Hey internet friends. How are we supposed to examine the truth about anything that matters
when the truth is buried so deep beneath layers of rubble? Here in the United States, we're
given glimpses of combat in lands many of us have never and will never travel, we're
provided propaganda designed to inspire visceral and emotional responses, and we're fed carefully
crafted narratives for the purposes of public endorsement—endorsement of the well-oiled
war machine—a machine that interferes, invades, occupies, tortures, and murders in an endless
cycle of chaos and confusion. Propaganda is an essential part of this machine. Through
the mouthpiece of the corporate media, overt lies and half-truths are cranked out to citizens
through breaking news headlines with information and imagery intended to traumatize and inflame—all
for the purpose of rallying public support for wars the majority of us do not understand.
It's emotional manipulation. And even though patterns have been established and agendas
exposed, the corporate media is overwhelmingly successful in convincing citizens that these
wars are fought predominately in pursuit of peace. But can you say, right now, that you
know the absolute truth about Syria—a country that's become the target of global interests?
Well, I'm here to scrape away the blatant lies and deceit
in an effort to uncover it. Let's begin by traveling back to 2010, the year the Arab
Spring began—a movement the Western media told us was organic and spontaneous but was
anything but. The Arab Spring involved a series of demonstrations and protests across the
Middle East and North Africa, the focus of which was economic reform and for democracy
to replace the current political system, requiring long-term rulers of countries like Tunisia,
Egypt, Libya, Yemen, and Syria to either step down or be forcibly removed from their positions
of power. That sounds great, right? Like the plot of some edgy Disney movie wherein the
courageous and brave people of a country rose up against their ruthless dictators while
the world cheered them on, and hopefully at the end, everyone was happy and had an opportunity
to experience what true freedom really is—the ability to say "yes I want fries with that"
at any number of fast food chains now located on every corner of the freshly liberated country.
But in all seriousness, if you apply the lessons of the past to examine the present, the case
of the Arab Spring very much seems like a post-modern coup d'etat rather than the feel-good
story we were sold by the media. It's a tactic that has been effective in the middle east
for decades: the targeting of countries with geostrategic and economic importance by a
network of organizations aligned with corporate interests—like the CIA and the British carrying
out a military coup in Iran in 1953, overthrowing the democratically elected government who
attempted to renationalize Iran's oil, taking it away from the Anglo-Persian Oil Company
who later rebranded as British Petroleum, or what we now call BP. Another example of
the United States being involved in the middle east way before "official" wars were publicly
announced would be Operation Cyclone, the code name of the CIA's program to arm and
finance jihadi warriors in Afghanistan between 1979 and 1989, essentially fighting a proxy
war with the Soviets who were also in Afghanistan, because not only is Afghanistan of geostrategic
importance, but they're also a country who sits upon a wealth of untapped deposits like
gold, copper, iron, and lithium, and above ground there's an abundance of opium in the
form of vast poppy fields. Of course, the United State's involvement in these countries was
well-documented and quietly disclosed to the American public decades after the fact. You'll
notice that this is a reoccurring theme throughout this video, a quiet disclosure of truth, reported
by government agencies or mainstream outlets, only to never be addressed again, because,
one can only assume, the truth doesn't fit the narrative being pushed. Now that we've
established a pattern, we can apply lessons of the past to analyze the present, starting
with a few questions: Who benefited from the United States' involvement in Iran and Afghanistan
during that time? Did the American people benefit? Did the citizens of the foreign country benefit?
Who benefitted from the Arab Spring, the effects of which are still playing out before our
eyes? It is well documented but at the same time, rarely reported across the corporate
media, that the United States, through republican and democratic institutions created by Congress
and financed by the National Endowment for Democracy, among other organizations, trained
individuals as agent provocateurs before and during the Arab Spring; which means that not
all of these individuals who created or called attention to a problem during the Arab Spring
were grassroots activists, thus the Arab Spring was not nearly as organic or spontaneous as
the western media reported—and what started out as social media campaigns, protests and
demonstrations turned violent quickly. Creating a problem, waiting for the reaction, and then
offering a solution—a solution that was decided upon before the problem was ever created—this
is known as the Helgalian Dialectic, and the Arab Spring was phase one. The reaction to
the Arab spring, where we arrive at our second lie, is what the media has dubbed the "Syrian
Civil War"—and it's claimed the lives of between 350k-500k people according to the
Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. There is indeed a war going on in Syria, but it
is by no means a "civil war". A civil war, by definition, is "a war between citizens of
the same country." To breakdown this conflict in an oversimplified manner for the purposes
of this video, the Syrian War is a battle between the Syrian government, and those who
oppose the Syrian government. How can a war be a civil war
if there's a number of foreign backers on each side, among whom include: Russia, Iran,
Turkey, the United States, the UK, France, Israel, & Saudi Arabia? Critics of the western
media's coverage have long called the Syrian War an illegal, proxy war, and a proxy war
is by definition "a war fought between groups or smaller countries that each represent the interests of other larger powers".
However, as recently as in the last month, the Russian Foreign Minister went as far
as to say that, because there are special forces on the ground in Syria from the US,
and the US no longer denies it, along with the UK and France and a number of other countries,
it's not really so much of a proxy war as it is a "Direct involvement in the war itself". The
point here is that through manipulation of language, the western media has misrepresented
what is actually happening in Syria, thus skewing the public view of why the United
States is involved in the first place, and can't seem to leave, which brings us to our
next lie. We were told that the United States' involvement in the Middle East was in an effort
for peace. I believe the lie went something like this: The Syrian people were oppressed
by Assad's brutal regime, they started protesting, and in response, Assad killed peaceful protesters—which,
side note: we've established in this video that not all of those protesters were grassroots
activists, but anyway...A civil war followed, resulting in Syrian refugees flooding into
other countries. The United States stepped in to aid in the humanitarian effort, whilst
also fighting ISIS—thus completing the mainstream media's narrative. So if the United States
main goal in involving themselves in this conflict is to promote peace, then why are
terrorists who are murdering Syrian civilians armed with US weapons? Who benefits from the
United States being in Syria? Not the American People…Not the Syrian people, who by the
way, are a mix of Sheikhs, Muslims, Christians and Atheists who managed to live together
before all of this, but the media certainly won't tell you that, will they? And they certainly won't tell you this: if the Syrian government is overthrown, a new government
that is friendlier to global corporate interests could be installed—a government who would
sell their oil in the petrodollar instead of selling to Russia or China, and to really sweeten
that deal, there's still this issue of the oil pipeline to Europe that goes through Syria,
one of the proposed pipelines is Russian-backed, and the
other is backed by the US—both of which go through Syria.
Both the US and Russia happen to be waging a proxy war against each other in Syria at
this very moment.
Furthermore, it would be unfair of me not to mention the US-Israel alliance, because Zionism has played a major role in Middle Eastern instability.
Israel currently illegally occupies the Syrian Golan Heights, and they've refused to give it back
despite being told to, which has, understandably, heightened tensions with Israel's neighbors,
whom, presumably, are aware of the Greater Israel plan of expansion, otherwise known
as the desired borders for Israel that would be used as a safe zone around the Zionist
state and their illegal nukes—this plan could come to fruition if Syria is shattered
into a thousand, tiny fragments in a brutal civil war, leaving a lot of land up for grabs
in the aftermath. Also of note, the reconstruction process for Syria would be mighty profitable
for whoever lands those contracts, and war itself is profitable, especially to banks
who provide loans and arms dealers who provide weapons to all sides of the conflict. The
United States is the top arms exporter in the world, the majority of these arms are
sold to Middle Eastern allies. What do our allies do with those arms? Our own media has
declared they arm terrorists with them, creating this culture of endless war we find ourselves
in the middle of. Because if there is no war, there is no profit. So tell me something before
I move into debunking this final lie: Are modern wars fought to end? Or are they fought
to continue if there's profit to be made? The final lie which we will tackle in this video
is the one that all of this context and history was building up to, serving as the main reason
why the United States cannot leave Syria: The recent news that President Assad has once
again been accused of gassing his own people. A gas attack targeting civilians, if true,
is of course a war crime. However, in April of last year, a similar story came out, when
Assad was getting ready for an EU-UN peace conference. Without any investigation, the
media decided to promote the narrative that Assad was directly responsible for the sarin
gas attack. The Syrian President denied any involvement. Warmongers came out of the woodwork
calling for military action. Days later, in response to the chemical attacks, the US launched
direct military action at Assad in the form of a cruise missile attack on a Syrian airfield.
Nearly a year later in February of 2018, US Defense Secretary Jim Mattis confirmed that
there was no evidence of the Syrian government's use of Sarin gas related to this attack, but
maintained that he was still concerned about the Syrian government's use of chemical weapons.
To just reemphasize this point, the mere allegation of these attacks prompted US military intervention on the eve of peace talks. History
repeated itself, just a few weeks ago, in April of this year, right after President
Trump announced that he would consider pulling troops out of Syria. Reports of a chemical
attack with civilian fatalities in the rebel-held town of Douma surfaced, and again, the US
government and corporate media immediately pointed fingers at Assad. Dead babies were
plastered across television screens as victims. Warmongers came out of the woodwork calling
for military intervention. But what would Assad have to gain from using chemical weapons
on civilians? Past investigations have cleared Assad of these allegations, yet still, here
we are, threatening to attack a sovereign nation on the basis of suspicion before any
formal investigation has occurred. When did that become okay? What if the roles were reversed? If there's a possibility
that Assad was and is being framed for these attacks by the same forces in the region who
use civilians as human shields on the daily and know that a staged chemical attack would
keep the United States and allied forces in Syria longer, then shouldn't that possibility
be explored as well? What findings do you reckon that investigation would yield?
To conclude, the Arab Spring wasn't all that spontaneous or organic. It gave way to the Syrian War,
which was then dubbed a civil war by the media, but in reality, it wasn't and isn't all that
civil with multiple countries present and attacking each other by proxy. We were told
that the United States became involved for humanitarian reasons, but there was no virtue
to be found in the real agenda that only benefits global corporate interests, and we were told
that the United States cannot leave because Assad keeps gassing his own people, even though
past investigations cleared him of this act, and he, in no way, benefits from gassing his
own people. But the media refuses to ask those pertinent questions, like "who benefits?"
Instead, air time is filled up with images and videos of dead Syrian children, because
dead babies cause people to think with their emotions, to call for wars they know nothing
about, wars they do not realize will inevitably yield in more dead babies.
What do you think internet friends? Please question everything. Your TV. Your radio.
Your computer screens. Your alternative media. Even me. I provide my sources, they're pinned as
the top comment. You know I always look forward to
your comments. Thank you for watching, Subscribing, and supporting my channel on Patreon. Bye!