The Syrian war propaganda clearly justifies US intervention. Sound familiar?
No doubt you have all heard about the alleged gas attack by the Assad regime in Idlib. While hundreds of Syrians were directly suffering, people pinned the blame on different actors in the region: some have obviously blamed Assad, including the Western media; others say it is a ‘false flag’, likely putting blame on the Western-backed rebels, who have used Sarin gas before.
Obviously it was used to vilify the Syrian regime, and to justify an attack on Syria. Which has now happened. Without any kind of investigation, the Trump administration ordered an attack on Syrian airfields, allegedly to remove chemical weapon deposits. This will dishearten Trump’s fan base, who were enticed by his pro-isolationist, anti-war remarks.
But regarding the attack, and its justifications, does this not sound similar to Iraq?
Clearly the episode in Idlib has been used to promote war against Syria. Just look at the Western media’s portrayal of the events: in any UK newspaper, like the Daily Express or the Rupert Murdoch-owned franchise ‘The Times’, a headline damning the Assad regime would have dominated the front cover. Videos and pictures of suffering Syrian children have bombarded Pro-Western news outlets online too – to highlight the horrific crimes committed.
Of course, this is not new from the West. Such narratives have been promoted about Syria for years. Yet this latest attack shows a bigger conflict could emerge.
Let us look at the context here. Attacks linked to the Syrian government are highlighted disproportionately compared to other war crimes across the world. Yes, even in the same news outlets that demonize Assad, such stories are tucked away, if mentioned at all. Expect to see more headlines about Yemen, where communities are destroyed and people are displaced by the brutal Saudi-led coalition? Forget it, this campaign is directly supported by the West. The liberation of Mosul from other Islamists? Nope. Unlike Aleppo, where the Assad government targeted al-Qaeda-led forces, the US supported the Iraqi-government’s campaign against Daesh with airstrikes. While Mosul was reported, the human cost was often omitted, and not emphasized like it was in Syria.
Disproportionate deaths, war crimes, and human suffering took place in these scenarios, among many other scenarios that are under-reported in the Western media. Even worse cases than what happened in Idlib receive less coverage.
Why though? Is it a coincidence that it is against a regime that the US has opposed for years previously?
Comparing it to Iraq, nearly 200 media outlets globally (just over 150 belonging to Rupert Murdoch) championed the Iraq war of 2003, banging the war drum against Saddam Hussein’s regime, despite false evidence procured to justify the invasion.
This legitimized the attack, which the US had actually built up towards for over a decade; attacking government infrastructure and weakening the state. After all, former presidents George H. W Bush and Bill Clinton had admitted that they had secretly wanted him gone.
And the same is occurring with Syria. Without conclusive evidence, or any kind of investigation, a media campaign claimed that they ‘knew’ Assad was behind it, in what many of us expected would be used to justify an intervention. That one took place, it validates this suspicion further.
This should raise great awareness. If the US can lie about Iraq, and destroy that state, why should we trust them to legitimately take care of Syria? Also, whilst they support Saudi war crimes against Yemen, and supply them with weapons, does it seem realistic that the US genuinely acts in defense of human rights?