8/2 BREAKING: Foreign Troops on the Ground Inside Syria in Violation of International Law


BREAKING: Foreign Troops on the Ground Inside Syria in Violation of International Law

by Global Research News

According to Debka, the Israeli intelligence news media, both British and Qatari Special forces have been dispatched to Syria.

According to the report, the special forces units –operating in tandem with rebel forces in Homs– “are not engaged in direct combat” against Syrian government forces. They are described by Debka as “tactical advisers”, involved in supporting rebel communications systems as well organizing the supply and delivery of weapons, ammunition, mostly from Turkey. The dispatch of foreign “fighters” was also mentioned in the report. DEBKAfile, First Foreign Troops in Syria, February 8, 2012

Debka also reports that “two foreign contingencies have set up four centers of operation – in the northern Homs district of Khaldiya, Bab Amro in the east, and Bab Derib and Rastan in the north. … ” (Ibid)

“The presence of the British and Qatari troops was seized on by Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan for the new plan he unveiled to parliament in Ankara Tuesday, Feb. 7. Treating the British-Qatari contingents as the first foreign foot wedged through the Syrian door, his plan hinges on consigning a new Turkish-Arab force to Homs through that door and under the protection of those contingents. Later, they would go to additional flashpoint cities.

The British-Qatari troop presence in Homs was at the center of Assad’s talks in Damascus Tuesday with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Russian SVR intelligence chief Mikhail Fradkov. Senior Syrian intelligence officers laid their updates from the field before the Russian visitors and received SVR data and evaluations in return.” (Ibid)

The presence of foreign troops on the ground inside Syria is in violation of International Law.

Support to armed groups –integrated by mercenaries and funded by foreign powers– constitutes a violation of Syria’s sovereignty as a nation state.

There is ample evidence that this armed insurgency is directly supported by the US and NATO. There is also evidence that these armed groups are responsible for killing civilians and carrying out terrorist acts.

Michel Chossudovsky contributed to this report

Global Research Articles by Global Research News



Syria Regime Change PR in High Gear: More ‘Newborn Baby Slaughter’ Propaganda

by Patrick Henningsen

Global Research, February 9, 2012

We can already see exact parallels with the current PR operation to bring down Syria with how Libya went down. In one story published today, it seems that one award-winning mainstream newspaper has been caught red-handed running faux news on Syria – and incredibly, it’s not the first time this exact story has been used.

This morning, reporter Alastair Beach of The Independent newspaper based in London, cited “evidence” in his article entitled “Assad’s slaughter of the innocents“, claiming that Syrian President Assad’s security forces have indiscriminately killed scores of newborn babies in Homs this week, as his article claims:

“Bashar al-Assad’s bloody siege of Homs intensified yesterday as clear evidence emerged that his indiscriminate shelling of the restive town had started claiming innocent victims, including at least 18 premature babies and three entire families. The evidence came as civilians in the besieged city endured a fifth day of incessant shellfire – the worst yet, according to eyewitnesses – with dozens of other people being killed as the brutal assault continued.”

Writer Beach’s source for his claims seem to originate from only one organization, not in Syria – but in London. Surprisingly, the Independent’s chief source for the alleged horrors in question is a nearly invisible organization known as the ”Syrian Observatory for Human Rights”(SOHR) (and to make matters worse, there are two competing SOHR orgs in London- with the same name although the Independent does not provide a link to either org), who claim to have an office based in London, but apparently have no address or contact phone number listed – only and email address. Even murkier however, is that fact that there are no names associated with the SOHR on their website, and many of its articles have been written under the fictitious pen name known as “Rami Abdul Rahman“.

It’s likely that “Rami Abdul Rahman” is in fact one Rami Abdelrahman, depicted in other online press coverage as head of the SOHR, and is reported to have met with Britain’s Foreign Secretary,William Hague at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on November 21, 2011.

One can only conclude that with no names or contact information, the SOHR is – by definition – a very well-hidden, clandestine lobbying organization, and in this case, it appears to be lobbying for regime change in Syria, from inside Britain’s Foreign Office.

Before regime change in Tripoli, the US, France and Britain relied on the likes of Soliman Bouchuiguir, the former Libyan League for Human Rights president with ties to NATO’s National Transitional Council (NTC), helped to generate numerous lies needed by the west to justify NATO’s now famously titled “humanitarian intervention” – allegedly to protect Libyans. This human rights impostor – like his present day Syrian counterpart Rami Abdelrahman who may very well have ties to the Paris-based rebel coalition known as Syrian National Council (SNC), made then Colonel Moumar Gaddafi a targeted by spreading lies of alleged state crimes – but with with no evidence, as outlined in documents released last October by the publication Voltaire. Syria’s President Assad is currently undergoing the exact same treatment, and in the exact same manner.

