New York Times War on Syria

New York Times Wants War on Syria

by Stephen Lendman

Obama's the latest in a long line of US warrior presidents. He exceeds the worst of all his predecessors. He jeopardizes world peace. They risks global war.

New York Times editors and columnists support his lawlessness. They do it shamelessly. They do it unapologetically. They betray their readers in the process.

Rule of law principles are spurned. Advancing America's imperium matters most. So does supporting racketeering war profiteers.

George Seldes called them "merchants of death. (T)he healthfulness of their business depends on slaughter," he said. "The more wars," the greater their profits. They love endless ones best of all.

Con men like Obama manipulate public sentiment for war. Media scoundrels like Times editors and columnists support what demands condemnation. 

Don't expect them to explain. They support all US wars. They do so disgracefully. They ignore fundamental rule of law principles. They suppress evidence of unconscionable human slaughter. 

They call crimes of war, against humanity and genocide responsibility to protect (R2P). They lie saying so. They're doing it again now.

They hyped bogus threats throughout Syria's conflict. They point fingers the wrong way consistently. They blame Assad for Western-enlisted death squad crimes. 

They lie for imperial interests. They suppress vital truths. They misportray Assad. They call him a ruthless despot. He's polar opposite. He's an accidental leader. He's a trained opthalmologist. 

He intended to practice medicine. He never planned for what he's now doing. It was thrust on him after his father's death.

He's intelligent, soft spoken, thoughtful, levelheaded and honest. It shows in what he says and how. He has overwhelming popular support. 

It's for good reason. Syrians rely on him against foreign invaders. He's their last line of defense. At stake is saving national sovereignty. 

Obama wants it ravaged and destroyed. Don't expect Times editors and columnists to explain. They're selling war. They support mass killing and destruction. They lie to readers doing so.

On September 7, The Times headlined "With the World Watching, Syria Amassed Nerve Gas," saying:

"Syria's top leaders amassed one of the world's largest stockpiles of chemical weapons with help from the Soviet Union and Iran, as well as Western European suppliers and even a handful of American companies, according to American diplomatic cables and declassified intelligence records."

Whatever Syria may or may not have, alleged US cables and intelligence fall short of reliably explaining.

Independently verifiable evidence alone is credible. The Times cited none. It accepts US sources a gospel. It does it no matter how many times prior information was fake.

Former Times columnist Judith Miller was a virtual conflict of interest. She was a weapon of mass destruction. Her daily feature columns sold war on Iraq. She did so based on lies.

She was a stenographer for power. Her writing reflected agenda politics. She sank to the level of straight Pentagon handouts. She cited a Noah's ark of scam artists doing so.

She knew what she was doing. So did Times editors. Daily propaganda supported Bush's rage for war. 

Other columnists repeated lies against Gaddafi. They're featured again now. They target Assad. They do it maliciously. They do every time America plans war.

According to The Times, Assad "exploited large loopholes, lax enforcement and a far greater international emphasis on limiting the spread of nuclear weapons." 

Who knows what's true or false. Where's the proof? None was cited. Former Bush administration Deputy National Security Advisor Juan Zarate was The Times corroborating expert.

Independent ones are scrupulously avoided. According to The Times, Obama officials "grew increasingly alarmed by the ease with which Mr. Assad was using a network of front companies to import the precursors needed to make VX and sarin."

US government documents allege he "built up a huge stockpile by creating companies with the appearance of legitimacy, importing chemicals that had many legitimate uses and capitalizing on the chaos that followed the collapse of the Soviet Union."

DNI head James Clapper was cited. He's an admitted perjurer. He told Congress that Syria "remains dependent on foreign sources for key elements" of its program.

He cited Iran, Russia, and China. He claimed Beijing at times operates through North Korea. He named some Western nations. He said US companies supply restricted chemical and biological agents.

America has huge stockpiles of the most toxic chemical and biological weapons. Key is less how many and which ones than clear evidence they're used. Washington does so freely.

It's done at home and abroad. A previous article explained. CIA operatives experimented illegally with toxic substances. Human subjects were used.

US agencies conducted numerous human radiation experiments. VA hospital patients and others were unwitting guinea pigs.

Chemical and biological agents were secretly released in US cities.

Military personnel are given experimental vaccines and toxic drugs. They're administered without their knowledge.

Numerous experiments subject human subjects to toxic gases, ionizing radiation, psychochemicals, hallucinogens, and other dangerous substances.

Radiation's injected into newborns. Children are infected with hepatitis. Prisoners get horrific treatment.

Inmates are subjected to torture, illegal medical experiments, and other forms of abuse.

Agent Orange's deadly legacy remains. It's one of the most toxic known substances. It's a potent carcinogenic human immune system suppressant. Minute amounts cause serious health problems and death.

It kills. It accumulates in adipose tissue and the liver. It alters living cell genetic structures. Exposure results in congenital disorders and birth defects. It causes cancer, type two diabetes, and numerous other diseases.

It remains toxic for decades. It affected millions of Southeast Asians. Many others were disabled and/or suffer from chronic illnesses. Future generations are affected like earlier ones.

Around three million US servicemen and women were harmed. So were many American civilians. Many died. Living victims suffer from diseases, birth defects, and other ill effects.

Depleted and enriched uranium weapons are used freely. Radiation poisoning kills. It causes grievous illnesses, disfiguration, and birth defects. 

Times editors and columnists don't explain. They suppress America's worst crimes. They support its war on humanity. They ignore how horrifically its waged.

On September 8, The Times headlined "On Both Sides, Syrians Make Pleas to US." 

