Global Research

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.

The Russian warships in Syria’s coastal waters targeted and destroyed a foreign military operations room in Dar Ezza region in the Western part of Aleppo near Saman mountain, killing over two dozen Israeli and western intelligence officers.

Several US, Turkish, Saudi, Qatari and British officers were also killed along with the Israeli officers.

The foreign officers who were killed in the Aleppo operations room were directing the terrorists’ attacks in Aleppo and Idlib.

“The Russian warships fired three Caliber missiles at the foreign officers’ coordination operations room in Dar Ezza region in the Western part of Aleppo near Saman mountain, killing 30 Israeli and western officers,” Sputnik quoted military source in Aleppo as saying on Wednesday.

The operations room was located in the Western part of Aleppo province in the middle of sky-high Saman Mountain and old caves. The region is deep into a chain of mountains, FNA reports.

Earlier in September, the Syrian army units launched a preemptive strike on the terrorists of the so-called Aleppo Operations Room in their gathering centers near Castello road in the Northern areas of Aleppo and Mallah farms, foiling their plots to attack the region’s supply route, a source said.

The source said that the army’s artillery units attacked the terrorists’ gathering centers near Castello and Mallah farms in Zahra Abdo Rabbah, Kafar Hamra and Hurayatyn which killed and wounded dozens of militants.

Also, the Syrian air force attacked the terrorists’ supply route in Northern Aleppo towards Hayyan and Adnan as well as the supply roads in Western Aleppo towards the North and smashed the terrorists’ convoys in al-Aratab, Urom Kobra and Maara al-Artiq which thwarted the terrorists’ plots and forced many of them flee towards the Turkish borders.

Informed media sources disclosed earlier that the Syrian army has continued its advances in the Southern part of Aleppo, and regained control over several strategic areas in the town of Khan Touman.

“A number of key warehouses of Khan Touman are now under the Syrian army’s control,”, FNA reports.

The source noted that the Syrian air force and army’s artillery units also targeted the gathering centers and fortifications of the terrorists in Khan Touman.

The US State Department’s Young Southeast Asian Leaders Initiative (YSEALI) claims on its official US government website to build “the leadership capabilities of youth in the region and promotes cross-border cooperation to solve regional and global challenges.”

It not only consists of US-based educational and professional “fellowships” for Southeast Asian participants, but also a funding component to help alumni establish foreign-funded organisations posing as “nongovernmental organisations” (NGOs), enhancing the already large presence of US-funded organisations operating across Asia in the service of American interests.

Under an initiative called, “Generation: Go NGO!,” YSEALI claims:

This is an opportunity for young NGO leaders to advance their professional skills and competencies with the aim to grow, scale, and take the organizations they work for, or those they founded, to new heights. 

From developing baseline metrics to creatively pursuing financial and in-kind resources to assertively applying social media to advance mission, this workshop will bring together individuals from across ASEAN to learn and collaborate on ways to build capacity, message, and impact.

Beyond this, YSEALI also conducts other workshops across Southeast Asia to help prepare what is essentially a parallel political establishment that serves not Southeast Asian institutions or the population, but the US State Department and the corporate and financial interests it represents, quite literally an ocean and continent away.

One such activity was conducted by the US Embassy in Cambodia, called the “First Model Prime Minister Debate” organised by the US Ambassador’s Youth Council, Phnom Penh.

In essence, the US State Department is preparing an entire generation of impressionable young people, raised on American-style consumerism and hooked into US-based social media platforms like Facebook, and moulding them into a client political bloc they will eventually assist into power, just as they have attempted to do in Hong Kong recently with US State Department-funded “Umbrella Revolution” leaders winning several seats in local legislative elections and as they have already done in Myanmar through Aung San Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy (NDL) with her minister of information quite literally trained by US-funded organisations in neighbouring Thailand before assuming his post.

Using children and young adults through what appear to be benign overseas scholarships and work opportunities, as well as through events across Southeast Asia organised by US embassies appears at first disarming and scaled back from the sort of subversion the US has typically engaged in over the past several decades (i.e. 1953 Operation Ajax: Iran, 1973 Chilean coup d’état, or the violent 2011 Arab Spring).

Yet despite its apparent benign nature, it represents precisely the same end result; a US backed government, representing parallel institutions that answer not to the people they are put in power over, but instead represents those foreign interests that cultivated, funded and directed them into power from abroad.

YSEALI’s activities are fundamentally inappropriate, undiplomatic and constitute an intentional and direct threat to the sovereignty and self-determination of the entire region of Southeast Asia. Were China or Russia conducting such activities in the United States, it is likely a coordinated government and media campaign would be mobilised to counteract it, and possibly even legislation passed to stop it all together.

Likewise, ASEAN should consider revising rules, regulations and legislation governing foreign-funded organisations masquerading as “NGOs” and limiting foreign missions to the region and each respective nation to diplomatic activities only.

Funding from foreign governments for allegedly “nongovernmental” organisations is in itself a contradiction in both terms and in principle. And the idea of a parallel political system created in the US embassy and composed of Southeast Asian youths “built” by US efforts somehow representing or resulting in “democracy” or “self-determination” is an obvious and intentional misrepresentation by the US State Department.

Not only should local governments across Southeast Asia counter these efforts through restricting or ending them altogether, they should create their own programmes to develop their nation’s next generation of political and business leaders, infused with local principles, values, cultural ideals and reflecting the best interests of the people and nation they will eventually assume positions of power over. Self-determination is not a right the US or the “international community” it poses as leader of will grant freely to the nations of the world it presumes dominion over, it is a right that nations must fight for, earn and protect proactively.

Joseph Thomas is chief editor of Thailand-based geopolitical journal, The New Atlas and contributor to the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

The Syrian battlefield is now witnessing an escalation of the war. This is despite the fact that it is supposed to be a time of cessation of hostilities brokered by the US and Russia.

The Syrian war has two major fronts. The first and most important is in southern Syria, on the borderline with Israel and the occupied territories of the Syrian Golan Heights.  This area is divided into two areas:  the liberated area of Al-Quneitra, and the occupied area of the Golan Heights where Jabhat Al-Nusra and Al-Qaeda’s base their fighters.

Israel has been attempting to drive the Syrian army out of Al-Quneitra.  Israel’s objective is to join this part of the Golan Heights to the territory it controls, thereby creating a buffer zone like the one it once had in southern Lebanon. In order to achieve this objective Israel regularly bombs Syrian military positions in the area, including Syrian Arab Army artillery positions, radar stations, etc.

There is a UN Security Council Resolution (UNSC Resolution number 338) dated 22nd October 1973, which supposedly established a Syrian-Israeli ceasefire in this area.  There is also a UN force – UNDOF – set up in 1974, which is supposed to supervise the ceasefire line.  However, Israel has forced out most of UNDOF from the area, and in practice Israel simply ignores the terms of Resolution 338 and violates it at will.

By attacking the Syrian Army in Al-Quneitra Jabhat Al-Nusra – Al-Qaeda’s local franchise – is helping Israel.  Al-Nusra and Al-Qaeda fighters are attacking Syrian military positions important for the defence of Syria and of the Arab nation from Israeli aggression.

These Al-Nusra and Al-Qaeda attacks would not be possible without air support from Israel. Indeed, Israel has admitted many times that it supports these terrorists, whom it calls “moderate rebels”.

Israeli hospitals actually treat Al-Nusra terrorists, and Israeli ambulances regularly enter Syria to evacuate injured Al-Nusra terrorists via the Jbata crossing in northern Al-Quneitra to the Occupied Palestinian territories.  Many of the weapons seized by the Syrian army from the terrorists as they tried to cross into Sweda Province in southern Syria to surround Damascus were made in Israel.

Lately the Syrian Army has carried out a series of successful offensives in the area, defeating the Western and Arab Gulf-backed “rebels”.  Over the last few months the position of these so-called “rebels” has become desperate.

For that reason Israel has recently stepped its attacks on Syrian positions inside liberated Al-Quneitra, launching missiles into Syrian territory from its positions in the Israeli occupied section of the Golan Heights.

The Syrian military reported these attacks to the Syrian government.  A senior Syrian official visited the area.  He ordered the Syrian military in the area act to defend Syrian territory from Israeli attack.  The very next day Syrian Air Defence shot down an Israeli F-16 warplane and an Israeli drone.  The F16 was brought down on the border line in a place called Bir Ajam, which is under al-Nusra control. The drone was brought down in a place called Sa’sa’, which is inside Syrian army controlled territory.

This action marked a dramatic shift of  policy on the part of the Syrian government, decisively responding to the attacks by the Israelis.  It represents a direct counter to Israel’s aggression on Syrian land.

At around this time the US and the Russians, after prolonged negotiations, announced a ceasefire, the terms of which are secret.

The general opinion in Syria is that the terms of the ceasefire are secret because the US has longstanding obligations to the “moderate rebels” – who are neither “moderate” nor “rebels” but are actually terrorists – but has had to accede to demands from the Russians that it separates and identifies those fighters it supports from those it does not.

Had the US announced the terms of the ceasefire, the the morale of the fighters would have collapsed, since they would have confirmed that they had in effect been defeated.  They might even have rebelled against the US.

However, what followed next shows that the US – the true master of this war, and the one which confers immunity on its chosen terrorists by calling them “moderate rebels”  – can never be trusted in any quest for a peaceful solution to the war against Syria.  The U.S. broke the ceasefire by striking a Syrian military airbase in Deir Al-Zour, located in the Thardeh Mountains.

This is a tough target for ISIS to capture, and it requires coordination between the US led coalition and ISIS against the Syrian Arab Army to give them the chance to do so. The objective is for ISIS to capture the airbase there, which will give ISIS control of the city and ultimately over the whole province.

The US claims that despite its powerful satellites and other methods of surveillance it could not identify the Syrian Arab Army’s positions and that the attack was a “mistake”.

We – the Arab people of Syria and Iraq – have long become accustomed to such “mistakes”.  After all we remember the US-led coalition using similar rhetoric to drop weapons for ISIS in their stronghold along the border with Iraq, which it just so happens is also, interestingly enough, the border of Deir Al-Zour province.

That was the US’s gift to the barbarians of ISIS. Over 100 brave Syrian soldiers were martyred, and Syrian military positions resisting ISIS were destroyed and overrun.

Maybe I have got it the wrong way round.  Maybe I should say it another way:  What a great gift the barbarians of ISIS have given to the US – giving them the pretext to bomb Syria – the main country of the Resistance Front, and the only Arab country which together with Hezbollah resists Israel!

Meanwhile, Israel bombed a Syrian site in the south of Syria, claiming the life of another Syrian soldier.

Are we to believe this is all just coincidence?

The good news is that the Syrian Arab Army with Russian air support has been able to stop ISIS taking over the airbase near Deir-ez-Zour.  However in the fighting the terrorists, who have been given advanced anti-aircraft weapons, managed to down a Syrian airplane.

Syrians deserve the right to counter any aggression against their country and their army. They deserve the right to respond in the same way that they have recently responded to the aggression launched against them by Israel.

I have personally met a Syrian soldier who survived the US coalition bombing in Deir-ez-Zour.   He told Syrian Formal TV that US drones were flying over the airbase for more than four and a half hours before the US aircraft made their “mistake”. He said that he originally thought they were scanning the area to help the fight against ISIS.  However he gradually realised that the drones were actually undertaking surveillance of the base itself – of its equipment, tanks, ammunition, etc.  Later, the US aircraft destroyed all this whilst the ISIS terrorists were screaming Allah Akbar!

That brought back memories of the US led coalition drone that flew over the Presidential Palace in Lattakia, which our air defenses shot down over a year ago.

Would any sovereign country accept foreign powers bombing its army in its own land?

Add to that the Turkish troops in northern Syria who are – under UN cover – wanting to send 40 trucks of who knows what into Syria!

The UN prevented the Syrian authorities from checking these trucks, but they were still labeled “humanitarian aid.” What kind of aid is it really and who is it heading to? “Moderate” suicide bombers? ISIS?

And why are so many areas in Syria that are being besieged by terrorists being ignored by the UN?  After all no one asks the ‘international community’ (ie. the US and its friends) to lift the unjust sanctions on Syria to prevent starvation!

Syrians are wondering: is our war really with ISIS and Al-Qaeda or with the US and Israel – the true aggressors and puppet-masters – who have always wanted a long war against Syria in order to break and occupy us?

The writer is a Syrian journalist who regularly writes under the name Syrian Afra’a.

The Syrian Arab Army’s 137th Artillery Brigade of the 17th Tank Division opened fire on a U.S. reconnaissance drone today after it was spotted flying over the Thardeh Mountains of Deir Ezzor.

According to a source at the Deir Ezzor Military Airport, the 137th Brigade fired several shots at the U.S. reconnaissance drone in Jabal Thardeh, forcing it immediately leave the area after several warnings.

Prior to the bombing that killed over 100 soldiers on Saturday, the Syrian Armed Forces allowed U.S. reconnaissance drones to freely fly above their positions in Deir Ezzor.

However, due to the U.S.’ poor coordination with their Russian counterparts, the Syrian Armed Forces will no long allow any unauthorized aircraft to fly near the Deir Ezzor Military Airport and 137th Artillery Brigade’s headquarters.

The UN has revised its recently released statement regarding the humanitarian convoy affected by an attack in Syria. The phrase “air strikes” were replaced with references to unspecified “attacks.” Change of the text of the statement came after explanations of the Russian side.

Earlier, the UN reported that the convoy was damaged “as a result of an airstrike.” In response, the Russian delegation noted that that neither the Russian Aerospace Forces, nor the Syrian Air Forces have attacked the convoy with humanitarian aid.

Spokesman for the Russian Defense Ministry, Major-General Igor Konashenkov, said that after studying a video, no signs of aircraft ammunition’s hits on the humanitarian convoy on the outskirts of Aleppo have been identified. He also reminded that on Monday, terrorists of the Jabhat Fateh al-Sham (previously known as the Jabhat al-Nusra or the Al-Nusra Front) group began their offensive on Aleppo precisely in this direction, using “powerful artillery fire from tanks, cannon gunnery and various multiple rocket launchers.”

According to Konashenkov, the photos show that there are no relevant funnels, and vehicles do not have hull damages and fractures of its structures from the blast wave of the aero-ammunition. He also added that Russia had used drones to monitor the convoy but only to a certain point.

“Around 13:40 Moscow time (10:40 GMT), the aid convoy has successfully reached the destination. The Russian side did not monitor the convoy after this, and its movements were only known to militants, who were controlled the area,” Konashenkov said.

The spokesman also noted that a pickup truck with a large-caliber mortar, used by terrorists, can be clearly seen in the footage. “The video clearly shows how terrorists are relocating a pickup truck with a large-caliber mortar,” he said.

“We are not in a position to determine whether these were in fact airstrikes. We are in a position to say that the convoy was attacked,” a representative of the UN for Humanitarian Affairs, Jens Laerke, said. According to his words, mention of the air strike in the early edition of the UN document is a result of a drafting error.

According to UN Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs, Stephen O’Brien, the attack may be considered a war crime, if intentionally directing attacks against volunteers of the humanitarian organization is proved.

However, despite the new UN statement, the US continues to believe that Russia is responsible for the incident.

US President Barack Obama’s national security adviser, Ben Rhodes, said that all indications are “that this was an airstrike.”

“There only could have been two entities responsible: either the Syrian regime or the Russian government. In any event, we hold the Russian government responsible,” he said.

On Monday evening, a humanitarian convoy of the UN and the Red Crescent came under an air attack on the Castello Highway. As a result of the attack, at least 18 vehicles were destroyed, and 12 people were killed.

The Russian military unveiled on Tuesday video footage of a UN humanitarian aid convoy that came under attack in Syria, which shows a militants’ pickup vehicle carrying a large-caliber mortar as part of the convoy.

The video shows that the UN aid convoy was accompanied by a terrorists’ off-road vehicle with a large-caliber mortar launcher, the Russian Defense Ministry spokesman said.

“The examination of the video footage made via drones of the movement of the humanitarian convoy in areas controlled by militants in the province of Aleppo has revealed new details.  The video clearly shows how terrorists are redeploying a pickup with a large-caliber mortar on it using the convoy as a cover,” Maj. Gen. Igor Konashenkov said. (right)

He said that

“it is unclear yet who accompanies whom: the [pickup with a] mortar accompanies the convoy with “White Helmets” volunteers or vise versa. And most importantly, where did the mortar disappear near the destination point of the convoy and what was the target of its fire during the convoy’s stop and unloading?”

On Monday, the United Nations’ Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) said that the aid convoy crossed the conflict line in the Big Orem area of the Syrian city of Aleppo.

Later in the day, UN officials stated that the convoy had been shelled and there were casualties.

