Global Research

Jad Nasr lives in Syria.  He’s 29, and he has a Master’s in English literature.  He sometimes uses his considerable talents by serving as translator for high Syrian dignitaries, such as the Grand Mufti.

He also has the scar from a bullet wound in his chest, and he receives death threats.  He explains that terrorists shot him because they didn’t want to hear the truth.  Presumably, the terrorists prefer their own version of the “truth”, as dictated by Wahhabi – supporting al Jazeera and Safa TV… as well as all  mainstream media messaging promulgated by the West.

Jad’s story is not pleasant, and it highlights what Syrians have to endure on a daily basis.  He says that his brother was kidnapped last year, and that the terrorists tortured him and destroyed his knees.  Now he can’t walk.   He also told me that his cousin, who was serving in the Syrian Arab Army, lost his leg when Wahhabi suicide bombers attacked his military vehicle. Another cousin was kidnapped in 2012, and remains in captivity.

The terrorists have a talent for kidnapping. Nasr explained that in one operation, they used false flag tactics to capture tanks, and ultimately to capture thousands of Syrian soldiers at Douma, Syria.

The terrorists also like to showcase their defensive tactics.  One of their favorites is to use captives as human shields. Nasr’s testimony and video evidence demonstrate kidnapped individuals being put in cages, and used as human shields in town squares.  Needless to say, when the terrorists occupy towns or parts of towns and cities, they are necessarily using human captives as shields, and the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) takes tremendous risks by fighting house to house, as they do.

Whereas the U.S, for example, carpet bombed Falluja in Iraq, the SAA, doesn’t have that “luxury” since it avoids killing Syrian civilians at all costs.

The terrorists control occupied territories with unspeakable barbarism.  A witness to the massacre at Adra described the scene in these words:

The rebels began to attack the government centers, and attacked the police station—where all the policemen were killed after only a brief clash because of the large numbers of the attackers. They (the attackers) then headed to the checkpoint located on the edge of the city before moving to the clinic, where they slaughtered one from the medical staff and put his head in the popular market. They then dragged his body in front of townspeople who gathered to see what was happening. Bakery workers who resisted their machinery being taken away were roasted in their own oven. Jabhat al-Nusra and Islamic Front fighters went from house to house with a list of names and none of those taken away then has been seen since.’

When the Syrian army would try to enter Adra the Jihadists would throw women and children from the 20,000 people it captured off the top floors in front of the army.”

Nasr also discussed the lies propagated by imperialists, and believed by multitudes.  He says that for the first three weeks of the so-called “revolution”, police and security personnel were ordered to not carry guns.  It was during this time that 15 of Nasr’s friends were killed by so-called “peaceful protestors”.

These same “peaceful protestors” were the spearhead of the Western-orchestrated “regime change” operations, wherein the Muslim Brotherhood and foreign operatives played central roles. The “Arab Spring” was a foreign intelligence operation from the beginning.

Recent estimates suggest that terrorists from about 100 countries are currently infesting Syria. This, he says, coupled with the legal interventions of the “Axis of resistance”, and the illegal war crimes of NATO and its allies, means that the dirty war on Syria is increasingly a world war.

Those of us who still believe the war lies are enabling imperialists who are pushing us towards the unthinkable.

Notes

1. http://en.alalam.ir/news/1544981

2. http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/09/30/shell-shocked-syrian-town-freed-after-savage-massacre/

Council of Canadians launches new Boycott Nestlé campaign in response to company’s continued water grabs

Corporate giant Nestlé continued its privatization creep on Thursday as it won approval to take over another Canadian community’s water supply, claiming it needed the well to ensure “future business growth.”

Nestlé purchased the well near Elora, Ontario from Middlebrook Water Company last month after making a conditional offer in 2015, the Canadian Press reports.

In August, the Township of Centre Wellington made an offer to purchase the Middlebrook well site to protect access to the water for the community. Consequently, the multinational—which claimed it had no idea the community was its competitor—waived all its conditions and matched the township’s offer in order to snag the well for itself.

Those conditions included conducting pump tests to determine if the watershed met the company’s quality and quantity requirements, the Canadian Press reports.

Nestlé dropped its conditions, including pump tests for quality, to win the bid. (Photo: Raúl Hernández González/flickr/cc)

Moreover, Nestlé has stated that the Middlebrook site will only be a backup for its other nearby well and bottling plant in Aberfoyle, where the corporation already draws up to 3.6 million liters (roughly 951,000 gallons) of water a day. The company reportedly plans to extract as much as 1.6 million liters (almost 423,000 gallons) a day from Middlebrook to be transported to its bottling facility.

All this comes as parts of southern Ontario and British Columbia face severe drought conditions amid dwindling water supplies and Nestlé pushes to renew its permits for its Aberfoyle plant, the advocacy group Council of Canadians warned.

The organization on Thursday launched a Boycott Nestlé campaign which states, “Groundwater resources will not be sufficient for our future needs due to drought, climate change, and over-extraction. Wasting our limited groundwater on frivolous and consumptive uses such as bottled water is madness. We must not allow groundwater reserves to be depleted for corporate profit.”

Council of Canadians chairperson Maude Barlow told the Canadian Press about the Aberfoyle plant, “Allowing a transnational corporation to continue to mine this water is a travesty, especially given that most local people can get clean, safe, and affordable water from their taps.”

In her new book Boiling Point: Government Neglect, Corporate Abuse, and Canada’s Water Crisis, Barlow writes that Nestlé makes more than $2 million a year in profits from its Aberfoyle facility alone.

She also noted to the Canadian Press that the Elora well “sits on the traditional territory of the Six Nations of the Grand River, 11,000 of whom do not have access to clean running water.”

The Syrian army, Hezbollah and Liwaa Al-Quds, supported by Russian warplanes, launched an attack on Jaish al-Fatah militants in the Old Ramouseh Neighborhood of Aleppo city. Following an intense firefight, the pro-government forces took control of the Ramouseh Bakery. If the Old Ramouseh Neighborhood is secured, the Sheikh Sa’eed Neighborhood will become the next target of the loyalists.

Russian heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser “Admiral Kuznetsov” will be deployed in the composition of a group of Russian ships in the eastern Mediterranean, Russian Defense Minister, Sergei Shoigu said at a meeting of the military department on September 21. Currently, the Russian naval group in the area includes not less than six warships and three or four support vessels. The group’s capabilities will be increased with a carrier strike group led by Admiral Kuznetsov.

The Russian Defense Ministry also plans to test new weapons in Syria. Admiral Kuznetsov ‘s air grouping is going to use Kh-38 missiles and a new guidance system SVP-24 for unguided bombs in a combat situation. It’s reported that the Admiral Kuznetsov heavy aircraft cruiser will carry the Su-33 and the MiG-29K/KUB fighter jets, as well as with the Ka-52K Katran helicopters on its board.Syrian War Report – September 22, 2016: Russia to Test Modern Weapon Systems in Syria

Reports have been appearing in various pro-government media outlets since September 20 that some Russian warships, deployed in Syria’s coastal waters, hit with missiles a foreign-led military operations room near Aleppo city, killing 30 Israeli, US, Turkish, Saudi, Qatari and British officers.

The military operations room was allegedly located in the western part of Aleppo province in the middle of Sam’an mountain. It was set up by foreign intelligence services in order to coordinate operations of various militant group against the Syrian government forces in the provinces of Aleppo and Idlib.

Most of the pro-government media outlets cites the Arabic-language service of the Russian Sputnik news agency as a main source of the information.

AlMasdarNews and the Iranian Fars News Agency are among the sources that had disseminated the info.

While there are no doubts that various ‘opposition’ and terrorist groups in Syria are trained, supplied and managed by foreign intelligence services, the pro-government sources have not provided video or photo evidences in order to confirm this report. The Russian Ministry of Defense has not commented on the issue.

If you’re able, and if you like our content and approach, please support the project. Our work wouldn’t be possible without your help: PayPal: [email protected] or via: http://southfront.org/donate/ or via: https://www.patreon.com/southfront

The so-called Labour Law, passed en force by the French government on 20 July, is the most serious attack against the “Code du Travail,” already undermined for the past thirty years. A short historical overview is necessary to better grasp the destructive scope of this law, promoted and enforced by a socialist government – cruel irony!

The Labour Code is a compilation of regulations giving structures to the relationship between employees and employers at the national level. It emerged after the shock of the 1906 catastrophe of Courrières, Northern France, where 1099 miners lost their lives.

The underlying idea was to adapt labour to people, and not people to labour. If the principle of 3×8 (8 hours of work, 8 hours of leisure and 8 hours of sleep) was acknowledged, it was not to please companies’ bosses but people themselves, so that they can live from and with their labour.

So when President François Hollande states that “we need to adapt labour law to companies’ needs,” this is a conceptual counter-revolution. Nothing is modern in this statement, and it has nothing to do with the crisis. He confessed it himself: “(the labour law) will not produce effects in terms of employments for a few months. It is more about setting up a new social model.” He made crystal clear that unemployment was a pretext, and that the objective was to break with the existing rationale of the labour code. The Labour Law should therefore be seen for what it really is: a neoliberal reconsideration of decades of struggles led by trade unions and the Left to protect workers. Even employers were surprised by the content of the Law, which goes much further that any right-wing previous attempts to change the labour code.

Equality or Balance of Power?

It is useful to stress (time and time again) that in a company, there is no such thing as equality between the two co-contracting parts: employers and employees. Labour laws are – and must remain – universal, whatever the company’s size, its specificity, its branch. They must prevail over contracts, agreements, derogations, exceptions – and not otherwise. This is guaranteed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, as well as by several Conventions of the International Labour Organization.

During the four-month mobilization against the Law, trade unions reminded over and over again that the labour code is the historical expression of the social balance of power. One might even say that it is social public order and the rule of law within companies.

From article 1 of the preamble of the Labour Law, it is obvious that the aim is to change everything. It therefore states that “liberties and fundamental rights of the people” can be subjected to limitations “if these are justified by the necessities of the company’s good management.” After imposing the state of emergency upon the public sphere, they want to impose it upon workers.

A few examples will illustrate the profound transformations entailed in the Law. It will alter the rules on working time by giving companies greater flexibility to exceed the legal cap on employee work hours. Currently, France’s statutory thirty-five-hour workweek permits overtime of up to ten hours a day and forty-eight hours a week for full-time workers. The government’s proposal would raise the daily legal maximum to twelve hours “in case of increased activity or for reasons related to the organization of the company.”

The Labour Law would also allow the labour ministry to temporarily increase the weekly limit to as much as sixty hours if “exceptional circumstances” require it. Meanwhile, the legislation would considerably reduce the bonus paid to employees who work more than thirty-five hours in a week.

Of equal significance are provisions in the law that would lower the cap on legal damages for “unfair dismissal.” In France, workers who lose their job without “just cause” are eligible to seek compensation through the labour courts. That means that if you are laid off because your company isn’t making money, your employer has to pay you a settlement commensurate with your length of employment. The Labour Law would lower the legal limit on damages, so that, for instance, a worker with twenty years of service could end up collecting just twelve months worth of salary.

The proposal would also change the rules on dismissals, making it easier for companies to lay off employees for economic reasons. French law requires that businesses that want to layoff employees without cause provide a valid justification – with the Labour Law a claim that it is economically necessary would be enough.

Perhaps most controversially, the proposal would permit firms to negotiate “offensive agreements” at the company level. These agreements will be allowed to undercut existing standards on pay rates, working hours, and other aspects of the employment contract. In the past, companies that wanted to negotiate these kinds of company agreements had to prove that they were necessary to prevent bankruptcy or avoid layoffs.

Now, companies that want to expand their operations or enter new markets could demand concessions from their workers, even if these givebacks would violate the terms of established collective bargaining agreements or existing labour laws. Furthermore, the law would make it easier for companies to negotiate agreements with employee representatives, as long as they were backed by 30 per cent of the workforce.

Business’s Assault on Employment Standards

All in all, these changes would be highly beneficial to employers.

From business’s perspective, French labour law is filled with “rigid” legal restrictions and costly regulatory requirements: from the statutes on dismissals and working time to the high minimum wage, business sees the labour code as an intolerable burden. The Labour Law would be a major step toward alleviating that burden.

Worst of all, the law would eviscerate the code du travail, by permitting employers to circumvent its statutory regulations through company-level agreements. For French labour organizations, this is the biggest problem with the proposal. As Philippe Martinez head of the CGT (France’s leading labour federation) notes, “The main principle of our opposition to this law is that it allows each company to have its own labour code.”

In this way, it would reverse the “hierarchy of norms” in the French labour market. Traditionally, employment regulations ran from the code du travail downward: labour law set the framework for the employment contract, which was further regulated by collective bargaining agreements negotiated at the sectoral level.

Now, that hierarchy would run in the opposite direction: company agreements, reached with workers who may or may not be represented by a union, would become the central terrain of collective negotiations. Decentralized bargaining would rule over legal regulation and sectoral negotiations. The bill would thus allow for a sustained assault on the employment standards established by the code du travail.

In general terms, the bill is not dissimilar to the various versions applied in other Southern European countries: it makes dismissal and mass redundancies easier, whether economically motivated or not, and it weakens collective agreements and employment law in favour of company agreements that damage working hours and in turn salaries. All this against a background of very high unemployment and where the expected growth is primarily due to the fall in the price of oil and in the euro. Other elements are being negotiated at the same time, such as unemployment insurance, for which the government is exploring degressive compensation once more. Again, this is no surprise as similar reforms exist elsewhere.

Trade Union Response?

Although joint responses were initially made, the trade union movement quickly found itself riven in two to form the new model that has been in place for a few years now. At least this initial response meant that the discussion among the unions of the complex issues of employment law were heard by employees and young people. The primary root of these divisions is because the more moderate segment of the trade union movement (said to be assisting the reforms) wants to be able to sign company agreements in a context where strong differences often prevent the majorities from forming groups.

It is worth noting that the movement was initiated by a handful of activists, far from trade unions’ directions, through the launch of an online petition. The petition against the new labour law gathered over a million signatures within a few days. It has lent credibility to those unions which most strongly oppose the new law (CGT, the FSU, FO, Solidaires and others) and which, in turn, have had the sense to view the labour law as an issue that goes beyond the realms of the unions and employees. We have witnessed the creation of a global broad front including unions, internet activists, people on the fringes of the socialist party and community activists. This unusual starting point made it possible to mobilize very significant sectors of young people in particular: university and college students, but also young employees in precarious positions or unemployed young workers, employees of small companies, some of whom first demonstrated 10 years ago during the movement that led to the contrat première embauche (first employment contract), a bill for low-cost contracts for young people, being thrown out. All these young people, generally not affected by unions came to swell the ranks of the demonstrators at the beginning of March. They are also the activists behind the Nuit Debout demonstrations, a combination of the ideas of intermittent artists, grassroots activists, non-professional journalists and the film “Merci patron!,” a sort of celebration of class warfare.

The unions that oppose the labour law have maintained their united front in spite of government manoeuvres, mainly targeting opposition from college and university students. Substantial concessions to young people have been made, but the core of the labour law remains unchanged. Unions were faced with a majority of the public that did not want the labour law and, at the same time, difficulties to organize a mass mobilization of employees to strike and bring about the final blow for the legislation. The unions’ bastions in the public sector were there, but their involvement was low as the reform does not affect them directly. A number of companies from the private sector joined the demonstrations, but that was not enough.

Rather than a central thread, woven by the inter-union space on its own, or a professional sector that could demonstrate the permanence of the movement by striking, the situation was one of constant resistance which can be seen in a number of movements.

The inter-union space united them by calling for inter-profession strikes and college and university student demonstration days were an additional tool. Some sectors are debating how better to combine their interests (the collective rail convention debate) and involvement in this movement by an extended strike, and the Nuit Debout demonstrations ensure the movement attracts attention in Paris and also in some suburbs and a number of towns in the region. These Nuit Debout demonstrations may address global issues that concern democracy and social change, but they were born from the movement opposing the labour law, making them a place for exchange, for encouragement and a place that unites struggles. These circumstances, when combined with the institutional problems facing a struggling minority government, leave open the possibility of a victory. They also mark the arrival of a new generation on the political and social scene, a promise of future engagement and new life for the trade union movement, if it can harness the power of this new generation and take into consideration its demands and the fact that it thinks and acts independently.

The inter-union coordination has called for another demonstration after the summer break, in September. Even if the government used the 49-3 article of the Constitution – providing it with right of bypassing any kind of parliamentary debate to enforce the Law in July – it is important for the unions to keep occupying public spaces – even if only punctually. It is too early to tell whether the movement will disappear. But one cannot deny that the trade union movement has suffered a serious blow. But regardless of the forthcoming demonstration – the first one after the Law was passed – trade unions have been reinvigorated. The relationship they established with new social movements such as Nuit Debout may produce fruits that yet have to be discovered – most notably in terms of better including demands of precarious workers, well represented on French squares. •

Maxime Benatouil holds an MA in sociology and political science (European Studies) and is working for the transform! Akademia Network, co-facilitating the projects on Energy, Labour, and on European Social Movements. He is a Paris-based project facilitator at transform! europe where this article first appeared.

The author is Director of an influential think tank, the Russian Institute for Strategic Studies (RISS), and a retired lieutenant general of Russia’s foreign intelligence service

Andrey Afanasyev: Some experts say that the incident in Syria was not just an effort to provoke Russia, but to involve it in a global conflict. Are today’s American or their elites in favor of this?

Leonid Reshetnikov: We need to take into account that Americans like using well-tested methods. This was the scheme they used in Syria, where they just signed a truce; Russia is busy with elections, no one expects an attack, so they think they’ll probably get away with it: “We’ll see how Russia responds”. They did the same thing in Georgia on August 8, 2008, thinking it would go unnoticed because of the Olympics, and Russia would not dare respond…

Leonid Reshetnikov

There’s nothing surprising here; it’s a typical US Special Services/military job.

I think they mainly want to save their country in its role of Master of the Universe, which they are losing. They feel their weakness better than we do, aware that most countries no longer want to continue as obedient stooges, either morally, or spiritually, or politically.

Now they have the only one option – hit the enemy to show their force – maybe he will back off. This would start with removing our president….

Andrey Afanasyev: Some are even talking about assassination…

Leonid Reshetnikov: The Central Intelligence Agency specializes in assassination. They’ve been practicing it for decades, assassinating leaders around the world. That’s why it would be naïve to think that they’re not planning to do the same with Vladimir Putin: if they can’t remove him from power they will assassinate him. The second goal is to blockade Russia, involve it in various conflicts. Unlike when Turkey shot down a Russian plane, they think we would take the bait. The policy in Syria is the same: You have to respond.

We should have no illusions. Today’s United States of America is interested only in one thing – destroying Russia as a civilizational, geopolitical, military and political rival — as well as an economic rival, with its treasure trove of resources.

Jeremy Corbyn’s victory in the Labour leadership battle in Britain is a victory for decency and for political integrity. It is also a blow at a British establishment that has become ossified and out of touch.

Whilst the war in Syria, Brexit and the American election have been the biggest news items of the summer, there’s been an election in Britain that ought to raise a combination of hope, fear and eyebrows. The Labour party have spent the last few months tearing themselves to bits over the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn.

Jeremy Corbyn is unique in the world of electoral politics. He is for all intents and purposes, a highly consistent man, a principled man, an ideologically unambiguous man, an honest man and a decent man. He entered Parliament in 1983 and made a career as a member of the Bennite left wing of the Labour party. His positions are that of classic left-wing Labourism: he is anti-war, he is pro nationalisation of industries, generally in favour of wealth distribution and an expansion of public services.  Like his policies or hate them, he’s never hidden them. Jeremy Corbyn does what he says on the tin.

Therefore one would think that any challenge to Corbyn’s leadership would be ideologically based. On the surface, this is what the leadership race was: a fight for the heart and soul of the Labour party. Was Labour going to be a democratic socialist party or a Blairite party which in effect was a neo-liberal and ultra-hawkish party?

The people have clearly had enough of Blairism and the Diet Blairism of his immediate two successors. But the election sadly was not fought on this basis, demonstrating that a Labour party once famous for serious, impassioned and at times long winded debates may have found its soul but lost its conscience.

Owen Smith himself was something of a stand-in as no true believing Blarite ended up having the guts to enter the race. Smith and Corbyn actually agreed on more than they disagreed on with the exception of Smith being a die-hard Europeanist and Corbyn stating that the Brexit vote must be respected. The Blarites had conceded the ideological battle to Corbyn’s classical British socialism before the election even began, and instead resorted to personal attacks on one of the few nice people in modern politics.

The soft spoken and gentle Corbyn was called a bully; the long-time anti-fascist and anti-racist champion was called anti-Semitic; the veteran anti-war campaigner was painted as some sorted of traitor; the man whose economic policies are similar to those of latter day American icon Bernie Sanders and of many parties which are sweeping southern Europe and beyond was painted as some sort of neo-Stalinist; and one of the few honest men left in politics was called unelectable.

The Blairites used to a fault every dirty trick in the book to discredit a man who is beyond corruption.

It remains to be seen whether Labour can remain united. There is a possibility that those on the right of the party may form a new neo-Liberal bloc, whilst Corbyn will consolidate around socialists.

But more importantly, it does just beg the question: is the four party system which has emerged in Russia something Britain and others could learn from?

My previous articles and interview on RT during the recent State Duma elections praised the diversity of ideas being debated in the Duma.  The Duma has a Communist party on the left, A Fair Russia on the centre-left, and United Russia and the LDPR on the centre right (though to be fair many of United Russia’s and the LDPR’s economic policies are far to the left of those of most European conservative parties).

Perhaps in order to better reflect the ideological diversity of the British people a new British parliament could have the following: a Corbyn led left-wing party, a Liberal party which can remain a safe place for the Blairites to regroup, a centre-right Conservative party that can campaign for Diet Brexit, and a right wing UKIP campaigning for a ‘hard Brexit’?

On paper it sounds like a fairly good idea, but the health of Britain’s parties is not good.

UKIP having won the battle for Brexit seem to be losing the war, and the party may well disintegrate unless there’s a big post-Brexit upheaval. The Liberal Democrats are something of a rudderless ship with little presence in Parliament. The Conservative party, once described by Benjamin Disraeli as ‘an organised hypocrisy’,  is fast living up to that reputation, whilst despite Corbyn’s consistency the Parliamentary Labour Party as a whole appears to be something of a disorganised hypocrisy.

So whilst the British party political system has seen days of better functionality, Corbyn’s victory is a victory less for socialism than for honesty.

It’s nice to see a decent man win. It doesn’t happen very often.

Washington’s regime change machinery has for the time being succeeded in removing an important link in the alliance of large emerging nations by railroading through a Senate impeachment of the duly elected President, Dilma Rousseff.

On August 31 her Vice President Michel Temer was sworn in as President. In his first speech as president, the cynical Temer called for a government of “national salvation,” asking for the trust of the Brazilian people. He indicated plans to reform, and has also signaled his intention to overhaul the pension system and labor laws, and cut public spending, all themes beloved of Wall Street banks, of the International Monetary Fund and their Washington Consensus. Now after less than three weeks at the job, Temer has unveiled plans for wholesale privatization of Brazil’s crown jewels, starting with oil. The planned Wall Street rape of Brazil is about to begin.

It’s important to keep in mind that elected President Rousseff was not convicted or even formally charged with any concrete act of corruption, even though the pro-oligarchy mainstream Brazil media, led by O’Globo Group of the billionaire Roberto Irineu Marinho, ran a media defamation campaign creating the basis to railroad Rousseff into formal impeachment before the Senate. The shift took place after the opposition PMDB party of Temer on March 29 broke their coalition with Rousseff’s Workers’ Party, as accusations of Petrobras-linked corruption were made against Rousseff and former president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva.

On August 31, 61 Senators voted to remove her while 20 voted against removal. The formal charge was “manipulation of the state budget” before the 2014 elections to hide the size of the deficit. She vehemently denies the charge. Indeed, the Senate issued its own expert report that concluded there was “no indication of direct or indirect action by Dilma” in any illegal budgetary maneuvers. According to the Associated Press, “Independent auditors hired by Brazil’s Senate said in a report released Monday that suspended President Dilma Rousseff didn’t engage in the creative accounting she was charged with at her impeachmenttrial.” Under an honest system that would have ended the impeachment then and there. Not in Brazil.

In effect, she was impeached for the dramatic decline in the Brazilian economy, a decline deliberately pushed along as US credit rating agencies downgraded Brazilian debt, and international and mainstream Brazilian media kept the Petrobras corruption allegations in the spotlight. Importantly, the Senate did not ban her from office for 8 years as Washington had hoped, and she has promised an electoral return. The Washington-steered Temer has until end of 2018 to deliver Brazil to Temer’s foreign masters before his term legally ends.

Notably, Temer himself was accused of corruption in the Petrobras state oil company investigations. He reportedly asked the then-head of the transportation unit of Petróleo Brasileiro SA in 2012 to arrange illegal campaign contributions to Temer’s party which was running a Washington-backed campaign to oust Rousseff’s Workers’ Party. Then this June, only days into his serving as acting president, two of Temer’s own chosen ministers, including the Minister of Transparency, were forced to resign in response to allegations that they sought to subvert the probe into massive graft at Petrobras.

One of the two, Temer’s extremely close ally Romero Jucá, was caught on tape plotting Dilma’s impeachment as a way to shut down the ongoing Petrobras corruption investigation, as well as indicating that Brazil’s military, the media, and the courts were all participants in the impeachment plotting.

In brief, the removal of Dilma Rousseff and her Workers’ Party after 13 years in Brazil’s leadership was a new form of Color Revolution from Washington, one we might call a judicial coup by corrupt judges and congressmen. Of the 594 members of the Congress, as the Toronto Globe and Mail reported, “318 are under investigation or face charges” while their target, President Rousseff, “herself faces no allegation of financial impropriety.”

The day after the first Lower House impeachment vote in April, a leading member of Temer’s PSDP party, Senator Aloysio Nunes, went to Washington, in a mission organized by former Bill Clinton Secretary of State Madeline Albright’s lobbying firm, Albright Stonebridge Group. Nunes, as president of the Brazilian Senate’s Foreign Relations Committee, has repeatedly advocated that Brazil once again move closer to an alliance with the US and UK.

Madeline Albright, a Director of the leading US think-tank, Council on Foreign Relations, is also chair of the prime US Government “Color Revolution” NGO, the National Democratic Institute (NDI). Nothing fishy here, or? Nunes reportedly went to Washington to rally backing for Temer and the unfolding judicial coup against Rousseff.

A key player from the side of Washington, Rousseff’s de facto political executioner, was, once again, Vice President Joe Biden, the “Dick Cheney” dirty operator-in-chief in the Obama Administration.

Biden’s fateful Brazil trip

In May, 2013, US Vice President Joe Biden made a fateful visit to Brazil to meet with President Rousseff. In January 2011 Rousseff had succeeded her Workers’ Party mentor, Luis Inacio Lula da Silva, or Lula, who constitutionally was limited to two consecutive terms. Biden went to Brazil to discuss oil with the new President. Relations between Lula and Washington had chilled as Lula backed Iran against US sanctions and came economically closer to China.

In late 2007 Petrobras had discovered what was estimated to be a mammoth new basin of high-quality oil on the Brazilian Continental Shelf offshore in the Santos Basin. In total the Brazil Continental Shelf could contain over 100 billion barrels of oil, transforming the country into a major world oil and gas power, something Exxon and Chevron, the US oil giants wanted tocontrol.

In 2009, according to leaked US diplomatic cables published by Wikileaks, the US Consulate in Rio wrote that Exxon and Chevron were trying in vain to alter a law advanced by Rousseff’s mentor and predecessor in her Brazilian Workers’ Party , President Luis Inacio Lula da Silva. That 2009 law made the state-owned Petrobras chief operator of all offshore oilblocs. Washington and the US oil giants were not at all pleased at losing control over potentially the largest new world oil discovery in decades.

Lula had not only pushed ExxonMobil and Chevron out of the controlling position in favor of the state-owned Petrobras, but he also opened Brazilian oil exploration to the Chinese, since 2009 a core member of the BRICS developing nations with Brazil, Russia, India and South Africa.

In December, 2010 in one of his last acts as President, Lula oversaw signing of a deal between the Brazilian-Spanish energy company Repsol and China’s state-owned Sinopec. Sinopec formed a joint venture, Repsol Sinopec Brasil, investing more than $7.1 billion towards Repsol Brazil. Already in 2005 Lula had approved formation of Sinopec International Petroleum Service of Brazil Ltd as part of a new strategic alliance between China and Brazil.

In 2012 in a joint exploration drilling, Repsol Sinopec Brasil, Norway’s Statoil and Petrobras made a major new discovery in Pão de Açúcar, the third in block BM-C-33, which includes the Seat and Gávea, the latter one of the world’s 10 largest discoveries in 2011. USA and British oil majors were nowhere to be seen.

Biden’s task was to sound out Lula’s successor, Rousseff, about reversing that exclusion of US major oil companies in favor of the Chinese. Biden also met with leading energy companies in Brazil including Petrobras.

While little was publicly said, Rousseff refused to reverse the 2009 oil law in a way that would be suitable to Biden, Washington and US oil majors. Days after Biden’s visit came the Snowden NSA revelations that the US had also spied on Rousseff and top officials of Petrobras. She was livid and denounced the Obama Administration that September before the UN General Assembly for violating international law. She cancelled a planned Washington visit in protest. After that, US-Brazil relations took a dive.

After his May 2013 talks with Rousseff, Biden clearly gave her the kiss of death.

Before Biden’s May 2013 visit Dilma Rousseff had 70% of popularity rating. Less than two weeks after Biden left Brazil, nationwide protests by a very well-organized group called Movimento Passe Livre, over a nominal 10 cent bus fare increase, brought the country virtually to a halt and turned very violent. The protests bore the hallmark of typical “Color Revolution” or Twitter social media destabilizations that seem to follow Biden wherever he makes a presence. Within weeks Rousseff’s popularity plummeted to 30%.

Washington had clearly sent a signal that Rousseff had to change course or face serious problems. The Washington regime change machine, including its entire array of financial warfare operations ranging from a leaked PwC audit of Petrobras to Wall Street credit rating agency Standard & Poors’ downgrade of Brazil public debt to junk in September 2015, went into full action to remove Rousseff, a key backer of the BRICS New Development Bank and of an independent national development strategy for Brazil.

Selling the Crown Jewels

The man who has now manipulated himself into the Presidency, the corrupt Michel Temer, worked as an informer for Washington the entire time. In documents released by Wikileaks, it was revealed that Temer was an informant to US intelligence since at least 2006, via telegrams to the US embassy in Brazil classified by the Embassy as “sensitive” and “for official use only.”

Washington’s man in Brazil, Temer, has lost no time appeasing his patrons in Wall Street. Even as acting President this May, Temer named Henrique Meirelles as Minister of Finance and Social Security. Meirelles, a Harvard-educated former President of the Brazilian central bank, was President of BankBoston in the USA until 1999, and was with that bank in 1985 when it was found guilty of failing to report $1.2 billion in illegal cash transfers with Swiss banks. Meirelles is now overseeing the planned selloff of Brazil’s “crown jewels” to international investors, a move that is intended to gravely undercut the power of the state in the economy. Another of Temer’s key economic advisers is Paulo Leme, former IMF economist and now Goldman Sachs Managing Director of Emerging Markets Research. Wall Street is in the middle of the Temer-led economic rape of Brazil.

On September 13, Temer’s government unveiled a massive privatization program with the cynically misleading comment, “It is clear the public sector cannot move forward alone on these projects. We are counting on the private sector.” He omitted to say the private sector he meant were his patrons.

Temer unveiled plans that would complete the country’s largest privatization in decades. Conveniently, the process us to be completed by end of 2018, just before Temer’s term must end. The influential US-Brazil Business Council detailed the privatization list on its website. The US-Brazil Business Council was founded forty years ago by Citigroup, Monsanto, Coca-Cola, Dow Chemicals and other US multinationals.

Tenders for the first round of concessions will be issued before the end of this year. They will include privatization of four airports and two port terminals, all auctioned in the first quarter of 2017. Other concessions include five highways, one rail line, bidding on small oil blocks and a later round for large, mainly offshore, oil development blocks. As well the government will sell selected assets currently controlled by its Minerals Research Department plus six electric power distributors and three water treatmentfacilities.

The heart of his planned privatization are, not surprisingly, Joe Biden’s coveted state oil and gas companies along with chunks of the state Eletrobrás power company. Temer plans to get as much as $24 billion from the selloff. Fully $11 billion of the total are to come from sale of key oil and gas state holdings. Of course, when state assets such as huge oil and gas resources are sold off to foreign interests in what will clearly be a distress sale, it is a one-off deal. State oil and gas or electric power projects generate a continuing revenue stream many times any one-off privatization gains. Brazil’s economy is the ultimate loser in such privatization. Wall Street banks and multinationals are of course, as planned, the winner.

On September 19-21, according to the US-Brazil Business Council website, the Brazilian government’s key ministers for infrastructure including Minister Moreira Franco; Minister Fernando Bezerra Coelho Filho, Minister of Mines and Energy; and Minister Mauricio Quintella Lessa, Minister of Transport, Ports and Civil Aviation, will be in New York City to meet with Wall Street “infrastructure investors.”

This is Washington’s way, the way of the Wall Street Gods of Money, as I title one of my books. First, destroy any national leadership intent on genuine national development such as Dilma Rousseff. Replace them with a vassal regime willing to do anything for money, including selling the crown jewels of their own nation as people like Anatoli Chubais did in Russia in the 1990’s under Boris Yeltsin’s “shock therapy.” As reward for his behavior, Chubais today sits on the advisory board of JP MorganChase. What will Temer and associates get for their efforts remains to be seen. Washington for now has broken one of the BRICS that ultimately threaten her global hegemony. It is not likely to bring any lasting success if recent history is any guide.

F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”

Victory for Corbyn! The genie is now out of the bottle

Ecstatic screams and cheers broke out across the country as the news came through that Jeremy Corbyn has again won a decisive victory to become Labour leader, with an even bigger mandate than last September. 313,209 members voted for him, 61.8% of the vote, compared to 59.5% last year. His challenger Owen Smith, the “unity” candidate, got 193,229 votes, or 38.2% of the vote. The turnout was 77.6%, with 506,438 members and supporters taking part.

Corbyn won a majority over Smith in every category: members, registered supporters and trades union affiliates. He won the support of 59% of voting members (10 points higher than last year), 70% of registered supporters and 60% of affiliated supporters. This result constituted a ringing endorsement of Corbyn and a massive blow to Labour’s right wing.

The mass movement behind Corbyn

Let us remember that Corbyn’s victory today was in spite of a ferocious battle by the Establishment, inside and outside of the party, to unseat him. Everything was thrown at him in a bitter campaign. 130,000 new members were debarred from voting. Tens of thousands were suspended – and even expelled – to prevent them voting. Despite this, Corbyn increased his majority!

The right wing in the Parliamentary Party never accepted his first victory and immediately worked to overthrow his mandate. This campaign culminated in the right-wing coup of a few months ago, where 80% of Labour MPs voted for a motion of no confidence in him. They moved heaven and hell to get rid of him. But their efforts have now completely blown up in their faces.

The vote was no real surprise given the pro-Corbyn feelings in the rank and file. In the end, Owen Smith was a no-hoper. This demonstrates the weakness of the right wing within the Labour Party. They had lost control of the party with Corbyn’s victory, as hundreds of thousands joined the Labour Party to defend and support Corbyn.  The party has almost tripled its membership since the May 2015 general election.

Corbyn has certainly strengthened his position within the party, especially amongst the new members. As one commentator stated, he has massive support like no other party leader in history. Such a victory must not be squandered but used to transform the Labour Party into a mass, fighting socialist party.

Unity – on what basis?

Of course, there have been immediate calls for the right wing PLP to unite behind Corbyn. All the local Labour Party meetings next month will certainly be pressing for this. There must be demands that the utter disloyalty of the PLP has to stop. It is the continual back-stabbing by right-wing MPs, who have been all over the media, which has undermined support for the party. These MPs must either accept the mandate given to Corbyn by the party or they must stand down.

It is clear that the right wing have suffered a massive blow. They have suffered a head-on car crash. Many right-wing MPs deliberately stayed away from the Labour Conference, knowing full well that they were in for a hiding to nothing. They are licking their wounds, even talking of “unity” and “listening”. Stephen Kinnock, who has been a vociferous opponent of Corbyn, sent him a text message of congratulations as “sweet as a razor”, to use the words of Dylan Thomas. A number will have seen how the wind is blowing and will now show “loyalty”. But in reality they will simply be biding their time. Some will return to the Shadow Cabinet. Others will refuse with a hungry smile. The right wing will never give up its hope of turning the tables. Clutching their heads, they talk of a new organisation being set up in the PLP – a “party within a party” – to guide and coordinate their actions. But they have had the stuffing knocked out of them.

The battles ahead

Of course, they have a massive problem: the Labour membership, which has decisively rejected Blairism and the policies of the right. They are very much looking for a real alternative, which they see in Jeremy Corbyn. It is very likely that the membership will continue to grow, meaning that the base for the right wing will continue to shrink. The boundary changes will open up selection conferences locally in which the right wing will be challenged. They will not be able to avoid this, despite pleas to Corbyn, who is in favour of democracy and the membership having its say. When this happens, all hell will be let loose. The idea that the right wing are going to roll over and accept this leftward shift is fantasy.

As the Financial Times, gritting its teeth, commented: “Jeremy Corbyn has returned as leader of Labour, tightening the grip of the hard left over one of Britain’s oldest political parties.” The ruling class is alarmed at this advance of the left and will do whatever they can to stop it.

The right wing is a Fifth Column of big business within Labour. They are careerists like their counterparts in the capitalist parties. They will jump ship when the time comes. Britain is heading into unchartered waters. The Tories, although repackaged, are heading for a bust up over the Brexit negotiations. The splits in the Tory Cabinet can already be seen. This is simply a foretaste. With a new economic crisis, the scene will be set for a general election showdown. At that point, the capitalist Establishment may call on the right wing in the Labour Party to split to prevent Corbyn coming to power.

Whatever the talk of “unity”, the divisions between the members and the right wing PLP are unbridgeable. The fight to democratise the party must go hand in hand with the fight for bold socialist policies to answer the crisis of capitalism.

We are in interesting times. The victory for Corbyn means that the genie is out of the bottle. There is no going back. The fight is now on to change society.

 Deputy Prime Minister, Foreign and Expatriates Minister Walid al-Moallem on Saturday addressed the 71 session of the United Nations General Assembly held in New York.

Below is the full text of the speech:

President of the seventy-first session of the General Assembly of the United Nations,

I would like to congratulate you and your friendly country, Fiji, on your election as President of the present session of the United Nations’ General Assembly, I wish you all success during presidency, which you have promised would be one “for the whole house.” Such a promise, if kept, would strengthen the neutral role of the President of the General Assembly and shed a bright light on the facts that some are trying to conceal.

Mr. President,
Ladies and gentlemen,

As we meet once again, our world is going through a grave and dangerous period. Terrorism, which we have cautioned against repeatedly from this very rostrum, has continued to grow and gain ground, claiming the lives of more innocent people and causing death and destruction as it rages unabated across the world. The blood of Syrians was not enough to quench its thirst. It had to go after the citizens of many other countries, including those that have supported and sponsored it. These innocent people are now paying for the mistakes of their governments, which have ignored the interests of their people and adopted shortsighted policies.

For more than five years, the Syrian people, no matter their affiliations, have paid dearly for the crimes of terrorists who have shed the blood of Syrians and undermined their security, stability, and livelihoods. Terrorism has spared no one, targeting even schools, universities, hospitals, places of worship and infrastructure.

Everyone knows full well that terrorism would not have spread through my country if it hadn’t been for the external support of well-known countries. It is no longer a secret that Qatar and Saudi Arabia have played a part in this, promoting their Wahhabist Takfirist ideology and their death fatwas that have nothing to do with Islam. They have bragged about supporting terrorism in every way, sending into Syria thousands of mercenaries, equipped with the most sophisticated weapons. Meanwhile, Turkey has opened its border to let in tens of thousands of terrorists from all around the world and has provided them with logistical support and training camps under the supervision of Turkish and Western intelligence. It has even supplied these terrorists with direct military support, as was the case in Idlib, Aleppo, and rural Lattakia.

I would like to refer you to a study published seven months ago by a German institute, the Firil Center for Studies. According to the study, more than 360,000 foreign terrorists from 83 countries have entered Syria since April 2011. By the end of 2015, the Syrian Army was able to kill 95,000 of those, while 120,000 returned home or travelled to other countries.

We, in Syria, are combating terrorism on behalf of the whole of the world. Every time the Syrian Army kills another foreign terrorist, it spears the lives of many innocent people who could have died in a terrorist act carried out by the same terrorist upon returning to his country. Anyone who seeks to distort this fact must be held responsible for the spread of terrorism and the increasing numbers of victims. Our valiant Army deserves to be commended and supported. It must never be the target of schemes and lies.

