Commentary — Oct 16, 2018

The BBC is past master at disinformation and deception. To add insult to injury the licence fees which fund the broadcaster are mandatory. So the British public are legally obliged to financially support what is essentially propaganda. If they refuse they face prosecution.

Whenever politicians in London and Washington want to embark on a policy of regime change somewhere in the world the BBC goes to work.

Often this begins before hostilities even commence, with the broadcaster portraying the targeted regime in a less than flattering light. Think of the endless media reports speculating about Saddam’s Weapons of Mass Destruction that were a media staple in 2002/2003. The BBC played its part in creating the illusion that Saddam posed a threat and that ultimately led to the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Thereafter we saw a repeat performance with Libyan dictator Gadaffi. Without NATO’s intervention Gaddafi’s forces would have quickly dealt with the opposition during domestic unrest in 2011. However, it was not to be. NATO’s intervention changed the internal balance of power in Libya and the Western media’s coverage ensured that there was only limited western public opposition to NATO’s involvement.

The BBC was again instrumental in this as it portrayed Gaddafi as a “brutal” dictator who “sponsored” terror around the world. After all, what possible reason could anyone have to defend such a regime?

Of course regime change didn’t bring any improvement for ordinary Libyans. Indeed things are now much worse than they ever were under Gaddafi but unfortunately it didn’t end there.

Since then we’ve seen a similar process play out in Syria. With the BBC casting President Assad as a ruler who felt “no guilt” about a crackdown in which children were allegedly killed by his forces.

Nonetheless, what the BBC described as a “civil war” in Syria was in fact a co-ordinated campaign to bring about “regime change”, with the covert assistance of the U.S., Briton, France, Israel and Saudi Arabia.

Russia’s intervention in Syria turned the tide and until recently the Russian-Syrian-Iran alliance with Hezbollah seemed on their way to victory.

However, we would sound a note of caution here. Not because of any developments on the ground, at least not yet, but because of a recent BBC Online report, which may well foreshadow more ominous developments in the Syrian conflict.

As we’ve seen the BBC works hand-in-glove with the powers that be to prepare the public psychologically for conflicts which have been planned, often in secret, before they become a matter of public debate. It’s a classic psyop and a BBC speciality.

So just when you thought that allegations about Assad’s chemical weapons had been consigned to the history books, the BBC has suddenly revived them with a new report: How chemical weapons have helped bring Assad close to victory.

In other words the BBC is implying that it wasn’t Russian and Iranian intervention that turned the tide against ISIS/ISIL/Daesh, but chemical weapons.

This despite the fact that in August 2014 the Washington Post reported that Syria had “completely destroyed” its stockpile of chemical weapons. Or that this was corroborated on Jan 4th 2016 when the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons confirmed that Syria had destroyed its chemical weapons stockpile.

So why 4 years after the Washington Post’s report and two years after the OPCW officially confirmed that Syria had indeed destroyed its stockpile of Chemical Weapons is the BBC repeating allegations about Syria’s use of chemical weapons? It defies logic.

Could it be that this is being done in anticipation of a new, more extensive Western military intervention in Syria? Having seen their proxies soundly defeated by Russia and its allies are the Western powers preparing for more direct intervention in Syria? Is the BBC playing its part by conditioning the Western public over the necessity of further military intervention?

The report itself doesn’t feature any photos of the now discredited crisis actors, the Western-funded Syrian White Helmets. That might give rise to doubts about its authenticity among anyone who is reasonably informed. However, to maximise the emotional impact, it’s illustrated with many photos of children who’ve allegedly been afflicted by chemical weapons.

Of course, this doesn’t mean that wider Western military intervention in Syria will take place. It does however suggest that the West is keeping its options open and that more extensive military involvement is being considered. Coming in the form of an “intervention” that could lead to direct confrontation with Russia and Iran.

Will a chemical weapons attack be staged and blamed on Assad’s forces in order to justify wider Western intervention? The U.S. still has forces on the ground in Syria. Despite the fact that they were never invited and have been asked to leave, the Trump administration has nonetheless reiterated its intention to stay in the country.

Clearly, this suggests that a wider conflict could be in the making. Ed.

BBC Online — Oct 15, 2018: How chemical weapons have helped bring Assad close to victory