Introduction – Dec 7, 2012
The mainstream Western media played a crucial role in paving the way for the the invasion of Iraq. Numerous articles speculating about Saddam’s ‘Weapons of Mass Destruction’ persuaded the public that something had to be done about a threat that could be deployed in “45 minutes”.
Even though no WMD were ever found little has changed and Western politicians and their quisling media are now repeating the same act with Syria.
Friday’s Financial Times is an example. Under the headline: ‘US warning on Syrian chemical weapons’ the FT notes:
The US has evidence that the Syrian government is considering using chemical weapons in its war with rebel forces, defence secretary Leon Panetta said on Thursday in the starkest warning yet by the Obama administration about the escalating conflict.
Mr Panetta said the US was “very concerned” that government forces would use chemical weapons as the opposition makes gains around Damascus. “The intelligence that we have raises serious concerns that this is being considered,” he said.
Panetta offered no evidence to substantiate the claim and the FT obligingly didn’t bother to ask why. Nowhere in the entire report does the FT even attempt to corroborate the U.S. Secretary of Defense.
If the FT was engaged in real journalism it would have inquired as to the nature of the ‘intelligence’ upon which Panetta based his statement. Instead it simply repeats Panetta’s words without question, as any official spokesperson would.
As Russia Today has reported, and as the Financial Times pointedly omits to mention, speculation in the Western media that Assad “may be planning to use chemical weapons” has raised fears that this may be used as a pretext for Western intervention in Syria.
“Chemical weapons” are an old favourite with the West as an alleged reason for military action. We heard similar claims about Saddam Hussein’s notorious chemical weapons laboratories, when Colin Powell appeared before the United Nations with a model vial of Anthrax, similar he claimed to those made in Saddam’s chemical weapons laboratories.
Of course once the Coalition invaded it was discovered that those chemical weapons laboratories never existed. The fiction had served its purpose though and helped pave the way for the invasion.
Despite the obvious parallels there’s no mention of that particular episode in Friday’s Financial Times report. Indeed you would almost think that the FT was ignoring the similarities in the hope that readers had forgotten about it.
Rather than recalling the parallels with claims about Saddam’s WMD, the FT notes how unnamed “western diplomats have noticed a slight alteration in Moscow’s stance on Syria in recent days.”
While the FT notes that this could be seen as an indication of waning Russian support for President Assad, it pointedly omits to mention that Russian Navy ships are currently berthed in a show of support in the Syrian port of Tartus.
Nor does the FT make any mention of how many ‘Syrian rebels’ are not Syrian at all, but radicals from outside the country.
Not only does the FT omit to mention this it also fails to note how al Qaeda is playing an increasingly active role in the ‘Syrian opposition’. The same al Qaeda that the West fought in its phoney ‘War on Terror’ and is currently launching drone strikes against in Yemen and Waziristan.
The FT report pointedly makes no mention of this or the fact that the efforts of these militants to overthrow Assad are being financed by the Western aligned Gulf States.
While the FT makes such glaring omissions it nonetheless expects readers to pay for unlimited access to its reports.
Then as if to add insult to injury it concludes with:
High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others using the link below, do not cut & paste the article. See our Ts&Cs and Copyright Policy for more detail. Email email@example.com to buy additional rights. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/fcbde700-3fcb-11e2-b0ce-00144feabdc0.html#ixzz2EMLNLXeb