Mr. President,
Ladies and gentlemen,

The terrorist campaign against my country is taking place in full view of a polarized world; There are those who have chosen to support international law and the principles of the Charter, while others have decided to turn a blind eye to the truth and to support, finance and arm terrorists, under false pretexts that depart from logic and reason. They choose, for example, to refer to these terrorists as “moderate armed opposition,” even though there is irrefutable evidence that these groups have committed against Syrians crimes and massacres that are no less barbaric than those of ISIL or Al-Qaida. Some consider people who take up arms against the state and its citizens “illegitimate opposition” as long as they are in Syria, while the exact same people, on any other day and in another country, would be considered terrorists, or at least outlaws.

Despite all of this, all Syrians; the people, the army and the government, will not relent in their fight against terrorism. They are determined, more than ever before, to eliminate terrorism wherever it exists in their country and to rebuild a better Syria, because they are well aware that their homeland will cease to exist if the terrorists and their backers emerge victorious.

Our belief in victory is even greater now that the Syrian Arab Army is making great strides in its war against terrorism, with the support of the true friends of the Syrian people, notable the Russian Federation, Iran, and the Lebanese national resistance. Such support has helped strengthen the resilience of Syrians and alleviate their suffering. We truly hope that other countries will wake up and realize, before it is too late, the danger that threatens us all.

We have always welcomed all the international efforts to counter terrorism in Syria, but we stress once again the need to coordinate such efforts with the government of the Syrian Arab Republic and the Syrian Arab Army that has been combating terrorism on the ground for more than five years. Without such coordination, any action would be considered a breach of sovereignty, a flagrant interference, and a violation of the principles and purposes of the Charter. Without such coordination, any action will fall short of achieving real results and will even make matters worse.

In this regard, the Syrian government condemns in the strongest possible terms the attack launched by American warplanes on a Syrian Army site in the vicinity of the Deir Ezzor Airport on 17 September, which allowed ISIL to gain control of the site. The Syrian government holds the United States fully responsible for this aggression, because facts show that it was an intentional attack, and not an error, even if the United States claims otherwise. This cowardly aggression clearly proves that the US and its allies are complicit with ISIL and other terrorist armed organizations.

We also reiterate our condemnation of Turkish incursion into Syrian territories under the pretext of countering terrorism. This is a flagrant aggression and must be stopped immediately. Terrorism cannot be fought by replacing one terrorist organization with another. One cannot but wonder: how can a state that has been the main point of entry for terrorists and weapons into Syria claim to be fighting terrorism?! How can there be genuine and effective international counter-terrorism cooperation while relevant Security Council resolutions remain dead letter?

Mr. President,
Ladies and gentlemen,

Since the onset of the crisis in 2011, the Syrian government has declared that any solution must follow two parallel tacks; counter-terrorism track and a political track through an intra-Syrian dialogue that allows Syrians to determine the future of their country without foreign interference. All solutions dictated from the outside are categorically rejected by the Syrian people. Likewise, any political solution will not succeed in the absence of the necessary foundations and conditions for its implementation, including intensified counter-terrorism efforts and progress in the national reconciliation process, which has proven successful in a number of areas around Syria.

Despite all the hurdles created by regional and western states that decide on behalf of the self-proclaimed “Syrian opposition” we have always been open to a political track that would stem the bloodshed and end the prolonged suffering of the Syrians. We reiterate our commitment to move forward with the Geneva track under the auspices of the United Nations.

We recall our constructive position regarding the political solution. Such a solution must be based on respect for the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of Syria and the unity of its people. It should begin by establishing a government of a national unity comprising representatives from the government and the opposition, in all its factions, and tasked with creating a constitution drafting committee. Once the new constitution is approved by Syrians through a referendum, parliamentary elections would follow and a new government would be formed under the new constitution.

Mr. President,
Ladies and gentlemen,

It is truly regrettable that some are exploiting the humanitarian tragedy and suffering of Syrians, especially in terrorist-held areas, and politicizing such suffering to achieve certain goals that have nothing to do with humanitarian principles or the interest of Syrians themselves. Some countries continue to shed crocodile tears over the situation of Syrians in some areas, accusing the Syrian government of employing a policy of sieges and starvation. All the while, these same countries continue to support and arm the terrorists that besiege civilians in these areas from the inside and use them as human shields and prevent the delivery of humanitarian aid or confiscate it.

Ladies and gentlemen, make no mistake: no one is more committed than the Syrian government to ending the suffering of the Syrians and providing them with a life of dignity wherever they may be end without exception. This is a duty and not a favor. We will spare no effort to that end, including cooperation with the United Nations, despite all the difficulties we face as a result of the systematic destruction by externally-supported terrorist organizations, and despite the unilateral coercive economic and financial measures imposed on the Syrian people by the same parties that falsely claim to have the interests of Syrians in mind. Such unilateral measures have adversely affected many vital sectors, including health, education and energy.

Mrs. President,
Ladies and gentlemen,

Syria is confronting mercenary terrorists on its territory today, but it has long confronted a different kind of terrorism; the terrorism of Israel that has occupied a precious part of our land in the Syrian Golan since 4 June 1967. Our Syria Arab people in the Occupied Golan continue to suffer as a result of Israel’s oppressive and aggressive practices. These practices are no longer confined to the Occupied Golan, and are currently affecting the security and life of Syrians in the southern part of the country. Israel is intervening militarily to assist in every way the terrorist organizations operating in that area.

Syria calls on the international community to put an effective end to all these practices and to compel Israel to implement relevant United Nations resolutions, particularly resolution 497 on the Occupied Syrian Golan. It should also compel Israel to allow the Palestinian people to enjoy their inalienable rights, including the establishment of their independent state, with Jerusalem as its capital, and the return of Palestine refugees to their land, in accordance with internationally-recognized resolutions.

Syria reaffirms that Israel’s that Israel’s aggressive policies don not only threaten Syria but the whole region, especially given Israel’s nuclear arsenal. We have stressed time and again the need to compel Israel to join the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and other treaties on WMDs, and to subject its nuclear installations to the oversight of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

Syria stresses the right of states to use nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. We have always called for creating a WMD-free zone in the Middle East. In fact, we have efficiently and responsibly eliminated all chemical weapons in Syria, in cooperation with the Joint Mission of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons and the United Nations. In this regard, Syria reiterates its readiness to continue its cooperation with the Joint Investigation Mechanism (JIM), as well as to continue the Syrian relevant investigation.
Mr. President,
We can congratulate Cuba and Iran reaching agreements to lift the embargo imposed on them and we look forward to their implementation. We renew our call for removing the illegal economic measures imposed on the Syrian people and on other independent peoples in the world, notably the peoples of the DPRK, Venezuela and Belarus.

In closing, we wish you and your people lasting security and prosperity. We hope that our organization will be able to regain the trust of the people, by upholding the provisions of the Charter, which calls for respecting the sovereignty and independence of member states and ensuring non-interference in their internal affairs. This principle, if implemented, would lay the foundations for genuine and fair relations among nations, after the greed and arrogance of some have shaken them to their core.

Before the externally-orchestrated dirty war on Syria started with the externally-orchestrated “Arab Spring” psy op; before the “peaceful protestors” shot the unarmed Syrian security forces; and before the West armed, trained and funded the international mercenary cannibals who loot, rape, and plunder; Syria was an oasis of civilization surrounded by imperial puppet states.

Syria was prosperous, with a growing economy (link). It had food sovereignty, with a “strategic” stock of millions of tons of high quality wheat , not the “Franken-food” bio-tech variety; it had a strong central bank with no usurious IMF loans; it had a popular, reformer President; it had a mostly well-educated, secular, pluralist, forward-looking population; and it was the fourth safest country in the world.

After almost six years of illegal war launched by some of the most militarily advanced countries, and years of illegal sanctions imposed by these same criminal governments – including Canada’s puppet government – Syria is still standing strong. It still has a popular, elected President and government.  And it is still a beacon of civilization.

Despite the collective punishment of sanctions and the terror of war, Syrians remain defiant. Arabi Shaher exemplified this defiance when he said,” Do whatever you like, this is our country; it will remain our country.” He, like many Syrians, sees through the lies.  And his appraisal of the root cause of the war is openly shared by many Syrians: Israel.

Israel and its allies “benefit” from a balkanized and destroyed Syria. Even conflicting pipeline interests are subordinated by Israel’s perceived needs as presaged by the Oded Yinon plan.   Syrians commonly report that Israel first and foremost, and its allies, are the number one agents driving the current holocaust. These interests are said to subordinate the “oil” interests. Same in Iraq.

Not surprisingly, Syria, ranked among the top five countries in terms of safety before the war, is now a war zone on about 2,000 fronts, but life goes on for all Syrians.

Despite the Western assaults on Syria, Syria still provides free health care and schooling for all in government –controlled areas, even as terrorists teach children to be “child soldiers”, and to adopt the degenerate Wahhabi ideology that violently excludes all other ideologies and religions.

All of the violence, including the daily exposure to bombings, is currently being “normalized”. Outsiders report that when a mortar bomb strikes nearby, Syrian pedestrians barely notice, and continue on their way. The trauma of the war will present challenges for years to come.

Despite, or maybe because of its challenges, Syria treats all of its inhabitants – regardless of their country of origin – as Syrians.

“Wesam”, a man born to Palestinian refugees, explains that Palestinian refugees have the same rights as Syrians. They can buy a home, they can buy land, and they can legally work in Syria.  In contrast, he explains that Palestinian refugees have no rights in neighbouring Lebanon; they cannot work legally, and they cannot buy a home outside of the refugee camp.

 And so life goes on in Syria. The West is doing everything that it can to change this – economic sanctions, mercenary terrorists, bombing grain silos, bombing Syrian Arab Army (SAA) positions, disinformation warfare – but it isn’t working.

Damascus, one of the oldest continuously-inhabited cities in the world, is strong. Observers mistakenly thought that the capital would fall within months, but it hasn’t happened yet, and it is unlikely to happen at all.

Syria has strong institutions, a strong army, and strong allies.  It also has a strong civilizing core. Syria’s victory will be everyone’s victory.

In the course of a recent operation to liberate a terrorist-held enclave in northern Latakia, Syrian Army troops discovered a ‘manual for terrorists’. Printed in Turkey, the book teaches jihadis “the proper conduct of war on foreign soil,” up to and including the use of nuclear weapons.

The manual, printed in Arabic and called ‘Zad al-Mujahed’ (roughly, ‘Fruits for the work of God’s Warriors’) was published in Istanbul, with its publishers making no attempt to even try to hide the book’s origins. It features the logo of the Istanbul-based Guraba publishing company, contact information, and even an ISBN, inside its front cover.

Speaking to Sputnik Arabic, the Syrian Army soldier who discovered the book said that it was filled with hatred and calls to war against people who don’t share jihadists’ faith, as well as instructions on what must be done with “enemies and their property.”

Sputnik Arabic
Zad Al-Mujahed

“The book describes how to properly burn cities captured by jihadi fighters, how to cut down all the trees, destroy all life, how to execute prisoners in the correct manner,” the soldier explained.

Sputnik Arabic
Zad Al-Mujahed

“The book says that jihadis have a right to marry their captives; the book even mentions the aspect of the possible use of nuclear weapons,” he added.

The book is banned in Syria for its radical content, and repeated calls to violence and terror. For this reason, Sputnik Arabic decided not to quote it directly. Still, it published photos, republished here, showing the cover and details on the book’s publisher. It remains unclear how many copies of this book were found.

Syrian authorities are extremely sensitive about published materials which could be seen to inspire sectarian conflict. Before it was engulfed in war in 2011, Syria was known as a secular, multicultural and multiethnic nation with a large number of religious minorities. Since then, many of these minorities have been threatened with enslavement or extermination by homegrown and foreign-sponsored radical Islamist terrorists, including Daesh (ISIS), al-Nusra and a collection of affiliated groups.

There has been an adverse trend in the food and agriculture sector in recent times with the control of seeds and chemical inputs being consolidated through various proposed mergers. If these mergers go through, it would mean that three companies would dominate the commercial agricultural seeds and chemicals sector. Over the past couple of decades, there has already been a restriction of choice with the squeezing out of competitors, resulting in higher costs for farmers, who are increasingly reliant on corporate seeds (and their chemical inputs).

Big agribusiness players like Monsanto rely on massive taxpayer handouts to keep their business models on track; highly profitable models that have immense social, health and environmental costs to be paid for by the public. Across the globe healthy, sustainable agriculture has been uprooted and transformed to suit the profit margins of transnational agribusiness concerns. The major players in the global agribusiness sector fuel a geo-politicised, globalised system of food production that result in numerous negative outcomes for both farmers and consumers alike (listed here: 4th paragraph from the end).

Protest Movement, Vancouver

Aside from the domination of the market being a cause for concern, we should also be worried about a food system controlled by companies that have a history (see this and this) of releasing health-damaging, environmentally polluting products onto the market and engaging in activities that might be considered as constituting crimes against humanity. If we continue to hand over the control of society’s most important infrastructure – food and agriculture – to these wealthy private interests, what will the future look like?

There is no need to engage in idle speculation. Foods based on CRISPR (a gene-editing technology for which Monsanto has just acquired a non-exclusive global licensing agreement for use) and synthetic biology are already entering the market without regulation or proper health or environmental assessments. And we can expect many more unregulated GM technologies to influence the nature of our food and flood the commercial market.

Despite nice sounding rhetoric by company spokespersons about the humanitarian motives behind these endeavours, the bottom line is patents and profit. And despite nice sounding rhetoric about the precision of the techniques involved, these technologies pose health and environmental risks. Moreover, CRIPRS technology could be used to create genes drives and terminator seed traits tools could be used for unscrupulous political and commercial ends.

There could well be severe social and economic consequences too. The impacts of synthetic biology (another sector dominated by a handful of private interests) on farmers in the Global South could result in a bio-economy of landlessness and hunger. Readers are urged to read this report which outlines the effects on farming, farmers and rural economies: synthetic biology has the potential to undermine livelihoods and would mean a shift to narrower range of export-oriented mono-cropping to produce biomass for synbio processes that place stress on water resources and food security in the exporting countries.

Aside from these social, health and environmental implications, can we trust private entities like Monsanto (or Bayer) to use these powerful (potentially bio-weapon) technologies responsibly? Given Monsanto’s long history of cover-ups and duplicity, trust took the last train out a long time ago. Moreover, the legalities of existing frameworks appear to mean little to certain companies: see here what Vandana Shiva says about the illegality of Monsanto’s enterprise in India. National laws that exist to protect the public interest are little more than mere hurdles to be got around by lobbyists, lawyers and political pressure. So what can be done?

Agroecology is a force for grass-root rural change that would be independent from the cartel of powerful biotech/agribusiness companies. This model of agriculture is already providing real solutions for sustainable, productive agriculture that prioritises the needs of farmers and consumers. It represents an alternative to corporate-controlled agriculture.

However, as much as people and communities strive to become independent from unscrupulous corporate concerns and as much as localised food systems try to extricate themselves from the impacts of rigged global trade and markets, there also has to be a concerted effort to roll back corporate power and challenge what it is doing to our food. These corporations will not just go away because people eat organic or choose agroecology.

The extremely wealthy interests behind these corporations do their level best to displace or dismantle alternative models of production – whether agroecology, organic, public sector agriculture systems or anything that exists independently from them – and replace them with ones that serve their needs. Look no further than attempts attempts to undermine indigenous edible oils processing in India, for instance. Look no further than the ‘mustard seed crisis‘ in India in 1998. Or look no further than how transnational biotech helped fuel and then benefit from the destruction of Ethiopia’s traditional agrarian economy.

Whether it’s on the back of US-backed coups (Ukraine), military conflicts (Iraq), ‘structural adjustment’ (Africa) or slanted trade deals (India), transnational agribusiness is driving a global agenda to suit its interests and eradicate impediments to profit.

To underline this point, let’s turn to what Michel Chossudovsky says in his 1997 book ‘The Globalization of Poverty’. He argues that economies are:

“opened up through the concurrent displacement of a pre-existing productive system. Small and medium-sized enterprises are pushed into bankruptcy or obliged to produce for a global distributor, state enterprises are privatised or closed down, independent agricultural producers are impoverished.” (p.16)

Increasing profit and shareholder dividends are the bottom line. And it doesn’t matter how much devastation ensues or how unsustainable their business model is, ‘crisis management’ and ‘innovation’ fuel the corporate-controlled treadmill they seek to impose.

As long as the domination of the food system by powerful private interests is regarded as legitimate and as long as their hijack of governments, trade bodies and trade deals, regulatory agencies and universities is deemed normal or is unchallenged in the sham ‘liberal democracies’ they operate within, we are destined for a future of more contaminated food, ill health, degraded environments and an agriculture displaced and uprooted for the benefit of self-interest.

The problems associated with the food system cannot be dealt with on a single-issue basis: it is not just about the labelling of GM foods; it’s not just about the impacts of Monsanto’s Roundup; it’s not just about Monsanto (or Bayer) as a company; and it’s not just about engaging in endless debates with corporate shills about the science of GMOs.

Despite the promise of the Green Revolution, hundreds of millions still go to bed hungry, food has become denutrified, functioning rural economies have been destroyed, diseases have spiked in correlation with the increase in use of pesticides and GMOs, soil has been eroded or degraded, diets are less diverse, global food security has been undermined and access to food is determined by manipulated international markets and speculation – not supply and demand.

Food and agriculture have become wedded to power structures that have created food surplus and food deficit areas and have restructured indigenous agriculture across the world and tied it to an international system of trade based on export-oriented mono-cropping, commodity production for a manipulated and volatile international market and indebtedness to international financial institutions.

The problem is the system of international capitalism that is driving a globalised system of bad food and poor health, the destruction of healthy, sustainable agriculture and systemic, half-baked attack on both groups and individuals  who oppose these processes.

At the very least, there should be full public control over all GMO/synthetic biology production and research. And if we are serious about reining in the power of profiteering corporations over food – our most basic and essential infrastructure – they should be placed under democratic ownership and control.

In finishing, let us turn to Ghiselle Karim who at the end of her insightful article says:

… we demand that it is our basic human right to protect our food supply… [food] would be planned to meet human need, not corporate greed.  We have hunger not because there is not enough food, but rather because it is not distributed equally. The core of the problem is not a shortage of food, but capitalism!

[Fort Russ News has confirmed the following from various trusted sources on the ground, monitoring the events closely. These were compared to a number of breaking stories coming from AMN, SANA, Fars, and the SAA’s official social-networking. We have also provided background information covering the several days before, bringing readers up-to-date from the end of the US-Russia ceasefire through the ongoing maneuvers leading up to the major pre-dawn offensive that is still underway. We have pulled together about nine different pieces of reportage and present them in a comprehensive manner, in chronological order. We have also given some analysis.]

COMPLETE REPORT

September 24th – Aleppo, Syria – Pre-dawn around 4 am, the Syrian Arab Army and allied forces launched the largest phase of an all out offensive in Aleppo, which was declared on September 22nd. At the time of publication, this is an ongoing offensive in the form of a three pronged attack. The map below shows us the starting points of the three pronged attack – in boxes.

Figure 1

Today’s major attack began from three directions indicated above. It is the culmination of the last 48 hours of fighting in the aftermath of the failed ceasefire. It is reported that the Syrian Arab Army had observed the movement of jihadist reserves in the  encirclement, and these positions were the result of tactical victories in the last two days. We will give some background in the following section on how the pieces came to be positioned in this way.

This phase of the offensive was delayed by up to 20 hours for reasons explained in the below section of this report ‘The Last 48 Hours’.

This is the best advantage for the SAA to have for a battle of this type, for they can attack from many direction and the enemy is handicapped in this regard.

Between 45k to 70k Syrian soldiers and their allies are reportedly involved around Aleppo and 20k to 25k terrorists are inside the city. We are unable at this time to narrow the numbers down more precisely.These moves are all just the beginning of a series of coordinated attacks which, we are cautious to say, may determine the outcome of this conflict. Significant is that Lavrov has taken the future possibility of unilateral ceasefires off the table. These were unilateral as it was revealed in public statements and some leaked elements of the ceasefire agreement, because Al-Nusra, not a party to the ceasefire, was included in the areas under protection of the ceasefire based on the US’s claim that they were trying to ‘separate’ the moderates from Al-Nusra. Lay critics and citizen-activists not familiar with what was important for Russia and Syria for the ceasefires, had pointed at that the cessation of hostilities came at the same time in reports published, including our own, that victory was in sight.

It is clear now that the Russians used the ceasefire talks and the documents produced as a result, to prove to the international community, and for posterity, that the US could not distinguish between, or separate out, ‘moderate rebels’ from the Al-Nusra terrorist group.

At the present time there seems to be little horizontal movement on the diplomatic front for the US, which leads us to say with some degree of certitude that another diplomatic maneuver is not going to stop this all out fight.

What we may find is the US directly assisting the terrorist units, which it admits are inseparable or indistinguishable from the apparently fictional ‘moderate rebels’, dropping supplies by air, which will raise the question of the extent to which Syria and Russia will respond.

*

Focusing now back on the logistics of this offensive, we will first examine the southern offensive.

At about 8am this morning, the pre-dawn attack resulted in some notable gains. The SAA and allied forces launched an assault in strategically important sectors in southern Aleppo. This was confirmed by the following announcement from AMN

The Syrian Arab Army (SAA), backed by Hezbollah and Liwaa Al-Quds (Palestinian paramilitary), launched a new assault at the 1070 Al-Hamdaniyah Housing Project in southern Aleppo on Saturday, striking the southern sector of this district that is controlled by Jaysh Al-Fateh (Army of Conquest).Led by the Republican Guard and 4th Mechanized Division, the Syrian Arab Army and their allies stormed the southern sector of the 1070 Housing Project and the nearby Hikmah Hill, resulting in a fierce battle that is still ongoing.According to a military source in Aleppo city, the Syrian Armed Forces and their allies are attempting to break-through Jaysh Al-Fateh’s final line of defense at the 1070 Housing Project, while a large Hezbollah unit attacks the Qarassi axis.

With this had, in the coming days a spearhead attack will make use of a vanguard pushing from a southerly direction. See this map below:

Figure 2 – proposed maneuver for 9-26

This map above, Figure 2, corresponds to the lower-most box on the south of the map in Figure 1, at the top

These moves will be possible based upon positions already held and reinforced from around September 10th or 11th, and this mornings gains. Two groups, one to the south-east and the other to the south-west of the Sheikh Saeed district, will push towards the center, joining in that district, routing terrorist groups before they can manage to reform their line in the aftermath of the aerial bombardment previously. This will likely be a combined assault by the SAA, Liwaa Al-Quds, with Hezbollah, and will involve the celebrated Tiger Forces.

*

Now let us turn to the eastern offensive. We know that the 106th Brigade of the Republican Guard,  part of an elite mechanized division making up 25,000 fighting men, is on the eastern part waiting to storm, and it is possible the forward movement of their offensive has already begun at the time of publication.

The SAA began today’s eastern-most activity by stretching the reserves of jihadist in the circle very thin with artillery barrages, using the tactic of attrition before the vanguard storm. Again, we are expecting this attack of the Syrian Arab Army from eastern direction, or, this has already begun.

The 102nd and 106th Brigade of Republican Guard are confirmed as involved in the attack which may, at the time of publishing be underway.

*

Now looking at the northern offensive, we refer to the uppermost box at the north of the map, where that group launched their assault in the area shown in Figure 1. In this northern-most prong, the Handarat refugee camp was liberated by SAA forces backed by the Palestinian brigade, Liwaa Al-Quds. The entrance was liberated sometime afternoon, with conflicting reports. But after 4:00 pm today, total control was finally confirmed by spokesmen from Liwaa Al-Quds. This was reported by SANA and AMN. This includes strategically important hilltops, necessary for the assault to progress in a southerly direction.

Video: Liberation of Handarat –

This area northernmost in Figure 1, above, is shown at the top in the following, Figure 3.

Figure 3, however, represents the latter development of the northern offensive. In this, the group that took the Hamdarat refugee camp, they then shifted their attention to the “Shuqeif Industrial Area that is located right next to the Bureijj Quarries of northern Aleppo”, according to AMN.The Syrian Armed Forces and their allies were able to assert fire control over the Shuqeif Industrial Area after seizing the hilltops overlooking this part of northern AleppoThe last 48 hours leading up to today’s phase of the Aleppo offensive:Following the end of the ceasefire, Russian and Syrian air forces began to strike terrorist held areas. Kerry protested this in a public media spectacle, manipulating the public misconception that there was still a ceasefire in effect. The SAA unilaterally ended the ceasefire about half a day after its positions were intentionally hit by US forces acting in conjunction with ISIS. Kerry’s protests came the following day.

These air strikes were very effective, and created the possibility for the following tactical victories.

From the Syrian Arab Army’s facebook, on the morning of September 22nd, a telling message was given:

The regional military command in Aleppo announced the beginning of military operations in the Eastern neighborhoods of Aleppo.

The regional military operations’ command call on the fellow civilian citizens to keep away from the known buildings in which the terrorists use as hideouts and command centers.

The regional military command in Aleppo: There will be no legal liability, arresting or detention to any citizen who make it to an of the Syrian Arab Army’ checkpoints around the Eastern Neighborhood. We took all measures to welcome the civilians out of the Eastern Neighborhood, provide temporary residence and provide life aid for a dignified living.

The offer also include all gunmen who were deceived into holding arms against their Armed Forces, and want to surrender their arms to get back to their civil life.

Translated from the website of the Ministry of Defense of the Syrian Arab Republic وزارة الدفاع في الجمهورية العربية السورية website.

Yesterday, September 23rd, as Al Masdar reported, “less than 24 hours after the announcement of the Aleppo offensive aimed at capturing the rebel-held districts of east Aleppo, government forces were able to secure the Ramousah-‘Amiriyah highway and its intersection following consistent advances around Al-Badawi mosque in ‘Amiriyah.

Preceding this advance were 8 intense hours of violent clashes on the Ramousah Bakery axis. This sensitive advance places the Syrian Army forces on the outskirts of Sukkari district, the militants’ administrative hub in the embattled city.

Moreover, government troops now have fire control over the jihadist forces in the aforementioned areas.

Notably, opposition forces suggested that Jabhat Fath Al-Sham (formerly Jabhat Al-Nusra) is relocating many of its fighters from all jihadist-held Aleppo and massing them at Sukkari where they have imposed a curfew.

Meanwhile, Syrian helicopters dropped thousands of leaflets atop east Aleppo neighborhoods calling on militants to turn themselves in before it becomes too late.

The Syrian Army and its allies are expected to capture and fortify Sadkop at any time. Securing this region will enable its use as a launchpad for operations on Sukkari and Sheikh Sa’eed.

Whatever the future holds for east Aleppo, it incontestably doesn’t bode well for the jihadist forces- especially following the harrowing defeat at the artillery base.”

Then on September 23rd, right after noon the Syrian Arab Army facebook reported:

SyAAF and RuAF are conducting airstrikes against enemy targets in the Eastern neighborhoods of Aleppo. All the data about the targets were collected by Syrian Military Intelligence operatives inside enemy controlled territories and only high precision munition are being used to avoid/minimize unneeded damage.These airstrikes come hours after the regional military command in Aleppo announced the beginning of a military operation in the Eastern Neighborhoods.We told you constantly on this page that the terrorists who took the people of the Eastern neighborhoods as human shields and kept them hostages while shelled the Western neighborhoods terrorizing and killing civilians will be made an example of. The land operation haven’t started yet but its imminent; and their Sultan nor their masters will be able to save them then.

Later the same day, they translated a very interesting quote directly from Bashar al-Assad:

Commander in Chief president Bashar al-Assad answering a question of when Syria will be pacified to some degree that the Syrians who fled the war can return:<< If we look at it according to the internal Syrian factors, I would say it’s very soon, a few months, and I’m sure about that, I’m not exaggerating, but when you talk about it as part of a global conflict and a regional conflict, when you have many external factors that you don’t control, it’s going to drag on and no-one in this world can tell you when but the countries, the governments, the officials who support directly the terrorists. Only they know, because they know when they’re going to stop supporting those terrorists, and this is where the situation in Syria is going to be solved without any real obstacles. >>

This is a very big message directly from Assad, and lines up with most objective assessments of the present state of the failing US backed effort in Syria.Towards the end of the day on the 23rd, the SAA facebook gave an explanation as to why this phase of the offensive was delayed, citing humanitarian concerns:

A little inside info from Eastern Aleppo. What happened last night was great at all military levels; the armed forces did not launched a full scale operation yet despite that it was announced and here is the reason:

On Wednesday there was a meeting inside the Syrian regional command HQ in Aleppo and Major General Zaid al-Saleh the regional commander in Aleppo announced that the armed groups in the Eastern Neighborhoods will have until the end of September to drop their weapons and the Syrian nationals among them will have full amnesty.

Last night the Syrian regional command officially announced the beginning of its operation in Eastern Aleppo but also announced that all citizens who make it to an Syrian military checkpoint will not be legally liable, will not be detained and will not be arrested; they will be transported safely to a temporary housing where they will be provided medical care, and aid for a dignified living until their neighborhood is liberated and they can go back. That offer was extended to all Syrian nationals who were deceived into holding arms against their armed forces.

But that does not mean there will not be a military operation or military operations are ceased, we will keep the battle and tactical details undisclosed for the time being but we simply, and with all information that we can share, are explaining the situation in Aleppo and why things are going the way they are.

For those who read between the lines this post is perhaps enough, and for those who need more direct statements, you will get it when the battlefield talk[s].

*

In other parts of Syria, presently the 104th Brigade is in Deir Zor, and the 103rd is in north Latakia, with the 105th in East Ghouta.In Aleppo, we expect an attack from the east and are waiting.

Practically, the main part of this conflict, barring increased foreign interference, is at an end because about 25% of the best trained terrorist forces in Syria are in the Aleppo encirclement, and this is one of the last good combat zones for difficult-to-take urban areas in their fight.

The Russian government deceived itself with its fantasy belief that Moscow and Washington had a common cause in fighting ISIS. The Russian government even went along with the pretense that the various ISIS groups operating under various pen names were “moderate rebels” who could be separated from the extremists, all the while agreeing to cease fighting on successive verges of victory so that Washington could resupply ISIS and prepare to introduce US and NATO forces into the conflict. The Russian government apparently also thought that as a result of the coup against Erdogan, which was said to implicate Washington, Turkey was going to cease supporting ISIS and cooperate with Russia.

Alas, the Russians so fervently, or perhaps I should say feverishly, desired an agreement with Washington that they deceived themselves. If Finian Cunningham’s report is correct, Washington has taken advantage of Russia’s urging that Washington and Turkey join in the attack on ISIS by invading northern Syria under the guise of “fighting ISIS.”

Syria has now been partitioned, and the pretend or fake “moderate rebels” can be built up inside the US/Turkish occupied areas of Syria and the war against Syria kept going for as long as Washington wants. The western presstitutes will report that the Turkish/American forces occupying areas of Syria are not invaders but are attacking ISIS.

With US, Turkish, and, little doubt, soon other NATO troops operating inside Syria, the neoconservatives will have many opportunities to provoke a conflict with Russia from which Russia will have to stand down or reply with force. In the event of a Trump presidential victory, the neocons want to make certain Trump is embroiled in a war that will prevent an accommodation with Russia.

It is unclear whether US Secretary of State Kerry’s effort to arrange a Syrian ceasefire was sincere and he was sandbagged by the Pentagon and CIA. Regardless, if Kerry was sincere, he is obviously unable to stand up to the neocons, blessed as the State Department is with Victoria Nuland and a number of other warmongers.

Obama is equally weak, which is why he was chosen by the oligarchy as president. A person without experience and knowledge is an excellent tool for the oligarchy. American blacks and white liberals actually believed that an inexperienced candidate from nowhere without an organization of his own could make a difference. Apparently, the gullibility of a majority of Americans is endless. This American hallmark of gullibility is why a handful of neoconservatives can so easily lead the sheeple into endless wars.

The idiot Americans have been at war for 15 years and the morons have no idea what has been achieved. The fools are unaware that the US in its decades long accumulation of weakness now confronts two major nuclear powers: Russia and China.

Americans have been taught by the presstitutes serving the military/security complex that nuclear war is not all that different from ordinary war. Look at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, two targets of American atomic bombs. Today, seven decades later, the cities are flourishing, so what’s the problem with nuclear weapons?

The atomic bombs that Washington dropped on these helpless civilian centers while the Japanese government was trying to surrender, were mere popguns compared to today’s thermo-nuclear weapons. One Russian SS-18 wipes out three-fourths of New York state for thousands of years. Five or six of these “Satans” as they are known by the US military, and the East Coast of the United States disappears.

Russia had a victory for Syria and democracy in its hands, but Putin lacked the decisiveness of a Napoleon or a Stalin and let his victory slip away as a result of false hopes that Washington could be trusted. Now a Russian/Syrian victory would require driving the Turks and Americans out of Syria.

If Russia struck hard and fast, Russia could succeed by using Washington’s lie and claiming that Russia thought the US and Turkish forces were ISIS, just as Washington claimed when Washington intentionally struck a known Syrian Army position.

If Russia actually annihilated the Turkish and US force, which Russia could easily do, NATO would collapse, because no European country wants to be destroyed in World War 3. But Russia won’t collapse NATO by decisive action. The Russians won’t fight until war is absolutely and totally forced upon them. Then they will pay a huge price for their indecisiveness rooted in their foolish belief that Russia has common grounds with Washington. The only common grounds Russia has with Washington requires Russia’s surrender. If Russia will surrender, Russia can achieve Western acceptance, and Washington’s agents, the Russian Atlanticist Integrationists, can rule Russia for Washington.

http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2016/09/24/us-turkey-lurch-world-war-syria.html

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following. Roberts’ latest books are The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Economic Dissolution of the West, How America Was Lost, and The Neoconservative Threat to World Order.

As the details of Monday’s attack on a humanitarian convoy near Aleppo are yet to be determined and the United States and Russia argue about who could be the perpetrator, the incident might be used as a “propaganda instrument,” but analysts are divided on whose interests it serves.

Article in italiano :

Esplosive mail della Clinton

Il Manifesto

Translation : Anoosha Boralessa, Réseau Voltaire

Syria, with Russia’s aerial support has been winning in Aleppo and thus it was the US who needed the ceasefire, however Washington was never sincere about the deal and simply used it to re-arm the militants, Canada-based award-winning author, sociologist and geopolitical analyst Mahdi Nazemroaya told Radio Sputnik.

The truce which was brokered by the US and Russia is now effectively at an end with the US being to blame, not Russia or Syria, Nazemroaya told Radio Sputnik. It was the US that attacked Syrian land forces, killing over 60 Syrian soldiers and injuring many more, the geopolitical analyst said. The attacks appeared deliberate and were followed by an offensive by Daesh [Islamic State/ISIL] which was left unhindered. The US Air Force did not even respond to the Daesh offensive, he noted, instead attacking the Syrians. With the ceasefire effectively ending on September 19, the expert then asked what the next actions of the US were?

“It asked for the Russian and Syrian Air Forces to be grounded, and said that only the US and its allies should have mastery over the skies of Syria and they are the ones who should be bombing,” he answered.

“We see whom they are bombing. They are bombing the Syrian military, they are bombing the legitimate government of Syria and indirectly helping Daesh as well as al-Nusra,” he further stated. Mahdi Nazemroaya explained that what has been happening during these truces was that the US had been using them to arm extremists groups, not just “moderate rebels.”

“The distinction between them is very hazy, I mean the Free Syrian Army and al-Nusra, for example. They are using this opportunity to arm them and we see who is sincere here,” he told Sputnik.

“What I know is that the Syrian side and the Russian side do have humanitarian concerns for the people of Syria and Aleppo Governorate. And one of the reasons the ceasefire came about was because of that. Because the Syrian Army, the Syrian government was actually advancing and winning. And that is one of the reasons why the US even negotiated,” he said. Moscow negotiated the ceasefire with the full support of Syria and Iran, the expert said. The Syrian government has authorized Moscow to speak on its behalf. Russia’s Foreign Minister Lavrov and the Russian negotiation team were in constant contact with Damascus and the Syrian government. Russia also thought it was in the best interests of Syria as a state and of Syria as a society that this peace agreement be brokered. However the US saw an opportunity in this truce and it has never been sincere, he explained.

“It is important to point out not only that the truce is based on the victories of Russia, Syria and Iran and their regional allies in fighting in Syria but the Syrian position on the US is also very important: they welcomed the US-Russia deal but at the same time they are always wary of the US. Since the US does not keep its promises,” the expert said.

There is only one side that really has humanitarian concerns, he added.

“When you look at it from a logical angle, Syria and its allies including Russia were fighting and defeating the terrorists. They were advancing towards Aleppo and in other areas and they did not need to make the truce at the time,” he explained. “They made it because they believed it was in the best interests of Syria as a state and Syria as a society. It was in the best interests of the Syrian people to go forward with the truce,” he said. “What we just see now is that the US is not sticking to its word,” he therefore concluded.

The Syrian Arab Army announced renewed operations in eastern Aleppo on September 22nd. Hezbollah announced their participation shortly after the SAA General Command.  The operations are reportedly coordinated with Russian military advisers deployed in the area.

The Syrian Air Force has delivered up to 45 air strikes on militant targets in the Aleppo neighborhoods of Sakhour, Hanano, Al-Sukkari, Bab Al-Maqam, and Bustan Al-Qasr.

Meanwhile, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR) reported that some 3,000 Russian soldiers have been deployed at a base in the south-eastern suburbs of the village of Al-Safir, citing an unknown ‘reliable source’. There is no confirmation of this information, except the ‘reliable source’. Russian troops are officially deployed only in the north-west of Aleppo at the Castello Highway.

Last night in the province of Homs, Ahrar al-Sham managed to overrun the checkpoint at Shukarah, manned by the SAA and the National Defense Forces, thanks to the help of an armored contingent. This move was aimed to cut off the strategic Homs-Salamiyah highway. However, the government forces recaptured the positions lost in Shukarah.

40 fighters of the Islamic State were killed in 20 airstrikes by the Turkish Airforce that had intensified air strikes against the group amid setbacks of the Ankara-led forces in northern Syria.

If you’re able, and if you like our content and approach, please support the project. Our work wouldn’t be possible without your help: PayPal: [email protected] or via: http://southfront.org/donate/ or via: https://www.patreon.com/southfront

If black athletes in the NFL honestly think that African Americans who live under Old Glory are as ‘equally protected ‘as whites, then they should stand up during the national anthem and sing-along. But if they know that blacks aren’t getting a square deal,  and that blacks can be gunned down at any time by trigger-happy cops who never face the consequences, then they owe it to themselves and their country to demand change by remaining seated.

I’m sorry that football players have to go through this. I’m sorry they find themselves in a situation where they’re forced to make a political statement. After all, they’re not politicians and they don’t want to be. They’re private citizens like the rest of us who just want to do their jobs, make some money, and be left the hell alone.

But what choice do they have now? The epidemic of cop killings around the country is forcing people to stand up and say “Enough”. So now black athletes are being asked to either stand up, sing along and act like highly-paid circus animals, or follow in the steps of Rosa Parks and Malcolm X and Mohammed Ali and the other people of conscience who put themselves at risk by acting on principal.

That’s the choice they’re faced with, isn’t it?  Do I act like a man and stand on principal or take the easy-way-out and go along with the crowd?

There is no third option.

Football players are not going to be able to sweep the whole matter under the rug like the Seattle Seahawks did last week by standing with arms linked (while the anthem was played) to demonstrate their solidarity with the victims of police violence. That was a total bullsh** response. It doesn’t matter if you stand separately or stand and link arms; when you “stand” you are paying tribute to the flag. Period.

In contrast, sitting is a demonstration of defiance. Sitting is an act of protest. Sitting is an act of colossal courage. Sitting is an act of solidarity with the victims of police violence. And, regardless what anyone says, sitting is an act of supreme patriotism, the kind of patriotism that surpasses empty displays of ritual conformity and heel-clicking submissiveness. Sitting is a jarring, thought-provoking way of forcing Americans to look themselves in the mirror and ask the painful questions they try to avoid at all cost, like why are all these young, unarmed black men getting blown away with such maddening frequency, and why do these killer cops never pay for their crimes, and why is it still so goddamned hard for black Americans to get any goddamned justice in this country?

No one wants to talk about these things because they make us feel bad about ourselves, they tarnish our sense of “exceptionalism” and our idiot belief that we are a “post-racial” society.

Post racial?  There’s a large group of people living in this country whose rights have always been provisional and who’ve never gotten a fair shake, and that sure as heck hasn’t changed since Obama got took office,  in fact, the situation is worse than ever.

