News Commentary – Oct 19, 2012

Like the BBC the Guardian newspaper relies on its reputation for being ‘liberal’ to essentially peddle disinformation in the guise of news coverage.

Its report on the bombing in Beirut Friday is a case in point.

The blast in a largely Christian district killed as many as eight and left nearly eighty injured. No one has yet claimed responsibility but that didn’t stop the Guardian from implying that Syria may have had a hand in it.

Despite the absence of any evidence the Guardian insinuates:

The possibility that the bombing is related to the fallout from Syria comes amid rising tension in Lebanon. 

By reiterating claims from Lebanon’s Phalange leader the Guardian justifies repeating unfounded accusations as “news”.

The Guardian report continues:

Shia fighters with the Hezbollah group have been fighting on Assad’s side, while Syrian rebels have used Lebanon to supply forces fighting the Syrian regime.

The Guardian makes absolutely no mention of Western involvement in supporting the “Syrian rebels”, many of who are not even Syrian. Nor does it allude to the financial and material support the anti-Assad forces have been receiving from the Gulf States.

Instead the Guardian simply repeats earlier allegations that Syria was involved in the assassination of Lebanon’s former Prime Minister Rafik al-Hariri. Again no hard evidence has ever emergered to confirm these claims but the Guardian repeats them nonetheless.     

More significantly, the Guardian doesn’t even consider what benefits Syria would derive from today’s bombing.

Like they say, when investigating a crime look for those who would benefit the most from it. And in real terms President Assad would gain absolutely nothing from the conflict in Syria spilling over into Lebanon.

Moreover, it now transpires that a senior Lebanese intelligence officer was killed in the blast. Gen Wissam al-Hassan was head of Lebanon’s internal security forces and known to be a thorn in the side of the Bashar al-Asssad’s Syrian regime was killed in the blast.

The fact that al-Hassan was seen as opposing Assad’s regime would seem an obvious pointer as to whoever carried out the bombing; a little too obvious.

Still, we don’t expect the corporate media to mention this latter point nor how little Syria would gain if its internal conflict spreads beyond its borders.

The only beneficiaries from the conflict in Syria spreading into to Lebanon would be the Western powers and their allies in the Gulf and Israel. For it would provide grounds for Western intervention in Lebanon, opening the way for “peace-keeping” forces to be sent.

After all nobody could reasonably object if a substantial force of “peace-keepers” were sent right next-door to Syria. Even if the real aim of sending them wasn’t to keep the peace. 

However, the Guardian pointedly ignores this very real possibility along with any mention of possible Israeli involvement.

All of which makes this writer suspect that of the two correspondents involved in compiling the Guardians report, one in Lebanon and another in London, the London-based journalist is probably in the pay of British intelligence.

Remember that next time you read anything from the Guardian.