Earlier in the day, the Russian Defense Ministry said that neither Russian, not Syria aircraft carried out strikes against the UN aid convoy, emphasizing that the examination of video footage reveals no signs of an ammunition strikes on the convoy and it seems to be set on fire.

The ministry emphasized that the perpetrator of the fire, as well as his goal may be known by members of the “White Helmets” organization that allegedly has connection to al-Nusra Front terrorists who have “accidentally” been at the right time and in the right place with cameras.

According to the official, al-Nusra Front terrorist group carried out an artillery attack on the southwestern suburb of Aleppo using multiple launch rocket systems.

“The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.” Candidate Barack Obama, December, 2007

As the US heaps blame and accusations on Russia and Syria for the alleged air strike on the aid convoy on Monday 19^th September, as ever there are more questions than answers – and whatever US spokespersons state, absolutely no certainties.

The only undeniable fact is that another tragedy killed at least twenty Syrian Arab Red Crescent volunteers and the organisation’s local Director Omar Barakat, father of nine. At least eighteen of the thirty one-truck convoy were destroyed with the warehouse where humanitarian aid was stored.

The Russian Defence Ministry has categorically denied any attack and claims the convoy caught fire (1):  “We have studied video footage from the scene from so-called ‘activists’ in detail and did not find any evidence that the convoy had been struck by ordnance”, commented Igor Konashenkov, a Ministry spokesman.

“There are no craters and the exterior of the vehicles do not have the kind of damage consistent with blasts caused by bombs dropped from the air.” His observations are hard to challenge, anyone who has studied the assaults of the “international community” on far away countries over the last decades knows what a bombed truck looks like – what fragments remains of it.

Photographs of the affected lorries show burned out vehicles, metal skeleton intact.

Konashenkov said that damage visible in footage was instead the result of cargo igniting – “oddly” occurring at the same time as militants (formerly Nusra Front) had started a big offensive in nearby Aleppo, backed by tanks, artillery and other heavy equipment.

He added:

“Only representatives of the ‘White Helmets’ organization close to the Nusra Front who, as always, found themselves at the right time in the right place by chance with their video cameras can answer who did this and why.”

Indeed the ‘White Helmets’ boasted in a video of being on the scene within “moments.”

The “White Helmets” who have had the gall to entitle themselves the Syrian Civil Defence Force are seemingly neither Syrian, nor Civil, nor Defence. Vanessa Beeley who has meticulously charted their antics points out (2)

“This is an alleged ‘non-governmental’ organization … that so far has received funding from at least three major NATO governments, including $23 million from the US Government and $29 million (£19.7 million) from the UK Government, $4.5 million (€4 million) from the Dutch Government. In addition, it receives material assistance and training funded and run by a variety of other EU Nations.”

She informs of such concerns regarding the organization that:

“A request has been put into the EU Secretary General to provide all correspondence relating to the funding and training of the White Helmets. By law this information must be made transparent and available to the public.”

Beeley points out: “There has been a concerted campaign by a range of investigative journalists to expose the true roots of … the White Helmets.” The most damning statement, however (comes from) their funders and backers in the US State Department who attempted to explain the US deportation of the prominent White Helmet leader, Raed Saleh, from Dulles airport on the 18th April 2016.

Of the incident, Mark Toner, State Department spokesman stated:

“And any individual – again, I’m broadening my language here for specific reasons, but any individual in any group suspected of ties or relations with extremist groups or that we had believed to be a security threat to the United States, we would act accordingly. But that does not, by extension, mean we condemn or would cut off ties to the group for which that individual works for.”

Figure that one, Dear Reader.

The Ron Paul Institute has pointed out:

“We have demonstrated that the White Helmets are an integral part of the propaganda vanguard that ensures obscurantism of fact and propagation of Human Rights fiction that elicits the well-intentioned and self righteous response from a very cleverly duped public. A priority for these NGOs is to keep pushing the No Fly Zone scenario which has already been seen to have disastrous implications for innocent civilians in Libya, for example.” (See 2.)

What better chance to push “the No Fly Zone scenario” than arriving within “moments” of the convoy tragedy, filming it and creating a propaganda scenario before any meaningful forensic investigation could even be started, since the trucks were still burning. And of course, the “White Helmets”, aka “Syrian Defence Force”, were filming rather than attempting to put out the fire and rescue those in the burning trucks.

The Russian Defence Ministry subsequently caused outrage by claiming that Drone footage: “shows bombed Syrian aid convoy included truck full of militant fighters carrying mortar guns.” (3)

However: “The footage emerged as the United Nations rowed back from describing the attack on the aid convoy as air strikes, saying it did not have conclusive evidence about what had happened.”

It must be asked, why on earth, after long and protracted negotiations over the convoy would Syria and or their Russian ally risk the wrath of US and “coalition” further decimation of the country by laying themselves open to accusations of bombing and aid convoys?

The tragedy has emphatically achieved one thing, however. Wiped from the headlines is another atrocity – the US bombing which killed over sixty Syrian soldiers and wounded over a hundred others just two days earlier, on Saturday 17^th September, causing Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova to comment: “We are reaching a really terrifying conclusion for the whole world: That the White House is defending Islamic State. Now there can be no doubts about that”, according to the RIA Novosti news agency.

Again – Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who will guard the guards?

Notes

1.http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-russia-convoyfir-idUSKCN11Q1SG

2.http://21stcenturywire.com/2016/06/21/who-are-the-syria-white-helmets/

3.http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/drone-footage-shows-bombed-syrian-8879319

As we have already said many times, the main aspect of this political season is not elections, but war. But if elections do have importance somewhere, then this is in the US where, once again, they are closely connected to war. Two days ago, on Saturday, September 17th, the likelihood of this war was breathtakingly high. As we know, American troops, who no one ever invited to Syria, bombed the positions of the Syrian army at Deir ez-Zor. As a result of the bombing, 60 Syrian soldiers were killed.

This strike was extremely important for ISIS militants, whom the US is informally advising and arming while supposedly fighting them. This crossed the line. Bombing Syrian soldiers is one thing, but this means declaring war not only against Syria, but also Russia, which is fighting in Syria on Assad’s side. And this means that we have reached a climax.

Last weekend, the US-led international coalition against ISIS used its air power against the Syrian Arab Army positions outside the eastern city of Deir Ezzor, supporting an advance of ISIS militants there. This was the second time in less than a year when the coalition’s warplanes bombed the Syrian government forces engaged in clashes with this notorious terrorist group. On December 6, 2015 four coalition warplanes hit the Syrian army’s field camp outside Deir Ezzor prior to the ISIS advance in the area.

It’s hard to believe in the official American version that the both incidents were accidental because in this case we should conclude that the US-led coalition has almost no intelligence about the situation in the province. Obviously, this is not true.

Most likely, Washington believes that such bombings are a demonstration of the coalition’s unity in countering the Russian-Syrian-Iranian efforts in the conflict and the answer to Russian air strikes on the US-backed New Syrian Army (NSyA) militant group that took place some time ago. The American political leadership likely believe that this move showed that the US is ready to answer if Moscow decides to intensify bombing of the so-called “moderate opposition.” Separation of this opposition from terrorists is not the case because when this is done it will become clear that various terrorist groups are a core of the anti-Assad forces.

The question is how will the Russian-Syrian-Iranian alliance to respond to its US-led counterpart?

• Moscow has already started a media campaign that the US is not able and does not seek to separate the moderate opposition from the terrorists. And this can be described as a direct assistance to Jabhat Fatah al-Sham (formerly Jabhat al-Nusra).
• In the same moment, the official version of Washington about an accident can be used to demonstrate inability of the US military to conduct successful anti-terror operations without additional assistance from other powers.
• Strengthening of air defenses in the area will also help to cool hot heads in the US-led coalition. The case with allegedly downed Israeli aircraft shows that a real threat to sustain casualties as result of such PR actions reduces the willingness to conduct them.
• The Russian-Syrian-Iranian alliance needs to continue military pressure on any groups embedded with Jabhat Fatah al-Sham and its proxies.

Summarizing the recent developments, it has become clear that Washington is pushing for breaching the ceasefire agreement and is searching a reason for this. So, Russia, Syria and Iran should be ready for continuation of the full-scale war if the truce is failed. This is why they took the lead.

On September 19, the head of the main operations department of Russia’s General Staff, Lt. Gen. Sergey Rudskoy declared during a press briefing on September 19 that there is no reason for the Syrian government forces to observe the ceasefire, unilaterally. The Russian military official emphasized the United States and US-backed opposition groups have not met any of the commitments of the agreements. The US even failed to provide the Russian military with precise data on the deployment of the US-controlled armed groups while the data, handed over to Russia on September 13, did not meet the bilateral agreement – it was merely a general list of the militant groups agreed to join the truce. In other words, the Russian military declared the end of the truce and the United States’ inability to fulfil the commitments of Geneva deal.

A few hours later, the Syrian army command declared the end of the nationwide ceasefire in Syria. In a statement released by SANA, it emphasized that “armed terrorist groups took advantage of the declared ceasefire” in order to regroup and mobilize forces. Now, the terrorists are aimed to launch attacks on “residential areas” and the government forces positions in several regions, including Aleppo. The ceasefire regime collapsed.

The armed conflict in Kashmir has reached a dangerous point. The killing of 17 Indian soldiers in the Uri camp, 6 kilometres from the Line of Control (LoC) that separates the two state protagonists, India and Pakistan, could lead to a further deterioration of a volatile situation that threatens to spiral into a much larger conflagration.  Indian authorities allege that the four militants who killed the soldiers were trained by Pakistan. Pakistan has denied the allegation.

Both India and Pakistan should not allow the situation to escalate into an open war between the two states. Starting with the first Kashmir War in 1947, they have already fought three wars over Kashmir. These wars have only witnessed the loss of thousands of lives on both sides.

The Kashmir conflict cannot be resolved through war and violence. Indian and Pakistani leaders know this. The people of Kashmir themselves are deeply aware of the importance of a peaceful solution.

Right from the beginning of the Kashmir conflict 69 years ago, many commentators from Kashmir, other parts of India and Pakistan and indeed from other countries have argued that a peaceful solution must be built around a free and fair plebiscite that would allow the people of Kashmir to determine their own future. Self-determination then is the key to ending the conflict in Kashmir. This was the position adopted by the United Nations itself in 1949. At that time, the people of Kashmir, it was felt, should be allowed to choose between joining India or Pakistan. Today, however, it is obvious that Kashmiris should be given a third choice: of establishing their own independent, sovereign state that is not a part of either their two neighbours.

Whatever it is, the fundamental principle that should be observed at all costs is the right of the people of Kashmir to decide their own destiny. Unfortunately, it does not appear that the elite in New Delhi or in Islamabad will willingly allow the people of Kashmir to exercise this right. The UN is in no position to compel the Indian and Pakistani authorities to give the green light to Kashmir’s sovereign right.

Major world powers will not be able to play a role either. The United States of America which has developed increasingly close ties to India in recent years will not try to persuade New Delhi to grant Kashmiris their sovereign right because it is not in its interest to do so. China which has tremendous rapport with Islamabad has no reason to ask the latter to acknowledge the right of self-determination of the people of the whole of Kashmir, including that part of Kashmir which is under the control of Pakistan. Incidentally, it is self-determination for the whole of Kashmir that the UN had in mind in 1949.

If the people of Kashmir cannot depend upon major powers or the UN to help them to exercise their right, who do they turn to? What can they do to achieve their goal of independence? Perhaps they should begin by acknowledging what they cannot do. Resorting to violence is not the solution — though it is true that freedom-fighters in Kashmir have been subjected to unspeakable brutality and horrific torture. This is also true of the present cycle of violence which reveals that the harsh measures adopted by the Indian armed forces have been mainly responsible for the retaliatory tactics of the freedom-fighters. But violence and counter-violence have only increased the immense suffering of the people of Kashmir which has been under a curfew for more than two months.

This is directly linked to another dimension of the conflict that demands the immediate attention of the international community. If freedom-fighters should not resort to violence, it is even more important for the Indian army to exercise maximum restraint in addressing peaceful dissent. Its excessive use of force must cease immediately. The world should demand this. Indeed, to develop a modicum of trust between the Indian authorities in Kashmir and the people, a substantial portion of the army should be withdrawn.

Just as the Indian authorities should demonstrate that they are capable of changing their behaviour, so should the Pakistani army and the Pakistani elite desist from any sort of conduct that would suggest that they are interfering in the domestic affairs of Indian occupied Kashmir. This will help to create an atmosphere that makes it easier for Kashmiris themselves to articulate their interests and mobilize the popular will in pursuit of their own agenda.

In ensuring that both India and Pakistan respect the rights of the people of Kashmir, the UN peace keeping force in Kashmir should perhaps expand its mandate beyond the LoC and play a more vigorous role in maintaining security and stability.  As a general principle, the UN should be more involved in trying to find a solution to the Kashmiri conflict — arguably one of the longest conflicts in the world that weighs heavily on the UN’s conscience.

For the UN to be more involved, global civil society should also give more attention to Kashmir. If world opinion could be mobilized on behalf of the right of self-determination of the Kashmiri people, it could well accelerate the peaceful resolution of this longstanding conflict.

The time has come for “we the people” in the language of the UN Charter to stand up for the sons and daughters of Kashmir.

Dr. Chandra Muzaffar is the President of the International Movement for a Just World (JUST).

The armed conflict in Kashmir has reached a dangerous point. The killing of 17 Indian soldiers in the Uri camp, 6 kilometres from the Line of Control (LoC) that separates the two state protagonists, India and Pakistan, could lead to a further deterioration of a volatile situation that threatens to spiral into a much larger conflagration.  Indian authorities allege that the four militants who killed the soldiers were trained by Pakistan. Pakistan has denied the allegation.

Both India and Pakistan should not allow the situation to escalate into an open war between the two states. Starting with the first Kashmir War in 1947, they have already fought three wars over Kashmir. These wars have only witnessed the loss of thousands of lives on both sides.

The Kashmir conflict cannot be resolved through war and violence. Indian and Pakistani leaders know this. The people of Kashmir themselves are deeply aware of the importance of a peaceful solution.

Right from the beginning of the Kashmir conflict 69 years ago, many commentators from Kashmir, other parts of India and Pakistan and indeed from other countries have argued that a peaceful solution must be built around a free and fair plebiscite that would allow the people of Kashmir to determine their own future. Self-determination then is the key to ending the conflict in Kashmir. This was the position adopted by the United Nations itself in 1949. At that time, the people of Kashmir, it was felt, should be allowed to choose between joining India or Pakistan. Today, however, it is obvious that Kashmiris should be given a third choice: of establishing their own independent, sovereign state that is not a part of either their two neighbours.

Whatever it is, the fundamental principle that should be observed at all costs is the right of the people of Kashmir to decide their own destiny. Unfortunately, it does not appear that the elite in New Delhi or in Islamabad will willingly allow the people of Kashmir to exercise this right. The UN is in no position to compel the Indian and Pakistani authorities to give the green light to Kashmir’s sovereign right.

Major world powers will not be able to play a role either. The United States of America which has developed increasingly close ties to India in recent years will not try to persuade New Delhi to grant Kashmiris their sovereign right because it is not in its interest to do so. China which has tremendous rapport with Islamabad has no reason to ask the latter to acknowledge the right of self-determination of the people of the whole of Kashmir, including that part of Kashmir which is under the control of Pakistan. Incidentally, it is self-determination for the whole of Kashmir that the UN had in mind in 1949.

If the people of Kashmir cannot depend upon major powers or the UN to help them to exercise their right, who do they turn to? What can they do to achieve their goal of independence? Perhaps they should begin by acknowledging what they cannot do. Resorting to violence is not the solution — though it is true that freedom-fighters in Kashmir have been subjected to unspeakable brutality and horrific torture. This is also true of the present cycle of violence which reveals that the harsh measures adopted by the Indian armed forces have been mainly responsible for the retaliatory tactics of the freedom-fighters. But violence and counter-violence have only increased the immense suffering of the people of Kashmir which has been under a curfew for more than two months.

This is directly linked to another dimension of the conflict that demands the immediate attention of the international community. If freedom-fighters should not resort to violence, it is even more important for the Indian army to exercise maximum restraint in addressing peaceful dissent. Its excessive use of force must cease immediately. The world should demand this. Indeed, to develop a modicum of trust between the Indian authorities in Kashmir and the people, a substantial portion of the army should be withdrawn.

Just as the Indian authorities should demonstrate that they are capable of changing their behaviour, so should the Pakistani army and the Pakistani elite desist from any sort of conduct that would suggest that they are interfering in the domestic affairs of Indian occupied Kashmir. This will help to create an atmosphere that makes it easier for Kashmiris themselves to articulate their interests and mobilize the popular will in pursuit of their own agenda.