When living under the American flag means that everyone is protected equally from killer cops, then I’ll gladly stand for the national anthem. Until then, forget about it.

Mike Whitney lives in Washington state. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). Hopeless is also available in a Kindle edition. He can be reached at [email protected].

Forget about those endless meetings between Sergei Lavrov and John Kerry; forget about Russia’s drive to prevent chaos from reigning in Syria; forget about the possibility of a real ceasefire being implemented and respected by US jihad proxies.

Forget about the Pentagon investigating what really happened around its bombing ‘mistake’ in Deir Ezzor.

The definitive proof of the Empire of Chaos’s real agenda in Syria may be found in a 2012 Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) document declassified in May last year.

As you scroll down the document, you will find page 291, section C, which reads (in caps, originally):

THE WEST, GULF COUNTRIES, AND TURKEY [WHO] SUPPORT THE [SYRIAN] OPPOSITION… THERE IS THE POSSIBILITY OF ESTABLISHING A DECLARED OR UNDECLARED SALAFIST PRINCIPALITY IN EASTERN SYRIA (HASAKA AND DER ZOR), AND THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THE SUPPORTING POWERS TO THE OPPOSITION WANT, IN ORDER TO ISOLATE THE SYRIAN REGIME, WHICH IS CONSIDERED THE STRATEGIC DEPTH OF THE SHIA EXPANSION (IRAQ AND IRAN).

The DIA report is a formerly classified SECRET/NOFORN document, which made the rounds of virtually the whole alphabet soup of US intel, from CENTCOM to CIA, FBI, DHS, NGA and the State Department.

© Abdalrhman Ismail / Reuters

It establishes that over four years ago US intel was already hedging its bets between established al-Qaeda in Syria, aka Jabhat al-Nusra, and the emergence of ISIS/ISIL/Daesh, aka the Islamic State.

It’s already in the public domain that by a willful decision, leaked by current Donald Trump adviser Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, Washington allowed the emergence of the Islamic State – remember that gleaming white Toyota convoy crossing the open desert? – as a most convenient US strategic asset, and not as the enemy in the remixed, never-ending GWOT (Global War on Terra).

It’s as clear as it gets; a “Salafist principality” is to be encouraged as a means to Divide and Rule over a fragmented Syria in perpetual chaos. Whether it’s established by Jabhat al-Nusra – aka “moderate rebels” in Beltway jargon – or al-Baghdadi’s “Califake” is just a pesky detail.

It gets curioser and curioser as Hasaka and Deir Ezzor are named in the DIA report – and directly targeted by the ‘mistaken’ Pentagon bombing. No wonder Pentagon chief Ash ‘Empire of Whining’ Carter took no prisoners to directly sabotage what Kerry had agreed on with Lavrov.

No one will ever see these connections established by US corporate media – as in, for instance, the neocon cabal ruling the Washington Post’s editorial pages. But the best of the blogosphere does not disappoint.

So what are Russia’s options?

The crucial question is of course what will Russia do about it – beyond Vitaly Churkin, Russia’s ambassador to the UN, being absolutely appalled by the recent drama queen performance of notorious batsh*t crazy Samantha Power.

What will Moscow do about the fact that the whole nebulae described in the Beltway as “moderate rebels” – all of them issued from the Wahhabi ideological matrix – enjoys and will continue to enjoy, especially under Hillary ‘Queen of War’ Clinton, a CIA and/or Pentagon weaponized connection?

The DIA document spells it all out, in a stark link with all previous Divide and Rule schemes, from the Israeli Yinon plan to the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) delirium.

In Pipelineistan terms, this continues to be about the Qatar to Turkey – via Syria – natural gas pipeline versus the proposed $10 billion Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline, for which there is already a memorandum of understanding.

Lavrov is too much of a stellar diplomat to leak it – but after Deir Ezzor, Moscow has definitive proof any possible ceasefire bargained with Washington will be smashed.

So never-ending GWOT once again metastasizes from fighting “evil” al-Qaeda to allowing al-Qaeda in Syria and its spin-off the “Califake” being allowed to carve up their privileged space in Syria.

Nothing substantial will happen before the November US presidential election – apart from similar Deir Ezzor ‘mistakes’ ordered by soon-to-be-unemployed Ash Carter.

Afterwards, all bets are off. For contractors feeding off the industrial-military-security-surveillance complex, Russia demonization will remain a historic” business opportunity. And just wait if The Three Harpies manage to get their tentacle hands on the Empire of Chaos.

Pepe Escobar is an independent geopolitical analyst. He writes for RT, Sputnik and TomDispatch, and is a frequent contributor to websites and radio and TV shows ranging from the US to East Asia. He is the former roving correspondent for Asia Times Online. Born in Brazil, he’s been a foreign correspondent since 1985, and has lived in London, Paris, Milan, Los Angeles, Washington, Bangkok and Hong Kong. Even before 9/11 he specialized in covering the arc from the Middle East to Central and East Asia, with an emphasis on Big Power geopolitics and energy wars. He is the author of “Globalistan” (2007), “Red Zone Blues” (2007), “Obama does Globalistan” (2009) and “Empire of Chaos” (2014), all published by Nimble Books. His latest book is “2030”, also by Nimble Books, out in December 2015.

I am a director not only of a Syrian Civil Defence Unit, but of brave human beings, volunteers who risk their lives, despite the terrorism that is invading Syria, to maintain security for Syria. I give thanks from my heart for the courage of my men who have lost their comrades in terrorist attacks but they keep working despite the risks. They are true soldiers, their equipment and their spirit are their only weapons ~ Director of Tartous’ REAL Syria Civil Defence

Did I hear a pin drop?  The real Syria Civil Defence? Are the west’s iconized ‘White Helmets’ not the only emergency first-responders inside Syria?

For the REAL Syria Civil Defence you call 113 inside Syria.  There is no public number for the White Helmets.  Why not? Why does this multi-million dollar US & NATO state-funded first repsonder ‘NGO,’ with state of the art equipment supplied by the US and the EU via Turkey, have no central number for civilians to call when the “bombs fall”?

Before we introduce the real Syria Civil Defence, who are Syria’s real ICDO certified civil fire and rescue organisation, let’s first take a closer look at the imposters; terrorists in white hats, and agents of war – NATO’s pseudo ‘NGO’ construct, embedded exclusively in terrorist-held parts of Syria…

We’re told that the White Helmets routinely scale the walls of collapsed buildings and scrambling over smouldering rubble of bombed out buildings to dig a child out with their bare hands. Of course, never without a sizeable camera crew and mobile phone carrying entourage in tow.

Screenshot from one of the multitude of NATO’s White Helmets promotional videos, as per usual –
with fans and camera crew in attendance.

So who, and what exactly are the White Helmets?

Founded in 2013, the White Helmets, officially called the Syria Civil Defense, are often the only emergency first-responders available in rebel-held areas of Syria and claim to have saved more than 58,000 lives. ~ The Slate

White Helmets ‘Team’ Photo: Screenshot from Netflix promotional documentary.

British Military officer James Le Mesurier

The western media mythology goes as follows:

“They are made up of former bakers, builders, taxi drivers, students, teachers, pretty much anything apart from rescue workers,” according to the much repeated phrase used by their British ex-military, USAR (Urban Search & Rescue) trainer,James Le Mesurier who specialises in outsourcing warfare – the kind of private security operations exemplified by the likes ofBlackwater (now known as Academi) and DynCorp, and other well-known global suppliers of mercenaries and CIA outreach assassination experts.

Running operations through Blackwater gave the CIA the power to have people abducted, or killed, with no one in the government being exactly responsible. ~ The Atlantic, 2012

White Helmets founder Le Mesurier, who graduated from Britain’s elite Royal Military Academy at Sandhurst, is said to be an ‘ex’ British military intelligence officer involved in a number of other NATO ‘humanitarian intervention’ theatres of war, including Bosnia, Kosovo and Iraq, as well as postings in Lebanon and Palestine. He also boasts a series of high-profile posts at the UN, EU, and UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Not to mention his connections back to the infamous Blackwater (Academi).

The White Helmet network showing primary funding sources and James Le Mesurier connections back to deep state  (Image: UK Column)

The streaming giant, Netflix, recently launched the documentary meant to elevate the White Helmets to a Hollywood level of Madison Avenue-styled demagoguery. As an interesting aside: a major shareholder in Netflix just happens to be the Capital Research Global Investors who hosts a number luminaries of the military industrial complex on its books including Lockheed Martin and Boeing.

Variation on the Netflix promotional poster for the NATO White Helmet documentary.
|Poster by: Cory Morningstar of WrongKindofGreen.

Later, in Part III of this article, we will go into depth concerning the recent awards, including an objectionable nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize, that have been bestowed upon this group of US, UK, EU backed fifth columnists, or as they would have you believe, “first-responders.”

With over $60 million in their back pocket courtesy of USAID, the UK Foreign Office and various EU nations like the Netherlands, this group is possibly one of the most feted and funded entities within the west’s anti-Syrian NGO complex, a pivotal part of the clandestine shadow state building enterprise inside of Syria.

Like many other ‘NGOs’, the White Helmets have been deployed by the west to derail the Syrian state, first  by undermining existing civic structures and by disseminating staged PR to facilitateregime change propaganda, through western and Gulf state media outlets. Despite the fact that they were started, and are still generously funded by NATO members states, particularly from the US and UK, the White Helmets’ official statement still claims categorically that they are somehow “fiercely independent” and “have accepted no money from governments, corporations or anyone directly involved in the Syrian conflict“. This is both farcical and deeply misleading.

They claim they are not “tied to any political group in Syria, or anywhere else”, yet they are embedded with Al Nusra Front, ISIS and affiliated with the majority of US allied terrorist brigades infesting Syria.  In fact during my recent trip to Syria, I was once again struck by the response from the majority of Syrians when asked if they knew who the White Helmets were.  The majority had never heard of them, others who follow western media noted that they are a “NATO construct being used to infiltrate Syria as a major player in the terrorist support network.”

For further details on the White Helmets and their role in supporting US & NATO state-sponsored terrorism in Syria please refer to the compilation of articles contained in the 21WIRE article: WHO ARE SYRIA’S WHITE HELMETS?

The REAL Syria Civil Defence

Let us now focus upon the very real heroes inside Syria, the real Syria Civil Defence that have been usurped by the NATO mountebank White Helmets who also call themselves the “Syria Civil Defence” – a mere simulacra of the REAL Syria Civil Defence who have been saving lives in Syria, and further afield for decades.

The REAL Syria Civil Defence was established as an organisation, in 1953, some 63 years before the White Helmets were a glimmer in the eyes of CIA and MI6 operatives.

The REAL Syria Civil Defence is a founding member of the ICDO (International Civil Defence Organisation). Other ICDO partners include the UN Department of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), Secretarian of the International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR), International Search and Rescue Advisory Group (INSARAG), World Health Organisation (WHO), United Nations of Geneva (UNOG), Red Cross and the Red Crescent.

To our knowledge and according to the Head Quarters of the REAL Syria Civil Defence in Damascus, the White Helmets are NOT a member of the ICDO. The REAL Syria White Helmets have received awards for their participation in the training of other member states in USAR (Urban Search and Rescue) and for their contributions to the Civil Defence community, prior to the NATO dirty war on Syria that began in earnest, in 2011.

Later in Part II, we will go into further detail regarding this affiliation with the ICDO and the role the REAL Syria Civil Defence has played in global civil defence developments for the last 63 years – which is tremendous, and something the White Helmets could never lay claim to in reality, despite all the superficial accolades being rained down upon them by the US and NATO fueled organisations, foundations and cosmetic award bodies.

This is an introduction to the unsung heroes who, unlike the counterfeit White Helmet, do truly risk their lives every day, working not only in government controlled areas, but forging deep into terrorist strongholds to rescue civilians living under the brutal US-NATO-backed terrorist siege and occupation that engulfs all of Syria.

When Syrian civilians are at risk, injured, or buried under the rubble of homes, schools and hospitals destroyed by terrorist mortar showers, it’s not Le Mesurier’s White Helmets who rush to their aid – it’s the REAL Syria Civil Defence, a real civic organization who, up until the publication of this article, have never been mentioned by any western media outlets.

The REAL Syria Civil Defence, stationed in Syrian government held West Aleppo
(Photo: Vanessa Beeley August 15, 2016)

The REAL Syria Civil Defence: Aleppo

My first stop on my investigation to discover the REAL Syria Civil Defence units in as many Syrian governorates as I could during my time in Syria, was Aleppo. I focused on those units that were in closest proximity to the terrorist held areas of Syria, particularly, Aleppo and Idlib. Damascus which is the home and headquarters of the REAL Syrian Civil Defence was my last port of call, and is surrounded on two sides by Jaish Al Islam, another US-NATO protected terrorist clique.

Because of the the encroachment of the US Coalition terrorist entities, Aleppo city has been carved into two cities with the major occupier of the eastern portion being the universally feared Al Nusra Front. Spurious attempts by the US to rebrand this organisation as a lesser evil in an attempt to separate them from their Al Qaeda affiliation, have failed. People in Syria from all walks of life refuse to accept any differentiation between the titles accorded the terrorist brigades, insisting there is no difference in the way they all kill, maim, torture, rape, behead and destroy at the behest of their paymasters and controllers in the US, NATO states, Turkey, Gulf States and yes, Israel.

Decimated areas of Sheikh Maqsoud, the northernmost, Kurdish held,
entry point into the government held West Aleppo (Photo: Vanessa Beeley August 14, 2016)

For further information about the real situation in Aleppo, my journey to this terrorist besieged city and the debunking of the fictional US-NATO narrative, please read Part I of my article published at Mint Press: Journey to Aleppo: Exposing the Truth Buried under NATO Propaganda.

On the 15th of August, I entered the work yard of Aleppo’s REAL Syria Civil Defence and was greeted by an exhausted team of about fifteen crew-members.  That morning from 11am until around 3 pm, just before our visit, they had been fighting a fire in a cement and plastics factory which had been ignited by Al Nusra Front mortar fire.

They were understandably wary, but they still gathered around us (my colleague and independent journalist, Eva Bartlett and our translator) in the searing arid summer heat. Over the course of this 5 years and 6 months of this dirty war against Syria, not one western media journalist had ever asked to speak to them.

This extraordinary omission and failure to follow the most rudimentary journalist text book rules by the western media is staggering, but hardly surprising considering the level of spin and propaganda employed daily by the likes of the BBC, CNN, FOX News, The Guardian, New York Times, and Washington Post. Sadly, western media lap dogs end up simply wagging their tails to their masters voice and turning somersaults with the truth to merit reward.

Unfortunately for the Syrian people, western pundits have only reported on crucial and pivotal events in the war on Syria based largely on ‘evidence’ supplied by the US-UK-NATO construct, the White Helmets, who are ensconsed only in Al Nusra Front aka Al Qaeda and ISIS held areas.

As a result of western media outlets not bothering to make contact with the volunteer Syrians in the REAL Syria Civil Defence, western audiences never received a balanced view of the situation. Instead, western media only disseminates what amounts to a biased, one-sided view which mirrors anti-Syrian state and Syrian Arab Army rhetoric issued by the US State Dept and British Foreign Office.

I explained in detail, why I had come to talk with them, that my objective was to find out who were the real heroes inside Syria working tirelessly for their people who are being collectively punished by the baseless US-EU sanctions that impact hardest upon the Syrian people.

Aleppo’s REAL Syria Civil Defence informed us there are 150 volunteers working across all units in Aleppo, the headquarters are in the Hamadaniya area which is one of the most severely targeted civilian areas, by Al Nusra Front Hell Cannon mortar fire and explosive bullets. The volunteers ages range between 25-45 years old, and the minimum age for training is 18.

All members of the crew were genuine volunteers. They spoke proudly of the intensive training process they undergo before they can be accepted into the unit. They are fully trained in urban search and rescue techniques (USAR).  They are also fully qualified paramedics.

A glance around their yard revealed that their equipment is tired and worn. The fire trucks were gleaming in the sun but showed signs of heavy use. Tattered jackets hung from the fenders and wing mirrors of the trucks and a Syrian flag had been draped across the radiator of one truck, perhaps in honour of our visit.

West Aleppo REAL Syria Civil Defence unit (Photo: Vanessa Beeley August 15, 2016)

I was told immediately, that I would not be able to photograph the crew themselves or to use their names. Aleppo is a city under siege, not by “Assad and his army“, as the western media would have you believe, but by an assortment of up to 22 different terror brigades many of whom are armed, funded, and trained by the US, UK, France, Norway, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey, to name only a few of the west’s ‘coalition.’ The REAL Syria Civil Defence crew-members are under constant threat of being targeted by any one of these terrorist brigades – including the White Helmets, as they later explained to us.

Chemical Attacks

MODERATE WEAPONS: ‘Rebel’ Terrorists in East Aleppo shell civilians indiscriminately with their crude munitions, and then blame it on “The Regime” via misleading social media imagery. 

The crew told us about a call out they had responded to on the 2nd August. There had been a terrorist Hell Cannon attack on the Old City of Aleppo, which lies right on the border with the Al Nusra front lines and is a regular target for their indiscriminate attacks. Terrorist Hell Cannons use an assortment of containers – gas canisters, water heater tanks packed full of explosives, glass, metal and any other limb-shredding materials.

As the crew entered the area, they said there was a pungent smell in the air that suggested the use of a toxic gas by Nusra Front, possibly chlorine. The concentrations were so high that they immediately experienced breathing difficulties and their flimsy paper oxygen masks were not sufficient to prevent the devastating effects of inhalation.

One of the crew, 36 year old Mohammed Ahmed Eibbish, succumbed to the fumes and eventually died while trying to rescue one of the 25 affected civilians. Both civilians and crew suffered with dizziness, nausea, burns on their body, spasms and respiratory difficulties. Four civilians died that day too, all women. This attack and many others like it, are being intentionally ignored by the western media agencies, politicians and partisan UN officials, desperate to attribute any such attacks to the Syrian government and its national army.

A very salient fact so often mislaid in the stampede to produce lies, is that the only chemical factory in Aleppo (producing chlorine among other substances) was actually captured by the Al Nusra Front coalition in 2012. It is located about 10km east of Aleppo’s airport on the road towards Raqqa.

The chemicals factory was taken over by Nusra Front and allies three years ago, they emptied everything out of it including potential ingredients for use in chemical weapon attacks. Part of the facility was shipped to Iraq.  They destroyed the factory completely. ~ Voice from Aleppo

Painful skin blisters caused by an ISIS chemical weapon attack in Northern Aleppo 17/9/2016 (Photo: Press TV article)

The crew told us that the worst injuries they have ever witnessed, are children who have been hit by the terrorist Hell Cannon mortars. Their little bodies are eviscerated and literally torn apart. At least 54 children had been killed and many others maimed by the Hell Cannon attacks in a two-week period alone, between the July 31st and August 14th. These figures were provided by the Aleppo Medical Association during our time in West Aleppo. In total, 143 civilians, 23 women, 54 children and 66 men, were killed by US-backed “rebels” occupying East Aleppo.

Aleppo REAL Syria Civil Defence Fire Engine parked in their yard (Photo: Vanessa Beeley August 15, 2016)

The West Aleppo crew is forced to attend missions without the standard issue equipment and to deal with situations like chemical weapons attacks with only the ineffectual paper breathing masks.  This is another result of the EU-US sanctions being enforced against Syria, and effectively against the Syrian people. The REAL Syria Civil Defence is unable to replace equipment or replenish supplies, unlike the NATO White Helmets who enjoy an endless stream of kit and replacement materials via the Turkey supply chain that has remained unbroken for much of the four years that Aleppo has been under terrorist siege.

US EQUIPPED: White Helmets showing off their brand new equipment in Idlib (on borders with Turkey) supplied by US Equipment company, Bobcat (Photo: screenshot from White Helmet promotional video)

The White Helmets: Criminals, Kidnappers and Killers

When we got on to the subject of NATO’s White Helmets, the West Aleppo REAL Syrian Civil Defence crew became animated.  One of them, stepped forward and began to talk excitedly to our translator. He had been stationed in East Aleppo at a REAL Syrian Civil Defence unit based in an area that has since been overrun by Al Nusra Front and their associate terrorist gangs.

Again, we are unable, as we have said, to provide names of the men we spoke with. They are prime targets for the Al Nusra Front and company in East Aleppo. This crew member, lets call him ‘Khaled,’ described what happened when the terrorists (western media still call them “opposition” or “moderate rebels”) started to invade East Aleppo in 2012.

They came in and they drove us out of our homes and they came to the Syria Civil Defence yard and they killed some of my comrades, they kidnapped others.  They wanted to force me to work with them.  I escaped at night.  I was forced to leave my teenage sons behind. They burned my house to the ground and they put my name on all the terrorist checkpoints so if I go back, they will kill me.

Khaled went on to explain how those men who later became the White Helmets were among this first wave of terrorists:

They are terrorists, not rescuers.  They stole our ambulances and three of our fire engines. They don’t do any rescue work.  They drive round with guns in the back of their car like any other terrorist.  Some are from East Aleppo, some are from Syria but not from Aleppo and some are even coming in from abroad.

Granted, this might come as a shock to anyone who has already bought into the public relations image of the group that’s already been developed over three years by various agencies in New York, Washington DC and London, but these are the real accounts regarding what one might say is the true unmasked nature of the west’s White Helmets.

At this point other crew members interjected and told me that they had watched the White Helmet “rescue” videos.

They are fake.  They don’t carry out any correct procedures, either as paramedics or as search and rescue experts.

They described how the White Helmets use a heavy-duty power drill to dig down for civilians buried under the rubble of homes allegedly targeted by “Syrian or Russian airstrikes.”

It’s the wrong equipment to use.  It is not sensitive enough and because it vibrates powerfully,  it can displace the rubble which is dangerous if anyone is genuinely buried beneath it.

They went on to describe other aspects of the White Helmet videos that they believe contravene all standard procedures that are followed by genuine search and rescue experts, paramedics and first responders.

In the following very recent video made by a White Helmet camera crew, men pretending to be genuine rescuers attack an area of rubble where they seem to know where a body buried. They start with a mint condition JCB digger, which attacks the heap of rubble with gusto.  Then, alarmingly, they begin to pound the rubble with a heavy duty mallet without employing any devices to actually determine where the body is located, under the impenetrable concrete blocks. Finally, the JCB digger returns to the mound of rubble and enters the teeth of its bucket into the rubble without any hesitation, surely not standard procedure if there is a chance of a body being under the debris.

Miraculously, as with all White Helmet videos, they seem to find exactly where the bodies are, despite having displaced the majority of the rubble in the process. They also, miraculously, avoided staving in the first body’s head with the mallet. There is no intention to downplay or belittle the deaths that have obviously occurred but we do ask the questions:

1.  How did the White Helmets know the bodies would be exactly where they found them?

2.  Where is this rescue being filmed?

3.  “Activists”, “citizen journalists”, the White Helmets and western media would have us believe that East Aleppo is under almost constant Russian or Syrian aerial attack yet the White Helmets make, on average, 4 or 5 films per day and we never see or hear any sign of an attack, only the “aftermath”. 

4. Where do these bodies come from? Are they victims of air strikes as we are told by these NATO funded “activists” and “first responders” or are they taken from among the thousands of “disappeared” that have been kidnapped by Nusra Front and other terrorist gangs in East Aleppo? Are they gruesome props being used inhumanely, to polish the image of this faux NGO embedded in East Aleppo, HQ for Al Nusra Front.

I would not ask these questions without good cause and that cause was given to me by the crew members of the REAL Syria Civil Defence, in West Aleppo, some of whom were driven from their homes in East Aleppo and whose families, left behind, remain under threat, while they are unable to return, for fear of being assassinated by the Al Nusra terrorists and their associates the White Helmets.

A further cause for this question is the previous proven use of props and crisis actors by the BBC (just one example) in one of their most dubious reports on Syria, Panorama’s piece entitled,“Saving Syria’s Children”.  Robert Stuart’s quite brilliant investigation into this chilling charade revealed some very disturbing evidence of the lengths to which, the mainstream media are prepared to go, to produce the propaganda required to execute yet another war on false pretenses. Propaganda that best serves the NATO and US intelligence agencies who continue toiling away to facilitate regime change and a ‘No Fly Zone.’

“Why do you do it?” I asked an obvious question of the REAL Syria Civil Defence, essentially, volunteers who survive on a paltry government salary or public donations, who work with dilapidated equipment, under terrorist, indiscriminate, shell, mortar and explosive bullet fire, and with no recognition for the heroic work they do from western media or ‘humanitarian’ NGOs.

It is humanitarian work for our country. We were there in the good times, and we are here when the times are bad and we are needed most. It’s our duty

No emotive, Manhattan based PR agency #hashtag headlines for these firefighters and life savers. Instead, we get simple words to convey a simple message.  They told me they often work 24 hour shifts, without sleep. One man sat on the wall behind me told me he had broken both legs falling from a collapsing building after terrorists had shelled the area. Another showed me that he had lost an eye in a Hell Cannon mortar attack. In the background, their uniforms billowed on the washing line ready for the next shout.

The badge of honour, the REAL Syria Civil Defence badge sewn on to the sleeves of the uniforms in West Aleppo (Photo: Vanessa Beeley August 15, 2016)

My final question to the REAL Syria Civil Defence in West Aleppo,  was to ask them for their message to the outside world.  The world that is unaware they even exist, many of whom are blinded by the propaganda glare that surrounds the White Helmet media circus. They responded thus:

1. Please lift the sanctions so we can keep working and saving lives.

2. Stop the terrorists from entering Syria, and stop funding and arming them.

3. If terrorists keep entering Syria, eventually it will affect the world, not just Syria. There has been enough bloodshed. It needs to stop now.

The staple equipment of fire crews and first responders. Visit to the West Aleppo REAL Syria Civil Defence
(Photo: Vanessa Beeley August 15, 2016)

The REAL Aleppo Medical Association

One of the other meetings we had during our time in Aleppo, was with the Aleppo Medical Association.  We met with the Director, Dr Zahar Buttal and Dr Bassem Hayak, who is in charge of the medical teams assessing refugees from East Aleppo who fled to West Aleppo via the Russian and Syrian state humanitarian corridors, created on the 29th July, which have allowed over 2000 people to escape the terrorist strongholds to safety, food and medical care in government-protected West Aleppo. These figures were given to us by the Aleppo Medical Association on the 15th August 2016.

One of the questions I asked Dr Hayak, who spoke good English, was what he knew of the White Helmets.  His response was concise and without preamble.  His family is still in East Aleppo and although he has not been able to get back into East Aleppo for the last year, his family have told him that the White Helmets are not known in East Aleppo.  I asked again to be sure, and was told again, people, civilians do not know of the White Helmets in East Aleppo. Any actual first response work is carried out by foreign workers from various countries, Pakistan and the Gulf region among them. These foreigners work with Syrian people who are not properly trained in first response. They might only receive 2 or 3 months training before being allowed to work.

Dr Hayak says, “Even with our relationship with WHO (World Health Organisation) and the UN, we still didn’t hear about the White Helmets.”

Are the White Helmets, NATO ghosts?

Dr Hayak also states quite clearly, he has a cousin, working as a surgeon in East Aleppo. ISIS and other terrorist factions have forced her to stay in East Aleppo by threatening to kill her family, should she leave for West Aleppo.

Dr Hayak also said that the majority of civilians in East Aleppo are “hostages”of the NATO/US allied terrorists.

In East Aleppo, civilians living under Al Nusra Front occupation, do not know the White Helmets. Watch:

It is not unreasonable to speculate that the White Helmets are not first responders at all, except when required to don the white hats for a staged photo or promotional video, or to produce western news propaganda for the likes of CNN or the BBC, courtesy of their ever-present film and media crew.

It is not unreasonable, based upon the statements given by eminent members of the Aleppo medical fraternity and crew members of the REAL Syria Civil Defence in Aleppo, to draw the conclusion that the White Helmets are nothing more than common terrorists, being paid to present themselves as respectable first responders when the need arises for “reports from inside Aleppo” or elsewhere in Syria.

Later, in Part II of this story, we will travel to the northwest Syria regions ofLattakia and Tartous and speak to REAL Syria Civil Defence units there, before finally visiting the Syria Civil Defence Headquarters in Damascus, right in the heart of Jaish Al Islam, terrorist strongholds in Jobar and the surrounding suburbs of Damascus.

Every one of these units has a tale to tell about NATO’s White Helmets and each tale is a further nail in the coffin of the west’s multi-million dollar White Helmet mythology – nails which can’t be extracted by any number of NATO sponsored prizes, awards or accolades.

In the end, the REAL Syria Civil Defence will be recognised as extraordinary “ordinary” human beings who deserve the title “Hero” and whose service to their people and their country will be applauded by all those who are not taken in by the by the obscene parody of terrorists dressed-up as saviours and saints.

The REAL “saints” do indeed come marching in….

The REAL Syria Civil Defence, Lattakia, next stop on the tour of the true heroes inside Syria. Photo: Lattakia Fire Brigade FB page

Ahmad Khan Rahami was charged Tuesday night with nine counts of attempted murder and using weapons of mass destruction in connection with last weekend’s terror bombings in New York City and New Jersey.

As more details emerge, it is becoming clear that these bombings are part of a disturbing and ever more familiar pattern that dates back at least to the 9/11 attacks on New York City and Washington in 2001. In virtually every terrorist act carried out on US soil, the perpetrator is someone who is known by and previously identified to the FBI or other US police and intelligence agencies.

On the other hand, with those “terrorist plots” that are “foiled,” also almost invariably, those charged are patsies, set up in sting operations by federal agents who in many cases provide weapons, money and targets to individuals who would never have embarked on such operations on their own.

Rahami, a naturalized American citizen who immigrated to the US with his family from Afghanistan at the age of seven, is charged with planting explosive devices—pipe bombs and pressure cooker bombs—one of which injured 31 people on a street in Manhattan. He was arrested after being shot in a gunfight with police that also left two cops wounded.

In the immediate aftermath of the bombings, authorities issued statements declaring that there was no link between the attacks and “international terrorism.” It would now appear that this story was floated by officials who were well aware of such connections and concerned about the record of their own decisions to ignore them.

The New York Times revealed Thursday that Rahami’s father, Mohammad Rahami, gave a detailed warning to the FBI in 2014, saying that his son represented a threat and was increasingly attracted to Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. Federal agents spoke to the elder Rahami during a police investigation following his son’s stabbing of a sibling in a domestic dispute.

“I told the FBI to keep an eye on him,” he told the Times. “They said, ‘Is he a terrorist?’ I said: ‘I don’t know. I can’t guarantee you 100 percent if he is a terrorist. I don’t know which groups he is in. I can’t tell you.’”

The father added that the FBI never followed up by interviewing his son.

This contact was not the only one between Rahami and federal intelligence agencies. Only five months before his father’s discussions with the FBI, Rahami returned from a yearlong visit to Pakistan, where he visited Quetta, the capital of Pakistani Baluchistan, which is the headquarters of various Islamist factions. The trip prompted a secondary screening by customs officials, who were concerned enough to notify the National Targeting Center, a division of the Homeland Security Department that is supposed to assess potential terrorist threats. This prompted a notification to the FBI and other agencies.

It has further emerged since the bombings that federal officials were aware that Rahami may have made another trip to Ankara, Turkey, apparently with the aim of joining the Islamic State (ISIS) or one of the militias connected to Al Qaeda that are engaged in the US-backed war for regime change in Syria.

Finally, federal authorities were informed of Rahami’s purchase last July of a Glock 9mm handgun, the weapon he is charged with using in shooting two Linden, New Jersey policemen as they tried to take him into custody.

Once again, the refrain made famous in the wake of 9/11is being heard again: there was a failure to “connect the dots.”

In some cases, the similarities to previous incidents are stark. As in Rahami’s case, the father of Nigerian student Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, who attempted to bring down a Northwest Airlines jet on Christmas Eve 2009 with a bomb hidden in his underwear, also warned US authorities of his son’s terrorist ties, but was ignored.

Then there was the case of the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing, in which the principal organizer was Tamerlan Tsarnaev. Russian intelligence had identified Tsarnaev to US authorities in 2011 as a suspected radical Islamist who was seeking to link up with armed groups in the Northern Caucasus. He was subsequently interviewed by the FBI and then allowed to travel to the Caucasus and return, with no questions asked.

Given the vast intelligence apparatus maintained by the US state and the sweeping mass surveillance it conducts, the failure to pursue such leads does not lend itself to innocent interpretation or a mere failure to “connect the dots.”

On the one hand, the decision not to impede the travel of individuals identified as “terrorists” stems from the fact that the US government is utilizing such elements in pursuit of its foreign policy aims. It has done so at least since the late 1980s, when Rahami’s father fought with the Afghan mujahedeen in the CIA-orchestrated war against the Soviet-backed government in Afghanistan. Foreign Islamists have been the backbone of the proxy forces fighting the US war for regime change in Syria, as they were in Libya, and US intelligence has long had relations with similar forces in both Russia and China.

On the other hand, giving a free rein to those identified as potential terrorists and letting nature take its course serves a definite political agenda, providing grist for the mill of the “global war on terror.” This “war” has provided the pretext for both unending bombings and invasions to further the strategic interests of US imperialism, and the escalating repression within the US itself.

Terrorist acts are also magnified and endlessly sensationalized by the corporate media as a means of undermining the broad popular opposition to war.

Finally, such acts can be exploited to further the aims of one faction within the state apparatus against another. The bombings in New York and New Jersey coincided with evidence of just such divisions within the Obama administration, as sections of the military brass have recently made statements approaching insubordination in relation to the abortive ceasefire deal in Syria.

It is impossible to say at this early stage what relation these bombings have to the murky and sinister world in which US intelligence agencies and Islamist terrorist groups intersect.

Nor are the precise motivations of Rahami known. Sections of a notebook in his possession at the time of his arrest include praise for Osama bin Laden; Anwar al-Awlaki, the US-born, Al Qaeda-linked cleric assassinated in a US drone strike; as well as an ISIS leader.

Rahami’s alleged act may have been the product of his own emotional or mental distress, or psychological factors combined with what the state and the media habitually refer to as “homegrown terrorism” or “self-radicalization.” Whatever the case, the state of American society on the eve of the 2016 elections provides fertile ground for such violence.

Over 15 years of uninterrupted US wars, with over a million killed, many millions more driven from their homes and entire societies left in shreds, cannot help but produce deadly consequences within the US itself. Bloodshed abroad is combined with the ceaseless brutalization of society at home. Rahami grew up in Union County, New Jersey, where the poverty rate is over 27 percent and the social inequality between its working-class residents and the concentration of billionaires and multimillionaires in nearby New York City could not be starker. The pervasive social alienation among broad layers of society is intensified by the continuous demonization of Muslims.

The existing political setup, moreover, provides no progressive outlet for the increasingly explosive buildup of social discontent. The pseudo-left elements who, in an earlier period, protested against US wars are now to be found among their most enthusiastic supporters.

Less than seven weeks before the election, these latest bombings are being utilized to shift the political debate within the two major parties even further to the right, with the fascistic Republican candidate Donald Trump and the Democratic favorite of the military and intelligence apparatus Hillary Clinton vying with each other over who is best prepared as “commander-in-chief” to escalate war abroad and intensify repression at home.

The reactionary and noxious atmosphere of American politics will only ensure further attacks like that which occurred last weekend.

Russian Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov made history today at the UN’s meeting of the Security Council, declaring that future unilateral pauses couched as ‘ceasefire agreements’ are off the table. He has skillfully referred to the mounting factual evidence of the US’s continued flagrant violations on any number of points of agreement over the course of this conflict.September 22nd, 2016 

Lavrov at today’s security council meeting, see video below

These include primarily the violations of the ceasefire itself, in conjunction with officially leaked elements of the ‘secret text’ of the recent ceasefire which evidence that the US has been unable to reign in a number of groups signing onto previous ceasefires, let alone those groups the US claims to be moderates but did not sign onto the ceasefire, both of which continue to work closely with either ISIS or Jabat Al-Nusra. Russia has no doubt pointed out successfully that several of these groups are fictional entities, and are but operational synonyms of Al-Nusra (formerly called Al-Qaeda of the Levant), itself.

The impossible to ignore context here naturally is the ceasefire ending US joint attack alongside ISIS upon the Syrian Arab Army position at Deir ez-Zor which was sustained and lasted over an hour, despite calls from the Russian coordinating hotline which existed pursuant to standing agreements on deconfliction.

The other defining circumstances included the response of the US State Department at the emergency session of the UN Security Council a few nights ago, in particular the behaviour and callously undiplomatic remarks of representative Power, and the US’s following attempts to blame Russia for the attack on the Red Crescent aid convoy several days later, which increasingly appears as the result of either Al-Nusra militants on the ground or a US predator drone attack using an incendiary device.

Analysts and activists have long debated the utility of the ceasefire agreements. It had been noted, at times passionately, that the ceasefires were observed unilaterally by Russia and had the effect of allowing the US backed terrorist groups, whether organized under the ‘moderate’ banner or not, to rearm and regroup. Aid convoys had long been used as a backdoor to smuggle in needed dual-use basic supplies for repairing weapons, such as nuts, bolts, wiring – and even munitions and new weapons. It had long been documented that first aid and medicines intended for affected civilian populations generally wound up used by terrorist fighting groups inside of occupied parts of Aleppo.

Now this chapter comes to end, and it is revealed that Russia understood clearly all along that this was precisely the case. What was needed was a pretext, a consensus building show-and-tell to the Security Council which provides Russia and its allies on the Security Council and in the international community that ‘we tried Ceasefires – and this is what happened.

This set up the footwork for the final proverbial ‘flying mare’ that launched US foreign policy and its media hologram over the Russian bear’s shoulder and onto its back.

A real corner has been turned. We invite our readers to watch twitter user Navsteva’s several minute long clip, below, which was truly the highlight of the longer Russian presentation and today’s historic Security Council meeting.

These are truly interesting times, fraught with danger, as the chance of total war looms overhead. We ask our readers to be especially vigilant as events are escalating, and help our important mission and work here by sharing these articles across your social networking platforms.

If the Western peoples and the corrupt EU, UK, Canadian, Japanese, and Australian political puppets don’t wake up ASAP, war will be upon us, a war that cannot be won.

The criminal neoconservatives must immediately be removed from power in Washington before the insane fools start World War 3. The CIA and the Pentagon must be put under tight constraints. And Donald Trump needs a massive trustworthy security guard. The European governments need to immediately disband the NATO alliance. Life on the planet is at stake.

No more provocations from Washington. Period. The insanity must stop. Now.

http://www.fort-russ.com/2016/09/lavrov-makes-history-ceasefires-were.html

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following. Roberts’ latest books are The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Economic Dissolution of the West, How America Was Lost, and The Neoconservative Threat to World Order.

Was the first ever US strike against Syrian government forces an intentional hit by the Pentagon to block military cooperation with Russia?

Another US-Russian Syria ceasefire deal has been blown up.

Whether it could have survived even with a US-Russian accord is open to doubt, given the incentives for al-Qaeda and its allies to destroy it. But the politics of the US-Russian relationship played a central role in the denouement of the second ceasefire agreement.

The final blow apparently came from the Russian-Syrian side, but what provoked the decision to end the ceasefire was the first ever US strike against Syrian government forces on 17 September.

That convinced the Russians that the US Pentagon had no intention of implementing the main element of the deal that was most important to the Putin government: a joint US-Russian air campaign against the Islamic State (IS) militant group and al-Qaeda through a “Joint Implementation Centre”. And it is entirely credible that it was meant to do precisely that.

Withdrawal from Castello Road – or not?

The Russians had a powerful incentive to ensure that the ceasefire would hold, especially around Aleppo.

In the new ceasefire agreement, US Secretary of State John Kerry and Russsian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had negotiated an unusually detailed set of requirements for both sides to withdraw their forces from the Castello Road, the main artery for entry into Aleppo from the north. It was understood that the “demilitarisation” north of Aleppo was aimed at allowing humanitarian aid to reach the city and was, therefore, the central political focus of the ceasefire.

A shot of Castello Road during clashes between Syrian soldiers and rebel fighters from July 2016 (AFP)

The Russians put great emphasis on ensuring that the Syrian army would comply with the demilitarisation plan. It had established a mobile observation post on the road on 13 September. And both the Russians and Syrian state television reported that the Syrian army had withdrawn its heavy weaponry from the road early on 15 September, including video footage showing a bulldozer clearing barbed wire from the road. The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights also reported the Syrian army had withdrawn from the road.

But al-Qaeda’s newly renamed Jabhat Fateh al-Sham (previously the al-Nusra Front) had a clear incentive to refuse to comply with a move that could open the door to a US-Russian campaign against it. Opposition sources in Aleppo claimed that no such government withdrawal had happened, and said that opposition units would not pull back from positions near the road. On the morning of 16 September, the Syrian army moved back into positions on the road.

