Reporting of Federici Studies Center
The West of anti-terrorism chalks, defends the terrorist gangs entrenched in eastern Ghouta, who continue to sow death and destruction among the population of Damascus.
In Damascus the jihadists carry out a massacre, but the West continues to support them
Today, 20 March, 35 civilians died and at least 40 injured by a missile launched by terrorists, entrenched in Ghouta, on the Khashkoul market in the Jaramana neighborhood, as well as causing great destruction of buildings and property in the location. Other rockets launched from Ghouta fell on Mezzeh and hit the churches of Bab Touma.
Syria: the West continues to drink from the source of jihadist propaganda
As happened during the Libyan war of 2011 and as has been happening for seven years now in Syria, since the civil war began, it is jihadist propaganda that inspires the international community and the media world. As happened in Aleppo and today in Eastern Ghouta, the West is outraged by the massacres of civilians caused by Bashar Assad's forces and ignores the deaths caused by the rebels, pressing to establish truces and ceasefires which will benefit the jihadist militias.
Incidentally, the same ones that ideologically support the Islamic State governed by sharia and support and justify terrorism and jihad against infidels (that is, us) which affects the USA and Europe.
Difficult to distinguish between good and bad in a civil war but, pragmatically, it seems clear that the alternative to the government of Damascus is not Swiss cantonal democracy but an Islamic state based on Koranic law and in which there would be no room for Shiites, Christians or other faiths other than the more orthodox Sunni Islam.
Nonetheless, the USA and Europe continue to support the Syrian rebels supported by Türkiye and the Sunni monarchies of the Gulf even though this conflict has led to a series of devastating threats for the Old Continent, from the flight of Christians to illegal immigration, from foreign fighters to terrorism.
A blindness that can only be explained by the assessment that our political class does not know what it is doing or that the billions of petrodollars invested in Europe by the Gulf monarchs have made it possible to buy not only companies, weapons, hotels and football teams but also many political consciences.
The credibility granted by Western governments and media cannot be interpreted differently, as well as international organizations, to the news coming from Ghouta, suburb of Damascus in the hands of various jihadist militias for years, to the one-way news provided by NGOs and sources all closely linked to the insurgents.
Of course, the absence of neutral sources is also due to the risk of murder and kidnapping faced by journalists who were to enter the areas held by the rebels, but it is equally clear that these attacks carried out several times against the media have the clear objective of keeping neutral sources away from the front in order to be able to peddle jihadist propaganda liberally..
The most striking examples? The supposed chemical weapons attacks attributed to the Damascus regime were clumsily documented by "Aleppo media center" and "Idlib media center", that is, by the press offices of the al-Qaeda militias in Syria amplified by various Arab TV and media mostly based in the Gulf monarchies but which have equally had wide coverage and credibility throughout the West.
A script already seen in 2011 during the Libyan war which led to the fall and death of Muanmar Gaddafi. Nonetheless, for seven years the Italian and world-wide media have almost always reported uncritically the information released by the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (Ondus), NGO based in London and in all respects close to the rebels.
The Ondus disseminates data on the victims of government air raids and artillery bombardments on Ghout which are impossible to verify but which are nevertheless reported by the media without raising doubts about their veracity or the reliability of the source, biased as it is, on the other side of the fence, the Syrian government news agency SANA.
This is why it is ridiculous that the EU and the UN are tearing their clothes about the conditions of civilians in Ghouta, under attack following the offensive of Assad's troops but don't worry about the population of Damascus targeted by rebel mortars and rockets (which very few people actually talk about).
Yet sources with opposite or less aligned content, like those of the Syrian Christian clergy, they would not fail to try to offer at least balanced information.
In Aleppo as in Raqqa and now in Ghouta the jihadists do not allow the evacuation of civilians because they use them as human shields and to sacrifice them on the altar of propaganda. The militants of the Islamic State in Sirte and Mosul and those of Hamas in Gaza also did so previously, confirming that this is a tactic common to insurrectionary groups.
In this context it seems clear why the international community is asking for the restoration of a ceasefire in Ghouta which certainly has the objective not of rescuing civilians but of giving breathing space to the jihadist militias surrounded and condemned to defeat.
Perhaps someone wants us to believe that food and medicines delivered to Eastern Ghouta are distributed to the population rather than managed directly by Islamist militiamen?
Government troops supported by allied Scythian militias and Russian air forces are advancing on all fronts applying the same tactics successfully used to capture the center of Aleppo, city returned to a semblance of normal life after the expulsion of the rebels, mostly foreigners.
Inevitable, as in all conflicts, the victims among civilians but attributing them to a single faction in the field means wanting to spread "fake news" (what until yesterday we called "hoaxes") consciously.
Yet the same West that cries for the jihadist rebels of Ghouta , where the government evacuates civilians to complete war operations, seems to have forgotten the Kurds who we also celebrated as heroes when they fought the Islamic State in Kobane. Now that they are fighting the invaders of the Turkish army and the "moderate" militias of the Free Syrian Army, Europe turns the other way.
After all, there is little to expect from the "Lionhearts" who govern Europe, prone to the petrodollars of the Gulf and the "sultan" of Ankara who has been kicking us for years from Cyprus to Libya, from the front of migratory flows to that of gas without ever missing an opportunity to accuse Europeans of Nazism and Islamophobia.
Of course, Turkey can be accused of lacking scruples but certainly not of coherence in pursuing its national interests: in recent years Ankara has not hesitated to support the Islamic State, purchasing the oil extracted from occupied wells in Iraq and Syria and favoring the jihadist attack on Kobane, just to chase away or see the Kurds in Syria subjugated.
Nonetheless, there is no need to bother great jurists to know that the Turkish invasion of Afrin violates international law, as well as the US military presence in Syria. Is it possible that in that great rabbitry that Europe has become, no one feels the need to show a hint of dignity?
Also by virtue of our interests considering that every military occupation leads to the flight of masses of people who at least in part will try to flow into Europe, also because the rich Sunni monarchies of the Gulf who wanted the Syrian civil war do not want them.
On the other hand, the balance that guides the so-called "international community" today also in the field of conflict management became clear last year when a UN report accused the Saudis and the other Persian Gulf monarchies involved in the conflict in Yemen of voluntarily targeting civilians in the regions held by the Shiite Houthi rebels.
Riyadh threatened to withdraw its substantial funding of the United Nations if the condemnation document was not withdrawn and the secretary general, all'epoca Ban Ki-moon, obeyed the Saudi diktat while expressing "deep regret".
