In Part 1 of this series we looked at the official narrative we have been given about the Syrian conflict, in Part 2 we explored the political reality in Syria, leading up to the conflict, and in Part 3 we examined the antecedents for the Syrian conflict and considered how we have been widely mislead about the nature of the conflict itself. In each case we can identify consistent U.S led coalition propaganda unquestioningly disseminated by the western mainstream media (MSM.) When we look at the evidence it is clear that virtually nothing we have been told about the Syrian conflict is true.
So when the British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson spoke about Britain becoming a ‘soft-power superpower,’ given the level of deception already foisted upon western electorates, it is important to understand what he means by the term ‘soft-power.’ Soft-power refers to the process of projecting western democratic values through influence, ideas and the power of persuasion. This begs the fundamental question what right we have to project our values globally. What makes the likes of Johnson so certain that our ‘way of life’ is welcome among civilisations whose recorded social history predates our own by thousands of years? Does ‘projecting western values’ come with any strings attached for the target nation? Who is it designed to benefit?
It seems odd that so called soft-power, thus far, seems to have been exported to countries following the use of very hard, military power. We have become accustomed to the balkanisation of nation states by the NATO aligned countries. Despite the rhetoric about exporting our democratic values, what we have seen in the former Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere is economic, strategic and resource exploitation by global corporations in the wake of what appears to be neocolonialism. Soft-power, to date, seems to have been little more than public relations designed to sell the exploited populations the idea that rule by western diktat, under the puppet governments favoured by the West, is somehow good for them.
There continues to be a concerted ‘soft-power’ campaign waged by the broad nexus of NATO powers in the Middle East. Key to this effort in Syria was, and is, the use of so called Non Governmental Organisations (NGO’s.) These allegedly independent charities, particularly in regard to the Syrian conflict, have been widely used as sources of information from within war zones. As ‘charities’ they have been able to access territory off limits to western journalists. Typically in Syria this has meant they they have been able to work within opposition held territory, which actually means terrorist held territory. We might perhaps wonder why child beheading scum like Nour al-din al-zinki, Jabhat Fateh al-Sham (al Qaeda in Syria) and ISIS would be so willing to share their territory and resources with these charities.
Whatever humanitarian role NGO’s may play, in the case of Syria, it is obvious they also provide intelligence from within terrorist controlled areas. If we consider who is backing the terrorists it is clear that these NGO’s have, to a varying degree, either been infiltrated by, or are merely extensions of, western governments and global corporations. When we also look at the multinationals who fund many of these groups, and the direct funding they often receive from government, the notion of their supposed independence is frequently risible. Perhaps most notable among these alleged NGO’s are the White Helmets. However, they are by no means the only NGO’s who have provided the ‘evidence’ to support the military intervention in Syria. Their role in supporting military reprisals against the Syrian government for highly dubious allegations of chemical weapons attacks is evident.
The idea of using NGO’s to promote so called ‘soft power’ isn’t new. Speaking in 2004 former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Defence Joseph Nye said:
“the U.S. government can better maximize the effectiveness of soft power instruments and efforts through increased partnerships with NGOs. By providing humanitarian and development assistance in areas typically inaccessible to government agencies, NGOs are often able to access potential extremist areas before the government can establish or strengthen diplomatic, developmental or military presence, including intelligence.”
If we accept the notional image of NGO’s, fed to us by the MSM, as independent charities, then we need to disregard the evidence which shows their relationship with state and corporate sponsors is far more complex. The MSM has relied extensively upon these highly questionable NGO information sources to ‘evidence’ its propaganda. For example, numerous reports both in the print media and on the news networks quote the ‘Syrian Observatory for Human Rights‘ (SOHR.) By referencing supposed ‘humanitarian’ sources, the MSM’s intention is to give the impression the information comes from independent welfare organisations whose only interest is the plight of the Syrian people. The suggestion is that they are unbiased, firsthand accounts from within a war torn country. The BBC described the SOHR as follows:
“The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights has emerged as a prominent campaign group amid the country’s revolt against President Bashar al-Assad, releasing daily casualty figures for the international media……..The group of mainly professionals, many of them lawyers, monitored changes to the law and the judicial system, and worked to highlight cases of human rights abuses to international organisations such as Amnesty International……It now has more than 200 members and affiliates, covering every province in Syria, with some volunteers aggregating and publicising information from the UK……….The group says it is impartial in its reporting, recording the deaths of soldiers as well as civilians and protesters.”
The BBC goes on to add.
“As foreign journalists are unable to operate freely in Syria to verify reports themselves, the media are increasingly reliant on such information.”
The SOHR provides its unbiased intelligence reports to AFP, AP, CNN, MSNBC, Reuters, CBS, Channel Four and the BBC among many others, and is extensively quoted in most of the major news reports about Syria by the MSM.