Kerry and Lavrov agreed in a phone conversation that same day that the ceasefire was still holding, even though humanitarian aid convoys were still stalled in the buffer zone at the Turkish border because of the lack of permission from the Syrian government, as well as uncertainty about security on the route to Aleppo.

But Kerry also told Lavrov that the US now insisted that it would establish the Joint Implementation Centre only after the humanitarian aid had been delivered.

US policy clash

That crucial shift in US diplomatic position was a direct result of the aggressive opposition of the Pentagon to Obama’s intention to enter into military cooperation with Russia in Syria. The Pentagon was motivated by an overriding interest in heading off such high-profile US-Russian cooperation at a time when it is pushing for much greater US military efforts to counter what it portrays as Russian aggression in a new Cold War.

At an extraordinary video conference with Kerry immediately after the negotiation of the ceasefire agreement was complete, Secretary of Defence Ashton Carter strongly objected to the Joint Centre – especially the provision for sharing intelligence with the Russians for a campaign against IS and al-Qaeda.

Obama had overridden Carter’s objections at the time, but a New York Times story filed the night of 13 September reported that Pentagon officials were still refusing to agree that the US should proceed with the creation of the Joint Implementation Centre if the ceasefire held for seven days.

The Times quoted Lt Gen Jeffrey L Harrigian, commander of the United States Air Forces Central Command (USAFCENT), as telling reporters, “I’m not saying yes or no.”

“It would be premature to say that we’re going to jump right into it,” he added.

President Obama’s decision to insist that the US would not participate in the joint centre with Russia until humanitarian convoys had been allowed into Aleppo and elsewhere first was apparently aimed at calming the Pentagon down, but it didn’t eliminate the possibility of a joint US–Russian campaign.

Immediate impact

Late in the evening the next day, US and allied planes carried out multiple strikes on a Syrian government base in the desert near one of its airbases in Deir Ezzor and killed at least 62 Syrian troops and wounded more than 100.

The Pentagon soon acknowledged what it called a mistake in targeting, but the impact on the ceasefire deal was immediate. Syria accused the US of a deliberate attack on its forces, and the Russians similarly expressed doubt about the US explanation.

On Monday 19 September, the Syrian regime declared that the seven-day ceasefire had ended. And that same day, a major UN humanitarian aid convoy was being unloaded in an opposition-held town West of Aleppo when it was attacked, killing more than 20 aid workers. US officials accused Russia of an air strike on the convoy, although the evidence of an air attack appeared slender, according to a Russian defence ministry spokesman.

One of the aid trucks attacked in Aleppo on 19 September 2016 (Reuters) 

It is not difficult to imagine, however, the fury with which both Russian and Syrian governments could have reacted to the US blows against both the Syrian army and the deal that had been sealed with Washington. They were certainly convinced that the US air attack on Syrian troops was a clear message that the Pentagon and US military leadership would not countenance any cooperation with Russia on Syria – and were warning of a Syrian campaign to come once Hillary Clinton is elected.

Attacking the aid convoy by some means was a brutal way of signalling a response to such messages. Unfortunately, the brunt of the response was borne by aid workers and civilians.

Mistake or strategy?

The evidence that the US deliberately targeted a Syrian military facility is, of course, circumstantial, and it is always possible that the strike was another of the monumental intelligence failures so common in war.

No one has been able to explain how USAFCENT could have decided that a target so close to a Syrian government airbase in that government-controlled city was an IS target

But the timing of the strike – only 48 hours before the decision was to be made on whether to go ahead with the Joint Implementation Centre -and its obvious impact on the ceasefire make a tight fit with the thesis that it was no mistake.

And to make the fit even tighter, Gen Harrigan, the USAFCENT commander who had refused to say that his command would go ahead with such cooperation with Russia, would almost certainly have approved a deliberate targeting of a Syrian facility.

USAFCENT planners are very familiar with the area where it bombed Syrian troops, having carried out an average of 20 such strikes a week around Deir Ezzor, a DOD official told Nancy A Youssef of The Daily Beast.

Pentagon officials acknowledged to Youssef that the USAFCENT had been watching the site for at least a couple of days, but in fact they must have been familiar with the site, which has apparently existed for at least six months or longer.

Yet no one has been able to explain how USAFCENT could have decided that a target so close to a Syrian government airbase in that government-controlled city was an IS target.

Obama was strongly committed to the general strategy of cooperation with Russia as the key to trying to make headway in moving toward a ceasefire. But that strategy was based on a refusal to confront US regional allies with the necessity to change course from reckless support for a jihadist-dominated opposition force.

Now that the strategy of the past year has gone up in flames, the only way Obama can establish meaningful control over Syria policy is to revisit the fundamental choices that propelled the US into the sponsorship of the war in the first place.

Gareth Porter is an investigative historian and journalist on U.S. national security policy who has been independent since a brief period of university teaching in the 1980s. Dr. Porter is the author of five books, the latest book, “Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare,” was published in February 2014. He has written regularly for Inter Press Service on U.S. policy toward Iraq and Iran since 2005.

Farming Today (23.9.16) seems to be unaware of the content of the neonicotinoids research studies obtained by Greenpeace after a freedom of information request to the US Environmental Protection Agency. Bayer intends to make these public at the International Congress of Entomology next week.

This is not good news for Bayer, debt-laden since its takeover of Monsanto and reported to have seen its shares ‘drifting downwards’.

Reports in the Guardian and EurActiv inform readers that the research studies, conducted by Syngenta and Bayer on their neonicotinoid insecticides, showed that Syngenta’s thiamethoxam and Bayer’s clothianidin seriously harmed colonies at high doses, but found no significant effects below concentrations of 50 parts per billion (ppb) and 40ppb respectively.

Bees and other insects vital for pollinating three-quarters of the world’s food crops, have been in significant decline, due – it is thought -to the loss of flower-rich habitats, disease and the use of pesticides.

Consider the cumulative effect of neonic residues ingested from planting dust, water and treated seeds

However researchers note that pollinators in real environments are continually exposed to cocktails of many pesticides, rather than single chemicals for relatively short periods. As Matt Shardlow, chief executive of conservation charity Buglife, said:

These studies may not show an impact on honeybee health [at low levels], but then the studies are not realistic. The bees were not exposed to the neonics that we know are in planting dust, water drunk by bees and wildflowers, wherever neonics are used as seed treatments. This secret evidence highlights the profound weakness of regulatory tests.

Professor Dave Goulson explained, on Farming Today, that there were 20,000 species of bees and that neonics are neurotoxins that harm bumble bees, wild solitary bees and all insects. He added that there are a huge number of studies indicating the damage done and only a few that find them safe.

He reminds us on his blog that a recent Swedish study, published in the most prestigious scientific journal in the world (Nature), showed huge impacts of neonics on bumblebees and solitary bees when the chemicals were used by farmers ‘as directed on the label’ and adds a warning:

Remember that, 50 years ago, the agrochemical industry assured us that DDT was safe, until it turned out that it wasn’t. Later, they told us that organophosphates were fine, except they weren’t. Do you believe them this time? I don’t.

Speaking to the US Senate, the Pentagon’s leaders blamed Russia for the Aleppo aid convoy attack, but admitted they “had no facts.” Only US coalition planes should be allowed over Syria, they said, though that would require war against both Syria and Russia.

Defense Secretary Ash Carter and General Joseph Dunford, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, faced the Senate Armed Services Committee on Thursday to report on the ongoing military operations and “national security challenges” faced by the US. They also asked the senators for more reliable funding, saying the uncertainty was hurting the defense industry.

“Not only our people – our defense industry partners, too, need stability and longer-term plans to be as efficient and cutting-edge as we need them to be,” Carter told the senators.

The lawmakers were far less interested in the war against Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) than about the future of the Syrian government, Iran’s “malign influence,” and “aggression”by China and Russia – all ranked far ahead of terrorism on Carter and Dunford’s list of security challenges.

The Pentagon had “no intention” of sharing intelligence with Russia when it came to Syria, Dunford told the lawmakers unequivocally. Secretary Carter explained that the joint implementation councils envisioned by the ceasefire proposal negotiated in Geneva wouldn’t share intelligence, just coordinate efforts – but that they were a moot point anyway, since the ceasefire was effectively dead.

Both the lawmakers and the Pentagon chiefs blamed that development on Russia, focusing on the alleged airstrike against the humanitarian convoy in east Aleppo while the US-led airstrike against the Syrian Army fighting IS in Deir ez-Zor went unmentioned. “I don’t have the facts,” Dunford said, when asked about the convoy attack by Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Connecticut). “It was either the Russians or the regime,” he added. “There is no doubt in my mind that the Russians are responsible,” whether directly or because they backed the government in Damascus, Dunford said, describing the attack as “an unacceptable atrocity.” Carter explained Dunford’s logic in a response to Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina), saying that “the Russians are responsible for this strike whether they conducted it or not, because they took responsibility for the conduct of the Syrians by associating themselves with the Syrian regime.”

The latest proposal by Secretary of State John Kerry involves grounding only Syrian and Russian airplanes, Carter told Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-New Hampshire). “There can be no question of grounding US aircraft” over Syria, he said, adding that US jets conduct their strikes “with exceptional precision… that no other country can match.” Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Mississippi) asked about what it would take for the US to impose a no-fly zone over Syria, using the phrase“control the airspace.” “Right now… for us to control all of the airspace in Syria would require us to go to war against Syria and Russia,” Dunford replied, drawing a rebuke from committee chairman John McCain (R-Arizona), who argued a no-fly zone was possible without war. Asked about the video of US-backed Syrian rebels insulting US Special Forces in Al-Rai and running them out of the northern Syrian town, Carter and Dunford shrugged it off.

A “very small minority took verbal action” against US troops, said Dunford, who admitted he did not watch the video but had discussed it with US commanders. He said the incident was “irrelevant” because the US-backed forces and Turkey were making “great progress”along Syria’s northern border.

In their exchange with Graham, Carter and Dunford confirmed there is a plan to arm the Kurdish militia in Syria, over Turkish objections, as a way of advancing on the IS stronghold of Raqqa. Once Raqqa is taken, however, an Arab force would be required to hold it. “We have a plan,” Dunford said, but described it as “not resourced.” Dunford agreed with Graham’s assertion that the US had two objectives – to destroy IS and to “remove Assad,”referring to the Syrian president – but admitted the Kurds were not interested in the latter. “If the main fighting force inside of Syria is not signed up to take Assad out, where does that force come from?”Graham asked.

Neither Dunford nor Carter had an answer to that. Both the Pentagon heads and the lawmakers agreed throughout the hearing that caps on military spending mandated by sequestration were harmful and needed to be repealed. Lack of funding posed a significant threat to readiness and maintenance, Carter and Dunford argued, before pointing out that the US military was still the strongest, most powerful and most competent in the world.

Media coverage of world affairs mostly focuses on Ottawa/Washington’s perspective. While the dominant media is blatant in its subservience to Canadian/Western power, even independent media is often afraid to challenge the foreign policy status quo.

A recent Canadaland podcast simultaneously highlighted anti-Palestinian media bias and the fear liberal journalists’ face in discussing one of the foremost social justice issues of our time. The media watchdog’s discussion of the Green Party’s recent resolutions supporting Palestinian rights started strong with Canadaland publisher Jesse Brown laying out three “facts”:

• In an editorial titled “[Elizabeth] May must renounce anti-Israel resolutions” the Vancouver Sun (reposted on the Ottawa Citizen and Calgary Herald websites) called Independent Jewish Voices (IJV) “an anti-Israel group that uses the fig leaf of Jewishness to lend support to Iran, deny the Holocaust, participate in anti-Semitic Al-Quds protests, encourage terrorism against Israelis and promulgate lies about Israel’s history, society and policies.” When IJV sent a letter threatening libel action Postmedia removed the editorial from its websites.
• A B’nai B’rith article described left-wing news outlet Rabble.ca as a “racist, white supremacist and antisemitic website”, which they erased after a media inquiry.
• Not one of a “couple dozen” reports examined about the Green Party resolution calling for “the use of divestment, boycott and sanctions (BDS) that are targeted to those sectors of Israel’s economy and society which profit from the ongoing occupation of the OPT [Occupied Palestinian Territories]” quoted a supporter of the successful motion.

Instead of seriously considering these “facts”, one Canadaland panellist partially justified suppressing Green Party voices favouring the BDS resolution and opposed talking about pro-Zionist media coverage because it contributes to stereotypes of Jewish control over the media. Diverting further from his “facts”, Brown bemoaned anti-Semitism and how Israel/Palestine debates rarely lead to agreement while another panellist mocked people from small towns who express an opinion on the subject. Aired on dozens of community radio stations across the country, the episode ended with a comment about how people shouldn’t protest those killed by Israel if they don’t take a position on the conflict between “North and South Sudan”.

(“North Sudan”, of course, doesn’t exist. And the ongoing war in that region is between two political/ethnic groups within South Sudan, which gained independence five years ago. But, even if they’d gotten their Sudan facts right, the statement is akin to saying Canadaland shouldn’t discuss major advertiser Enbridge pressuring the Vancouver Province to remove a cartoon critical of its Northern Gateway pipeline project because the show didn’t say anything about Tata Motors removing ads from the Times of India over their auto reporting.)

After detailing stark anti-Palestinian media bias, the Canadaland panellists cowered in the face of the “facts” presented. They failed to discuss whether the examples cited reflect a broader pattern (they do), what impact this has on Canadians’ perceptions of Palestinians (it is damaging) or explain the source of the bias.

One wonders if this reflects the panellists’ anti-Semitism, as if they fear talking about coverage of Israel will reveal a “Jewish conspiracy” to shape the news. But, there is no ethnic/religious conspiracy, rather a powerful propaganda system “hiding in plain sight”. While Canadian media bias on Palestine is glaring, that’s largely owing to the depths of grassroots activism on the issue, rather than dynamics particular to the subject. In fact, Canadian media bias on all aspects of this country’s foreign policy is shocking.

While there are particularities, coverage of Israel/Palestine fits the dominant media’s broad bias in favour of power on topics ranging from Haiti to Canada’s international mining industry. The main explanation for the biased coverage is a small number of mega corporations own most of Canada’s media and these firms are integrated with the broader elite and depend on other large corporations for advertising revenue. Media outlets also rely on US wire services and powerful institutions for most of their international coverage and these same institutions have the power to punish media that upset them.

Discussing the structural forces driving media bias and how they interact with the Canadian establishment’s long history of support for Zionism/Israel is a lot for a radio segment. But, the Canadaland panelists could have at least explored some notable developments/dynamics driving anti-Palestinian coverage.

After buying a dozen dailies in 2000 Izzy Asper pushed the CanWest newspaper chain to adopt extremist pro-Israel positions. When Montréal Gazette publisher Michael Goldbloom suddenly resigned in 2001 the Globe and Mail reported “sources at The Gazette confirmed yesterday that senior editors at the paper were told earlier that month to run a strongly worded, pro-Israel editorial on a Saturday op-ed page”, which was written by the head office in Winnipeg and was accompanied by a no rebuttal order. The CanWest editorial demanded Ottawa support Israel even as Israeli government ministers called for the assassination of PLO head Yasser Arafat after 15 Israelis were killed. “Canada must recognize the incredible restraint shown by the Israeli government under the circumstances. … Howsoever the Israeli government chooses to respond to this barbaric atrocity should have the unequivocal support of the Canadian government without the usual hand-wringing criticism about ‘excessive force.’ Nothing is excessive in the face of an enemy sworn to your annihilation.”

In 2004 the CanWest head office was caught directing papers to edit Reuters stories to denigrate Palestinians. “The message that was passed down to the copy desk was to change ‘militant’ to ‘terrorist’ when talking about armed Palestinians,” Charles Shannon, a Montréal Gazette copy editor, told The Nation. “One definite edict that came down was that there should be no criticism of Israel.”

(One Reuters story was changed from “the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, which has been involved in a four-year-old revolt against Israeli occupation in Gaza and the West Bank” to “the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, a terrorist group that has been involved in a four-year-old campaign of violence against Israel.”)

While Aspers’ interventions were crass, they elicited limited response since anti-Palestinianism pervades the political and media establishments. Both a reflection of this bias and propelling it forward, leading media figures have various links to Israeli nationalist organizations. In 2014 the president of Postmedia, which controls most of English Canada’s daily newspaper circulation, was chairman of the Calgary Gala of the Jewish National Fund, which discriminates against non-Jewish Israelis in its land-use policies. Paul Godfrey is not the first influential media figure fêted by the explicitly racist organization. In 2007 Ottawa Citizen publisher Jim Orban was honorary chair of JNF Ottawa’s annual Gala while prominent CBC commentators Rex Murphy and Rick Mercer, as well as US journalists Barbra Walters and Bret Stephens, have spoken at recent JNF events.

The Ottawa Citizen has sponsored a number of the racist institution’s galas. The paper has also covered JNF events in which the Citizen is listed as a ‘Proud Supporter’. In what may indicate a formal financial relationship the JNF promoted their 2013 Ottawa Gala in the Citizen, including running an advertisement the day after the event. According to the Israeli press, the JNF has entered financial agreements with numerous media outlets, including a recent 1.5 million shekels ($500,000) accord with Israel’s Channel 10 to run 14 news reports about its work.

Prominent media figures often speak at pro-Israel events. In 2015 editor-in-chief of The Walrus Jonathan Kay and Postmedia columnist Terry Glavinspoke on a panel with Centre for Israel & Jewish Affairs CEO Shimon Fogel at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) annual conference in Washington DC. Conversely, Palestinian solidarity groups rarely have the resources to pay for high profile journalists and most leading media figures fear associating with their struggle.

While Israeli nationalist organizations prefer to draw influential media figures close, they also have the capacity to punish those challenging their worldview. Honest Reporting Canada organizes Israel apologist ‘flack’. The registered charity monitors the media and engages its supporters to respond to news outlets that fail to toe its extreme Israeli nationalist line. If pursued consistently this type of ‘flack’ drives editors and journalists to avoid topics or be more cautious when covering an issue.

In my forthcoming book A Propaganda System: How the Canadian government, media, corporations and academia sell war and exploitation I detail numerous instances of media owners interceding in international affairs coverage, as well as institutions drawing in influential newspeople and organizing ‘flack’ campaigns. But, there are two unique elements shaping Palestine/Israel coverage.

As a partially ethno/religious conflict the greater number of Jews than Palestinians (or Arabs) in positions of influence within the Canadian media does exacerbate the overarching one-sidedness. In a backdoor way Canadaland’s Jesse Brown highlighted this point when he describes Israeli family members influencing his opinion on the topic.

Another dynamic engendering anti-Palestinianism in the media is Israeli nationalist groups’ capacity to accuse Canadians’ standing up for a peoplefacing the most aggressive ongoing European settler colonialism of being motivated by a widely discredited prejudice. At the heart of the ideological system, journalists are particularly fearful of being labeled “anti-Semitic” and the smear puts social justice activists on the defensive.

When a “couple dozen” articles fail to quote a single proponent of a Green resolution pressing Israel to relinquish illegally occupied land it suggests systemic media bias. Canadaland’s inability to contextualize this anti-Palestinianism reveals a media watchdog subservient to the dominant foreign-policy framework about Israel.

And a sign of how bad coverage is of all foreign affairs.

Yves Engler is the author of Canada in Africa: 300 years of aid and exploitation. Read other articles by Yves.

As a fragile and partial cease-fire in Syria totters, the back story is the political warfare in Washington where powerful hawks seek to escalate both the war in Syria and the New Cold War with Russia, ex-British diplomat Alastair Crooke explains.

Does the failure of the U.S.-backed, major insurgent August “push” on Aleppo – and the terms of the consequent ceasefire, to which some in the U.S. only irascibly agreed – constitute a political defeat for the U.S. and a “win” for Russia?

Yes, in one way: Moscow may, (just may) have cornered America into joint military air attacks on Al Qaeda in Syria, but in another way, one would have to be somewhat cautious in suggesting a Russian “win” (although Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s diplomacy has been indeed tenacious).

President Barack Obama talks with advisers, including National Security Advisor Susan E. Rice and Secretary of State John Kerry, Nov. 9, 2015. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

Secretary of State John Kerry’s Syria agreement with Lavrov though, has sparked virtual open warfare in Washington. The “Cold War Bloc,” which includes Defense Secretary Ash Carter and House Speaker Paul Ryan, is extremely angry.

The Defense Department is in near open disobedience: when asked in a press teleconference if the military would abide by the terms of the agreement and share information with the Russians after the completion of the seven-day ceasefire, Lt. Gen. Jeffrey Harrigian, the commander of the U.S. Air Forces Central Command, which is directing the bombing campaign in Iraq and Syria, responded: “I think … it would be premature to say we’re going to jump right into it. And I’m not saying yes or no.”

But President Obama wants to define some sort of a foreign policy historical “legacy” (and so does Kerry). And the President probably suspects (with good cause possibly) that his legacy is set to be trashed by his successor, whomsoever it be – the minute he steps down from office.

In brief, the Establishment’s dirty washing is hanging on the line in plain sight. And it does not look great: Ash Carter, whose Department would have to work jointly with Russia in Syria, last week at Oxford University, accused Russia of having a “clear ambition” to degrade the world order with its military and cyber campaigns.

House Speaker Paul Ryan called Russian President Vladimir Putin an “adversary” and an “aggressor” who does not share U.S. interests. There is a U.S. media blitz in train, with powerful forces behind it, which paints Putin as no possible partner for the U.S.

Obama’s Will

Only in the coming days will we see whether Obama still has the will and clout to make the Syria ceasefire agreement stick. But the agreement did not appear out of the blue. One parent was the failure of America’s military “Plan B” (itself a response to the failed February ceasefire), and the other “parent” was Kerry’s wringing of a further concession from Damascus: Obama supposedly agreed to the separation of U.S. insurgent proxies from Al Qaeda (the former Nusra Front now called Jabhat Fateh al-Sham), and to their joint targeting, in return “for the what the Obama administration characterized as the ‘grounding’ of the Syrian air force in the current agreement,” as Gareth Porter has reported.

U.S. Defense Secretary Ashton Carter.

The U.S. and its Gulf allies – in pursuit of Plan B – had invested enormous effort to break Damascus’ operation to relieve Aleppo from the jihadists’ hold in the northeastern part of the city. The two sides, here (Russia and U.S.), were playing for high stakes: the U.S. wanted its Islamist proxies to take Aleppo, and then to use its seizure by the jihadis as political leverage with which to force Russia and Iran to concede President Bashar al-Assad’s ouster. Plan B, in other words, was still all about “regime change.”

Aleppo, Syria’s second largest city, has from the outset of this conflict been strategically pivotal – its loss would have pulled the rug from under the Syrian government’s guiding objective of keeping the mass of the urban population of Syria within the state’s orbit.

America’s long-standing objective thus would have been achieved – albeit at an indescribable price paid by the inhabitants of western Aleppo, who would have been overrun by the forces of Al Qaeda. Thus, the Syrian government’s recovery of all Aleppo is a major strategic gain.

In the end, however, the U.S. and its Gulf allies did not succeed: their much vaunted Plan B failed. And in failing, the insurgents have sustained heavy loss of life and equipment. Indeed, such are the losses, it is doubtful whether a “push” on this scale could again be mounted by Qatar or Saudi Arabia (despite the post-Aleppo “push” in Hama) .

In spite of the failure of Plan B, the U.S. was not ready to see Al Qaeda isolated and attacked. It wanted it protected. The U.S. ambiguity towards the jihadists of being “at war with the terrorists”; but always maneuvering to stop Syria and Russia from weakening the jihadistswas plain in the letter sent by the U.S. envoy to the Syrian opposition Michael Ratney to opposition groups backed by the United States.

The first letter, sent on Sept. 3, after most of the Kerry-Lavrov agreement had already been hammered out, “makes no reference to any requirement for the armed opposition to move away from their Al Qaeda allies, or even terminate their military relationships, and thus implied that they need not do so,” Porter wrote.

A second letter however, apparently sent on Sept. 10, reverses the message: “We urge the rebels to distance themselves and cut all ties with Fateh al-Sham, formerly Nusra Front, or there will be severe consequences.”

Will it happen? Will the agreement be observed? Well, the Syrian conflict is but one leg of the trifecta that constitutes the “new” Cold War theatre: there is the delicate and unstable situation in Ukraine (another leg), and elsewhere NATO is busy building its forces on the borders of the Baltic Republics (the third leg). Any one of these pillars can be wobbled (intentionally) – and crash the delicate political framework of all the others.

Demonizing Russia

Which brings us to the complex question of the current demonization of Russia by the Cold War Bloc (which includes Hillary Clinton) in the U.S. presidential election campaign.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton speaking with supporters at a campaign rally at Carl Hayden High School in Phoenix, Arizona, March 21, 2016. (Photo by Gage Skidmore)

Gregory R. Copley, editor of Defense & Foreign Affairs has described the situation as one in which the U.S. Establishment is deliberately and intentionally “sacrificing key bilateral relationships in order to win [a] domestic election,” adding “in my 50 odd years covering the US government, I have never seen this level of partisanship within the administration where a sitting president actually regards the opposition party as the enemy of the state.”

In short, the stakes being played here – in demonizing Russia and Putin – go well beyond Syria or Ukraine. They lie at the heart of the struggle for the future of the U.S.

There is practical evidence for such caution – for, three days before the Syrian artillery was scything the ranks of Ahrar al-Sham near Aleppo on Sept. 9 to close the chapter on America’s Plan B – (and four days before Ratney’s letter to the Syrian insurgents telling them to separate from Al Qaeda “or else”), Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko in addressing the Ukrainian parliament, the Rada in Kiev, was eviscerating the Minsk II accords, brokered by German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Francois Hollande as the only possible political solution to the Ukrainian civil war.

“Moreover, in a difficult dialogue,” Poroshenko said (see here and here), “we have convinced our western allies and partners that any political settlement must be preceded by apparent and undeniable progress on security issues: a sustainable ceasefire, withdrawal of Russian troops and equipment from the occupied territories, disarmament of militants and their family – and finally the restoration of our control over our own border” (emphasis added.)

Poroshenko, in other words, unilaterally turned the accord on its head: he reversed its order completely. And just to skewer it further, he told Parliament that any decision would be “exclusively yours” and nothing would be done “without your co-operation” – knowing full well that this Ukrainian parliament never wanted Minsk II in the first place.

And Kiev too is deploying along the entire borders of Donetsk and Lugansk. (A description of the military escalation by Kiev can be seen visually presented here).

Is Poroshenko’s U-turn the American “revenge” for Russia’s “win” in Syria – to heat up Ukraine, in order to drown President Putin in the Ukraine marshes? We do not know.

U.S. Vice President Joe Biden has boasted: “I think I tend to be in more direct conversation, for longer periods of time with the President [Poroshenko], than with my wife. (Laughter.) I think they both regret that (Laughter).”

Is it possible that Biden was not consulted before Poroshenko made his annual address to the Rada? We do not know, although within 48 hours of Poroshenko’s making his Rada address, Defense Secretary Ash Carter was in London, recommitting to Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, as he signed a “bilateral partner concept” with the Ukrainian defense minister.

Provoking Russia

What we do know however, is that this is – and is intended to be – a direct provocation to Russia. And to France and Germany, too. Within a week, however, Poroshenko was backtracking as “coincidentally” a new IMF loan was being floated for Kiev, just as the German and French Foreign ministers insisted on the Minsk formula of “truce – special status – elections in Donbass – control of the border” be respected – and as the Donetsk and Lugansk leadership unexpectedly offered a unilateral ceasefire.

President Barack Obama talks with President Petro Poroshenko of Ukraine and Commerce Secretary Penny Pritzker following a bilateral meeting in the Oval Office, Sept. 18, 2014. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

But Poroshenko’s “backtrack” was itself “backtracked” by Sept. 16, when the French and German visiting Foreign Ministers were reportedly told that Ukraine’s government now refused to implement the Minsk accord as it stood, as it now insists that the order be fully reversed: “truce – control of the border – elections.”

The American bitter internal election “civil war” is now shaking the pillars of the tripod on which America’s – and Europe’s – bilateral relations with Russia stand. It would therefore seem a stretch now for Obama to hope to prevail with any “legacy strategy” either in the Middle East or Ukraine that is contingent on cooperation with Russia.

The U.S. Establishment seems to have come to see the very preservation of the global status quo as linked to their ability to paint Trump as President Putin’s instrument for undermining the entire U.S. electoral system and the U.S.-led global order.

To the world outside, it seems as if the U.S. is seized by a collective hysteria (whether genuine, or manufactured for political ends). And it is not clear where the U.S. President now stands in this anti-Russian hysteria having likened Putin to Saddam Hussein, and having accused the Republican nominee of trying to “curry favor” with the Russian president – for having appeared on “Larry King Live” which is now broadcast by Russia Today.

But the bigger question is the longer-term consequence of all this: some in the “Hillary Bloc” still hanker for “regime change” in Moscow, apparently convinced that Putin’s humiliation in either Syria (not so likely now), or in Ukraine, could see him deposed in the March 2018 Russian Presidential elections, for a more Atlanticist, more “acceptable” leader.

It is unadulterated wishful thinking to imagine that Putin could be displaced thus – and more likely, Ukraine (with its prolific ‘kith and kin’ ties to Russians) used as a lever to “humiliate” President Putin will prove counter-productive, serving only to harden antagonism towards the U.S., as ethnic Russians die at the hands of rightist Ukrainian “militia.”

But it is certainly so that this campaign is strengthening the hand of those in Russia who would like to see President Putin taking a less “conciliatory line” towards the West. So, we may be heading towards more troubled waters.

Alastair Crooke is a former British diplomat who was a senior figure in British intelligence and in European Union diplomacy. He is the founder and director of the Conflicts Forum, which advocates for engagement between political Islam and the West.

The enforcement of a “no-fly” zone in Syria would mean a US war with both Syria and Russia, the top US uniformed commander told the Senate Armed Services Committee Thursday.

Marine Gen. Joseph Dunford, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, spelled out the grave implications of the policy advocated by both predominant sections within the Republican Party as well as Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton amid rising violence in Syria and increasing pressure by Washington on the Russian government to unilaterally agree to grounding its own aircraft as well as those of the Syrian government.

Secretary of State John Kerry has repeatedly demanded that Russia adhere to what would essentially be a one-sided “no-fly” zone under conditions in which US warplanes would continue carrying out airstrikes.

Kerry presented his proposal as a means of reviving and restoring “credibility” to a ceasefire agreement that he and the Russian Foreign Minister negotiated on September 9. This cessation of hostilities collapsed less than a week after its implementation in the face of hundreds of violations by US-backed Islamist “rebels” who have refuse to accept its terms, as well as two major back-to-back attacks.

The first was carried out by US and allied warplanes one week ago against a Syrian army position, killing as many as 90 Syrian soldiers and wounding another 100. Washington claimed that the bombing was a mistake, but Syrian officials have pointed to what appeared to be a coordination of the airstrike with a ground offensive by Islamic State (also known as ISIS) fighters who briefly overran the bombed position.

This was followed on September 19 by an attack on a humanitarian aid convoy in Aleppo that killed at least 20 and destroyed 18 trucks. The US immediately blamed Russia for the attack, without providing any evidence to support the charge. Russia and the Syrian government have denied responsibility and suggested that the so-called “rebels” shelled the convoy.

The US position was reflected in the testimony of both Dunford and Defense Secretary Ashton Carter before the Senate panel Thursday. The general admitted to the committee, “I don’t have the facts,” as to what planes carried out the attack, but quickly added, “There is no doubt in my mind that the Russians are responsible.” Similarly, Carter declared, “The Russians are responsible for this strike whether they conducted it or not.”

The collapse of the ceasefire under the weight of these incidents abrogated an agreement that had been bitterly opposed by both Carter and the Pentagon’s uniformed command. The latter have publicly declared their opposition—in terms bordering on insubordination—to the deal’s provision for coordinated actions and intelligence sharing with Russia, which America’s top generals see as the main enemy.

This view was reiterated Thursday by General Dunford, who declared that based on the “combination of their behavior and their military capability, Russia is the most significant threat to our national interests.” Asked if he supported the proposal for intelligence sharing, Dunford responded, “We don’t have any intention of having an intelligence-sharing arrangement with the Russians.”

Speaking in New York Thursday night after the so-called International Syria Support Group ended a meeting with no progress toward restoring the US-Russian ceasefire agreement, Secretary of State Kerry declared: “The only way to achieve that [cessation of hostilities and violence] is if the ones who have the air power in this part of the conflict simply stop using it—not for one day or two, but for as long as possible so that everyone can see that they are serious.”

After leaving the same meeting, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov rejected the demand that the Syrian government take “unilateral steps” under conditions in which the US-backed “rebels” reject the ceasefire. “We insist and find support for steps being taken by the opposition as well, so as not to let Jabhat al-Nusra take advantage of this situation,” he said.

This, however, is precisely the aim of Washington. The US military and intelligence complex is increasingly concerned that with the backing of Russia and Iran, the Syrian government is on the brink of breaking the five-year-old siege waged by the Islamist militias armed and paid by the CIA and Washington’s principal US allies, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Qatar. Syrian and Russian planes began intense bombardment of “rebel”-held eastern Aleppo Friday in what has been reported as preparation for a major ground offensive to retake this area of the city. If the offensive proves successful, the US war for regime change will have suffered a strategic reversal.

Al Nusra, the Syrian affiliate of Al Qaeda, which is formally designated by both the US and the UN as a terrorist organization, constitutes the backbone of the proxy forces employed by US imperialism to effect regime change in Syria. One of the major controversies surrounding the US-Russian truce agreement was its call for the US to persuade the “rebels” on its payroll to separate themselves from Al Nusra. This Washington was unable and unwilling to do, both because they are so closely integrated with the Al Qaeda elements and because they could not survive as a fighting force without them.

The imposition of a no-fly zone over Aleppo and other Al Nusra-controlled areas is increasingly seen as a life and death matter for the US-backed Islamists. As Thursday’s Senate hearing indicated, while Kerry is appealing to Russia to voluntarily stand down, there are significant elements within the US state that are calling for the imposition of the no-fly zone by force.

Gen. Dunford was asked by Mississippi Republican Senator Roger Wicker if the US could take “decisive action” in imposing a no-fly zone. Wicker indicated that he had discussed the matter with Democrats, who indicated that they would support such a venture if the US intervention were given another name.

“For now, for us to control all the airspace in Syria would require us to go to war with Syria and Russia,” Dunford replied to the Senator. “That’s a pretty fundamental decision that certainly I’m not going to make.”

Dunford’s remark provoked an intervention by the committee chairman, Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona, who pushed him to clarify that total control of the Syrian airspace would require war with Russia and Syria, while a no-fly zone could potentially be imposed short of that.

The hearing provided a chilling exposure of the discussions going on within the US state and its military over actions that could quickly spiral into an all-out confrontation with nuclear-armed Russia, bringing humanity to the brink of catastrophe.

In separate remarks the day before the Senate hearing, both Carter and Dunford stressed that the US will maintain its military deployment in the Middle East long after the defeat of ISIS, the pretext for the current interventions in Iraq and Syria.

Speaking to the Air Force Association conference, Dunford declared, “If you assume, like I do, that we’re going to be in that region, if not Iraq, for many, many years to come,” decisions would have to be taken on the establishment of permanent military headquarters and command-and-control infrastructure.

“What is obvious and very clear is that we’re going to be in that region for a while,” Carter declared in a “troop talk” streamed live on social media. He added: “ISIL is a big problem, but one we’re going to take care of through defeat. But we have Iran over there, we have other issues in the Middle East.”

In other words, Washington is planning the continuation of its unending wars in the Middle East, including military action directed against Iran, with the aim of imposing American hegemony over the region’s vast energy resources and strategically weakening the principal targets of US imperialist aggression, Russia and China.

The US has failed to fulfil its commitments in accordance with the Russia-US agreement on the cessation of hostilities in Syria. On September 19, Syrian government forces said they were pulling out of the agreement in view of multiple violations by the rebels the United States was responsible for. On September 17, the US-led coalition delivered air strikes against Syrian government forces near the eastern city of Deir ez-Zor in gross violation of the deal.

The failure to keep its side of the bargain has put into question the credibility of the United States and raised the issue of America’s future role in the post-conflict peacebuilding. With Turkey, a US NATO ally, padding its own canoe and US-supported rebels hurling insults at American special operators, the clout of the United States in Syria seems to be far from being overwhelming.

With its credibility greatly damaged, America can hardly be viewed as a reliable partner anymore.

The US is certainly not the only major player in the field. With the government of Bashar Assad firmly in power, the post-war settlement is no longer seen as a pipe dream but Washington will hardly be the one to call all the shots.

In a major policy shift, China has launched the pivot to the Middle East aimed at increasing its involvement in the region by providing military training and humanitarian aid in Syria. In April, China appointed a special envoy to Damascus in order to work toward a peaceful resolution to the conflict.

Before the assignment Chinese envoy Xie Xiaoyan had praised «Russia’s military role in the war, and said the international community should work harder together to defeat terrorism in the region».

On August 14, Rear-Admiral Guan Youfei, the head of the Office for International Military Cooperation under the Central Military Commission that oversees China’s 2.3 million-member armed forces, visited Syria to meet Syrian Defence Minister Fahd Jassim Al Freij and Russian Lieutenant-General Sergei Chvarkov, head of the ceasefire monitoring mission in Syria, as well as Russian top commanders at the Hmeimim military base on the Syrian coast. The visit marks a major milestone in the relationship to make Beijing a party to the conflict.

During the visit, China and Syria announced plans to boost military cooperation, including training and humanitarian aid, signaling stronger Chinese support for Damascus. It is the first public visit by a senior Chinese military officer to the country since the Russian armed forces launched its operation in Syria last September.

According to the Global Times, published by the Chinese Communist Party’s flagship People’s Daily, Beijing had already deployed special advisers and military personnel in Syria by the time of the historic visit and provided the Syrian military with sniper rifles and rocket launchers. No doubt, the visit was a diplomatic poke in the eye for the United States amid mounting tensions over territorial disputes in the South China Sea.

The Chinese entry into the war is caused by the increasing number of Chinese Muslim Uighur militants fighting alongside Syrian rebels in the country’s north. Rear-Admiral Guan Youfei said over 200 Uighurs was currently fighting in Syria. China wants them to be either put on trial at home or exterminated on the Syrian battlefield. Its concern is justified.

Today there is a Uyghur neighborhood in Ar-Raqqah, and the Islamic State (IS) group publishes a newspaper especially for its members. Besides, geostrategic stability in the Middle East important for the implementation of the Chinese «One Belt, One Road» strategy aimed at facilitating Eurasian economic connectivity through the development of a web of infrastructure and trade routes linking China with South Asia, Central Asia, the Middle East and Europe.

The current fracturing of the Middle East as a result of the Syrian crisis hinders the efforts to bring this project into life. Last year, China altered the national legislation to allow the deployment of its security forces abroad as part of a counterterrorism effort.

China may play a key role in Syria’s post-conflict economic recovery. Despite the war, China National Petroleum Corporation still holds shares in two of Syria’s largest oil producers: The Syrian Petroleum Company and Al-Furat Petroleum Company, while Sinochem also holds substantial shares in various Syrian oil fields. In December, China offered Syria $6 billion worth of investments in addition to $10 billion worth of existing contracts, as well as a big deal signed between the Syrian government and Chinese telecommunications giant Huawei to rebuild Syria’s telecom infrastructure as part of China’s $900 billion ‘Silk Road’ infrastructure initiative.

In March Syrian President Bashar Assad said that Russia, Iran and China will be given priority in the post-war reconstruction plans.

China is not the only world power to boost the contacts with the Syria’s government. On August 20, just six days after the Chinese top military official held talks with Syria government officials and Russian military commanders, Indian Foreign Minister Mobasher Jawed Akbar visited Damascus to demonstrate India’s support for the Syrian government in the conflict. The two countries agreed to upgrade their security consultations.

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has invited India to play an active role in the reconstruction of the Syrian economy. It should be noted that the recent trilateral meeting of the presidents of Russia, Iran and Azerbaijan has given a new impetus to the implementation of the North-South transport corridor project.

Syria is located in the proximity of this corridor which, according to the plans, is to become a center for the integration of the vast region, including the Middle East, the Caucasus, Central Asia, Russia and Northern Europe, with India joining the project.

Russia, China and India enjoy good working relations with Iran – a big regional power involved in the Syria’s conflict.

On a wider regional scale, the teaming up of the big countries does indicate how, at some point in future, a regional anti-terrorism entity or even a military block independent from the United States might emerge to counter the threat of terrorism.

The US has failed to fulfil its commitments in accordance with the Russia-US agreement on the cessation of hostilities in Syria. On September 19, Syrian government forces said they were pulling out of the agreement in view of multiple violations by the rebels the United States was responsible for. On September 17, the US-led coalition delivered air strikes against Syrian government forces near the eastern city of Deir ez-Zor in gross violation of the deal.

