By Borislav Ignatov
With the recent bombings in Syria, an ideological divide has become even more apparent, between logical and impulsive thinking. Quick, decisive action is required in a time of great distress, which hopefully we can all agree on, nonetheless reason should still be provided for why the actions occurred in the first place, along with solid evidence. Legal or not, such actions indicate a clear abuse of power.Whatever way one looks at the middle East, it can clearly be seen as a humanitarian disaster which has led to the deaths of many individuals most of whom are innocent civilians, estimated death toll is over 500,000.
It is already public knowledge how various groups of people have been supplied with resources and weapons in Syria and the surrounding area, some of which have gone to the terrorists. So why does the UK intervene when they clearly do not know who to support, or why does the UK not stop with its funding to Syria considering the UK is facing disasters of its own, and the solutions are hindered by a lack of funding (same can also be said for the USA and France).
Therefore, politicians should be answerable to the general public and the intelligence of the people should not be undermined. After an alleged chemical attack, Theresa May had decided that she is above the UN council and international law, after all it is not as if Syria has been chemically attacked before by insurgents.
At this point the culprit is not the biggest issue, but the solution to the issue, as such a response would only destabilizes the country more and considering the size of Syria (71,500 sq miles, smaller than the UK) it seems outrageous to have multiple countries bomb such a small place because of a chemical attack. Surely it seems more reasonable for the rebels to attack using chemical weapons, as the US was retreating as they have nothing to lose and everything to gain.
Nevertheless, this could be a false flag to increase the duration of US military presence and in order to impose further sanctions on to Russia, by giving people more reasons to hate Russia. The social consequence of such events lead to a divide in the people, as some believe what they are told by the MSM while others make an attempt to piece together the whole situation.
Disasters such as this lead to refugee scenarios, which are economically and socially damaging for Europe, but beneficial for the globalist agenda as then Europe becomes a war front. Not to mention such an event also distracts people from problems much closer to home.
Russia has evidence to disprove the British narrative which could be one of the reasons for the west to bomb Syria, in an attempt to remove any evidence. Of course whatever the motive was, it surely was not productive as only after the bombing run, has the OPCW been granted access to Douma.
Russia and America clearly do not get along very well in Syria but Syria should be used as a battleground to wage personal wars. Both countries appear to have the same goal in mind, but clearly there is interest beyond our knowledge. Russia has previously helped Syria regain some of their main infrastructure, and has economically benefitted. Therefore it is clear to see that Russia may interested in gaining natural resources, but in supporting the Assad regime and they gain a portion of the natural resources anyway . Whilst America has been known to go against the regime and has established multiple military bases around the country, thus they are in a very good strategic position as they have plenty of access to natural resources and very little opposition that can match their power.
The Syrian regime does not pose any national security concerns and the threat of ISIS is decreasing. National security concerns should be surrounded by ideological warfare, that has spread across the world, peace can be achieved in different ways but if a war starts in the name of peace, then the opposite result is achieved.
It would be of great help if governments were more transparent, as they work for the people and not against them. Information is kept classified in the name of national security, not because it would be a threaten the nation, but because it exposes the hypocritical sides of the government and the extents they are willing to go to achieve their goals.
Actions should be based on morales, and not the other way round, the reason I think that is because we have seen the extents ISIS are willing to go to, and they do not answer to no one but God. In a war the means justify the end, at least to some people.