‘This incisive article by veteran war correspondent  Felicity Arbuthnot was published by Global Research a year ago, on February 2, 2012.

You will not read it in the New York Times.

At a time of  mounting media fabrications –when “objective truths are fading” and  “lies are passing into history”– this analysis reveals the diabolical modus operandi of US-NATO terrorism and  how covert intelligence ops are applied to trigger conditions which are conducive to the collapse of nation states. One of these “conditions” is the outright killing of  innocent civilians as part of a cover operation and then blaming president Bashar Al Assad of  having committed atrocities against his own people

Michel Chossudovsky,  Global Research , January 27, 2012

“In order to facilitate the action of liberative (sic) forces, …a special effort should be made to eliminate certain key individuals. …[to] be accomplished early in the course of the uprising and intervention, …

Once a political decision has been reached to proceed with internal disturbances in Syria, CIA is prepared, and SIS (MI6) will attempt to mount minor sabotage and coup de main (sic) incidents within Syria, working through contacts with individuals. …Incidents should not be concentrated in Damascus …

Further : a “necessary degree of fear .. frontier incidents and (staged) border clashes”, would “provide a pretext for intervention… the CIA and SIS [MI6 should use … capabilitites in both psychological and action fields to augment tension.” (Joint US-UK leaked Intelligence Document, London and Washington, 1957)

“’The very concept of objective truth is fading out of the world. Lies will pass into history.” (George Orwell (Eric Arthur Blair, 1903-1950.)

For anyone in two minds about what is really going on in Syria, and whether President Assad, hailed a decade ago as “A Modern Day Attaturk”, has become the latest megalomaniacal despot, to whose people a US-led posse of nations, must deliver “freedom”, with weapons of mass, home, people, nation and livelihood destruction, here is a salutary tale from modern history.

Have the more recent sabre rattlings against Syria* been based on US-UK government papers, only discovered in 2003 - and since air brushed (or erroneously omitted) from even BBC timelines, on that country?

In late 2003, the year of the Iraq invasion, Matthew Jones, a Reader in International History, at London’s Royal Holloway College, discovered “frighteningly frank” documents:1957 plans between then UK Prime Minister, Harold Macmillan, and then President, Dwight Eisenhower, endorsing: “a CIA-MI6 plan to stage fake border incidents as an excuse for an invasion (of Syria) by Syria’s pro-western neighbours.”’

‘With each passing year and with each predictable “crisis,” whether the issue is war, guns, or economic policy, it seems that the level of propaganda becomes more and more infantile each time an agenda is set to unfold. Nowhere is this more evident than with the manufactured crisis in Syria, itself wholly created, directed, and maintained by the Anglo-American, NATO military and intelligence networks.

Indeed, while Assad’s lengthy holdout against the NATO-backed death squads of fundamentalists, dupes, and mercenaries as well as the occasional Western special forces or intelligence agent, may have held the more overt invasion at bay for a short time, it appears that the attempt to engage Syria directly is fast becoming a real possibility.

Thus, pro-war propaganda is being churned up yet again, this time from the reliably pro-imperialist Council on Foreign Relations. In true remedial fashion, the company line comes complete with suggestions of the use of chemical weapons, civilian casualties, and even weapons of mass destruction (WMD).’

‘Since the kindling of the conflict inside Syria in 2011, it was recognized, by friend and foe alike, that the events in that country were tied to a game plan that ultimately targets Iran, Syria’s number one ally. De-linking Syria from Iran and unhinging the Resistance Bloc that Damascus and Tehran have formed has been one of the objectives of the foreign-supported anti-government militias inside Syria. Such a schism between Damascus and Tehran would change the Middle East’s strategic balance in favour of the US and Israel.

If  this cannot be accomplished, however, then crippling Syria to effectively prevent it from providing Iran any form of diplomatic, political, economic, and military support in the face of common threats has been a primary objective. Preventing any continued cooperation between the two republics has been a strategic goal. This includes preventing the Iran-Iraq-Syria energy terminal from being built and ending the military pact between the two partners.

All Options are Aimed at Neutralizing Syria

Regime change in Damascus is not the only or main way for the US and its allies to prevent Syria from standing with Iran. Destabilizing Syria and neutralizing it as a failed and divided state is the key. Sectarian fighting is not a haphazard outcome of the instability in Syria, but an assisted project that the US and its allies have steadily fomented with a clear intent to balkanize the Syrian Arab Republic. Regionally, Israel above all other states has a major stake in securing this outcome. The Israelis actually have several publicly available documents, including the Yinon Plan, which outline that the destruction of Syria into a series of smaller sectarian states is one of their strategic objectives. So do American military planners.’