The failure to keep its side of the bargain has put into question the credibility of the United States and raised the issue of America’s future role in the post-conflict peacebuilding. With Turkey, a US NATO ally, padding its own canoe and US-supported rebels hurling insults at American special operators, the clout of the United States in Syria seems to be far from being overwhelming.

The US is certainly not the only major player in the field. With the government of Bashar Assad firmly in power, the post-war settlement is no longer seen as a pipe dream but Washington will hardly be the one to call all the shots.

In a major policy shift, China has launched the pivot to the Middle East aimed at increasing its involvement in the region by providing military training and humanitarian aid in Syria. In April, China appointed a special envoy to Damascus in order to work toward a peaceful resolution to the conflict.

Before the assignment Chinese envoy Xie Xiaoyan had praised «Russia’s military role in the war, and said the international community should work harder together to defeat terrorism in the region».

On August 14, Rear-Admiral Guan Youfei, the head of the Office for International Military Cooperation under the Central Military Commission that oversees China’s 2.3 million-member armed forces, visited Syria to meet Syrian Defence Minister Fahd Jassim Al Freij and Russian Lieutenant-General Sergei Chvarkov, head of the ceasefire monitoring mission in Syria, as well as Russian top commanders at the Hmeimim military base on the Syrian coast. The visit marks a major milestone in the relationship to make Beijing a party to the conflict.

During the visit, China and Syria announced plans to boost military cooperation, including training and humanitarian aid, signaling stronger Chinese support for Damascus. It is the first public visit by a senior Chinese military officer to the country since the Russian armed forces launched its operation in Syria last September.

According to the Global Times, published by the Chinese Communist Party’s flagship People’s Daily, Beijing had already deployed special advisers and military personnel in Syria by the time of the historic visit and provided the Syrian military with sniper rifles and rocket launchers. No doubt, the visit was a diplomatic poke in the eye for the United States amid mounting tensions over territorial disputes in the South China Sea.

The Chinese entry into the war is caused by the increasing number of Chinese Muslim Uighur militants fighting alongside Syrian rebels in the country’s north. Rear-Admiral Guan Youfei said over 200 Uighurs was currently fighting in Syria. China wants them to be either put on trial at home or exterminated on the Syrian battlefield. Its concern is justified.

Today there is a Uyghur neighborhood in Ar-Raqqah, and the Islamic State (IS) group publishes a newspaper especially for its members. Besides, geostrategic stability in the Middle East important for the implementation of the Chinese «One Belt, One Road» strategy aimed at facilitating Eurasian economic connectivity through the development of a web of infrastructure and trade routes linking China with South Asia, Central Asia, the Middle East and Europe.

The current fracturing of the Middle East as a result of the Syrian crisis hinders the efforts to bring this project into life. Last year, China altered the national legislation to allow the deployment of its security forces abroad as part of a counterterrorism effort.

China may play a key role in Syria’s post-conflict economic recovery. Despite the war, China National Petroleum Corporation still holds shares in two of Syria’s largest oil producers: The Syrian Petroleum Company and Al-Furat Petroleum Company, while Sinochem also holds substantial shares in various Syrian oil fields. In December, China offered Syria $6 billion worth of investments in addition to $10 billion worth of existing contracts, as well as a big deal signed between the Syrian government and Chinese telecommunications giant Huawei to rebuild Syria’s telecom infrastructure as part of China’s $900 billion ‘Silk Road’ infrastructure initiative.

In March Syrian President Bashar Assad said that Russia, Iran and China will be given priority in the post-war reconstruction plans.

China is not the only world power to boost the contacts with the Syria’s government. On August 20, just six days after the Chinese top military official held talks with Syria government officials and Russian military commanders, Indian Foreign Minister Mobasher Jawed Akbar visited Damascus to demonstrate India’s support for the Syrian government in the conflict. The two countries agreed to upgrade their security consultations.

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has invited India to play an active role in the reconstruction of the Syrian economy. It should be noted that the recent trilateral meeting of the presidents of Russia, Iran and Azerbaijan has given a new impetus to the implementation of the North-South transport corridor project.

Syria is located in the proximity of this corridor which, according to the plans, is to become a center for the integration of the vast region, including the Middle East, the Caucasus, Central Asia, Russia and Northern Europe, with India joining the project.

Russia, China and India enjoy good working relations with Iran – a big regional power involved in the Syria’s conflict.

On a wider regional scale, the teaming up of the big countries does indicate how, at some point in future, a regional anti-terrorism entity or even a military block independent from the United States might emerge to counter the threat of terrorism.

The Russian Defense Ministry also has proof the drone took off from Turkey’s Incirlik air base

Facts available to the Russian Defense Ministry prove unambiguously a US Predator drone from Turkey’s Incirlik airbase was present in the zone of attack on the UN humanitarian convoy in Syria, Gen Igor Konashenkov said on Thursday.

He said it in a comment on the claim by the Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen Joseph Dunford who told members of a Senate committee the US military did not have proof to support the suppositions that the convoy had been bombed by Russian warplanes.

Predator drone (archive)
© EPA/LT. COL. LESLIE PRATT / HANDOUT

“This hasn’t been concluded but my judgment would be they did it,” Gen Dunford said.

“Unlike the Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, we do have facts or the information from air data recorders on the situation in the Aleppo zone on September 19,” he said. “And this information proves very unambiguously a US attack drone Predator from Incirlik airbase was present in the zone of location of the humanitarian convoy near the town of Urum al-Kurba.”

“What the Chairman of the Chiefs of Staff and the U.S. Secretary of Defense have at their disposal – and it’s clear to everyone now – is their personal opinions and fear for a yet another error or a purported provocation,” Gen Konashenkov said.

“Generally speaking, if the US Army plans its combat operations and makes reports to the President on the basis of personal opinions instead of verified intelligence data, is it a surprise then that the US military regularly make the blunders, which claim the lives of hundreds of innocent people around the world?” he said.

Turkey’s President Erdogan has claimed that military operations against the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) will continue until “the very last rebel is killed.” What is puzzling about this statement is that after more than 30 years of violence that has claimed the lives of over 40,000 Turks and Kurds, Erdogan still believes he can solve the conflict through brutal force. However, he is fundamentally mistaken, as the Kurds’ long historical struggle is embedded in their psyche and provides the momentum for their quest for semi-autonomy that will endure until a mutually accepted solution is found through peaceful negotiations.

To understand the Kurds’ mindset, Erdogan will do well to revisit, however cursorily, their history and the hardship they have experienced since the end of World War I.

An independent Kingdom of Kurdistan lasted less than two years (1922-1924) before it was parceled out between what became Iraq, Iran, Turkey, and Syria, regardless of ethnicity or geographic relevance. Nevertheless, they have clung to their cultural heritage, the rejection of which by Turkey remains at the core of their grievances today.

From the time Kurdistan was dismantled, and despite the discrimination against the Kurds and the precarious environment in which they found themselves, they remained relentless in preserving their way of life, fearing that otherwise their national/ethnic identity and language will gradually fade away.

In Iraq, there are seven million Kurds (roughly 15 percent of the population). Since 1991, they have consolidated autonomous rule under American protection and now enjoy all the markers of an independent state.

In Syria, the two million Kurds (about 9 percent) have been largely politically inactive under the Assad regimes. In the past five years, they took advantage of the civil war and established a semi-autonomous region which Erdogan vehemently opposes, fearing that it could prompt Turkish Kurds to seek autonomy of their own à la the Iraqi Kurds.

The eight million Kurds in Iran (nearly 10 percent) officially enjoy political representation but have historically experienced socio-political discrimination, which emboldened the militant wing of the Kurdistan Democratic Party in Iran (KDPI) to turn to violence, making the Iranian Revolutionary Guard their main target.

Turkey houses the largest Kurdish community (15 million, approximately 18 percent). Although they are largely Sunnis like their Turkish counterparts, their national aspirations for autonomy and cultural distinction trumps their religious beliefs.

Prior to the formation of the PKK, Abdullah Öcalan and his followers raised awareness about the Kurds’ plight in Turkey through political activism throughout the 1970s. However, after becoming the target of a government crackdown, they moved toward guerilla warfare, forming the PKK in 1978 and launching its insurgency in 1984 during the premiership of Turgut Özal.

In 1999, Öcalan was arrested and sentenced to death, but under European pressure and due to the prospect of EU membership, Turkey abolished the death penalty and Öcalan’s sentence was commuted to life imprisonment. The fact that he was not executed allowed him to continue his role as a leader and assume a moderate voice, which remains essential for future negotiations.

In 2006, the imprisoned leader called for peaceful negotiations to end the conflict. His call was not heeded by Erdogan, who was unwilling to grant the Kurds any significant concessions that would allow them to enjoy their cultural tradition, including the use of the Kurdish language in their public schools and universities, and be permitted to run some of their internal affairs.

He partially relented in 2013 and granted the Kurds small concessions by increasing Kurdish-language education (only in private schools), allowing Kurdish town names, and lowering the parliamentary threshold to allow Kurdish and other smaller parties to enter parliament.

During scores of conversations I had with many Kurdish MPs and academics who have firsthand knowledge about the Kurdish problem, no one suggested that the Kurds want independence, but rather certain socio-economic and political freedoms consistent with Turkish democracy.

Conversely, Erdogan insists that the Kurds already enjoy full Turkish citizenship in a ‘democratic Turkey’ and are full-fledged Turkish nationals. He proudly points to the fact that the People’s Democratic Party (pro-Kurdish party) has 59 seats in the parliament and is part and parcel of the legislative body.

His parading of Turkish democracy, however, was nothing but empty rhetoric. In May 2016, he pushed his AK Party-controlled parliament to approve a bill to amend the constitution to strip parliamentary immunity from lawmakers, clearly aimed at Erdogan’s chief enemies, Gulenists and Kurds, paving the way for trials of pro-Kurdish legislators.

Under EU pressure, peace talks took place in late 2012, but by July 2015, the negotiations collapsed and full scale hostilities resumed between Turkish forces and the PKK, each side blaming the other for the failure of the negotiations.

This failure, though, was almost a given. The parliament was deliberately left out, the public was kept in the dark, the military had no clue about the negotiating process, and the negotiations were reduced to concerns over terrorism rather than the substance of Kurdish demands, ensuring deniability as to which side was to blame for the inevitable collapse of the negotiations.

Moreover, being that the prospect of EU membership was all but dead, Erdogan ultimately aborted the negotiations, fearing that if he provided any opening, it would encourage the Kurds to seek full autonomy as they would be emboldened by their counterparts in Syria and in particular Iraq, where they enjoy full autonomy.

In the wake of the failed military coup in July, Erdogan wasted no time in rounding up tens of thousands of people from the military, academia, think tanks, and teachers connected to the Gulen movement. He then moved on to the Kurds, believing that in so doing he will put an end once and for all to the Kurdish problem.

Only recently in the Kurdish-majority city of Diyarbakir, Prime Minister Binali Yildirim announced that around 14,000 Kurdish teachers would be suspended for having ties with the PKK.

Erdogan’s rampage against the Kurds continued in spite of the US’ and EU’s call to stop his heavy-handed approach that was arbitrary at best and an outright violation of basic human rights.

Öcalan’s recent call to engage in peace negotiations for the third time, and the PKK’s willingness to abide by his call as they have in the past, provided another opportunity to end the violence, but Erdogan refuses to heed Öcalan’s call.

Violence, however, regardless of the reason, is not acceptable, even though Erdogan is using equivalent violent measures. Regardless of how legitimate the Kurds’ grievances are, civil disobedience will ultimately be far more effective in achieving their political goals, as well as engendering international sympathy, instead of resorting to violent resistance which plays directly into Erdogan’s hand.

Even his erstwhile ally, former Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, recognized the need for Turkey to return to the peace process, but was rebuffed by Erdogan, whose national fanaticism overshadows the future stability and well-being of the country that he presumably wants to secure.

After 30 years of bloodletting, none of the prerequisites to end the conflict are present. Neither side has reached a point of exhaustion, both expect to improve their position over time, and no catastrophic event has occurred to change the dynamic of the conflict, leaving both sides fighting a protracted war that neither can win.

Erdogan will be wise to remember a popular Turkish proverb that says, “No matter how far you have gone on the wrong road, turn back.” Indeed, unless Erdogan finds a solution through negotiations, and heeds Öcalan’s renewed call for talks, the conflict will continue to fester and would doubtless outlast him as it has outlasted his predecessors.

Erdogan will not succeed in killing every PKK fighter—not only because of the nature of guerilla warfare, but primarily because of the Kurds’ determination to realize some form of semi-autonomous rule and preserve their rich culture and language that no people would sacrifice, regardless of how much pain and suffering they endure.

It is time for Erdogan to accept the reality that the solution to the Kurdish problem rests solely on peace negotiations. Anything short of that will only lead to ever more death and destruction on both sides, with no end in sight.

Dr. Alon Ben-Meir is a professor of international relations at the Centre for Global Affairs at NYU. He teaches courses on international negotiation and Middle Eastern studies.
[email protected]   Web: www.alonben-meir.com

Despite only making headlines in recent months, the economic crisis in Puerto Rico has been developing and worsening for the past several years, a crisis which has led to Puerto Rico being dubbed “the Greece of the Caribbean.”

In this interview, Déborah Berman-Santana, professor emeritus of geography and ethnic studies at Mills College in Oakland, California, analyzes the latest developments in Puerto Rico.

Berman-Santana is the author of “Kicking Off The Bootstraps: Environment, Development, and Community Power in Puerto Rico,” a detailed analysis of “Operation Bootstrap,” a post-World War II industrial program launched by the United States that was one of the very first of its kind in the world.

Speaking to MintPress News, Berman-Santana analyzes the long history of colonial exploitation of the island, how the current economic crisis developed, and why the latest “bailout” of the island is only a bailout for the vulture investors who have taken possession of much of Puerto Rico’s debt and who now have their sights set on the island’s valuable assets and resources. She also draws comparisons with the economic crisis and subsequent “bailouts” that have been seen in Greece, a country where she has spent extensive time over the past year.

MintPress News (MPN): Describe for us the history of the economic exploitation of Puerto Rico. What has the impact of colonialism been on Puerto Rico’s economic viability?

Déborah Berman-Santana (DBS): Colonies exist so that the colonizer will benefit economically and politically. Since the U.S. invaded and occupied Puerto Rico in 1898, it has extracted profit in numerous ways: First, through converting it into a sugar colony. After World War II Puerto Rico was transformed through “Operation Bootstrap” into a special economic zone to benefit U.S. corporations under the guise of “development via export-led industrialization.” As a captive market, Puerto Rico also became the home to the most Wal-Marts per square meter in the world. Finally, Puerto Rico’s colonial “neither U.S. state nor independent state” political status allowed the U.S. bond market to give special exemptions to investors, which has brought Puerto Rico to its current debt “crisis.”

During the 1930s, the anti-imperialist congressman Vito Marcantonio sponsored a study which revealed that since 1898, U.S. corporations had extracted as much as $400 billion in profits from Puerto Rico. Recently, independent researchers in Puerto Rico have estimated that since the 1950s, more than half a trillion dollars has been extracted from Puerto Rico. Both estimates encompass the free usage of Puerto Rican resources and the restriction, via U.S. cabotage laws, requiring all imports and exports to use U.S. merchant marine ships and U.S. crews. It would not be an exaggeration to say that the U.S. has taken more than a trillion dollars away from its colony, which certainly dwarfs Puerto Rico’s $73 billion public debt.

MPN: How did this ongoing exploitation contribute to the present-day “debt crisis” in Puerto Rico, and what has been the role of Washington, Wall Street, and the “vulture funds” in perpetuating this crisis?

DBS: With the eventual elimination of industrial tax incentives beginning in the 1990s, Puerto Rico’s governments increasingly looked to loans to balance its budget and continue practices of rewarding political cronies with contracts for large infrastructure projects. Subsequently, President Clinton’s elimination of the Glass-Steagall Act allowed for investment bankers to increasingly engage in bond market speculation. Puerto Rico received “triple exemption” because of its colonial status, which meant that every pension fund and every municipal and state government, among others, bought Puerto Rico bonds, ignoring the fact that its economy began shrinking once the special industrial exemptions were completely eliminated in 2006.

Election of a protégé of the Koch Brothers, Luis Fortuño, as Puerto Rico’s governor in 2008 resulted in a “bitter medicine” law that eliminated tens of thousands of public jobs, which accelerated the descent of an economic recession into a depression. By 2011 the major credit agencies began degrading Puerto Rico’s ratings, with the result that it increasingly resorted to short-term, high interest loans similar to “payday loans.” Bondholders increasingly unloaded their Puerto Rico bonds in the secondary bond market, which were then swooped up by vulture funders such as Paul Singer and John Paulson – often at 10 to 20 percent of the bond’s value. Today, these vulture funders possess up to 50 percent of Puerto Rico’s public debt, and are the creditors who are least willing to renegotiate the terms of the loans. They have been the major lobbyists for the Congressional law known as “PROMESA” that recently became law.

MPN: “PROMESA” been touted by some as a “bailout” for Puerto Rico. What does this bill mean for Puerto Rico, in your view, and what is the significance of the acronym “PROMESA”?

DBS: The new law, which President Obama signed on June 30, is entitled the “Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act” (PROMESA). In Puerto Rican popular parlance, a “promesa” is a pledge that someone makes when dealing with a family crisis. The person promises to do something for the community if the crisis is resolved. Often this is an annual fiesta, including traditional music, food and drink, and may last for decades. That the U.S. Congress would give this name to a law that strips away any pretense of self-governance, [it] has caused a tremendous amount of resentment in Puerto Rico.

This law allows President Obama to appoint a seven-member board — paid for by the Puerto Rican people — which will take control of the budget, eliminate environmental laws, dismiss public employees, abolish public agencies, cut the minimum wage by half for young workers, close schools and hospitals, increase utility bills, and cut pensions. These measures are justified by the priority of making payments on the public debt. There is no provision for economic development or restructuring of the public debt, let alone canceling it. There is no acknowledgment that such measures are likely to greatly increase emigration of working age Puerto Ricans while severely deteriorating quality of life for those who remain. Any “bailout” that might occur as a result seems directed only at the Wall Street vultures who now control most of the debt.

MPN: Much has been written about the economic crisis in Puerto Rico recently, including a report by the Committee for the Abolition of Illegitimate Debt (CADTM). What do you make of these reports, and were any Puerto Rican economists given the opportunity to provide their own input?

DBS: CADTM’s article was odd in that there did not appear to be any effort to read up or try to understand Puerto Rico, but simply to use information from Europe and change names where needed. For example, it referred to Puerto Rico as a member of the “Commonwealth of the United States,” an entity that does not exist (unlike, for example, the British Commonwealth). Puerto Rico is defined by the U.S. as a “territory belonging to, but not part of, the United States”, with not a single iota of sovereignty. A White House report on Puerto Rico in 2006 claimed that the U.S. could give Puerto Rico away to another country should it choose to do so. The term “commonwealth” is used for Puerto Rico to give the illusion that Puerto Rico achieved some form of self-governance in 1952, which resulted in the United Nations removing it from their list of colonies. There has been a movement to get Puerto Rico reinstated to that list for decades.

Another weakness of CADTM’s analysis was its use of secondary sources of statistics about Puerto Rico, such as the Pew Foundation, instead of Puerto Rico’s own government, or any of several Puerto Rican independent research institutes. Perhaps most egregious of all is that it does not mention the fact that, as a colony with no sovereignty, all of Puerto Rico’s public debt may be considered illegal. One might presume that an international organization dedicated to cancellation of debt would know that it was the successful insistence by the U.S. in 1898 that Cuba did not need to pay any of its debts because they were contracted by Spain, that helped shaped the concept of odious debt. I am not sure of the purpose of CADTM’s article — I hesitate to call it a “report” — other than to jump on the Puerto Rico misinformation bandwagon.

MPN: In what ways has the colonial administration of Puerto Rico made the island economically dependent on the United States, and how does this dependency impact the national psyche of Puerto Ricans?

DBS: There used to be a geography book, written by a North American named Muller, which was the first textbook studied in all Puerto Rican schools. The first sentence read: “Puerto Rico is a small, overpopulated, poor island, lacking in natural resources, which cannot survive without the United States.” Puerto Rico has served as a laboratory for generations of U.S. academics, most of whom were awarded government and foundation grants to prove that Puerto Rico and its people were geologically, biologically, and socially inferior. Their claims were often absurd, such as that Puerto Ricans were afraid of the sea and that there [are] hardly any fish in the surrounding Caribbean — both of which could easily be disproved — or that somehow Puerto Rico’s rich soils could not feed the population, which was not the case until most arable land was diverted to sugar cane and later covered in cement for the industrialization strategy.

Puerto Ricans were constantly told to look to the U.S. for all sources of innovation and progress, and warned that independence would be economically and socially disastrous. A favorite slogan was, “Where would we be without her?” alongside the U.S, flag. Never mind that all of the disastrous economic and social consequences about which we were warned, have occurred precisely because of our colonial relationship to the U.S. You simply cannot extract the amount of profits from a country that the U.S. has taken from Puerto Rico, plus restrict our ability to protect our own resources or capital, and expect to have a positive economic result.

MPN: Describe for us the political system of Puerto Rico, the major political parties and to what extent the island enjoys “self-governance.”

DBS: For the first 50 years after the U.S. invasion of Puerto Rico, the president named a governor and most directors of government agencies. Since the establishment of the “Associated Free State” (commonwealth) in 1952, Puerto Rico has elected its own governor and legislature, as well as a non-voting representative to the U.S. Congress. Elections are held every four years. The two majority parties are the pro-statehood New Progressive Party (PNP) and the Popular Democratic Party (PPD), which favors the current status with greater autonomy. The Puerto Rican Independence Party (PIP), once the second-largest party, has been relegated by decades of political repression and extreme factionalism among pro-independence and left organizations to the status of a small party that barely manages to elect some representatives at municipal and island-wide levels. There is also a Puerto Rican court system, using only Spanish and based on Roman law, as is true of Latin American countries, which, however, is subordinate to the English-only U.S. federal court, located in the U.S. federal building in San Juan, a concrete reinforced stronghold that is the official seat of U.S. colonial rule.

The Puerto Rican government has not had the power to truly protect local businesses against product dumping from U.S. companies, nor to make economic treaties with other countries without U.S. approval. However, it has had control over its budget and taxes, which both majority parties have used to curry political favor with contractors and corporate sponsors. This has encouraged a culture of corruption, which would appear to confirm the dominant narrative, that Puerto Ricans lack the capacity to properly govern themselves. But at no time since 1898 has any Puerto Rican government been able to exercise sovereign decision-making against the wishes of Washington. That the so-called “commonwealth” did not change its status was confirmed by two rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court in June, one of which dealt with Puerto Rico’s exemption from use of Chapter 9 bankruptcy while at the same time nixing its government’s attempt to write its own bankruptcy law. Briefly, the Supreme Court affirmed that Puerto Rico lacked even the limited sovereignty that a U.S. Indian tribe might possess, and that Puerto Rico’s constitution had about as much validity as the Puerto Rican peso had after the U.S. takeover. In addition, President Obama said that “there is no alternative” to the PROMESA bill and the imposition of a junta, which of course means that Puerto Rico’s elected government, laws, and constitution mean nothing.

MPN: What do you make of the recent visit of Bernie Sanders to Puerto Rico?

DBS: Sanders’ primary campaign strategy was to attract independents to vote for him in the primaries. Even though Puerto Ricans and other residents of U.S. colonies do not vote for president and have no voting representation in Congress, they do have delegates to the Democratic and Republican conventions and so usually hold primaries. By far the largest of the colonies in terms of population is Puerto Rico, and so Sanders’ strategy was to encourage independentistas — supporters of independence who do not vote in U.S. primaries — to vote for him. In his congressional career Sanders had never appeared to be aware of Puerto Rico’s existence, yet suddenly he was promoted as a “savior” who would decolonize Puerto Rico, all based upon his criticism of Wall Street and a supposed reputation as a “radical leftist.” Sanders never could bring himself to mention the “c” word — colony — when speaking about his country’s relationship with Puerto Rico. More than once he referred to Puerto Rico as a “protectorate,” and his harshest words accused Washington of using the PROMESA bill to “treat Puerto Rico as a colony” — without, of course, admitting that Puerto Rico already is a colony! Unfortunately, colonies foster colonized mentalities, so Sanders did manage to divideindependentistas yet again, when what is most needed at this time is unity.

Sanders introduced an alternative bill to PROMESA in the Senate after PROMESA had already been approved by the House of Representatives and endorsed by Obama, so his bill did not even get a hearing. The proposed bill itself was a hodgepodge of measures that may have been marginally better in economic terms, but it also included a section on holding yet another referendum on political status — though at least five have already been held. It provided detailed instructions on how to fast-track statehood, should that option win, but nothing about U.S. responsibility for ensuring free determination and indemnification for eventual independence. I should also add that many U.S. politicians, from George Bush and Ted Kennedy to Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, have made extravagant promises while campaigning for Puerto Rican delegates to their parties’ conventions. In sum, Sanders used Puerto Rico exactly as have other U.S. politicians before him.

MPN: How is the issue of independence viewed in Puerto Rico and how has Washington typically responded to the independence movement?

DBS: There have been independence movements in Puerto Rico ever since the 19th century, when Spain was still the colonial power. Since the 1898 invasion, Washington has combined violent repression of independence groups with selective co-option of broad sectors of Puerto Rican society, using church officials and entrepreneurs, politicians and civil society leaders to divide Puerto Ricans against each other while promoting Uncle Sam as benefactor. Neighbors were paid to spy and report on every aspect of the lives of independence supporters, while many lost their jobs or were expelled from universities. Leaders were often arrested on a variety of charges, and many served long prison sentences. Not even leaving Puerto Rico for the diaspora exempted them from persecution. For example, Oscar López Rivera is currently imprisoned, having served 35 years of a 55-year sentence for “seditious conspiracy to overthrow the U.S. government and its territories” — in other words, for struggling for Puerto Rican independence. Oscar grew up in Chicago, and has not been accused nor convicted of any violent act, yet his refusal to defend himself in a U.S. criminal court, and demand that he be tried as a political prisoner in an international tribunal helped lead to such a disproportionately long sentence.

Puerto Ricans as a whole do not support independence, at least not openly, because they have been taught that Puerto Rico has no choice but to be associated with the U.S., either as a state or in some kind of autonomous association. Yet every single environmental, social, political and cultural struggle and campaign has had independence supporters as key members. Puerto Rican pride and self-identification with a Puerto Rican nationality is much broader than open support for independence. It is obvious in sports, in music, in cultural celebrations, even in jokes and everyday life. Even many statehood supporters will often refer to Puerto Rico as their nation, as contradictory as that may sound to outsiders. Especially given the recent actions of the U.S. government — and the realization by many Puerto Ricans that Uncle Sam does not have their best interests in mind, it would be interesting to see if support for independence would increase, should a serious proposal include some indemnification by the U.S. for over a century of colonial rule.

MPN: The PROMESA bill has triggered a wave of demonstrations in Puerto Rico. How are these protests taking shape?

DBS: As soon as Obama signed the bill, a number of organizations set up a “civil disobedience encampment” in front of the main entrance to the federal building in San Juan. This is a very common feature of activism in Puerto Rico, as it serves as a semi-permanent focus for education, organizing, and resistance, and has been used to block environmentally dangerous projects as well as the U.S. Navy’s former bombing range on Vieques Island. The encampment has been continuously occupied since the end of June, and is a focus for seminars, cultural events, picketing, and “community building.” For now, the Puerto Rican police have said they do not plan to remove the protesters, although federal agents often conduct provocative actions, such as blasting diesel generators near the tents and walking bomb-sniffing dogs through the encampment.

Other protests include a massive and broad-based movement against a plan by the U.S. government to use military planes to fumigate all of Puerto Rico with dangerous pesticides, supposedly to kill mosquitos carrying the Zika virus. To this are added a large number of ongoing protests and campaigns, all of which now refer to the coming junta de control as possibly complicating even more the scenario. Activists in the large Puerto Rican diaspora also hold seminars and stage protests, many times in coordination with the groups in Puerto Rico. Of course, most Puerto Ricans are not protesters, and [they] try to go about their daily lives while listening with alarm, resignation, or both to the news. Puerto Rican activist organizations face many challenges as they try to work through decades-long factionalism and develop more effective ways to educate the public. Most of all, the challenge is to not burn out, and convince others that there is hope!

MPN: Describe the difficulties in forming alliances in Puerto Rico today, within such a fractured and divided political landscape.

DBS: Pro-independence organizations in Puerto Rico have always suffered from severe repression, including efforts by the colonizers — both Spain and the U.S. — to infiltrate and divide them. Some of the earliest campaigns by the FBI upon its establishment in 1908 included the criminalization and repression of independence activism in Puerto Rico, and such activities continue today. Recent examples include grabbing well-known activists in the street and forcing them to give DNA samples for supposed “ongoing terrorism investigations.” This operation included activists who had previously been imprisoned, and for whom the U.S. government would already have had DNA samples. This is just one example of a century-long campaign of repression that has included murders, disappearances, long incarceration, blacklisting, and spying. The Puerto Rican government has also been complicit in the criminalization of independence, including creating discord among activists and organizations.

However, we cannot simply blame outside forces for the divided state of independence and left activism. Besides the personal antagonisms — many of which are due to the same societal ills that afflict leftist organizations, such as sexism — there are also ideological disputes, such as the roles of nationalism and socialism in colonial struggles. One new political party, for example, declines to take a position on Puerto Rican political status even though most of its leaders have been identified as independentistas. They expect that by doing so they can attract pro-statehood workers to vote for them. I would argue that it would repel more statehood supporters, because they would be seen as dishonest. Of course, this divides the votes of those who no longer want to vote for the two majority parties. The Puerto Rican Independence Party is running a full slate of candidates and is trying to position itself as the alternative. But they have in the past been quite sectarian and have alienated many independentistas. Despite such divisions, we have seen many activities that include representatives of both parties, as well as other independence and left organizations. This indicates that many understand that somehow we need to overcome our divisions, if not our disagreements.

MPN: Puerto Rico has often been described as the “Greece of the Caribbean.” You have had the opportunity to visit Greece twice in the past year. How similar are the crises in the two nations in your view?

DBS: I would say they are strikingly similar, and in fact that the same playbook is being used in both countries, despite the differences between them. For example, the acronym TINA, “There Is No Alternative” to continued policies of austerity, privatization, and increased taxes in order to pay off an unsustainable public debt, is constantly repeated, as is the myth that “There is no Plan B,” and that political independence for both (in Greece’s case, leaving the European Union and the eurozone) would be disastrous — as if U.S. and EU colonial rule is not already a disaster! In Greece there is already a junta de control fiscalnamed by the EU which must approve — and often even write — laws that the Greek government must implement, such as automatic budget cuts and further privatizations. While as a classic colony Puerto Rico cannot officially deal with the IMF, in practice the PROMESA bill follows the IMF playbook, as was prescribed by “former” IMF officials who were hired by the Puerto Rican government — as ordered by their masters in Washington — to produce a report with recommendations for dealing with the debt crisis. In addition, you see “vulture capitalists” such as Paul Singer and John Paulson swooping into both Greece and Puerto Rico to buy up assets such as banks and land, plus debt — at a discount. The fact that Puerto Rico is a classic colony actually makes the problems of lack of sovereignty much clearer. Greece is still officially an independent country, so for some people its de facto colonial status may not be quite as clear. Also, the problem of equating national sovereignty with fascism is particularly acute in Greece as a European country. In Puerto Rico we have some of that confusion, but it is not as strong since in general Latin Americans, including Puerto Ricans, understand the necessity for national sovereignty as part of anti-colonial struggles.

MPN: In your view, what is the best solution for Puerto Rico and its people, economically and politically?

DBS: The international community recognizes the right of all peoples to self-determination, including freely and unilaterally choosing their political status. There are three recognized statuses: first, union with another independent state under conditions of equality; second, association with another state, with the right to unilaterally change its status; and independence. The U.S. has historically added new states whose native populations have been reduced to a small and powerless minority. The three Associated Republics of Micronesia complain of a lack of sovereignty and the unwillingness of the U.S. to renegotiate their compacts. There is zero interest in the U.S. to add a new state comprised of Spanish-speaking people with a distinctly different culture, and which additionally has a per capita income less than half of Mississippi, the poorest state in the Union. I believe that political independence represents the only possibility for Puerto Rico to exercise its sovereignty, and it should be accomplished — with international pressure — as part of a negotiation that includes indemnification for more than a century of colonial exploitation. Certainly, Puerto Rico’s colonial debt belongs to the colonizer. Far from seeing independence as “separation,” I would argue that it would actually open up Puerto Rico to the rest of the world, instead of being chained behind the iron curtain of U.S. rule. There is a saying in Latin America that its independence will not be complete without Puerto Rico, and I believe that time is now.

Washington will stop at nothing to remove Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad. There will never be peace in Syria as long as Washington and Israel continue to arm and support terrorists groups including the Islamic State, the Al-Nusra Front and other terrorist organizations to defeat the Syrian government. It is evident that Washington gave the green light for airstrikes against Syrian forces in close proximity to an army base by the al-Tharda Mountain in the Deir-ez-Zor region killing more than 62 and wounding over 100 Syrian government forces.

The airstrikes allowed ISIS to advance on an army base which was an important front against ISIS. The U.S. and Russia began a ceasefire to target ISIS and other terrorist groups but instead the U.S. decided to aid ISIS fighters by attacking Syrian government and help advance ISIS fighters.

The New York Times headline read as if it were an accident on September 17th ‘U.S. Admits Airstrike in Syria, Meant to Hit ISIS, Killed Syrian Troops’ quoted a senior Obama administration official who claimed that “its regrets to the Syrian government through the Russians for the “unintentional loss of life of Syrian forces” fighting the Islamic State.” Russia called for an emergency United Nations Security Council (UNSC) meeting which was called a “Stunt” by Samantha Power, U. S. ambassador to the United Nations.

Was it an accident? Press TV reported what Russian Ambassador to the United Nations Vitaly Churkin thought about the incident when he said “It is highly suspicious that the United States chose to conduct this particular air strike at this time.” The ceasefire was supposed to take full-effect on September 19th. “It was quite significant and not accidental that it happened just two days before the Russian-American arrangements were supposed to come into full force.” The U.S. aided ISIS fighters by hitting Syrian government targets in a strategic location already surrounded by ISIS. Churkin was correct to point out that if the U.S. had waited two days they could have conducted airstrikes on al-Nusra targets which would have been more effective:

The beginning of work of the Joint Implementation Group was supposed to be September 19. So if the US wanted to conduct an effective strike on al-Nusra or Daesh, in Dayr al-Zawr anywhere else, they could wait two more days and coordinate with our military and be sure that they are striking the right people… Instead they chose to conduct this reckless operation

U.S. airstrikes against the Syrian government forces was clearly intentional since it allowed ISIS to advance to a key position. What does not make sense is Centcom’s response to the airstrikes. The New York Times publishedCentcom’s statement claiming it was “tracking” Daesh for some time, but could not distinguish between ISIS fighters and Syrian government forces? Centcom’s response:

“Coalition forces believed they were striking a Daesh fighting position that they had been tracking for a significant amount of time before the strike,” the Centcom statement said. “The coalition airstrike was halted immediately when coalition officials were informed by Russian officials that it was possible the personnel and vehicles targeted were part of the Syrian military”

However, The Syrian government also believes that the U.S. airstrikes were intentional. The New York Times article published the Syrian government’s response:

The Syrian government insisted that the strike was not a mistake. Instead, the government said it was “a very serious and flagrant aggression” that aided the Islamic State and proved its long-held assertion that the United States supports the jihadist group as part of an effort to oust President Bashar al-Assad.

“These attacks confirmed that the U.S. clearly supports the terrorism of Daesh,” SAMA television, a state-run news outlet, said, using an Arabic acronym for the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL. The channel quoted a statement issued by the Syrian military’s general command, which said the attack exposed “false claims of fighting terrorism” by the United States

Syria Does Not Want to Be Under America’s “Sphere of Influence”

Washington wants a Syrian president that would allow Western corporations, banks to exploit Syria. Washington also wants a president that would allow its policies dominate the political landscape. Assad is not that president. Syria is not on their list of vassal states. There are several reasons to consider Washington’s motivation to remove Assad from power. First, the Republic of Iran has significant influence in the Middle East and has a strong relationship with Syria. As we know, Iran and Syria are part of the “7 countries in 5 years” plan that was admitted by a Pentagon official to former General Wesley Clark on Democracy Now that included Iraq, Sudan, Somalia, Lebanon, Libya, Syria and then the major prize, Iran. Syria, Lebanon (Hezbollah in Southern Lebanon) and Iran have not surrendered their sovereignty which is a major problem for Washington’s geopolitical blueprint.

Washington is not concerned about the Syrian people or democracy. It’s about geopolitical control over natural resources to enrich American corporations. Pipeline politics plays an important role in the Middle East. Assad refused a gas pipeline through Syria to make its way to the European Union. Pepe Escobar wrote an article in 2015 for the Strategic Culture Foundation titled ‘Syria: Ultimate Pipelineistan War’ which explains the motivations behind Washington’s call for Assad’s removal:

It all started in 2009, when Qatar proposed to Damascus the construction of a pipeline from its own North Field – contiguous with the South Pars field, which belongs to Iran – traversing Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria all the way to Turkey, to supply the EU.

Damascus, instead, chose in 2010 to privilege a competing project, the $10 billion Iran-Iraq-Syria, also know as «Islamic pipeline». The deal was formally announced in July 2011, when the Syrian tragedy was already in motion. In 2012, a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was signed with Iran. Until then, Syria was dismissed, geo-strategically, as not having as much oil and gas compared to the GCC petrodollar club. But insiders already knew about its importance as a regional energy corridor. Later on, this was enhanced with the discovery of serious offshore oil and gas potential

Oil and gas has always been a major factor for conflict in the Middle East and soon it will be water. The Middle East including Syria (crude oil, gas, iron ore, asphalt, marble etc.) has abundant natural resources and that is something Western corporations and governments will stop at nothing to gain control of.

Another important factor to consider is the fact that Syria’s central bank is state-owned and operated by the Syrian government, not the Rothschild’s banking dynasty, not Wall Street or any other member of the international banking cartel located in the U.S., U.K. and the European Union. The Syrian government issues its own interest-free currencies that help the Syria’s real economy in terms of labor and production. The Syrian government also provides “no-interest credit” to help Syrian people finance small businesses, housing, helps maintain roads and numerous other initiatives. No-interest credit and issuing currencies is an alternative to a usury-based banking system that provides high interest rate loans provided by the banking cartels (JP Morgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, the IMF, and the World Bank etc.) that accumulates massive debts which becomes impossible to repay. What happens when the debt cannot be repaid? Privatization forces the government to sell public assets for “pennies on the dollar” to pay back the debts and apply austerity measures by cutting their citizens pensions, cut social services and other benefits and an increase in taxes on almost everything including food. Leave it up to the banking cartels and you will have a country of “debt slaves”. Something Assad would wish to avoid for Syria.

Syria is also relatively “debt-free” from the claws of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) which has enslaved numerous countries. Debt is a form of control for international banking cartels as Latin America, Asia and Africa has witnessed for decades. Sovereign nations have suffered economically under IMF economic reforms.

Washington is also aiding Israel’s long-term goal of becoming the sole nuclear power in the region and is one of the only U.S. allies besides Turkey (whose relationship with Washington remains intact despite recent tensions) and the despotic regimes in the Gulf States including Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Qatar. Washington and Israel are intent on“Balkanizing” Syria for Israel’s expansion. An article written by Global Research author Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya in 2011 titled “Preparing the Chessboard for the ‘Clash of Civilizations’: Divide, Conquer and Rule the ‘New Middle East’” explains Israel’s long-term plan by breaking several Middle Eastern and North African countries into smaller and more controllable ‘nation states’ so that Israel can be the dominant power in the region. Nazemroaya wrote:

The Atlantic, in 2008, and the U.S. military’s Armed Forces Journal, in 2006, both published widely circulated maps that closely followed the outline of the Yinon Plan. Aside from a divided Iraq, which the Biden Plan also calls for, the Yinon Plan calls for a divided Lebanon, Egypt, and Syria. The partitioning of Iran, Turkey, Somalia, and Pakistan also all fall into line with these views. The Yinon Plan also calls for dissolution in North Africa and forecasts it as starting from Egypt and then spilling over into Sudan, Libya, and the rest of the region

In early 2016, The Guardian reported that Obama’s Secretary of State John Kerry suggested that Syria could be partitioned as a solution to the civil war saying “this can get a lot uglier and Russia has to be sitting there evaluating that too. It may be too late to keep it as a whole Syria if it is much longer”. Kerry’s idea of breaking-up Syria into several small states is obviously following in the footsteps of the Yinon Plan.