In ensuring that both India and Pakistan respect the rights of the people of Kashmir, the UN peace keeping force in Kashmir should perhaps expand its mandate beyond the LoC and play a more vigorous role in maintaining security and stability.  As a general principle, the UN should be more involved in trying to find a solution to the Kashmiri conflict — arguably one of the longest conflicts in the world that weighs heavily on the UN’s conscience.

For the UN to be more involved, global civil society should also give more attention to Kashmir. If world opinion could be mobilized on behalf of the right of self-determination of the Kashmiri people, it could well accelerate the peaceful resolution of this longstanding conflict.

The time has come for “we the people” in the language of the UN Charter to stand up for the sons and daughters of Kashmir.

Dr. Chandra Muzaffar is the President of the International Movement for a Just World (JUST).

The headline read: “Little boy pulled alive from the rubble”. The Aleppo Media Centre video and photograph of Omran Daqneesh, aka the ‘Dusty Boy” of Aleppo, allegedly rescued by the notorious White Helmets in terrorist-held East Aleppo, went viral almost immediately, rocketed into the propaganda stratosphere by the western mainstream media.

Almost every mainstream media outlet worldwide showcased this video and the now infamous still photograph of “Dusty Boy” Omran. The dusty and bloodied child was placed upon a chair in what seemed to be a pristine condition ambulance, despite being in an alleged war zone, while being photographed by a barrage of cameras and mobile phones. Meanwhile, nobody actually attended to him medically – it was as if this were a staged photo-shoot.

Nobody comforted him, dressed his supposed wounds, or put him in neck brace, or even on a stretcher presuming he might have had spinal injuries (standard first aid procedure) having just been rescued from ‘under the rubble’ of a bombed building which AMC claimed was targeted by “Russian and Syrian regime airstrikes.”

PROPAGANDA HUB: The Aleppo Media Center supplies US, UK, NATO members states, Qatar’s Al Jazeera and many more, with pro-regime change images, providing PR backing for listed terrorist organizations operating in Syria. 

This Aleppo Media Centre pulled off a propaganda coup – one that generated calls for a No-Fly-Zone and associated western intervention policies all focused on salvaging the US failed road map of “regime change” in Syria. However, a number of independent international journalists, media analysts, and peace activists began to question the imagery and its source, which revealed some extremely disturbing details – not only about the picture itself, but more importantly about the organization who supplied it to an eager western media.

Recently, a compelling photo of a bleeding and seemingly confused young Syrian boy seated in an ambulance in Aleppo was widely distributed and commented upon in domestic and international news media.  In response, some journalists have called for the Obama Administration to “take action,” including bombing government military targets in Syria.

~ Veterans for Peace Statement

For further insights into the “dusty boy” propaganda go to 21WIRE’s video report: Aleppo, Syria, ‘Dust Boy’ Image Staged.

Looking back at the event, the media furore, led by Washington, London, Europe, the Gulf States, Turkey and Israel, was intentionally overwhelming and acted not only as a familiar catalyst for the neocolonialist governments patterned responses, but it also successfully acted as a deflector and smokescreen, designed to conceal the daily massacres carried out by US-NATO and Gulf State-backed terrorist aka ‘moderate rebels’ in East Aleppo (approximately 220,000 people remaining, many of them terrorists and their families) against Syrian civilians who are living among the rarely mentioned 1.5 million civilians in West Aleppo, an area controlled and protected by the Syrian government and the Syrian national armed forces.

In the first two weeks of August alone there had been 143 civilians murdered by the majority Al Nusra Front mortar fire into western Aleppo, including 54 children and 23 women. This information was supplied to Vanessa Beeley by Dr Zahar Buttal, director of the Aleppo Medical Associationduring her trip to western Aleppo on the 14th August 2016.

AMC photographer Mahmoud Raslan supplied the staged image of Omran to eager western media outlets.

The Usual Suspects

If the BBC, CNN, New York Times, Washington Post, Al Jazeera and others had conducted a cursory web search they would have quickly found out what other more thorough media outlets discovered.

The identification of alleged photographer of ‘Dusty Boy’ Omran was a man named Mahmoud Raslan [or Rslan] a self-described “activist photojournalist.” According to his own social media profiles and images, Raslan has been revealed as a fully-fledged terrorist sympathiser –  exposed very rapidly by a number of respectable and reliable media outlets including Sputnik News:

The tears started to drop as I took the photo. It is not the first time I’ve cried. I have cried many times while filming traumatised children. I always cry. We war photographers always cry.

Apparently the abuse, torture and beheading of 12 year old Abdullah Issa (child killers pictured with Raslan below) failed to produce the same copious crocodile tears from terrorist sympathizer, Raslan.

Radwan Altaweel and his 24 year old son, Basel Altaweel, work at Shop.Altaweel Copper and Brass Designs. Basel’s 30 year old brother is currently in the military, serving with the Syrian Arab Army.  The family name means “tall”, and they are both standing tall against the Western designs to destroy their homeland.

Radwan says that he used to ship his delicately crafted, intricately designed, jewelry, mugs, plates, and assorted pieces of copper and brass, overseas, but that business has been bad since the war started.

“The Syrian military,” says Radwan, is “our people, our families, our sons.” The Altaweel’s both support the Assad government, and they say that Bashar al-Assad is “good for Syria.”

Radwan’s 30 year old son, Basel’s brother, has been fighting in the Syrian Arab Army for about 5 years, and he comes home every month for about a week, while Basel,  currently in school, is studying for his Master’s in Interior design.  “I am happy here,” he says, before adding, “war doesn’t bother me.”  This happiness and defiance, in the face of Western sanctions, Western terrorists, and Western bombs, no doubt frustrates the Western warmongers, who are dedicated to the death and destruction of this ancient and civilized land.

The father offered that, “From war we make peace (from art)” as he proudly showed me a plate that he designed, featuring a Maple Leaf welded to the United Nation’s logo. He was friends with Canadian soldiers when they were Peace Keepers at the Golan Heights.

Chassan Chahine , of  the St. George’s Orthodox church in the Old City of Damascus, made a point of showing us some intricate wood inlaying artwork of the Intarsia style.

Instead of using paint, the intarsia style makes use of different types and colors of wood.

Metaphorically, this style represents the pluralism of Syrian society where different peoples and religions are one and united.  They are Syrians first and foremost.  Religion is a personal matter.

Chahine didn’t mince words when he said that “They (Jews) are in our book,” but that “We are not in their book.”  Syrians accept Jews, but Zionists reject Syria, and all Syrians.

Knowing full well that in Canada, if people question Israeli actions and war crimes, or if they support Boycott Divest Sanction (BDS) measures, they are labelled “anti-semites”, I asked to speak to him privately.  I asked, “Do you think Zionists and the U.S are behind the terrorism?” He replied instantly, “Of course.”

The Western terrorists are violating Syrians and the civilization that they represent each and every time they bomb innocent people.

If the West, including Canada, had any moral fortitude, it would oppose this terrorism rather than support it.

Bombs recently thundered not far from where I am writing this.  I’ll find out soon if anyone was killed, but I just found out what it is like to be a Syrian, not knowing when or where the bombs might fall.

This country is being violated by terrorists who destroy history, and people.  Those who think differently or practice a different religion, or refuse to switch religions, or happen to be in proximity of a mortar bomb, are deemed unimportant.

Recently, protestors were protesting peacefully in a terrorist-occupied area, and the terrorists murdered them.

These are the “rebels”, the “freedom fighters”, the “moderates” that the West supports.

Heavy clashes resumed in Syria after the truce officially collapsed on September 19. The Jabhtat Fatah al-Sham (formerly Jabhat al-Nusra) terrorist group and its allies launched a full-scale advance against the Syrian army, the National Defense Forces and Hezbollah in southwestern Aleppo.

The Syrian and Russian air forces responded with resuming air strikes on Fatah al-Sham, Fatah Halab and Jaish al-Fatah targets in the areas of Khan Touman, Khalsah, Tal Al-‘Eis and Qarassi and Aleppo’s neighborhoods of Dahret ‘Abd Rabo, Al-Layramoun and Bustan Al-Basha. Pro-government forces report that up to 120 air strikes have been conducted since the collapse of ceasefire.

A Syria Red Crescent Society aid convoy (reportedly 10-20 trucks) was at Urem al-Kubra allegedly destroyed by an air strike in western Aleppo, according to pro-militant sources. There are conflicting reports about the movement of convoy. Western media say that the convoy was heading from the government-controlled western Aleppo while the purpose of such a direction remains unclear.

Other reports indicate that the convoy was heading from the countryside of Idlib to northern Aleppo, carrying weapons and ammunition for terrorists in the area. The confirmed facts are:

• There are no facts proving that the bombed convoy was authorized and inspected by the Syrian government and the UN.
• The released video of air strike scene has depicted a number of burning vehicles. Photos, released next morning by pro-militant sources and aimed to prove that this was a humanitarian convoy, do not contain traces of fire situation.

Whether this was a humanitarian convoy or not, this incident indicates a new rung on the escalation ladder and will be used by the US-backed militant groups and Washington to prove that they were not responsible for the collapse of cessation of hostilities in 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

To paraphrase Mark Twain, everyone complains about inequality, but nobody does anything about it.

What they do is to use “inequality” as a takeoff point to project their own views on how to make society more prosperous and at the same time more equal. These views largely depend on whether they view the One Percent as innovative, smart and creative, making wealth by helping the rest of society – or whether, as the great classical economists wrote, the wealthiest layer of the population consist ofrentiers, making their income and wealth off the 99 Percent as idle landlords, monopolists and predatory bankers.

Economic statistics show fairly worldwide trends in inequality. After peaking in the 1920s, the reforms of the Great Depression helped make income distribution more equitable and stable until 1980. [1]

Then, in the wake of Thatcherism in Britain and Reaganomics in the United States, inequality really took off. And it took off largely by the financial sector (especially as interest rates retreated from their high of 20 percent in 1980, creating the greatest bond market boom in history). Real estate and industry were financialized, that is, debt leveraged.

Inequality increased steadily until the global financial crash of 2008. Since then, as bankers and bondholders were saved instead of the economy, the top One Percent have pulled even more sharply ahead of the rest of the economy. Meanwhile, the bottom 25 percent of the economy has seen its net worth and relative income deteriorate.

Needless to say, the wealthy have their own public relations agents, backed by the usual phalange of academic useful idiots. Indeed, mainstream economics has become a celebration of the wealthyrentier class for a century now, and as inequality is sharply widening today, celebrators of the One Percent have found a pressing need for their services.

A case in point is the Scottish economist Angus Deaton, author of The Great Escape: Health, Wealth, and the Origins of Inequality. (2013). Elected President of the AEA in 2010, he was given the Nobel Economics Prize in 2015 for analyzing trends in consumption, income distribution, poverty and welfare in ways that cause no offense to the wealthy, and in fact treat the increasingly inequitable status quo as perfectly natural and in its own kind of mathematical equilibrium. (This kind of circular mathematical reasoning is the criterion of good economics today.)

His book treats the movie The Great Escape as a metaphor. He deridingly pointed out that nobody would have called the movie “The prisoners left behind.” Describing the escapers as brilliant innovators, he assumes that the wealthiest One Percent likewise have been smart and imaginative enough to break the bonds of conventional thinking to innovate. The founders of Apple, Microsoft and other IT companies are singled out for making everyone’s life richer. And the economy at large has experienced a more or less steady upward climb, above all in public health extending lifespans, conquering disease and pharmaceutical innovation.

I recently was put on the same stage as Mr. Deaton in Berlin, along with my friend David Graeber. We three each have books translated into German to be published this autumn by the wonderful publisher Klett-Cotta, who organized the event at at the Berlin Literaturfestival in mid-September.

In a certain way I find Deaton’s analogy with the movie The Great Escape appropriate. The wealthy have escaped. But the real issue concerns what have they escaped from. They have escaped from regulation, from taxation (thanks to offshore banking enclaves and a rewriting of the tax laws to shift the fiscal burden onto labor and industry). Most of all, Wall Street banksters have escaped from criminal prosecution. There is no need to escape from jail if you can avoid being captured and sentenced in the first place!

A number of recent books – echoed weekly in the Wall Street Journal’s editorial page – attribute the wealthiest One Percent to the assumption that they must be smarter than most other people. At least, smart enough to get into the major business schools and get MBAs to learn how to financialize corporations with zaitech or other debt leveraging, reaping (indeed, “earning”) huge bonuses

The reality is that you don’t have to be smart to make a lot of money. All you need is greed. And that can’t be taught in business schools. In fact, when I went to work as a balance-of-payments analyst at Chase Manhattan in 1964, I was told that the best currency traders came from the Brooklyn or Hong Kong slums. Their entire life was devoted to making money, to rise into the class of the proverbial Babbitts of our time: nouveau riches lacking in real culture or intellectual curiosity.

Of course, for bankers who do venture to “stretch the envelope” (the fraudster’s euphemism for breaking the law, as Citigroup did in 1999when it merged with Travelers’ Insurance prior to the Clinton administration rejecting Glass-Steagall), you do need smart lawyers. But even here, Donald Trump explained the key that he learned from mob lawyer Roy Cohn: what matters is not so much the law, as what judge you have. And the U.S. courts have been privatized by electing judges whose campaign contributors back deregulators and non-prosecutors. So the wealthy escape from being subject to the law.

Although no moviegoers wanted to see the heroes of the Great Escape movie captured and put back in their prison camp, a great many people wish that the Wall Street crooks from Citigroup, Bank of America and other junk-mortgage fraudsters would be sent to jail, along with Angelo Mazilo of Countrywide Financial. Little love is given to their political lobbyists such as Alan Greenspan, Attorney General Eric Holder, Lanny Breuer and their hirees who refused to prosecute financial fraud.

Deaton did cite “rent seekers” – but in the sense that his predecessor Nobel prizewinner Buchanan did, locating rent seeking within government, not real estate, monopolies such as pharmaceuticals and information technology, health insurance, cable companies and high finance. So any blame for poverty falls on either the government or on the debtors, renters, unemployed and not-wellborn who are the main victims of today’s rentier economy.

Deaton’s Great Escape sees some problems, but not in the economic system itself – not debt, not monopoly, not the junk mortgage crisis or financial fraud. He cites global warming as the main problem, but not the political power of the oil industry. He singles out education as the way to raise the 99 Percent – but says nothing about the student loan problem, the travesty of for-profit universities funding junk education with government-guaranteed bank loans.

He measures the great improvement in well-being by GDP (gross domestic product). Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs notoriously described his investment bank’s managers and partners of being the most productive individuals in the United States for earning $20 million annually (not including bonuses) – all of which is recorded as adding to the financial sector’s “output” of GDP. There is no concept at all that this is what economists call a zero-sum activity – that is, that Goldman Sachs’s salaries may be unproductive, parasitic, predatory, and the rest of the economy’s loss or overhead.

Such thoughts do not occur in the happy-face views promoted by the One Percent. Deaton’s praise-hymn to the elites assumes that everyone earns what they get, by playing a productive role, not an extractive one.

An even more blatant denial of rent-seeking is a new book by one of the founders of Bain Capital (Mitt Romney’s firm), Edward Conard,The Upside of Inequality attacking the “demagogues” and “propagandists” who claim that the winnings of the One Percent are largely unearned. Curiously, he does not include Adam Smith, David Ricardo or John Stuart Mill as such “propagandists.” Yet that is what classical free market economics was all about: freeing economies from the unearned rental income and rising land prices that landlords make “in their sleep,” as John Stuart Mill put it. This propaganda book thus misrepresents the program that the major founders of economics urged: public ownership or collection of land rent, natural resource rent, and pubic operation of natural monopolies, headed by the financial sector.

For Conard, the reason for the soaring wealth of the One Percent is not financial, real estate or other monopolistic rent seeking, but the wonders of the information economy. It is Josef Schumpeter’s “creative destruction” of less productive technology, by hard working and dedicated innovators whose creativity raises the level of everyone. So the wealth of the One Percent is a measure of society’s forward march, not a predatory overhead extracted from the economy at large.

Conard’s policy conclusion is that regulation and taxation slows this march of economies toward prosperity as led by the One Percent. As a laudatory Wall Street Journal review of his book summarized his message: “Redistribution – whether achieved through taxation, regulatory restrictions, or social norms – appears,” he asserts, “to have large detrimental effects on risk-taking, innovation, productivity, and growth over the long run, especially in an economy where innovation produced by the entrepreneurial risk-taking of properly trained talent increasingly drives growth.”[2] His solution is to lower taxes on the rich!

