The old maxim of "history is doomed to repeat itself' is a good one, and when one looks at history you can generally find an underlining pattern of events whether its the creation and collapsing of empires or even fashion sense being repeated every other generation.
When however you look at what is happening in Syria you could be forgiven for getting slightly confused and having that feeling of Déjà vu. All jokes aside though, there are of course a hell of a lot of similarities with the on going hostilities in Syria and that which occurred in Libya only a few years back. In fact, when you look at the overall scheme of things, it would have been impossible for the situation in Syria to have become as bad as it now had the West not armed and assisted an uprising in Libya, but more on that point in a while.
As with all mysteries, we should be encouraged when investigating to follow the money to ascertain exactly who is pulling the strings and for what reasons, Libya was indeed no different in this respect.
Remember all those emotive news stories on the mainstream news about how bad things were for the 'protesters' in Libya? Remember how we were told how disgustingly radical Gaddafi's Libya was from sources such as the BBC?
Well whilst I'm not going to try and create a false perception of how Libya was with Gaddafi (I never went there so do not know first hand anyway) the truth was that unlike some areas in the Islamic world, under Gaddafi there was a state run health and education system, and it was one of the more free countries especially for women who enjoyed rights to possessions and education.
Obviously the regime was no utopia, and be under no illusion that the country was not run by a dictator, but the image the mainstream media attempted to portrait at the outbreak of the civil war was completely skewed in a blatant attempt to get Westerners to support the rebel forces. Then again, as it transpired after the dust had settled, the UK Government (among others) had been using Libya as a place to imprison and interrogate terror suspects under an agreement with Gadhafi. The moral stance from our Western Governments when dealing with these kinds of situations is therefore worth nothing.
So why was Libya attacked in the first place?
The official story is that protesters were shot by Libyan forces and came back with an army supported by Western Governments (under the ruse of protecting civilians) to fight Gadhafi's Government. The UN then sets up a no-fly zone to facilitate the dropping of laser guided bombs on defenceless targets. It was certainly interesting to see how quickly 'protesters' could turn into an organised convoy of Hilux's with heavy weapons bolted to the back.
Some facts surrounding Libya just before and during the war on Gadhafi however are too much of a coincidence not to stand up and take notice of. For instance, what deals were done between Gadhafi and BP oil interests all under Tony Blair's supervision?
A story about this can be read: here
Then of course there is the whole question of the gold Dimar, where Gadhafi was trying to get the Middle East and Africa to begin trading their resources with a gold standard instead of the US dollar. This would have had serious repercussions for the West and the global economy. Of course Goldman Sachs had already robbed Gadhafi of over a billion dollars when Wall Street's (arguably planned) collapse occurred, which I don't doubt was even more reason for Libya to push for an end to dealing in dollars.
Of course, Libya also had one of the biggest gold reserves on the planet prior to the war, and therefore was more likely a big target for international corporations (and the Governments they own), and I presume the real reason for the war on Libya like most, was purely financial rather than humanitarian.
So why did the uprising occur at all? Once again, follow the money, and you find at least a vague understanding of who and why. The tribal leaders in Libya were paid off through Qatar, but probably also from the CIA and others to do their bidding and were probably promised a big slice of the profits for their trouble.
Still, it didn't stop the UK and others from sending our own soldiers to aid the rebels too.
The SAS were in Libya despite the 'no boots on the ground' promise from our Government at the time (then again, it'd be ridiculous to think that the British and French air forces would trust rebel's laser guidance) as well as from other countries like Qatar (who were probably ensuring their investment was paying out.)
So, how does this tie in with Syria?
Well with Libya defeated half of those rebels that were funded and given weapons turned out to be Islamic fanatics, half of whom have now gone off to Syria to fight Assad's Government, with the new Libyan Government offering support and supplies. However, these al-Qaeda links should be taken with a pinch of salt of course because it was, in its genesis, more or less a product of the CIA during the Russian-Afghan war anyway.
Kind of ironic when Gaddafi himself told the world that the rebels were terrorists. To think we laughed at him as being some insane despot at the time only to find he was right all along!
Now we have a situation where there has been a stalemate between Assad's Government which is supported by China and Russia on the one hand, and the rebel forces which are supported financially and supplied by the Western countries on the other.
