the only useful part of a recent fisky article on syriarobert fisk might be a

Advertisment

The only useful part of a recent Fisky article on Syria:

Robert Fisk might be a celebrated journalist who tried to maintain a balanced reporting throughout his career, the problematic issue is how can anyone create any sort of balance between a foreign backed armed insurgency by radical suicide bombers and Wahhabi Sex Jihadistsimported from all sides of the world on one hand and the legitimate army and armed forces of a sitting government defending their land and their families on the other hand?!

If you know the answer to this question you’ll solve all the mysteries and myths of the ‘Arab Spring’ and similar ‘colored revolutions’ worldwide.

In the attached clip cut from Fisk’s article titled ‘Syria revolution four years on: Don’t bet against President Assad’ (http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/columnists/robert-fisk/syria-revolution-four-years-on-dont-bet-against-president-assad-31062787.html), one can only find the circled useful info slipped between lots of ‘balanced’ reporting and connecting useless out of context debatable historical events.

Robert Fisk says:

“The West still maintains that Assad’s forces use chemical weapons – even after the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) confirmed that all Assad’s declared chemicals had been destroyed, with the help of the Americans. But the deal to emasculate Syria’s strategic deterrent – its chemical capacity – was struck to allow Washington and London off the hook. Their threat to bomb Assad out of Damascus was hollow – and Assad’s self-confidence blossomed.”

Points should be addressed by self-proclaimed analysts and strategists: The West, especially Obama and Cameron had only hollow threats, their own parliaments (House of Commons and the US Congress) were against their adventure proposal to attack Syria, they were worn out economically vs. rising opponent powers (BRICS) before they managed to lower the oil prices and topple the Ukrainian president as well.

The whole idea to strip Syria from its deterrent weapon was to expose the country to foreign invading the like of the plan on the new US war minister Ashton Carter and the Zionist Camp ruling the US. Also, to secure the entity of imported radical foreign settlers, not ISIS but its carbon copy Israel.. nothing to do with saving civilians and the infamous R2P doctrine by the UN: Right to Protect (who from who?)

Advertisment