US and Company:

Destroying Raqqa for the Sake of Hypocrisy

Rasa - For more than six years they were aiding and abetting ISIL and other “moderate” goons. Today, the United States and its client states claim they are busy launching airstrikes against the terrorist group’s positions in Syria’s Raqqa - its self-declared capital. That’s where unbridled hypocrisy begins.

News ID: 432278

Date: 08 September 2017 - 22:34

RNA - Washington’s willingness to destroy its own creation comes after months of reluctance from the War Party to act. Washington claims the shift in its stance follows intense international demands and responsibility to act. But scratch below the surface and it becomes perfectly clear that there are far more tangible and ominous aspects to this new round of “war on Syria”:

- This action by Washington is what regional allies want and what weapons makers are after. It is not what the people of Syria or the world want. It shreds the rule of law by continuing war on a sovereign nation, partitioning its geography, and occupying it soil.

- Those who would like to fight terrorism cannot fight terrorism in Syria without coordinated actions with the government and without a broader international coalition. Given that the full-scale invasion and occupation for several years from 2003 onwards struggled to pacify Iraq, airstrikes alone are not likely to succeed in Syria.

- Airstrikes result in civilian casualties as ISIL forces hide among the civilian population in Raqqa. This is conceivably their aim to provoke the West into military action, which hurts Muslim civilians, thus supporting their narrative of the West’s war-on-terror hypocrisy i-e., war on Islam.

- The world casts doubt on the view that ISIL targets could be bombed on the grounds that the Assad government is “illegitimate.” Airstrikes cannot be justified legally without a request for assistance from the Syrian government.

- Any action in Raqqa has to comply with international law, and the most likely way to achieve this would be to claim that military action is for humanitarian purposes, using the “Responsibility to Protect” doctrine. This remains illusive, though, without a United Nations Security Council resolution to authorize it.

- Bombing in Syria is an order of magnitude more difficult than airstrikes in Iraq for all sorts of reasons – military, legal and technical. Many governments and international bodies support bombing ISIL positions but they are unsure about the real motive behind the US-led coalition.

The continued violence against Syria constitutes a laundry list of war crimes. The US and its European and Arab clients have employed double standards with regard to human rights and war crimes, applying or ignoring these principles as is convenient to their geopolitical agenda. They claim they are genuinely seeking to maintain regional stability, but in reality they use these principles to gain leverage in the lost war, prop up new proxy forces, and contain Iran and Russia before ISIL is fully defeated and Syria is liberated.

The warmongers wax poetic about freedom, democracy and counter-terrorism, but at the same time continue to overtly and covertly support their dreamy “moderate” terrorist groups in hopes of maintaining control over a rapidly liberating country. The hypocrisy here is palpable.

Even when clothed in brocade, or at times crowned in gold, they cannot hide their self-defeating hypocrisy. Dumping gasoline on a fire of their own creation will only make things worse and not better for the people of Syria. They would be doing the people of Syria and the world a big favour if they just stop this madness, and pack up and leave. Post-ISIL Syria has what it takes to take care of itself.

847/940