We hear on a daily basis now how barbaric both sides have been to each other, but that's just it, that is war. The West has been itching for a reason to start really putting military pressure on Assad and this latest scare of chemical weapons has provided the West some traction to convince the rest of the world that its time for us to begin getting nasty.
It is funny though how months ago America and other countries made statements warning about chemical warfare and how it would resort in intervention, only to have exactly what they warned against come true. Interesting to note however is that despite the news reporting and showing disturbing images of people foaming at the mouth in apparent gas attacks, the location of where this took place is omitted from the report and we have no real verification other than these few videos.
To complicate matters, there is also concerns even from the UN, that these gas attacks were perpetrated by the rebel forces, not the Assad regime. If this is true, then an even more prudent question is where on earth these rebels obtained these weapons. You may find it interesting that the Daily Mail even wrote an article back in January 2013 in which it discussed the possibility of leaked emails exposing a plot by the United States to use chemical weapons only to then blame it on the Syrian Government. The Daily Mail deleted the story a few days later, but fortunately someone managed to screen print the entire article. Whilst its not proof that the story was right, it does raise some valid questions knowing how things have panned out over the past six months.
You can find that Daily mail article; here.
Israel, as usual when it comes to Arab states, has been causing a bit of a issue.
Note as usual the BBC likes to point the blame at Syria, but it is highly suspicious when every time something happens with Israel, its always because Israel gets its forces too close to the border. Although usually its Israel who shoots across borders killing civilians and armed forces alike, even in peacetime.
Now just like in Libya, America, France and the UK is asking the UN to consider a no-fly zone, which invariably would mean more special forces teams laser designating targets for bombers to drop bunker busters on schools and homes again (for the Allies only to wipe their hands clean of the collateral damage, and instead offer loans to rebuild their country.)
According to reports, America has already begun shifting F16's into nearby Jordan where the no-fly-zone can be enforced from, obviously before the UN has even given an official verdict. Russia on the other hand continues to resist any attempt to stop supplying Syria. The official reason behind Russia's decision is that by arming Syria it creates a situation where neither Syria or the Allies have an upper-hand and can therefore come to a peace agreement without Allied threats, but then again this probably has more to do with the large amounts of money to be made in Syria in the arms trade at the moment.
Of course the irony in all this is that despite calls for a no-fly zone by the US and the hysterical reaction to uncertified gas attacks apparently used by Syria, Israel has used depleted uranium bombs on targets in Syria already. Depleted Uranium causes birth defects and cancers for a long time after their use, surely this is a far greater crime than the small reported gas attacks perpetrated against rebel fighters - especially when you consider that Israel has not declared war on Syria in any official capacity.
The justification for the attack on targets in Syria by Israeli jets was that Israel was attacking supplies that would have ended up in Hezbollah hands in places like Lebanon - another hot-spot where Israel's foreign policy leaves much to be desired. Be that as it may, Syria does have supply routes through which Hezbollah forces obtains equipment from Iran, hence the main reason why Lebanese Hezbollah have been fighting for the Assad regime (if for no other reason than to keep their supply corridor open.)
At the end of the day, this is all about money. Everyday people are tricked into fighting and killing one another for the sole purpose of making a few individuals with unfathomable wealth, wealthier.
Oil in Syria is still being found there, and Israel has recently begun drilling for oil in Golan Heights, a territory Israel has occupied from Syria since the Syria-Israeli war in '67.
It's also unsurprising that the European Union has recently lifted a trade embargo off of Syria so that oil can be purchased directly from 'rebel' forces. Again, they have no idea who they are funding, but right now the rebels whether they realise it or not, fight for the corporate giants and Western Governments. Only time will tell how long it takes for these 'rebels' to bite the hand that feeds (like they did in Libya with the embassy attack.)
Corruption is the key in practically all international affairs, its blatantly obvious to anyone, however the insinuation from most Government and mainstream media sources that we are stupid enough to believe what they say is the hardest thing to bare. Being insulted on a daily basis infuriates all those who dare to think for themselves.
Whenever our Governments support war, as a voting public it is our responsibility to remind our elected representatives that this is not done in our names. Big business runs the show and it is wrong, because its ordinary people like us in places like Syria or Libya who get tricked by divide and rule tactics into needless killing each other, a tactic which has been used by imperialists since the dawn of time.
"The Son of Man goes forth to war,
A golden crown to gain;
His blood-red banner streams afar--
Who follows in his train?"