In 2011, barely eight years after the 2003 invasion of Iraq, shown conclusively to to have been illegal and a monstrous crime against humanity, the same criminals were able to deceive a sizable component of public opinion into accepting the truth of their claims against Libya whilst sowing confusion in the minds of much of the remainder. That would not have been possible without the complicity of many supposed 'left-liberal' and 'far-left' organisations. The imperialists were thus able to complete their invasion and destruction of Libya and enable the plunder of its natural resources by oil corporations.
This article is a response to the #comment-197736">censorship of discussion about the current Syrian conflict on johnquiggin.com, a site for discussion from a supposedly "social-democratic perspective". See also: Syrian Foreign Ministry: UNHRC Resolution rejected as it ignores support for terrorism in Syria of 25 Mar 2013.
Phoney 'left' cover-up of 2011 Libya invasion, attempted proxy invasion of Syria
For the past two years, at least, much of the supposed 'alternate' Internet has been an essential component of the government and corporate media machine to deceive public opinion about critical world-changing events. Two of the most notorious of a number of terrible examples include: (1) NATO's illegal invasion of Libya in 2011; and (2) the current terrorist war against Syria by the jihadist and mercenary proxies of the U.S. and its allies.
The same is now happening to Syria. Fortunately, a more sizeable proportion of public opinion has seen through the deceit, whilst the Syrian people, their government and their armed forces have demonstrated much bravery, skill and resourcefulness in fighting the terrorist invasion. However, no country the size of Syria can hope to hold out indefinitely against such large, powerful and determined enemies. Unless public opinion in countries which are waging war against Syria (or imposing sanctions in the case of Australia) can learn the truth, the prospects for the Syrians are not good.
Public wisdom about Syria possible with open Internet discussion
A good start to spreading the truth would be proper discussion and debate on Internet forums and the whistle must be blown on phony progressives on the Internet who #comment-197736">refuse to allow free and open discussion.
I wrote a post, entitled #copyof-31491">Online forum: How to stop the Syrian 'civil' war?.
I wrote that post after two contributors to a discussion on johnquiggin.com posted questions to me on that site.
The article that the post was in response to is #comments">Sceptics and suckers: A look back at Iraq of 21 March.
Censorship of views contrary to war popaganda
After I had put myself to all that trouble, the post was promptly deleted by the site owner, Professor John Quiggin.
I consider the action taken by Professor Quiggin to have been grossly inconsiderate to me and to his other site visitors, in particular to the two to whom I was responding. I also consider such censorship of the expression of views, which are clearly relevant to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, unacceptable on a web-site that ostensibly exists to promote discussion and thought about current events.
The supposed justification for this censorship given by Professor John Quiggin #comment-197736">was:
As previously advised, I don't propose to entertain this kind of thing on my blog. All comments should be directed to the candobetter site -- JQ
Exactly what he meant by "this kind of stuff," and how it differs from the material in his article and subsequent discussion, was not explained.
I can only presume that Professor Quiggin, and many who visit and contribute to his site, prefer to academically discuss events of the distant past, the outcome of which we cannot hope to change, rather than acting to help stop the wars and killing that are going on right now.
What you can do
If you agree that such censorship, on the supposedly free Internet, supposedly outside of the control of the corporate newsmedia, is unjustified and harmful to free speech, democracy and, ultimately, world peace, please make your views known #comment-197736">on that site and post a copy here also. Should those posts also be censored, I expect Project Censored would be most interested to hear from you.
#appendix" id="appendix">Appendix: Copy of "Online forum: How to stop the Syrian 'civil' war?"
The following is a response to #comment-197676">questions put to me in a debate on the Iraq War of 2003 on johnquiggin.com. This post was deleted on 25 March 2013.
J-D (@ #comment-197676">#41), Ken_L (@ #comment-197705">#42)
Thank you both for your interest. My apologies, on my part, for my slow response. I was intending to write a sizeable article to publish on my web-site (candobetter -dot- net -slash- syria) in response to your questions. Please consider the response below to be only interim:
Whilst it could seem hyperbolic to liken the crimes, committed the New World Order against Iraq, the former Yugoslavia, Libya, and now Syria, with those of the Third Reich, given that the death toll of 3.3 million, so far killed since 1990 in Iraq alone, is barely an order of magnitude less than that caused by Nazi Germany and its allies in the Second World War, this likening is not unreasonable.
Given that the rulers of the New World Order have, in their hands, vastly more terrible and sophisticated weapons of war than those possessed by Nazi Germany and the Japanese Empire, it is not hard to envision the death toll greatly surpassing the terrible toll of 60 million deaths in the Second World War should they triumph against Syria.
So, the whole civilised[1] world has a vital stake in the Syrian Army defeating the so-called "Free Syrian Army" and its New World Order controllers in the U.S., the U.K., France, Germany, Israel, the Arab monarchies of Saudi Arabia and Qatar, Israel, etc.
Given the effective abolition of the rights guaranteed in the US constitution by President Barack Obama, it will only be a matter of time before democratic rights, free speech, parliamentary democracy are abolished in Western Nations, should the Syrian people be defeated.
J-D #comment-197676">wrote:
I am confused by your questions and wonder whether you could clarify.
J-D, I was simply pointing out that the history of which Professor Quiggin has written has been repeated in Libya and now threatens to be repeated in Syria and Iran. Surely, on the occasion of the tenth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, we need to consider whether that illegal invasion was a once-only occurrence or whether it was only one in a pattern of events which is now being repeated. If the latter, in the case of Syria, is true, then we should surely be interested in applying the terrible lessons of the Iraq war so as to prevent their repetition in Syria.
Ken_L #comment-197705">wrote:
@malthusista, I would also appreciate clarification of exactly how you believe 'we' could stop the Syrian civil war? A little elaboration of who 'we' are would also be helpful.
Ken_L, The civil war in Syria could be ended simply if the U.S., Israel, etc., accepted the principle that any people have a right to national self-determination. It is obvious that President Bashar al-Assad and his government enjoy the support of the overwhelming majority of Syrians. Those, who have waged the terrorist war against the Syrian government, comprise, at most, a small minority of Syrians. The vast majority of the FSA is comprised of sectarian Islamist extremists from countries like Libya, Tunisia, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, mercenaries, the U.S. SAS, the U.K. SAS, the French Special Forces, the C.I.A., Mossad, etc.
Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon and Israel should cease giving these killers sanctuary and passage into and out of Syria.
An unprovoked attack on the armed forces of Syria or on the armed forces of any sovereign country is a crime and, even more so, the murder of unarmed civilians. Supplying weapons to those killers by the U.S. and its allies is complicity in that crime and should cease. Were that to happen, the war in Syria would be finished in days.
Early last year, the Syrian government received overwhelming support (and, I might add, far more than U.S. politicians typically get in national elections with barely 50% of the population in participating in most) from its people in a referendum proposing constitutional reform. Part of the reform was to remove from the Syrian constitution, any privilege give to the Ba'ath Socialist Party. President Assad and every member of the Syrian Parliament must now stand for re-election. Any one of them will be voted out were they not to enjoy popular support.
Were there ever to be free elections in Syria, which cannot possibly be held in the middle of the war now raging, there can be little doubt that President Assad would win overwhelmingly and that the FSA would get a miniscule vote.
The war and killing in Syria only continue because the rulers of the U.S. and their allies wish it to continue.
Footnote to #appendix" appendix="">
[1] I don't mean 'civilised' in the sense of the European colonialists claims of bringing 'civilisation' to the 'backward' people of the Third World in previous centuries.
Add comment