BBC Strings Lies Together to Propagandize for Assad’s Overthrow
Washington’s Blog
September 19, 2015
To introduce this string of BBC
lies, one thing that’s worth noting is that overwhelmingly the people of
Syria view that nation’s current President, Bashar al-Assad, favorably.
He won his election on 27 May 2007 by acclamation in a referendum when the Associated Press at the time reported that, “the country’s tiny opposition boycotted the voting.”
(Note that it indeed was “a tiny opposition.”) The AP reported: “Still,
the president is assured of another seven-year term in a referendum
that gave voters just one choice: a green circle to approve Assad or a
gray one to oppose his second term. In his first referendum, he received
97.29 percent approval.” The West supports not only that “tiny
opposition,” but the much bigger opposition that comes from the Saudi
and Qatari royal families, and which has recruited Sunni jihadists from
around the world to fight in Syria against the secular Shiite Assad.
Furthermore,repeated
polling even by Western polling firms, shows that the Syrian people
overwhelmingly reject Islamic jihadists and blame the U.S. for ISIS. They hate America because America backs the jihadists. (And see here U.S. Senator John McCain congratulating the ISIS “heart-eater” who was helping to lead in the fight to remove Assad. And here is the back-story regarding that “heart-eater.” And here
is confirmation from McCain that he “accidentally” met with him.)
Furthermore, the U.S. has not been inactive in the Syrian war; long
before America’s active bombing campaign inside Syria, the U.S. was
feeding sarin gas into al-Qaeda’s affiliate there al-Nusra, and
fabricated blame for the sarin gas attack which even British
intelligence could not endorse but instead found to be a ludicrous
fraud, but kept secret (in order not to embarrass their ally). With that, then, as the firmly documented historical background:
BBC Newshour, on the morning of Friday
September 18th, interviewed Oxford Professor Eugene Rogan and also the
Century Foundation’s Thanassis Cambanis, on the question, “Is it time for the west to bury the hatchet with President Assad and ally with him against IS?”
Cambanis said, “To expect Bashar al-Assad
to be a reliable partner … ignores the last decade during which he
single-handedly has driven Syria to the brink of destruction, and, by
the way, has been the key culprit in the rise of al-Qaeda in Iraq first,
and later in the rise of ISIS.” Rogan did not challenge that assertion.
Cambanis then referred to “Bashar al-Assad’s strategy, which was to set up a false choice, apres moi, le deluge,
if you don’t support me, you’re going to get ISIS, and we got to that
point because he really systematically focused all his firepower on
killing moderate, reasonable people and leaving those as the two
choices.” Rogan did not challenge that assertion, either.
Cambanis then said, “The U.S. position
has been to just stay out of this complex mess, and there is some merit
and some moral reason for this. Now we see not intervening has also led
to a disaster. So logically what follows is either the U.S. remains
remains on the sidelines and just lets it play out as it may, or, …,”
and Rogan did not challenge those allegations either.
Rogan then said, “What Russia has done by
prepositioning the facilities for Russian troop presence is to escalate
its position in Syria, and by providing the Syrians with air defense
systems, they are actually creating the kind of protections that will
make any talk of a no-fly zone a nonstarter, so I think the Russians are
trying to clearly set what the limits of the terms of discussion will
be, and it’s very clear that preserving Bashar al-Assad in power is the
Russian condition.”
The
interviewer then said, “But if the West were to come onside with
President Assad, I mean that would represent the most appalling
concession, would it not, given the number of Syrians who died as a
result of actions by President Assad and his military?”
Rogan answered: “I agree with that.” But
he advised negotiations instead of “the West” sending in more military
assets for “continuing a struggle that no side is capable of winning.”
Cambanis interjected, “What we’re seeing
right now is the result of America and the West not intervening. It’s
not really American weapons, or American anything that has fueled this
conflict. It’s important to remember also that Assad has been a huge
strategic threat to the West long before ISIS even existed.” To that,
Rogan replied, “I could not agree with you more, that the injustice that
Assad has inflicted on his people has been an injustice of the first
magnitude.”
So: the BBC simply assumes that Assad is
hated instead of passionately supported by the Syrian people, and that
the U.S. and “the West” have been “not intervening” but have been
well-intentioned there. And the BBC’s producers invited on Western
‘experts’ to ‘debate’ the matter, but all within this lying framework.
Clearly, then, the BBC’s answer to its
headline question, “Is it time for the west to bury the hatchet
with President Assad and ally with him against IS?” is: No!
Here, again,
is my article about the recent WIN/Gallup polling results of the Syrian
people regarding their attitudes towards ISIS, the U.S., and Assad.
What remains of honest news-media in the West? They’re few, and small.