Babies in incubators: a recycled media hoax

Amazingly, this exact same story was also making the rounds recently in August of 2011, when a similar claim was busy circulating online through various social networks including Twitter in Arabic – the exact same tale of premature babies who died in their incubators when Syrian forces cut off electricity to hospitals during their assault, not in Homs, but on the city of Hama.

Even though it admits that it could not independently verify the account, CNN still ran with the SOHR rumor back in August, broadcasting: ”Rights Group: 8 babies die after power cut to Syrian hospital“.

Electronic Infidada reported on the August 2011 baby hoax, stating back then, “Evidence suggests it is a cruel hoax, and the pictures of the “dead babies” widely circulated online are false.” They went on to outline parallels between the August faux story and other past regime change PR campaigns:

“URGENT – Syria | The electricity was cut today from the city of Hama, and the outage included the hospitals. Following this, the Shabiha [state militia] deliberately destroyed the electricity generators in the hospitals which led to the deaths of all the premature babies (more than 40 in a single hospital).”

To me the story was immediately suspicious. First of all it sounded too much like the false reports of invading Iraqi troops throwing babies out of incubators in Kuwait in August 1990 — reports that were used to build public support and urgency for the 1991 Gulf War. These claims were part of an elaborate propaganda effort by the Washington PR consultancy Hill & Knowlton hired by the Kuwaiti government.

The fact that an award-winning newspaper like the UK’s Independent would use such a shadowy outfit to support one of its most shocking headlined stories on the crisis in Syria – is also surprising in itself. The biggest problem with both seperate claims of dying babies in incubators put forward by the SOHR, and circulated in the corporate media by the likes of The Independent and CNN, is that at no point along the line, has the SOHR been held accountable for what are patently unsubstantiated claims.

Lobbying groups and their governments in-exile are traditionally the source of anti-regime “heart-string” reports which have in the past been passed on for broadcast by major media outlets, which naturally follows with favoring pre-emptive military strike, or as recently seen with Libya – a ‘humanitarian intervention’.

We can see how the corporate media will knowingly run sensationalist, unverified accounts of human rights events in countries like Libya and Syria, but what about out elected leaders? Will they too run with these same wild claims in order to make their public case for war?

No doubt. Members of the NATO governments have also been assigned their roles in making intervention possible. Britain’s William Hague seems to be running point on the PR campaign for regime change in Syria. Following Russia and China’s veto of the UN’s recent revolution for action in Syria, Hague condemned the decision – and used wild, unverified statistics most likely gleaned from his friend at the SOHR, as reported by the Guardian:

“More than 2,000 people have died since Russia and China vetoed the last draft resolution in October 2011,” he said after the vote. “How many more need to die before Russia and China allow the UN security council to act?”

Journalist Tony Cartalucci reported back in December regarding the clandestine activities of SOHR, adding:

It is quite clear that the “Syrian Observatory for Human Rights” based in London and receiving the entirety of their reports via “phone” & YouTube videos from Syria, is working in coordination with both US-funded NGOs and the British Foreign Minister. Considering that Hague similarly coddled Libyan opposition leaders in London while playing a key role in promoting the NATO attack on Libya and the subsequent installation of a BP oilman as “prime minister,” Abdelrahman’s consorting signifies a verbatim repeat of the now openly fraudulent and genocidal NATO campaign in Libya.

Just as in Libya, where “human rights activists” have now admitted to fabricating the evidence used by the International Criminal Court and the United Nations to rubber stamp Wall Street and London’s designs for regime change, likewise the “evidence” from Syria has turned out to be a complete fraud, derived by opposition “witnesses” and compiled by a corporate D.C. think-tank director into a UN “human rights report.”

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights serves as the exclusive source of “reports” coming out of Syria despite the fact that it is actually, entirely based in London. While it is verified that the NGOs it works in tandem with are US-funded, the Observatory itself fails to publish where its money comes from or the backgrounds of those that constitute its membership. We then, are expected to simply believe on face value a mysterious organization whose head meets with the British government and their unverified “witness accounts” as evidence to initiate military intervention at the cost of potentially millions of lives.

The UN based the whole premise for its Security Council Resolution 1973 for Libya on reports from western-backed Libyan rebels and the NTC. Their wild claims included – unbelievably and highly reported by the western media – that Gaddafi led jet attacks on his own people, and killed more than 6,000 unarmed protester cum civilians in the run up to NATO intervention. This jet claim was needed as a key component in order to get a No Fly Zone included in resolution 1973.

During the run-up to their vote on the matter, no due diligence was carried out by any of the UN member states, which stands to reason, why the whole UN Libyan affair – from beginning to end, was planned and executed as a political operation – hardly of any humanitarian concern.

Here we are again, at another crossroads, so soon after the last one. And like clockwork, the same patterns are emerging to sway western public opinion, this time against President Assad and his Syrian government. It seems that consumers of the press in the west are being force fed another endless diet of false claims designed to sway public opinion in favor of military action by NATO, or NATO-backed allies in Syria, and later in Iran.

