The Western media has tacitly acknowledged, faced with
overwhelming evidence, that the opposition rebels have not only
committed countless atrocities, they were also behind the chemical
weapons attack of August 21.
In the wake of these tragic events, a new dribble of media disinformation is unfolding.
The evolving media narrative –which coincides in a timely fashion
with the Geneva 2 Peace Conference– consists in distinguishing between
two categories of Al Qaeda affiliated rebel organizations.
The story runs roughly as follows:
- There are moderate Al Qaeda rebels (“good guy Jihadists”) including
those affiliated to Al Nusrah, which are now part of the Western
supported moderate Islamic Front. The latter is now openly supported and
financed by the US and its allies.
- And then there are the so-called extremists associated with the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL).
The ISIL: “An Assad Creation”
A new legitimacy is gradually emerging. While the ISIL is considered
to be a terrorist organization, the moderate Islamists are “true
democrats”.
Al Nusrah is unofficially affiliated to the moderate Islamic Front
which has the endorsement of John Kerry, not to mention that of
America’s allies and the international community.
But there is a reason for this distinction and categorization.
According to “authoritative sources” ISIL is allegedly working hand
in glove with the secular Syrian government of Bashar al Assad.
Al Qaeda in Iraq and the Levant, otherwise known as the Islamic State
of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), is according to Al Jazeera’s Robin
Yassin-Kassab “An Assad Creation”. This despite the fact that Syrian
government forces have been fighting relentlessly against the ISIL
rebels. The article initially published by Al Jazeera was picked up by Alternet, a major online “progressive” news source, as well as other alternative media sites.
While government forces have been fighting ISIL, a fact acknowledged by the mainstream media, Al Jazeera now contends that:
“ISIL should not be considered part of the revolutionary opposition”.
In an utterly twisted logic, ISIL is presented as a covert Syrian
government force which “has fought Free Syrian Army (FSA) divisions as
well as Kurdish groups; it has assassinated FSA and more moderate
Islamist commanders and abducted revolutionary activists.”
The argument runs as follows: “It serves the regime’s agenda by terrifying minority groups”.
The new unfolding media and political consensus is that ISIL is worse that Bashar Al Assad:
“We need to come to terms with a future that includes Assad – and consider that as bad as he is, there is something worse.”
The Al Jazeera report intimates that ISIL is in fact a covert entity
controlled by the Syrian government and the Syrian government is using
it to target minorities. If follows that fighting ISIL is part of the
broader revolutionary objective of defeating the government of Bashar Al
Assad.
Indeed, many Syrians are convinced that ISIL is an Assad
creation, or even a collaborative work of Assad and the great powers.
Why else, they ask, does Turkey, a NATO member, make it so easy for
foreign militants to cross the border? Why has the regime bombed the
schools and marketplaces of Raqqa (a city held by ISIL for half a year),
but not the well-known ISIL headquarters?
With a view to giving a “human face” to opposition terrorists, the
media dribble contends that several ISIL strongholds were wiped out in
Northern Syria, in “a counter strike” by “good guy jihadist” opposition
forces against “the mini-states set up by ISIL along much of the Turkish
border, strategic positions from which it controlled the passage of men
and weapons”.
Who were the Liberators of these ISIL border strongholds? Not the
Syrian government forces but so-called moderate Al Qaeda rebels
including Jabhat Al Nusrah:
The attack responded to anti-ISIL demonstrations all across the north, and was led by the Mujahedeen Army and
the Syrian Revolutionary Front – groups associated with the Free Syrian
Army. But many of the anti-ISIL fighters are also Islamists, from both Jabhat al-Nusra, (also al-Qaeda affiliated but more intelligent and disciplined in its dealings with the people) and, more importantly, the Islamist Front.
This alliance of seven leading Islamist factions was cobbled together
last fall [with the direct support of Washington], and so far seems
much more disciplined, certainly better armed, than the FSA ever was.
Its eclipsing of the secular FSA happened not despite Western policy (as
many journalists insist on misleadingly describing them as
“Western-backed”) but because of it.
This is an interesting development since Washington wants to
authorize airstrikes against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
(ISIL) or ISIS on Syrian territory. It is a move that the Assad government
and Russia say that would be an act of aggression and a breach of
International law. Will the mainstream media report this peace
agreement between these two organizations? Washington would welcome this
development because both groups consider the Assad government a common
enemy. Online news organization Middle East Eye reported that both
moderate Syrian rebels and the Islamic State’s common enemy is the Assad
government: