The recent aggressive talk and actions by the U.S. are being fully supported by the current Canadian government led by Stephen Harper. In a recent telephone call
reported by CBC radio, Harper announced that there should be "a firm response from the international community," and that he "he shares the view that the recent
chemical weapons attack was carried out by the Syrian regime." There is no support provided for this, but it fits in perfectly well with Canada's current view of the Middle
East.
That view includes full support for Israel, denial of Palestinian rights - indeed, denial of a Palestinian people except as terrorists and "Islamicists" -- support for the Arab
tribal monarchies of Bahrain, Yemen, Saudi Arabia et al, and full support for the U.S. attitude towards the region. They have spoken moderately about dialogue in their
response to the rebels and Assad, but beneath that lies the heart of a "chicken-hawk', never having been at war, but fully wanting someone else to go fight and make them
appear as tough (at least in their own eyes) warriors defending our freedoms.
So what's the big deal about poison gas?
Canada has accepted the U.S. "red line' position on the use of chemical weapons, and accepted the posturing on military intervention behind the faà §ade of preventing
further genocide as caused supposedly by Assad, all without evidence save for one You Tube video. But it is definitely an artificial line, with a more than likely artificial
event -- well a real event, but with unknown perpetrators, and knowing the U.S.' propensity for false flag events, more than likely fits that category as well -- to create the
transgression across said line.
But really, other than the red line, what's the big deal about poison gas?
Is it any better than dying from white phosphorous that burns through the flesh to the bone, and continues burning until exhausted? Or perhaps better than being on the
receiving end of a Lockheed Martin Hellfire missile fired from an Apache helicopter? Of fried by the same missile fired from a drone because some stick-jockey in
Nevada has labelled you a "terrorist?" It is a bit quicker perhaps than picking up a canister from a cluster bomb and bleeding to death from the resulting wounds. Or
perhaps you would prefer the DIME munitions - the dense inert material explosive - or the DU - depleted uranium; the latter providing generations of defects and death
from radiation.
All the above listed have been used by the United States and its allies in various wars it has started around the world in recent decades. They have all been used by Israel
in one or another acts of war and contraventions of human rights on Palestinians living within their own territory, and on many others outside their borders.
Really it is not about the gas, not about how someone dies, it is about the U.S.' ability to support its empire in the region, to support its oil resources (I'm including NATO
countries in that empire, which includes Canada), to protect Israel and thus to garner votes domestically and to help guard those same resources, and finally to try and
fence in Russia and China in order to prevent them from breaking U.S. hegemony in the region.
Poison gas is the excuse the U.S./NATO is looking at in order to further their military dominance of the Middle East. It is not a concern about democracy or freedom,
certainly not with the autocratic rule of the Saudis and Bahrainis as allies, whom in turn support the al-Qaeda groups within Syria. In other words, Canadians who want
U.S. led military intervention in Syria are aiding and abetting dictators and terrorists and fully contravening international law.
2
1
1