‘PressTV has reported (more details via Fars News) that chemical weapons have been used by militants fighting Syrian government forces in Daraya, near Damascus. PressTV also reported that threats have been made against Syria’s ethnic minorities that their water supplies will be poisoned by militants - this on the heels of the UN itself warning of (and preemptively spinning) impending sectarian-driven genocide.

Image: (via the Guardian) “Chemical containers in the Libyan desert. There are concerns unguarded weapons could fall into the hands of Islamist militants. Photograph: David Sperry/AP” As increasing evidence reveals Libyan fighters and weapons are pouring into Syria, the West has been preparing to cover up the inevitability that Libya’s chemical arsenal will also found its way into the besieged nation. It now appears that such weapons are being deployed by NATO’s terrorist proxies.

AFP reported that the NATO-backed terrorists’ threats against Syria’s 1.8 million Christians have become so serious that the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation has made an official statement condemning the militants. AFP reported: 

The world’s largest Muslim body on Sunday condemned threats made by Islamist rebels in Syria against two Christian towns, warning of fresh confessional strife in the war-torn country.

The use of chemical weapons, if confirmed, will indicate a desperate new dimension to NATO’s proxy war with Syria - one meant solely to sow fear and terror, as well as sectarian strife, where the Western axis has otherwise failed both tactically and strategically. With NATO-backed terrorists openly threatening sectarian genocide, there are fears that not only NATO, Saudi, and Qatari weapons and funds will be used to carry it out, but a large arsenal of weapons brought with Al Qaeda terrorists from Libya, including its large cache of chemical weapons.

The Western media, and Western government officials have been preparing the public for the imminent use of chemical weapons in the Syrian conflict, trying to pin responsibility on the Syrian government, regardless of which side actually uses them.

As early as 2007, the US, Saudi, and Israeli government had been preparing to unleash armed, sectarian extremists tied directly to Al Qaeda, with the intent on waging a region-wide sectarian war to destroy Lebanon, Syria, and Iran. Despite US and Lebanese officials warning of the “cataclysmic conflict” the West and its regional allies were planning, the plot was put into full effect come 2011. As sectarian genocide unfolds, the Western media, in tandem with Western officials, feign ignorance and shock at the conflict they themselves purposefully engineered over the last several years.’

(Source: activistpost.com)

‘On December 7, Voice of Russia (VoR) headlined: “Iraq 2.0, another false-flag invasion rated XXX,” saying:

The US and NATO are set to invade Syria, something many of us have been warning about for a while now. It has been obvious that they have been looking for a pretext and that pretext has already been injected into the public debate.

VoR cited fabricated claims about threatening chemical weapons. Media scoundrels hype them. Sarin nerve gas was mentioned.

Reports claimed Assad readied it in bombs. No evidence whatever was cited.

They’re ready to go but haven’t been loaded on planes, said an unnamed US official. Pentagon spokesman George Little said “any consideration of the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime would be unacceptable.”

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said:

I think there is no question that we remain very concerned, very concerned that as the opposition advances, in particular on Damascus, that the regime might very well consider the use of chemical weapons. The intelligence that we have causes serious concerns that this is being considered. 

The president of the United States has made very clear there will be consequences, there will be consequences if the Assad regime makes a terrible mistake by using these chemical weapons on their own people.

On December 7, Syrian Deputy Foreign Minister Faisal Miqdad was unequivocal, saying:

Syria stresses again, for the 10th, the 100th time, that if we had such weapons, they would not be used against our people. We would not commit suicide.

The alleged Syrian chemical weapons threat replicates bogus allegations about Saddam’s nonexistent WMDs. It’s similar to falsified claims about Gaddafi, the Taliban, and numerous other invented US enemies.

Big Lies launch wars. In The Art of War, Sun Tzu said “All war is based on deception.” It’s true now like in ancient times. Instant global communications, super-weapons, and scoundrel media complicity make today’s threat especially ominous.’

(Source: activistpost.com)

‘NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said on Tuesday the military alliance is ready to attack Turkey following a week of theatrical performances on the Syrian border designed to portray Turkey’s neighbor as an ominous threat.

‘CIA and MI6 backed Free Syria Army terrorist in the western border town of Zabadani in January, 2012.’

“Obviously Turkey can rely on NATO solidarity,” said Rasmussen. “We have all necessary plans in place to protect and defend Turkey if necessary.”

Despite evidence that the mortar used in the attack on Turkey was of NATO manufacture and Syria has formally apologized for the attack it did not commit, Turkey has continued to pummel its northern neighbor with artillery barrages over the last week.’

