Blog -end of line- Syria and the ongoing situation.

In a previous Blog I have already given a lengthy history lesson about Syria, so I have chosen to simply rewrite  the blog entry with added information that came to light today.
I love history and I personally believe that by looking into the history of a nation as complex as Syria’s, there can be seen the hidden reasons behind the self-justification and the rhetoric given by the power brokers of the west as they consider an armed response. However, in my humble opinion, an armed response to the terrible human tragedy of ten days ago is not going to remove the leader of the nation, or give impetus for the Syrian people need for  its people who have never had a role in the democratic process for well over forty years. In fact, all an armed response from the west will achieve is the killing of even more innocent civilians and this in turn may eventually lead to greater instability throughout a region that is already in the throes of recreating itself.
As the Wikipedia link reports, the modern nation state of Syria was not constructed along the ancient lines that the Ottoman Empire brought to the region. It was set up -in secret- by both French and British government aides who must have had their respective government’s approval, in the hope to possibly add wealth to their own nations; and It is this dark connection that has reasserted itself in the form of the Syrian National Coalition, which has been recognized as the "sole representative of the Syrian people" by the United States the United Kingdom and France; leading to the possible conclusion that it is this very organisation who might have been partly responsible for the chemical attack within Damascus ten days ago. Also, today, further information has come to light. Information, I feel, is pertinent to add in the rewriting of this document, so I have added this information in the hope to keep the momentum going and further inform individuals that the process in Syria is on-going and though our nation has chosen by the democratic process not to be involved in any military action, it is the UK that might be partly responsible for the tragedy itself.
In an article written for the “Daily Record” (dated the 1st of September 2013) Richard Findlay reports that BRITAIN allowed certain firms to sell chemicals to Syria that are capable of being blended to make forms of chemical nerve gas.
He goes on to say that “Export licences for potassium fluoride and sodium fluoride were granted months after the bloody civil war in the Middle East began. The chemical is capable of being used to make weapons such as sarin, thought to be the nerve gas used in the attack on a rebel-held Damascus suburb which killed nearly 1500 people, including 426 children, 10 days ago” (Findlay 1-9-13) That “The chemical export licences were granted by Business Secretary Vince Cable’s Department for Business, Innovation and Skills last January – 10 months after the Syrian uprising began. They were only revoked six months later, when the European Union imposed tough sanctions on Assad’s regime. Yesterday, politicians and anti-arms trade campaigners urged Prime Minister David Cameron to explain why the licences were granted.” (Findley 1-9-13)
Dunfermline and West Fife Labour MP Thomas Docherty, who sits on the House of Commons’ Committees on Arms Export Controls, plans to lodge Parliamentary questions tomorrow and write to Cable. He said “At best it has been negligent and at worst reckless to export material that could have been used to create chemical weapons. “He went on to say: “MPs will be horrified and furious that the UK Government has been allowing the sale of these ingredients to Syria. What the hell were they doing granting a licence in the first place? I would like to know what investigations have been carried out to establish if any of this material exported to Syria was subsequently used in the attacks on its own people.”
The SNP’s leader at Westminster, Angus Robertson MP, said: “I will be raising this in Parliament as soon as possible to find out what examination the UK Government made of where these chemicals were going and what they were to be used for. Approving the sale of chemicals which can be converted into lethal weapons during a civil war is a very serious issue. We need to know who these chemicals were sold to, why they were sold, and whether the UK Government were aware that the chemicals could potentially be used for chemical weapons. The on-going humanitarian crisis in Syria makes a full explanation around these shady deals even more important.”
And in a sad reflection of the Capitalist machine, brought alive by our unelected leader,  Mark Bitel of the Campaign Against Arms Trade (Scotland) said: “The UK Government claims to have an ethical policy on arms exports, but when it comes down to practice the reality is very different. The Government is hypocritical to talk about chemical weapons if it’s granting licences to companies to export to regimes such as Syria. We saw David Cameron, in the wake of the Arab Spring, rushing off to the Middle East with arms companies to promote business.” (Findlay 1-9-13)
Is Findley right? It has to be said that this does not count as such on its own. However, it does point a steady first finger towards the present government, who has sold chemicals to Syria a nation that in July was in a state of turmoil then. Findlay goes on to say: “Some details emerged in July of the UK’s sale of the chemicals to Syria but the crucial dates of the exports were withheld. Also the Government have refused to identify the licence holders, or say whether the licences were issued to one or two companies. The chemicals involved are in powder form and highly toxic; however the licences specified that they should be used for making aluminium structures such as window frames.” He also cites Professor Alastair Hay, an expert in environmental toxicology at Leeds University, who has said: “They have a variety of industrial uses. But when you’re making a nerve agent, you attach a fluoride element and that’s what gives it its toxic properties. Fluoride is the key to making these munitions. Whether these elements were used by Syria to make nerve agents is something only subsequent investigation will reveal.” (Findlay 1-9-13) But what is also needed to be proven is that the government knew the chemicals sold were going to be used as part of a chemical warfare plan, and not to be used in say tooth paste or as the document states: “aluminium window frames. “(Findlay 1-9-13)
There also needs to be understood the huge imbalance of power in the region at the moment, and in understanding this, I bring to attention, perhaps a darker motivation behind the chemical attack of ten days ago. This is Vladimir Putin’s response the chemical attack: “Where is the motive? The Syrian leadership would gain nothing but international condemnation for committing this act” and it has to be said, that he could very well be right.
What motive could the Assad regime have for this chemical attack? How could an attack on its own people keep the regime in place? For what nation would stand idly by if its own interests are under threat? It is very clear that the act itself, has turned many nations away from Syria, and has almost led to the ludicrous decision to send in British, French and American military forces into the area as means of protecting these very interests, whatever they seem to be; despite the documented fact, that the refugee crisis in Syria is killing people every single day, and has been for months.
But If Putin’s position is recognized, then the chemical attack of ten days ago could possibly rest fully at the hands of the Syrian coalition that the west nations have been supporting -in various guises- since the end of the First World War.

So, let us, for a moment take a step back and consider something. Let us consider, if we dare, that our elected governments don’t tell us the whole truth. Let us consider the possibility that Vladimir Putin is accurate and the Assad Regime is ignorant of the chemical attack. This leads to another question. Who gave information to the coalition of Syria that certain chemicals -which could be brought together to make a nerve agent- were held within the Syria at the time? And who, apart from Iran and Russia, would believe Assad, if he told the United Nations that these chemicals were stolen?
Once the motive behind the atrocity is considered, then the solution to the problem of Syria becomes far grayer that a black and white invasion or bombing that the Syrians coalition’s supporters would like. It also brings to the surface a considered thought that it is the Syrian coalition, -rebels of the Assad regime, who have been legitimized by the western leaders- (mainly the nations of France, USA and Great Britain) would benefit from inferring through the media that the present Syrian regime is responsible for this.
The news we are sold then becomes propaganda and this propaganda would inform those of us too domesticated to listen clearly that there is a possible legitimate reason to set a counter attack against Syria in the guise of protection of Self-interest and interest for the poor people trapped inside Syria at the moment.
However, to thus increase the stranglehold in a region already torn apart from within by outside forces will look truly ugly in the hindsight of history. It is said that history is written by the victors, and in times of extreme censorship, this might be true. But the World Wide Web does allow other voices and opinions to be heard. They are the still, near silent voices, but they are still there and occasionally they can still be heard. Long may it be so. 

-end of line-

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/britain-sold-nerve-gas-chemicals-2242520

http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/18968

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syria

.