My friend Dave Kelley notes the policy message that is being repeatedad nauseum these days: the assertion that “progressive moves like taxation end up hurting the economy rather than helping it. This ‘I would feed you but you might become dependent on food’ theory is central in showing how consumer societies like ours are returning to feudal distributions of wealth.” This seems to be the policy proposal of the three leading candidates for U.S. President – in our modern post-Citizens United world where elections are bought in much the way that consulships were back in the closing days of the Roman Republic.

Notes

[1] Anthony B. Atkinson, author of Inequality: What Can Be Done?coined the phrase “Inequality Turn” to describe when economic inequality began to widen around 1980. He was a mentor of Thomas Piketty, and together they worked with Saez to create an historical database on top incomes.

[2] Richard Epstein, “The Necessity of the Rich,” Wall Street Journal, September 15, 2016. The libertarian reviewer’s only criticism is hilarious: “Mr. Conard overlooks vast numbers of possible reforms. He never, for instance, discusses the weakening of patent law (a real inhibitor of innovation), or the arduous compliance culture that has grown up in the wake of Dodd-Frank and ObamaCare, or how zoning, rent stabilization and affordable-housing laws strangle the housing market. By ignoring the threat that regulation increasingly poses to the economy, his case for the upside of inequality is far weaker than it should be.”

Michael Hudson’s new book, Killing the Host is published in e-format by CounterPunch Books and in print by Islet. He can be reached via his website, [email protected]

After several years of arming and supporting Syrian rebel groups that often collaborated with Al Qaeda’s Nusra terror affiliate, the United States launched an illegal invasion of Syria two years ago with airstrikes supposedly aimed at Al Qaeda’s Islamic State spin-off, but on Saturday that air war killed scores of Syrian soldiers and aided an Islamic State victory.

Yet, the major American news outlets treat this extraordinary set of circumstances as barely newsworthy, operating with an imperial hubris that holds any U.S. invasion or subversion of another country as simply, ho-hum, the way things are supposed to work.

But the fact that the U.S. and several allies have been routinely violating Syrian sovereign airspace to carry out attacks was not even an issue, nor is it a scandal that the U.S. military and CIA have been arming and training Syrian rebels. In the world of Official Washington, the United States has the right to intervene anywhere, anytime, for whatever reason it chooses.On Monday, The Washington Post dismissed the devastating airstrike at Deir al-Zour killing at least 62 Syrian soldiers as one of several “mishaps” that had occurred over the past week and jeopardized a limited ceasefire, arranged between Russia and the Obama administration.

President Barack Obama even has publicly talked about authorizing military strikes in seven different countries, including Syria, and yet he is deemed “weak” for not invading more countries, at least more decisively.

Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton has vowed to engage in a larger invasion of Syria, albeit wrapping the aggression in pretty words like “safe zone” and “no-fly zone,” but it would mean bombing and killing more Syrian soldiers.

As Secretary of State, Clinton used similar language to justify invading Libya and implementing a “regime change” that killed the nation’s leader, Muammar Gaddafi, and unleashed five years of violent political chaos.

If you were living a truly democratic country with a truly professional news media, you would think that this evolution of the United States into a rogue superpower violating pretty much every international law and treaty of the post-World War II era would be a regular topic of debate and criticism.

Those crimes include horrendous acts against people, such as torture and other violations of the Geneva Conventions, as well as acts of aggression, which the Nuremberg Tribunals deemed “the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.”

Justifying ‘Regime Change’

Yet, instead of insisting on accountability for American leaders who have committed these crimes, the mainstream U.S. news media spreads pro-war propaganda against any nation or leader that refuses to bend to America’s imperial demands. In other words, the U.S. news media creates the rationalizations and arranges the public acquiescence for U.S. invasions and subversions of other countries.

In particular, The New York Times now reeks of propaganda, especially aimed at two of the current targets, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and Russian President Vladimir Putin. With all pretenses of professionalism cast aside, the Times has descended into the status of a crude propaganda organ.

On Sunday, the Times described Assad’s visit to a town recently regained from the rebels this way: “Assad Smiles as Syria Burns, His Grip and Impunity Secure.” That was the headline. The article began:

“On the day after his 51st birthday, Bashar al-Assad, the president of Syria, took a victory lap through the dusty streets of a destroyed and empty rebel town that his forces had starved into submission.

“Smiling, with his shirt open at the collar, he led officials in dark suits past deserted shops and bombed-out buildings before telling a reporter that — despite a cease-fire announced by the United States and Russia — he was committed ‘to taking back all areas from the terrorists.’ When he says terrorists, he means all who oppose him.”

The story by Ben Hubbard continues in that vein, although oddly the accompanying photograph doesn’t show Assad smiling but rather assessing the scene with a rather grim visage.

But let’s unpack the propaganda elements of this front-page story, which is clearly intended to paint Assad as a sadistic monster, rather than a leader fighting a foreign-funded-and-armed rebel movement that includes radical jihadists, including powerful groups linked to Al Qaeda and others forces operating under the banner of the brutal Islamic State.

The reader is supposed to recoil at Assad who “smiles as Syria burns” and who is rejoicing over his “impunity.” Then, there’s the apparent suggestion that his trip to Daraya was part of his birthday celebration so he could take “a victory lap” while “smiling, with his shirt open at the collar,” although why his collar is relevant is hard to understand. Next, there is the argumentative claim that when Assad refers to “terrorists” that “he means all who oppose him.”

As much as the U.S. news media likes to pride itself on its “objectivity,” it is hard to see how this article meets any such standard, especially when the Times takes a far different posture when explaining, excusing or ignoring U.S. forces slaughtering countless civilians in multiple countries for decades and at a rapid clip over the past 15 years. If anyone operates with “impunity,” it has been the leadership of the U.S. government.

Dubious Charge

On Sunday, the Times also asserted as flat fact the dubious charge against Assad that he has “hit civilians with gas attacks” when the most notorious case – the sarin attack outside Damascus on Aug. 21, 2013 – appears now to have been carried out by rebels trying to trick the United States into intervening more directly on their side.

A recent United Nations report blaming Syrian forces for two later attacks involving chlorine was based on slim evidence and produced under great political pressure to reach that conclusion – while ignoring the absence of any logical reason for the Syrian forces to have used such an ineffective weapon and brushing aside testimony about rebels staging other gas attacks.

More often than not, U.N. officials bend to the will of the American superpower, failing to challenge any of the U.S.-sponsored invasions over recent decades, including something as blatantly illegal as the Iraq War. After all, for an aspiring U.N. bureaucrat, it’s clear which side his career bread is buttered.

We find ourselves in a world in which propaganda has come to dominate the foreign policy debates and – despite the belated admissions of lies used to justify the invasions of Iraq and Libya – the U.S. media insists on labeling anyone who questions the latest round of propaganda as a “fill-in-the-blank apologist.”

So, Americans who want to maintain their mainstream status shy away from contesting what the U.S. government and its complicit media assert, despite their proven track record of deceit. This is not just a case of being fooled once; it is being fooled over and over with a seemingly endless willingness to accept dubious assertion after dubious assertion.

In the same Sunday edition which carried the creepy portrayal about Assad, the Times’ Neil MacFarquhar pre-disparaged Russia’s parliamentary elections because the Russian people were showing little support for the Times’ beloved “liberals,” the political descendants of the Russians who collaborated with the U.S.-driven “shock therapy” of the 1990s, a policy that impoverished a vast number of Russians and drastically reduced life expectancy.

Why those Russian “liberals” have such limited support from the populace is a dark mystery to the mainstream U.S. news media, which also can’t figure out why Putin is popular for significantly reversing the “shock therapy” policies and restoring Russian life expectancy to its previous levels. No, it can’t be that Putin delivered for the Russian people; the only answer must be Putin’s “totalitarianism.”

The New York Times and Washington Post have been particularly outraged over Russia’s crackdown on “grassroots” organizations that are funded by the U.S. government or by billionaire financial speculator George Soros, who has publicly urged the overthrow of Putin. So has Carl Gershman, president of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), which funnels U.S. government cash to political and media operations abroad.

The Post has decried a Russian legal requirement that political entities taking money from foreign sources must register as “foreign agents” and complains that such a designation discredits these organizations. What the Post doesn’t tell its readers is that the Russian law is modeled after the American “Foreign Agent Registration Act,” which likewise requires people trying to influence policy in favor of a foreign sponsor to register with the Justice Department.

Nor do the Times and Post acknowledge the long history of the U.S. government funding foreign groups, either overtly or covertly, to destabilize targeted regimes. These U.S.-financed groups often do act as “fifth columnists” spreading propaganda designed to underminethe credibility of the leaders, whether that’s Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh in 1953 or Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych in 2014.

Imperfect Leaders

That’s not to say that these targeted leaders were or are perfect. They are often far from it. But the essence of propaganda is to apply selective outrage and exaggeration to the leader that is marked for removal. Similar treatment does not apply to U.S.-favored leaders.

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

Take, for example, the Times’ MacFarquhar describing a pamphlet and speeches from Nikolai Merkushkin, the governor of Russian region of Samara, that MacFarquhar says “cast the blame for Russia’s economic woes not on economic mismanagement or Western sanctions after the annexation of Crimea but on a plot by President Obama and the C.I.A. to undermine Russia.”The pattern of the Times and Post is also to engage in ridicule when someone in a targeted country actually perceives what is going on. The correct perception is then dismissed as some sort of paranoid conspiracy theory.

The Times article continues: “Opposition candidates are a fifth column on the payroll of the State Department and part of the scheme, the pamphlet said, along with the collapse in oil prices and the emergence of the Islamic State. Mr. Putin is on the case, not least by rebuilding the military, the pamphlet said, noting that ‘our country forces others to take it seriously and this is something that American politicians don’t like very much.’”

Yet, despite the Times’ mocking tone, the pamphlet’s perceptions are largely accurate. There can be little doubt that the U.S. government through funding of anti-Putin groups inside Russia and organizing punishing sanctions against Russia, is trying to make the Russian economy scream, destabilize the Russian government and encourage a “regime change” in Moscow.

Further, President Obama has personally bristled at Russia’s attempts to reassert itself as an important world player, demeaning the former Cold War superpower as only a “regional power.” The U.S. government has even tread on that “regional” status by helping to orchestrate the 2014 putsch that overthrew Ukraine’s elected President Yanukovych on Russia’s border.

After quickly calling the coup regime “legitimate,” the U.S. government supported attempts to crush resistance in the south and east which were Yanukovych’s political strongholds. Crimea’s overwhelming decision to secede from Ukraine and rejoin Russia was deemed by The New York Times a Russian “invasion” although the Russian troops that helped protect Crimea’s referendum were already inside Crimea as part of the Sevastopol basing agreement.

The U.S.-backed Kiev regime’s attempt to annihilate resistance from ethnic Russians in the east – through what was called an “Anti-Terrorism Operation” that has slaughtered thousands of eastern Ukrainians – also had American backing. Russian assistance to these rebels is described in the mainstream U.S. media as Russian “aggression.”

Oddly, U.S. news outlets find nothing objectionable about the U.S. government launching military strikes in countries halfway around the world, including the recent massacre of scores of Syrian soldiers, but are outraged that Russia provided military help to ethnic Russians being faced with annihilation on Russia’s border.

Because of the Ukraine crisis, Hillary Clinton likened Vladimir Putin to Adolf Hitler.

Seeing No Coup

For its part, The New York Times concluded that there had been no coup in Ukraine – by ignoring the evidence that there was one, including an intercepted pre-coup telephone call between U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and U.S. Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt discussing who should be made the new leaders of Ukraine.

Another stunning case of double standards has been the mainstream U.S. media’s apoplexy about alleged Russian hacking into emails of prominent Americans and then making them public. These blame-Russia articles have failed to present any solid evidence that the Russians were responsible and also fail to note that the United States leads the world in using electronic means to vacuum up personal secrets about foreign leaders as well as average citizens.The evidence of a coup was so clear that George Friedman, founder of the global intelligence firm Stratfor, said in an interview that the overthrow of Yanukovych “really was the most blatant coup in history.” But the Times put protecting the legitimacy of the post-coup regime ahead of its journalistic responsibilities to its readers, as it has done repeatedly regarding Ukraine.

In a number of cases, these secrets appear to have been used to blackmail foreign leaders to get them to comply with U.S. demands, such as the case in 2002-03 of the George W. Bush administration spying on diplomats on the U.N. Security Council to coerce their votes on authorizing the U.S. invasion of Iraq, a ploy that failed.

U.S. intelligence also tapped the cell phone of German Chancellor Angela Merkel, whose cooperation on Ukraine and other issues of the New Cold War is important to Washington. And then there’s the massive collection of data about virtually everybody on the planet, including U.S. citizens, over the past 15 years during the “war on terror.”

Earlier this year, the mainstream U.S. news media congratulated itself over its use of hacked private business data from a Panama-based law firm, material that was said to implicate Putin in some shady business dealings even though his name never showed up in the documents. No one in the mainstream media protested that leak or questioned who did the hacking.

Such mainstream media bias is pervasive. In the case of Sunday’s Russian elections, the Times seems determined to maintain the fiction that the Russian people don’t really support Putin, despite consistent opinion polls showing him with some 80 percent approval.

In the Times’ version of reality, Putin’s popularity must be some kind of trick, a case of totalitarian repression of the Russian people, which would be fixed if only the U.S.-backed “liberals” were allowed to keep getting money from NED and Soros without having to divulge where the funds were coming from.

The fact that Russians, like Americans, will rally around their national leader when they perceive the country to be under assault – think, George W. Bush after the 9/11 attacks – is another reality that the Times can’t tolerate. No, the explanation must be mind control.

The troubling reality is that the Times, Post and other leading American news outlets have glibly applied one set of standards on “enemies” and another on the U.S. government. The Times may charge that Bashar al-Assad has “impunity” for his abuses, but what about the multitude of U.S. leaders – and, yes, journalists – who have their hands covered in the blood of Iraqis, Libyans, Afghans, Yemenis, Syrians, Somalis and other nationalities. Where is their accountability?

Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America’s Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com).

Tens of thousands of police and troops were mobilized across the New York metropolitan area Monday in the wake of Saturday night’s bombing in the Chelsea district of Manhattan, which injured 29 people. A second explosive device was found four blocks from the first and disarmed without incident.

In the first such effort in US history, the New York Police Department effectively commandeered the entire telecommunications network, sending a message to every cellphone in the metropolitan area, to millions of people, with details of the suspect sought for planting the two bombs, Ahmad Khan Rahami.

The 28-year-old Afghan-American was arrested Monday morning after a local bar owner in Linden, New Jersey saw him sleeping in a doorway nearby and called police. Rahami was shot several times during what was described by police as an exchange of gunfire, before he was taken into custody. Two policemen were wounded, in addition to Rahami, but no one’s wounds were life-threatening, officials said.

US counterterrorism agencies told the media that Rahami had not been under surveillance and had no known connections to an overseas terrorist organization, despite having travelled several times to Afghanistan in recent years, as well as to other countries. It is not clear how, given his family’s precarious economic circumstances, he was able to do this.

Police now claim Rahami was responsible for four bomb-related incidents over the weekend. These include an attempted bombing Saturday morning of a charity 5k run in Seaside, New Jersey, about 80 miles south of New York City; the two bombs in Chelsea, one of which did not explode; and the depositing of five unexploded devices in a trash bin in Elizabeth, where they were found Sunday morning.

It is not known whether Rahami had assistance in the attacks, which could have killed dozens of innocent people. The amateurish character of the operation—bombs that did not go off, areas targeted without any political or social significance, no attempt to avoid surveillance cameras at the two Chelsea bomb sites, a broad trail of evidence leading directly to the perpetrator—suggest that the bomber was a disoriented individual, not a trained terrorist.

Rahami came to the US in 1995, at the age of seven, when his family sought refuge from the civil war raging in Afghanistan between rival US-backed Islamist militias, one of which, the Taliban, took power a year later.

The Rahami family appears to have had a difficult struggle as immigrants. They ran a chicken restaurant in Elizabeth, New Jersey, a working-class suburb of New York City, in which the father and many of his sons worked side-by-side. The father filed for bankruptcy at least once, and tried to make ends meet by keeping the restaurant open 24 hours a day, unusual for a family-run business.

Ahmad Rahami graduated from Edison High School and took classes for two years at a local community college, working towards a degree in criminal justice, but did not graduate. According to friends and acquaintances, he seemed completely Americanized, more interested in cars than religion. After a long trip to Afghanistan in 2012, however, he grew a beard, began wearing more traditional clothing and praying more frequently.

Rahami still gave no sign of political or religious radicalization, continuing to work at the family restaurant. He was arrested in 2014 on a domestic violence allegation, but charges were dropped. Other than that, his only recorded encounter with the police involved a traffic ticket.

