massacres against Syrian people in their wake. It was not an attack against the people. It was an attack on murderous foreign backed traitors hiding under the veil of Islam. Much like today. But then, terrorist sympathising is a rampant trend in Syria rhetoric these days, so it makes sense to humanise their predecessors if you’re going to write what is ultimately a defense (whether you intended it or not) for the current ongoing US orchestrated and instigated regime change proxy war.

The allegations of the Syrian government using chemical weapons, besides being absurd on a number of levels, have not only never been proven, but every independent and technically expert analysis has either exonerated the Syrian government, or blamed the US backed terror groups, or at the very least laid no blame.

Perhaps one of the most comedic and telling lines is when you suggested that “America thinks there can one day be peace in the Middle East”, in reference to how President Hafez allegedly played intentions about the Israel-Palestine conflict, hilariously inferring that the US at any stage ever wanted to genuinely put a stop to a war that was benefiting its expansionist ally.

While this article does run on, and gives the appearance of a great deal of research, the stalls from which one could shop to fill such a big bag of nothing-burgers are more numerous than McDonalds branches, and just as cheap, so sadly it’s nothing difficult and neither does it have any real depth. It’s demonstrative of the most common sort of pseudo-intelligence that is plaguing our forums of analysis, and the fundamentals of its sources come direct from the most overused Washington think-tank play books, being heavily reliant on US funded reports via proxy militants and “NGOs” for its core premises.

For all the resemblance this bears to Syria and the Assad presidencies, it may as well be referring to an alternate and equally fictional reality.

    Angelis Dania

    Written by