‘West is using possibility of chemical weapons to encourage intervention in Syria’
The US and UK are using the possibility of chemical weapons in Syria to increase the prospect of intervention in the country, anti-war activist Lindsey German told RT. She called the latest piece of evidence against Syria’s chemical weapons use “dubious.”
Even US President Barack Obama has stated that intelligence
assessments proving that such weapons had been used by the Syrian
regime were still “preliminary.” He did, however, stress
that the deployment of chemical weapons by the Syrian government
was a “game changer.”
“But of course [the US and UK] are using this as a way to
increase the prospect of intervention in Syria,” German
RT:The UK has reportedly confirmed the use of chemical weapons in Syria after an MI6 operation. But we know how the intelligence worked in Iraq - aren't we just witnessing the same again in Syria?
Lindsey German: Absolutely I think the same sort of story
is being repeated and of course many people didn’t believe it ten
years ago and many more now realize they were told lies. I think
this latest piece of evidence is very dubious, even the US and
British authorities are saying they’re not certain…they’re not
certain at all what quantities have been used but of course they’re
using the fact that supposedly chemical weapons have been used in
this way to increase the prospect of intervention in Syria and this
comes after a number of other things, including the EU foreign
ministers meeting this week and deciding they’ll lift the embargo
on oil that they’ve placed on Syria, in order to buy oil not from
the government but from the opposition.
So it seems we’re going down a very dangerous road and yet again
this is a further step forward in the path toward intervention like
we did see in Iraq.
RT:The US says the data their intelligence has provided, is not irrefutable, meanwhile the Syrian opposition's demanding action from Washington, its allies and the UN. What was behind these unconfirmed statements then?
LG: I think what’s happening is there are clearly
conflicts about whether there should be direct intervention.
There’s clearly many people in the opposition who want the US and
western powers to intervene. There are politicians in all these
countries who might want to, but who fear the consequences.
Particularly in Britain, David Cameron knows that any sense that
this is connected to the sort of thing that went on with Iraq is
very unpopular so they’re nervous about it but at the same time
they want regime change, they want to get rid of Assad, they want
to be able to change the face of the Middle East so they
fundamentally weaken Iran and its allies, which includes Syria,
Hezbollah in Lebanon, and so on.
I think this is a move where they’re trying to amass more and
more reasons going to war. We already have US and British troops
training in Jordan near the Syrian border. We already have money
coming in from Saudi Arabia and Qatar to fund the opposition. We
already have the Turkish government who has provided facilities for
the Free Syrian Army. And I think this is a further ratchet up
towards the possibility of war. And after all, Obama said last year
that the existence and use of chemical weapons will be a game
changer and the people who really want intervention are hoping that
will be the case.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.