An ideal democracy for Washington in Syria is a “Syria without Assad”. Washington is not looking for peace in Syria unless they have someone they can manipulate politically and economically as they continue to arm and support ISIS and other terrorist organizations. That is what Syria and Russia must come to realize because any negotiations with Washington must be observed with caution. Until then, there is no peace or justice for the Syrian people and that is the reality. How far is Washington willing to go? The evidence is clear; we know that the U.S. government will do anything even if it means doing something only the criminally insane would consider and that is to arm and support terrorists for geopolitical objectives.

Our Prime Minister appears to be hell-bent on signing the CETA agreement on October 27th. If he does, and it is ratified by parliament, it will be game over for Canada. We will be doomed to another 10 years of austerity economics – or worse.

That will be the kiss of death for any worthwhile banking reform that would make Canada prosperous again, and prevent us from using the Bank of Canada creatively as we did from 1939 to 1974 with such amazing success.

click image for details

(CETA is both illegal and immoral because it unilaterally transfers power from parliament to international bankers and transnational corporations, and reverses a thousand years of progress in establishing government of by and for the people since the Magna Carta was signed).

Come and Hear THE HONOURABLE PAUL HELLYER (Former minister of national defense, and acting prime minister) Explain how the Canadian prosperity train came off the rails, and exactly how  to put it back on again.

Hon. Paul Hellyer Canadian Tour (Sept / Oct 2016)

“A Plan to Make Canada Really Prosperous Again”

Details: http://www.canadianbankreformers.ca/t…

Trudeau and Obama in Ottawa (file picture)

Here is the only SOLUTION – and YOU can help change history and bring prosperity and financial sovereignty back to the Canadian people.

The details of this solution can be found at www.canadianbankreformers.ca and is called “A Social Contract Between the Government and People of Canada.”

PLEASE – Send the Prime Minister a letter, not an e-mail, a real letter (thousands of them) casting your vote:

“Yes” to The Social Contract that would rejuvenate the Canadian economy and restore power to the people, and a resounding “No” to CETA and its big brother the

TPP. And send this message on to everyone you know, and ask them to do the same. Every person we neglect to involve is a vote for the rich elite.

And students, that means you, too. You have the most to gain because your whole lives are ahead of you, and this battle between a good or mediocre future is yours to win or lose. You may never get a second chance!

Address your letter to:
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau
House of Commons
Ottawa, ON K1A 0A6
No postage is required

Hon. Paul Hellyer Canadian Tour (Sept / Oct 2016)
Details: http://www.canadianbankreformers.ca/t…

A state supreme court has now ruled black men have every reason to run from the cops — and their fleeing cannot be considered a suspicious act.

According to a ruling by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, because black men have a legitimate reason to run from police, thus, fleeing should not be deemed suspicious.

In its decision to overturn the gun conviction against Jimmy Warren on Tuesday, the high court considered data from the Boston police’ Field Interrogation and Observation study as well as a study by the American Civil Liberties Union on the city’s stop and frisk program, both of which found Boston police disproportionately stop African Americans.

Chicago police officers. (photo: AFP/Getty)

“Warren was arrested on December 18, 2011, by police who were investigating a break-in in Roxbury,” WBUR reports. “Police had been given a description of the suspects as three black men — one wearing a ‘red hoodie,’ one wearing a ‘black hoodie,’ and the other wearing ‘dark clothing.’ An officer later spotted Warren and another man (both wearing dark clothing) walking near a park. When the officer approached the men, they ran. Warren was later arrested and searched. No contraband was found on him, but police recovered an unlicensed .22 caliber firearm in a nearby yard. Warren was charged with unlawful possession of a firearm and later convicted.”

Not only did police not have the right to stop Warren in the first place, but his flight from officers should not have been used against him, the court found.

According to the justices, Boston Police Officer Luis Anjos could not possibly have “reasonably and rationally” suspected Warren to be the prowler, for several reasons, including the time and location of their encounter. But more pertinently, the “vague” description given to Anjos nullified the “hunch” he had Warren should be stopped. Writes the court:

Lacking any information about facial features, hair styles, skin tone, height, weight, and other physical characteristics, the victim’s description ‘contribute[d] nothing to the officer’s ability to distinguish the defendant from any other black male’ wearing dark clothes and a ‘hoodie’ in Roxbury […]

With only this vague description, it was simply not possible for the police reasonably and rationally to target the defendant or any other black male wearing dark clothing as a suspect in the crime.

Beyond the unjustifiable stop, the court reiterated Massachusetts state law does not obligate people to speak with police — and if they have not been charged, they have the right to walk away. When an individual does flee, that action, in itself, cannot be conflated with guilt.

“[W]e perceive a factual irony in the consideration of flight as a factor” in determining reasonable suspicion, the ruling states, because, of course, reasonable suspicion could not possibly have been established.

Also, the justices felt reports from the Boston police and ACLU “documenting a pattern of racial profiling of black males in the city” must be considered with other circumstances.

We do not eliminate flight as a factor in the reasonable suspicion analysis whenever a black male is the subject of an investigatory stop. However, in such circumstances, flight is not necessarily probative of a suspect’s state of mind or consciousness of guilt. Rather, the finding that black males are disproportionately and repeatedly targeted for FIO [Field Interrogation and Observation] encounters suggests a reason for flight totally unrelated to consciousness of guilt.

Black men, the court essentially determined, are tired but aware of constant police harassment and being targeted purely for the color of their skin.

Such an individual, when approached by police, might just as easily be motivated by the desire to avoid the recurring indignity of being racially profiled as by the desire to hide from criminal activity. Given this reality for black males in the city of Boston, a judge should, in appropriate cases, consider the report’s findings in weighing flight as a factor in the reasonable suspicion calculus.

Telling though the court’s ruling may be on endemic racism in the city’s police department, if not its inability to reform itself, Boston Police Commissioner Bill Evans excoriated the justices for factoring in the ACLU report, and characterized the decision as “heavily tainted against the police department.”

“I think they relied heavily on the ACLU report that I think was clearly out of context,” Evans was quoted by WBUR telling reporters Tuesday. “I’m a little disappointed that they relied heavily on a report that didn’t take into context who was stopped and why. That report clearly shows that we were targeting the individuals that were driving violence in the city and the hot spots.”

But the ACLU understandably felt quite differently.

“The state’s highest court, in talking about people of color, it’s saying that their lives matter and under the law, their views matter,” asserted Matthew Segal, legal director for the ACLU of Massachusetts, reports WBUR. “The reason that’s significant is that all the time in police-civilian encounters there are disputes about what is suspicious and what is not suspicious. So this is an opinion that looks at those encounters through the eyes of a black man who might justifiably be concerned that he will be the victim of profiling.”

Perhaps, if departments across the country — and the Justice Department, itself — fail to remedy the epidemic of police violence and racism, courts will intervene in favor of the wrongly accused more often. If cases like Warren’s are more frequently tossed out, perhaps police really will begin to reform themselves.

In the meantime, black men in Massachusetts have been given quite the reprieve — they can run from the cops who unjustly target them without worrying about inappropriate repercussions.

The country’s top white collar crime expert, William Black – who put over 1,000 top S&L executives in jail for fraud, and is a  professor of law and economics at the University of Missouri – confirmed recently what the alternative media has been saying for years:  the business plan of Wall Street is fraud. That’s their key profit center.

Black also says that a British parliamentary investigation Tories found that all of the retail profits of the largest banks in the UK came from fraud.

Indeed, the big banks manipulate every single market … and routinely engage in criminal acts.

Who cares?

Well, experts say that we have to prosecute fraud or else the economy won’t EVER really recover and stabilize.

But the government is doing the exact opposite. Indeed, the Justice Department has announced it will go easy on big banks, and always settles prosecutions for pennies on the dollar (a form of stealth bailout. It is also arguably one of the main causes of the double dip in housing.)

Indeed, the government doesn’t even force the banks to admit any criminal guilt as part of their settlements. In fact:

“The banks have been allowed to investigate themselves,” one source familiar with the investigation told Reuters. “The investigated decide what they want to investigate, what they admit to, and how much they will pay.

Manipulation of public perception has risen to a new level with the emergence of powerful social media. Facebook, Twitter and Google are multibillion dollar corporate giants hugely influencing public understanding. 

Social media campaigns include paid ‘boosting’ of Facebook posts, paid promotion of Tweets, and biased results from search engines. Marketing and advertising companies use social media to promote their clients.  U.S. foreign policy managers hire these companies to influence public perception to support U.S. foreign policy goals. For example, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made sure that Twitter was primed for street protests in Iran following the 2009 election. She insured that Twitter was ready to spread and manage news of protests following the election and strange killing of a young woman. (p 423, Hard Choices hardback).

The results of media manipulation can be seen in the widespread misunderstanding of the conflict in Syria. One element of propaganda around Syria is the demonization of the Syrian government and leadership. Influenced by the mainstream and much alternative media, most in the West do not know that Bashar al Assad is popular with most Syrians. There were three contestants in the Syrian presidential election of June 2014. Turnout was 73% of the registered voters, with 88% voting for Assad.  In Beirut, the streets were clogged with tens of thousands of Syrian refugees marching through the city to vote at the Syrian Embassy.  Hundreds of Syrian citizens from the USA and other western countries flew to Syria to vote because Syrian Embassies in Washington and other western capitals were shut down. While John Kerry was condemning the Syrian election as a “farce” before it had even happened, a marketing company known as The Syria Campaign waged a campaign to block knowledge of the Syrian election.  Along with demonizing President Assad, they launched a campaign which led to Facebook censoring information about the Syrian election.

The Syria Campaign was created by a larger company named “Purpose”. According to their own website they “incubated” The Syria Campaign.

The major achievement of The Syria Campaign has been the branding and promotion of the “White Helmets”. The “White Helmets”, also known as “Syria Civil Defense”, began with a British military contractor, James LeMesurier, giving some rescue training to Syrians in Turkey. Funding was provided by the US and UK. They appropriated the name from a real Syria Civil Defense.

The “White Helmets” are marketed in the West as civilian volunteers doing rescue work. On 22 September 2016 it was announced that the Right Livelihood Award , the so called “Alternative Nobel Prize”, is being given to the US/UK created White Helmets “for their outstanding bravery, compassion and humanitarian engagement in rescuing civilians from the destruction of the Syrian civil war.”

The Right Livelihood organizers may come to regret their selection of the White Helmets because the group is not who they claim to be. In fact, the White Helmets are largely a propaganda tool promoting western intervention against Syria. Unlike a legitimate rescue organization such as the Red Cross or Red Crescent, the “White Helmets” only work in areas controlled by the armed opposition. As shown in this video, the White Helmets  pick up the bodies of individuals executed by the terrorists,  they claim to be unarmed but are not, and they falsely claim to be neutral. Many of the videos from AlQaeda/terrorist dominated areas of Syria have the “White Helmets” logo because the White Helmets work in alliance with them. This primarily a media marketing tool to raise public support for continuing the support to the armed opposition as well as the demonization of the Syrian government.

The Rights Livelihood press release says the White Helmets “remain outspoken in calling for an end to hostilities in the country.” That is false. The White Helmets actively call for US/NATO intervention through a “No Fly Zone” which would begin with attacks and destruction of anti-aircraft positions. Taking over the skies above another country is an act of war as confirmed by US General Dempsey. The White Helmets have never criticized or called for the end of funding to extremist organizations including Nusra/AlQaeda. On the contrary, White Helmets is generally embedded with this organization which is defined as “terrorist” by even the USA.  That is likely why the head of the White Helmets, Raed Saleh, was denied entry to the USA.

The foreign and marketing company origins of the White Helmets was exposed over one and a half years ago.  Since then, Vanessa Beeley has revealed the organization in more depth in articles such as Who Are the White Helmets? and War by Way of Deception.

Despite these exposes, understanding of the White Helmets is limited. Many liberal and progressive people have uncritically accepted the propaganda and misinformation around Syria. Much of the progressive media has effectively blocked or censored critical examinations amid a flood of propaganda about “barrel bombs” dropped by the ‘brutal dictator” and his “regime”.

In the last week, Netflix started showing a 40 minute documentary movie about the “White Helmets”. It is actually a promotion video. A substantial portion of it takes place in Turkey where we see trainees in hotel rooms making impassioned phone calls to inquire about their family in Syria.  The “family values” theme is evident throughout. It’s a good marketing angle, especially effective with females.  The political message of the video is also clear: after a bombing attack “It’s the Russians …. they say they are fighting ISIS but they are targeting civilians”. The movie includes video previously promoted by the White Helmets such as the “Miracle Baby” rescue.  It’s debatable whether this incident is real or staged. The video includes self promoting proclamations such as “You are real heroes”.  While no doubt there are some real rescues in the midst of war, many of the videos purporting to show the heroes at work have an unrealistic and contrived look to them as revealed here.

“Alternative media” in the West has sadly echoed mainstream media regarding the Syria conflict. The result is that many progressive individuals and groups are confused or worse. For example the activist group CodePink recently issued a media release promoting the Netflix White Helmets propaganda video.

The White Helmets video is produced by Grain Media and Violet Films/Ultra-Violet Consulting. The latter advertises itself as a marketing corporation specializing in social media management, grant writing, crowd building and campaign implementation. The only question is who paid them to produce this video.

There is growing resistance to this manipulation and deception. In response to a petition to give the Nobel Peace Prize to the White Helmets, there is a counter petition at Change.org.  The Right Livelihood Awards have just been announced and there will soon be a petition demanding retraction of the award to the White Helmets.

The story of the White Helmets is principally a “feel good” hoax to manipulate public perception about the conflict in Syria and continue the drive for “regime change”. That’s why big money was paid to “Purpose” to “incubate” The Syria Campaign to brand and promote the White Helmets using Facebook, Twitter, etc..  That’s why big money was paid to create a self-promotional documentary.  The judges at Rights Livelihood were probably influenced by the documentary since critical examination of facts around Syria is so rare.  It’s a sad commentary on the media. As Stephen Kinzer recently said,

“Coverage of the Syrian war will be remembered as one of the most shameful episodes in the history of the American press.”  

Rick Sterling is an investigative journalist and member of Syria Solidarity Movement

The International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) has come in for criticism due to its lack of attention to the detrimental effects of wars and military operations on nature. Considering the degree of harm to the environment coming from these human activities, one would think that the organization might have set aside some time at its World Conservation Congress this past week in Hawaii to specifically address these concerns.

Yet, of the more than 1,300 workshops crammed into the six-day marathon environmental meeting in Honolulu, followed by four days of discussion about internal resolutions, nothing specifically addressed the destruction of the environment by military operations and wars.

Protest sign urging global conservation meeting to address the environmental damage from U.S. military bases. (Photo by Ann Wright)

At a presentation at the USA Pavilion during the conference, senior representatives of the U.S. Army, U.S. Air Force and U.S. Navy regaled the IUCN audience of conservationists with tales about caring for the environment, including protecting endangered species, on hundreds of U.S. military bases in the United States.The heavy funding the IUCN gets from governments is undoubtedly the rationale for not addressing this “elephant in the room” at a conference for the protection of the endangered planet – a tragic commentary on a powerful organization that should acknowledge all anti-environmental pressures.

The presenters did not mention what is done on the over 800 U.S. military bases outside of the United States. In the one-hour military style briefing, the speakers failed to mention the incredible amounts of fossil fuels used by military aircraft, ships and land vehicles that leave mammoth carbon footprints around the world. Also not mentioned were wars that kill humans, animals and plants; military exercise bombing of entire islands and large swaths of land; and the harmful effects of the burn pits which have incinerated the debris of war in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Each military service representative focused on the need for training areas to prepare the U.S. military to “keep peace in the world.”  Of course, no mention was made of “keeping the peace” through wars of choice that have killed hundreds of thousands of persons, animals and plants, and the bombing of the cultural heritage in many areas around the world including Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Pakistan, Libya, Yemen and Somalia.

Miranda Ballentine, Air Force Assistant Secretary for Installations, the Environment and Energy, said the U.S. Air Force has over 5,000 aircraft, more than all the airlines in the United States — yet she never mentioned how many gallons of jet fuel are used by these aircraft, nor how many people, animals and cultural sites the aircraft have bombed.

To give one some idea of the scale of the footprint of U.S. military bases, Ballentine said Air Force has over 160 installations, including 70 major installation covering over 9 million square miles of land, larger than the country of Switzerland, plus 200 miles of coastland.

Incredibly, Ballentine said that due to commercial development around military bases, military bases have become “islands of conservation” — conservation takes place inside the protected base while there are larger conservation issues outside the fence lines of the bases.

Adding to the mammoth size of the military base footprint, Dr. Christine Altendorf, the regional director of the U.S. Army’s Installation Management Command of the Pacific, said U.S. Army bases have 12.4 million acres of land, including 1.3 million acres of wetlands, 82,605 archeological sites, 58,887 National Historical Landmarks and 223 endangered species on 118 installations.

The U.S. Navy’s briefer, a Navy Commander, added to the inventory of military equipment, saying the Navy has 3,700 aircraft; 276 ships, including 10 aircraft carriers; 72 submarines. Seventy naval installations in the United States have 4 million acres of land and 500 miles of coastline. The Navy presenter said the Navy has never heard of a marine mammal that has been harmed by U.S. Naval vessels or acoustic experiments in the past ten years.

Only One Question

At the end of the three presentations, there was time for only one question — and luckily, my intense hand waving paid off and I got to ask: “How can you conserve nature when you are bombing nature in wars of choice around the world, practicing military operations in areas that have endangered species like on the islands of Oahu, Big Island of Hawaii, Pagan, Tinian, Okinawa and bombing islands into wastelands like the Hawaiian island of Koho’olawe and the Puerto Rican island of Vieques  and now you want to use the North Marianas ‘Pagan’ Island as a bombing target. And how does the construction of the new South Korean naval base in pristine marine areas of Jeju Island that will be used by the U.S. Navy and the proposed construction at Henoko of the runways into the pristine Oura Bay in Okinawa fit into conservation of nature?”

A crater that was created on the Hawaiian island of Koho’olawe from massive explosions of TNT in 1965. (Photo from Hawaii Archive)

The Navy representative was the only person to respond to my question. He reiterated the national security necessity for military exercises to practice to “defend peace around the world.” To his credit, he acknowledged the role the public has in commenting on the possible impact of military exercises. He said that over 32,000 comments from the public have been made on the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of the possibility of artillery firing and aircraft bombing of the Northern Marianas island of Tinian — that has only 2,300 inhabitants.Interestingly, in the large audience of approximately 100 people, not one of them applauded the question indicating that either audience was composed primarily of Department of Defense employees, or that the conservationists are uneasy about confronting the U.S. government and particularly the U.S. military about its responsibility for its large role in the destruction of much of the planet’s environment.

Despite all odds, someone in Hawaii was able to get an exhibit of photographs of the cleanup of Koho’olawe placed on the third floor of the Hawaii Convention Center. There was no sign announcing the exhibition, just a series of photos with some explanation. In five days of attending the conference, I observed that 95 percent of the conference attendees who walked past the exhibition did not stop to look at it – until I stopped them and explained what it was about. Then, they were very interested.

From 1941 to 1990, the island of Koho’olawe was used as a bombing range for U.S. military aircraft and naval vessels. One photograph in the exhibition showed the crater called “Sailor’s Hat” which was made by several massive explosions of TNT in 1965 to recreate and study the effects of large explosions on nearby ships and personnel to simulate in some manner the effects of a nuclear explosion. The crater affected the island’s fresh water aquifer and now no artesian water remains on the island.

After Hawaiians stopped the bombing through their protests and by staying on the island during bombings from the 1970s, the U.S. Navy returned Koho’olawe to the State of Hawaii in 2004 after a 10-year clean-up process. But only 66 percent of the surface has been cleared of unexploded ordnance (UXO), and only 10 percent cleared to a depth of 4 feet. Twenty-three percent of the surface remains uncleared and 100 percent of the waters surrounding the island have not been cleared of UXO, putting divers and ships at risk. 

Okinawan Environmental Activists

Environmental activists from Okinawa had a booth at the IUCN at which they told about the attempt of the U.S. military and the national Japanese government to construct a runway complex into Oura Bay, a pristine marine area that that is the home of the protected species of marine mammal, the dugong.

The Deputy Governor of Okinawa and the Mayor of Nago city, Okinawa, both of whom have been key figures in the grassroots campaign to stop the construction of the runways and the lawsuits filed by the provincial government of Okinawa against the federal Japanese government, gave presentations about the citizens’ struggle against the construction of the runways.

However, there was no mention of the environmental effects on the marine environment from the construction of a huge new naval base on Jeju Island, South Korea, the site of the previous IUCN conference four years ago. At that conference, IUCN, no doubt at the request of the South Korean government, refused to allow citizen activists to have a booth inside the convention or make presentations like the Okinawans did this year. As a result, the Jeju Island campaigners were forced to stay outside the conference site.

Four years later in the 2016 WCC conference in Hawaii, the Government of Japan and the Province of Jeju Island sponsored a large multi-media pavilion about Jeju island which did not mention the construction of the new naval base and the destruction of the cultural heritage of the site nor the displacement of women divers who had dived at the location for generations.

On Sept. 3, local groups in Honolulu came to the Hawaii Convention Center with signs to remind the IUCN of the U.S. militarization of Asia and the Pacific. Signs and posters from local environmentalists cited the environmental impact from the huge 108,863-acre Pohakuloa bombing range on the Big Island of Hawaii, the largest U.S. military installation in the Pacific; the Aegis missile test center on the island of Kauai; and the four large U.S. Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine bases on the island of Oahu.

Other signs referenced the extensive number of U.S. military bases in Japan, Okinawa, South Korea, Guam and new U.S. military installations in the Philippines and Australia.

Ann Wright served 29 years in the US Army/Army Reserves and retired as a Colonel.  She also served 16 years as a US diplomat in US Embassies in Nicaragua, Grenada, Somalia, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Sierra Leone, Micronesia and Mongolia.  She was on the small team that reopened the US Embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan in December 2001.  She resigned from the US Department of State in March 2003 in opposition to the war on Iraq 

Informed sources told the Arabic-language Hadas News website that they have corroborative evidence indicating that Ahrar al-Sham terrorists intend to launch a false-flag operation in civilian areas to accuse the Syrian government of launching chemical attacks on the country’s civilian population.

They said Ahrar al-Sham has hidden phosphorous munitions in the Northern part of the city of Saraqib in Idlib province, some 20 kilometers from the city of Idlib.

On Tuesday, nearly 70 members of Fatah al-Sham Front (the newly-formed al-Qaeda-affiliated terrorist group previously known as the al-Nusra Front) defected the terrorist group in Southern Idlib.

The militants were trying to flee towards the Eastern parts of Hama to join the ISIL but they were arrested by Fatah al-Sham security forces in Southern Idlib and were transferred to prison, field sources said on Tuesday.

On Saturday, the Syrian military aircraft dropped leaflets over the terrorist-held regions in Idlib province, calling on the militants to surrender or wait for the army’s massive attacks soon.

The Syrian army aircraft dropped leaflets reading “Surrender Now” over Jisr al-Shoghour city to give the Takfiri terrorists a last chance to lay down their arms and surrender to the authorities.

Military sources said that hundreds of leaflets have been dropped over Jisr al-Shoghour for several times now.

Reports said on Friday that the Syrian fighter jets pounded the strongholds of Fatah al-Sham in Southern Idlib, destroying the infrastructures of the militants’ sites in large scale.

Syrian warplanes bombed Fatah al-Sham’s positions in al-Tamana and Khan Seikhoun, inflicting dozens of casualties on the militants and destroying their equipment and weapons.

Speaking before a United Nations Security Council meeting on Syria Wednesday, US Secretary of State John Kerry demagogically blamed Russia and the government of President Bashar al-Assad for the escalating violence that has left a ceasefire reached earlier this month in tatters.

Kerry also demanded the imposition of a de facto “no fly” zone over areas controlled by US-backed Islamist “rebels,” including those affiliated with Al Qaeda, under the pretext of assuring delivery of humanitarian aid and reviving the ceasefire.

“I believe that to restore credibility to the process, we must move forward to try to immediately ground all aircraft flying in those key areas in order to deescalate the situation and give a chance for humanitarian assistance to flow unimpeded,” Kerry told the Security Council meeting.

The Syrian government declared the ceasefire ended on Monday after reporting 300 violations by the Western-backed Islamist “rebels” and in the wake of the US bombing of a Syrian army outpost near the Deir al-Zor airport in eastern Syria on Saturday that killed as many as 90 soldiers and wounded another 100.

US officials have claimed that the attack was a mistake, while Damascus has pointed out that it was immediately followed by an assault on the position by fighters of the Islamic State (also known as ISIS), charging that the air and ground actions were coordinated. Deir al-Zor occupies a strategic position on the highway leading from Syria to Iraq and onto Iran.

The US airstrike was followed on Monday by an attack on a UN aid convoy in the town of Urum al-Kubra in northern Aleppo that left 20 people dead and 18 trucks bearing relief supplies destroyed. Washington immediately charged, without presenting any evidence, that either Russia or the Syrian government was responsible. Kerry and other US officials are now invoking the attack as a means of vilifying Moscow and pressing for new concessions.

Blaming Russia and the Assad government for Monday’s attack, Kerry claimed that it “raises a profound doubt about whether Russia and the Assad regime can or will live up to the obligations that they agreed to in Geneva.”

Speaking earlier, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov described the attack on the aid convoy as “an unacceptable provocation,” and called for a “thorough and impartial” investigation to determine who was responsible. He repeated previous statements by Russian military officials that no Russian warplanes had been in the vicinity of the attack, adding that the Syrian air force was not capable of carrying out such an airstrike at night. He pointed out that the attack on the convoy coincided with a “rebel” offensive in the same area.

Russian military officials, meanwhile, reported Wednesday that a US Predator drone, capable of firing multiple air-to-surface missiles, was seen flying over the aid convoy at the time of the attack. Earlier, the Russian Defense Ministry released an aerial video showing that the aid convoy had been accompanied by a “rebel” truck towing a large-caliber mortar launcher, which subsequently disappeared from view.

In his statement to the Security Council, Lavrov also insisted that there could be no more “unilateral” cessations of hostilities in Syria. Russia has charged that the US-backed Islamists never accepted the ceasefire and continued to carry out attacks on government positions after it went into effect on September 12.

Speaking before the same Security Council meeting, Syria’s ambassador to the UN Bashar al-Jaafari vowed that his country “will not become another Libya or Iraq,” and stated that his government was prepared “to reach a political solution that is decided by the Syrians”

While Kerry claimed that his proposed “no-fly” zone is meant to prevent the Syrian government from attacking “civilian targets with the excuse that it is just going after Nusra,” from the standpoint of Washington’s aims, the exact opposite is the case.

As with its support for the ceasefire itself, Washington is invoking humanitarian concerns for civilians trapped in areas controlled by the Al Nusra Front and similar Al Qaeda-linked militias in order to bring a halt to Syrian military operations against these forces and thereby allow them to rearm, regroup and resume an offensive against the Assad government.

The Syrian ceasefire has been the subject of bitter divisions within the Obama administration, with the Pentagon and top uniformed commanders in the Middle East calling into question whether the military would even obey orders to implement the deal.

Those most heavily involved in the US-orchestrated war for regime change in Syria, particularly elements within the CIA, have opposed the agreement because it calls upon Washington to oversee the separation of the so-called “moderate opposition” that it has paid and armed from Al Qaeda-linked forces like the Al Nusra front that are formally designated as “terrorists.” In the week following the ceasefire’s initiation, there was no sign of these “moderates” distancing themselves from the Al Qaeda elements. Such a separation is opposed by Washington’s “rebels” because Nusra represents the most significant armed group fighting the Syrian government.

Even more importantly for the Pentagon, the ceasefire’s call for the establishment of a joint operations center with Russia to share intelligence and targeting information would cut across the US military’s escalating preparations for war with Russia itself. The bombing of the Syrian army position on Saturday, followed by the attack on the aid convoy on Monday, served to squelch this proposal.

Amid the diplomatic sparring between the US and Russia at the United Nations, there were multiple signs that the conflict in Syria is on the brink of a dangerous escalation, carrying with it the threat of a wider and even world war.

The US is considering a plan to begin directly arming the Syrian Kurdish fighters of the YPG (People’s Protection Units), according to unnamed officials quoted in a report published Wednesday in the New York Times. US special forces units have already been deployed alongside the Kurdish fighters and Washington has been at least indirectly arming them by feeding weapons to a smaller Syrian Arab militia force that fights alongside the YPG.

Nonetheless, the plan, which is reportedly under discussion in the US National Security Council, would represent an escalation of the US utilization of the Kurdish militia as a proxy force in its campaign against ISIS. It would also deepen tensions between Washington and the Turkish government of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, which launched its own military incursion into Syria last month.

Operation Euphrates Shield, as the Turkish invasion of Syria has been dubbed, now also counts with a US special operations “advise and assist” mission. As the primary strategic goal of Ankara’s intervention is to prevent Kurdish forces from consolidating an autonomous entity on Turkey’s border, US special forces could end up facing each other on opposite sides of the battlefield.

Before leaving for the UN General Assembly meeting in New York City, Erdogan told reporters that the Turkish intervention had “cleared” an area of 900 square kilometers (about 350 square miles) of “terrorists,” by which he meant both ISIS and the Kurdish YPG. He added, “We may extend this area to 5,000 square kilometers as part of a safe zone.” Such an intervention would require the deployment inside Syria of thousands of Turkish troops.

Meanwhile, the Russian Defense Ministry announced Wednesday that the Russian navy’s flagship aircraft carrier, the Admiral Kuznetsov, is being deployed to the eastern Mediterranean to participate in military operations in Syria.

Shimon Peres had a severe stroke two days ago and while his health has improved since he entered the hospital, at age 93, he is in the twilight of his years.  It’s appropriate to take stock of his legacy as an epochal figure who spans the founding of the State to the present day.  I can’t think of another active Israeli politician with that length of service or span of history.

When Peres dies, an entire nation will mourn him as a founding father of the state.  Someone who served it faithfully and diligently for nearly seven decades.  The accolades will pour forth.  Newscasters will show historic footage of him with his political mentor, David Ben Gurion, and intone solemnly about the deeds of the Great Man.

But, as is often the case in these matters, the truth lies elsewhere.  Peres began his career as Ben Gurion’s errand boy.  He was diligent and inventive.  What the boss needed done, he always figured out a way to accomplish.  Eventually became his chief fixer.  That’s how he was assigned the monumental task of getting Israel the Bomb.  Such a task is no small feat and it required immense amounts of grit, determination, invention, and even outright thievery.  Peres was more than up to the task.

Uncensored version of Wall story which describes Peres’ bluff which enabled French to circumvent international nuclear prohibition against selling uranium to Israel

From almost the first moment after the State was founded Ben Gurion aspired to create a nuclear weapon.  He saw it as his Doomsday device.  The ace he could draw from the deck if all the cards were stacked against him.  Though Israel’s actual strategic strength was quite robust, Ben Gurion suggested otherwise.  In a famous episode of that era, he’s reputed to have looked at a map of the Middle East spread upon the wall of his study and exclaimed to those around him: “I didn’t sleep a wink last night because of this map.  What is Israel?  A single tiny speck.  How can it survive amidst this Arab world?!”

This was part and parcel of the Israeli strategy of portraying itself as the eternal victim, the weaker party to every conflict, who required moral and military support to prevent its destruction.  None of it was true.  But in the aftermath of the Holocaust, the world felt it couldn’t to take a chance that it might happen again.  That’s how Israel became little David to the Arab Goliath in the eyes of much of the world after 1948.

Though the conventional Israeli belief is that Israel’s  WMD was meant to protect Israel from imminent destruction should  it suffer a catastrophic defeat, that theory is wrong either in whole or in part.  In actuality, Israel never faced such a threat.  It always maintained military superiority over its enemies in every war from 1948 through 1967 (and after).

Ben  Gurion’s real goal in obtaining nukes was political.  He wanted to ensure Israel would never have to negotiate away the gains it made on the battlefield.  He wanted a weapon he could hold over the heads of any enemy, that would ensure he never had to renounce anything that was rightfully Israel’s (in his mind at least).  So Israel’s Bomb has enabled it to reject virtually every peace initiative offered going all the way back to 1967.  Israel’s leaders knew that the U.S. would never gamble that it wouldn’t use WMD if it had to.  So American presidents already had one hand tied behind their backs in such negotiations.  In a card game, when one party holds the ace of spades in his pocket and everyone else playing knows this, it’s not much of a game, is  it?

Israeli Opponents of the Bomb

It would be a misnomer to believe that Ben Gurion and Peres were lionized by their peers for their visionary project.  Opposition to an Israeli Bomb was strong and crossed party lines.   Among those who were against were future prime minister Levi Eshkol, Pinchas Sapir, Yigal Alon, Golda Meir, and Israel’s leading weapons developer, Yisrael Galili.  Even then IDF chief of staff Chaim Leskov opposed the Bomb.  Prof. Yeshayahu Leibowitz, in his typically prophetic fashion created an NGO that called for making the Middle East a nuclear-free zone (it was called in Hebrew “the Public Committee to Demilitarize the Middle East of Nuclear Weapons”).  It was probably the first such call anywhere in the world.  In one matter, he turned out to be wrong.  He predicted that by building the nuclear reactor Israel would tempt its enemies to bomb and destroy it.  Afterward, Lebowitz predicted, they would call Dimona: “Shimon’s Folly.”

The sheer chutzpah that Peres employed to get what he wanted was astonishing.  He played on the heartstrings of German guilt to obtain funding for the  nuclear arms project.  He recruited Arnon Milchanas a covert operative to organize a conspiracy to steal highly enriched uranium from the U.S. depository where it was stored.  Peres negotiated with the French a complex deal to build the Dimona plant, which to this day produces the plutonium for Israel’s WMD arsenal.

The defense ministry director general traveled extensively to France in those days and cultivated the entire political leadership in pursuit of the necessary agreements to build the Dimona plant.  On the very day he flew to France to sign the final deal, the government in Paris fell.  Though Ben Gurion saw Peres’ trip as wasted, the latter refused to give up.  He went to the resigning prime minister and suggested that they back-date the agreement to make it appear as if it had been signed before the resignation.  The French leader agreed.  And so, Israel’s Bomb was saved by an audacious bluff.  When someone asked Peres afterward how he thought he could get away with such a stratagem, he joked: “What’s 24 hours among friends?”

Peres facilitated outright theft as well.  If Israel waited to produce the highly enriched uranium it would need to create a Bomb on its own, it would’ve taken years longer than it did.  If it could procure the uranium by other means it would immensely speed the process.  That’s how the father of the Israeli Bomb recruited future Hollywood film producer Milchan to steal hundreds of kilos of nuclear materials from a warehouse in Pennsylvania with the connivance of American officials who were pro-Israel Jews recruited to the task.

Roger Mattson recently published a book on the subject, Stealing the Atom Bomb: How Denial and Deception Armed Israel.  This article summarizes his findings. Among them, are that a group of American Jewish scientists and engineers founded the company which likely embezzled and transferred to Israel enough material to make six nuclear bombs. Several officers of this company later became national officers in the Zionist Organization of America. A founder of the company fought in the Haganah during the 1948 War and was a protege of future Israeli intelligence chief, Meir Amit. Key figures in U.S. intelligence even suggested that the company itself was established by Israeli intelligence in order to steal U.S. materials and technological expertise in the service of Israel’s nuclear weapons project. All of this means that leaders of one of the key organizations in the Israel Lobby aided and abetted a huge national security breach which gave Israel the bomb.

If you’re a pro-Israel advocate you likely see such figures as heroes. If so, consider this: Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were executed in 1956 for doing far less harm to America’s nuclear program than these individuals did.

Israel Lobby’s Covert Fundraising Program
The WMD project was extraordinarily expensive.  The new State, saddled with huge expenses to feed and house millions of  new immigrants, had no budget to fund it.  That’s where Peres turned to wealthy Diaspora Jews like Abe Feinberg to covertly raise funds for the Israeli bomb.  Feinberg spearheaded a fundraising campaign which raised $40-million, equivalent to $260-million in today’s dollars.  Feinberg also conspired through his Democratic Party connections to secure from Pres. Johnson Israel’s right to refuse to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation pact.

The Israeli news portal Walla describes the brilliant stratagem Ben Gurion and Peres concocted that drew France to Israel’s side in the effort to make a Bomb.  It began in 1956 with a secret meeting at a French villa outside Paris with a high-level British and French contingent.  The goals of the French and British were aligned with those of Israel, but not completely so.  The British and French wanted to give Egypt’s new firebrand leader, Gamal Nasser a black eye for nationalizing the Suez Canal and offering aid to the Algerian resistance.  They hatched a plan to attack Nasser and carve up Egypt’s strategic assets for themselves.  Israel was happy to go along for the ride.  But it had a separate goal–to garner European support for its nuclear effort.

After getting the go-ahead sign from Ben Gurion, Peres approached his French counterparts and announced Israeli agreement to join in the attack which later came to be known as Operation Kadesh.  But Israel, he told them, faced far more danger in the venture than either the British or French.  If Israel lost, its very existence could be threatened.  That’s why it needed a strategic weapon that could prevent its annihilation in the event of a disastrous defeat.

As negotiations proceeded with the French, they warned the Israelis that there were prohibited from selling them uranium under international agreements.  Peres came up with a typically brilliant and devious solution: “Don’t sell it to us, lend it to us,” he said.  “We will return it to you after our mission is completed.”  So began the real effort to build an Israeli Bomb.  The reactor was completed in 1960 and by 1967 Israel had its first primitive nuclear weapon to use in case it lost the 1967 War.

For some strange reason, the Israeli military censor disapproved of Walla talking about Peres’ “bluff” regarding back-dating the French-Israeli nuclear agreement. In the censored version, you won’t find any reference to it. Nor will you find the story about Peres’ suggestion that the French “lend” the uranium to Israel, since it was illegal to sell it.  My guess is that with Peres’ demise likely, they preferred not to tarnish the Old Man’s reputation any more than necessary. Which raises the question: why is a censor stooping to protect Israeli politicians’ reputations rather than protecting the security of the state, which is its putative mission?”

The Syrian people are suffering under the ‘moderate rebels’ and ‘opposition forces’ backed by the US, NATO member states and their allies in the Gulf states and Israel. Yet their suffering is largely ignored in the mainstream media unless it furthers the agenda dictated by the State Department.

Mint Press Editor’s Note: This article is the first in a two-part series of one Western journalist’s journey to Aleppo, a city ravaged by an insurgency supported by the United States, NATO member states, and their allies in the Gulf states and Israel.

In Part I, Vanessa Beeley lays out the mainstream narrative on Syria, revealing a neoconservative agenda promoted by NATO-funded NGOs. These NGOs paint the destruction of the historic city as being caused by the Syrian government under Bashar Assad, not the violent armed insurgents which receive arms, funding and training from Western governments and their allies.

Passing through Khanaser, al-Safira, and the industrial city of Sheikh Najjar on the road to Aleppo. (Photo by Vanessa Beeley)

ALEPPO, Syria — Aleppo has become synonymous with destruction and “Syrian state-generated” violence among those whose perception of the situation in the war-torn nation is contained within the prism of mainstream media narratives.

The NATO-aligned media maintains a tight grip on information coming out of this beleaguered city, ensuring that whatever comes out is tailored to meet State Department requirements and advocacy for regime change. The propaganda mill churns out familiar tales of chemical weapons, siege, starvation and bombs targeting civilians–all of which are attributed to the Syrian government and military, with little variation on this theme.

The purpose of this photo essay and my journey to Aleppo on Aug. 14 was to discover for myself as a Western journalist the truth behind the major storylines in the U.S. and NATO narrative on Syria.

East and west Aleppo

A Syrian soldier carries Syria’s national flag after successfully routing rebels from the Aleppo Military Academy in Aleppo, Syria. Sept. 05, 2016.

Most Western media fail to highlight the “tale of two cities” playing out betweeneastern and western Aleppo. The east is occupied by a number of groups backed by the United States, NATO and their allies in the Gulf, like Saudi Arabia, and Israel. Civilians in the government-held area of western Aleppo describe these groups broadly as “terrorists,” often without noting any specific group.

Over 1.5 million civilians live in the government-held areas of western Aleppo, including 600,000 civilians who fled eastern Aleppo in 2012. Of the 200,000 to 220,000 people living in the terrorist-occupied areas in the eastern parts of the city, an estimated 50,000 or more are members of the so-called “rebel” factions and their families, according to the Aleppo Medical Association.

In most Western media reports, little mention is made of this division of Aleppo which was created by the incursion of factions of armed insurgents (or, as the mainstream media and U.S. government call them, “moderate rebels”) which drove hordes of civilians out of the eastern parts of the city into the safety of the Syrian government-held western area.