A suspect video from insurgent-held Kafranbel village shows "residents who have lost family members in (Assad's) crackdown on the Syrian uprising as they plead for American military strikes on their own country."

Odds are it made on a Hollywood sound stage replica. Videos, photos and other alleged visual evidence are easy to fake. TV viewers see examples nightly.

"(T)he publicity war among Syrians to get their message out is…reaching a crescendo. (It) focuse(s) on Capitol Hill and the American public," said The Times.

"Grass-roots activists are building on expertise developed over the past two years as they used the Internet and social media to get information out about Syria." 

"Informal armies of antigovernment activists have long pumped out videos of dead children being pulled from rubble, of warplanes attacking neighborhoods, and of security forces torturing prisoners, even as government supporters have shared videos of rebels killing prisoners or desecrating shrines."

"Beyong (video) soaring music and images of children, its script aims directly at American skepticism about another war and recent protests that featured antiwar slogans."

"If you are really against the war, then you should support the US strikes that can actually end (it)," said Kenan Rahmani. 

He's a Syrian-American. He spoke from Kafranbel. He's selling war. His video comments urged it. He turned logic on its head. Odds are he was enlisted to do it.

He claimed waging war's the way to end it. He said the opposite of what's true. Times editors and columnists don't explain. They're on the wrong side of history.

The Times featured political science professor Ian Hurd's op-ed. He's selling war. He headlined "Bomb Syria, Even if It Is Illegal."

He wrongfully blamed Assad for tens of thousands of Syrian deaths. He wants him punished.

He claimed there's "widespread confusion over the legal basis for the use of force in these terrible circumstances."

"There are moral reasons for disregarding the law," he said. He "believe(s) the Obama administration should intervene in Syria."

Fact check

Morality, ethics and/or other considerations don't justify lawlessness. International, constitutional and US statute laws are clear and unequivocal. They're inviolable. 

No nation may attack another except in self-defense. It may do so until the Security Council acts. It has final say. 

No exceptions exist. None for any reason. Hurd's argument rings hollow. It's worse than that. He supports war based on lies.

"There is no doubt that Mr. Assad’s government has violated humanitarian principles throughout the two-year-old war, including the prohibition on the indiscriminate killing of civilians," he said.

False! Syria is Washington's war. Regime change is planned. It's longstanding US policy. Western-backed death squads are Obama's shock troops. They bear full responsibility for mass killing and destruction.

Syrian forces contest them. They do so responsibly. They do it in self-defense. They're obligated to do it. They're waging war against foreign invaders. 

There's nothing civil about Syria's conflict. So-called "rebels" are imported death squad killers. 

They're Al Qaeda, Al Nusra and other extremist terrorists. Routing them matters most. Assad's responsible for doing so. He's obligated to do it as Syria's leader.

Hurd didn't explain. He turned truth on its head. Times editors gave him a platform to do so. Peace activists are shunned.

Hurd said humanitarian intervention justifies war "under the concept of the 'responsibility to protect.' " He claims it's "widely accepted by the United Nations and most governments."

Fact check

UN Charter provisions prohibit military force for humanitarian interventions. No exceptions exist. Justifying them as R2P doesn't wash. Doing so is illegal.

UN Charter Chapter VI calls for resolving conflicts peacefully. If unattainable, Chapter VII authorizes the Security Council to impose boycotts, embargoes, blockades and severing diplomatic ties. 

It prohibits war and other violent means. No exceptions exist. None for moral, ethical, humanitarian or other reasons. Violence begets more of it. 

War assures more war. Peace depends on working for it nonviolently. No other way works. 

Hurd claims otherwise. He calls lawless intervention "legitimate." He urges what he calls "constructive noncompliance."

"Since Russia and China won't help, Mr. Obama and allied leaders should declare that international law has evolved and that they don't need Security Council approval to intervene in Syria."

"This would be popular in many quarters, and I believe it's the right thing to do," he said.

He's wrong. He's dead wrong for the wrong reasons. Violating rule of law principles can't be tolerated. Doing so supports law of the jungle ruthlessness.

Laws can't be rewritten or ignored to justify policy. Doing it to wage war on victims makes things worse. Hurd didn't explain. 

Times editors never do. They're in lockstep with imperial lawlessness. They support America's worst crimes. They do so disgracefully. They do it every time. 

They do it by turning truth on its head. Managed news misinformation substitutes. It's longstanding Times policy.

A Final Comment

The NYTimes eXaminer is "an antidote to the 'paper of record.' " On  August 27, it headlined "The NYT's Evolving Drive for War on Syria."

Numerous examples explain. "Kerry Cites Clear Evidence of Chemical Weapon Use" is one of many. In 24 hours prior to publishing, it underwent "22 revisions."

Some were minor. Others inconsequential. Most were "considerable." They reflected "hawkish, pro-war bias." They twisted truth to do so.

Readers are deceived. The Times "shap(ed) the article as a public relations piece on behalf of" anti-Syrian supporters. Lies substituted for truth.

Opposite views were shut out. Rule of law principles were ignored. No evidence was provided to corroborate what's claimed.

"(T)he NYT article is a morphing argument for war," said NYTimes eXaminer. It's a propaganda puff piece. Nearly two dozen revisions shaped its duplicitous narrative. Readers were systematically deceived.

Times editors spurn truth and full disclosure. They promoted war on Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. They're selling it on Syria. 

They blame victims for Washington's crimes. They're on the wrong side of history. It's longstanding Times policy. It makes "all the news fit to print" not fit to read.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. 

His new book is titled "Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity."

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com. 

Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.

It airs Fridays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour