The Houla Massacre

I find the US government version of the Houla massacre in Syria extremely problematic for all the usual reasons:

1) The story keeps changing. The initial reporting blamed the civilian deaths on heavy artillery bombardment and shelling by the Syrian government. When UN observers reported that most of the deaths resulted from execution-style shootings, the official narrative changed. Only a few civilians were killed by government shelling. The rest were murdered by the pro-government Shabiha militia. The who? According to the BBC website, the shabiha (small “s”) militia were Mediterranean gangs primarily involved in weapons and drug smuggling and protection rackets. They were brutally suppressed by Assad and his father during the 1990s. The “proof”  that they have turned pro-government comes from a single YouTube video posted in March 2011. Al Qaeda style executions have been occurring in Syria for months. Suddenly, without a shred of evidence, the western media is blaming them on an obscure, allegedly pro-government criminal gang.

2) It makes absolutely no sense for Syrian troops to shell a region where they risk killing pro-government militia.

3) The Syrian civil war is an ethnic/religious war between the majority Sunni population and Assad’s secular government, which is largely made up of Alawites (a Shiite offshoot). According to a number of independent sources NATO death squads, Maan News, From the Trenches, Atrocities Made to Order, the Houla victims were mainly Alawites and Christians. Why on earth would the Syrian government wish to execute their own supporters? The mainstream media conveniently fails to address the ethnicity of the civilian victims.

4) In the weeks prior to the Houla massacre, the US and NATO amassed 12,000 troops on the Jordan side of the Syrian border as part of Operation Eager Lion 2012 war games. Fancy that. This wouldn’t be the first time the US initiated a false flag operation as a justification for a war of aggression (e.g. 911 and the US wars of aggression in the Middle East and North Africa and the fictitious Gulf of Tonkin and Vietnam).

Obama’s New Cold War Against Russia and China

The Obama administration, which has been lobbying the UN Security Council for nearly a year to endorse military intervention in Syria (see Why the US Wants Regime Change in Syria), is fomenting major hysteria over the Houla atrocities, while simultaneously escalating their belligerent rhetoric against Russia and China for opposing a military solution. (I note Clinton’s inflammatory posturing has subsided since Germany allied itself with Russia in supporting a political solution in Syria). The western media echoes the Obama administration line, accusing both Russia and China of placing strategic interests (arms deals and access to Middle East oil and gas) above humanitarian concerns.

How come no one mentions US strategic interests in Syria? How come no mainstream commentators find it troubling that the Obama administration backs the governments of Saudi Arabia and Bahrain when they shoot unarmed protestors – while being the first to call for military intervention when it happens in Libya and Syria?

US First Strike Nuclear Capability Against Russia and China

The plot thickens. My OMG (Oh, my God!) moment this week was learning that Obama is preparing for first strike nuclear war against both Russia and China. The Pentagon is encircling both countries with a ring of new bases equipped with so-called “missile defense shield” technology. Many are situated right on the Russian border in former Soviet Union countries. In the case of China, new bases are being built in Taiwan, Japan, Ju Ju Island South Korea and even Darwin Australia.

Both Rick Razeroff of Stop NATO Chicago and Bruce Gagnon of the Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space make it clear that the true purpose of so-called “missile defense” (MD) isn’t defensive but offensive. According to Rzeroff:

“…the US/NATO missile shield, which is not to be construed as a defensive project whatsoever, ‎has the potential of being a first strike system that is able to knock out missiles that withstand ‎a potential first strike by the US and NATO against other countries.‎”

Gagnon elaborates:

“Keep in mind the Space Command’s annual computer war game first-strike attack on China (reported in Aviation Week) set in the year 2016. The existence of missile defense becomes a crucial factor considering China’s 20-some nuclear weapons capable of hitting the west coast of the U.S. In the war game the Space Command launches another new speculative space technology, called the military space plane that is now under development. This system helps to deliver the initial attack on China’s nuclear forces. When China fires its remaining nuclear missiles in a retaliatory strike it is then that the U.S. Missile defense systems, now being deployed throughout the Asia-Pacific region, are used to pick off these nuclear weapons.”

I imagine most Americans would be as alarmed and angry as I was if they knew that all Clinton’s inflammatory rhetoric was a cover for preparations for a first strike nuclear attack on our major trading partners China and Russia. Especially if they knew it was costing taxpayers trillions of dollars during the worst economic crisis in US history. Sadly there is a total blackout on such developments by the major newspapers and TV networks, which have become little more than the propaganda arm for Wall Street and the military industrial complex.