Even ISIS, which has hailed as “soldiers” such disoriented supporters as the married couple who carried out the workplace massacre in San Bernardino, California, has not made a public claim of responsibility for Rahami’s actions, although it did claim “credit” for the knife attack by a Somali-American man in St. Cloud, Minnesota, Saturday. The difference may be that the St. Cloud attacker was shot to death, while Rahami remains alive and could well supply a different motivation for his alleged actions.

At a Monday afternoon press briefing after Rahami had been taken into custody, New York Mayor Bill de Blasio declared, “There is no other individual we are looking for.” FBI Assistant Director William Sweeney told the same news conference, “I have no indication that there’s a cell operating in the area.”

Nonetheless, de Blasio said that the biggest police-military mobilization in the city’s history would continue because of the arrival of dozens of heads of state and other foreign leaders for the United National General Assembly meetings this week. Over 1,000 New York state police and National Guard troops are supplementing the operations of 36,000 NYPD officers, who have been deployed in force throughout the city. “You should know you will see a very substantial NYPD presence this week—bigger than ever,” de Blasio said.

Whatever the connections between the Chelsea bombing and international terrorism, the two major-party candidates for president, Republican Donald Trump and Democrat Hillary Clinton, were quick to seize on the near-tragedy in Manhattan as an opportunity for militaristic posturing and mutual mudslinging.

Trump denounced immigrants and immigration as being responsible for the attacks because of “stupid” leaders who refused to close the borders of the US. In a 30-minute rant Monday morning on “Fox & Friends,” Trump denounced the modest increase in the number of refugees the Obama administration will admit to US, from 85,000 in the 2016 fiscal year to 110,000 in 2017.

Trump rejected the assessment by US counterterrorism agencies that the bombing in New York City was not organized from overseas. “I think there is many foreign connections,” he said. “I think this is one group. You have many, many groups because we’re allowing these people to come into our country and destroy our country and make it unsafe for people.” He also lamented the fact that police were supposedly not allowed to use racial profiling against suspected terrorists.

Clinton, for her part, was less strident but equally reactionary. She suggested that Trump’s proposed ban on Muslims entering the US undermined US military operations in the Middle East, which depend on the collaboration of Muslim allies like Saudi Arabia.

She cited a series of former intelligence and counterterrorism officials who have attacked Trump, and in some cases endorsed her, as a more effective “commander-in-chief” for American imperialism. Trump was doing the work of ISIS, she said. “They are looking to make this into a war against Islam, rather than a war against jihadists, violent terrorists,” she claimed, adding, “The kinds of rhetoric and language Mr. Trump has used is giving aid and comfort to our adversaries.”

Both candidates, and the corporate-controlled parties they represent, have no answer to the downward spiral of war and destruction in the Middle East except more war and more destruction, which will inevitably create the conditions for more terrorist attacks within the US, whether by operatives of groups like ISIS and Al Qaeda, or disoriented individuals like the would-be Chelsea bomber.

In a front-page article entitled “Errant strike impairs effort to calm Syria,” the New York Times Monday provided an unconditional alibi for the air strikes carried out by US and allied warplanes two days earlier that claimed the lives of some 90 Syrian army soldiers, while leaving over 100 more wounded.

“The United States’ accidental bombing of Syrian troops over the weekend has put it on the defensive, undercutting American efforts to reduce violence in the civil war and open paths for humanitarian relief,” reads the article.

In the second paragraph, readers are told that the “mistaken bombing” had “exposed the White House’s struggle to put together a coherent strategy in a multisided war.”

And in the fourth paragraph, the article states that the “errant bombing” had given “both the Russians and the Syrian government a propaganda bonanza.”

How does the Times know that Saturday’s bombing of the strategic Syrian army position, overlooking the Deir Ezzor Airport near the Syrian-Iraqi border, was “accidental,” “mistaken” and “errant?” It provides no evidence to support this conclusion, citing neither any investigation nor any new facts gleaned from its own reporting.

The air strike was an accident, a mistake and an error because the US government says it was. End of story. That is good enough for the three reporters with bylines on the article. They see no need to include any qualifiers, such as “US officials claimed that the bombing was accidental,” much less seek out any contrary opinions from those who firmly believe it was not.

Nor does the supposed newspaper of record raise the slightest doubt about how the US managed to confuse a military base, which the Syrian army has occupied for years, with an encampment of the Islamic State (ISIS); or, for that matter, why the Pentagon’s sophisticated military satellites and surveillance drones failed to provide accurate images of the intended target.

That ISIS forces were able to use the bombing as air support for their own assault upon, and overrunning of, the Syrian military base is also accepted as merely another “accident.”

The bombing, in which Australian, British and Danish warplanes participated alongside the US Air Force, has served to gravely undermine a week-old cease-fire negotiated by US Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in Geneva.

Commenting on this connection, the Times article states: “Many American officials believe that the Russians were never serious about the deal that was sealed in Geneva. The officials argue that the Russians were looking for an excuse that would derail it and keep a status quo in which they have more control over events in Syria than any other power, with the possible exception of Iran. If so, the accidental bombing made that process easier.”

Citing unnamed “American officials,” the Times floats the perverse thesis that the real significance of an unprovoked attack, which killed and wounded nearly 200 Syrian government soldiers, in a country where US imperialism is carrying out military operations in flagrant violation of international law, is that it provided a pretext for Russia to abrogate a ceasefire agreement that Moscow, itself, had proposed. In other words, whatever evidence to the contrary, it is all Putin’s fault.

The Times article itself suggests a far more plausible explanation for Saturday’s bloody events. It notes that the ceasefire deal “faced many skeptics in Washington,” adding that “Chief among them was Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter,” who “feared that the accord would reveal too much to the Russians about American targeting intelligence…”

The article, however, does not indicate the intensity and depth of the Pentagon’s hostility to the ceasefire. It was not just a matter of Carter’s “skepticism.” Top US uniformed commanders openly called into question whether they would abide by an agreement that had been adopted by the president of the United States.

Lt. General Jeffrey Harrigian, commander of the US Air Forces Central Command, told the media in respect to the agreement: “I’m not saying yes or no. It would be premature to say that we’re going to jump right into it.”

Army Gen. Joseph Votel, commander of the US Central Command, expressed similar views, declaring, “We have to see how this goes first of all … see what direction it goes … whether it actually pans out or not, I don’t know.”

Also unreported in the Times article is the fact that on Friday, on the eve of the US bombing, Obama convened a meeting of his security cabinet, including both Kerry and Carter, to discuss the crisis gripping his administration over the Syria ceasefire.

Given these facts, the Times’ parroting of the official US line that the air strike in Deir Ezzor was “accidental” has the unmistakable characteristics of an alibi and a coverup.

The opposition, which borders on insurbordination to the ceasefire within the US military, suggests a more likely scenario: rather than being an accident, the attack was carried out with the deliberate aim of scuttling the agreement, either by the military acting on its own, or following a change in policy reached by the Obama administration, under intense pressure from the US military and intelligence apparatus.

The opposition stemmed, in the first instance, from the immediate practical implications of the agreement in Syria. Washington had committed itself to separating the so-called “moderate opposition,” which it has armed and bankrolled, from the now renamed Al Nusra Front, Al Qaeda’s longtime affiliate in the country. But this is a virtually impossible task, given the integration of the US-backed militias with the Al Qaeda forces, which form the backbone of the US-orchestrated war for regime change in Syria.

More decisively, the predominant layers within the military brass oppose any collaboration with the Russian military because they fear it could compromise US preparations for direct military confrontation with Russia itself, the world’s number two nuclear power.

Moreover, the bombing fits a definite agenda, clearly articulated by top figures in the ruling establishment. Just last month, former acting CIA director Michael Morell advocated bombing Syria to “scare Assad” and “make the Russians pay a price,” by which he meant killing them. Morell is a prominent supporter of Democrat Hillary Clinton’s presidential candidacy.

On a similar note, Human Rights Watch director Kenneth Roth, a proponent of the “human rights” pretexts used by US imperialism to justify its interventions in the Middle East, tweeted his approval of the US bombing raid: “As US kills 80 Syrian soldiers, is it sending Assad a signal for his deadly intransigence?”

In evaluating the alibi crafted by the Times in relation to the Syria bombing, it should be recalled that the newspaper provided nearly identical services a year ago, in the aftermath of the October 3, 2015 US airstrike on the Doctors without Borders (MSF) hospital in Kunduz, Afghanistan. In the face of charges by the MSF and survivors of the attack that this was a deliberate slaughter, the Times, working with US government sources, concocted a story that the mass killing stemmed from “mistaken decisions” and inadequate intelligence.

What the response to the Syria bombing so clearly exposes is the degree to which the Times functions as a propaganda organ of the US government and a leading promoter of its militarist policies. The exposure of the newspaper’s complicity in foisting onto the American people the illegal war of aggression against Iraq, prepared by the lying reports of its correspondent Judith Miller on non-existent weapons of mass destruction, has done nothing to change this fact. If anything, the correspondence between government policy and Timescoverage has only grown more seamless.

The concrete nature of this relationship is made evident by a closer examination of the first two bylines on the Times story. The first is that of chief Washington correspondent David E. Sanger. In addition to his 30-year career writing for the Times, Sanger has found time to teach as an adjunct lecturer in public policy at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, an academy for top political and military officials. The faculty has also included figures now playing a key role in executing US policy in Syria, such as Ashton Carter and Washington’s ambassador to the UN, Samantha Power. Sanger is also a member of both the Council on Foreign Relations and the Aspen Strategy Group, think tanks that bring together senior government, military and intelligence officials, along with corporate executives, to discuss US imperialist strategy.

The second byline is that of national security correspondent Mark Mazzetti. In 2011, Mazzetti gained some notoriety by secretly “leaking” a piece on the Osama bin Laden assassination by New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd to the CIA, prior to its publication, along with a note reading, “this didn’t come from me… and please delete after you read. See, nothing to worry about!”

In other words, these are figures completely integrated into the state and trusted defenders of its interests. The conception, dating back to the 18th century bourgeois revolutions, that the press represents a “Fourth Estate,” functioning as a watchdog, with a critical and adversarial attitude toward the government and its officials, is a dead letter within these circles.

Among those presiding over this operation and its steady march to the right is the recently installed editor of the Times editorial page, James Bennet. His connections to the ruling establishment and the top echelons of the Democratic Party include a father who was a former head of USAID, a front for the CIA, and a brother who is the senior senator from Colorado.

Under the direction of such figures, the Times has become the premier conduit for US state disinformation and propaganda, and a key ideological instrument in the preparations for world war.

The Russian parliamentary elections went smooth as a silk dress under the hand. The ruling party, United Russia, has got a big majority of the seats in the Parliament, while the other three parties, the Communists (CPRF), the Nationalists and the Socialists shared the rest. Pro-Western parties did not cross the threshold and remained outside, as before.

The turnout had been low. The official figure pointed to a respectable 48%, but reports in real time indicated it was much lower than that. The last real time figures stood at 20% for Moscow and 16% for St Petersburg. These numbers started to climb inexplicably after 5 pm, and Eduard Limonov, a known writer and a keen observer of the political scene, remained convinced that the turnout had been artificially “improved”.

The new election system (a peculiar combination of majoritarian and proportional systems) had been biased for the benefit of the ruling party. It is hard to say whether the Russian elections were rigged, and if so, to what extent. Surely, if any party can complain about being cheated, it was the communists, not the pro-Western nationalists and liberals. Despite what you perhaps have heard, the Communists present the only real alternative to Putin’s regime, as the pro-Western parties are tiny and exceedingly unpopular. The Communists (as well as the other two parties) are Putin-friendly; they support Putin’s foreign policy, and they would support a more active policy as well. They heartily approved of Crimea’s return to Russian fold, and they spoke in favour of military intervention in the Ukraine.

Putin is the most moderate Russian politician acceptable to the public; every viable democratic alternative would be more radical, and more pro-Communist or Nationalist. All Russian politicians above a certain age were Communist Party members; the Socialists (Fair Russia) is a splinter of the Communist Party established by the Kremlin in order to undermine the CPRF.

In these elections, two alternative Communist Parties has been set up by the Kremlin, and many Russians voted for them mistakenly thinking they were voting for the Communists. If Russian political tricksters were to run Clinton’s campaign, they would flood the ballots with dozens of Trumps hoping that many Trump voters would make a mistake and vote for the wrong Trump.

While agreeing with and supporting Putin’s foreign policy, the Communists, the Socialists and a sizeable minority of the ruling United Russia party disagree with Putin’s liberal economic and financial policies. They would like to suppress the oligarchs, to introduce currency controls, to re-nationalise privatised industries and to strengthen the social state. But they can’t do it: even if they were to gain a clear majority in the elections, Putin would still be entitled to ask, say, liberal Medvedev or arch-liberal Kudrin to form a government.

The problem is that the Russian Parliament’s powers are extremely limited. The constitution was written by the Russian liberals and their American advisers to prevent Russians from ever regaining their assets massively stripped by a few Jewish businessmen. The constitution gave the president a Tsar’s clout, and minimised the powers of Parliament. It was imposed on Russia in 1993, after the previous Parliament impeached then-president Yeltsin; instead of fading away gently, he had sent tanks and shelled the Parliament. Its defenders went to jail; Yeltsin rammed through the new constitution, and it was inherited by Putin.

Our friend the Saker said “These elections were a huge personal victory for Vladimir Putin”. But is it true? The United Russia includes people of widely differing opinions, from pro-Western privatisers to closet communists. Their common platform is their adherence to power. They are equally likely to support Putin or to condemn and impeach Putin. They are similar to the Regions’ Party that ruled Ukraine in the days of President Yanukovych, or to the Soviet Communist Party in the days of Gorbachev. In the time of trouble, they will run away and desert their president.

Putin might get a much better grip on power if he were to allow more freedom and democracy, thereby getting more convicted supporters, real Putinists, instead of careerists. However, Putin prefers pliable careerists. We shall see whether he will have a reason to regret it, as Yanukovych had.

It is not much democracy, you might say, if an impotent parliament is packed by faceless yes-men. Parliament is not a place for discussion, famously said Boris Gryzlov, a United Russia leader and the Parliament Speaker. «It is not a place for political struggle, for ideological battles; it is a place for constructive law-making”, he added. Russian freedom of speech (almost unlimited) is totally disengaged from action, and this is frustrating. Even demonstrations are limited and can lead to arrest. In Gryzlov’s words, “Streets aren’t for political actions and protests, but for festivities”.

If this is the function of parliament, who cares about it? Who can blame the majority of Russian voters for staying away from the city in their countryside villas (“dachas”) in the midst of the glorious Indian summer?

What’s worse, there are fewer and fewer reasons for people to bother to vote, in any country. In Europe, the difference between the parties has practically vanished.

Consider France: what’s the difference between Sarkozy the rightist and Hollande the leftist? Nothing whatsoever. The first blasted Libya and integrated France in NATO, the second wants to blast Syria and fulfils all American orders. There is no difference between parties in Sweden, either. All are for accepting a billion refugees, for condemning racists in their midst, for integrating in NATO and for foaming about the Russian threat. What is the difference between Cameron the Tory and Blair the Labour? Nothing. NATO, bombs, tax breaks for the rich are for both.

The parliaments and people mean very little now in Europe – as little as in Russia. The British people voted for Brexit. Fine! So did it happen? Not at all. The new unelected government of Theresa May just pushed the decision far away into the heap of not-very-urgent business correspondence next to requesting assignment of a budget to a Zoo. Maybe she will deliver it to Brussels in a year or two. Or people will forget about that vote.

In a few months, Mrs May will say as Stephen Daedalus said when asked will he repay the pound he borrowed: “Five months. The molecules all changed. I am an other I now. The other I got the pound.” The other England voted for Brexit, the molecules have all changed. Let us re-vote, or even better just forget it.

Many people I spoke to already repeat, word-perfect, the new post-Brexit-vote mantra: “Only retired old folk and unemployed racists voted for Brexit.” Mrs Clinton provided the name for them: The Deplorables. This American name for perspective Trump voters fits the Brexit voters like a glove. A Deplorable is a person who does not subscribe to the ruling neo-liberal paradigm and its twin sister, identity politics.

Clinton spoke of deplorables at her meeting with the rich perverts of Wall Street, at a hundred thousand dollar a seat. Breaking the banks or providing jobs will not help you, the holy LGBT victims of white male persecution, she said. Sure, but it will help us, the working people. We do not care for unisex lavatories, we do not obsess about female CEOs. We have other worries: how to get a secure job and a decent house and provide for our children. This makes us deplorable in the eyes of rich perverts.

