IN HER speech to the United Nations, Prime Minister Theresa May repeated allegations that the Syrian Government had used chemical weapons to kill their own people – launching a thinly veiled attack at Russia for continuing to defend President Assad’s administration.
The question that should be asked is: did Syria carry out such an attack or is this an attempt by the Anglo-American alliance to fit the facts to complement its pre-ordained agenda?
Let’s face it, we do have form.
Iraq and weapons of mass destruction has now been written into history as an appalling lie.
But not before an estimated 1,000,000 Iraqis have died in the subsequent conflict in the regime change and the years of chaos and violence that have followed.
In the same way, Britain and America want regime change in Syria. So are we making false claims to provoke war whilst claiming once again to be the peacemakers?
There is a clear stand off in terms of the facts.
Assad has adamantly denied that his government possesses any chemical weapons, therefore he could not have used them in any attack authorised by the government.
This calls for an investigation by the United Nations as a hopefully independent organisation to establish whether there is any substance to the allegations.
But once again there are eerie parallels with what happened in Iraq.
For whilst Bush and Blair steamrollered their way to war before weapons inspectors were able to complete their jobs in Iraq, similar events are afoot in Syria.
Much under reported in the west is Assad’s open invitation to the United Nations to come and see for themselves what may or may not have happened.
Yet that invitation was blocked by Donald Trump no less, the President of the United States.
To understand what is going on now, we need to go back to a document drawn up just before the millennium.
The Project for the New American Century detailed eight countries including Iraq and Syria for regime change. Others on the list include Afghanistan, Libya, North Korea and Iran.
It should be noted here that there have been wars or rumours of wars in all eight since the turn of the century and that these are the very same countries named in Trump’s much-criticised ‘travel ban’.
The brains behind the document warned that progress would be slow unless America experienced ‘our own Pearl Harbour’.
In a remarkable co-incidence then US President George W Bush, not known for original oratory or thought, repeated exactly those words describing the events of 9/11.
For years now, Britain has been attempting to find an angle to become more fully involved in the civil war that has engulfed Syria and eventually topple Assad.
Former Prime Minister David Cameron repeated the myth that there were 70,000 good and honest folk who didn’t have so much blood on their hands and we could go and back up them.
Twice in recent years there have been concerted calls for action after claims of chemical attacks on Assad’s own people.
But, tellingly, Trump’s predecessor Barrack Obama pulled back on taking decisive action after Syria had allegedly breached his so-called ‘red line’.
Logically that was because of the lack of evidence that the allegations were true.
There is another side to events in Syria and one that demands a closer look.
For whilst we are fed a story that the western coalition is seeking to end the conflict, we are regarded as the aggressors by Assad and Russia.
How can a civil conflict ever be sorted out whilst outside forces are stoking up the fires?
Russia, on the other hand, has been invited to help the government.
If it wasn’t for their influence, another national leader would have been murdered and another power vacuum created.
Are we seriously arguing we have any better solution to fill that vacuum than in Iraq or Libya?