For those of you who do not speak Arabic, al-Assad (pronounced il-Esed) translates to “The Lion” in English. While lions are known for being fierce, beautiful animals that people love, there is one lion that many countries (and people) absolutely despise – President of Syria Bashar al-Assad.
A follower of Alawite Shi’a Islam and Ba’ath political ideology, Bashar al-Assad has made a not-so popular name for himself in his own country, and around the world – especially to the west. The western nations, i.e the U.S, U.K, Germany, France, etc are not too fond of this guy. In fact, they hate him so much that in 2013 President Barack Obama had actually asked the U.S Congress to authorize military force against the Syrian government. This was in response to an alleged chemical weapons attack against Syrian Rebels in Ghouta by Assad.
The west was very quick to claim that the attacks were done by the Syrian government and directed by none other than the President of Syria himself. While the United States and their coalition forces (but mainly the United States) have agreed to airstrike only ISIS, they were very close to engaging in military force against the government of Syria, a government that is backed by Russia and Iran, both of whom would have probably responded pretty aggressively.
However, much like the west does, they like to make allegations without actually providing evidence. And when they do provide evidence, it’s sometimes pretty bad (remember the Iraq War?). According to longwarjournal.org, the chemical weapon attacks that occurred in 2013 in Syria were probably not from Assad or the government forces themselves, but rather the rebels (which we fund). The article’s evidence? The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) which conducted a study for five attacks in that year. As of August 1st of 2016, the OPCW (who has a strong relationship with the U.N) confirmed that the sarin gas used in Ghouta bore different characteristics than the gas the Syrian government used to have. I say ‘used’ because after the Ghouts incident, the Syrian government agreed to destroy all chemical weapons they had, with the exception of chlorine which has legal uses. To add on to it, in April of 2014, Pulitzer Prize-winner Seymour Hersh published an article that the U.S/U.K intelligence communities were aware that some rebel groups in Syria were developing chemical weapons. A Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) report stated that the Al-Nusra Front (who is allied with some rebel groups) were creating chemical weapons and had capabilities greater than Al-Qaeda did around 9/11 to use them. The evidence provided was drawn from classified information from numerous agencies that stated that Saudi and Turkish “chemical-facilitators were attempting to obtain sarin precursors in bulk, tens of kilograms, likely for the anticipated large-scale production effort in Syria.” If you want to brighten the picture even more, we can see Ahmed al-Gaddafi al-Qahsi, the cousin of former Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi, say that chemical weapons were stolen from Libya and smuggled through Turkey into Syria. Putting two-and-two together and it looks like some supporting evidence that chemical weapons were smuggled into Syria, and maybe, after all, not used by the government forces.
When former British prime minister David Cameron, a leader of one of the world’s most powerful countries, tells his own parliament that they don’t know who is 100% responsible for the chemical weapons attack in Ghouta but have “sufficient evidence” that Assad’s forces carried it out, it’s not wrong for people to think that it seems fishy. They never disclosed that “evidence”, so I therefore label this as a piece of fallacious reasoning. We don’t know they did it for sure but we think they did, so we’re gonna blame them. This is essentially what’s going on in this world of western propaganda: blame Assad after reports of a chemical weapons attack WHEN U.N. INSPECTORS WERE THERE (thought I might mention that piece of information that no one likes to talk about) and then try to bomb him. Even an MIT study believes the U.S intelligence is flawed when it comes to this event.
Simply saying “we have evidence” is not enough. In today’s world, you have to actually provide the evidence. The only reason why Obama didn’t airstrike government forces was because of a last-minute deal that was worked out with Russia that forced Syria to destroy all chemical weapons. While there have been other attacks that I personally haven’t looked deep enough into yet, the attack in Ghouta, while tragic, does not seem to have come from government forces. In fact, it looks like that lion was the one who people tried to get caged (LOL). In a decision that could have possibly made Syria even worse than it is today was, luckily, diverted.
So what are we supposed to think of this all? It’s up to you. Hey, I just provide the other side of the story. *wink wink nudge nudge*
Now, I am not trying to defend Assad or government forces by any means. It is clear that BOTH sides have committed atrocities. However, I am simply showing you, the readers, that we can’t take everything we see first as fact. Do some research. It took me 20 minutes to get all of these sources and read everything. Do not let the mass media deceive you into thinking that everything they put out is true. Think for yourselves, and get the other side of the story.