A new generation of parties has sprung up in Europe: the parties of the Deplorables. In Sweden, until now, a Swedish Democrats party, the only party speaking against NATO, against the EU, against the intake of migrants had been excluded from public debate. Two main parties, the Right and the Left, forgot about their long animosity and made a government together, just to keep the SD out, because they are deplorables. The result was paradoxical: more people have moved to support the deplorable party.

French FN or Marine Le Pen is another party of Deplorables. She wants to take France out of EU and out of NATO, and to keep the migrating waves out. The Left and the Right would rather submit to Saudi Arabia and transfer the power to sheikhs than to allow the Deplorables to win, mused Houellebecq in his Submission.

The Deplorable Jeremy Corbyn was almost removed from his chairmanship of the Labour party by the Labour MPs. The MPs preferred to keep their party as a clone of the Conservatives and to leave the electorate without a real choice. But Corbyn fights, and hopefully he will keep his party and proceed to victory.

More power, more money, more control goes to a smaller group of people. We were disenfranchised, without noticing it. The financiers and their new nobility of discourse took over the world as completely as the aristocracy did in 11^th century.

Russia with its very limited democracy is still better off: their nobility of discourse polled less than three per cent of the votes in the last elections, though they are still heavily represented in the government.

The last decisive battle for preservation of democracy now takes place in the US. Its unlikely champion, Donald Trump, is hated by the political establishment, by the bought media, by instigated minorities as much as Putin, Corbyn or Le Pen are hated.

The Huffington Post published the following “Editor’s note: Donald Trump regularly incites political violence and is a serial liar, rampant xenophobe, racist, misogynist and birther who has repeatedly pledged to ban all Muslims — 1.6 billion members of an entire religion — from entering the U.S.”

A man so hated by enemies of democracy is one who deserves our support. When the revolution comes, whoever says “xenophobe, racist, misogynist” to his brother will be lined up against the wall and shot. So it probably won’t be Sanders’ revolution.

I am worried that his enemies will not allow Trump’s inauguration: they will say Putin hacked the voting machines, and send the case to the Supreme Court; or perhaps they will try to assassinate him. But first, let him win.

It is difficult to predict the consequences of his victory. Newsweek noted (while discussing the US aid to Israel): “A Trump victory would introduce a level of uncertainty into the world that Israel fears. Nobody has any idea what Trump might do as president and that is something new in international relations.”

This already sounds enticing enough. Israel fears democracy, fears peace in the Middle East, fears US disobedience, fears the Jews will lose their reserved places at the first class saloon on the upper deck, in the editor’s rooms and the bank manager’s. Let them tremble.

The consequences of Trump’s victory will be far-reaching. Our belief in democracy will be restored. NATO will shrink, money will go to repair the US infrastructure instead of bombing Syria and Libya. Americans will be loved again.

The consequences of Clinton’s victory will be as short-lived as we are, for she will deliver us the living hell of a nuclear war, and eternal dictatorship of the Iron Heel.

This election is like a red pill/blue pill choice given to you. “You take the blue pill, the story ends. You wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill, you stay in Wonderland, and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes.” Providentially, we know what colour stands for Trump, and what for Clinton.

Israel Shamir can be reached at [email protected]

On Sept. 14th, US Representative Adam Kinzinger of Illinois was invited on CNN’s “The Lead” as an expert on Russia. Without so much as a pause, he stated the following: “Donald Trump says we have to work with Russians in some of the toughest places of the world, but frankly, like in Syria, Russia has responsibility for killing almost half a million people, they are tearing apart Ukraine and Georgia.”

The current situation in Syria may look like a confusing mess, but we think there are enough clues to make some sense of it. It all comes down to a statement UN ambassador Churkin made after his close encounter with Samantha “Kill ’em to save ’em” Power: “Who is in charge in Washington? Is it the White House or the Pentagon?” The Pentagon and CIA are rabidly anti-Assad; they don’t want a ceasefire. Kerry and the State Department appear – at least on the surface – to want the ceasefire to succeed, despite their continued anti-Assad rhetoric. That doesn’t necessarily mean their aims and objectives are the same as Russia’s when it comes to Syria, but if we give them the benefit of the doubt, at the very least they aren’t completely insane like Ash Carter and the rest of the war hawks. What makes us think that?

Unless Kerry and the rest of the negotiating team are complete idiots, they must have known that a simple repeat of the February ceasefire would not work, for the simple reason that the February ceasefire did not work. The lengthy negotiations and the U.S.-requested secrecy of the specific details suggest that the U.S. made major concessions. They could have refused to go forward, blaming Russia for unrealistic demands or some other such nonsense. But they didn’t. And the publicly known goals of the agreement are all agreeable to Syria and Russia and align with their intentions throughout the course of the war for the past year or so: cooperation in the fight against Nusra and Daesh, separation of “moderate” and Nusra elements (i.e., a face-saving way for the U.S. to save some of its Nusra proxies), and humanitarian aid.

These haven’t been U.S. goals in the war, but by agreeing to them, the U.S. can appear to be on the right side of history and morality. What the U.S. really needed was a face-saving way of scaling back their failed strategy without being totally discredited. For the saner factions in Washington, this apparently means scaling back the demands for regime change (Assad’s future was not even mentioned in the agreement), saving some of their proxies (by rebranding some as moderates and hanging others out to dry in joint U.S.-Russian airstrikes), and perhaps leaving open an eventual plan B later down the line in the political process utilizing the remaining “opposition”. Bottom line: the “military” solution isn’t working; the Syrians are steadily winning against all brand of anti-government jihadists. (The real moderates sign truce agreements with the government.)

Before yesterday’s humanitarian aid convoy tragedy (we’ll get to that below), the Syrian government had announced the end of the 7-day ceasefire, as we covered in yesterday’s Snapshot. But they didn’t make any mention of a renewal. In the past week, the Russians and Syrians were the ones to propose both planned ceasefire extensions (on Wednesday, for another two days, and on Friday, for the final three days). The Syrians obviously held up their end of the bargain, U.S. rhetoric notwithstanding; and the U.S.-backed rebels obviously did not. Kerry and his team must know this, but naturally they feel they cannot publicly admit this.

Then came the U.S. military attack on Syrian forces. Kerry doesn’t give airstrike coordinates; this was the Pentagon’s treachery. The Russians and Syrians were naturally incensed, and Russia’s responses were basically a message to Washington: “This is unacceptable. Either get your house in order, make amends, and get serious, or we’re done here.” If the ceasefire were just a total joke for all of Washington, that would be all the excuse they needed to call it over and done with and get back to business and usual. But that’s not what happened. Instead, Washington offered to extend the ceasefire: “We need to see what the Russians say,” Kerry stated when asked if Moscow had responded to Washington’s request to extend the ceasefire. “We need to see where we are, and then we’ll make a judgment. But we don’t have all the facts at this point.”

But for the moment at least, it looks like the ceasefire is off. The Russian and Syrian air forces resumed airstrikes (100+) on jihadist-controlled districts of east Aleppo and in the countryside. Artillery has resumed shelling in southwest Aleppo. Nusra militants ousted Syrian troops and militia from a northern district of Aleppo city, taking control of 1 km of Castello road. But the Syrians retook the area with Russian air cover, killing 40 militants and destroying several infantry fighting vehicles and machine-gun-mounted pickup trucks. The army also destroyed a Nusra unit in the southwest of the city (near the military schools and 1070 apartment quarter), including “four tanks, three infantry combat vehicles, nine pickup truck with heavy machine guns and up to 100 militants.” The army is preparing a massive offensive in northern Hama to recapture all the territory they lost to jihadists earlier in the month.

This might be the Russians’ and Syrians’ answer to Kerry’s offer, at least for now. If so, he had his chance. Neither the rebels nor the Pentagon seem very willing to give up fighting. But since Lavrov has not yet declared the ceasefire dead, that implies that the Russians are still keeping the door open, however unlikely it may be that the U.S. would eat crow and get serious. Kerry for his part says the ceasefire is not dead yet, and the International Syria Support Group has a meeting scheduled for Friday, “on some specific steps” that can be taken.

But if the ceasefire really is dead, the U.S. is left with no other choice than to blame Russia and Syria for the failure. (Not that they care much; they’re used to it and wouldn’t expect anything else.) And now the Americans have the justification they need: the humanitarian convoy they have been so vocal about finally passed over the Turkish border into Aleppo, only to be almost totally destroyed by what was initially reported to be a series of airstrikes. And you can guess who was immediately blamed: Russia and/or Syria.

Aleppo aid convoy attacked – everyone outraged

The joint UN/Syrian Arab Red Crescent convoy had crossed into the Orem area of Aleppo when it came under attack. The first reports were sketchy, saying it was hit by “airstrikes or mortar fire after offloading aid”. SARC spokesman Stephen Ryan told Sputnik: “The situation on the ground is very chaotic at present, and we are still getting details.” RFE/RL quoted “monitors” as saying warplanes attacked the convoy. The one-man British propaganda outfit Syrian Observatory for Human Rights quoted “activists” as saying the attacks were carried out by “Syrian or Russian” aircraft (how would they be able to tell?). One such activist is Ammar al-Selmo, the Aleppo director of the U.S./UK-funded, Nusra-linked pseudo-humanitarian White Helmets group, who released a video in English last night:

“The place turned into hell, and fighter jets were in the sky,” … The [White Helmets] group has headquarters less than a mile from where the convoy was hit.

In other words, an al-Qaeda-linked group was less than a mile away when the convoy was hit.

But the UN insisted it was unclear who carried out the attack, which hit 18 of 31 trucks and a Red Crescent warehouse and left many killed and seriously injured, “including SARC volunteers, as a result of these sickening attacks,” UN relief coordinator Stephen O’Brien said in a statement today. “A SARC warehouse was also hit and a SARC health clinic was also reportedly severely damaged.” He also called for an “immediate, impartial and independent” probe into the attack.

The IFRC has confirmed that “around 20” civilians and one SARC staff member were killed as they were unloading the trucks. They also said they don’t know who is responsible: “We do not know exactly whom that attack came from. It is not possible for us to know so quickly after the event what the source of the attack was or who was directly involved but what we do know whenever the convoy moves all relevant Military authorities are informed after movement together with the exact plan of what is going to happen.”

This is a major setback. UN aid spokesman Jens Laerke says that the UN had received all the necessary authorizations from the Syrian government (the very thing the U.S. had focused on as their main bone of contention regarding Syria’s “compliance”). Now, the UN is suspending all humanitarian aid work in Aleppo Province for three days in protest of the attack.

Dmitry Peskov said the hope for a renewal of the ceasefire is now “very weak“, adding: “The conditions are very simple. The shooting needs to stop and the terrorists need to stop attacking Syrian troops. And of course it wouldn’t hurt if our American colleagues didn’t accidentally bomb the Syrians.”

The U.S. expressed its “outrage” over the attack, immediately blaming Russia and Syria: “The destination of this convoy was known to the Syrian regime and the Russian federation and yet these aid workers were killed in their attempt to provide relief to the Syrian people… The United States will raise this issue directly with Russia. Given the egregious violation of the Cessation of Hostilities we will reassess the future prospects for cooperation with Russia.” Wouldn’t it be more prudent to wait and see what actually happened? Remember, this is coming from the same people who “mistakenly” bombed the Syrian army just three days ago!

After the airstrike, Russian and U.S. officials held urgent meetings. According to an anonymous U.S. official: “We are also going to be meeting with the Russians at high levels to try to get a sense from them about where they think this [Syrian ceasefire] can go from here.” Kerry and Lavrov met in New York today, but didn’t make any statements to the press. Lavrov also scheduled a meetingwith Syrian FM Walid Muallem, and the Russians met Chinese diplomats to discuss the situation in Syria. Maj. Gen. Igor Konashenkov explicitly denied any Russian or Syrian involvement in the attack (as did the Syrian military):

“No airstrikes were carried out against a humanitarian aid convoy in a southwestern suburb of Aleppo by Russian or Syrian aviation. Seeing as the convoy’s route lied through the territories controlled by militants, the Russian reconciliation center monitored its passage yesterday via drones.” According to the general, the monitoring finished when all humanitarian aid was delivered at around 10:40 GMT. “Further movements of the convoy were not monitored by the Russian side. Only the militants controlling this area know details of the convoy’s location,” Konashenkov added.

“The examination of the video footage made via drones of the movement of the humanitarian convoy in areas controlled by militants in the province of Aleppo has revealed new details. The video clearly shows how terrorists are redeploying a pickup with a large-caliber mortar on it.”

The examination of video footage reveals no signs of an ammunition strikes on the convoy, he said. “We have carefully studied videos by so-called activists from the site and found no signs of any ammunition striking the convoy. There are no shell holes, cars’ bodies are not damaged and there are no construction faults from the bust wave. All shown on the footage is a direct consequence of the cargo being set on fire. The fire strangely coincided with a major offensive by militants in Aleppo.” The ministry emphasized that the perpetrator of the fire, as well as his goal may be known by members of the “White Helmets” organizationthat has connection to al-Nusra Front terrorists who have “accidentally” been at the right time and in the right place with cameras.

This scenario makes the most sense. The Syrians and Russians have no interest and no incentive to attack humanitarian convoys. They also don’t have a history of such egregious errors. (The Pentagon on the other hand, not only had an interest in striking the Syrian Army this weekend, they have a long history of similar “mistakes”.) So who benefits? Again, the Pentagon and the rebels. And it was predictable, too. This is probably why the Syrian government waited so long to provide authorization for the convoys’ passage. They knew the areas were still held be rebels, they knew the rebels had made statements rejecting the aid, and they knew it was possible that the convoys would be attacked and then blamed on the government. On the other hand, they knew they had to allow the convoys through, otherwise it would appear as if they were deliberately depriving Syrians of aid, which feeds into the mainstream “Assad is an evil dictator” propaganda. Either way, they lose.

So, at this point it’s hard to say exactly what happened, but we’ll provide a scenario: the White Helmets and other Nusra-affiliated rebels waited until the aid was delivered, set fire to the convoys, killed some of the aid workers, then released statements to their media contacts in the West about “jets in the sky”. After that, the Western response is totally predictable.

Meanwhile, the Saudi “Syrian” High Negotiating Committee released their three-phase plan for regime change in Syria: first, a permanent ceasefire; second, Assad must go, followed by a 1.5-year transitional period; third, a temporary government; and only then, elections. These morons are dreaming. Also, members of the National Coalition of Syrian Revolution and Opposition Forces say they’re open to negotiations with Assad whenever he is. And the international Group of Friends of the Syrian People think they could replace Russia and the U.S. as truce mediators in Syria. That doesn’t seem likely. Where do they find all these people?

New Jersey/New York bombing suspect

New details have emerged about the suspect in the series of explosive devices found in New Jersey and New York over the weekend, who has been charged with five counts of attempted murder of a law enforcement officer and two gun charges (federal charges still pending). The suspect Ahmad Khan Rahami’s wife reportedly left the U.S. just a few days before the bombs were discovered, and authorities are working with officials in Pakistan and the UAE to get in touch with her. So far Rahami hasn’t been cooperating with law enforcement.

It’s still unclear if he was working alone. Surveillance video apparently shows him placing down the duffel bag in Manhattan, after which two men take the pressure cooker out of the bag and leave it on the sidewalk, but whether they were involved or were just checking out the bag is unknown. Commissioner O’Neill doesn’t think they were involved. (You can see the video, alleged to be Rahami, here.)

Rahami was not on any terrorist watch lists. Born in Afghanistan, and married to a Pakistani woman, his travels there in 2011 (when he was married), and again to Afghanistan from April 2013 to March 2014 may be benign (he received secondary screening both times upon returning, without any problems).

According to “Maria“, an ex-girlfriend from high school and mother to one of Rahami’s children:

“He would speak often of Western culture and how it was different back home,” she said. “How there weren’t homosexuals in Afghanistan. … He seemed standoffish to American culture, but I never thought he would cross the line,” she added. … “One time, he was watching TV with my daughter and a woman in a [military] uniform came on and he told [their daughter], ‘That’s the bad person,'” she said.
…
At Edison High School, where Rahami and Maria met, Rahami got along with classmates and was known as the class clown, she said. But he often criticized American culture, comparing it to the strict Islamic code of his homeland. “I never thought he would do something like this,” she said through tears. “I think he was brainwashed.”

… Right before their daughter was born, Rahami was in Afghanistan and had trouble returning because authorities in Afghanistan confiscated his passport for unknown reasons, Maria said. The last time Maria knows that Rahami visited his homeland was nine years ago. He brought back a wife and another child, she said.

Maria did not say what prompted their breakup, and cut the interview short saying she did not want to speak to a reporter. But she did say she did not want Rahami around their daughter, whom she did not name. “I didn’t want him to see my daughter,” she said. “If he loved her, he would have paid child support. My greatest fear is that he would try to take my daughter.”

