The headline conveys an entirely different message to the article. We don’t think Fisk wrote the headline, his editors did. That tells us they want to persuade the public that something ‘must be done’ about Syria: i.e. military intervention
It was indeed touch and go and it may not be over yet. Israel Shamir looks at the recent crisis over Syria and how it reflected America’s standing in the world
Saudi Arabia was caught red-handed supplying toxic agents. Last May, Turkish authorities arrested 12 suspected Al Nusra fighters. They had two kilograms of sarin nerve gas. Yet the UN is quick to blame Assad. Stephen Lendman explains
Months before the Al Ghouta gas attack, U.N. inquiry heard testimony that ‘Syrian rebels’ had used chemical weapons
Is this why Cameron was so keen to launch an attack on Syria while the UN was still collecting evidence on the ground? Did he want to destroy or compromise that evidence?
Murdoch-owned FOX News supports U.S. military action against Syria, but doesn’t inform viewers that Mr. Murdoch has a vested interest in war with Syria: its oil
Syria lies waiting, exposed and vulnerable. When will the vultures move in for kill?
In the face of public reluctance to attack Syria the BBC has come up with new horror stories. The Syrian government aren’t just using chemical weapons, they’re bombing children’s playgrounds with napalm!!
Instead of ‘Shock and Awe’ this time the Pentagon is talking about ‘surgical attack’. The English speaking empire, famous for its destructive inclinations, makes the potential attack on Syria sound like a ‘cosmetic effort’
Why would Assad be so foolish as to hand the US and NATO a perfect pretext for war?
Jim Stone on the nerve gas attacks in Syria and where precisely they are leading
Syria has agreed to allow UN inspectors to examine the site of the chemical weapons attack. The White House says that’s “too late to be credible”. Meaning we are heading down the same road we went with Saddam Hussein and his fabled WMD