Moderate rebels

Free Syrian Army fighters clean their weapons and check ammunition at their base on the outskirts of Aleppo, Syria. (Khalil Hamra/AP)

Western media delights in perpetuating the narrative of the “brave opposition forces” being “pounded” by Syrian and Russian air raids. What they fail to mention is that the identified 22 brigades that operate in and around Aleppo are made up of U.S. State Department-funded terrorist fighters

Harakat al-Nour al-Zenki is among these brigades. Video recently surfaced of its members abusing and beheading a child, Abdullah Issa, from a Palestinian refugee camp in northern Aleppo.

There are also various offshoots of the Free Syrian Army, the U.S.-armed and -funded “moderate” opposition group that was trained by the CIA, which now relies upon the Nusra Front (Jabhat al-Nusra), al-Qaida’s arm in Syria, to bolster its arms and logistics capabilities.

The Nusra Front makes up 80 percent of the terrorists on the ground in eastern Aleppo. (The group recently announced a rebranding campaign in which it changed its name to the Front for the Conquest of Sham, or Jabhat Fatah al-Sham, and has made outward attempts to distance itself from al-Qaida. It has, however, made no changes to its leadership or extremist, elitist ideology; thus, this article will continue to refer to the group as the Nusra Front.)

Chemical weapons

The use of chemical weapons against civilians in western Aleppo by the terrorist groups, particularly the Nusra Front, is anathema to Western media. Instead, the media picks up spurious reports issued by “activist” groups and “citizen journalists” which claim to be working inside Aleppo. As in the case of a Sept. 7 report from Al-Jazeera on the Syrian Arab Army launching chemical attacks on civilians, this information is disseminated with alarming alacrity by journalists based in Washington, London or elsewhere, who have limited ability to verify this information or assess what’s really happening on the ground prior to publishing. The fact that the Nusra Front took over the only chemical factory in Aleppo in 2012 is swept under the carpet of inconvenient truths. And while the mainstream media doesn’t report it, former U.N. weapons inspectors and MIT rocket scientists have also confirmed that the Nusra Front has powerful chemical weapons capabilities

The activist groups and citizen journalists

Media pundits outside Syria rely on “activist groups” and “citizen journalists,” who are invariably embedded in areas occupied by groups such as the Nusra Front, Ahrar al-Sham, assorted Free Syrian Army brigades, and even Daesh (an Arabic acronym for the terrorist group known in the West as ISIS or ISIL). Whether they are individual activists or groups like the White HelmetsAleppo Media Center, it is hard to define them as independent or objective when they are known to receive funding from the United States, NATO member states, and state-funded institutions like USAID–all of which have a vested interest in the “regime change” road map in Syria. The “evidence” these sources produce rarely deviates from the official U.S. narrative and reinforces the propaganda that drives the train of lies that justifies intervention.

A fairly rudimentary investigation into the roots of the Aleppo Media Center reveal that it is funded by the French Foreign Office, which celebrates NATO- and Saudi-armed mercenaries as revolutionaries. The Aleppo Media Center is a member of the Syrian Expatriates Organization, and it also receives “support” from the Syrian Media Incubator, a creation of Canal France International, “the French cooperation agency and media operator of the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs.” The French foreign ministry announced in January 2014:

In April 2014, CFI will open a media centre, the Syrian Media Incubator, in the Turkish city of Gaziantep, 60km from the Syrian border, to the north of Aleppo. This collective workspace aims to provide modern telecommunication tools and support Syrian journalists who are determined to continue relaying news from their country, whatever the cost.

France can hardly be considered an impartial player in the neocolonialist game. In July 2015, the country’s foreign minister, Laurent Fabius, was taken to court by a group of Syrian plaintiffs who accused him of stoking the Syrian conflict in 2012.

The case cited several incidents in which Fabius was perceived to have praised the Nusra Front, including one in which he told Le Monde that the group was “doing a good job.” The grieving families consider his refusal to designate the the Nusra Front a terrorist organization in 2012 and his move to condone the group’s actions on the ground as major contributing factors in maintaining the brutal war on Syria and its people.

It is the duty of journalists to question the impartiality of reports from these organizations claiming to be independent. Western journalists are quick enough to dismiss reports that run against the grain of their narrative as being “pro-Assad.”

After the Aleppo Media Center posted the video of Omran Daqneesh on Aug. 17, the image of the Syrian boy covered in dust and blood was broadcast across global media networks without a single question regarding some glaring anomalies surrounding this incident. The GuardianAl-JazeeraThe Associated Press and its many, many subscribers, the Los Angeles TimesThe Telegraph are just some of the mainstream media outlets which reproduced this video and images from it without hesitation.

A Google search for “Fox News and Aleppo Media Center” returns an astounding number of results. So, Fox News relies upon a French Foreign Office-funded organization which produces propaganda from pro-NATO “activists” planted in Aleppo. Hardly “fair and balanced” reporting.

Humanitarian disaster and siege

Smoke rises over a battle-scarred Saif Al Dawla district in Aleppo, Syria, on October 2, 2012. (AP Photo)

In informing the Western world that the Syrian government under President Bashar Assad is responsible for the siege of Aleppo, the Western media is selling the public a humanitarian war. “Syria’s rebels unite to break Assad’s siege of Aleppo,” according to a headline in the Guardian on Aug. 6.

This particular article actually celebrates the use of suicide bombers in the “rebel” capture of the SAA military academy in southern Aleppo. It describes the area as “the heart of Aleppo,” but that’s a very misleading term which suggests “rebels” have broken into the depths of the government-held western Aleppo. It’s an untruth that becomes a truth in the minds of a public which relies upon a “respected” media outlet to provide them with insights into the Syrian conflict.

These articles often do not mention the humanitarian corridors established by the Syrian state and Russia, or the amnesty deals being offered to the “armed opposition” fighting in Aleppo. When these subjects are mentioned, though, it is in passing or with a negative slant that undermines the very real efforts towardreconciliation being made by the Syrian state. The ministry of national reconciliation is headed up by Dr. Ali Haider, a member of the genuine, nonviolent Syrian opposition, the Syrian Social Nationalist Party.

On July 27, the Syrian Arab News Agency reported

The General Command of the Army and Armed Forces has been sending text messages calling on the militants in the eastern part of Aleppo city to lay down arms and seek a settlement of their legal status, and urging citizens to join national reconciliations and expel foreign militants from their localities.

Nor does the media mention that the United States and European Union are imposing crippling economic sanctions on Syria, while also actively pouring in thousands of weapons and millions of dollars in funding to the 360,000 foreign mercenaries committing human rights abuses throughout Syria.

A rebel fighter stands guard at a check point flying a banner near the front line in Aleppo, when Syria rebels groups began fighting each other for control of a key checkpoint in the northern city of Aleppo. (Photo: Narciso Contreras/AP)

Aleppo is, indeed, under siege, but that siege is being imposed by the “moderate opposition” groups on civilians in western Aleppo and those living under a terrorist occupation in eastern Aleppo. Humanitarian convoys heading into western Aleppo are forced to pass through high-risk areas occupied by the Nusra Front and the myriad other terrorist groups operating there.

In August 2015, I shared a report from a resident of Aleppo on my blog. It reads, in part:

I feel nothing but rage when I see these thugs and criminals on the other side of the city pouring thousands of litres of clean, fresh water into the disease infested river under the noses of the thirsty Syrians they are claiming to liberate. They are the terrorists, they are the monsters in this story and they are committing daily mass crimes against the citizens of Aleppo but this is never mentioned by the western media. Are we not Syrian?  Does our plight mean nothing, does our story not count?  This is Aleppo, the real Aleppo, not the western media fantasy, this is our sleeping, waking, perpetual nightmare of life under terrorist occupation.

Dr. Bashar Al-Jaafari, Syria’s permanent representative to the United Nations, told the U.N. Security Council in January: “The true siege is on 23 million Syrians and it is being inflicted upon them by the U.S., U.K. and EU government sanctions.”

Along with the U.S.-led coalition’s bombing raids that have targeted power plants and other essential infrastructure, these sanctions have decimated the civilian health and education sectors in Syria. If Syrians are starving or unable to receive treatment for severe injuries or chronic illnesses, it is because NATO is imposing a war upon them, introducing mercenary fighters who are paid to murder and drive Syrians from their homes, and blocking supplies and equipment from reaching hospitals and schools.

Of course, all of these topics are worthy of stand-alone articles. My trip to Aleppo was curtailed slightly due to the escalation in fighting between the SAA and various “moderate rebel” and mercenary groups headed up by the Nusra Front. I was, however, able to glean some very valuable information and statements that go a long way toward discrediting the NATO-aligned media narrative.

One Syrian man in Aleppo told me:

Almost everything they blame the government or the army for in the last five years was actually carried out by the terrorists, by NATO. They are targeting infrastructure, hospitals, kids, women. They are raping women. They are using chemicals, chlorine, mustard gas.

I’ve withheld his name out of respect for his safety–a common issue in a city that has been under a  constantly evolving media and terrorist siege since the NATO intervention gathered momentum in Syria almost six years ago.

The information siege has been imposed upon Aleppo by American and European mainstream media, as well as various offshoot media funded by the Gulf states or Turkey that rely heavily on al-Qaida as sources. It has ensured that little real news has been able to escape the propaganda tent erected over a city that resisted all attempts to be drawn into the armed insurrection from the very beginning of the dirty war on Syria.

And this dirty war is one that had been incubating long before it officially began in December 2011, as demonstrated by State Department cables released by WikiLeaks, which show that plans to destabilize Syria and overthrow the government had been forming as early as 2006.

What often goes unreported is the punishment meted out to Aleppo’s civilian population by the multiple brigades of terrorists armed, funded and even trained by the United States, NATO members and their allies in the Gulf states and Israel. The mainstream media instead scrambles to further vilify the SAA and Assad government by any means available to them, including the dissemination of later debunked and discredited reports

Traveling from Homs to Aleppo

A of The route from Damascus to Sheikh Maqsoud, a Kurdish-held neighborhood in Aleppo. (Screenshot provided by Vanessa Beeley)

Travelling with a fellow independent journalist, Eva Bartlett, a translator and a taxi driver, I entered Aleppo on Aug. 14 via Castello Road, which some mainstream media have taken to calling “Death Road.” To get there, we were given a security clearance which enabled us to travel via roads that, from the western city of Homs onward, snake through areas where various terrorist groups, including Daesh, are never far from the route or where the threat of kidnapping is to be taken into account. Entry into military areas once inside Aleppo could not be approved without SAA protection and accompaniment.

In Homs I witnessed what is a familiar sight throughout Syria: buildings scarred and battered by years of terrorist attacks. I was told that we were passing what was once known as 60th Street, but has since taken a new name, Street of Death (Shara al-Moot), as it came under terrorist attack from north, south, east and west. These attacks employed snipers, mortars and suicide bombers; it seems there were no restrictions on ways for terrorists to kill the Syrian people in Homs.

Traveling north on the road from Homs to Hama, we came to a major SAA checkpoint at a crossroads teeming with life. Waiting for the inevitable security check, I had the opportunity to lean out of the taxi window and observe. Photography, however, is forbidden at checkpoints.

These SAA checkpoints are common throughout Syria. Their main purpose is to check cars for explosives and weapons or extremist militants such as Daesh or the Nusra Front, who might be attempting to pass undetected from one governorate to another. Cars and other vehicles are used as suicide bombs in many areas, particularly in Homs’ al-Zahra’a neighborhood, which has been targeted many times, resulting in multiple deaths and injuries.

A steady stream of buses and livestock wagons came into this checkpoint from the directions of Hama and Homs. Many of the buses were carrying families clutching their belongings, possibly refugees, and vans were topped with assorted boxes and bags.

We got a wave from passing SAA soldiers, who, despite the severity of the fighting in Aleppo and the surrounding countryside, never displayed anything except courtesy and respect–something I found to be true throughout my four-week journey around Syria. One soldier sat cross-legged on top of a tank that was on a transporter parked at the crossroads, and he smiled in the already sweltering morning heat as he waited for his comrades to join him.

The SAA equipment was noticeably battle-weary. Their weapons bore the marks of war and had not been replaced for some time. And while public images of Daesh fighters usually feature weapons and other supplies that look like they’ve just been taken out of the box, many SAA soldiers were wearing boots and uniforms with heavy wear and tear.

A screenshot from a video released by ISIS, shows the execution of Jordanian pilot Moaz-al-Kasasbeh in 2015. Vvery well-equipped ISIS militants are visible behind al-Kasasbeh.

The SAA is affected by the sanctions enforced by the United States and European Union, but the various terrorist brigades backed by the United States, NATO, their allies in the Gulf states and Israel are not. The latter’s supply chain is unbroken and unaffected, thanks to the Turkish gun and equipment running services via its porous borders with Syria.

U.S. and EU sanctions effectively prevent any supplies from entering Syria via legal channels, and we frequently saw the detrimental effects this has had on essential civilian infrastructure as well as military personnel and equipment.

However, illegal supply channels have not been affected, ensuring perpetual conflict by arming and equipping the many brigades of “moderate rebels” and “opposition forces.” Whether it’s Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates sustaining Daesh with arms flowing in through the Balkans, or the United States supplying its rotating cast of “moderate rebels” with weapons via Turkey, there is no turning off the logistics and armament tap to the “armed opposition.”

In April, for example, an IHS Jane’s report featured a packing list for a December 2015 U.S. arms shipment to “Syrian rebels” via the Syria-Turkey border. The report stated:

The cargo listed in the document included AK-47 rifles, PKM general-purpose machine guns, DShK heavy machine guns, RPG-7 rocket launchers, and 9K111M Faktoria anti-tank guided weapon (ATGW) systems. The Faktoria is an improved version of the 9K111 Fagot ATGW, the primary difference being that its missile has a tandem warhead for defeating explosive reactive armour (ERA) fitted to some tanks.

It should be noted that this particular arms shipment to the “moderate rebels” was made during a ceasefire agreement that had been implemented across many Syrian governorates.

2014 video report from Deutsche Welle further explains the gun-running process from Turkey to Syria, a process that continues to this day. DW explains in the introduction to the video:

Every day, trucks laden with food, clothing, and other supplies cross the border from Turkey to Syria. It is unclear who is picking up the goods. The hauliers believe most of the cargo is going to the ‘Islamic State’ militia. Oil, weapons, and soldiers are also being smuggled over the border, and Kurdish volunteers are now patrolling the area in a bid to stem the supplies.

It is hard to disassemble the various factions of armed militants. Many times I asked for clarification on which armed group had carried out a specific attack and was told that most Syrians made no such differentiation. According to civilians, these groups are made up of criminals, mercenaries and terrorists, and their titles are irrelevant.

The United States has played this fact to its own advantage, using the “intermingling” of “rebel” groups as an excuse to impede Russian and Syrian efforts to target officially designated terrorist groups, such as Daesh and the Nusra Front, in case U.S. operatives are among them. As such, U.S. operatives in groups they are supporting effectively become “human shields” for the terrorist groups that the U.S. is ostensibly waging war against, like Daesh.

In an April 28 press briefing, John Kirby, a spokesperson for the State Department, noted:

[W]e know it’s a very fluid, dynamic environment, that there are – that there is intermingling between the groups. Some of that is by design because they want to be near one another and some of it is by happenstance. And it is why strikes in and around Aleppo become a more problematic issue, because it’s very difficult to separate some of these groups from one another geographically in order to – and then to be precise enough that only the group that you’re trying to go after is going to be hit.

Along our route into Aleppo, assorted vehicles were being used to transport SAA soldiers–ramshackle livestock trucks with open backs, old buses, brightly colored supply wagons–but the level of respect and admiration with which the soldiers were viewed by Syrian civilians was palpable.

Syrian Arab Army soldiers travelling to war via the road to Aleppo. (Photo by Vanessa Beeley)

After the checkpoint between Homs and Hama, there is a stretch of road which is notorious for vehicles of bandits forcing cars and buses off the road before kidnapping passengers. Despite the risks it held, the stretch of road was picturesque, lined with maize, olive groves, and sunflowers. The first signs of livestock–chicken, sheep, and cows–dotted the greening landscape.

Passing through the city of al-Salamiyah, we were told that Daesh was encamped about 10 kilometers east of the road. Looking out across the seemingly interminable desert stretching into the horizon, it was hard to imagine that we were visible to these terrorist entities.

As the road continued toward Aleppo, we reached an area where Daesh had drawn closer and we were told they were only 2 kilometers away. Trucks were passing us on their way from Homs to Aleppo carrying supplies for SAA soldiers, I presumed as reinforcements for the campaign against the terrorist enclaves in al-Ramouseh, a suburb in southeast Aleppo.

Eerie reminders of the war being imposed upon Syria rose up out of the desert, like the burned-out trucks and cars overturned and disintegrating slowly in the blazing heat. An apocalyptic vision of a country being torn apart by another NATO intervention, a dirty war being inflicted upon a sovereign nation, with the objective of “regime change” regardless of the bloodshed and devastating costs incurred by the Syrian people.

An overturned vehicle bakes in the scorching desert sun on the road to Aleppo. (Photo by Vanessa Beeley)

As we drew closer to the outskirts of Aleppo, it became apparent that the SAA had closed the usual western route for security reasons. We were diverted to the east of the city via Khanaser, a town in the al-Safira district, and finally the industrial city of Sheikh Najjar before the road doubled back in toward the northern entrance into western Aleppo via the Kurdish-held Sheikh Maqsoud neighborhood.

We skirted some of Aleppo’s most densely terrorist-occupied areas in eastern Aleppo. Again, these terrorists might be Daesh, the Nusra Front, Ahrar al-Sham, or Harakat al-Nour al-Zenki, among many others. This clearly shows the areas held by various factions of armed insurgents. Black represents areas held by Daesh; green: “moderate rebel forces;” yellow: Kurds; red: the SAA; and olive: contested areas. This map is constantly changing as the SAA advances, particularly in al-Ramouseh.

At this point, the “sniper banks” became more noticeable, sand and rubble piled high on either side of the road, sometimes topped by car remnants and scrap metal or barrels used as a screen to protect travellers from sniper sights and fire.

Prior to reaching Castello Road we arrived at a T-junction, and our confused taxi driver hesitated before turning right.

Another vehicle tore after us within seconds, with SAA soldiers on board who yelled at us to turn left. Turning right would take us directly into a Daesh-held area, they warned.

The point where we turned right instead of left toward Aleppo before being redirected to safety by the Syrian Arab Army. Photo by Vanessa Beeley.

Nearing the entrance to Aleppo, not far from the city’s northwestern industrial area of al-Layramoun, we passed a checkpoint where the soldiers urged us to maintain our distance from other vehicles. There was a high risk of terrorist mortar fire, they explained, and putting distance between vehicles meant reducing casualties if one vehicle was hit.

The point where we turned right instead of left toward Aleppo before being redirected to safety by the Syrian Arab Army. (Photo by Vanessa Beeley)

Following fierce clashes, SAA forces had recaptured al-Layramoun from the Nusra Front and the 16th Division of the Free Syrian Army in July. The area is strategically important, as it borders Castello Road, which had been a major artery for supplies and arms for the terrorists streaming in directly from Turkey. Once the SAA retook the area, however, it effectively cut terrorist entities off from the Turkish supply chain.

In the fields along the route were dozens of unexploded gas canisters, the “hell cannon”-fired bombs usually packed with explosives, glass, shrapnel, nails, and even chemicals. Those which had not hit their targets littered the countryside. These are the improvised missiles fired on a daily basis into the Syrian government-held areas of western Aleppo by the various armed insurgents occupying the eastern parts of Aleppo.

Current figures from the Aleppo Medical Association put the population of government-held western Aleppo at 1.5 million civilians. Another 200,000 to 220,000 people–a quarter of whom are terrorists and their families–are living in the eastern parts of the city controlled by various factions of armed insurgents backed by the United States, NATO and their allies, including Saudi Arabia and Israel.

However, according to On the Ground News, a media outlet known for harboring sympathies for the “rebel” forces, there are no civilians left in eastern Aleppo.

Scattered along the side of the road were dozens of unexploded gas canisters, improvised bombs usually packed with explosives, glass, shrapnel, nails, and even chemicals. (Photo by Vanessa Beeley)

Passing the former Aleppo Central Prison

We passed the former Aleppo Central Prison, where the Ahrar al-Sham coalition, Daesh, and their associates staged a prolonged siege, holding SAA soldiers trapped inside from April 2013 to May 2014. According to a revelatory Al-Akhbar article written after the liberation of the prison by SAA forces attacking from outside, there were two main reasons for the siege:

The militants wanted to achieve two secondary goals: recruiting some prisoners after ‘liberating’ them, and taking advantage of the prison’s strategic location. That is in addition to the main goal of freeing dozens of Islamist prisoners, the majority of whom (61 to be precise) belong to Jund al-Sham.

It’s another fact never mentioned by the media beating the drums of war who are working in lockstep with the State Department to maintain the “Assad must go,” “no-fly zone,” “boots on the ground” narrative:  Across Syria, the so-called “moderate rebels” released prisoners–convicted rapists, murderers and other hardcore criminals–in order to swell the ranks of their terrorist armies.

The first view of al-Ramouseh, a suburb in southeastern Aleppo. The smoke is from a burning tarwell after being bombed by terrorists three or four days prior. (Photo by Vanessa Beeley)

Entering Aleppo

We entered Aleppo via Sheikh Maqsoud, a Kurdish-held neighborhood that has been severely attacked by the terrorist gangs surrounding it, including the 16th Division of the Free Syrian Army and the Nusra Front. The decimation of the neighborhood was as shocking as it is in every other town, village, or city that has been pounded by NATO-backed terrorists’ hell cannon mortar fire and a variety of rockets, explosive bullets and missiles fired from launchers ranging from rudimentary, improvised devices to the more sophisticated U.S.-supplied equipment.

Yet the weapons–missiles, gas canisters, water heaters, and any other container at hand which is packed full of lethal explosives and limb-shredding materials–are rarely highlighted or even mentioned in the mainstream media. The unnamed Syrian whose account I published on my blog, also reported:

The terrorists are using mortars, explosive bullets, cooking-gas cylinders bombs and water-warming long cylinders bombs, filled up with explosives and shrapnel and nails, in what they call ‘Hell Canon’. (google these weapons or see their YouTube clips. The cooking-gas cylinder is made of steel, and it weighs around 25 kg. Imagine it thrown by a cannon to hit civilians? And imagine knowing that it’s full with explosives?

Dr. Mohammed Jassim, a volunteer medic, told RT recently:

February and April of 2016 was the worst period for Sheikh Maqsood we got thousands of attacks, so many different kinds of shelling, and according to my statistics we had almost 800 dead and injured civilians, and the neighbourhood was largely destroyed.

On April 20, U.S. Army Col. Steve Warren, spokesman for Operation Inherent Resolve, the U.S. campaign against Daesh in Iraq and Syria, updated reporters at the Pentagon via video feed from his station in Baghdad. He admitted that, at the time, “It’s primarily al-Nusra who holds Aleppo.”

Watch “Inherent Resolve Spokesman Updates Reporters” from Defense Video Imagery Distribution System:

The atmosphere was tense as we entered Sheikh Maqsoud. The Kurds are in control of this region but we were told not to take photos near the checkpoints manned by Kurdish forces.

The extent of the destruction inflicted upon the Kurdish-held Sheikh Maqsoud by the U.S.-backed “moderate rebels” and the scars of the battle for its liberation are highlighted in the state of the neighborhood’s infrastructure. (Photo by Vanessa Beeley)

The weaponization of children

Amid the terrorist attacks and the daily massacres of Syrian civilians by Western-backed “moderate rebels,” the children maimed and mutilated by these attacks are almost invisible to the mainstream media. The mainstream media does, however, showcase stories like that of Omran Daqneesh–stories which serve and propel the NATO narrative despite the dubious sources from which they emanate.

If the Western media is truly concerned about the children affected by war, where was the outrage in July, when Harakat al-Nour al-Zenki, a U.S.-backed terrorist group, beheaded a 12-year-old Palestinian boy named Abdullah Issa?

Why did the State Department find it so difficult to unequivocally condemn this hideous crime against one innocent child, and yet another was immediately described by that same State Department as “the real face of what is going on in Syria

The Guardian reported quoted State Department spokesman John Kirby as saying:

That little boy has never had a day in his life where there hasn’t been war, death, destruction, poverty in his own country.

According to the Guardian, Kirby further “suggested Omran’s case should spur efforts to secure a broad cessation of hostilities.” No need for an investigation prior to catapulting this image into the realms of propaganda designed to tug at the heartstrings.

Abdullah’s brutal decapitation did not provoke calls for the cessation of hostilities from Harakat al-Nour al-Zenki or a commitment from the State Department to stop arming and supporting his “moderate” murderers.

Video of Abdullah’s brutal beheading gave the U.S. “pause about any assistanceto his murderers; video of Omran, bloody and covered in dust, elicited a range of calls to arms, including a no-fly zone, military intervention, increased restrictions on humanitarian aid, and reinforced sanctions.

It’s important to understand where the story of Omran Daqneesh started. It was broken by the aforementioned Aleppo Media Center and “photojournalist”Mahmoud Raslan (sometimes spelled Rslan), who has been identified as the militant in the following photo, taken with the Harakat al-Nour al-Zenki members who executed Abdullah Issa.

Mahmoud Raslan (in blue; bottom left) taking a selfie with two of the men who tortured Abdullah Issa. Photo: Mahmoud Raslan (in blue; bottom left) taking a selfie with two of the men who tortured Abdullah Issa. (Photo: The Canary)

The story of Omran Daqneesh was produced by two highly questionable sources–and, in the case of Raslan, possibly criminal–yet it was deemed credible and worthy of mass promotion by Western media.

an Aug. 31 opinion piece for teleSUR, Tim Anderson, an Australian academic and writer, highlighted the difference in the media’s treatment of Omran and Abdullah:

The images of little Omran, put out by jihadist support groups, gained widespread attention from the western media, which has backed the sectarian gangs through more than five years of brutal terrorist war. On the other hand, video of the murder of little Abdallah was largely ignored, or scorned with claims that the boy was really 18 years old, or a spy for the pro-Syria Palestinian militia Liwa al-Quds.

What is perhaps most disturbing about the comparison between these two stories, is the cynical abuse and weaponization of children that is being supported by the NATO-aligned media machine. This is a calculated use of one child as a psychological instrument to promote and legitimize war, while the torture and cold-blooded execution of another is marginalized to protect the U.S. agents who perpetuate that war.

City of Aleppo

As we drove further into the suburbs of Aleppo the damage became less intense. A veneer of normality obscured the terror that this city faces each day as it comes under attack from the armed insurgent groups camped at the boundaries of their refuge from Salafist extremism and ethnic cleansing–a threat hugely feared by the religious minorities in government-held western Aleppo.

A market buzzes with activity in western Aleppo. (Photo by Vanessa Beeley)

Dr. Nabil Antaki is one of the 4,160 doctors working in western Aleppo who are largely ignored in the NATO-aligned media. He said minorities, like those in Shiite Muslim and Christian communities, were terrified that if the SAA were to be driven back by the assorted aforementioned terrorist gangs,  it would result in a situation similar to that of Mosul, Iraq, where these minorities would be massacred.

These minorities, according to Dr. Antaki, were making contingency plans to leave the city in convoys to attempt to protect themselves from the terrorist hordes if they did break through SAA defenses.

Driving through western Aleppo at dusk. (Photo by Vanessa Beeley)

Leaving Sheikh Maqsoud and entering the suburbs of western Aleppo. (Photo by Vanessa Beeley)

Visiting Bani Zaid

The remnants of a “moderate rebel” sniper barrier in Bani Zaid. (Photo by Vanessa Beeley)

Bani Zaid, a town in the northern part of the province of Aleppo, had been liberated by the SAA in July, just a few weeks prior to our arrival in Aleppo. Before liberation, the neighborhood had been used as a launchpad for the deadly “hell cannon” missiles into residential areas in western Aleppo, so the development was hugely celebrated by the Syrian people.

Information was sketchy on the actual liberation, but we were told that airstrikes and artillery bombardment lasted for one week after the SAA had laid siege to the area.

We were told that there had been a large number of Nusra Front fighters and members of the 16th Division of the Free Syrian Army embedded in Bani Zaid. The SAA had dug tunnels to within a few meters of the militant positions prior to engaging in fierce face-to-face battles with the terrorists for five days before the liberation was completed and the militants broke ranks to surrender or flee the area.

A de-mining program was still underway in Bani Zaid when we were walking around, so we were not able to stray from the main streets or enter any of the buildings or sniper nests constructed from barrels that appeared at intervals along the roadsides. Most of the terrorist “hell cannon” missile launchers had been destroyed by the SAA and allies when they liberated the area.

A barrel air-raid shelter or sniper nest created by terrorists in Bani Zaid. (Photo by Vanessa Beeley)

Arriving in Bani Zaid, walking down one of the main streets. (Photo by Vanessa Beeley)

We met with a few SAA soldiers and civilian volunteers in Bani Zaid who opted to camp inside the liberated town to stand guard over the deserted streets and houses.

Ihab has three sons–all of whom are fighting in the Syrian Arab Army. (Photo by Vanessa Beeley)

Ihab, a member of the Syrian volunteer forces known as the National Defense Forces, has three sons–all of whom are fighting in the SAA. One of his brothers had already been killed while fighting against the NATO proxy invasion of Syria.

One of his three sons was fighting from inside the SAA military academy close to al-Ramouseh, and another was on the outside also battling terrorist insurgents.

Al-Ramouseh is one of the most hotly contested parts of Aleppo. Liberation of this area by the SAA will mean the opening of another road to Damascus from the south of Aleppo that has been under the control of various “moderate rebel” factions for some time.

Ahmed, another civilian volunteer, has chosen to live in a bombed-out home where he can protect Bani Zaid from terrorist incursions. He has been living in these conditions since the liberation because, he said, “it is my duty to protect my country.”

He made his surroundings as comfortable as possible and sold cigarettes to soldiers as a meager income generator.

During this short tour of Bani Zaid we also saw the remains of the house that had been used as the headquarters of the U.S.-backed and -equipped 16th Division of the Free Syrian Army. The brigade was headed by Yousef and Khaled Hayani, two brothers. Khaled was killed in the air raids; Yousef survived.

Ahmed lives in a bombed-out home in order to protect Bani Zaid from terrorist incursions. (Photo by Vanessa Beeley)

The 16th Division has been responsible for many of the missile attacks on residential areas inside the Syrian government-held western Aleppo and the Kurdish-held Sheikh Maqsoud.

These massacres and vicious attacks are regularly ignored by the NATO-aligned media, including their network of Western-funded NGOs which hold sway over public opinion with fabricated reports and unsubstantiated accounts always in lockstep with NATO member state objectives in Syria, including “regime change.”

Remains of the headquarters of the 16th Division of the Free Syrian Army. We were told to be careful walking around inside because of the risk of uncleared IEDs that are left behind when terrorists flee an area they have occupied for any length of time. (Photo by Vanessa Beeley)

Part II of Vanessa Beeley’s account of her journey to Aleppo highlights some of the Syrians and Syrian groups who are truly working with civilians and their country at heart.

No wonder the United States insisted that its Syria ceasefire deal with Russia remain secret! It turns out that one of the US demands was that the Syrian air force must be prohibited from attacking al-Nusra Front (al-Qaeda in Syria). Crazy conspiracy theory? Listen to John Kerry’s own words at the UN yesterday:

Kerry argued at the UN that it would be impossible to separate Washington’s “moderates” from al-Qaeda while al-Qaeda was under attack:

Now, I have said to Russia many times it’s very hard to separate people when they are being bombed indiscriminately and when Assad has the right to determine who he’s going to bomb, because he can, quote, ‘go after Nusrah’ but go after the opposition at the same time because he wants to.

Does this make any sense? It seem much more logical to argue that the threat of being bombed alongside al-Qaeda would be the greatest incentive for “moderates” to separate themselves from al-Qaeda as soon as possible!

You would think Washington would tell its “moderates”: “You must cease and desist from fighting alongside al-Qaeda in Syria within the next 48 hours or you will yourselves become targets of Syrian, Russian, and coalition planes.”

Instead Washington argues that because its “moderates” refuse to separate from al-Qaeda the Russians and Syrians must stop attacking al-Qaeda!

George W. Bush famously said, “either you’re with us, or you are with the terrorists.” But what happens when Washington itself is “with the terrorists”?

The dirty war on Syria was and is generated from outside the country.  This is well-documented.  Outside countries started the war, and they are perpetuating the war.  Unprecedented disinformation campaigns continue to delude Western citizens so that “consent” can be engineered.  Consequently, the western politicians support the terrorism that they pretend to be combating.  All documented.  Meanwhile, western citizens are confused to the point of inertia, passive in the face of egregious crimes committed in their name.

Westerners are critical of the Syrian government, calling it a “regime”, calling Assad a brutal dictator, and buying the spoon-fed lies, apparently blind to the fact that western intelligence agencies have totally contaminated their minds to the point where they believe white is black and black is white.  Westerners falsely believe that they live in democracies even when there is very little if any difference between the ruling parties; even when the establishment drives the policies of the preening politicians who have been reduced to the function of public relations agents, and little else.

In Syria, however, the externally-driven war is being resolved internally, and the solutions are often the fruit of a genuine democratic process, in contrast to the fake democratic processes pretending to be democracy in the West.

Dr. Ali Heidar, Minister for National Reconciliation

Dr. Ali Haidar, who lost a son to the terrorists (as did the grand Mufti), is a member of the official opposition in Syria; not the foreign backed terrorist “opposition”, but the real opposition, and it is from this opposition that the brilliant idea of a “Ministry of Reconciliation” was born, to the chagrin of the Western invaders, and the ultimate approval of the Syrian government.

Whereas the West continues to provide a steady stream of advanced weaponry into the hands of its terrorist proxies, the Ministry of Reconciliation is tasked with removing weapons from terrorist hands. And whereas the Western countries support terrorists from 95 countries from around the world (about 800 terrorists from Lebanon and Libya, armed with Western weapons, occupied the Krak des Chevaliers, for instance), the Ministry of Reconciliation is tasked with sending them home, unarmed.

But there are also Syrian born terrorists, as described earlier, and those Syrian terrorists who lay down their arms, and engage in the “reconciliation” process, ultimately either return to their previous civilian jobs ( the government will help them with employment and income); or they join brigades of the Syrian Arab Army, and fight the real enemy. If they die fighting the real enemy, they become “martyrs”, and are somewhat redeemed.

Despite a “Fatwah Declaration” announcing that those who reconcile would be killed, 20,000 Syrian terrorists have so far entered the program and accepted amnesty.

So, whereas the catastrophic dirty war was generated from the outside, and is sustained from the outside, the solutions to the violence are generated from within, and always will be.  Any “solutions” offered by the West are necessarily false solutions, since the Western objectives of regime change and/or balkanization of the country would destroy Syria, as happened in Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, and Ukraine. And the stooge replacement for President Assad would be taken from the cesspool of Wahhabi extremists waiting on the sidelines.

This is why the vast majority of Syrians support their President.

Hillary Clinton, on September 19th, was endorsed for President, by the most historically important, intelligent, and dangerous, Republican of modern times.

She was endorsed then by the person who in 1990 cunningly engineered the end of the Soviet Union and of its Warsaw Pact military alliance in such a way as to continue the West’s war against Russia so as to conquer Russia gradually for the owners of US international corporations. The person, who kept his plan secret even from his closest advisors, until the night of 24 February 1990, when he told them that what he had previously instructed them to tell Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev as the West’s future military intentions about Russia if the USSR were to end, was actually a lie.

He also told them that they were henceforth to proceed forward on the basis that the residual stump of the former Soviet Union, Russia, will instead be treated as if it still is an enemy-nation, and that the fundamental aim of the Western alliance will then remain: to conquer Russia (notwithstanding the end of the USSR, of its communism, and of its military alliances) — that the Cold War is to end only on the Russian side, not at all, really, on the Western side. (All of that is documented from the historical record, at that linked-to article.)

This person was the former Director of the US CIA, born US aristocrat, and committed champion of US conquest of the entire world, the President of the United States at the time (1990): George Herbert Walker Bush.

He informed the daughter of Robert F. Kennedy, Kathleen Hartington Kennedy Townsend — as she posted it, apparently ecstatically, on September 19th, to her facebook page after personally having just met with Mr. Bush — «The President told me he’s voting for Hillary!!» She then confirmed this to Politico the same day, which headlined promptly, «George H.W. Bush to Vote for Hillary».

G.H.W. Bush is an insider’s insider: he would not do this if he felt that Hillary Clinton wouldn’t carry forward his plan (which has been adhered-to by each of the US Presidents after him), and if he felt that Donald Trump — Bush’s own successor now as the Republican US candidate for President — would not carry it forward. (This was his most important and history-shaping decision during his entire Presidency, and therefore it’s understandable now that he would be willing even to cross Party-lines on his Presidential ballot in order to have it followed-through to its ultimate conclusion.)

What indications exist publicly, that she will carry it forward? Hillary Clinton has already publicly stated (though tactfully, so that the US press could ignore it) her intention to push things up to and beyond the nuclear brink, with regard to Russia:

German Economic News was the first news medium to headline this, «Hillary Clinton Threatens Russia with War» (in German, on September 4th: the original German of the headline was «Hillary Clinton Droht Russland mit Krieg»), but the source of this shocking headline was actually Clinton’s bellicose speech that had been given to the American Legion, on August 31st, in which she had said:

Russia even hacked into the Democratic National Committee, maybe even some state election systems. So, we’ve got to step up our game. Make sure we are well defended and able to take the fight to those who go after us. As President, I will make it clear, that the United States will treat cyber attacks just like any other attack. We will be ready with serious political, economic and military responses.

Russia denies that it did any such thing, but the US even taps the phone conversations of Angela Merkel and other US allies; and, of course, the US and Russia routinely hack into each others’ email and other communications; so, even if Russia did what Clinton says, then to call it «like any other attack» against the United States and to threaten to answer it with «military responses», would itself be historically unprecedented — which is what Hillary Clinton is promising to do.

Historically unprecedented, like nuclear war itself would be. And she was saying this in the context of her alleging that Russia had «attacked» the DNC (Democratic National Committee), and she as President might «attack» back, perhaps even with «military responses». This was not an off-the-cuff remark from her — it was her prepared text in a speech. She said it though, for example, on 26 October 2013, Britain’s Telegraph had headlined, «US ‘operates 80 listening posts worldwide, 19 in Europe, and snooped on Merkel mobile 2002-2013’: US intelligence… targeted Angela Merkel’s phone from 2002 to 2013, according to new eavesdropping leaks».

But now, this tapping against Merkel would, according to Hillary Clinton’s logic (unless she intends it to apply only by the United States against Russia), constitute reason for Germany (and 34 other nations) to go to war against the United States.

Clinton also said there: 

«We need to respond to evolving threats from states like Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea from networks, criminal and terrorist networks like ISIS. We need a military that is ready and agile so it can meet the full range of threats, and operate on short notice across every domain, not just land, sea, air and space, but also cyberspace».

She also said that the sequester agreement between the Congress and the President must end, because US military spending should not be limited: «I am all for cutting the fat out of the budget and making sure we stretch our dollars… But we cannot impose arbitrary limits on something as important as our military. That makes no sense at all. The sequester makes our country less secure. Let’s end it and get a budget deal that supports America’s military». She wasn’t opposing «arbitrary limits» on non-military spending; she implied that that’s not «as important as our military».

She was clear: this is a wartime US, not a peacetime nation; we’re already at war, in her view; and therefore continued unlimited cost-overruns to Lockheed Martin etc. need to be accepted, not limited (by «arbitrary limits» or otherwise). She favors «cutting the fat out of the budget» for healthcare, education, subsidies to the poor, environmental protection, etc., but not for war, not for this war. A more bellicose speech, especially against «threats from states like Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea from networks, criminal and terrorist networks like ISIS», all equating «states» such as Russia and China, with «terrorist networks like ISIS», could hardly be imagined — as if Russia and China are anything like jihadist organizations, and are hostile toward America, as such jihadist groups are.

However, her threat to respond to an alleged «cyber attack» from Russia by «serious political, economic and military responses», is unprecedented, even from her. It was big news when she said it, though virtually ignored by America’s newsmedia.

The only US newsmedia to have picked up on Clinton’s shocking threat were Republican-Party-oriented ones, because the Democratic-Party and nonpartisan ‘news’ media in the US don’t criticize a Democratic nominee’s neoconservatism — they hide it, or else find excuses for it (even after the Republican neoconservative President George W. Bush’s catastrophic and lie-based neoconservative invasion of Iraq — then headed by the Moscow-friendly Saddam Hussein — in 2003, which many Democratic office-holders, such as Hillary Clinton backed).

So, everything in today’s USA ‘news’ media is favorable toward neoconservatism — it’s now the «Establishment» foreign policy, established notwithstanding the catastrophic Iraq-invasion, from which America’s ‘news’ media have evidently learned nothing whatsoever (because they’re essentially unchanged and committed to the same aristocracy as has long controlled them).