Rahami apparently showed a change in behavior upon returning from one of his trips to Afghanistan, according to the New York Post:

He became noticeably devout after returning from a visit to his homeland two years ago, friends and law enforcement sources said. “He had changed. He dressed differently, more religiously, the robe and everything,” Flee Jones, 27, a childhood pal of Rahami, told The Post. “I really never expected it from him. He was always this fun loving guy, but now he was all quiet. He had found religion. It’s mind blowing.”

He’s also posted radical Islamic writings on a personal website, sources told DNAInfo.

The Telegraph expands: “It’s like he was a completely different person,” Mr Jones said. “He got serious and completely closed off.” Back to the Post: He didn’t get along with his father, according to his sister, who is shocked and can’t believe that her brother did this, according to a law enforcement source. In 2014, Rahami was arrested for assault after attempting to stab his sister, who dropped the charges (he spent over 2 months in jail – before that, he spent a day in jail in 2012 for violating a restraining order). Regulars at his family’s restaurant provided more impressions:

Regulars at First American Fried Chicken were shocked by Ahmad Rahami’s arrest, describing him as a friendly guy who would sometimes give out free food to cash-strapped customers. He also has fascination with cars — fast ones, several people said. “All this guy ever talks about is his cars,” said Ryan McCann, 33. “He loves fixing cars up and making them fast. All I ever heard him talk about was Honda Civics, Honda Accords, maybe an Acura. He would soup them up.”

A construction worker who lives next to the fried chicken restaurant described the Rahami family as being fiercely private. “They didn’t really talk to anybody,” said Miguel, 41, who declined to give his last name. He said Ahmad Rahami and a couple of other restaurant workers stopped talking to him entirely when his Israeli heritage came up during a conversation three years ago. “The first thing I did after I talked to them is I went to check my car underneath…I went to check for a bomb,” he said.

Former marine Johnathan Wagner, 26, said Mohammad Rahami once showed him a photo from his days as a mujahideen fighter in Afghanistan in the 90s. “He fought off the Russians,” Wagner said. “Ahmad as a person never talked about anything personal,” he added. “He would ask, ‘How is your family doing? Do you need some money?’ He seemed normal.”

Shades of Orlando nightclub shooter, Omar Mateen…

There’s more to the 2014 arrest story, though. According to the New York Times, his father Mohammed says that after the stabbing incident (in this version, it was the brother he stabbed, not the sister) he told FBI agents that he was concerned his son might be involved in terrorism: “But they check almost two months, they say, ‘He’s O.K., he’s clean, he’s not a terrorist.’ I say O.K.” But FBI officials say Mohammed made the comment out of anger and later recanted.

They also report that when Rahami was captured, the authorities found a notebook “pierced with a bullet hold and covered in blood” (presumably that suggests it was on his person, but no explicit indication is given as to where it was found or in what circumstances), in which were expressed “opinions sympathetic to jihadist causes, according to a law enforcement official who agreed to speak about the investigation only on the condition of anonymity.”

In one section of the book, Mr. Rahami wrote of “killing the kuffar,” or unbelievers, the official said. Mr. Rahami also praised Anwar al-Awlaki, Al Qaeda’s leading propagandist, who died in a drone strike in Yemen, as well as the soldier in the Fort Hood shooting, one of the deadliest “lone wolf” attacks inspired by Al Qaeda.

Rahami may not have been on any watch list that we know of, but his “closeness” to the FBI should give cause for concern, given their history of radicalizing young Muslims and manipulating them into carrying out terror attacks. Apparently, similar material was found on the unexploded pressure cooker bomb found in New York: “A handwritten note … contained ramblings, including references to previous terrorists including the Boston bombers, an unnamed law enforcement official told CNN.” Until these materials are produced, or the sources named, take them with a grain of salt.

As for the Minnesota stabber, Adan, the reason he was at the mall was to pick up a new iPhone he had preordered. He was happy when leaving the apartment he shared with his father, before driving the half-mile to the mall. It appears as if he just “snapped”:

“While he was at the mall, the family doesn’t know what happened. But what they know is, between the time he left his home and they knew what he was going to do and going to the mall, in between they don’t know what happened,” Yussuf said. Employees at the T-Mobile store in the mall declined to comment and referred WCCO to national T-Mobile media representatives.
…
The security firm Securitas issued a statement that Adan had resigned in June of 2016 from his part-time security job with them and that he had been assigned to the St. Cloud company Electrolux Home Products. The family says he was currently working as a security guard at Capital One in downtown St. Cloud and that he was enrolled as a student at St. Cloud State. But St. Cloud State said he had been enrolled between 2014 and the spring of 2016 and was no longer enrolled there. Late Monday, Capital One said that after a review of company records, Adan had never worked there.
…
Mayor Dave Kleis has seen the security footage that he says shows Adan’s final moments. “He had identified himself as a police officer, he made a command, the suspect went down and then immediately came forward, lunged at him with a knife,” Kleis said. “There must have been more than 20 feet but he covered it in a matter of a second and then the officer fired.” The mayor says the video shows Adan getting him up three times and the officer continuing to fire.

And while we have heard numerous victims say Adan was shouting “God is great” in Arabic and demanding to know if shoppers were Muslim or not, the family told Yussuf he was not particularly religious and that they did not know of any ties he had to ISIS or radical groups.

According to Yussuf the family is going over the security video with authorities to try and determine what happened inside the mall right before the stabbing started.

Newsbites

The Czech Ambassador in Damascus, Eva Filipi, says there was no Syrian revolution in 2012: “what is going on in Syria is a proxy regional and international war”. Thankfully a few politicians out there have a clue (and are willing to publicly admit it)! Virginia State Senator Richard Black is another. After the U.S. attack on the Syrian Army, he wrote to Syrian ambassador Jaafari that he joins the Syrian people in mourning the loss of their soldiers and expresses his hope that the U.S. was not coordinating directly with Daesh (he’s smart enough to know that’s a very real possibility). You can read his letter here.

The Iranian and Cuban presidents met with each other in Havana on Monday to discuss cooperative relations between their countries. President Rouhani described the shared struggle and survival of the two nations during outrageous US pressures: “Iran and Cuba are the symbol of resistance to the most severe sanctions.” Rouhani also emphasized the need for Cuba-Iran relations in all areas. As US influence wanes, the world is seeing a turning point as countries who suffered unjust Western sanctions join together.

The U.S. has set up a coordination center in Tell Abyad, Syria, in preparation for the NDF mission to take Daesh’s de facto capital, Raqqa. Around 50 U.S. soldiers arrived in 15 armored cars. No news as of yet whether these are the same rejects who ran out of al-Rai with their tails between their legs after U.S.-backed rebels told them how much they were appreciated.

In Iraq, the US is sending more troops to the Iraqi air base of Qayara, in a reported move to support a planned joint offensive in Mosul with Iraqi forces. President Obama and the Iraqi semi-puppet PM Abadi discussed their ‘anti-Daesh campaign’ and the start of new operations. In recent months the U.S. has surprised the world by doing some actual fighting against Daesh in Iraq. Perhaps the U.S. is too afraid of Russia helping Iraq, and so it had to clean up just a little of its own mess. Regardless, the offensive against Shirqat, south of Mosul, has begun

On the Saudi front, U.S. Senator Christopher Murphy said that Saudi Arabia has ignored repeated US requests not to bomb targets that caused major civilian casualties in its airstrikes against Houthi rebels in Yemen. Murphy noted that ordinary Yemenis blamed the United States for not restraining the Saudis and their coalition allies, and warned that this attitude was helping extreme Islamist groups win popularity in Yemen. That’s the plan, of course, and has been for decades.

Saudi Airlines jet SVA 872 with 300 passengers aboard was directed to an isolation area upon landing in Manila, Philippines. The crew said the hijack alert button had been activated accidentally, but officials took precautions anyway, as they say it had been pushed twice.

Despite public outcry about Bahrain’s human rights abuses, Prince Charles is joining a tour to “strengthen the United Kingdom’s warm bilateral relations” with the country, which basically amounts to increasing arms trading. Talk about sick!

A prominent anti-Kiev activist from Ukraine, Yevhen Zhylin, was reportedly shot dead in a restaurant near Moscow. The gunman was described as wearing a fake moustache and a panama hat. Yes, really. The Ukrainian spy professionals are apparently watching too many James Bond movies.

The deadly Japanese doomsday cult Aum Shinrikyo has been banned in Russia by the Supreme Court and deemed a terrorist organization. The sect gained notoriety in 1995 for their mass killings using chemical attacks in the Tokyo subway. The Investigative Committee of Russia opened a criminal case against the group in April and conducted raids along with the FSB to find members and confiscate its literature and electronic data.

In the U.S., more athletes are following Colin Kaepernick’s lead by kneeling during the national anthem. Miami Dolphins players Arian Foster, Kenny Stills and Michael Thomas joined the protest during their Sunday game. Just days before, a local police union lashed out against the football players’ right to protest and their freedom of speech. Jeff Bell, president of the Broward County Sheriff’s Office Deputies Association, said, “in certain jobs you give up that right of your freedom of speech (temporarily) while you serve that job or while you play in an NFL game.” Bell not only displays an absence of comprehension of the massive injustices committed against black communities but also seeks to further it by removing these players’ freedom of speech.

George H.W. Bush to vote for Killary

‘Nuff said.

U.S. Air Force names new B-21 stealth bomber “Raider” as tribute to WWII Japan raids

A facepalm moment. What better way to commemorate the indiscriminate firebombing of Japanese cities that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people?

Analysts say Killary’s sickness is causing the peso to lose value

Yes, it may sound odd, but if Killary ever becomes president, expect an overall decline in just about everything, including happiness, puppies, and the number of people living on this planet.

And finally, Trump’s latest gaffe (more tweets here):

The tensions between those engaged in the dangerous and compromising pursuit of whistleblowing, and those who use the fruit of such efforts has been all too coarsely revealed in the Washington Post stance on Edward Snowden.[1]

Oliver Stone’s Snowden has done a good deal of stirring on its release, suggesting that the pardon powers of the Presidential office should be activated.  A recent petition calling for a pardon of the former National Security Agency contractor has already received signatures from Steve Wozniak, Maggie Gyllenhaal and Jack Dorsey.[2]

The ACLU, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch similarly believe that Snowden should be exempted from the vengeful retribution of the US state for his 2013 revelations of uncontained, indiscriminate mass surveillance by the NSA and its British counterpart, GCHQ.

In taking its boggling stance, the Post’s myopic editorial refuses to deem such interception programs as PRISM threatening to privacy, though it does concede that one all-hoovering metadata program “was a stretch, if not an outright violation, of federal surveillance law, and posed risks to privacy.” (Point to note there: it was The Guardian, rather than the Post, that jumped on that one.)

In rather damnable fashion, the board suggests that these technological nasties were otherwise very much within the remit of the law, blithely ignoring the ACLU suit that yielded a completely different result.  A program such as PRISM should otherwise never have been revealed, and the US Republic could have gone on being unmolested.

With some reluctance, the not-so-wise denizens of US democracy went to work on the Hill to conduct the first extensive overview of intelligence practices in four decades. The effort was an imperfect one, but only took place because of Snowden’s constructively disruptive influence.

This is all minor feed for the editors.  Something they can never forgive Snowden for is how his information revealed “leaked details of basically defensible international operations: cooperation with Scandinavian services against Russia; spying on the wife of an Osama bin Laden associate; and certain cyber operations in China.”

This position, one effectively calling for the prosecution of the paper’s own source, goes totally against the effusive defence of Snowden, run in the same publication, by media columnist Margaret Sullivan.

The Obama administration’s woeful record favouring the prosecution rather than the protection of whistleblowers, argues Sullivan, could be turned “around, not entirely, but in an important way by pardoning the former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden and allowing him to return to the United States from his Russian exile without facing charges.”[3]

The action by the editors is also problematic on another level.  As Glenn Greenwald reminded readers in The Intercept, the move was distinctly peculiar coming from a publication owing “its sources duties of protection, and which – by virtue of accepting the source’s materials and then publishing them – implicitly declares that the source’s information to be in the public interest.”[4]

Various blades were already unsheathed as Stone’s film began doing its magic.  Last week’s flawed House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence committee report went over trodden, and sodden territory, doing its best to cast muck on Snowden’s efforts.[5]  Its bipartisan membership deemed it a “comprehensive review” but could only come up with a mere 36 classified pages of material.  We were left with the crudest of summaries.

In the summary, nothing about the actual damage to US interests was outlined. Much of this remains fantastic at best, unverifiable and speculative at worst.  It fell on the members to focus on the issue of Snowden’s own moral fibre, which somehow compromised his revelations.  Snowden, urges the report members, was, and is “a serial exaggerator and fabricator” with “a pattern of intentional lying.”[6]

What, in fact, is revealed in the report is institutionally sanctioned mendacity on the part of the US security establishment, and its political defenders.  The distortions of fact range from questioning whether Snowden ever “obtained a high school degree equivalent” (which he did) to the “gross exaggeration” about his “senior advisor” role for the CIA. The proof, being very much in the disclosed pudding, suggests that Snowden was certainly doing more than rudimentary filing. Do desk clerks make history?

These tactics go to the modus operandi of those countering the external disclosure of wrong doing within a sclerotic system of information. The assumption, and one made good by prosecutions, is never that a whistleblower is right, but that he or she is presumptively wrong whatever is revealed.  The onus is on guilt in the breach, not innocence in patriotic exposure.

Snowden’s historical role is already well etched.  He exposed a corrosive form of somnambulism in action, of an espionage world gone feral to the dictates of technology.  It was a system that had the connivance, and in some cases, compliance, of some of the highest political figures in the countries of the Five Eyes Agreement.  If treason is to be sought, it will not be falling very far from the tree of governance.

While the debate about Snowden’s pardon will continue to simmer, the verdict for the Post is a dire one. As Daniel Denvir noted with sharp relevance, “There is a special place in journalism hell reserved for The Washington Post editorial board”.[7]

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.  He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne.  Email: [email protected]

Notes

We have been seeing in Syria in recent days more and more direct involvement in the conflict by Turkey, Israel and the United States. Air raids, bombing and ground troops, albeit in limited numbers, reveal dissatisfaction and evident frustration by these nations hostile to Damascus.

The most recent example, more useful in emphasizing the disappointment that reigns in Washington, concerns the dynamics that accompanied the signing of the cease-fire between Kerry and Lavrov.

With Aleppo besieged and terrorists trapped, the United States and its allies have been forced to apply for a temporary solution to the conflict in order to halt hostilities.

In spite of the previous failure of the ceasefire, Russia, Damascus and Tehran have preferred to negotiate while continuing their military action. Had they refused to negotiate, they would have been painted by the Western media and international institutions as the reason for the intensification of the conflict. This would have easily opened the door to a greater involvement by Washington’s regional allies on account of Moscow’s refusal to negotiate.

Russian diplomacy has managed to transform a position of military strength, but of apparent diplomatic weakness, into an overall win. Washington was forced to request that the final terms of the agreement be kept secret. Moscow of course calls for transparency and has demanded that the agreement be made public.

The fact that the United States is opposed highlights Washington’s ambiguity concerning the fight against terrorism in Syria. The only hypothetical point of agreement made public covers a future joint coordination to hit Al Nusra Front and Daesh; although the day after the meeting between Kerry and Lavrov, US Defense Secretary Ashton Carter promptly denied the agreement, confirming that the US and Russia have different goals in Syria.

The meaning behind this statement leaves little doubt. Washington is unable — or, worse, does not want — to give up on the terrorists it supports in Syria against Assad, and has no intention of abandoning the idea of changing the government of Syria or tearing the country apart.

As evidence of US involvement in Syria on the side of the terrorists, a few days ago an important event occurred in Al-Rai in northern Syria in a town located on the border with Turkey and recently occupied by Ankara with the help of Islamist FSA/l Nusra troops.

A dozen American special forces soldiers present in the Syrian town alongside «moderate rebels» were forced to flee as a result of explicit threats to their lives from their theoretical «allies». A complete short-circuit. The worldview of FSA/Al Nusra does not allow it to fight alongside those whom they clearly define as «infidels» (in reality those who finance and arm them.)

The idea that the whole thing was staged, or a media stunt to distance the most radical elements from US troops, was blown away by the news coming from Deir ez-Zor a few hours later.

In Syria on September 17 at 5 pm local time, 2 Danish F-16s, along with 2 Australian or American A-10s and a British Reaper drone, attacked and struck four times positions of the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) in Deir ez-Zor, killing 62 soldiers and injuring more than 100, also causing considerable material damage. Shortly afterwards, Daesh advanced on the locations attacked in Jabal Al Tahrdah that had previously surrounded the government positions (the town of Deir ez-Zor has been under siege by ISIS for four years).