Infowars.com have already attempted to contact SOHR via their email address, in order to receive further clarification as to the source of their recent claims that Assad’s security forces are responsible for the death of 18 newborn babies, but have yet to receive any response from the London-based organization.

Patrick Henningsen is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by Patrick Henningsen



One response to “8/2 BREAKING: Foreign Troops on the Ground Inside Syria in Violation of International Law







    Andrew Mitchell has tried to parade himself as a morally superior, do-gooding soul
    Tuesday February 7,2012
    By Patrick O’Flynn Have your say(0)

    BEWARE the politician who is generous with other people’s money. Gordon Brown was a prime example of the species and look at the bills he left on the doormat when he was evicted from Downing Street.

    Fortunately the coalition has set about reducing public sector running costs in order to stop it borrowing over £100billion a year in all our names.

    But there is one area of spending where there is no pressure to cut costs – quite the opposite. The political class asks us to believe that spending more money here is a sign of moral superiority.

    I speak, of course, about foreign aid where the annual budget is soaring by more than £3.5billion over the course of the parliamentary term. This comes on top of the massive increases to the budget of the Department For International Development (DFID) already nodded through by Brown. It all adds up to a 20-year quadrupling of spending.

    One might suppose that to be spared from contributing to the great national belt-tightening an area of public spending would have to meet several criteria, most notably that it would be delivering an essential service to the British people, command widespread public support and be demonstrably good value for money.

    We do not require the aid. It is a peanut in our total development expenditure
    India’s finance miniser Pranab Mukherjee

    YET the foreign aid budget fails all of these tests. Its primary beneficiaries are foreigners, most voters think it is too large, it is prone to abuse by the corrupt regimes that get aid, value for money is hard to achieve or to assess and there is a growing academic school of thought that believes aid impairs economic and social progress in the nations that receive it.

    Our foreign aid budget does not any longer even seem to generate the goodwill towards Britain that its primary government advocates, Development Secretary Andrew Mitchell and his Minister of State Alan Duncan, have claimed for it.

    Rather it is being seen across the world as a tragi-comic legacy of Britain’s colonial past. India’s finance minister Pranab Mukherjee has grandly dis- missed the £280million a year Britain sends to his country, saying: “We do not require the aid. It is a peanut in our total development expenditure.”

    That rather undermines the argument Mr Duncan deployed on BBC Question Time last week about our spending having a transformational effect on millions of lives. Clearly India, a giant democracy that has an economy growing by 10 per cent a year, more billionaires than Britain, a space programme and massive defence expenditure, is capable of doing far more than us to tackle its admittedly severe poverty issues. But it has decided on its own public spending priorities and only an imperialist mindset could wish to interfere.

    And the whiff of imperialism was clearly detected by Indian politicians in Britain’s angry reaction to its recent choice of a French manufacturer rather than a British one for a multi- billion defence contract. Far from being a useful exercise in what Mr Mitchell refers to as “soft power”, our aid programme to India has led to their resenting us and suspecting what is true – that, deep down, the British political class still regards them as an outpost of the empire to whom we owe a debt of noblesse oblige.

    In reality the primary purpose of our absurd foreign aid spending bonanza is not to save lives but to perform a political trick, namely to complete the detoxification of the Tory political “brand” in the eyes of elite liberal opinion.
    Powerful media institutions such as the BBC and govern- mental ones like the British Council are being wooed at public expense. Tory politicians once despised as “nasty” Thatcherites by such bodies are now delighted to win plaudits from them.

    And Mr Mitchell and Mr Duncan were, in their pre-DFID days, two of the most strident Thatcherites – all in favour of an economy dedicated to the survival of the fittest.

    Now they parade as morally superior, do-gooding souls; the former literally wearing his heart on his sleeve with charity wristbands often on display and the latter tearing into a representative of the Tax Pay- ers’ Alliance on Question Time after she had dared to be sceptical about the foreign aid money pit. Personally, I am reminded of Alan B’Stard’s second coming as an on-the-make Blairite though the even grimmer probability is that these ministers are now exhibiting the zeal of genuine converts.

    IF OUR aid spending in India is absurd, the truth is that is not the biggest scandal in the DFID budget. Next door in Pakistan something even worse is taking place. Our annual aid to Pakistan is due to double to £450million by 2015 and yet it has just been exposed as a prime backer of the Tali- ban fighters who are killing British troops in Afghanistan.

    Just think about that: the money of British taxpayers is being used to finance a regime that in turn facilitates the enemy of our troops. Pakistan’s intelligence agencies stand accused of directing attacks.

    This has been an open secret in official circles for years but it took a leak of official US documents to bring it to public attention. I generally try not to claim moral superiority but it seems to me that this is an unethical use of public funds.

    The next time our political leaders pay tribute to a British serviceman who has been killed in Afghanistan, perhaps they will also explain why British funds are still being sent to the enemy’s partner in crime.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s