It can never be stated enough: the war in Syria is an attempt to create a zombie-state over which the vampirical Liberal-Fascist West can hover and pick off the resources therein that are most useful to it. I expect Bashar al-Assad knows this, and has known it since he witnessed the invasion of Libya. You might not like him, but for the Christian and Jewish population in Syria, as well as the minority Alawi, and other people of the smaller Muslim sects, he’ll turn out to be the devil-they-do-know. If al-Assad goes, there is going to bloody murder – perhaps even ethnically motivated mass murder – in Syria like there was, and still is in Libya.

So, al-Assad is not only in a personal fight to the death; like Gaddafi’s was before him, he is in a fight to protect thousands of innocent people from the savage barbarism that will be unleashed if the NATO powers, financed by the House of Saud and the Qataris for their own interests, and on behalf of the global bankster cartel, gets to grab hold of the neck of the yet still kicking, rampant food-prey that is the nation of Syria.

I doubt very much that al-Assad is going to accept the demand by the “Friends of Syria” to call an immediate cease-fire†, and allow a UN mission into the country to provide extensive “humanitarian aid” to those areas that it decides need the sort of “succour” they have to hand out. He won’t accept it because it seems to me that he is winning the war. It’s a losing side that wants a cessation of hostilities as breathing space to reorganise and recoup.

In fact, the chances are that al-Assad’s non-cooperation has been factored in to the plans that NATO have for his country, because I noticed that there was a conditioin in the “Friends of Syria” offering that catered for such an event. It was a threat that involved increased military opposition if al-Assad did not agree to the roadmap which ultimately led to his own demise, and likewise the brutal demise of many a Syrian that doesn’t deserve to get murdered. The million dollar question is just how this opposition is going to manifest itself.

William Hague gave a clue on the Today Programme yesterday as to what might happen, and what was going on in Syria; and he helped me decide that his warmongering wasn’t achieving the desired results. Reported in the Guardian as being “frustrated”, Hague made more mention of how military intervention in Syria would have to be “on a vastly greater scale” than in Libya. Can he mean an endless tide of drug-addled Islamist mercenaries poured over the borders from all the neighbouring countries? This could go on for quite a while, but surely al-Assad would beat it in the end.

The NATO aggressors must have another card up their sleeves that they are going to play further down the line, but just because of the affront to Russia, I cannot see that there will be a full-scale invasion of Syria. Not unless, of course, a spectacular propaganda event can be arranged that will shame Russia into abandoning Syria; remember Putin is under pressure at home from protestors demanding fair elections (some say that this is also CIA-provocateured).

This is why NATO will be relying on its agents in the corporate media in the coming months to do the lying of their lifetimes. The Syrian government knows what’s at stake, and this is why there had been a ban on Western journalists moving freely through the country without supervision from the authorities. Even if thousands of online newspaper readers, who lately have been dabbing their eyes with handkerchiefs, don’t know it, the Syrians know exactly what Western corporate-media journalists are. From a purely strategically analytical standpoint, this is why they had a great success the other day when they destroyed the building in Homs out of which Western journalists were operating.

I know that I, too, am meant to be dabbing my eyes with the collectively snotty hanky, and sobbing about the death of a person who I was anonymous to, but I am afraid that I can’t get upset about the likes of Marie Colvin getting killed in what, I am afraid to say, was a legitimate strike in the warfare that she chose to get herself in the middle of. Quite a controversial thing to say, you think? Let’s discuss it.

For a start, corporate media journalists who do what Marie Colvin did are not innocent. Back during the Libyan war, she was effectively embedded with fighters from Misrata – by any and all accounts a notoriously murderous bunch of bandits. Wherever NATO has ploughed its vicious furrow (with bombs) she has been embedded with the “repressed” guerrilla fighters on the ground for whom NATO has provided the air power. She obtained the pirate-motif in her appearance during her time with the terrorist organisation out of the Ceylon, the Tamil Tigers. She was injured by government forces who seemingly had the same kind of reasons not to appreciate her as the Syrians had. They found her, and there is no other way to describe it, on patrol with a group of Tamils trying to enter a government-held town (a group, then, intent on doing some killing).  Because authority to travel to rebel-held areas without a government military accompaniment was rarely given, the assumption is that she was operating in Sri Lanka illegally – just as was the case in Syria.

In Syria, she had managed to get smuggled into Homs, so the assumption here is that she had all the right kind of nefarious contacts with the Syrian “rebels” who got her where she wanted to be – it would have been impossible otherwise. Who these “rebels” are at the crux of the issue; the fact that they are not genuine is the fact that convicts Colvin in her wrongdoing.  Previously, I was too generous by thinking that they might consist of some Syrian Army deserters. According to Webster Tarpley, there aren’t any Syrians in their ranks:

there is no civil war in Syria; there is no uprising in Syria per se. There’s a cross border invasion of these death squads and terrorists

The death squads that he refers to are French, British and US snipers who shoot anyone that wanders into their sights so that the deaths can be blamed on al-Assad. The terrorists are the Libyan Islamist Fighting Group, up to 1500 of them, and other mercenaries from the region – al-Qaeda, if you like. This is Tarpley’s take on the matter, and it’s not dissimilar to the general picture that seems to be emerging.

