France, UK going mad over Syria

Perhaps the most surprising of all reactions has come from French President Francois Hollande on Thursday, 28 August. Befuddled by his own hypocritical stance on terrorism in Syria, he recently made the gaffe of describing ISIL terrorists, who have shocked the world with their reprehensible mass-executions of captive Syrian soldiers, as the “allies” of Syrian government.
 
To make this blatantly paradoxical statement, Hollande has to be either seriously brain-damaged, or so consumed in his own lies that he is now incapable of saying anything other than self-contradicting statements on Syria. In Hollande’s demented, twisted portrayal of what is happening in Syria, the problem is the solution, and the solution is the problem.
 
In another bizarre remark, Hollande claimed that the UK Parliament’s refusal to bomb the Syrian state in 2013 over allegations of its possible role in the Ghouta chemical attack of that year enabled the rise of ISIL.
 
This is interesting for him to say, because it tells us a little more about that planned 2013 bombing campaign on Syria than Hollande would like us to know. It shows how, contrary to the statements of the US, which described the planned bombardment as “limited”, the attack would have been a regime change operation like happened in Libya. Based on this foolish argument, Hollande puts the blame for the rise of ISIL on the UK Parliament’s decision not to go to war with Syria in 2013 – a decision explicitly taken through fear of inadvertently assisting terrorist groups like ISIL.
 
Consider the irony of Hollande’s position on this issue. If you look carefully, you will find that his own words even betray the obvious fact that ISIL was created and is still backed by the opponents of the Syrian state: Hollande tells us that if regime-change had taken place in 2013, there would be no ISIL in 2014. Why is that so? By what mechanism would ISIL terrorists disappear when Bashar al-Assad’s rule ends, if Hollande’s statement is not tantamount to an admission that ISIL was being supported and propped up against the Syrian state?
 
    The rationale of Hollande seems to go little further than saying that the Syrian government is indirectly to blame for the atrocities, amputations and cannibalism supported by France for three years in Syria, because of the state’s refusal to collapse. Certainly, if Syria had given up resistance, the cavalier campaign of support to rampant terrorist groups in Syria by rogue states like France would have ended. Resistance to US regime-change, according to Hollande, is the cause of its own bloodshed.
 
To allege that resistance is the cause of its own bloodshed is no better than the same circular rationale being given by Zionists for their repeated aggression against the civilian population of the Gaza Strip.
 
When all other arguments fail, Israel alleges that the Gazans are to blame for their own suffering, because they refuse to give up resistance. So, just as Israel gives this argument, France gives the argument that Syrians are to blame for their own suffering from the French-backed amputations, killings and terror because they refuse to give up resistance.
 
Hollande argues “there is no choice to be made between two barabarisms”. This would be quite a fair statement, if the choice advocated by Hollande was not even more barbaric than the two he has apparently considered. The third alternative, in Hollande’s mind, is to bomb both sides, killing even more innocent people and further devastating the already war-torn state without effecting any decisive outcome.
 
The warmongering that persists in Hollande’s illogical remarks is very striking in every quote, and follows a consistent pattern: refusing to support terrorists in Syria is the same as supporting terrorists in Syria; the violent executioners of the Syrian government’s supporters are the supporters of the Syrian government; airstrikes are the only way of preventing airstrikes; war is peace; freedom is slavery; ignorance is strength.
 
If this sounds familiar, it is because it is doublethink, exactly as described by George Orwell in his dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four – a form of brainwashing that convinces one to hold directly contradictory views without noticing the contradiction.
 
Another source of entertainment has been eminent MP Sir Malcolm Rifkind in the UK, who irritated the government by suggesting that the UK should work with the Syrian government to combat the threat of ISIL.
 
    Describing the Syrian government as “extremely nasty”, to appease critics, Rifkind suggested that ISIL is a much worse adversary. He also compared a prospective alliance with the Syrian government against ISIL to working the Soviet Union during the Second World War to defeat Nazi Germany.
 
The problem with Rifkind’s assessment is that Britain was actually at war during the Second World War. The comparison with World War Two only confirms that Rifkind and others like him live in a warmonger’s fantasy world modeled on World War Two, in which Britain is perpetually on guard against hostile regimes. In this fantasy world, not going to war is forever impermissible “Appeasement”, and perpetual war against some foe or another is the only way to become a great statesman.
 
In truth, intervention by foreign powers has been the problem in Syria from the beginning and will never be the solution. The only Syrian “threat” rebounding against Britain, as with France, was sown by repeated acts of sycophancy to reassure the increasingly intrusive and paranoid US regime.
 
The US state is a militaristic regime driven by a racket of war and assassination. For as long as it has any power, it will be incapable of refraining from involvement in violent conflict zones, and it will eternally search for excuses to wage war. It would rather strike anyone than no-ne.
 
Bombing both sides and doing away with any realistic political aims, in this case, is no joke. Indeed, what is strange about Rifkind’s support of a prospective coalition with the Syrian government is that he was one of the main supporters of prospective US airstrikes on Syrian government targets in 2013.
 
You would think I was making this up as some kind of satirical claim, but I’m not. Apparently, Rifkind is so obsessed with war that he doesn’t care who the enemy is – one year it’s the Syrian government, the next year it’s the insurgents. They may be on different sides of the Channel, but Rifkind and Hollande both have such a fear of non-involvement that, in their minds, airstrikes on anyone is better than no airstrikes at all.
 
Francois Hollande and Sir Malcolm Rifkind are among many who have involved themselves in perpetual lying campaigns throughout the Syrian crisis, to support the adventurism of the US regime in its attempts to apply an Iraq or Libya-style regime-change in Syria.
 
Only the steadfastness and refusal of the Syrian government to collapse has led to their paradoxical statements getting exposed, mocked by anyone with an honest perspective on real events.
 
What we have learned is that resistance is not the cause of suffering, but the solution. War will continue to be the norm for the US regime and its sycophantic puppet states, and resistance will continue to be the answer until this militarist disease is cured.