The Syrian Observatory on Human Rights is Rami Abdulrahman, a former Syrian ‘activist’ who served three terms in Syrian prisons before fleeing to the UK in 2000 to avoid a fourth. He operates the SOHR out of his flat in Coventry. Mr Abdulrahman openly admits he is a member of the ‘Syrian oppositiom.’ The SOHR are certainly not unbiased, and Mr Abdulrahman hasn’t set foot in Syria for 18 years.His one man band is funded with the help of a European Union grant and the support of another unnamed ‘European country.’ He is known to have met with British politician William Hague on a number of occasions, so it is likely the country he refuses to name is Britain, a leading member of the coalition seeking regime change in Syria. There is nothing independent about the SOHR, despite claims otherwise.
Committed anti Assad campaigner Mr Abdulrahman, who can observe nothing of the insurgency taking place 3000 miles away from his home, is a primary source of information for Western ‘journalists’ as they bring you ‘the truth’ about the Syrian conflict. His sources are frequently unknown (anonymised for their protection,) though he claims they are all ‘activists,’ like himself, and he collates much of his ‘information’ by watching YouTube videos.
Similarly, the American based Human Rights Watch are another NGO who provide information for the Western media to report in regard to the Syrian conflict. Following the outbreak of violence in Deraa, they released their objective investigation into events on the ground entitled ‘We’ve Never Seen Such Horror: Crimes Against Humanity in Daraa.’ Sarah Leah Whitson, the Middle East director at Human Rights Watch said:
“For more than two months now, Syrian security forces have been killing and torturing their own people with complete impunity. They need to stop – and if they don’t, it is the Security Council’s responsibility to make sure that the people responsible face justice.”
Firstly, as far as anyone is aware, Human Rights Watch have absolutely no political legitimacy whatsoever, so one wonders why their Middle East director thought she could tell the U.N what they should do. Secondly their horror story offered next to no evidence to substantiate any of its allegations. What it offered were uncorroborated eyewitness reports, based upon unseen videos, while studiously ignoring all the physical evidence. They made no reference to the arms cache found in the al Omari Mosque nor the dead Syrian police officers who had been shot. An objective investigation would have accounted for this information, all of which was in the public domain, if only to discredit it with counter evidence. By ignoring it their report can be seen for what it is, propaganda. They offered no evidence to substantiate their claim that the rooftop snipers were Syrian special forces, or that it was the Syrian security forces who had occupied defensive positions in the mosques. When Major General Anwar Al Eshki confirmed Saudi arming of the Islamist extremists in Deraa Human Rights Watch offered no further comment.
Like the SOHR, Human Rights Watch is sold to the Western public as an independent, non-governmental, non-political charity that fights for human rights across the globe. Founded in 1978 by Robert L. Bernstein [Member of the Council on Foreign Relations and frequent Bilderberg meeting attendee] it recently received significant financial backing from George Soros [Member of the Council on Foreign Relations and frequent Bilderberg meeting attendee]. Human Rights Watch is closely associated with the Council on Foreign Relations and is funded by the same global corporations behind the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) who set up the protestors during the Arab Spring.
However, they aren’t the only notable human rights group the NED fund. Amnesty Intentional and the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (UNHCR) are also among those ‘independent’ human rights organisations financially supported by weapons manufacturers like Raytheon, Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman.
In 2017, Amnesty International told the world about the horrors perpetrated by the ‘Assad regime’ in its prisons. In particular Saydnaya prison was singled out as the worst. It stated the evil dictatorship had “quietly and methodically organized the killing of thousands of people in their custody” and that, “murder, torture, enforced disappearance and extermination” were part of “an attack against the civilian population.” These horror stories emerged just as the Syrian Government had liberated Aleppo from terrorist occupation and while the Astana peace talks were underway, where Syria, Russia, Turkey and Iran were trying to establish clear de-escalation zones within Syria. Amnesty International’s report appeared to be an attempt to scupper these efforts.
The slight drawback with Amnesty’s shocking revelations about the barbarity inside Saydnaya were that they didn’t have any real evidence and decided to make it up instead. They openly admitted that they had no access to the prison, no photographs, video or audio evidence. What they did have were uncorroborated prisoner testimony from detainees who claimed to have been incarcerated there, though none of them offered any evidence to prove they had. So a couple of questions arise (which Amnesty didn’t answer.) Were these prisoners Islamist terrorists or ‘activists’ and if it was a death camp how come they made it out alive? The interviews weren’t even conducted in Syria but rather Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, somewhere in Europe or the USA, mainly over the phone. The report was full of contradictions, offered no physical evidence at all and amounted to the hearsay of 31 unknown individuals and some imaginative guesswork.