You will have also noticed how there weren’t any journalists of Marie Colvin’s stature who felt motivated to get themselves smuggled into Sirte or Bani Walid during the Libyan conflict to report to the BBC about dying babies killed by shrapnel from NATO bombs. This is because where she is assigned, or where she is found absent, has nothing to do with neutrality or (to paraphrase) a “passion for telling the truth” – which I have seen ascribed to her, or something very like it, as her grand motivation. On the other hand, it has got everything to do with creating propaganda to further a certain agenda. In that respect, both in Libya and Syria, she was an agent working for the aggressors, as all corporate media journalists covering those wars are and were

Indeed, perhaps saying Colvin was an agent doesn’t go far enough to describe her, or any corporate media operative’s, relationship with the people who use them so effectively to cause and wage war. I think that enough material was catalogued on the internet during the course of the Libyan War to show that the corporate media was an integral part of NATO’s military operation. Journalists with SKY news and Al-Jazeera certainly collaborated with the NTC to film their raids into government controlled territory and claim a permanent military gain; the aim was to create a phony impression of success to spook the defending forces – it was a psy-op. Independent journalist, Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, while staying in the Tripoli Rixos Hotel, saw things that made him think that other journalists staying there were connected with the CIA and MI6. Indeed, any SKY news viewer would frequently see news anchors ask their men in the field to come off camera to liaise with London – whatever that was supposed to mean. There were even stories of journalists calling in air strikes. 

While I was investigating this, I saw an article that assumes that Colvin was a CIA agent.  One fact in favour of this assumption is how she graduated from the notorious Yale university;  it wasn’t long thereafter – a measly matter of two years – before she was the Paris bureau chief for United Press International – in charge, I gather, of all the news that comes through that conduit. The same article gives a theory for the reason behind all the column inches dedicated to Colvin; she was a valued servant in the cause of victory; she is being honoured, in front of the reddened and bleary eyes of the crying sheep who didn’t even know her, as a New World Order war hero.

By the very nature of it, there must be very little evidence that Colvin was a CIA operative who was “directing the Al Qaeda cell in Homs”, as the aforementioned article asserts. However, I was struck by some interesting lines, which resonated with this theme, from a Debka article that covered the attack which killed Colvin.

Western military sources reported Thursday that this undercover Western press center was maintained by the rebels in tight secrecy. The building was practically gutted by a direct hit, suggesting that Syrian forces located it with the help of advanced electronic measures.

Another Western source noted that the journalists covering the atrocities in Homs from this hideout used coded channels of communications protected by anti-jamming and anti-tracking devices. The Syrians must therefore have called on Russian satellites or advanced Iranian electronic systems to locate it.

The authorities in Damascus decided to treat the press hideout as the first step in overt Western intervention in the Syrian conflict. It was accordingly razed totally with its occupants.

Remember, the rebels are NATO personnel or their mercenaries.

The Daily Mail reportage of the incident claimed that the Syrian location-finding to target the “press hideout” involved nothing so technical:

Reporters working in Homs feared the Army had “locked on” to their satellite phone signals and targeted the buildings they were coming from.

Abdu al-Homsi, an opposition activist, confirmed that the Army had cut phone lines into the city and were bombing any buildings where they detected mobile phone signals. 

My reaction to this, after heeding the warning from Cartalucci from Land Destroyer to distrust anything in the media that is prepended with the phrase, “an activist said”, is that I must bear in mind that the Daily Mail doesn’t want its readership to know that, effectively, the struggle against Liberal-Fascist expansionism has been met by Russia and Iran in Syria. Furthermore, it wants its readership to think that Syrian government forces are randomly targeting Homs. But Debka tells us something different. Debka tells us that Colvin was based at a communications hub, with much higher-tech than mobile phones, that was targeted by sophisticated equipment as a valid military target.

So, I think that we have to stop being naive. Intelligence operatives, and you can call them journalists if you like, who are engaged in warfare by producing propaganda that has a tangible effect on the course of that war, must be considered to be valid military targets. Indeed, this would not be my own subjective view on this. You will find that the targeting of intelligence operatives in Homs was not the first time that journalists have been considered valid military targets. When the US bombed a Serbian TV station and killed its staff in 1999, in defence of their aggression they explained that the station was “a source of propaganda that’s prolonging this war and causing untold new suffering to the people of Kosovo”. They also said that it was a “ministry of lies”.

These are the self-same accusations that could be made against the NATO “press hideout”, and they are the grounds by which the Syrians too would be justified in shutting it down with ordnance.

†Having said that, Debka is reporting that Red Cross convoys reached Homs yesterday. This must be too early to be a result of the “Friends of Syria” demands, but timed, I suspect to look like it. I seem to remember the Red Cross being caught out helping out adversaries of Israel by running guns in a recent conflict (I’ll find the link later), but the Syrian Government runs the risk of falling into that propaganda trap if the Red Cross is not allowed access, I suppose. Debka calls the Red Cross Convoy “the first step toward foreign intervention in the Syrian crisis”, so I’ll expect there will be plenty of horror stories on your news supplied by these people.