United Nations Security Council issues statement condemning Syrian violence, media still glossing over armed opposition
By Madison Ruppert
Editor of End the Lie
However, Lebanon did not block the statement as they could have; they simply dissociated themselves from it saying that it would not help the situation in Syria.
After three days of negotiations and bargaining, the UNSC opted for a statement instead of the resolution some Western powers were pushing for.
This is likely because Russia and China stated they would block such a resolution from passing, pointing out the fact that such a resolution lead directly to the bombing campaign still occurring in Libya.
This statement came after months of stagnation in the Security Council with a resolution being blocked by China, Russia, and other nations that do not want to be part of another imperialist “humanitarian” intervention.
The statement was read by Indian Ambassador Hardeep Singh Puri and it “condemns widespread violations of human rights and the use of force against civilians by the Syrian authorities.”
What exactly this formal condemnation will bring about is still a mystery. This very well might be the first step down the path to foreign intervention. I have been saying that Syria looks like the next globalist target for months now, but this latest development makes it look more likely than ever.
The Russian envoy to the United Nations, Vitaly Churkin, said on Tuesday,
“It’s no secret that our Western colleagues believe that Damascus and the Syrian government are to be blamed for everything, and that the best way for the Security Council to go is to put maximum pressure on Syria and probably even use some enforcement on the part of the council.”
The statement does not explicitly threaten any “enforcement,” at least not yet.
Churkin stated that the initial resolution proposed by the European nations that are members of the UNSC was an even more threatening version of the draft proposed two months ago. He called it “an aggravated version,” which was likely a large factor in the decision to issue a statement and not a full-blown Security Council resolution like that issued in regards to Libya.
Just like the mainstream media propaganda machines manufactured the image of Muammar Gaddafi slaughtering unarmed peaceful protesters, the entire notion that only civilians are being killed in Syria has been engineered to deceive the Western world.
They mention the fact that the opposition is actually armed and funded by the United States either not at all or in passing, never expounding on these important facts.
In a recent Sky News article entitled, “Syrian Civilians ‘Killed In Tank Attack’”, there is just one sentence addressing these violent rebels.
Sky reports, “The assault prompted opposition gunmen to fire machine guns and set police stations on fire.” This creates an inaccurate picture. The word “prompted” makes it appear that these armed bands of murderers are only attacking in response to attacks on civilians.
Not surprisingly, Sky attempts to put the reports of so-called activists and human rights groups, all of which are unverified, above the reports from the Syrian government.
The fact is that neither side’s claims can be independently verified so one would be silly to consider one side’s statements to be completely true while another’s is automatically false.
They do this by writing, “The Syrian leadership blames “armed terrorist groups” for most killings during the revolt, saying that more than 500 soldiers and security personnel have been killed.”
Why are “opposition gunmen” who fire machine guns and raze buildings wholly different than “armed terrorist groups”?
One anonymous source cited by Sky claims that “They [I assume this means the government forces] are firing their heavy machine guns randomly and overrunning makeshift road blocks erected by the inhabitants.”
How does this individual know that the people firing the machine guns randomly are not the opposition gunmen who were described as firing machine guns and setting police stations on fire?
If these were not one and the same, why are the people at whom the opposition gunmen were firing not considered to be as important as those who are allegedly being fired upon by security forces?
The mainstream media dances around the fact that these “protesters” are actually violent militants by characterizing them as “mostly unarmed” like in this Washington Post article.
Why are they not discussing those who actually are armed? Who are they killing? Where are they getting their arms and why are they not being held accountable for murder? Who are they loyal to if the movement is largely leaderless? Are they just shooting anyone they think might be a part of the security forces?
The conspicuous absence of descriptions of the actions of the Syrian opposition both now and in the past is telling.
As Tony Cartalucci points out, in the late 70′s and early 80′s the Muslim Brotherhood launched an armed rebellion against the Syrian government.
Part of this assault included the execution of 32 cadets at a Syrian military academy and now these murderous individuals are based out of London, continuing their propaganda assault on Syria and active cover-up of the armed opposition’s actions there.
Cartalucci points out that the presence of Kurdish “protesters” in the Syrian uprising points, yet again, to Western involvement. Kurds and other ethnic groups are used by Western interests to foment chaos in Arab countries, revealed in a report published by the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution entitled, Which path to Persia? Options for a new American strategy toward Iran, which is explained and analyzed in detail in this article.
Some Western mainstream media outlets are actually condemning some members of the UNSC for being reluctant to pass a resolution regarding Syria. The brazen Globe and Mail of Canada actually complains about the fact that the Security Council issued a statement instead of a resolution.
They claim that the fact that the UNSC resolution on Libya “may indeed have been overzealously carried out” is “beside the point” because “the proposed resolution on Syria was never designed to include any armed intervention.”
The resolution on Libya was never “designed” to include the slaughter of civilians either, was it? This reasoning, or lack thereof, is far too common in the mainstream media and is creating a completely inaccurate picture of the events in Syria.
Help combat this disinformation by spreading this article and others that reveal the true nature of the conflict there. Just like Libya, the situation is not nearly as cut-and-dry as the corporate-controlled media would like us to think.