However, now that the Republican Party’s Presidential nominee, Donald Trump, is openly critical of Hillary Clinton’s and George W. Bush’s neoconservatism, any Republican-oriented ’news’ media that support Trump’s candidacy allows its ‘journalists’ to criticize Clinton’s neoconservatism; and, so, there were a few such critiques of this shocking statement from Clinton.

The Republican Party’s «Daily Caller» headlined about this more directly than any other US ‘news’ medium, «Clinton Advocates Response To DNC Hack That Would Likely Bring On WWIII», and reported, on September 1st, that «Clinton’s cavalier attitude toward going to war over cyber attacks seems to contradict her assertion that she is the responsible voice on foreign policy in the current election».

The Republican Washington Times newspaper headlined «Hillary Clinton: US will treat cyberattacks ‘just like any other attack’», and reported that she would consider using the «military to respond to cyberattacks,» but that her Republican opponent had indicated he would instead use only cyber against cyber:

«‘I am a fan of the future, and cyber is the future,’ he said when asked by Time magazine during the Republican National Convention about using cyberweapons».

However, Trump was not asked there whether he would escalate from a cyber attack to a physical one. Trump has many times said that having good relations with Russia would be a priority if he becomes President. That would obviously be impossible if he (like Hillary) were to be seeking a pretext for war against Russia.

The mainstream The Hill newspaper bannered, «Clinton: Treat cyberattacks ‘like any other attack’», and reported that, «Since many high-profile cyberattacks could be interpreted as traditional intelligence-gathering — something the US itself also engages in — the White House is often in a tricky political position when it comes to its response». That’s not critical of her position, but at least it makes note of the crucial fact that if the US were to treat a hacker’s attack as being an excuse to invade Russia, it would treat the US itself as being already an invader of Russia — which the US prior to a President Hillary Clinton never actually has been, notwithstanding the routine nature of international cyber espionage (which Clinton has now stated she wants to become a cause of war), which has been, and will continue to be, essential in the present era.

The International Business Times, an online-only site, headlined September 1st, «Clinton: US should use ‘military response’ to fight cyberattacks from Russia and China», and reported that a Pentagon official had testified to Congress on July 13th, that current US policy on this matter is:

«When determining whether a cyber incident constitutes an armed attack, the US government considers a broad range of factors, including the nature and extent of injury or death to persons and the destruction of or damage to property. … Cyber incidents are reviewed on a case-by-case basis, and the national security leadership and the president will make a determination if it’s an armed attack».

Hillary’s statement on this matter was simply ignored by The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, NBC, ABC, CBS, PBS, NPR, Fox, CNN, The Nation, The Atlantic, Harper’s, National Review, Common Dreams, Alternet, Truthout, and all the rest of the US standard and ‘alternative news’ reporting organizations. Perhaps when Americans go to the polls to elect a President on November 8th, almost none of them will have learned about her policy on this incredibly important matter.

Hillary’s statement was in line with the current Administration’s direction of policy, but is farther along in that direction than the Obama Administration’s policy yet is.

As the German Economic News article had noted, but only in passing: «Just a few months ago, US President Barack Obama had laid the legal basis for this procedure and signed a decree that equates hacker attacks with military attacks». However, this slightly overstated the degree to which Obama has advanced «this procedure». On 1 April 2016 — and not as any April Fool’s joke — techdirt had headlined «President Obama Signs Executive Order Saying That Now He’s Going To Be Really Mad If He Catches Someone Cyberattacking Us» and linked to the document, which techdirt noted was «allowing the White House to issue sanctions on those ‘engaging in significant malicious cyber-enabled activities’».

The writer, Mike Masnick, continued, quite accurately: «To make this work, the President officially declared foreign hacking to be a ‘national emergency’ (no, really) and basically said that if the government decides that some foreign person is doing a bit too much hacking, the US government can basically do all sorts of bad stuff to them, like seize anything they have in the US and block them from coming to the US». What Hillary Clinton wants to add to this policy is physical, military, invasion, for practices such as (if Russia becomes declared by the US President to have been behind the hacking of the DNC) what is actually routine activity of the CIA, NSA, and, of course, of Russia’s (and other countries’) intelligence operations.

It wasn’t directly Obama’s own action that led most powerfully up to Hillary Clinton’s policy on this, but instead NATO’s recent action — and NATO has always been an extension of the US President, it’s his military club, and it authorizes him to go to war against any nation that it decides to have been invaded by some non-member country (especially Russia or China — the Saudis, Qataris, and other funders behind international jihadist attacks are institutionally prohibited from being considered for invasion by NATO, because the US keeps those regimes in power, and those regimes are generally the biggest purchasers of US weapons). I reported on this at The Saker’s site, on 15 June 2016, headlining «NATO Says It Might Now Have Grounds to Attack Russia». That report opened:

On Tuesday, June 14th, NATO announced that if a NATO member country becomes the victim of a cyber attack by persons in a non-NATO country such as Russia or China, then NATO’s Article V «collective defense» provision requires each NATO member country to join that NATO member country if it decides to strike back against the attacking country. …

NATO is now alleging that because Russian hackers had copied the emails on Hillary Clinton’s home computer, this action of someone in Russia taking advantage of her having privatized her US State Department communications to her unsecured home computer and of such a Russian’s then snooping into the US State Department business that was stored on it, might constitute a Russian attack against the United States of America, and would, if the US President declares it to be a Russian invasion of the US, trigger NATO’s mutual-defense clause and so require all NATO nations to join with the US government in going to war against Russia, if the US government so decides.  

So, Obama is using NATO to set the groundwork for Hillary Clinton’s policy as (he hopes) America’s next President. Meanwhile, Obama’s public rhetoric on the matter is far more modest, and less scary. It’s sane-sounding falsehoods. At the end of the G-20 Summit in Beijing, he held a press conference September 5th (VIDEO at this link), in which he was asked specifically (3:15) «Q: On the cyber front, … do you think Russia is trying to influence the US election?» and he went into a lengthy statement, insulting Putin and saying (until 6:40 on the video) why Obama is superior to Putin on the Syrian war, and then (until 8:07 in the video) blaming Putin for, what is actually, the refusal of the Ukrainian parliament or Rada to approve the federalization of Ukraine that’s stated in the Minsk agreement as being a prerequisite to direct talks being held between the Donbass residents and the Obama-installed regime in Kiev that’s been trying to exterminate the residents of Donbass. Then (8:07 in the video), Obama got around to the reporter’s question:

And finally, we did talk about cyber-security generally. I’m not going to comment on specific investigations that are still alive and active, but I will tell you that we’ve had problems with cyber-intrusions from Russia in the past, from other countries in the past, and, look, we’re moving into a new era here, where a number of countries have significant capacities, and frankly we’ve got more capacity than anybody both offensively and defensively, but our goal is not to suddenly in the cyber-arena duplicate a cycle of escalation that we saw when it comes to other arms-races in the past, but rather to start instituting (9:00) some norms so that everybody’s acting responsibly.

He is a far more effective deceiver than is his intended successor, but Hillary’s goals and his, have always been the same: achieving what the US aristocracy want. Whereas she operates with a sledgehammer, he operates with a scalpel. And he hopes to hand this operation off to her on 20 January 2017.

This is what Hillary’s statement that «the United States will treat cyber attacks just like any other attack» is reflecting: it’s reflecting that the US will, if she becomes President, be actively seeking an excuse to invade Russia. The Obama-mask will then be off.

If this turns out to be the case, then it will be raw control of the US Government by the military-industrial complex, which includes the arms-makers plus the universities. It’s the owners — the aristocrats — plus their servants; and at least 90% of the military-industrial complex support Hillary Clinton’s candidacy. Like her, they are all demanding that the sequester be ended and that any future efforts to reduce the US Government’s debts must come from cutting expenditures for healthcare, education, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, environmental protection, and expenditures on the poor; no cuts (but only increases) for the military. This is based on the conservative theory, that the last thing to cut in government is the military.

The Republicans used to champion that view (thus the «conservative» in«neoconservative»). But after Obama came into office, the Republican Party became divided about that, while the Democratic Party (under Obama) increasingly came to support neoconservatism. Hillary is now the neoconservatives’ candidate. (And she’s also the close friend of many of them, and hired and promoted many of them at her State Department.) If she becomes the next President, then we might end up having the most neoconservative (i.e., military-industrial-complex-run) government ever. This would be terrific for America’s weapons-makers, but it very possibly would be horrific for everybody else. That’s the worst lobby of all, to run the country. (And, as that link there shows, Clinton has received over five times as much money from it as has her Republican opponent.)

George Herbert Walker Bush knows lots that the ‘news’ media don’t report (even when it has already been leaked in one way or another), and the Clinton plan to destroy Russia is part of that. Will the Russian government accept it? Or will it do whatever is required in order to defeat it? This is already a serious nuclear confrontation.

Since 1994, Rwanda and the international community invested tremendous resources in acknowledging, documenting, remembering and bringing to justice the perpetrators of the genocide against Tutsi. Sadly, though well documented by the international community and known by the victims, there has never been an acknowledgement that the crimes committed against the Rwandan Hutu fully satisfy the definition of genocide according to the Genocide Convention of 1948. A combination of a victor’s justice, a reign of impunity, and a guilty international community has led to a scandalous conspiracy of silence as a means to deny genocide against the Hutu.

The New Rwanda National Congress has, after a long and careful deliberation decided to rise to the historic responsibility of naming the crimes committed against the Rwandan Hutu in Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo by their rightful name, genocide. Compelling evidence demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt that members of the Hutu community were deliberately and systematically killed; that conditions were inflicted on them calculated to bring about their physical destruction in whole or in part; and that serious bodily and mental harm has been caused to them.

In the interest of Rwanda’s current and future generations, it is equally our duty and obligation to name the masterminds of the genocide against the Rwanda Hutu. From its founding in 1990 until now, the Directorate of Military Intelligence (DMI) of the Rwanda Patriotic Army (now Rwanda Defence Forces) has been the vanguard of decisions and actions that have brought untold suffering to Rwandans and people of the Great Lakes region. The primary command culpability for genocide against Rwandan Hutu lies with the following military officers, all Tutsi former refugees from Uganda, who have been at the heart of DMI’s genocidal agenda:

1. President Paul Kagame: President of Rwanda
2. Lt. General Kayumba Nyamwasa: First Vice Coordinator Rwanda National Congress
3. Lt. General James Kabarebe: Minister of Defence, Rwanda
4. Lt. General Charles Kayonga: Rwanda’s Ambassador to China
5. Lt. General Patrick Nyamvumba: Chief of Defence Forces, Rwanda
6. Lt. General Karenzi Karake: Advisor to the President, Rwanda
7. Lt. General Fred Ibingira: Reserve Chief of Staff, RDF, Rwanda
8. Major General Sam Kaka: Retired, Former RPA Chief of Staff
9. Major General Jack Nziza: Chief Inspector, Ministry of Defence
10. Major General Emmanuel Gasana: Chief of Police, Rwanda
11. Colonel Dan Munyuza: Deputy Chief of Police,

These military officials were responsible for the shooting down of the plane in which President Juvenal Habyalimana of Rwanda and President Cyprien Ntaryamira of Burundi were killed, triggering the genocide against Tutsi. Many officers and men of Rwanda Patriotic Army/Rwanda Defence Forces have been tools of this clique in unleashing war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide on Rwandan Hutu in Rwanda and across the Democratic Republic of Congo, as documented by various reports, including the U.N. Mapping Report on DRC of 2010.

The New National Congress calls upon the international community to bring to justice the perpetrators of genocide against the Rwandan Hutu as provided for by the 1948 Genocide Convention. The cry for justice by the Rwandan Hutu has gone on for too long without redress. It has been a typical case of justice delayed, but it cannot be justice denied forever. The reign of impunity and terror under the militarist genocidal clique that has ruled Rwanda since 1994 has already caused too much human suffering in Rwanda and the Great Lakes region. Failure to force these elements to account for their crimes simply makes the international community an accomplice in perpetuating impunity and the vicious cycles of war, war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide in Rwanda and the region.

The New Rwanda National Congress calls upon all Rwandan people to painfully sermon the will and courage to acknowledge and remember both the genocide against Tutsi and the genocide against Hutu. In doing so, we shall finally begin the long and difficult journey of authentic unity, reconciliation, forgiveness and healing founded on truth. Only then can we confidently say, Never Again!

The New Rwanda National Congress will be convening, under the auspices of the RWANDA TRUTH COMMISSION, the First International Conference on Genocide Against Rwandan Hutu, 9–11 December, 2016, Capitol Hill, Washington D.C, USA, to deliberate on the implications and follow up on this matter of highest historic significance.

Dr. Theogene Rudasingwa
Chairman

Joseph Ngarambe
Vice Chairman

Jonathan Musonera
Secretary

Mother Agnes Mariam, a nominee for the 2014 Nobel Peace Prize from Homs diocese, has some harsh words for the US war against Syria:

“Shame on a coalition who pretends fighting ISIS while in reality is helping ISIS killing innocent soldiers whose mission is to protect civilians.”

This is in response to the September 17 US airstrikes in Deir ez-Zor that massacred 62 Syrian soldiers and injured 100 more who have been fighting ISIS.[1] According to a June 2015 Time magazine article, Deir ez-Zor with a population of 228,000 has been under siege by ISIS the past years, relying on the nightly arrival of a large Syrian air-force-operated cargo plane which has a payload of more than 46 tons and transports munitions, food and medical supplies.

Starving babies in Deir ez-Zor

This much needed aid is flown out from the military air base southeast of the city, the target of ISIS the past years and now bombed by US jet fighters. During the bombing, ISIS launched a simultaneous attack and threatened to overrun the air base as well as slaughter the over 200,000 civilians. Deir ez-Zor is also home to a large Christian population protected by the Syrian government, similar to most other Christian inhabited cities that are in government-controlled areas along the coast.

Map of Christian population in Syria

However, the Syrian army was able to repel the ISIS offensive and recover lost territory after the US “mistaken” attacks, but the incident has again left many wondering whether US goal is really to counter terrorism or to conduct regime change in Syria.

Meanwhile, the Syrian people continue to face prolonged agony and suffering as regional and great powers use them as pawns for their geopolitical ambitions.

Edward Dark, an activist in Aleppo, noted back in 2013 that Syrians watched how their peaceful revolution was hijacked by Turkey/Saudi and other Arab Gulf states, pouring in Salafists from over 100 countries that morphed into ISIS, Al Nusra, and others that care nothing for the norms of human rights, democracy, or justice for the Syrian nation. He admitted, “People here don’t like the regime, but they hate the rebels even more.”

Now Dark sees Syria’s only salvation is through reconciliation and a renunciation of violence, but lamented “that is not a view shared by the warmongers and power brokers who still think that more Syrian blood should be spilled to appease the insatiable appetites of their sordid aspirations.”

A girl helping her dad with his shoe

Just as King Solomon determined the true mother of the baby is the one who refused to split her son in half, the champion of the Syrian people and human rights is the power that would place the Syrians’ welfare above its own selfish ambitions.

Nonetheless, Dark lamented that “Whatever is left of Syria at the end will be carved out between the wolves and vultures that fought over its bleeding and dying corpse, leaving us, the Syrian people to pick up the shattered pieces of our nation and our futures.”

Indeed, it seems US and its Salafist allies are bent on splitting the Syrian baby and cleansing it of ethnic and religious minorities with a Taliban-like regime and Shaira Law, and Deir ez-Zor is likely condemned to suffer the similar fate of Homs.

In Homs, the pre-conflict population was more than 1 million people of mostly Sunni Muslims with substantial Christian and Alawite communities. Peter Crowley, senior foreign affairs correspondent at Politico, in August 2015 tweeted an extract from a 2008 Lonely Planet travel guide of Homs.

“These days, its Christian neighborhood is one of Syria’s most welcoming and relaxed, and Homs’ citizens are some of the country’s friendliest…That, combined with the city’s myriad leafy parks and gardens, sprawling al fresco coffee shop, outdoor corn-on-the-cob stands and restored souq where artisans still work, make Homs a wonderful place to kick back for a couple of days.”

In eight years, Homs has changed from a “wonderful place” to a ruinous heap. With the ceasefire likely to break down as Salafist rebels rearm and regroup, US and Saudi/Qatar/Turkey are well on the march towards turning Syria into another Afghanistan in the Mediterranean.

[1] Nancy A. Youssef, “Did the U.S. Just Slaughter Syrian Troops? The Daily Beast, September 18, 2016.

Dr. Christina Lin is a Fellow at the Center for Transatlantic Relations at SAIS-Johns Hopkins University where she specializes in China-Middle East/Mediterranean relations, and a research consultant for Jane’s Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear Intelligence Centre at IHS Jane’s.

We will also participate in a US-led program to re-settle Central American refugees currently in a resettlement centre in Costa Rica. Malcolm Turnbull, Australian PM, Sep 21, 2016

It used to be claimed that you could not let the former Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, go anywhere with any degree of freedom. The mouth would open, the madness would come out.  His successor’s efforts have not been much better, reflecting a deep seated pathology in the global refugee debate and notions of violated borders.

On arriving in New York, Malcolm Turnbull seemed full of poorly minted ideas.  He insists that his country’s policy on asylum is one to be emulated – globally.  “Addressing irregular migration, through secure borders, has been essential in creating confidence that the government can manage migration in a way that mitigates risks and focuses on humanitarian assistance on those who need it most.”[1]

What his portrait of purported balance ignores is the grotesque Pacific camp system that institutionalises torture and dehumanisation.  As a video statement from Iranian journalist refugee Behrouz Boochani noted, a vain measure to convince delegates at the UN to pressure Turnbull, “Australia’s offshore policy is not based on border protection, it is based on torture.”[2]

The externalisation of all processes on treating and assessing the claims of refugees is an international malady.  The European Union is erratically putting up fences in parts while allowing trickles in elsewhere.  Countries are blaming each other for not pulling their weight. Fictional numbers of compromise are suggested, but the rise of toxic populism has hardened attitudes.

The United States is also undertaking its own reserved strategy in dealing with those feeling social strife in countries affected by violence.  Strategists in Washington have been chewing over how best to deal with the influx of people fleeing Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala via Mexicowith the US as an ultimate destination.

To that end, Australia has suggested itself as an unwitting accomplice in quelling the numbers coming into the US.  Within twenty-four hours, the “Costa Rica” solution (or non-solution, as these things tend to be), was born.  Turnbull had offered a hand to his US counterparts that Australia would do its bit “to pledge new commitments to support some of the world’s most vulnerable people.”

The Turnbull proposal, despite being deemed a “hoax” by opposition leader Bill Shorten, confirms a trading model for refugees.  We will take some from the Costa Rica centre, and you, in turn, may take some of ours. That last point has been officially denied, though the discussion on trade is certainly on, given statements by the Nauru justice minister, David Adeang, that Nauru had invited “other countries to assist in finding durable resettlement options for our refugees.”

There is an irony in this, given the humanitarian pretence of governments who obsess about “breaking” various market models of people smuggling.  Far from them to be the only ones engaged in the business of carting human souls across dangerous routes.  This is global resettlement with an unacceptable face.

Such models are also premised on brutal presumptions: those seeking asylum and refugees will not be settled in countries of their ultimate destination, as this throws the international system out of kilter. They will, rather, be located in places of least comfort in a cultural and economic sense.

Turnbull’s approach has been sold before the United Nations as necessary for a credible border protection regime.  Patching up porous borders wins votes, as does repelling unconventional refugee arrivals who dare travel by boat.  That enables the government of the day to then raise the legal humanitarian intake without agitating the local electorate it wishes to pacify.

All this is then above board, made decently, without fuss and fury.  In this case, the promise has been to make a previously announced figure – 18,750 – permanent, or at least up till the 2018-9 year.  This neatly inflates Australian generosity, which, if it comes to crude figures, can be measured by the resettling of 11,776 people last year.  In terms of recognising, registering or resettling refugees, Australia ranks a dismal 25^th, according to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees.

Turnbull was also in the sweetening mood, promising to add $130 million over the course of three years towards “peace building and assistance to refugees, forcibly displaced communities and host countries.”  This is additional to the $220 million in assistance to Syria and countries in its proximity.

Playing this electoral game of pick and choose comes with its risks.  Polls held in various countries show certain fears about that great phantom known as Muslim migration.  An Essential opinion poll fanned a few flames in that regard, revealing that one in two Australians favoured a ban on Muslim immigration.

The consequence of this is potentially retarding, with Australian politicians reluctant to acquiescence to the country’s receiving of refugees from some of the more traumatised areas of the planet.  Far better, then, to receive more desirable types, if only on paper.

The Australian proposal has another disruptive point. It creates a Costa Rica exception in the bargaining house, suggesting that the Obama administration has been lending its ear to Canberra.  As the Sydney Morning Herald (Sep 22) observed, the US program “echoes Australia’s use of Nauruand Manus Island in Papua New Guinea.”

Refugees warehoused like disreputable goods on Manus Island and Nauru face interminable periods of detention and the promise that they will never be allowed to settle in Australia. But they were the silent figures in a debate that has degraded them.  Their plight is effectively being globalised.

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar atSelwyn College, Cambridge.  He lectures at RMIT University,Melbourne.  Email: [email protected]

Notes

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/sep/20/malcolm-turnbull-tells-world-leaders-to-follow-australias-asylum-policies

[2] https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/sep/21/manus-island-refugees-condemn-malcolm-turnbulls-promotion-of-australias-asylum-policy

The 71st United Nations General Assembly convened this week beneath the shadow of a series of global crises that threaten to throw humanity into a new world war.

This was the backdrop against which US President Barack Obama gave his final address to the Assembly on Tuesday. Obama’s rambling speech, which at times appeared to be ad-libbed, was an exercise in self-contradiction and absurd lies, with Obama’s depiction of the current geopolitical situation standing reality on its head.

He declared, with a straight face, “Our international order has been so successful that we take it as a given that great powers no longer fight world wars; that the end of the Cold War lifted the shadow of nuclear Armageddon; that the battlefields of Europe have been replaced by peaceful union.”

With due apologies to Shakespeare, some people are born liars, others become liars, others have lies thrust upon them, but all three definitions apply to the current president of the United States.

Obama’s proclamation that the “shadow of nuclear Armageddon” has passed flies in the face not only of his own $1 trillion nuclear rearmament program, but the proclamation of the Union of Concerned Scientists that the US and China are “a few poor decisions away from starting a war that could escalate rapidly and end in a nuclear exchange.”

The president, moreover, did not mention that the “peaceful union” that replaced “the battlefields of Europe” was in the midst of dissolution amid growing national antagonisms. Obama was speaking at the first UN General Assembly to take place since the vote by Britain in June 2016 to leave the European Union, giving rise to demands for copycat votes throughout Europe and warnings of a break-up of the entire Eurozone.

As for “the battlefields of Europe,” NATO is moving ahead with its deployment of 4,000 troops to the Russian border, with high ranking NATO officials announcing this weekend that all of the troops will be in place by May. Behind the scenes, in the documents of military think tanks, such border troops are spoken of as “tripwires,” creating the rationale for military escalation by NATO in the event of a conflict between the Baltic States and Russia, substantially increasing the chances of a full-scale war between the two most powerful nuclear powers.

A substantial portion of Obama’s remarks were devoted to hurling barbs at Russia, tacitly asserting that it is a society “that asks less of oligarchs than ordinary citizens” and declaring that Russia is “attempting to recover lost glory through force.” But these declarations would have been directed far more appropriately at the US, the most unequal developed country in the world. The American ruling class has been engaged in unending war in the effort to counter its long-term economic decline.

Obama framed his remarks as a reflection on the past eight years of his administration, as well as on the 25 years that have passed since the dissolution of the USSR. “A quarter century after the end of the Cold War, the world is by many measures less violent and more prosperous than ever before,” Obama declared, adding that the US has “been a force for good” over this period.

Contrary to Obama’s half-hearted declarations, the past quarter century has abjectly failed to live up to the proponents of capitalist triumphalism, who declared that the fall of the USSR would usher in a new era of peace and democracy. The US, far from being “a force for good” over this period, has been the single greatest purveyor of destabilization, violence and disorder.

Beginning with the First Gulf War in 1991, the US has been perpetually at war, having bombed or invaded Iraq, Somalia, Bosnia, Yugoslavia, Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Libya, Yemen and Syria, and carried out destabilization operations in countless other countries.

These wars are now metastasizing into an increasingly direct conflict with Russia and China. This is accompanied by the militarization of the major imperialist powers, including Japan and Germany, as ruling classes throughout the world prepare for military conflict.

The General Assembly opened in the aftermath of Saturday’s bombing of a Syrian army base by the US military, in a flagrant violation of the ceasefire brokered between the US and its proxies on one side, and the Syrian government, backed by Russia, on the other. The attack led to over 90 fatalities and was carried out with the assistance of British, Australian and German forces, potentially embroiling these countries in a military conflict with Russia.

The bombing took place as Turkish President Erdogan, Washington’s ally in the Syria conflict, said Monday that Turkey plans to dramatically expand the area of Syria under its direct control by more than five-fold, to 5,000 square kilometers. US ground forces are fighting alongside Turkish-backed insurgents, raising the danger of a clash between Russian forces operating in Northern Syria and US ground troops fighting alongside Turkey.

But the conflict in Syria is just one in an innumerable series of global flashpoints throughout Europe and Asia. Last week, Japan announced it would participate in US-led patrols in the disputed South China Sea, sparking condemnation from China, which Japan invaded and occupied in the run-up to World War II.

Meanwhile in Kashmir, 11 more people were killed in recent days following an attack Sunday that left 18 Indian soldiers dead, in the heaviest fighting in years in the region. Were the conflict, escalated to a fever pitch by the US-led “Pivot to Asia,” to escalate into a war between India and Pakistan, it would be the first ever war between two nuclear-armed powers.

Any one of these or other complex conflicts—in which multiple countries are each engaged in low-level proxy fighting and jockeying for their regional interests—risks sparking an uncontrolled escalation, like the conflict that began in the Balkans in June 1914.

Obama intended to make his speech an account of the “progress that we’ve made these last eight years.” In the end, all he succeeded in doing was to emphasize how much closer to global war the world has come during his administration.

President Bashar al-Assad gave an interview to Associated Press published Thursday, following is the full text:

Britain’s military has admitted involvement in an airstrike in eastern Syria which reportedly killed over 60 Syrian Army troops. Subsequent reports suggest a Reaper drone may have been used.

The strike in the area of Deirel-Zor was originally attributed to Australian, US and Danish forces operating as part of the US-led coalition but the UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) tweeted on Monday that it had been involved.

An MoD spokesman said: “We can confirm that the UK participated in the recent coalition air strike in Syria, south of Dayr az Zawr on Saturday, and we are fully cooperating with the coalition investigation.

“The UK would not intentionally target Syrian military units. It would not be appropriate to comment further at this stage.”

On Monday afternoon Defence Command Denmark, the headquarters of the Danish military, also admitted it’s involvement in the deadly strike.

“Two Danish F-16s participated along with other nations’ aircraft in these attacks. The attack was immediately stopped when a report from the Russian side said that a Syrian military position had been hit,” a statement said.

“It is of course unfortunate if the coalition mistakenly struck anything other than ISIL forces,” the statement continued.

It was reported Sunday that sixty-two Syrian soldiers were killed and over 100 injured in the airstrike by the US-led coalition, Russia’s Defense Ministry spokesman, Major-General Igor Konashenkov, said, citing information received from the Syrian General Command.

The Russian Defense Ministry said that the aircraft which carried out the bombings had entered Syrian airspace from the territory of Iraq.

Four strikes against Syrian positions was performed by two F-16 jet fighters and two A-10 support aircraft, it added.

“If the airstrike was caused by the wrong coordinates of targets than it’s a direct consequence of the stubborn unwillingness of the American side to coordinate with Russia in its actions against terrorist groups in Syria,” Konashenkov stressed.

UK airstrikes have been officially carried out as part of Operation Shader in Syria since a vote in favour in December 2015. A previous vote in 2013 did not authorize air strikes.

UK forces have been operating from RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus. It emerged in August that British Special Forces were also operating on the ground in the country.

WATCH MORE:

 

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has said that US airstrikes on Syrian troops on Saturday were “intentional” and lasted for nearly one hour.

In an interview with the Associated Press conducted Wednesday, Assad said the attack targeted a “huge” area constituting of many hills, “so it was definitely intentional, not unintentional as they claimed.”

The US Central Command has said it may have unintentionally struck the Syrian airbase in Dayr al-Zawr while carrying out a raid against Daesh and that the strikes were stopped in less than five minutes when Russia called the US to halt it.

Daesh militants briefly overran government positions in the area until they were beaten back.

“How could they (Daesh) know that the Americans are going to attack that position in order to gather their militants to attack right away and to capture it one hour after the strike?” Assad asked.

“It wasn’t an accident by one airplane… It was four airplanes that kept attacking the position of the Syrian troops for nearly one hour, or a little bit more than one hour,” he said.

“You don’t commit a mistake for more than one hour,” Assad said in the interview.

US behind collapse of ceasefire

Assad also blamed the US for the collapse of a ceasefire deal brokered with Russia.

The strikes contributed to the collapse of the truce and cast serious doubt on chances for implementing an unprecedented US-Russian agreement to jointly target Daesh.

Assad said Washington “doesn’t have the will” to join the fight against Daesh, which the US, Turkey and their allies have cited as the reason for their military intervention in Syria.

Syrians who fled the country could return within a few months if the US, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Qatar stopped backing militants, he added.

Assad said the war, now in its sixth year, is likely to “drag on” because of what he said was continued external support for Takfiri terrorists and numerous militant groups.

“When you talk about it as part of a global conflict and a regional conflict, when you have many external factors that you don’t control, it’s going to drag on.”

‘US lies’ about aid convoy attack

Assad also rejected accusations that Syrian or Russian planes struck an aid convoy in Aleppo and denied that his troops were preventing food from entering the militant-held part of the city.

“If there’s really a siege around the city of Aleppo, people would have been dead by now,” Assad said, asking how militants were able to smuggle in arms but apparently not food or medicine.

The attack on the aid convoy outside Aleppo took place Monday night, hitting a warehouse as aid workers unloaded cargo and triggering huge explosions.

US officials have oscillated between blaming the Syrian government and the Russian military for the attack. At one point, they have described a sustained barrage that included barrel bombs.

One Thursday, however, the AP quoted an unnamed “senior US administration official” who claimed a Russian-piloted aircraft carried out the strike.

Assad dismissed the claims, saying whatever American officials say “has no credibility” and is “just lies.”

Russia has called for an independent investigation into the attack and has published a footage from a drone which apparently shows a militant vehicle towing a mortar alongside the aid convoy.

On Wednesday, Russia’s Defense Ministry said an armed US drone was in the vicinity of the humanitarian aid convoy that was hit by the airstrike.

War ‘savage’

Assad also brushed aside what is often described as eyewitness accounts to accuse the Syrian army, while acknowledging the war had been “savage”.

“Those witnesses only appear when there’s an accusation against the Syrian army or the Russian (army), but when the terrorists commit a crime or massacre or anything, you don’t see any witnesses.”

Austria’s foreign minister, Sebastian Kurz, announced on Wednesday that his country would join other UN member states in tabling a resolution next month to convene negotiations on a legally binding instrument to prohibit nuclear weapons in 2017.

Speaking in the high-level debate of the UN General Assembly in New York, he said that “experience shows that the first step to eliminate weapons of mass destruction is to prohibit them through legally binding norms”.

The announcement follows a landmark recommendation last month by a UN working group in Geneva for the General Assembly to convene a conference in 2017 to negotiate “a legally binding instrument to prohibit nuclear weapons, leading towards their total elimination”.

The Austrian-sponsored resolution would take forward this recommendation by establishing a formal mandate for negotiations. The deadline for tabling the resolution in the General Assembly’s First Committee, which deals with disarmament matters, is 13 October.

Following the tabling, nations will debate the resolution, then vote on whether to adopt it in the final week of October or first week of November. A second, confirmatory vote will take place in a plenary session of the General Assembly early in December.

ICAN warmly welcomes Austria’s announcement. “This is a major breakthrough in global efforts to rid the world of nuclear weapons. The resolution will be of enormous historical importance,” said Beatrice Fihn, executive director of ICAN.

“The proposed treaty will place nuclear weapons on the same legal footing as other weapons of mass destruction, which have long been prohibited under international law. It will be a major step towards the goal of elimination,” she said.

In 2014 Austria hosted an intergovernmental conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons, at which it launched a diplomatic pledge, supported by 127 nations, “to fill the legal gap for the prohibition and elimination of nuclear weapons”.

Excerpt from Austria’s statement:

“In a world that is less and less secure and faced with more and more tensions between big powers, nuclear disarmament remains the number one unfinished business. The recent nuclear tests by DPRK [North Korea] should be a warning signal. We all agree that the humanitarian consequences of the explosion of nuclear weapons would be unacceptable, and therefore we have to finally get rid of all these nuclear weapons.

Experience shows that the first step to eliminate weapons of mass destruction is to prohibit them through legally binding norms.

Together with other member states, Austria will table a draft resolution to convene negotiations on a legally binding comprehensive instrument to prohibit nuclear weapons in 2017.”

Commenting on Monday’s attack on the humanitarian convoy in Syria, both Russian experts and representatives of the Syrian Arab Red Crescent, who escorted the convoy, agree that it was a provocation. Russian experts suggest it was aimed at distracting attention from an earlier attack on Syrian army positions by the US-led coalition.

“There is no evidence that it was an airstrike of either Russian or Syrian aviation on the humanitarian convoy in Syria,” Wael al Malas, the representative of the Syrian branch of the Red Crescent, which escorted the convoy, told Russia’s Izvestiya newspaper.

“On the contrary, everything points to it being the militants of the terrorist organizations who exploded and set on fire the trucks of the convoy,” he added.

It should be also noted, al Malas added, that the attack coincided with the militant assault on the positions of the Syrian army near Aleppo.

“Therefore it was more likely a provocation aimed at capturing the media’s attention in order to accuse Damascus and Moscow of the attack,” he stated.

This view is echoed by Yuri Zinin, Senior Research Fellow at the Center for Partnership of Civilizations of Moscow State Institute of International Relations (MGIMO).

“The US is trying to deflect the criticism it was subjected to after the assault on the positions of the Syrian army at Deir ez-Zor [on September 16] by the US-led coalition,” he told the newspaper.

“It cannot be ruled out that there was an order to distract somehow the attention from that particular incident and move the spotlight on to Russia,” he suggested.

“The attack [on the convoy] is a provocation aimed to disrupt the peaceful settlement of the Syrian conflict and any possible negotiations on the matter,” the political analyst added.

He further explained that in case there are any agreements on the settlement of the conflict, many forces, and first of all the oppositions, would be left outside the political process and will lose financial support.

The expert said, there are thus two possibilities behind this attack: either the oppositional forces decided on their own to escalate the situation and attack the convoy, or they might have received an order from the US to do so.

Speaking on Wednesday at the UN Security Council High-Level Briefing on the Situation in the Middle East and North Africa, Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov also pointed out at the timing of an attack on the humanitarian convoy, which coincided with a fierce attack of al-Nusra Front and allied detachments on the Syrian government forces in the same area known as the Ramus road.

“I am not trying to make any accusations,” Sergei Lavrov said.

“However, I am convinced that such coincidences call for serious analysis and investigation. We insist on the most thorough and impartial probe into the attack against the humanitarian convoy.”

“There are many indications that it could have been a rocket or artillery attack. Initially that was how it was reported. Then they started mentioning helicopters and then aircraft. Therefore it is probably necessary to refrain from emotional responses and to not immediately grab the microphone and make comments, but conduct a thorough and professional investigation.”

It is also noteworthy that the distance between the site of the incident and the epicenter of the battle in western Aleppo, where Jabhat al-Nusra is active, does not exceed five to seven kilometers,” Russia’s top diplomat said.

“Russia has provided all the data in its possession related to the attack against this convoy, including real-time video footage. Despite our calls regarding the need to influence the armed opposition and corresponding groups, as recorded in UN Security Council decisions, so far, very little result has been achieved in this sphere,” he stated.

Meanwhile the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) for the Middle East and North Africa (ROMENA) told Izvestia that it has launched a full-scale investigation into the attack.

“The UN is conducting a large-scale investigation into the incident near Aleppo in order to find out what really happened and who is responsible for the attack (on the convoy),” Regional Public Information Officer Iyad H. Nasr told the newspaper.

“At the moment, we can’t say who was behind the attack. However we are in constant contact with the Syrian authorities, opposition and the [US-led] coalition, he said.

Nasr also noted that the UN so far does not have exact data on the number of victims but confirmed that both civilians and members of the humanitarian mission were among those killed in the attack.

“On the whole I would like to underline the threat that the attack poses to the continuation of humanitarian aid deliveries to the Syrian people. We have currently halted further humanitarian convoys but the work of the previous humanitarian missions goes on, as it is not acceptable that the Syrians are held indirectly responsible for this particular incident,” he finally stated.

The US and its allies  had  established a Field Operations Room in the Aleppo region integrated by intelligence personnel. Until it was targeted by a Russian missile attack on September 20,  this “semi-secret” facility was operated by US, British, Israeli, Turkish, Saudi and Qatari intelligence personnel.  

According to Fars News, this intelligence facility was attacked by Russia in the immediate wake of the US Air Strikes against Syrian SAA forces at Deir Ezzor in support of the ISIS-Daesh terrorists. “The Russian warships stationed in Syria’s coastal waters targeted and destroyed a foreign military operations room, killing over two dozen Israeli and western intelligence officers”

The Fars report conveys the impression that the Operations Room was largely integrated by Israelis. In all likelihood, the US was “calling the shots” and the facility was coordinated by Washington’s regional allies, in close liaison with (and on behalf) of the US military and intelligence apparatus.

With the exception of the Fars report and Sputnik Arabic, this Russian attack directed against a US-led coalition intelligence facility has not made the headlines. In fact there has been a total news blackout. The accuracy of the Fars report is yet to be fully ascertained.

What is significant is that the Operations Room situated in rebel held territory in the Aleppo region is manned by the main state sponsors of ISIS Daesh and Al Qaeda inside Syria, namely the US, UK (largely involved in the air raids), plus four countries of the region: Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Israel and Qatar. The respective roles of the four regional countries relating to recruitment, training, logistics and the financing of terrorism have been amply documented.

This Operations Room (i.e Combat Information Center) in the Aleppo region as well as field operations rooms in other regions (in territories controlled by rebel forces) are in permanent liaison with the US, Israeli and allied military command and control.

We will recall that in October 2015,  Obama announced that he was dispatching US Special Forces to operate on the ground inside Syria in the alleged counterterrorism operation against ISIS-Daesh. These US Special Forces would “involve fewer than 50 Special Operations advisers, who will work with resistance forces battling the Islamic State in northern Syria but will not engage in direct combat” (WP, October 30, 2015).

They will not engage in combat, they will be involved in”advisory” activities, –i.e. both within rebel formations as well as in the field operations rooms.

In recent months (May 2016), Washington confirmed that another 250 US special forces were to be deployed on the ground in Syria. A select number of intelligence officials were no doubt assigned to the field operations rooms.

This dispatch of US special forces coincided with the influx of  thousand of newly recruited “jihadist mercenaries” who joined the ranks of the various terror formations.  “Thousands of terrorists” were reported to have crossed the Turkey-Syria border in early May 2016, to be deployed against government forces in the Aleppo region.

Voice of America (undated) http://www.voanews.com/a/us-to-send-special-forces-to-syria-to-fight-islamic-state/3029684.html

The Operations Room in the Aleppo region was used to coordinate actions on the ground, drone surveillance as well as air-strikes.  According to the Fars report, the intelligence personnel assigned to the US led coalition Operations Room destroyed by Russia was  involved in coordinating US and allied sponsored terrorist attacks in Aleppo and Idlib. In all likelihood, the Operations Room destroyed by Russia was also involved in the planning and implementation of the Deir Ezzor attack by the US Air force against Syrian SAA forces, carried out in the immediate wake of the Geneva ceasefire agreement.

The Syria based “Operations Rooms” were also in liaison with US and allied command as well as Special Forces on the ground (including Western military personnel hired by private mercenary companies) embedded within the various rebel terror groups including ISIS-Daesh and Al Nusra.

The existence and location of the Aleppo region Operations Room facility must have been known and (until recently) tolerated by both the Syrian government and the Russian military. And until recently no action was taken.

According to the Fars News Agency report (yet to be fully confirmed), it would appear that Moscow chose to target the Aleppo region (“semi-secret”) Operations Room in the immediate wake the Pentagon’s decision to order the USAF airstrikes against Syrian government forces involved in combating the ISIS-Daesh terrorists in Deir Ezzor.