Amnesty apparently accepted whatever these people told them, regardless of any political or theological agenda they may have had or the lack of corroborating evidence. They then went on to boast about how the ‘evidence’ had been created by a London University 3D computer modelling department. Using what Amnesty International described as ‘cutting edge digital technology’ the team at ‘Forensic Architecture’ had relied upon some grainy satellite imagery to create what it ‘imagined’ the inside of the Saydnaya would look and sound like.
That’s it! Some uncorroborated stories and a cartoon they’d drawn were enough for the international human rights organisation Amnesty International to accuse the sovereign government of Syria of ‘crimes against humanity.’ The almost complete lack of any any verifiable evidence was practically admitted by Amnesty International, within the pages of its own report, when it conceded it had no access at all to Syrian Government territory.
This does not constitute a ‘fact.’ It barely warrants cause for suspicion. It’s just a story that lacks substantiation, a bit like ‘Wind in the Willows.’ However, the MSM propaganda machine doesn’t require any accuracy or evidence. Amnesty International, we are told, are a globally respected NGO so their report became the ‘evidence’ for the media deluge that followed. The fact the report was based upon virtually nothing at all didn’t matter. Amnesty International published it, so it must be true.
For example, the Guardian published an article called ‘Assad’s Slaughterhouse Defies Description but it’s Horrifyingly Real.’ CNN stated ‘13,000 Hanged in Secret at Syrian Prison, Amnesty Say’ and the BBC ‘Syria’s Saydnaya Prison Hid Killings, Says U.S.’ Call it ‘fake news,’ call it fiction, the fact is it was propaganda designed to ensure you continued to support the balkanisation of Syria by an Islamist terrorist insurgency and air strikes carried out in your name.
Whatever else NATO aligned governments mean by the term ‘soft-power’ it is clear that it also forms an essential element of intelligence gathering and is used to disseminate propaganda aimed at destabilising foreign governments, targeted for ‘regime change,’ and to provide spurious propaganda narratives to the western populace via the controlled MSM. The extent to which the various NGO’s are complicit in these endeavours seems to vary. Whereas the White Helmets appear to be nothing more than a western government construct, designed to promote the Islamist extremist agenda, the same cannot be said for Amnesty International or the UNHCR. Both have carried out valuable humanitarian work and the vast majority of people who work for them have nothing but the best of intentions. However, at a senior level, these organisations can and are co-opted by powerful Deep State ‘actors’ who can apparently use them for their own purposes, whenever they choose.
The exploitation of NGO’s is a cruel deception played upon charity activists who often put themselves at great risk to provide, what they genuinely believe to be, much needed aid and humanitarian assistance. It is also a betrayal of the domestic supporters of these organisations who devote their time and effort to raise funds, organise events and promote the ‘charities’ they believe in.
This inherent exploitation of people’s good will is another example of the duplicity of establishment figures like of Boris Johnson when they talks about so called soft-power. Much like the narrative we have been given about the Syrian conflict itself, nothing is as it seems. Soft-power is merely a deceptive term intended to cover up the reality that NGO’s, or elements within them, are often working as intelligence assets, propagandists and agent-provocateurs within countries targeted for regime change. The same degree of duplicity runs throughout the western mainstream narrative of the Syrian conflict.
These organisations are used to disseminate disinformation because you will be more likely to unquestioningly accept it. You have been ‘educated’ to respect ‘charities’ so why would you ever question their motives? How many of us can honestly say we have ever questioned who these NGO’s really are? The concept of ‘charity’ and ‘humanitarian assistance’ has become a dogmatic belief which underpins our concept of the ‘fair society’ we like to think we live in. They are an example of our ‘better nature’ and we are predisposed to believe them merely by virtue of their charitable status. We don’t want to question them, because doing so undermines our accepted notion of the fundamental ‘goodness’ of our open and free democracies. Sadly, by shying away from asking uncomfortable questions, we are complicit in the perpetuation of wars of exploitation.
Please consider supporting my work. I really need your help if I am going to continue to provide the research and analysis that you value on a full-time basis. You can support my work for less than the price of a cup of coffee via my donor page or alternative become a paid subscriber to my Substack.
I extend my gratitude to my editor, who has provided invaluable contributions to my articles since October 2021 (but who, for personal reasons, prefers to remain anonymous).
Please feel free to share anything from iaindavis[.]com excluding any and all third party content. I use a Creative Commons License. All I ask is that you give credit to the author and clearly mark any changes you make. Please share my work widely. Censorship is increasing and we need to get this information out there. If you value what I do then please consider supporting my work. Many thanks.
Be the first to comment on "The Syrian Conflict Deception – Part 4"