‘The Department of Homeland Security’s 70 counterterrrorism “fusion” centers produce “predominantly useless information,” “a bunch of crap,” while “running afoul of departmental guidelines meant to guard against civil liberties” and are “possibly in violation of the Privacy Act.”

This may sound like the words of EFF, but in fact, these conclusions come from a new report issued by a US Senate committee. At the cost of up to $1.4 billion, these fusion centers are supposed to facilitate local law enforcement sharing of valuable counterterrorism information to DHS, but according to the report, they do almost everything but.

DHS described its fusion centers as “one of the centerpieces of [its] counterterrorism strategy” and its database was supposed to be a central repository of known or “appropriately suspected” terrorists. In theory, local law enforcement officers, in conjunction with DHS officials, conduct surveillance and write up a report—known as a Homeland Intelligence Report (HIR)—for DHS to review. If credible, DHS would then spread the information to the larger intelligence community.

Yet, the Senate report found the fusion centers failed to uncover a single terrorist threat.’

(Source: eff.org)

‘Bloomberg, Guardian, Ynet, and others are all posting in their headlines an identical unconfirmed report that Turkey and Syria have “agreed” to establish a 6 mile wide “buffer zone” running the length of the Turkish-Syrian border.

The report states specifically (emphasis added):

The Syrian government has told its military to keep aircraft at least six miles (10 kilometers) from Turkey’s borders after a deadly shelling incident left five Turks dead, according to the Turkish news website Today’s Zaman.

The news site cited Turkey’s ntvmsnbc.com, which quoted
“reliable sources” yesterday as saying that Syrian President
Bashar al-Assad’s regime has ordered its warplanes and
helicopters to honor the buffer. Neither Turkey’s government nor
Syrian officials confirmed the report.

Accompanying this report are stories such as Reuters’ “UN: Syria buffer zone plan raises questions,” which states: 

The United Nations said on Thursday proposals to set up secure safe
zones in Syria to help end the 17-month conflict raised “serious
questions” and would need to be studied carefully.

Ahead of a
meeting on the humanitarian situation in Syria, France and Britain
warned Syria’s President Bashar Assad that military action to secure
buffer zones for civilians inside the country was an option.

 Reuters goes on to “warn:” 

Creating a buffer zone for displaced Syrians would be difficult
because a U.N. Security Council resolution would be needed to set up a
no-fly zone to protect the area, and Russia and China would not approve
such a move, diplomats said.

It is not the first time Russia has
posed difficulties for the United States and its allies on the Security
Council. In the 1990s, Moscow strongly supported Serbia in the Balkan
Wars and acted as Belgrade’s protector on the council.

After an
ineffectual UN presence failed to stop genocide in the 1992-1995 Bosnian
War, the United States and its European allies infuriated Russia by
bypassing the deadlocked Security Council and turning to NATO to halt
the Serbian onslaught in Kosovo with a bombing campaign against Serbia
in 1999.

While the idea of a buffer zone is meant to look like a knee-jerk reaction to a still unjustified exchange of fire on the Turkish-Syrian border, with lingering conflicting reports over who was responsible for initially targeting the Turkish town of Akcacle, in reality this has been planned since at least March of this year, where the idea was proposed by the corporate-financier funded Brookings Institution in their “Middle East Memo #21″ “Assessing Options for Regime Change” where it stated specifically (emphasis added):

“An alternative is for diplomatic efforts to focus first on how to end the violence and how to gain humanitarian access, as is being done under Annan’s leadership. This may lead to the creation of safe-havens and humanitarian corridors,
which would have to be backed by limited military power. This would,
of course, fall short of U.S. goals for Syria and could preserve Asad
in power. From that starting point,
however, it is possible that a broad coalition with the appropriate
international mandate could add further coercive action to its efforts.” -page 4, Assessing Options for Regime Change, Brookings Institution.’

(Source: endthelie.com)

‘The US Air Force document entitled Psychological Operations published in 1999 explained how for the purpose of hiding in plain sight, psy-ops are a “low-cost, high-impact” way of conducting military operations without having to deal with questions by the American public.

The control of “selected information” being leaked out to the public through mainstream media, press conferences and other designated outlets has ensured that the targeted audience will support the governmental campaign out of ignorance. Of late, reports and rumors about foreign troops in America working with our armed forces have been surfacing. And in response, the US government has (at first) dismissed the claims. Now, official reports are confirming what eye witnesses have been seeing.

The question is: why are foreign troops training with US military forces for urban warfare, civil unrest and disturbance?’