The immediate response of Moscow and Damascus was to declare Washington a supporter of Daesh terrorists, while sources in the US State Department offered that it was a mistake, there supposedly having never been any intention to deliberately target the SAA.

Whatever reading one gives to this incident, the US was at the very least guilty of not coordinating with Moscow its attacks on Daesh, a charge Russian diplomacy immediately delivered at the United Nations in an emergency meeting requested by them. The hysteria of American diplomacy expressed by Samantha Power, the US ambassador to the United Nations, stands out. Without even being present at the intervention of the Russian representative, she preferred to organize a press conference accusing Moscow of exploiting the dead in Syria on account of «a simple American mistake».

It is clear that the US and its allies have dug a hole out of which they are unable to climb. They have no ability to militarily reverse the course in Syria, and they know it.

They hit towns of no strategic importance, towns in which the SAA and its allies will neither deploy troops nor materiel for a military confrontation. The locations occupied by Turkey in the north of the country do nothing to stop the siege of Aleppo and free the terrorists trapped in the city. Israel’s raids on the Golan Heights do not stop the actions of Hezbollah and the SAA against Al Nusra Front and its affiliates normally protected by Tel Aviv. The attack on the Syrian government troops in Deir ez-Zor did not break down the resistance of a city under siege for four years and defended heroically by the SAA.

As mentioned earlier, the direct involvement of nations opposing Damascus is a sign of weakness and not strength. They reveal their drastically reduced ability to influence events on the ground, leaving them only able to react to facts on the ground. Witness the incident that occurred on the heights near Deir ez-Zor on September 17.

After the recapture of Aleppo and Raqqa, breaking the siege of Deir ez-Zor is one of the pillars of the strategy of Moscow, Damascus and Tehran. The Palmira operations in the past months have been the first step of a broader operation to break the siege of the city.

Deir ez-Zor is located in the east of the country and is nearly at the center of the supply route for ISIS to Raqqa and Mosul in Iraq. With the siege of the Syrian and Russian troops on the transport routes in the north, the terrorists have a huge interest in keeping open the transit lines in the east between Raqqa Deir ez-Zor and Mosul; it is essential that they keep alive the supply chain of aid, weapons and money coming from the Americans, Jordanians, Turks, Saudis and Qataris.

A few days before the American strike, the airport of Deir ez-Zor was used to land and deploy a contingent made up of a thousand newly trained Syrian soldiers and other Iranian groups, ready to engage in the upcoming operations to break the siege.

Facing these facts already achieved on the ground, the United States decided to take reckless and dangerous actions in reaction.

Ignoring all international norms and every principle of common sense, hoping to achieve beneficial results on the battlefield, the International Coalition (IC) decided to send two F-16s, two A-10s, and a drone to hit SAA positions situated on the hills of Jabal al-Thardah. Hitting the government positions in Jabal, the Americans hoped to encourage the advance of Daesh to take control of the strategic hill, which is what promptly occurred.

The hills of Jabal al-Thardah are strategic because they offer a unique view on the airport adjacent Deir ez-Zor under the control of Damascus. American strategists imagined the action would assist ISIS in conquering SAA positions. In this way they would then be able to hit the runways of the airport from the al-Thardah mountains, thereby preventing the SAA from providing reinforcements to liberate the city and from there shut down the terrorists’ communication links between Iraq and Syria.

The hopes and plans of Daesh, shared by the Americans, vanished shortly afterwards following the intervention of Syrian government troops assisted by the Russian Air Force, who quickly regained the abandoned positions.

Washington had yet again reacted violently when faced with an accomplished fact, namely incoming reinforcements for the liberation of the city. It is also interesting to analyze the secondary arguments that probably pushed Washington to put this plan into action. In the minds of strategists in Washington, confused and disheartened by their continuing failures, it continues to attempt to provoke a reaction from Damascus, Tehran or Moscow in the face of such senseless actions.

This explanation also applies to the actions of Israel and Turkey in Syria. The logic behind this reasoning is the following: if Syria, Russia and Iran were ever to react to one of the endless provocations, this would justify an even tougher response, paving the way for an escalation of the conflict. A sterile tactic that does not work and does not bear any fruit, let us remember the attitude of Moscow in the affair in Donbass and Ukraine in particular.

Another reason that may have impelled Washington to engage in direct action against the SAA is the lack of confidence held by terrorists in their «friendly» nations. The expulsion of US Special Forces in northern Syria is symptomatic of frustration that Nusra/Daesh/FSA troops are building up in the face of continuous defeats.

However, the main motivation behind this unprecedented challenge remains the attempt to sabotage the ceasefire agreement signed recently. The United States feels its hand has been forced by terms established elsewhere, namely in Damascus and Moscow.

They feel in a corner and in a deep hole.

They obtained the obligation of confidentiality for the document, but this does nothing but damage their strategy, showing how the White House is concerned not to let its allies and terrorists in the field know the terms of what has been agreed.

The strategic long-term vision of Moscow on the Syrian conflict.

Prevailing as a basis of the Kremlin’s reasoning is a realist and diplomatic approach that endeavors to avoid a direct military confrontation with the United States. At the same time, there is the awareness that such conflict could occur, and so preparations are made for this contingency.

Putin and his advisers would prefer to keep the United States bound by a pact signed and guaranteed by the United Nations. With the US presidential elections approaching, and the possibility of a Clinton presidency, it is easy to assume that the conflict could quickly escalate. With a peace plan and an agreement to stop the hostilities signed by Kerry-Obama, everything would be more complicated for Clinton and the neocons.

They would be forced to find plausible and justifiable grounds to invalidate the deal before the whole world. The consequences would be devastating, with a further loss of credibility and international support (excluding allies), being further proof in the eyes of the world demonstrating US failure to respect any agreements made.

The plan to stop hostilities is a possibility worth exploring by Moscow. Were it to work, it could start a serious discussion on ending the conflict and decreasing the violence.

Anyway, it serves to show Moscow’s effective tactic in revealing the true intent of the United States in Syria, namely to overthrow Assad at any cost and by any method, including terrorism.

In this regard, there is another scenario, much less diplomatic, much more militaristic, which is something that Moscow has always tried to avoid; and that is the prospect of a direct confrontation with the United States.

It is also possible that a red line for Moscow was crossed by Washington’s actions on September 17. An idea is floating around, and has so far only been discussed informally, in regards to the possible creation of a no-fly zone controlled by the Russians and Syrians together, barring from Syrian skies aircraft of the international coalition.

Following recent military and diplomatic developments, Moscow could declare Syrian skies off-limits to the US Air force, denying that precious method of reconnaissance with drones that directly assists friendly terrorists in the field.

With two months to the presidential elections and Obama completely overwhelmed by events, a decision of this significance would shatter American plans and be a strong and clear signal that Russia will no longer tolerate the ambiguity of the United States and would rather consider the US an integral part of the terrorist front, with the attendant consequences.

In such a hypothetical scenario, it would be good that someone close to the POTUS repeat to him a concept. No one knows if Moscow is willing to go as far as declaring Syrian skies a no-go zone for US aircraft, but in the event that this occurs, it is important to know that a violation of this no-fly zone would be met by S-400 batteries, ready to disintegrate enemy aircraft, including American ones.

Does Obama want to be remembered as the president who chose to violate a hypothetical no-fly zone in Syria, sparking apocalyptic scenarios? The choice is his, and hopefully he is still able to put to a stop the possible consequences that millions of US citizens would face stemming from a misstep on his part.

The war drums of a possible World War Three seem to have gotten considerably louder in the last few days, especially since an American air raid hit a Syrian Arab Army base in Deir ez-Zor on Saturday. And now, a top Russian defense official has accused the United States of “deliberately and thoughtfully” conducting an airstrike against Syrian troops that left 62 servicemen dead and more than a hundred wounded.

Sputnik News reported September 18 that top Russian military officials are questioning the veracity of their American counterparts who claim that the airstrike on the Syrian military base was a mistake. But one Russian official, First Deputy Chairman of the Defense and Security Committee and Federation Council member Franz Klintsevich, told Russian news agency RIA Novosti that he believes the coordinated attack by two F-16 fighter jets and two A10 ground attack aircraft — which originated out of Iraq — was deliberate.

“The US conducted airstrikes on government forces in Syria deliberately and thoughtfully. Any aerial operation is coordinated with commanders on the ground. In this case [the US] used information received from their intelligence units who infiltrated Daesh [derogatory term for ISIS, the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria].”

Others have been more restrained in their allegations toward the United States. Russian Defense Ministry spokesman, Maj. Gen. Igor Konashenkov noted that if the U.S. airstrike was accidental, the incident was “a direct consequence of the US’ unwillingness to coordinate its actions against terrorist groups with Russia.”

Klintsevich pointed out that the airstrike was in line with policymaking in Washington, which takes the position that Syria’s president, Bashar al-Assad, should be deposed and replaced by the U.S.-backed rebels. He said that the U.S. was acting to “maintain their economic interests” in the area.

Accusations and allegations aside, all agreed that the cease-fire being negotiated between U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in Geneva was in jeopardy.

Russia’s United Nations envoy, Vitaly Churkin, stated that he found the timing of the U.S. airstrike “suspicious,” given the ongoing cease-fire negotiations. He said that “some aspects of the situation suggest that it could have well been a provocation.” But, he was quick to add, the attack did not necessarily mean that the ceasefire deal was over.

It is unclear whether or not the U.S. airstrike against the Syrian Army base at Deir ez-Zor had anything to do with the several bombings in late July of a U.S. base in Syria. According to the Wall Street Journal (via Fox News), U.S. defense and intelligence officials reported that Russian aircraft had bombed a base maintained by U.S. and British forces, and had done so again 90 minutes after being warned that it was not to be targeted. The officials said they believed that Russia was attempting to pressure the U.S. into coordinating its air war with the Russian military.

Heightened tensions have only increased fears of an escalation of events in the region to the point of World War 3. Of course, this has been an ongoing concern since Russia entered the multinational fray (September 30, 2015, according to BBC News), ostensibly to join in the fight against ISIS but seen by the world as to act as an ally and prop for the then tottering regime of Bashar al-Assad. Regardless, Russia’s entrance also increased the chances of accidental incidents that could quickly spiral into military confrontations — incidents like Russia bombing a known American base and the U.S. bombing a known Syrian Army base. (Russian officials have also voiced concern over the possibility, after Saturday’s attack, that the U.S. could mistakenly bomb a Russian airbase.)

Similar scenarios of a potential World War Three trigger have been presented before. In a September 2015 article, the Telegraph offered that the advent of World War 3 could very well be a confrontation or accident in Syria’s crowded skies.

“Indeed, the skies over Syria are starting to get dangerously crowded, with Russian jets flying near US planes on bombing runs, and sparring with NATO air defenses in neighboring Turkey.”

For the record, Turkey is also now involved in the war inside Syria. As reported by Al Jazeera, tensions with Russia escalated in November when a Turkish fighter shot down a Russian bomber that was claimed to have entered Turkish airspace and repeatedly warned to depart the area.

The U.S. airstrike against the Syrian Army base is just the latest incident of potential diplomatic and political calamity in an already volatile region of the world. According to the New York Times, American military officials admitted that U.S. pilots had targeted a Syrian Army base, but the pilots had thought they were attacking ISIS facilities in the area. A senior Obama administration official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, told the Times that the United States had stated its regrets to Syria’s government through the Russians for the “unintentional loss of life of Syrian forces” in the ongoing war against ISIS.

Will historians one day look back on the events of the last few months as the precursors to World War Three? Or will they go back further to when Russia entered the conflict? Of course, historians could go even further back to the creation of the caliphate of the Islamic State or even the creation of ISIS. Regardless, for now, World War Three history is only the province of speculation, but the fears of a major multinational conflict, given the historical ease with which other world wars have begun, are founded in realistic potentialities.

A military source refuted the reports circulated by malicious media outlets about the Syrian Arab Army targeting a humanitarian aid convoy in Aleppo countryside.

The source told SANA that there’s no truth to the rumors circulated during the past few hours by some media outlets about the Syrian Arab Army targeting a humanitarian aid convoy in Orkem village in Aleppo’s northern countryside.

Russian Defense Ministry: Russian and Syrian air forces did not target any humanitarian aid convoys in Aleppo

Spokesman for the Russian Defense Ministry Igor Konashenkov asserted that neither the Russian Aerospace Forces nor the Syrian Air Force targeted any UN humanitarian aid convoys southwest of Aleppo.

Konashenkov stressed that video recordings don’t show any indication that the humanitarian convoy in question was hit by shells.

He also said that terrorists from Jabhat al-Nusra carried out a massive attack with heavy support from artillery and rocket launchers in the direction of where the convoy was on Monday at 19:00 Moscow time, adding that the Ministry studied carefully the video published by so-called “activisits” and it showed no sign of any of the convoy’s trucks being hit by military-grade munitions, nor were any craters or signs of damage to the trucks’ structures visible as would be the case had they been struck by air-to-surface explosives.

Konashenkov said that all the video showed was a fire that broke out at the same time as the armed groups were attacking Aleppo, noting that the convoy was passing through an area where armed groups are present, and the Russian Reconciliation Center in Hmeimeem was monitoring it using drones, and at 13:40 Moscow time the convoy arrived successfully at its destination and the Center ceased monitoring it since then, adding that militants in the area were the only side that knew where the convoy was present after that.

Two recent attacks against the Syrian Arab Army in east-Syria point to a U.S. plan to eliminate all Syrian government presence east of Palmyra. This would enable the U.S. and its allies to create a  “Sunni entity” in east-Syria and west-Iraq which would be a permanent thorn in side of Syria and its allies.

A 2012 analysis by the Defense Intelligence Agency said:

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 …

Note that the described plan mentions exactly two cities – Hasakah and Deir Ezzor.

On August 18 Kurdish YPK units suddenly attacked Syrian government positions in the center of Hasakah in the north-east of Syria. Before this incident the relations between the two entities had been decent despite some earlier, small clashes. The attacking Kurds were under advice from U.S. special operators. When the Syrian air force intervened the U.S. threatened to down its planes. The Syrian forces had to eventually retreat from populated areas in Hasakah and are now confined to an airport next to the city. They are cut of from supplies and will eventually have to give up.

(For the Kurds these attacks proved to be a political catastrophe. Not only did they lose all support from the Syrian government and Russian side, but Turkey used these clashes to justify its invasion into Syria. This ended the Kurdish national dream of a continues area from Iraq to the Mediterranean.)

On Saturday U.S. airplanes attacked the most important Syrian government position in Deir Ezzor. Nearly a hundred Syrian soldiers were killed and most of the heavy equipment the Deir Ezzor garrison had left was destroyed. Immediately after the attack fighters of the Islamic State occupied the bombed out government positions. These Islamic States fighters now own the heights above the Deir Ezzor airport. A day later the Islamic State shot down a Syrian government plane near Deir Ezzor.

The city and its 150,000+ inhabitants are surrounded by the Islamic State. They had been supplied from Damascus by nightly flights to the airport. As the Islamic State now has fire-control over the airport as well as anti-air weapons those supply flights are no longer possible. The U.S. air attack practically closed down the Syrian government ability to supply the city. If this situation continues the city will fall to the Islamic State.

The U.S. plan is to eventually take Raqqa by using Turkish or Kurdish proxies. It also plans to let the Iraqi army retake Mosul in Iraq. The only major city in Islamic State territory left between those two is Deir Ezzor. Should IS be able to take it away from the isolated Syrian army garrison it has at least a decent base to survive. (Conveniently there are also rich oil wells nearby.) No one, but the hampered Syrian state, would have an immediate interest to remove it from there.

North of that entity would be a Kurdish area with no ambition to expand south. North-west of the Deir Ezzor entity would be the friendly Turkish controlled “Safe Zone” that Erdogan plans to create.

The two recent moves by U.S. forces in east-Syria are consistent with the plan for a “Sunni entity” or “Salafist principality” described in the 2012 DIA document. Such an entity blocks the land connection of the “Shia crescent” which connects Iran, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon. This is the “isolation” of Syria foreseen in the DIA analysis. A “Sunni entity” in east-Syria also provides a path for the gas pipeline from Qatar via Turkey to Europe. The Syrian government had rejected the construction of such a line which goes against the fundamental interests of its ally Russia.

At first glance this U.S. policy seems to be shortsighted, There is no way the envisioned “Sunni entity” would ever become stable. Instead it would continue to be a source of terrorism which would hit far beyond the borders of Syria and the surrounding states. But it is exactly the instability of this construct that will allow for further U.S. presence in the area.  A source of insecurity that can be activated, or shut down, whenever convenient.